[ RadSafe ] markey-connection between infant mortality and nukes

[Patricia Milligan]

Controls?   
only 95-98? and 99 on?? with the age of those sites??

no insult to monkeys, cherries or players, but the numbers don't hold up.  those studies are not valid.   

and its not a big conspiracy to "hide the truth".  there are way too many people involved in radiation studies for everyone to be on the payroll of utilities or to be involved in some massive conspiracy.. and there are literally thousands and thousands and thousands of radiation health effects studies that have been conducted ( last number I saw was 89,000 as reported some years ago by GAO) that don't support the "results" shown by Mangano, Sternglass et al.  And there is a reason for that... Mangano, Sternglass et al are only to happy to manipulate, squeeze, rearrange the data to fit their needs.  If their work was valid, then it would be able to be reproduced by other scientists... to date, only those "in the fold" of RPHP can duplicate the results..   No one else can.  Apparently everyone, except RPHP "scientists" missed the lectures on how to choose your data and "work the numbers"



Patricia A. Milligan, RPh.,CHP
USNRC
301-415-2223

>>> "Norm Cohen" <ncohen12 at comcast.net> 02/24/05 12:37PM >>>
The numbers I've seen, which would only be the Salem and Oyster Creek
studies, seem straightforward enough. For Salem, he used Salem County  
figures
for cancer, immune system diseases, low birthweight, and compared them for  
when the
nukes were off-line (95-98) and when the were online (99-on).

For oyster, he looked at trends in the counties surrounding Oyster Creek.

I can't comment on other studies. If they played with (so as not to insult  
monkeys)
the numbers, then those studies have no merit.

norm

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:17:01 -0500, Patricia Milligan <PXM at nrc.gov> wrote:

> Norm,
>   can you please help me to understand how either you or Mr. Mangano  
> defines "monkey with the numbers"?   Cherry picking your data so it  
> fits, only considering data from certain years, moving counties so they  
> fit the "downwind" model, not including other data because "it doesn't  
> fit the pattern" (- See April 27, 2000 Sacramento Bee article on Mr.  
> Mangano,)  not establishing controls, not examining any other potential  
> and well defined impacts on the data, including communities that are  
> "technically not downwind" because they give better numbers..  
> (technically not downwind?? hello!!???)  this all seems to me to be  
> "monkeying with the numbers".  But, I may have missed those techniques  
> in my many undergraduate and graduate statistics and epidemiology  
> courses  and I can't find reference to those techniques in any of my  
> biostatistics texts so.. please help me to understand  how you define  
> "monkey with the numbers..".
>   Thank you,
>      Patricia A. Milligan, CHP
>     US NRC
>     301-415-2223
>
>>>> "Norm Cohen" <ncohen12 at comcast.net> 02/23/05 06:11PM >>>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I post the TFP information to Radsafe because of its interest to
> Radsafers. I agree that there
> is a problem with the lack of documented leaks and the small amounts of
> sr90 reported in effluent reports by the nuke plants. On the other hand,
> having worked with and corresponded with Mangano, I'm convinced that he
> doesn't monkey with the numbers either. So I'm keeping a cautious
> open mind on all this.
>
> Its a shame that some TFP folks don't join radsafe and defend their
> theories directly. I don't think its my position to be the intermediary.
>
> Norm
>
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:25:46 -0500, Richard L. Hess
> <lists at richardhess.com> wrote:
>
>> Norm, it's good to report this, but one of the things that continues to
>> surprise me is that there are few to no documented leaks from these
>> nuclear plants and yet mere proximity seems to cause havoc.
>>
>> What is the mechanism for this? I'm trying to  understand. How do these
>> nuke plants cause increased infant mortality? Is the radiation from the
>> nuclear plants worse than the natural background radiation? Is the
>> radiation near the plants any higher than anywhere else?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> At 01:36 PM 2/23/2005, Norm Cohen wrote:
>>> NEWS FROM ED MARKEY
>>> United States Congress                  Massachusetts Seventh District
>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>>> CONTACT:        Mark Bayer
>>> February 18,
>>> 2005
>>> Michal Freedhoff
>>> (202) 225-2836
>>>
>>> NEW STUDY SUGGESTS SPIKE IN INFANT MORTALITY ASSOCIATED WITH RADIATION
>>> FROM NUKE PLANTS
>>>  Markey Questions NRC on Health Risks of Living Near Nuclear Reactors
>>>
>>> Washington, DC:  Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), a senior member of the  
>>> House
>>> Energy and Commerce Committee, the panel which oversees nuclear power
>>> regulation, today released a letter he sent to the Nuclear Regulatory
>>> Commission (NRC) regarding health risks for communities who live close
>>> to
>>> nuclear reactors.  A new study released today by Dr. Ernest Sternglass
>>> of
>>> the University of Pittsburgh suggests that infant mortality increased
>>> significantly in 2002,  after operating capacity at 104 nuclear power
>>> stations reached its highest levels.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12 at comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org 
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org 

"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
  great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

 


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05