[ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation needs careful, patient, tracking

Wed Sep 5 17:54:03 CDT 2012

It is axiomatic that you can't get research funding to solve non-problems
..

________________________________

From: "Brennan, Mike (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wed, September 5, 2012 1:25:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima 
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking

Hi, Stewart.

Without disagreeing with what you've said, I would point out that quite
often radiation public health organizations have several levels between
the highest level technical experts and the people who decide what the
organization says.  The people in those layers may well have backgrounds
in law or media relations that color the final statements as much or
more than the technical input.  

And "symbiotic relationship" isn't limited to regulators.  There are
many companies, small and very, very, big, that make a lot of money on
cleaning up pollution of all kinds.  I doubt many turn down the chance
to bid on a multi-million dollar contract just because they don't
believe the pollution constitutes an actual risk.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of SAF OPT
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:02 PM
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking

The problem seems to be that Public Health agencies [with some supposed
level of credibility ] in the US are unwilling to state or summarize
info to the general public via some media outreach program in a creative
way, about the lack of harm from some trivial source of radiation
exposure. 
Actions like this by regulators would be criticized as advocacy, despite
there being clear evidence of the negative effects of fear prompted by
false information.  Corporations don't like to get involved in a fight
like this, preferring to keep their heads down while maintaining that
someone else should "fight the fight".

Some years ago while actively working in the nuclear power field, I had
presented a paper about this syndrome,  titled: "Nuclear Power and
Public Information -- Suicide on the Installment Plan".  However, I was
able to get involved in efforts like this, only because I was  not on
staff at some nuclear utility at the time and I was acting as a private
citizen. The preceding talk was delivered by  invitation to speak before
the New England Chapter of the ANS following a cutting satire I had
written about the health 
hazards of "strepdukakis anti-nucleosis"  which was published widely in
New 
England based newspapers, and national publications like the HPS
Newsletter and the ANS "Backscatter" humor column.  This satire
obviously goes back a few years to when MA Govenor Dukakis was running
for President in 1988. This satire got under the skin of key national
energy advisors to Dukakis, but that is another story. It was a lot of
fun. While humorously stated, the comments made were cutting and
impactful.

The CDC's National Center for Environmental Health will generally
evaluate some potential rad risk when they get sufficient funding and
pressure. 
However, this action to evaluate a rad risk is often based on what I see
as situational ethics. And once a determination is made that there is no
indication of harm [but of course they would highlight that there are
uncertainties which might not exclude some small level of harm] a larger
study would be necessary.

There is also an obvious symbiotic relationship between many radiation
regulatory agencies and scaremongers,  since when distorted and
obviously false claims are made [vs.  the huge body of knowledge about
radiation biofects based on more than a $billion of research on
environmental and 
health effects]  sometimes funds are authorized by legislators to carry
out 
some study which increases budgets and staff for the Agencies involved. 
What is the incentive for regulatory groups to actively try and put out
accurate information on the absence of harm?

No Public Health agency seems willing to clearly state the absence of
risk in claims about radiation risk, and if  they have such data  they
are totally unwilling or inept in communicating this information to this
effect to the public in any impactful manner.

Stewart Farber, MSPH
SAFarber at optonline.net

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Dixon, John E. (CDC/ONDIEH/NCEH)
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:54 PM
To: Mattias.Lantz at physics.uu.se ; The International Radiation Protection
(Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking

All,
I am concerned about this RADSAFE thread.

At the present time, there have been NO deaths (and diseases) directly
attributable to the radiation and radioactive contamination released
from (and present at) the damaged Fukushima reactor plants. The Japanese
people have more serious matters with which to contend (e. g. 20,000 +
deaths from the tsunami). Physiological effects can also result from the
very real physical threats present, as well as from psychological stress
(more from these stressors than from the low levels of
radiation/radioactivity which are still present in the area).

Since all probabilistic deleterious effects from low dose/dose rate
radiation take TIME to manifest in humans AND it has been about 18
months since the releases occurred, I would expect that no relevant
scientific significant "study" (especially the DATA) yet exists. At
present, most of the work done on this topic is, at best, speculation.

John E. Dixon, CHP

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Lantzelot
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:11 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Mangano - Disease and death toll from Fukushima
radiation needs careful, patient, tracking

If anybody is interested I have put up a scrutiny of Mangano's latest
joke on the NPYP web site:
Blog post with general comments:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-st
ops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/
More detailed look into the numbers:
http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=757

/Mattias Lantz

--
Mattias Lantz - Researcher
??? ?????
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Division of Applied Nuclear Physics
Uppsala University, Box 516
SE - 751 20, Uppsala, Sweden

On 08/19/2012 05:25 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
> Suggest that professionals make news media aware of all the 
> shortcomings of Mangano's past research and claims - he has 
> established himself with the help of Janette Sherman as an expert on 
> Chernobyl just like Busby has -
>
> Roger Helbig
>
> Christina MacPherson posted: "[in the 12 months after Fukushima]  an 
> excess of 38,700 Japanese deaths, with no obvious cause. Nobody should

> yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from Fukushima
> exposure in the first year after the disaster.  The final element
> nee"
>
> Disease and death toll from Fukushima radiation needs careful, 
> patient, tracking
>
> by Christina MacPherson
>
> [in the 12 months after Fukushima]  an excess of 38,700 Japanese 
> deaths, with no obvious cause.
>
> Nobody should yet race to conclusions that 38,700 Japanese died from 
> Fukushima exposure in the first year after the disaster.
>
> The final element needed before conclusions are made is patience; 
> vital statistics must continue to be tracked, and compared with 
> radiation exposures to the Japanese people.
>
> [In 2009] A team of Russian researchers, led by Dr. Alexey Yablokov, 
> published results of 5,000 reports and articles on Chernobyl - many in

> Russian languages never before made public. Yahlokov's team concluded 
> that near Chernobyl, increases in disease sand deaths were observed 
> for nearly every human organ system.
>
> Let the Counting Begin Fukushima's Nuclear Casualties 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/15/fukushimas-nuclear-casualties/
> by JOSEPH MANGANO, 15 Aug 12 It's been nearly 18 months since the 
> disastrous nuclear meltdown at Fukushima.  There have been many 
> reports on the huge amounts of radioactivity escaping into the air and

> water, unusually high levels in air, water, and soil - along with 
> atypically high levels of toxic chemicals in food - that actually 
> "passed" government inspection and wasn't banned like some other food.
>
> Conspicuously absent are reports on effects of radiation exposure on 
> the health of the Japanese people.  Have any health officials publicly

> announced post-March 2011 numbers on fetal deaths, infant deaths, 
> premature births, birth defects, cancer, or other health conditions?
> The answer so far is an emphatic "no."
>
> The prolonged silence doesn't mean data doesn't exist.  Japanese 
> health officials have been busy with their usual duties of collecting 
> and posting statistics on the Internet for public inspection.  It's 
> just that they aren't calling the public's attention to these numbers.
> Thus, it is the public who must find the information and figure out 
> what it means.  After locating web sites, translating from Japanese, 
> adding data for each of 12 months, and making some calculations, 
> mortality trends in Japan after Fukushima are emerging. Read more of 
> this post
>
> Christina MacPherson | August 16, 2012 at 4:03 am | Categories:
> health, Japan, Reference | URL: http://wp.me/phgse-73G
>
> http://nuclear-news.net/2012/08/16/disease-and-death-toll-from-fukushi
> ma-radiation-needs-careful-patient-tracking/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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