[ RadSafe ] Joseph Mangano strikes again -

[Mark Miller]

This paper [by Mangano]  has "junk science / quack
medicine" stamped in red all over it, for a number of reasons.

1. Overwhelmingly and most important, first off, we see absolutely *no*
presentation of measurements of I131 (iodine 131) or other alleged exposure
levels by people in the region to anything this radiation-hysteria-monger
might claim is a causative agent here.

No  evidence is actually presented.  And presentation of an exposure dose,
and comparison of it to what we know from past experience can and cannot
cause disease, is a critical aspect of any legitimate paper on a subject
like this.  The absence of this is a *huge* red flag that informs the
reader this is *Junk Science*, done to deceitfully promote a particular
ideology adhered to on faith by the author.  This is *not* the work of an
intellectually honest individual.  This is not an application of scientific
method.

2. The second dramatic indication that this is Junk Science, is encountered
when one reads in this paper the following citation:

"The statistical aberration of increased cancer rates should be a concern
to us all,” said Peter Schwartz, a Rockland County businessman diagnosed
with thyroid cancer in 1986. "After Fukushima, it finally occurred to me
that my thyroid cancer was connected to Indian Point.”

Medical / epidemiological papers that attempt to support their content by
citing *single* case studies and invoke the *conviction* of the
superstitious individual as evidence of the statistical association they
are trying to establish (to say nothing of a cause and effect
relationship!) are pretty near always the result of a partisan writing who
has  no interest at all in finding out what is going on, and is interested
*only* in "proving" the theory he or she believes on faith and wants to
promote.   This is a sleazy effort to appeal to those not educated in
science and medicine, and thus ignorant of what is and isn't important to
proving such contentions.

3. The author writes "Little is known of thyroid cancer".  Well... little
is known of most things in medicine... the whole reality of
scientific-based, evidence based medicine is a very new thing in human
history.  For the most part, it began in 1944 with the wide availability of
penicillin, so it's well under a century old.  That said, we *do* have a
lot of experience with exposures to I131, the only radioactive agent
specifically known to have the potential to cause thyroid cancer.  We have
experience with it both in accidental situations (Chernobyl) and in
situations where people are *deliberately* exposed to it (in the thousands
of people treated with I131 for thyroid nodules, including cancer).

So it IS known what doses of exposure are and are not associated with no
chance, a very tiny chance, and a higher chance of causing thyroid cancer.
But the author doesn't want to go into that, because such information as
what doses people encountered and what doses are known to be entirely
harmless would show what deceitful crap his paper is.

4. Note that the estimate of number of thyroid cancers from nuclear testing
he cites is a *theoretical estimate*, not something based on actual real
world observation or measurement.   And given the period of time from which
that estimate dates, it virtually certainly was made employing as
theoretical model LNT (Linear Non Threshold) hypothesis of radiation
effects on humans.  A theoretical model now known to be grossly false, and
known to be promoted by scientists who it has been proven deliberately
faked their data for ideological reasons.  It's a model that gives results
of sensitivity of humans to ill medical effects of radiation that are 100
to 1000 times greater than an honest and accurate model based on study and
evidence shows.

5. After the Fukushima melt downs, the Japanese went to great lengths to
look for an increase in thyroid cancer in children, which they were told
could be the result of I131 release from the three nuclear disasters
there.    Hysteria was raised over utterly totally 100% false claims and
significant physical harm done to children as a result.  Here's why:

(a) Methods used to search for nodules in children's thyroids were far more
advanced and sensitive than any used in previous studies of incidence of
such in children in the region.  Also, a larger fraction of children were
examined... the new surveys were far more thorough and extensive than the
old ones from which the old, comparison data was obtained.  So *of course*
the result of the new studies was that more thyroid nodules were found in
children after the Fukushima meltdowns.   But when the study methods were
more closely examined, it was found that ALL of this "increase" was an
artifact of more sensitive detection methods, and NONE of it represented an
actual increase in rate of thyroid cancer.   Indeed, this incompetent
exercise in epidemiology and public healthy study is now taught to students
of public health and epidemiology, as something to watch out for and avoid!

(b) From the (far far worse, with far higher levels of radioactive material
released) Chernobyl disaster, we learned a lot about how much time must
elapse between exposure to I131 and development of increased incidence of
thyroid nodules in children.   And what we learned showed that in the time
period in which it was claimed Fukushima's melt downs caused increased in
thyroid cancer it was *impossible* for that to happen ... too little time
had elapsed.

(c) We also learned from the Chernobyl disaster  a fair amount about what
dose of exposure to I131 was required to cause detectable increase in
thyroid nodules in children.  And from what we learned it was obviously and
clearly absolutely impossible for there be ANY detectable increase in
thyroid nodules due to the I131 released from the Fukushima melt downs:
The levels were far, far too low.

There is nothing in Joe M's article that provides an iota of information of
HOW the early and later studies were done ... the studies which he claims
shows an increase in thyroid cancer at Indian Point and vicinity.  As with
his total silence on dose exposure levels, this facilitates his telling
hysterical deceitful lies, and serves to protect his claims from being
properly and honestly examined in the light of intellectually  honest
proper scientific method and epidemiological study.  Is that accidental?  I
don't think so.

None of what we learned about thyroid cancer and Fukushima to this day
stops deceitful purveyors  of anti-nuclear lies radiation hysteria from
continuing to talk of thyroid cancer risks from nuclear plants.   Rest
assured that all such is *totally*, without the slightest doubt what so
ever, ideologically - driven lies told by true-believer anti-science,
anti-science-based-medicine malignant anti-nuclear propagandists.
Sometimes financed by the fossil fuel companies, who have a trillion dollar
interest in telling lies about the (non-existent) dangers of nuclear power,
and a similar interest in promoting the fraud and scam that is solar and
wind power, which they know guarantee dependence on their product, fossil
fuel.

The entire paper is obvious contemptible garbage, for the reasons stated
above.

---marty

Martin H. Goodman MD
educated in the sciences at Harvard
trained in medicine at UCSD school of medicine

ps  And where is this printed?  *Nature*?  *Science*?  *New England Journal
of Medicine*?  *Lancet*?  some respected, peer-reviewed science or medical
publication?  Nope.   Alter-net, which consistently printed craven
anti-nuclear lies... a long time well-known source of ideologically driven
yellow journalism ... of lies.  To be sure, the paper must be considered on
its own merits and evidence (as I did, above), not on the basis of its
author and site of publication.  That's why I add this last as an
afterthought.