Skip to main content

Joseph Mangano Contradicts His Own Press Release on Fukushima Research

Our readers will recall that on Friday afternoon that we were alerted to the impending release of a study authored by Joseph Mangano and Dr. Janette Sherman on the alleged effects of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi incident here in the U.S.

Earlier today, Mangano and company held a teleconference to announce their findings:
An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services.
Sounds scary, doesn't it? Then again, only a few hours later, Mangano admitted in an interview with MedPage Today that the results of his research weren't quite as definitive as his press release would have led folks to believe:
But he (Managno) told MedPage Today that the researchers can't rule out factors other than the Fukushima radiation that might have accounted for the excess.

"There are probably a variety of factors that could be linked to this excess of 14,000 deaths," he said.
Huh? In any case, it's clear that the scientific community doesn't think terribly much of Mangano and his study. As luck would have it, MedPage Today also talked to Richard L. Morin, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida:
On the contrary, any link between the deaths and the radiation released by the reactors is "very, very unlikely" simply because the levels are low, according to Richard Morin, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Morin told MedPage Today that such an acute effect would be unlikely, unless radiation levels were four or five orders of magnitude higher than those reported by Mangano and Sherman, and the whole body of the victim was exposed.

Typically, he said, the effect of low-level ionizing radiation doesn't appear until years after the exposure.

Morin, who is chair of the American College of Radiology's safety committee, said an earlier public report by the authors on the same issue -- preceding the journal article -- "has not been taken seriously by the scientific community."

He added it's important to remember that "association doesn't imply causation.
It's been more than six years since I wrote my first post on Mangano's antics. As I wrote at the time, eight states have investigated Mangano's claims and all eight refused to validate them. One wonders why reporters even bother to talk to him anymore when his work has been so thoroughly debunked.

Comments

nallen11 said…
What? The article is not even going to be released until tomorrow and already the pro nuke "community" is rallying around with criticism. Let's read the article first and please call off the vultures.
Joffan said…
The technique is simple. Take the weekly variation from average or last-year's deaths in a number of regions around the country, ignore the negative numbers (where deaths are lower than average), and add up the rest. Presto! loads of "excess deaths".

Of course, if you apply the same technique to the period before Fukushima, or any other period you choose, you'll get the same result.
Rod Adams said…
@nallen11 (whoever you are)

There is no reason to wait to attack work written by such reliable misinformation spreaders as Mangano and Sherman. As Eric pointed out in his post, there is a long history available that shows exactly how unreliable their information is and how reliably it is used in attempts to discourage the beneficial use of nuclear energy.

Eric points to the debunking of the baby teeth studies by Mangano, I like to share what I know about Sherman's efforts as the editor of the book titled "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" that was printed by the New York Academy of Sciences under some rather intriguing circumstances that involved an editor making individual decisions without any peer review.

Here is a link to a devastating review of that book - published more than a year after it was released with much fan fare by professional antinuclear activists like Helen Caldicott and Harvey Wasserman.

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/10/devastating-review-of-yablokovs-chernobyl-consequences-of-the-catastrophe-for-people-and-the-environment.html

I have little use for people who dedicate their professional lives and make a reasonably generous living by spreading misinformation about the most important source of emission free, reliable energy available today.

Darn right I am pro-nuclear. So is reality.

IMHO, a large portion of the opposition to nuclear energy comes from people who have strong financial interests associated with maintaining society's current addiction to fossil fuel.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Cyril R said…
Also see this debunking by Alexey Goldin:

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/06/guest-post-curious-case-of-cherry.html
SteveK9 said…
Why do reporters talk to him? Fear sells papers. When the number of people who actually fear this rubbish becomes small enough, then these guys will be out of business. You don't see reporters rushing to interview people who are opposed to those new-fangled horseless carriages. Although there were plenty of those articles at one time. It's the usual fear of technical progress.
once again the point is missed. whether or not their so called data holds up to scrutiny is not that important.their message will be spread by those unwilling or unable to discern fact from fiction as gospel. the simple fact that the report is being dissected all over the internet shows the power it has. those against nuclear power will sing its praises and ignore any facts that don't fit in with their beliefs. still, keep trying to expose the truth and maybe some will pay attention,maybe.
Anonymous said…
The mis-information wheels are spinning.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…