Skip to main content

More on No New Nukes Propaganda

I just wanted to add a few things to David’s excellent analysis below.

First, I challenge No New Nukes use of total infant mortality rates to demonstrate that operation of the Clinton power plant causes adverse health effects. The most obvious problem with using this data is that it includes ALL causes of death. For instance, if you dig into the data from the Centers for Disease Control (from which the numbers are taken), you’ll see that the infant mortality numbers for 1999-2001 include deaths from drowning, homicide, parasitic diseases, and “non-transport accidents.” What the heck do those have to do with the operation of the Clinton power plant?

I would also argue that showing breast cancer incidents without taking total population into account is ridiculous. That is why epidemiologists calculate mortality rates (usually per 100,000 people). However, if No New Nukes had calculated the rates, the differences among the time periods shown would be statistically insignificant at best. If one tries to find such rates on the CDC website the number comes back as "UNRELIABLE" because the population is too small to have a reasonable confidence interval.

Last, I’ll expand on the information to which David points at the end of his post. The links refuting the claims of Mangano, Sternglass, and Stewart are pages on NEI’s website and I know that some nuclear opponents tend to dismiss as biased anything NEI says. However, if you navigate to these documents you’ll see that the referenced sources include the likes of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the health departments of New York, New Jersey, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.

These entities harshly criticized the findings of Mangano (and his Radiation and Public Health Project), Sternglass, and Stewart with such words as:
“[This] is a flawed report, with substantial errors in methodology and invalid statistics. As a result, any information gathered through this project would not stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific community.” [New Jersey Commission on Radiation Protection]
“The rise is artificial. He created the rise...If you look at what he did, he picked points, whether intentional or not, that made them go in the direction he wanted. Some would argue he produced the results he wanted." [Kim Mortensen, Ohio chief of the epidemiology and toxicology bureau.].
“Dr. Sternglass’ words have the potential of creating fear, apprehension, stress and even panic among the residents of central Pennsylvania. This is totally irresponsible, and the Department of Health regrets that the public has been subjected to such unfounded statements from Dr. Sternglass." [Dr. George Tokuhata, Pennsylvania Dept of Health]
“The ‘three independent tests’ [with which Dr. Sternglass claimed to have verified his data] were not tests at all, but other papers written by Dr. Sternglass using the same irresponsible method of interpreting and selecting figures to fit his conclusions." [Michigan Department of Health]
Frankly, Mangano and friends have been pummeled by so many credible experts and highly regarded organizations that I'm surprised any self-respecting antinuclear activist still trots them out.

UPDATE: You can read an account of last night's hearing by clicking here.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin