Scientific American: Fukushima radiation could very well lead to negative health effects in US, Canada

Published: December 20th, 2011 at 2:45 pm ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
33 comments
Digg This
Submit to StumbleUpon
Save on Delicious

Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Death Study, Scientific American, Dec. 20, 2011:

Certainly radiation from Fukushima is dangerous, and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific.

The above statement was at the end of an article that strongly criticizes the recent study about excess deaths in the US after Fukushima.

Digg This
Submit to StumbleUpon
Save on Delicious
Email Article Email Article

Related Posts

  1. UN committee chairman studying Fukushima radiation impact: “We wouldn’t expect to see health effects” in children, workers, or anyone else May 23, 2011
  2. Headline: “Radiation from Fukushima may lead to decreased population in Japan” — Concerns about children’s health spread across northeast, Tokyo August 11, 2011
  3. Member of Parliament: Health Canada “negligent” on Fukushima radiation threats August 5, 2011
  4. Head of Fukushima health study: 100 mSv/yr OK for pregnant moms — “Effects of radiation do not come to people that are happy… They come to people that are weak-spirited” June 11, 2011
  5. Paper: Group wants radiation tests done in Canada — Health Canada calls 300 times background levels of iodine-131 “minute” August 11, 2011

33 comments to Scientific American: Fukushima radiation could very well lead to negative health effects in US, Canada

  • or-well

    I expect there will never be a “definitive” study that says the health effects of Fuku are anything more than “statistically inconclusive”.

    Definitive = approved by the Elite, widely disseminated by MSM, declared a benchmark work and frequently cited.

    Report Comment

  • daddyfixit daddyfixit

    these agenda driven reports might cause be a public outcry and force federal governments to actually start doing something! the situation is far go critical for americans to treat this like another football game.

    Report Comment

  • aigeezer

    I subscribed to SA for most of my adult life and learned a lot from it. I was always mindful that the advertisers were the cream of the military-industrial complex. I don’t know whether that had any effect on their worldview or whether it does today.

    I would not automatically accept their view, but I would certainly take it seriously.

    One possibility (among many) is that the article they criticize is methodologically flawed yet still correct in its conclusions.

    Time will tell. Facts always trump spin eventually, no matter who is doing the spinning.

    Report Comment

    • or-well

      “Facts always trump spin eventually,…”

      Soon enough to help make a difference, soon enough to be topical, I hope.

      Report Comment

      • aigeezer

        Possibly not soon enough to be topical, but probably soon in geological terms. No?… would you settle for Karmic?…

        Hmmmn. That was my only upbeat moment in weeks. Maybe we’re all freakin’ doomed after all. ;-)

        Report Comment

        • or-well

          Remember the inner kid !
          With spinning, sooner or later you get dizzy, can’t take any more and stop.
          Or, you keep going and then throw up !
          More and more folks are getting ready to throw up from all the spinning !
          (I think it’s going to get messy and there’ll be a big stink!)

          Report Comment

          • Johnny Blade Johnny Blade

            I hope the radioactive bile takes the form of projectile puke discharged into the faces of those who are responsible for it and who continue to push their pro-nuke agenda & ambitions forward with devastating effect! May the faces of those in that group holding or seeking office(s) which promote their nauseating cause be horribly disfigured by the stomach acid & other “hot” contents of the vomit of their victims!!…..”RRAAAALLLFFF”!!!!

            Report Comment

    • dosdos dosdos

      The rebuke cites errors in accuracy, but doesn’t show whether the errors are for the better or for the worse. However, it is treated as if for the better were the only possibility.

      This is not the first time this person has gone after Dr. Sherman’s reports. And each time, the rebuttal has more holes in its argument than the target.

      Don’t pay the rebuttal any credit, it’s direly flawed in itself.

      Report Comment

  • Bobby1

    Poorly argued slam piece by even pro-nuke standards. Moyer criticizes the CDC data, and acknowledge that Mangano and Sherman recognize its limitations. He has some kind of problem with projecting the CDC numbers onto the population. He should take it up with the CDC, that’s why they publish it.

    Then he has an issue with March 20 being the initial date of US fallout. All he has to do is look at the radiation dispersion maps… a few days before or after would make no difference, a non-issue.

    Report Comment

  • Flapdoodle Flapdoodle

    I suppose death is a negative health effect.

    Report Comment

  • or-well

    1. Critical reports by anti-nukers:
    dismiss using multiple techniques

    2. Critical reports by pro-nukers:
    (how likely?)
    also dismiss

    3. Blatant whitewash reports by anyone:
    a. spread widely (reinforce support)
    AND
    b. dismiss (show objectivity)
    (sow confusion)

    4. Inconclusive reports by anyone:
    accept.

    That’s what I expect from MSM, until the Elites lose their grip or it all becomes moot.

    Report Comment

  • Grampybone Grampybone

    By negative health affects they mean, Cancer (all kinds), Stillbirth, Auto-immune genetic disease, decreased growth rate in children, heart disease, and that’s just scratching the surface. How about the Scientific American reporting the symptoms of radiation related disease?

    Report Comment

  • Mauibrad Mauibrad

    IT IS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN 14,000 WHEN MORE THAN 14 WEEKS OF CDC DATA ARE CONSIDERED, AND IT IS ONGOING…

    Report Comment

  • ion jean ion jean

    Scientific American glorifies technology and science above health anyway…pro NASA, pro M-I-Complex, pro GM anything, pro Nuke, pro Ego, anti Human.

    Report Comment

    • Bobby1

      And pro-cancer, pro-mutation, pro-genocide too.

      Report Comment

    • Bones Bones

      This story makes me think, “Gee, I guess nobody will die then.” I know better, but do others? How much do you think he was paid for this? I like how he attacks their credibility by proclaiming they aren’t affiliated to any group and are nuclear activists, as if that is a bad thing. Clearly an attack piece. I bet that idiot used the CDC’s numbers when the swine flu “scare” came through a few years ago, but this time it’s not usable. I’m not saying the study is a correct estimation or not, but this article is clearly a hit piece on the authors and antinukers. The typical attack is you are bonkers for thinking nuclear is dangerous so at least this took more effort than just that. lol

      Report Comment

  • Chernobyl was small and short compared to these long lived monsters !
    Go figure, about a million deaths plus deformed numbers and still Born’s for Chernobyl so we will have ….

    Report Comment

  • shockwave shockwave

    SA is disgusted to publish something like this

    Puke

    Report Comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    I did find it interesting that 14 weeks prior to March 11th the death rate was 26 – 35 percent but I found the article had numerous flaws in finding flaws. Hmm, time will tell, all too well.

    Report Comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    U.S. health officials report weekly deaths by age in 122 cities, about 25 to 35 percent of the national total. Deaths rose 4.46 percent from 2010 to 2011 in the 14 weeks after the arrival of Japanese fallout, compared with a 2.34 percent increase in the prior 14 weeks. The number of infant deaths after Fukushima rose 1.80 percent, compared with a previous 8.37 percent decrease. Projecting these figures for the entire United States yields 13,983 total deaths and 822 infant deaths in excess of the expected. Thus I find the entire SA article flawed. JMHO

    Report Comment

  • Bobby1

    Mangano and Sherman intended this study to be a rock-solid analysis of the increase in American deaths after Fukushima.

    They used the most conservative and careful approach possible. They didn’t try to prove that it was from radiation. They wanted a peer-reviewed study in a medical journal that would survive the onslaught of the pro-nuke forces.

    But nobody should think that only 14,000 Americans died. The actual number of deaths in 2011 is probably closer to Leuren Moret’s estimate of 100,000, including unborn babies.

    http://deadlinelive.info/2011/10/24/leuren-moret-100000-excess-deaths-in-north-america-in-2011-from-fukushima/

    Report Comment

    • ion jean ion jean

      And we are only clocking deaths here, not illnesses. I can see a depressed immune function in people all around me this year, and if I was much more east of the NA continent, I’d be in the Atlantic (which is still better than beta burns from the Pacific)

      Report Comment

  • chronic chronic

    Did you see that Fukushima got another towering figure, albeit vulnerable and old, (from his history of lung cancer and smoking…..)?

    Czech President and dissident writer Vaclav Havel suddenly experienced lung problems in the spring of this year. But the article quickly noted he had almost died from surgery back in 1990. No Fukushima here.

    Maybe it was that ‘harmless’ geyser of Xenon that blanketed the whole Northern Hemisphere, mixed with the MOX fuel, that did him in? We will never know, because the pro-Nukers are charged with destroying the causality of anything related to the long-term effects of radiation on mankind, as this SA article, and the many to follow, will be focused on doing.

    Report Comment

  • americancommntr

    Those authors, editors, publishers, and advertisers ought to all do personal tallies of all the family members, extended family members, friends, neighbors, and co-workers who have been affected by cancer, and to ponder the day when a solar flare ruins the world for their children and grandchildren.

    Report Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.