PDA

View Full Version : Japan fallout -- infant mortality up 35% in NW?



Soflasnapper
06-11-2011, 06:24 PM
Perhaps, even though we had been told there was nothing to conceivably worry about.

Bland assurances of safety are a typical feeding from the spoon of those with economic interests to safeguard. Nothing to see here, folks, now move along!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A 35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown

Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

By JANETTE D. SHERMAN, MD
and JOSEPH MANGANO

U.S. babies are dying at an increased rate. While the United States spends billions on medical care, as of 2006, the US ranked 28th in the world in infant mortality, more than twice that of the lowest ranked countries. (DHHS, CDC, National Center for Health Statistics. Health United States 2010, Table 20, p. 131, February 2011.)

The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate. </div></div>

article (http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html)

LWW
06-11-2011, 07:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout? ...

... Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate. </div></div>

Talk about using a scary title to "PROVE" that there is causation.

The article is claiming that the plants preemptively started the rise in infant mortality 10 years before the event?

I'm not saying there's nothing there ... but they certainly haven't made a case that there is.

I'd like to see data on the previous 4 and post 10 week periods to see how they compare as well as a look back to see if there are other such anomalies that have happened.

I would think infant mortality would bounce around due to season/weather and other items, but I'm far from an expert.

Soflasnapper
06-12-2011, 02:00 PM
Talk about using a scary title to "PROVE" that there is causation.


It's in the form of a question, and doesn't mention proof.

The article is claiming that the plants preemptively started the rise in infant mortality 10 years before the event?

Since you yourself suggest an absurdity that isn't true as a question, the answer is 'no, it doesn't claim that.'

That the authors state the rise reaches statistical significance, that is with regard to the historical data you're saying you'd want to see (which they've seen). In other words, it's beyond one standard deviation of the variations that have been seen historically. That's how they decide on statistical significance.

Gayle in MD
06-13-2011, 01:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Talk about using a scary title to "PROVE" that there is causation.


It's in the form of a question, and doesn't mention proof.

The article is claiming that the plants preemptively started the rise in infant mortality 10 years before the event?

Since you yourself suggest an absurdity that isn't true as a question, the answer is 'no, it doesn't claim that.'

That the authors state the rise reaches statistical significance, that is with regard to the historical data you're saying you'd want to see (which they've seen). In other words, it's beyond one standard deviation of the variations that have been seen historically. That's how they decide on statistical significance.
</div></div>

I wonder often what the actual mortality rate is from the combined health impact of all of the corporate pollution, in the world, and in our country.

From my own research on the subject, from air pollution to food pollution, and water pollution, and including comparisons to other regions of the world, we're all dying for the sake of corporate profits, and particularly our young babies and children.

The number of scientific studies that prove this? HUGE!

Yet we have people ignoranct enough, and delusional enough, to cheer when an idiot yells, "Drill baby Drill!"

Unbelievable!

And Repigs are trying to do away with the Consumer Protection Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency, cut back on the Center for Diseased Control, and the Food and Drug administration.

Those corporate CEO polluters have no conscience whatsoever.

A vote for Repiglicans is a vote for more cancer and disease!

Even if the Japanese had told the truth, the right would have denied it.

G. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
06-13-2011, 05:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder often what the actual mortality rate is from the combined health impact of all of the corporate pollution, in the world, and in our country.

G. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

</div></div>

It is about 92.6% (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/2/478.extract) than it was a century ago.

Maternal mortality has dropped about 99% since 1900.

And, not that you will pay attention, air and water pollution is far far less than it was 100 years ago.

Why is it that Goremons insist upon believing in such mythology?