"... To unpack a little more, the authors take mortality figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports. I talk a little about these reports in my original piece. Suffice it to say that they are an incomplete record of deaths in the U.S. (as the authors acknowledge). The authors draw a hard line at the week of March 20, 2011, the 12th week of the year. They sum up all deaths around the country for both the 14 weeks preceding and the 14 weeks following March 20, 2011. They do the same for 2010. They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010. The 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2011 (presumably before the radiation plume arrived and spread across the land) include only 2.34 percent more dead people than the 14 weeks preceding March 20, 2010. Since the CDC only reports on about 23.5 percent of all deaths, the authors claim, they helpfully multiply the supposed “excess” by 1/0.235 to arrive at the final number of 13,893 deaths.

No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are anti-nuclear activists unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the “excess” deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.

The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly radiation from Fukushima is dangerous, and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/12/20/researchers-trumpet-another-flawed-fukushima-death-study/

Thanks for your input.

And radiation found in breast milk, water, cows HIGH ABOVE SAFE LEVELS.

Basically if we listen to the MSM claims of bias and accusations of anti-nuclear WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT FUKUSHIMA RADIATION IS NOT REALLY RADIATION AT ALL. THEY ARE BASICALLY CLAIMING IT CAN'T MAKE ANYONE SICK, ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MISCARRIAGES OR RADIATION SPIKES, THE DETECTORS ARE ALL ERRONEOUSLY REPORTING EXTREMELY HIGH LEVELS ETC.

WOW FUKUSHIMA RADIATION MUST BE MAGICALLY SAFE AND DEFIES EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT RADIATION.------------------You can buy that if you wish.



They don't overestimate at all, quite the contrary. They look at the total increases for a specific time period, not the TOTAL period during which Fukushima was spewing out radiation. So if anything they cautiously UNDERESTIMATED as scientists generally do.

Scientific American is as PRO-NUCLEAR AS THEY COME. To claim that these researchers are anti-nuclear simply because they point out statistical facts THAT CORRELATE WITH PREVIOUS DATA GATHERED DURING THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER is quite an exaggerated claim, and slanderous considering their credentials and methods of performing the study which were performed in line with a highly rigorous scientific method accepted globally.

We have heard nothing but the same from all media outlets and the government alike. These same institutions that regularly weaken regulations on nuclear plants so that dangerously under-regulated plants are able to pass inspections even when there are cracks galore in containment systems.

How was it propelled into the atmosphere?

Well since I don't want to be accused of plagiarism and post the full explanation you are asking for so I'll break it down into a couple sentences.

Radiation was (and is being released) and rose with steam, other radiation was released into the ocean, dumped sea water that had been used to cool the rods and prevent a full meltdown, and has been detected in wildlife throughout the pacific. High levels were detected with monitors throughout the United states, other measurements came from things such as rainwater and breast milk.

Radiation doesnt float around the atmosphere.

I think you are speaking of radioactive contamination. Some radioactive contaminated particles undoubtedly were carried into the atmosphere and may have drifted into the USofA. But the amount would be very small. Not nearly as much as we got when the Chinese were testing their nuclear warheads above ground in the 1970's.

I do not support the use of nuclear power for energy generation. I do not like the crazy fears being spread by people that dont even know the difference between radiation and radioactive contamination.

I apologize for the confusion, although, I never implied that radiation was like a bird, flying around on it's own accord.

NATURALLY, PARTICULATE WOULD FLOW WITH THE WIND.

Hence why I said it was carried up with steam, some other made it into the atmosphere after cooling water had been dumped into the sea where it would later evaporate.

THEN IT COMES DOWN WITH RAIN.

Not nearly as much as when the Chinese were testing Nukes? Hmmm, I'd have to look back and research if there were significant increases in miscarriages and deaths, LIKE THERE WERE FOLLOWING THE FUKUSHIMA DISASTER. If after I did that research I found a significantly higher increase in mortality and cancers, then I might agree with you. Until then I'm going to continue to be more concerned with what is happening today, and leave the past to the past.

You seem interested in Radiation, so I'm sure you are aware of the biological effects it can cause. Some phenomena being witnessed along the Pacific is similar to the effects we would expect to see in organisms following uptake of radioactive iodine.

Studies are being done on various species of Bears, fish, seals etc to figure out the cause. I'm not saying it is because of Fukushima, but because of the huge amounts of money involved in protecting the Nuclear industry, I wouldn't expect the MSN to be honest if it was in fact found to be due to Fukushima.

other radiation was released into the ocean," Those are not true statements. Radiation doesnt rise with steam and it doesnt flow into the ocean.

And also, "Radiation from Japan rained on Berkeley during recent storms ". Radiation doesnt rain down.

"Dangers from radiation that is wafting over the United States ". Radiation doesnt "waft".

Radioactive contamination rose with the steam and wafted and rained down, not radiation.

Again, I am opposed to using nuclear power for domestic energy generation, but I also dont like misinformation.

IT RADIATES FROM CONTAMINATED PARTICLES!!!!!!!!!

Why ask a question to critique a response? That is just looking for conflict. I try to go the constructive route, after all I don't need everyone to view me as a divisive foe.

Getting into these semantic arguments is a waste of time, especially when the information presented remains relevant in the end.

Fallout from fushushima is the worst the world has every seen. To deny that it will cause long lasting biological effects is to assume that everything we know and understand about radiation and biology is completely WRONG.

It's kind of like the Australians following the British testing of nukes in Australia. "NO IT COULDN'T HURT YOU. NO THAT CANCER IS ABSOLUTELY NOT FROM OUR TESTING, NO NO NO ITS A DEAD ZONE BECAUSE THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER DEEMED IT NECESSARY, TOTALLY NOT LINKED TO OUR TESTING"bLA BLA BLA BLA BLA.

factually.

"Fallout from fushushima is the worst the world has every seen." Do you have a source for that statement?

when they dumped the sea water they had been to cool the rods. Plume, mass, blob whatever choice of words used someone will disagree with.

But then I don't really hear anyone saying that Fukushima was magic, any release was someone frozen in time magically contained around the planet, never to contaminate the world. Cause that would just sound like BS

is worthy of the name, the scientists involved would have to wait a couple of years and make sure of the exact cause of death of any humans considered in the study. I don't even know where any such scientists would get the funding - most funding available to researchers is from industry itself or industry-influenced universities.

Meanwhile, while all that is happening, some Websites show monitoring of The USA and Canada in which the radiation contamination is simply off the charts.

The Nuke industry and its supporters are quite happy to slam any initial reports in the various on going efforts to let them tell us, once again, how safe nuclear power happens to be.

Nt

Last edited Wed Oct 30, 2013, 12:07 PM - Edit history (1)

are just chance. All that radiation is good for those dead fish, dying polar bears, seals etc. It is giving them a quick trip to heaven. Something to rejoice, eh?

Faith on the other hand is believing some spaghetti monster is going to protect you from a known killer, FALLOUT, or somehow render it inert.

When it is detected in the United states in extreme levels, you can be sure DEVASTATION will follow.

Yes, radiation can kill. So can water. There is a difference between a hug and a bone splintering embrace, and too many of these articles are using fear and ignorance to equate the former with the later.

Yes, Fukushima was a bad accident with devistating consequences for the people who lived in the immediate area. Most of the damage was financial and cultural, but there are almost certain to be some long term health effects as well. I suggest you watch the documentary: "Children of the Tsunami" for a heartbreaking look at how this impacted the kids in this area. I will link to it below.

Saying Fukushima hasn't had a biological effect in the U.S. when there is a plethora of evidence showing that it has is like believing the sun doesn't cause sunburn.

If you want to believe a body(the government) that continually relaxes regulations on plants that have known problems(cracks, leaks etc) simply so those plants can keep producing energy, that is your business.