Re: Another reminder?

[Andy Hull <hull@mail.sep.bnl.gov>]

Jim,
Amen!  For many years I have subscribed to the NCHS Monthly Vital
Statistics Report, even since Ernie Sternglass first made his specious
allegations of excess infant mortality in connections first with fallout
and then nuclear power plant emissions.  In the June 1998 issue (Vol. 46.
No. 11, Tab;e 4) I find the following from the state-by-state provisional
infant mortality rates for the a12 months ending November 1997 (per 1,000
live births and deaths under 1 year):

Location                Rate

District of Columbia   12.1
Mississippi                11.5
North Carolina          9.8
Maryland                8.8
South Carolina          8.7

and at the other extreme

Maine                   3.7
Massachusetts           4.1
New Hampshire           4.3
Wyoming                 4.7
Washington              5.0

As I said to Ernie in a debate many years ago, one does not have to be  an
expert sociologist or demographer to have a valid notion of the principal
cause of these disgraceful disparities.
Andy 


At 07:17 AM 7/31/98 -0500, Muckerheide wrote:
>NYTimes July 31, 1998
>
>          Health Report Finds Some Notable Gains
>
>          By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
>WASHINGTON -- A report on Thursday on the nation's health has good news over
>all: infant mortality fell to a record low of 7.3 deaths per 1,000 births in
>1996, and life expectancy reached an all-time high of 76.1 years. 
>
>          But the report, prepared by the National Center on Health
Statistics
>and made public by the Department of Health and Human Services, also found
>that people with less money and less education continued to die sooner and
>suffer more often from virtually every health problem. 
>
>          Poor, less-educated Americans are more likely to have underweight
>babies and are less likely to have them vaccinated, the report said. They are
>more likely to smoke and less likely to avoid heart disease, lung cancer and
>diabetes. 
>
>          From cradle to grave, money matters in health, the report found. 
>
>==================
>
>Now why are we committed to impoverish the nation in spending $100
Billions in
>'clean up' of 'rad contamination' at sites in the fiction of protecting
public
>health (beyond stabilizing waste tanks and equivalent sources)?
>
>And HHS would lead the charge against terminating such waste!?
>
>Regards, Jim Muckerheide
>muckerheide@mediaone.net
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>

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