Monday, December 19, 2011

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.

7 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.

curt nuke roadie wilson said...

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.