[ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)

Thu Oct 6 08:40:34 CDT 2011

But this was written by the nukes.
You can find the real truth in the papers themselves, the Whyte paper, like Sternglass, peer reviewed. The CERRIE report was not peer reviewed.  Anyone but Helbig and someone who was seriously biased would fail to see the assiociation, and more recently it has been confirmed by Hagen Scherb and Chritina Voigt in their sex ratio study which was looked at here recently on this discussion group. 
Sincerely
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Roger Helbig
Sent: Thu 06/10/2011 12:34
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)

 From Document 142 at http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers

**

*Infant Mortality and Radioactive Contamination from Atmospheric Nuclear
Weapons Testing Fallout and Other Sources*

**

*Smmary*

In the late 1960s, Sternglass suggested that a decrease in the rate of
decline in the risk of infant mortality in the USA in 1950 onwards was due
to exposure to radioactive fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing.
However, the temporal pattern of the reducing rates of infant mortality
across five countries does not support this proposition since the
consistency predicted by the Sternglass hypothesis is notably absent.
Further, the substantial variation observed in the national rates emphasises
the importance of background socioeconomic factors in determining the risk
of infant mortality. In 1992, Whyte demonstrated a significant deviation in
the steadily decreasing rate of first day neonatal mortality (and, to a
lesser extent, stillbirth) during 1950-1980 in both England and Wales and
the USA, although the difference between the baseline rates is noteworthy.
However, the temporal pattern of this deviation does not match the temporal
distribution of fallout doses, especially the disappearance of the deviation
in 1980 when the fallout dose was (and continued to be throughout the 1980s)
greater than the doses received from fallout during the early 1950s. Infant
mortality data from two special towns near the Mayak nuclear facility in
Russia are supposed to support the notion that exposure to radionuclides
produced by nuclear fission and adsorption increase the risk of death under
the age of one year. When these data are examined, however, the only
(marginally) unusual aspect concerns *post*-neonatal infant mortality, and
this is primarily due to respiratory diseases that are heavily influenced by
background socioeconomic factors. The importance of background risk factors
is emphasised by the much higher rate of childhood mortality (especially
mortality from respiratory diseases in early childhood) in Russia as a whole
than in the two special towns near Mayak. The data for infant mortality near
Mayak, therefore, do not support an interpretation of Whyte's findings for
first day neonatal mortality in England and Wales and the USA in terms of
fallout radionuclide exposure. Data for infant mortality and stillbirth in
Seascale near Sellafield show (marginally) significantly reduced rates
relative to the national average. This is not unexpected given the
socioeconomic class profile of the population, but it is important to note
that radioactive contamination of the area has had no perceptible influence
on these rates. Obstetric outcomes of Seascale births show no adverse effect
of living in the village. Stillbirth rates in the general vicinity of
Sellafield show no relationship with either distance from the site or
distance from the coast. In summary, the epidemiological evidence for a
discernible impact of radionuclides from fallout or discharges from nuclear
reprocessing plants upon the risk of perinatal mortality is unpersuasive -
there is no consistent pattern across the available datasets

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> Nevertheless, Sternglass work was followed up much later with more data by
> Whyte and published in the prestigious British Medical Journal a paper which
> vindicated his findings:
>
> Whyte R K, (1992) First Day Neonatal Mortality since 1935: A Re-examination
> of the Cross Hypothesis, British Medical Journal, 304: 343-6.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Chris Busby
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Bob Cherry
> Sent: Thu 06/10/2011 04:40
> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science
> andpseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
>
> The December 1996 issue of the HPS Newsletter refers to an even earlier
> issue:
>
> Every issue of the HPS Newsletter seems to have information
> important enough to reference. The August
> 1971 issue is no exception. An exceptional event was
> described in that issue. After Ernest Sternglass presented
> a paper on an epidemiological study describing health
> effects from nuclear facilities discharges, Dade Moeller,
> President-Elect, read a statement that had been signed by
> Claire Palmiter, President. and all 13 past presidents of
> the Society.
>
> In part. it stated that Sternglass had presented papers
> in which he associates an increase in infant mortality
> with low levels of radiation exposure ... His allegations
> made in several forms, have in each instance been ana.
> lyzed by scientists, physicians, and biostatisticians in the
> federal government, in individual states that have been
> involved in his reports. and by qualified scientists in other
> countries. . Without exception, these agencies and scientists
> have concluded that Dr. Sternglass' arguments are
> not substantiated by the data he presents. The United
> States Public Health Service, the Environmental Protection
> Agency, the States of New York, Pennsylvania,
> Michigan, and Illinois have issued formal reports in rebuttal
> of Dr. Sternglass' arguments.
>
> Again. in spite of the efforts by the most respected
> authorities to prevent the widespread broadcasting of
> Sternglass' flawed perceptions, Sternglass was sought for
> comments by the media and his story told countless times.
> The public was presented with fearful misinformation.
> Many members of the Society wanted stronger efforts to
> counter erroneous information, but our story was not
> considered newsworthy by the media.
>
> --from Bob C
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:27 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and
> pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
>
> Oct. 5
>
>         Sternglass is a charlatan.  See Samuel McCracken's analysis of some
> of his claims in "The War Against the Atom," pp. 122-133.
>
> Steven Dapra
>
>
> At 09:40 AM 10/5/2011, you wrote:
>
> [edit]
>
> >And dont knock Sternglass. His work is broadly correct.
> >Chris
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Harrison, Tony
> >Sent: Wed 05/10/2011 15:02
> >To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> >Subject: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and
> >pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
>
> [edit]
>
> >Busby's citation of Sternglass et alia is laughable, but so are some of
> >the pro-hormesis papers cited here over the years.  Both just show that
> >the peer-review process is far from perfect.  Too many propagandists
> >out there, and not enough scientists.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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