[ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering => was:RE:Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant mortality

Tue Jun 28 13:22:37 CDT 2011

Yes i know a lot about infant mortality. I did a huge amount of work back in the 1990s on this issue. Heart disease and sr-90.
Infant mortality is 0-1.
So as you say, given the time period, if there were an effect from the radiation it wd have to be around the time of birth. But also there would be stress on all children 0-1. 
So if you take children 0-1 there are always those who are just hanging on, those prems and on incubators and those with various conditions where they are on the edge. You can see this easily in very cold winters, and especially in poor areas disadvantaged areas in cold winters. The infant mortality rises. I mean there are a lot of children out there 0-1 who are in poor familes and who are not fed properly and so forth. So this would be an explanation. Radiation affects the immume system, this has been measured by many Russian papers after Chernobyl using objective biological markers.
I dontr think that postmortems would distinguish between radiation and other causes, as it would just be the weaker children who died. Incidentally there is a lot of published evidence that just before you present with  child leukemia your immune system is destroyed. So a lot of those kids who would have gone on to get child leukemia died of other "natural" duiseases like flu. That why there isnt a big peak in the 60s fallout.
I myself havent looked at Joe's stuff i havent had time. But I have asked for some data from Seattle king county to look myself, hasnt  come yet. 
The point about the samll numbers is easily addressed with statistics. What would be useful would be to compare by county and month with fallout iodine levels. Use Poisson Regression. That would do the job.
If you get me the data we can do it together and send to a journal. That way it would be two sides of the argument looking for the answer.
C

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike  (DOH)
Sent: Mon 27/06/2011 23:12
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering => was:RE:Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant	mortality

Hi, Chris.

Since you studied infant mortality, perhaps you would care to speculate
on the mechanism by which the level of radiation/radioactive material
that was detected on the West Coast would kill an infant in a matter of
days (as Mangano seems to be claiming that the fatalities started almost
the instant fallout reached NA).  In the past you have talked about
cellular damage; do you have in mind a group of cells that can be
destroyed with levels of radiation not readily distinguishable from
background (and indeed below the normal background for probably most of
the inhabited places on Earth)?  Bear in mind that the "their cells are
reproducing rapidly, so the changes get propagated" argument is mostly
applicable for cancer, not killing outright.  On the other hand, if that
is the mechanism the post mortems should be able to identify it,
shouldn't they?    

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 1:23 PM
To: SAFarber at optonline.net; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering => was:
RE:Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant mortality

As far as the infant mortality at the time of the global fallout 1959-63
is concerned, Sterngalss was found to be correct by later research. See:

Whyte,R.K (1992) `First Day Neonatal Mortality since 1935: A
Re-examination of the Cross Hypothesis', British Medical Journal, 304:
343-6.

Whyte found the same excess in infant mortality over the global fallout
peiod.

I studied infant mortality from congenital heart disease in England and
Wales 1955-70 and showed that there was a highly statistically
significant correlation

Cheers
Chris Busby

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of stewart farber
Sent: Mon 27/06/2011 19:16
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List'
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sternglass => Mangano scaremongering => was: RE:
Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant	mortality

The article cited is stated as being from the Editors of Sci. America.
It is
clear that Mangano, the lead author of the paper claiming elevated
infant
mortality, learned how to play the game of manipulating random
fluctuations
in data,  from his mentor Ernest Sternglass  who had been intimately
involved for many years with the group that Mangano now apparently
leads.

The technique used is simple and was that employed by Sternglass
starting in
the 1960s. Take a window of time and move it over some plot of infant
mortality or another health detriment during sequential time windows in
a
carefully selected area. Use only time periods and towns that fit your
hypothesis.
group of small cities only. 

Similarly, if the cities or small towns near a power plant are chosen
carefully one is certain to find some period before an event [an
accident
like Fukushima] or start-up or shut-down of a nuclear power plant where
the
statistic being looked at either goes up after plant startup or some
accident,  or down vs. plant shutdown.  Mangano and Sternglass have
engaged
in the same nonsense in claiming that cancer or infant mortality went
down
after a power plant shuts down even for short periods of time. 

The National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council's Nov. 1972
report: "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing
Radiation", rebuked Sternglass, using the same techniques he has passed
along to Mangano. Any comments referencing Sternglass could be
considered
applicable to Mangano,
===========================================================

In the NAS review of "Infant Mortality and Ionizing Radiation" it is
stated:

"The evidence assembled by Sternglass has been critically reviewed by
Linop
and Rotblat [Ref. 5] and by Tomkins and Brown [Ref. 6]. It is clear that
the
correlations presented in support of the hypothesis depend on arbitrary
selection of data supporting the hypothesis and the ignoring of those
that
do not. In several regards, the data used by Sternglass appear to be in
error."

Ref. 5- Lindop, P.J, and Rotblat, J. Strontium-90 and infant mortality.
Nature 224:1257-1260, 1969

Tomkins, E., and Brown, M.I. Evaluation of a possible causal
relationship
between fallout deposition of Sr-90 and Infant and Fetal Mortality
Trends.
DBE 69-2, Clearinghouse for Federal and Scientific Technical
Information.
Springfield, VA 22151. Oct. 1969

==========================================================
Beside the NAS, Sternglass and his data manipulation techniques [now
employed by Mangano]  have also been uniformly rebuked by the USPHS,
numerous State Public Health Agencies, and many professional societies.
However, the second generation propagandists, like  [fill in the
blanks..........] now manipulating data continue their deceptive
practices
because they apparently enjoy the psychic strokes they receive from a
generally lazy and innumerate media, and from so many in the general
public
who believe their clever distortion of facts.

The 1972 NAS report mentioned above reviewed 22 papers by Sternglass
from
1963 - 1971. Trying to critically review the distorted claims by
anti-nuclear activists like a Sternglass, Mangano, or Busby is like
trying
to play "whack a mole" as has been said.

One paper by Sternglass the NAS reviewed was titled "Epidemiological
Study
of Health Effects Associated with Radiation Discharges from Nuclear
Facilities". Little know factoid about Sternglass. It's quite humorous
that
Sternglass for many years was the RSO for the University of Pittsburg
and
its associated Hospitals. I once saw a summary in some routine report
authored by Sternglass of the total amount of radioactivity that the
Univ.
of Pittsburg discharged while he was RSO overseeing Pitt's radiological
materials management. 

The total Ci of I-131, and other radionuclide discharges supervised by
Sternglass for one University and Hospital exceeded by many orders of
magnitude that of the I-131 discharges from any operating nuclear plant
I
was involved at the time in reviewing and reporting the environmental
radiological program data for 3 nuclear plants. I recall that Maine
Yankee
NPP [an 800 MW[e] nuclear plant that began operation in 1972]  had an
annual
Tech Spec airborne discharge limit of 50 milli-Curies [1.8 billion Bq].
Many, many thousands of patients in US Hospitals undergo thyroid
ablations
each year routinely receiving 30 to 100 mCi [1.1-3.7 billion BQ] EACH of
I-131 in a single slug. 

A single medical patient receiving 100 mCi [3.7 billion Bq] of I-131
would
excrete more I-131 via their breath, sweat, urine, and feces than the
annual
release limit for airborne I-131 releases from a $1 billion 1,000 MW[e]
electric nuclear generation station.

Strange that Mangano and others like him now try to claim that a few
Bq/kg
or minute levels of I-131 per m^3 of are capable of causing significant
health effects when levels far, far higher during the peak periods of
fallout from open air nuclear testing had no adverse health effects.

Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
Bridgeport, CT 06606
email: SAFarber at optonline.net
203-441-8433

======================================

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 8:57 PM
To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Sci. Am. about Fukushima and US Pacific NW infant
mortality

June 25

	I can't tell if this is from Sci. Am. or if it's on SA's 
blog.  Whatever the case, it may be worth reading.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-babies-dying-in-t
he-p
acific-nor-2011-06-21

Steven Dapra

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu