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

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Hurricane Harvey Couldn't Stop the South Texas Project

As Hurricane Harvey battered southeast Texas over the past week, the devastation and loss of life in its wake have kept our attention and been a cause of grief.

Through the tragedy, many stories of heroics and sacrifice have emerged. Among those who have sacrificed are nearly 250 workers who have been hunkered down at the South Texas Project (STP) nuclear plant in Matagorda County, Texas.

STP’s priorities were always the safety of their employees and the communities they serve. We are proud that STP continued to operate at full power throughout the storm. It is a true testament to the reliability and resiliency of not only the operators but of our industry.

The world is starting to notice what a feat it is to have maintained operations through the catastrophic event. Forbes’ Rod Adams did an excellent job describing the contribution of these men and women:

“STP storm crew members deserve to be proud of the work that they are doing. Their families should take comfort in the fact that…

New Home for Our Blog: Join Us on NEI.org

On February 27, NEI launched the new NEI.org. We overhauled the public site, framing all of our content around the National Nuclear Energy Strategy.

So, what's changed?

Our top priority was to put you, the user, first. Now you can quickly get the information you need. You'll enjoy visiting the site with its intuitive navigation, social media integration and compelling and shareable visuals. We've added a feature called Nuclear Now, which showcases the latest industry news and resources like fact sheets and reports. It's one of the first sections you'll see on our home page and it can be accessed anywhere throughout the site by clicking on the atom symbol in the top right corner of the page.
Most importantly for you, our loyal NEI Nuclear Notes readers, is that we've migrated the blog to the new site. Moving forward, all blog posts will be published in the News section, along with our press releases, Nuclear Energy Overview stories and more. Just look for the &qu…