[ RadSafe ] Joseph Mangano strikes again -

mcooperconsulting at yahoo.com mcooperconsulting at yahoo.com
Wed Dec 6 15:29:43 CST 2017

Suggest that these comments be written up and provided to a peer reviewed journal. 

With regards,

Michael N. Cooper MS, MPH, CIH, NRRPT
Certified Industrial Hygienist
Radiation Protection Technologist
Principal Scientist 

Instructor, University of California, Davis mncooper at ucdavis.edu
(408) 313-2127

> On Dec 6, 2017, at 13:14, Mark Miller <marklmiller20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the RadSafe mailing list