«  
  »
Published: January 25th, 2012 at 01:21 AM EDT | Email Article Email Article
By Enenews Admin
54 comments

Idaho TV: “Data showed a large spike in deaths — particularly infant deaths — in the 14 weeks following the Fukushima meltdown” -Report (VIDEO)

a754160985d630d3b93dc23ccd32e8ec

Title: Report: Fallout from Fukushima coincides with spike in Boise infant mortality rate
Source: KIVI-TV
Date: Jan. 23, 2012

[...] two researchers believe [Fukushima] may also have played some role in killing tens of thousands of Americans. [...]

“We have not stated conclusively that Fukushima fallout killed 22,000 Americans,” [study co-author Joseph Mangano of the Radiation and Public Health Project] said.

Instead, he and co-author Dr. Jannette Sherman cite numbers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly morbidity report. That data showed a large spike in deaths – particularly infant deaths – in the 14 weeks following the Fukushima meltdown.

“And the highest ones,” Mangano said, “were in Boise, Idaho.” [...]

He called touting levels of radioactive chemicals as too low to inflict harm and even criticizing studies like his own “really irresponsible.”

Watch the report here

See also:

Related Posts

  1. B.C. Canada sees spike in number of sudden infant deaths — “Why so many of those have come up this year, we don’t know” July 6, 2011
  2. “Huge spike” in US infant mortality in the four months after Chernobyl vs. Is “dramatic increase” in US baby deaths a result of Fukushima Fallout? (VIDEO) June 15, 2011
  3. FOX affiliate in Seattle: Northwest sees 35% infant mortality spike post-Fukushima June 19, 2011
  4. Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. deaths after Fukushima fallout — Streaming audio online at 4pm December 19, 2011
  5. MD: Infant deaths also up in B.C., Canada after Fukushima — Corroborates U.S. study (VIDEO) December 22, 2011
January 25th, 2012 | Category: US & Canada, Video
«  
  »

54 comments to Idaho TV: “Data showed a large spike in deaths — particularly infant deaths — in the 14 weeks following the Fukushima meltdown” -Report (VIDEO)

  • ZombiePlanet ZombiePlanet
    January 25, 2012 at 2:18 am

    […] two researchers believe [Fukushima][…]] “believe” “believe”

    [believe] …

    Believing is attributed with many phenomena. Rabbits from hats were “believed” to be there.

    Guess I shall await further scientifically available data (with third party verification) that this (these) statements have any validity.

    Oh what the heck, lets all jump off the cliff tougher. Come on everybody… get with the “program.” My TV still works…

    Report Comment

  • PoorDaddy PoorDaddy
    January 25, 2012 at 2:27 am

    At least…..Thanks KIVI TV for mentioning Fukushima. Nobody else in MSM will. Once in a great while, Rachel Maddow and Amy Goodman……thats it!

    Report Comment

  • anne anne
    January 25, 2012 at 2:39 am

    Report: Fallout from Fukushima coincides with spike in Boise infant mortality rate

    “The aftermath of the tsunami that ransacked the Japanese coast led to one of the worst nuclear meltdowns in the history of the world. Now, two researchers believe it may also have played some role in killing tens of thousands of Americans.

    ““[It’s] 155,000 deaths,” Joseph Mangano said, ”so we’re not talking about an increase from three to five deaths. We’re talking about quite a few.”…”
    http://www.kivitv.com/news/local/138006823.html

    Report Comment

  • Dogleg Dogleg
    January 25, 2012 at 3:11 am

    KIVI just changed my life. I, as many of you, have had my personal relationships greatly affected by the nuclear disaster. I have been trying to warn as many people as possible about fallout in this area. It has cost me a couple of jobs, a few friends, and nearly broke up my family. My wife and I have recently been arguing heavily about it the last couple of days. Basically I told her I was taking the kids out of Boise before the spring pollen flew and if she didnt help me acheive this we were through. Probably the hardest thing I’ve ever done. We had just finished an arguement and I had mentioned many of the points covered in this video. Suddenly this came on the tv and changed everything. I am still shaking. I am shocked and extremely greatfull that our local news would cover it at all. And thank you enewsers. I feel I know so many of you. Your knowledge and research is very impressive and I have learned so much from you all.

    Report Comment

  • enoughalready45
    January 25, 2012 at 3:25 am

    The edit in the video is edited in one area that makes me think some context was left out.

    The story states, “He called touting levels of radioactive chemicals as too low to inflict harm and even criticizing studies like his own “really irresponsible.”

    This quote makes it sound like the guy who did the study is saying his own study is really irresponsible. That does not make sense to me.

    I think the story should say, “He [Mangano] called touting levels or radioactive chemicals as too low to inflict harm really irresponsible.” That statement makes sense to me.

    The part that says “…criticizing studies like his own” seems to be missing some context. I would like to have heard on the video exactly what Mangano said regarding this part of the story.

    This study has raised more questions for me than it answers and I guess that is actually the point of the study. Why was there such a large increase in deaths? Doesn’t some government agency want to figure that out? How many additional deaths in the USA have to occur before alarm bells start ringing and a government agency and/or various universities start to investigate? Do we have to reach 500,000, 750,000 a million? When the coroner can’t fit any more bodies in freezers will someone finally wonder what is going on? Oh I just realized you can fit a lot more dead babies in a freezer than you can adults. Maybe that is why the overflow alarm bells aren’t going off.

    Report Comment

  • arclight arclight
    January 25, 2012 at 4:04 am

    this link from the article video page was dead

    UI nuclear engineering professor disects report of infant mortality and radiation

    Page Not Found
    We’re sorry, there was something wrong with your HTTP request or the page you requested does not exist. Please try back later. If you have any questions or comments, please contact your Client Services Representative. Thank you for your patience

    http://www.kivitv.com/news/local/138006823.html

    but found this link worked…. Radiation and Public Health Project

    http://www.radiation.org/

    “The Atomic Energy Commission funded the original research on the effects of radiation in Hiroshima–until the results of the research, showing radiation to be adverse to public health, conflicted with the AEC’s attempts to reassure the American public regarding the risks of radiation so the government could undertake a series of atmospheric nuclear explosions in Nevada and the Pacific. The AEC cancelled the Hiroshima research and suppressed my father’s findings for four years, until the testing program was over.”

    http://www.radiation.org/reading/JessicaRenshaw.html

    and this

    “He called touting levels of radioactive chemicals as too low to inflict harm and even criticizing studies like his own “really irresponsible.””

    doesnt agree with the ICRP bag o water model methinks!! very wise!

    Report Comment

  • Dogleg Dogleg
    January 25, 2012 at 4:31 am

    @arc. That link for KIVI worked for me.

    Report Comment

  • James2
    January 25, 2012 at 6:50 am

    Did you notice the body language of the coroner lady from the next county, who says they haven’t noticed a thing?

    She blinks and looks away from the camera briefly just as she says it – classic sign of lying. I wonder what would be her incentive to do this?

    One of the things I always like to do is take a look at the baseline data myself. It’s so easy to use language to make numbers say whatever you want them to.

    In this case, they say the death rate in boise “spiked” 20% in the 14 weeks following Fukushima.

    if the normal rate should have been 5 deaths over the 14 weeks and you got 6 – well I wouldn’t necessarily call that significant. If it’s normal to get 5,000 deaths and you got 6,000 – that’s still a 20% increase, but likely a much more statistically significant increase.

    Report Comment

    • LetThemEatYellowCake
      January 25, 2012 at 8:30 am

      If you lived there, hearing her say that would be as surprising as getting rear-ended in Florida with an Idaho plate from that county (is that saying it nicely enough?;). I seriously doubt she was knowingly lying – that county is known for much, but a keen sense of awareness is not one of them.

      Report Comment

    • aigeezer
      January 25, 2012 at 9:07 am

      James2, your point about sample size is definitely worth mentioning. Any reputable study will process that appropriately, and all the data are normally made available for analysis so reviewers can satisfy themselves that the methodology is appropriate. Such detail would not normally make it into media discussion though.

      Your basic message to beware of concluding too much from small samples is always converted into standard numeric form by “real” scientists. Agenda-driven people and casual observers have no such restrictions, as we know.

      I’m not taking a position for or against the Idaho study results, but if I wanted to pursue it I’d reach for the raw data and an SPSS package and I’d pretty much ignore any TV coverage. The TV coverage is useful for raising consciousness in the public, but it is probably useless for getting at the facts.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS

      Report Comment

  • LetThemEatYellowCake
    January 25, 2012 at 8:37 am

    Just in case anyone wonders:

    The Idaho Statesman published obituaries for Boise, ID (in Ada County) from 1/8/12 through 1/14/12, for week 2 were as follows:

    >=65: 25
    45-64: 11
    25-44: 2
    1-24:
    <1: 2
    age unlisted:
    maybe: 1
    Idaho Statesman TOTAL: 40

    The CDC reported for week 50 as follows:

    >=65: 27
    45-64: 12
    25-44: 3
    1-24: 1
    <1: 1

    CDC TOTAL: 44

    I’ve glanced at a few more random weeks over the past year and they appear, from obituary count, to number correctly too.

    Report Comment

  • James2
    January 25, 2012 at 9:19 am

    So the CDC and statesman are not completely aligned but directionally close. I think it’s interesting that the CDC reports more deaths overall, but fewer deaths under a year old. Perhaps the time frames don’t align perfectly.

    The other piece of data is on stillborns. I don’t know whether a stillborn is a death or not.

    Assuming this is a representative week (may not be – January weather in Boise is probably pretty cold).

    If there are 40 deaths per week on average then over 14 weeks that would be 560 deaths – which is probably enough to establish that the death rate has been affected.

    If that were true. Then the same week last year would have had around 33 deaths – given everything else is equal. Of course everything else is never equal. The population of Boise is going up or down; in any given week there might have been a tragic accident or maybe an unusual balmy January which caused fewer people to die; perhaps some of the reporting agencies have changed their policies – any number of things could start a trend.

    That’s why you need to do a study like this over a long period of time.

    Having established that the CDC and newspaper are in the same ballpark on deaths, it would be interesting to have a look at the past 5 years or so of raw data and run the numbers. it would be simple to do the math analysis and determine the trends – the interfering factors and causes of the trends would be more difficult to establish.

    Report Comment

    • LetThemEatYellowCake
      January 25, 2012 at 11:09 am

      Hi James, yes they are directly close. I haven’t checked weeks around it thoroughly so I’m not sure that if over say a 2 week period it may match exactly. It may. Deaths fall onto the week the city reports the death certificate was filed so over weekends, holidays etc I’m sure that accounts for some of it the discrepancies at least. It is interesting it’s in the <1 category though.

      It is not this way in all cities. I checked 4 cities and posted the numbers on the anomaly thread. As Bobby1 indicated from hisanalysis of his pdf regarding the east/south in relation to rise in numbers in the west, the obituaries support that entirely. Jacksonville, FL has a serious problem; Houston, TX is accurate but it appears their reporting parameters changed; and Reading, PA is exact for weeks 49 and 50. I agree it needs to be looked at further.

      Report Comment

  • Bobby1
    January 25, 2012 at 9:55 am

    Boise, Idaho had the highest amount of iodine-131 in rainfall that was measured by the EPA in March-April. It also had the highest iodine-131 aerosol in the air, and the highest cesium-137 in rainfall. (Dutch Harbor, Alaska had the highest iodine-131 gas measurement.)

    Deaths were up 24.6% up till July 9, and infant mortality was up 33.3% in that same time interval.

    The Boise professors and bureaucrats that pooh-pooh this likely personally know people that have died from Fuku radiation. Their neighbors. They are sociopaths.

    Report Comment

  • ShineTheLight
    January 25, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Sending you and your family lead shielding hugs.

    Report Comment

  • bincbom
    January 25, 2012 at 11:24 am

    That’s actually a pretty darn good report for regional TV news. They ought to export that to a broader audience.

    Report Comment

  • philipupnorth
    January 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    Think your family isn’t affected by Fukushima? Just check your furnace filter with a geiger counter. I just checked mine, installed in the fall of 2011. Guess what? 77 cpm in a 10 minute average! (100 counts per minute is at the alert level.) Guess what else? You can actually find ‘hot particles’ by running the business end of your radiation monitor over the filter and listening to the counts go up and down. If you breath a hot particle into your lung, it will damage cells in all directions, and may cause a cancer that will kill you. Your kids may be several times more in danger from hot particles than you. (follow Arnie Gunderson online). Just wanted to bring Fukushima issues home to you. Right into your home. I don’t think people in the U.S. are near mad enough about this yet. But maybe they will be once their children start getting cancer by living in their own homes.

    Report Comment

  • StillJill StillJill
    January 25, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    philipupnorth–THANK YOU FOR SPELLING ARNOLD GUNDERSON’S NAME RIGHT! :-)

    His Pappy, and Grand Pappy, THANK YOU! :-)

    Report Comment

  • LetThemEatYellowCake
    January 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    hmm, found this article from 2008: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/28/7954

    “In the county where TMI is located infant deaths soared 53.7 percent in the first month after the accident; 27 percent in the first year. As originally published, the federal government’s own Monthly Vital Statistics Report shows a statistically significant rise in infant and over-all mortality rates shortly after the accident.

    Studying 10 counties closest to TMI, Jay M. Gould, in his meticulously documented 1990 book Deadly Deceit, found that childhood cancers, other infant diseases, and deaths from birth defects were 15% to 35% higher than before the accident, and those from breast cancer 7% higher. These increases far exceeded those elsewhere in Pennsylvania.

    Gould suggests that between 50,000 and 100,000 excess deaths occurred after the TMI accident. Joseph Mangano of the New York-based Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) says, “The NRC allows reactors to emit a certain level of radiation, but it does not do follow-up studies to see if there are excessive infant deaths, birth defects or cancers.”

    Leukemia deaths among kids fewer than 10 years of age (between 1980 and 1984) jumped almost 50 percent compared to the national rate.

    Mangano reports that “between 1980 and 1984, death rates in the three nearest counties were considerably higher than 1970-74 (before the reactor opened) for leukemia, female breast, thyroid and bone and joint cancers.”

    The Spring 2000 edition of Environmental Epidemiology and Toxicology Mangano and Ernest Sternglass reported that in counties adjacent to nuclear reactors, infant mortality falls dramatically after the reactors close. The RPHP study found that in the first two years after the reactors were shuttered, infant death rates fell 15-to-20 percent. In communities near Big Rock Point in Michigan for example, the decrease in infant mortality rates was 54 percent; at Maine Yankee, the percentage decrease was 33…

    Report Comment

  • philipupnorth
    January 25, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Gunderson is terrific on Fukushima. Just wish he would do an update more often, as the situation there changes every day or two. Notice it isn’t getting any better, and that it will likely get even worse than March and April of 2011, in the future. They are still not pouring cement over the reactors. They are still not digging tunnels under the buildings to fill with concrete. They don’t even have reliable temperature and radiation readings, and are still hiding the facts from public view. They do not have a plan for removel and ‘disposal’ of tons of melted reactor cores and fuel pool melt products. They put PAPER jump suits on workers who go into the plant. I can read their failures every day here in Indiana on my PRM 8000 Radiation Monitor. Goodluck to all. No Atomics!

    Report Comment

  • Tumrgrwer Tumrgrwer
    January 25, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    And in those paper jump suits are human beings…http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00666.pdf

    Let us be kind, one to another, for we are each of us together in our pain!

    Report Comment

  • philipupnorth
    January 25, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Funny. I lived 20 miles from Big Rock, Charlevoix, atomic plant during the 1980′s. I have heard that the government has technology that can trace radiation back to the nuclear plant of their origin. I wonder if Big Rock is responsible for the hot particle that I can still locate in my left lung with my geiger counter? Anyone know how I can identify this hot particle by origin, outside of the CIA?

    Report Comment

  • philipupnorth
    January 25, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Tumrgrwer: No atomics! Of any kind. StillJill: sorry, his name is spelled Arnie Gundersen. Thanks, Anne. no Nukes! This has got to end. Plants being built today are using designs considered flawed during the 1970′s. Did we learn nothing? How many engineers does it take to build a nuclear plant? Answer: just one bad one.

    Report Comment

  • Brutus_Lincoln_Paine Brutus_Lincoln_Paine
    January 25, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Did anyone notice the comment at the bottom of the main article. I can’t really find any study that would link fracking to the rise in deaths; something that might show some corresponding local activity going on. However I found an interesting article with a lot of posts. The reason I wonder is the quote:

    “We haven’t noticed anything different here,” Canyon County Coroner Vicki DeGeus-Morris said.

    She said: If anything, rates in her county might’ve fallen

    It’s not in quotes, but it makes no sense. “might’ve”

    What the hell is that supposed to mean? She would know whether they have fallen or no according to the same numbers that would indicate whether they have rose or not. That said, it isn’t put in quotes despite being immediately after “she said”; it seems very weird. It would be the most important thing she stated because “different” is even dependent on “as to what?” “. . . different . . . ” in nothing has changed or different in the sense her numbers correspond similarly and aren’t different from what is being found elsewhere. Very odd.

    Fracking controversial, but it’s saving Idaho gas customers money
    http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2012/01/10/rockybarker/fracking_controversial_its_saving_idaho_gas_customers_money#storylink=cpy

    as well:

    Governor Otter on Fracking
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qmd_sLtiao

    Report Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

«  
  »