Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

[Hogweed]

Full article at http://www.counterpunch.org/sherman06102011.html

EXTRACT

By JANETTE D. SHERMAN, MD
and JOSEPH MANGANO

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)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.

Spewing from the Fukushima reactor are radioactive isotopes including those of iodine (I-131), strontium (Sr-90) and cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) all of which are taken up in food and water. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, Sr-90 in bones and teeth and Cs-134 and Cs-137 in soft tissues, including the heart. The unborn and babies are more vulnerable because the cells are rapidly dividing and the delivered dose is proportionally larger than that delivered to an adult.

 

[Hogweed]

Re: Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

I've found some criticism of this on the web based on the fact that the authors picked 4 weeks before and 10 weeks after. Why not compare like with like period. The critics point to an earlier spike that would have been included in that extended range. I'm guessing the cause for the prior spike was seasonal variation and the flu wave. But that doesn't explain the later spike if indeed it is significant.

The earlier spike the critics point to can possibly be explained by the CDC chart below.

 

[jflorida]

Re: Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

Wouldn't there need to be a mechanism besides broad exposure and wouldn't a trend be discernible by location and exposure rate?

The article doesn't even give the cause of death, which is bizarre to say the least.

Also the volume that they cite as being from the New York Academy of Sciences is a big red flag. It has not been peer reviewed. It is not endorsed by them. [ http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1 ]

 

[Emily]

Re: Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?

There's some data here regarding infant mortality and fallout from Chinese atomic bomb testing in 1976 that reached the US East Coast, and also the aftermath of 3 Mile Island in 1979.

Secret Fallout, Low-Level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three Mile Island, 1982

Here is the EPA assessment of the 1976 fallout (rain-out) on the East Coast.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/er/520-5-77-002.pdf

Experts were surprised that fallout traveled that far, (heard the same thing about the Fukushima fallout that has been detected on the West Coast.)

Here is some of the data collected on that by UW and UC Berkeley:

http://www.npl.washington.edu/monitoring/
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/UCBAirSampling

(I haven't compared the exposure levels of the 3 events.)