[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nukes close, infant deaths go down - Tooth Fairy Project -NY Times
This is the same misinformation and manipulation of information that has been put forth by RHP project and Sternglass et al for the last several years. This was published in the Sacramento Bee, April 27, 2000, in response to claims on infant mortality and Rancho Seco. I think this says it all. and if nuclear power is so darned awful and harming babies...why is the infant mortality rate in France about ½ of what it is here in the United States??? France is about 80% nuclear...lots of reactors in that country....just a thought. maybe French radiation isn't as harmful as US radiation. maybe its the wine.
Rancho Seco hurt kids, disputed study claims: Low-level radiation's effect debated
By Carrie Peyton
Bee Staff Writer
(Published April
27, 2000)
A national
anti-nuclear drive
has seized on
Rancho Seco to
make the argument
that living near a
nuclear plant is bad
for your children's
health.
The campaign --
launched
Wednesday with
help from
supermodel
Christie Brinkley
and the consumer
group Public
Citizen -- hinges on
a new study whose
scope and design
already are
drawing sharp
criticism.
The study
examines a theory that long exposure
to very low-level radiation, far below
the amounts federal officials deem
safe, can cause health problems
serious enough to raise childhood
cancer and infant mortality rates.
A researcher for the Radiation and
Public Health Group, which devotes
itself to exploring low-level radiation
effects, believes Rancho Seco is
helping prove the theory.
His editor says the link is clear and
certain.
But local experts, who are not
associated with the nuclear industry,
say it is "terrible" science.
"I'm surprised it's even published," said
Marc Schenker, chairman of the
epidemiology and preventive medicine
department of the UC Davis School of
Medicine.
The shortcomings, according to
Schenker and other experts, are that
the study offers no basis for its
conclusions, looks at the wrong
regions, covers too short a time period
and uses illogical comparisons.
The study by researcher Joseph
Mangano appears in "Environmental
Epidemiology and Toxicology," 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, whose academic training
includes a bachelor's degree in public
health and a master's in business,
used public health records from the
World Wide Web to examine counties
near closed nuclear plants.
He focused on Rancho Seco, he said,
because it had the largest population,
was the longest-closed plant, and was
farthest away from other nuclear
plants. He did similar but far less
detailed comparisons of
neighborhoods near closed plants in
Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon and
Wisconsin.
His conclusion was that infant mortality
rates dropped faster than the U.S.
average within the two years after
each plant closed.
In the Sacramento region, Mangano
singled out four counties for study:
Sacramento, Amador, El Dorado and
Placer, writing that their residents
would be "at greatest risk of adverse
health effects from radioactive
releases."
That was his first mistake, said Tom
Cahill, an expert on tracking Central
Valley pollution through the wind and
rain.
"Sacramento is both upwind and
upstream from the releases of Rancho
Seco," said Cahill, a UC Davis
atmospheric sciences professor.
Prevailing winds would generally carry
any Rancho Seco air emissions to the
east, away from Sacramento County,
he said.
Storms would generally deposit any
waterborne emissions well to the
south, probably not affecting drinking
water north of Yosemite.
Mangano acknowledges that
Sacramento County -- where he
estimates three-quarters of the
population he studied lives -- is not
"technically" downwind of Rancho
Seco.
He included Sacramento County
because it was so close to Rancho
Seco, and because it draws drinking
water from Folsom Lake, which he
theorized would have gotten
storm-carried emissions from the
nuclear plant.
Mangano compared 1988-89, the last
two years of Seco's life and 1990-91,
the two full years after it closed.
In the four counties near Rancho Seco,
he found: Infant death rates dropped
15.7 percent at a time when the
average U.S. decline was 8.1 percent.
Death rates in children aged 1-4 from
causes other than accidents, homicide
and suicide dropped 20.6 percent
compared to an average national
decline of 5.1 percent. Cancer cases
in children 4 and younger dropped
37.2 percent at a time when such
cancers nationwide increased by 6.2
percent.
Mangano said those changes are
"strong evidence" that closing a
nuclear plant is linked to improvements
in children's health.
But 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.
UC Davis' Schenker said Mangano's
research is so flawed that concluding
Rancho Seco had any impact on health
is like saying that cell phone use
causes Alzheimer's because both are
increasing.
Among his concerns: There was no
attempt to look at comparable areas
without nuclear plants, and no effort to
track health data over all the years the
plants were open. There was no effort
to examine or exclude other possible
factors, such as Sacramento's growth
or large immigrant population. And
there was no indication the counties
chosen for study got any radiation
exposures from Rancho Seco.
"This is a low-quality study," he said. "I
realize it's catchy and it gets Christie
Brinkley on the case, but ... to take
this and reach conclusions regarding
Rancho Seco is not scientifically
supportable."
Problems? Suggestions? Let us hear from you. / Copyright ©
The Sacr
Patricia A. Milligan, RPh.,CHP
USNRC
301-415-2223
>>> William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> 05/01/02 12:05PM >>>
Unlike some Radsafers, my comments are quite printable, and I hope that they are
widely printed.
Many thanx for bringing this article to my attention. When I was growing up, in
Long Branch, NJ, the NY Times was probably one of the many advantages of living
in the NYC area. This is a well written and well balanced article, although
those who don't read beyond the headline may get the wrong impression.
I especially encourage you to look at the work of John Boice, who is quoted,
here. He is a classmate of mine, is arguably the best contemporary
epidemiologist, and has done a lot of work on this issue.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Norman Cohen wrote:
> mailbox@gsenet.org wrote:
>
> > 020430
> >
> > GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
> >
> > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> >
> > TABLE OF CONTENTS
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > {*} NUCLEAR POWER OPPONENTS CITE LINK TO INFANT DEATH RATES
> > :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> >
> > NUCLEAR POWER OPPONENTS CITE LINK TO INFANT DEATH RATES
> >
> > Date: 30 Apr 2002
> > From: MerBenzRN@aol.com
> >
> > By Andrew C. Revkin, NY Times, April 30, 2002
> >
> > Antinuclear campaigners plan to announce today that a new study shows
> > that infant death rates downwind of eight American nuclear power
> > plants dropped significantly after they were shut down.
> >
> > Some plan to use the findings to support calls for closing the
> > nuclear reactors at Indian Point, the plant closest to New York City,
> > in Westchester County.
> >
> > But federal officials, some radiation experts and representatives of
> > the nuclear power industry said that there was no evidence to link
> > illness and proximity to nuclear plants and that minute, occasional
> > releases from such plants were much lower than natural radiation
> > levels.
> >
> > The new statistical study, which is being published in the next issue
> > of The Archives of Environmental Health, was conducted by a group of
> > scientists who for many years have purported to show a link between
> > mortality and illness and low levels of radiation from power plants,
> > bomb tests and other sources.
> >
> > But their past work has never been replicated by federal health
> > researchers, and the statistical analysis they used in some earlier
> > studies has been challenged by the National Cancer Institute.
> >
> > The study said the infant death rate in communities for two years
> > preceding the plant shutdowns averaged 8.44 deaths per 1,000 births
> > and, when all the mortality data for two years after the plant
> > shutdowns were combined, the infant mortality rate dropped to 7.01 per
> > 1,000 births.
> >
> > The difference was statistically significant, the authors said, and
> > the drop was greater than the general drop in infant death rates
> > around the country in recent years.
> >
> > The scientists, from the Radiation and Public Health Project, a
> > nonprofit group, defended their new findings and cited the need for
> > much more research.
> >
> > Joseph J. Mangano, a public health statistician and the national
> > coordinator for the group, said a statistical link does not prove a
> > cause and effect, but points to the need for more work.
> >
> > "A lot of things could affect infant deaths," he said. "The list is
> > literally endless. This doesn't mean we've proved anything beyond a
> > shadow of a doubt, but what I will say is we really need to do more
> > follow-up."
> >
> > Among other things, the study examined statistics from counties and
> > cities downwind of eight nuclear plants that shut down either for a
> > prolonged period or permanently - in Connecticut, Maine,
> > Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin.
> >
> > Dr. John Boice Jr., who directed a 1991 National Cancer Institute
> > study of disease patterns around nuclear plants and other institutions
> > using radiation, said no link emerged.
> >
> > "There are so many other important things to worry about in terms of
> > radiation - like what are we doing to do with the waste and the
> > terrorism issue," he said last night.
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
> >
> > ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/