It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


60% Stillborn Rate in Tokyo? Can This Be Right? SB Rate up 48% in Philadelphia due to Iodine 131 in

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:33 AM
Read MikeNZ comment at bottom of page

The author of the last comment to this story is claiming a 60% infant mortality rate in Tokyo. I wanted to bring this to the attention of ATS for research and discussion. I was hoping that someone in our community has more reliable stats or information. This number sounds incredibly high; but, a few searches has me wondering if it could be close to right. I could not find any recent statistics through a search to prove, or disprove, this claim. I did find sites claiming that Japan has refused to release infant mortality rates since the disaster. I found multiple sites that claimed that fetus mortality rates, due to miscarriage and abortion, ran 28% before the meltdowns. This statistic is what made me wonder if the 60% could possibly be right. Of course, the author of this reply may be full of it; or, he may have misunderstood a statistic that said deaths were up 60%. That does not quite fit based on this story:

Stillborn rate up 48% in Philadelphia

If the rate is up 48 % on the other side of the planet, the rate could be as bad as this poster claims in Japan.

This site also makes the following extraordinary statements that also makes the poster's numbers sound plausible.

Tokyo soil so contaminated with radiation it would be considered nuclear waste in US Learn more:

If Reactor 4 fuel explodes, the world is done for Learn more:

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:46 AM

If the rate is up 48 %.....

I'd be really careful here, figures/statistics can get misconstrued so easily.

The infant mortality rate goes up and down like a yoyo and can only be considered accurate when a large enough 'sample' is taken over a long period of time. Even years is considered a small time frame when talking about mortality rates.

If there are on average 2 still-borns per hospital a week and then one week they have three SB' one week the infant-mortality rate has just risen by 50%.

It sounds dramatic until you get all the facts and then realise that the media were just adding spin on a slow news day.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:59 AM
reply to post by OccamAssassin

Even years is considered a small time frame when talking about mortality rates.

yep and just like Chernobyl we wont know the true cost for years if not decades to come...

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:59 AM
reply to post by OccamAssassin

I understand how stats can be skewed, such as in the case of the Philly story. It said the rate rose by 48% (from 5 to 7.5 deaths per week); it does not mention the total number of births. If the total number of births has risen by 50%(not likely), this stat could be bunk; but, with the time frame reference AND the rising iodine tests, it sounds related and accurate.

Now, on to Japan. The man posting the comment stated that the stillborn rate WAS 60%, not has risen by 60%--There is a huge difference. According to Wiki, the stillborn rate in the US is a little under 1% in comparison. Out of 100 births that is the difference of about 1 and 60.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:10 AM
reply to post by supertrot

I'd be inclined to think the figures are complete bunk.

According to the United Nations, Japan also has the third lowest infant mortality rate.[11][12]

That was taken from the last sentence in the fourth paragraph from the top.....

According to this

Angola has the highest infant-mortality rate at a hair over 18%

To Quote Homer Simpson ....."Statistics can be used to prove anything, 89% of people will tell you that".

edit on 22/7/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:33 AM
reply to post by OccamAssassin

If you look at the references for that wiki sentence, the information was retrieved in January, 2011. I am looking for current numbers; pre-meltdown numbers are useless. We have already learned that radiation levels that reach the US may be worse than those found in Japan now. From my research, Japan has refused to release infant mortality numbers after the disaster. If we are next on the list, I would like to know where the current mortality stands.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:35 AM

Originally posted by supertrot
I did find sites claiming that Japan has refused to release infant mortality rates since the disaster.

If this is true then their silence speaks volumes.

If they genuinly do not know you would think they would say, but if they refuse to say there must be a reason behind this. After the recent disasters you could understand if the information is not available or complete or if they dont want to release it until it has been verified, but again they would say this.

It does suggest that they have something they want to keep hidden or at best delay until a better time to release said inormation (played down so that it goes unnoticed).

If the rates had gone down or remained the same, this would be good news and would support the claims that the distaster has been sorted out.

Coupled with claims that rates have gone up elsewhere and if these can be linked with iodine from Fuku, then that is not good news at all.

Edit to add:
Birth rates are fluctuating all the time and there are many reasons behind this. As previous posters have said statistics can be used to back any claim.
edit on 22/7/2012 by YarlanZey because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:47 AM
reply to post by supertrot

You should really read the quote in my signature.

Hmmmm......only relevant after the meltdown.....ok then

In the years 2008 through 2010, more than 1.5 million children were born in Ukraine, compared to fewer than 1.2 million during 1999–2001 during the worst of the demographic crisis. Infant mortality rates have also dropped from 10.4 deaths to 8.9 per 1,000 children under one year of age. This is still high in comparison, however, to many other nations.

That was taken from under demographics.

Do you still want to tell me that the infant-mortality rate in Japan has risen by 6000% in three years to an all-time record breaking 60%?

Your research blows.......I managed to prove the OP figures as bunk by using nothing more than wikipedia........Maybe you should add wikipedia as a 'source' when researching fairytales topics.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:52 AM
reply to post by supertrot

you also claimed that the infant mortality rate before the meltdown was 28% (which is complete nonsense)

has it risen? probably
did you get bad information? yeah.... you did

60% is absolutely insane and you would be able to track down stories of this left and right from would be parents in japan (there is NO WAY to hide a 60% infant mortality rate)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by sirhumperdink

Calm down folks. I simply found a unbelievable statistic in a comment to an RT news article and decided to investigate it further. My investigation has led to even more questions. I failed to provide links for some of the information in my OP and replies. I am searching back through material to remedy that problem. Keep in mind that these numbers reflect data from all if Japan and not Just Tokyo.

This article is where I found the 28% statistic; this number includes miscarriages AND abortion. The article claims that the rate of miscarriage and abortion has not changed since the quake; but, remains at the 28% pre-quake level. Keep in mind, abortions and many other infant deaths are not included in published infant mortality rates.

[url=]This[/url ] article features a video which claims that Japan does not include malformed or disabled infant deaths in statistics. Here is the video transcript summary:

Transcript Summary This is a little difficult to say, but when i talked with various to medical workers [...] I said “Why do we hardly see [malformed and disabled] people in Japan?” to the medical worker, whoever they were, or whether they were my colleagues, nurses or doctors. And they said to me ” That is, Ms. Ichikawa, because we are made not to know”. I mean doctors control such babies’ births by making them not born, or declaring them to be still births,” they said to me [...] Such babies are not included on the statistics When we are said from now on, five years later or ten, “The numerical hasnt been chnaged at all,” we’ll need to suspect that there is a hidden numeral behind it.

I will search for the other related information that originally sparked my interest in this alarmingly high number and post links as soon as possible.

edit on 22-7-2012 by supertrot because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 01:07 PM
If Japan has NOT released a single peep about its current infant mortality rates post-disaster--what ARE they and WHY hasn't anything been released?

Regardless of people commenting on articles or whatever, these are two completely valid questions and deserve thorough investigation until any kind of answer (positive, negative, or neutral) is found.

Anyone who wants to argue that these are not valid questions... Well, what is the motto here, deny ignorance?

There have been the odd shoddy videos on youtube (buried somewhere in the megathread) where people have ranted about the mortality statistics being fudged to obfuscate an alarming number of birth defects, but it has always remained a question whether or not the sources were legit.

I'd love to know more about what's really going on, either way...

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:20 PM
Ok... I will probably p_ss off some people by saying this... but watch, think twice, think three times before you purchase anything from J. Or at least if you're considering a big purchase- get or borrow a geiger counter to test it with (which from what I read, is not that comprehensive in detecting all the different types of radiation).

posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:42 PM
An abortion isn't a stillborn, is it? Jeez.

Complete non-story.

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 12:35 AM
The planet is already overpopulated. One additional human has more of an impact on the ecosystem (especially in an urban area) than any other animal. Population control anyone?

new topics

top topics


log in