E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA provocative new study released this week suggests as many as 14,000 Americans may have died as a result of exposure to radioactive particles blown here from Japan after the Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown in March. But even though the report is gaining some attention, experts say there is no scientific basis for its claims.
The study, published in the International Journal of Health Services, was based on mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and compared death rates before and after the cloud of radioactive air rising out of the crippled reactor hit U.S. shores.
Joseph Mangano, the lead author of the new report, says the number of deaths in the spring of 2011 was 4.46 percent higher than in the previous spring and the most likely cause was the higher levels of radiation.
Mangano also found an increase of 2.34 percent in the winter of 2011 compared to the previous year, but he called that increase “standard,” as opposed to the beginning of a trend. Mangano said he couldn’t prove that the higher than expected death rate was due to radiation, but he said he believed it was the leading contender. He was unable to point to any studies showing how low levels of radiation in the U.S. would cause death.
While U.S. deaths did rise in 2011, radiation doesn't make sense as the cause, experts say.
“There’s nothing in the radiation health effects research to substantiate those claims,” said Bernadette Burden, a spokesperson for the CDC.
Radiation expert Andrew Maidment said that the levels of radiation that blew over the U.S. were too low to have caused any deaths – especially in such a short period of time following the disaster.
“For acute radiation sickness you would need much higher levels of radioactivity,” said Maidment, an associate professor of radiology and chief of the physics section in the department of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania. “The levels they are talking about we see naturally occurring across the country.”
What Maidment means is that normal radiation levels vary from region to region around the nation. And though the levels rose in certain areas as a result of the cloud of particles coming from the reactor, those levels still weren’t the highest measured around the U.S. so, they’re still within the norm for the U.S.
Cancers typically associated with lower levels of radiation take years to develop, Maidment explained. “With leukemia, you’re talking about five to seven years,” he said. “And there’s a 10 to 20 year delay for solid tumors. I know of no mechanism that could get you instantaneous mortality from radiation at lower levels.”
Dr. Robert L. Brent agreed. “The exposure of the USA population was extremely small and could not account for any acute lethal effects of radiation,” said Brent, a member of the National Counsel for Radiation Protection and distinguished professor of pediatrics, radiology and pathology at the Jefferson Medical College and the Dupont Hospital for Children.
"The authors indicated that SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) was increased according to the mortality figures the authors obtained from the CDC," said Brent. "To infer that SIDS can be produced by low or high exposures to protracted radiation is naïve. That is not even a remote possibility."
So, how can you explain the rise in U.S. deaths following the reactor disaster?
There’s something called biological variability, Brent said. “For example, if you look at reports from the CDC on birth defects, you might find in a particular month a single case of Down Syndrome. The next month there might be seven. That’s biological variability.”
You can’t assume that a bump in the death rate was caused by a particular factor just because the timing was right, Brent said. “It has to be biologically plausible before you think about linking the two.”
Some associations are just the result of chance, experts said.
Maidment said it’s always possible that the events in Japan made some people in the U.S. very worried. “One thing we do know is that stress correlates with mortality,” he added. “It might be interesting to see if there was an increase in mortality after other highly stressful events, such as 9/11.”
Read more Vitals. It's good for you!
Deadly shoulder massager relaxes, strangles
Tiny listeria survivor comes home for Christmas
Maggots speedier than surgeons at wound cleaning
Leave a Comment:
Japanese radiation causing death in such a short time is nonsense. Just look at the effects from the depleted uranium artillery shells the U.S. military used in Iraq and Afghanistan; it took a whole year before the deformed babies started to be born and it took two years before the babies, children, and adults started dying from radiation poisoning and cancer.
LINK: Deformed Babies from American Depleted Uranium
Uh, you need to study up because the radiation does in fact kill embryos, fetuses and newborn infants that fast. The other effects, like the mutated babies? That takes a little more time, you are correct in that. The thyroid cancers show in 2 years, and then the solid tumors in 5 plus years. This is well documented fact. I do not know where you are reading, but you might want to switch to scientific journals where they have to prove what they say. He said she said is not really a good source of info.
This is pure bunk, junk and garbage, radiation unless it is high dosage, take years to kill/cause a death; I would bet everything I own that this article was funded by Big Oil/Coal to instill needless fear in the uneducated, anti-science population of the U.S. to continue to impede the progess of nuclear energy in this country.
Do a little quick research and you can easily find data to to crush the bull@!$%# in this article.
False. You are completely wrong, and the ignorance of your comment is astounding. Radiation in any dose, no matter how small can and does kill developing fetuses, embryos, and newborn infants. Learn a little something on a subject you intend to comment on...It's just common sense.
So where can we pick up your stuff, because you lost that bet as soon as you spoke. This is the nuclear machine in all its glory. If you did some research you would know that.
Now I know the reason for feeling so shi^^y ,and that lump on my neck keep getting bigger and bigger.ouch I'm calling my attorney.
This Mangano fellow should be reassigned as assistant bottle washer in the lab.
Right...and you should maybe go back to pre-school and try to learn something again. Because you so obviously know nothing on this subject. Nothing.
"Experts say NO" Will these experts lose their life if their wrong? Experts will be counting the dead from now on and placing bets on the correct number? Nothing to see here, move along,move along.
Another great example of why we should NEVER listen to the "experts"
You are listening to them now. Another great example of why we should not listen to the uneducated and uninformed, like yourself.
I believe the original article stated that the majority of increased deaths was among infants, under 1 years old, and compared that number to infants who died after Chernobyl. I'll leave the possibility open that infant mortality may have spiked due to radiation.
Two items that ought to be in the headlines are:
1. Fukishima Reactors are still melting down and #4, which was not running at the time of the quake, is about to collapse. There is LOTS of radioactive waste being stored on the top floor of #4 that may end up in the Pacific to add to the 100s of thousands of gallons of radioactive water that has already "leaked" into the ocean.
2. The US ranks poorly in infant mortality rates, but this is rarely addressed. "Pro-lifers" only seem to be interested in fetuses in the womb, but have no concern for babies born into poverty or poor pregnant women who do not have insurance.
I hate scientists who make huge assumptions and foist them off as scientifically substantiated almost as much as I hate journalists who give them a public forum.....
I hate people who talk about things they know nothing about. Like this subject or instance. Spikes in infant mortality is one way they track the disaster. Did you not know that? Guess not. Might want to do a little reading before you make a fool of yourself even further.
You get more radiation spending one day outside when the sun is shining than what eventually reached the U.S. from that nuclear plant. And it wouldn't happen that fast anyway! On the other hand however, I'd be totally bummed to live even within 100 miles of that plant because to be sure, there will be a major increase in cancers/tumors/birth defects directly related to that reactor--and that sucks to be sure! But for us---use sun screen, don't smoke and try to live as healthy as possible. Don't WORRY....we're all going to die someday--so enjoy it best you can until then!
False.
The hot particles went into the jet stream when the explosions occurred, and further, the radiation continues to emit to this day. It is not over. It is still emitting radiation. The west coast got a HUGE dose. I guess you might have missed that information-huh?
Hello, my name is Chris Noland. I was in the Fukushima disaster I am the director of a Documentary titled "Surviving Japan", a documentary I made as a volunteer in the disaster while I was living in Japan. The documentary shows the humanitarian and aid crisis that faced the people in the wake of both natural and nuclear disaster. It features true stories from those affected by the disaster, the government and even TEPCO. It highlights the struggle in dealing with: The Tsunami clean-up, lack of Government response to the disaster, radiation plus the future of nuclear power after the accident, a possible Cover-up of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear disaster.
I am currently seeking funding to complete this film for a March release.
I would appreciate your assistance in any way, if not only by sharing the information on your blog and or social media networks.
Thank you and have a Great New Year,
Chris Noland
Funding Link:
Youtube:
no links huh? just look up Surviving Japan documentary!
It is obvious that hardly anyone on this blog knows anything about radiation and I am truly sorry but your ignorance is laughable, if it were not so tragic. Infant mortality is scientifically proven to be associated with radiation release, and it does not have to be an extraordinary amount either. You guys seriously need to do a little research before you post such foolish and baseless comments. It is why pregnant women and children are evacuated. From the level of intelligent comments I have seen here, I would bet most of you believe in the Easter Bunny too. Infants and embryos die IMMEDIATELY from radiation...because their cells are dividing very fast. Then later, about 2 to 5 years, those who were children will begin to get thyroid cancers, and then the march of the solid tumors will begin. Reading here has been an exercise in torture, because hardly any of the posters know a thing of which they speak. Do a little reading-it helps you learn.
Here is a link to the original article: http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf.
Here is a link to an article debunking a similar article by the same authors and using the same methodology: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/, and the actual data from which the authors picked their data in the original article are here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ass5dxTp_CuzdFlhOTdydVFVTGVoN0drZ2tud1k4eUE&hl=en_US#gid=0. Readers who understand statistical reasoning will immediately see the article for the nonsense it is, but the second link will aid those who do not to so seeing the article.
Here is a link to the organization with which the organizers are associated, the Radiation and Public Health Project: http://www.radiation.org/. A few moments spent checking out the links posted on the page will lead to the usual alarmist loons.
(The group, by the by, seems indeed to operate from an area not too distant from where "Jersey Shore" is made: Ocean City, New Jersey.)