[ RadSafe ] Joseph Mangano strikes again -

Wed Dec 6 15:29:43 CST 2017

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

With regards,
Mike

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

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