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

[Steven Dapra]

Oct. 6

         You forgot the citations to the 'referenced studies' by 
Scherb and Voigt.  Will they be forthcoming?  Of course not. . . .

Steven Dapra


At 07:40 AM 10/6/2011, you wrote:
>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

[edit]