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:
UPDATE: You can read an account of last night's hearing by clicking here.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Clinton ESP, Illinois, Exelon
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: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Clinton ESP, Illinois, Exelon
Comments