***ushima article infant deaths 35% increase in ca bay area
06-16-2011, 12:51 PM
#1
***ushima article infant deaths 35% increase in ca bay area
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...m_medium=tweet
japanese should be fined for that. Those big wigs totally neglected the power plant until it was too late, shoulda asked for help a week before they did. Idiots.
japanese should be fined for that. Those big wigs totally neglected the power plant until it was too late, shoulda asked for help a week before they did. Idiots.
06-16-2011, 12:56 PM
#2
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
In the US, physician Janette Sherman MD and epidemiologist Joseph Mangano published an essay shedding light on a 35 per cent spike in infant mortality in northwest cities that occurred after the ***ushima meltdown, and may well be the result of fallout from the stricken nuclear plant.
06-16-2011, 01:00 PM
#4
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
also: the type of radioactive material that was threatening the US takes years to cause cancer and death and, generally, is inhaled as a particulate.
pretty sure that's a problem for anyone in utero.
pretty sure that's a problem for anyone in utero.
06-17-2011, 11:16 AM
#8
Yeah, You've Probably Never Heard Of Me.
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: in a glass case of emotion.
Posts: 17,962
Car Info: 345/30/19s
wow, theres ALOT wrong with this.
First off, whats the first thing they teach you in statistics?
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
First of all that report on infant mortality, the 35% increase? yeah it would be alarming if you were talking about a significantly large number but heres the actual numbers from the report (which there was conveniently no link to in the above article)
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.c...atic-incr.html
yep, that whopping 35% is 3 deaths. Also if you want to have a meaningful comparison it should be of a at least a year before and a year after, using only a control of four weeks is not nearly enough, especially when your dealing with numbers in the single digits.
They also dont even look at a single infant death case to see if any of them could have even remotely been connected to radiation poisoning, infant death includes everything, abuse, choking, SIDS, hell I could have made the same argument that the extra 3 deaths a week were caused by us bombing Libya, since it was happening half a world away at the same time!
And the BIGGEST thing that should have you guys questioning this is THERES BEEN NO INCREASE IN INFANT MORTALITY IN JAPAN. You know, the place on the other side of the world where this **** happened? if our infant mortality jumped 35% on this even though we didnt get anymore radiation over here than using a cell phone (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/ra...ling-data.html) you would think they would be dropping like flies over there right? Or even in Hawaii which is twice as close??
Jeez guys, we really need to apply some critical thinking to and a bit of our own research to all these articles with inflammatory headlines that get passed around so easily on the internet. When I googled the names of the doctors looking for their essay all I got was two full pages of hits with pretty much the exact same headline as this thread. This is what the internet does to us now, we just want to get inflamed over headlines without actually reading it and forming our own opinions. We've become the TL;DR generation.
First off, whats the first thing they teach you in statistics?
CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION
First of all that report on infant mortality, the 35% increase? yeah it would be alarming if you were talking about a significantly large number but heres the actual numbers from the report (which there was conveniently no link to in the above article)
The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:
4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)
4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)
yep, that whopping 35% is 3 deaths. Also if you want to have a meaningful comparison it should be of a at least a year before and a year after, using only a control of four weeks is not nearly enough, especially when your dealing with numbers in the single digits.
They also dont even look at a single infant death case to see if any of them could have even remotely been connected to radiation poisoning, infant death includes everything, abuse, choking, SIDS, hell I could have made the same argument that the extra 3 deaths a week were caused by us bombing Libya, since it was happening half a world away at the same time!
And the BIGGEST thing that should have you guys questioning this is THERES BEEN NO INCREASE IN INFANT MORTALITY IN JAPAN. You know, the place on the other side of the world where this **** happened? if our infant mortality jumped 35% on this even though we didnt get anymore radiation over here than using a cell phone (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/ra...ling-data.html) you would think they would be dropping like flies over there right? Or even in Hawaii which is twice as close??
Jeez guys, we really need to apply some critical thinking to and a bit of our own research to all these articles with inflammatory headlines that get passed around so easily on the internet. When I googled the names of the doctors looking for their essay all I got was two full pages of hits with pretty much the exact same headline as this thread. This is what the internet does to us now, we just want to get inflamed over headlines without actually reading it and forming our own opinions. We've become the TL;DR generation.
06-17-2011, 11:55 AM
#9
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
And the BIGGEST thing that should have you guys questioning this is THERES BEEN NO INCREASE IN INFANT MORTALITY IN JAPAN. You know, the place on the other side of the world where this **** happened? if our infant mortality jumped 35% on this even though we didnt get anymore radiation over here than using a cell phone (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/ra...ling-data.html) you would think they would be dropping like flies over there right? Or even in Hawaii which is twice as close??
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
