Re: Critics allege infant mortality rate

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

April 27

	An article about Mangano's report was published in the Sacramento Bee
<www.sacbee.com>.

	According to the Bee article, Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology is
"a quarterly peer-reviewed academic journal with about 250 paid
subscribers.  The journal is edited by two professors at the university of
Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, and printed by Nature Publishing Group,
which also publishes Nature magazine."

	Mangano's "academic training includes a bachelor's degree in public health
and a master's in business."

	Mangano has claimed, of course, that children's health improved after
Rancho Seco was shut down permanently, but according to the Bee article,
"similar improvements did not emerge during the 27 months in the late 1980s
when Rancho Seco was closed for repairs.  In fact, infant mortality
steadily worsened, Mangano said in an interview.  He did not include those
statistics in his study, he said, because they weren't relevant given the
pattern at all five nuclear plants."  (He also evaluated closed plants in
CO, CT, OR, and WI.)

	Not relevant.  What is that supposed to mean?  And what were the patterns
at the other four plants?  But wait.  According to the appendix to
Mangano's EET article, infant mortality _decreased_ by between 15.3 and
18.0 percent at the other four plants after their permanent shutdown.  But,
mortality _increased_ during Rancho Seco's 27 month shutdown for repairs.
Yes, I can see that that would not be relevant. 

Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html