Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

American Babies Born Right After Fukushima Show Elevated Rate of Abnormalities

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The source is highly dubious - the publishers - Bentham Science - use the "author pays" model - ie if you want to get published they will do it - if you pay them.

I can't find any info as to who does the peer review they claim.

Bealles list of predatory, open access publishers has this to say of them:


Among the first, large-scale gold OA publishers, Bentham Open continues to expand its fleet of journals, now numbering over 230. Bentham essentially operates as a scholarly vanity press.


Which is to say their authors are people who want to see their name in print and can't get it otherwise.

While the subject is obviously of some concern, the source is dubious at best.


Agreed.

I read the article, and a few things strike me as strange. The authors chose a time window that starts pretty much at the time when the reactors started developing failures and releases of radiation just started to occur. I don't think that a fully developed embryo would suffer such increased rates being allegedly exposed to iodine just a few days before birth.

And speaking of systematic errors - one of the numbers they quoted was the 16% INCREASE in the rates, in a few states, while most other states saw a 3% DECREASE. You see, the "plume" couldn't have just stopped on Oregon's borders, it's pretty high in the atmosphere. Makes you wonder what the error margins are, what are seasonal or other fluctuations, and whether the factor (if any) was altogether different.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The source is highly dubious - the publishers - Bentham Science - use the "author pays" model - ie if you want to get published they will do it - if you pay them.

I can't find any info as to who does the peer review they claim.

Bealles list of predatory, open access publishers has this to say of them:


Among the first, large-scale gold OA publishers, Bentham Open continues to expand its fleet of journals, now numbering over 230. Bentham essentially operates as a scholarly vanity press.


Which is to say their authors are people who want to see their name in print and can't get it otherwise.

While the subject is obviously of some concern, the source is dubious at best.


You can't dismiss this article because it is published in an Open source online journal. One, this could not have been published in a Main Steam Funded Journal where those Peer Review panels are funded by Big Pharma, Big Energy and the like. Often those with new ideas and approaches are ridiculed in the Main Stream Medical community. Two, there is a long history of suppressing the data on effects of radiation that have been collected since Hiroshima - much of that initial intensive data collecting is still classified.

Here is a link to the article where you can download the entire article for free (as opposed to most journal site where you have to pay): www.scirp.org...

I don't know who or what "Bealles list of predatory, open access publishers" is and I am somewhat concerned of your ready recall of such a site and remind you that many such sites are in fact more sources to humiliate and stop cutting edge (threatening to the status quo) research.

Historically many scientists were "Self-Published" and there is nothing inherently 'dubious' about it.

In the actual paper, on page five there is a discussion of why these rates rose:




For births March 17 to December 31, the 2010-2011 change in confirmed CH cases in the five Pacific/West Coast States was significantly greater than for 36 other US States (p



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 



I continue




Dr. Janette D. Sherman

Janette D. Sherman, MD, is Research Colleague and Lecturer for the Radiation and Public Health Project.

Dr. Sherman's experience includes research at Michigan State University; the Atomic Energy Commission at the University of California Berkeley; consultant to the US Environmental Protection Agency for the Toxic Substances Control Act from 1976-1982; and Clinical Assistant Professor at Wayne State University Medical School.

She publishes and lectures in the field of toxicology and currently is an Adjunct Professor of Environmental Studies at West ern Michigan University in Kalamazoo where she consults with graduate students and faculty on workers' illnesses.

She is the author of Life's Delicate Balance Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer as well as Chemical Exposure and Disease.

Visit her website at www.janettesherman.com...




I took the original review articles about this research finding from sources that are good about checking their sources: Uprising - a KPFK (Pacifica Network) radio show with outstanding credentials; Alternet with better than most fact checking working in partnership with GlobalPossibilities.com who I'm just coming to know.

These three sources are routinely demonized by Main Stream Corporate Media and Business and tread very carefully with the Truth because of it.

Believe what you want but please don't denigrate this information. We don't know what it all means at this point but hiding it or hiding from it will not make it go away. The first step is to gather facts which is very hard to do with Nuclear subjects because of the difficulty of the subject and deliberate obfuscation of the data collected over decades. Don't forget - the Japanese lied, the US lied - when it comes to Nuclear issues all we get are lies.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I read the article, and a few things strike me as strange. The authors chose a time window that starts pretty much at the time when the reactors started developing failures and releases of radiation just started to occur. I don't think that a fully developed embryo would suffer such increased rates being allegedly exposed to iodine just a few days before birth.



Please see the actual quote from the article I quoted in the above reply.

PS - Another point - the authors used official data from the EPA, which cannot be the most reliable source for radionuclide levels - the situation could actually be much worse.
edit on 5-4-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-4-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Please see the actual quote from the article I quoted in the above reply.


I'm a trained physicist with a PhD in nuclear physics from a pretty well known school.

When I see "oh it's suppression, they suppress, they don't allow us to publish", I pretty much know you ran out of arguments and aren't able to defend your point. Suppression my arse.

I did read the quote. It doesn't make sense. If you claim that a 16% uptick in one state is so damn significant, you better be prepared to explain how a 3% downtick in a neighboring state is not. Ponder this. If you can't explain this, get lost. Further, low dose studies are well known to be hard to the point of impossible. The authors aren't able to demonstrate any correlation between the actual exposure (not measured by them) and any of the metrics they choose to present. They can't do it. Period.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by FyreByrd
Please see the actual quote from the article I quoted in the above reply.


I'm a trained physicist with a PhD in nuclear physics from a pretty well known school.

When I see "oh it's suppression, they suppress, they don't allow us to publish", I pretty much know you ran out of arguments and aren't able to defend your point. Suppression my arse.

I did read the quote. It doesn't make sense. If you claim that a 16% uptick in one state is so damn significant, you better be prepared to explain how a 3% downtick in a neighboring state is not. Ponder this. If you can't explain this, get lost. Further, low dose studies are well known to be hard to the point of impossible. The authors aren't able to demonstrate any correlation between the actual exposure (not measured by them) and any of the metrics they choose to present. They can't do it. Period.



I'm not a trained scientist and only took the statistics class I was required to for my major. Tell me how they came up with demonstratable 'significance' statistically if they couldn't correlate the measured levels of beta particals and an increase in Congenital Hypothyrdism?
edit on 6-4-2013 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't usually have a conspiracy theorist mind, but this case made me think about something.

All the problems (as far as I know) that have been associated with the Fukushima disaster can also be triggered by chemicals, so could it be that the event was used to make some "tests" without public knowledge?

Anyway, here's the link to the study.


Read ENEnews to get an idea what has happened at Fukushima and the extent of the coverup, and at the same time wake the H up:

Good Fuku related news site

I can't fathom how one can be a mod here and not be aware of the issues and coverup related to Fukushima.

Let me spell it out for you simply. The technology to use Thorium instead of uranium or plutonium has existed for decades, and to simplify it; Thorium's by-products are much less harmful than uranium or plutonium.

Why don't we use thorium worldwide? Because it produces no weapons grade by-products that can be made into nuclear weapons. That is why the devestating fallout from Fukushima is covered up, the PTB are afraid of losing their source of weapons grade material.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


The PTB have a huge vested interest in nuclear power as it is their main source of weapons grade material, and they fear losing their ability to produce these weapons. Thus it stands to reason there would be many paid disinfo agents defending it or criticizing attacks on it on a site like this.

Are you aware of this great site documenting what is going on at Fukushima?

ENEnews - for Fukushima info



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I can't fathom how one can be a mod here and not be aware of the issues and coverup related to Fukushima.

Did I say I was not aware?



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


The PTB have a huge vested interest in nuclear power as it is their main source of weapons grade material, and they fear losing their ability to produce these weapons. Thus it stands to reason there would be many paid disinfo agents defending it or criticizing attacks on it on a site like this.

Are you aware of this great site documenting what is going on at Fukushima?

ENEnews - for Fukushima info



I agree with you and have read bits at ENEnews from time to time. As to 'disinfo' agents and/or those who enjoy baiting people. I try, not always sucessfully, to either ignore them or, if important enough, counter with reason and facts that I can back-up.

I could have attacked the knowledge and integrity of a couple of posters, made a decent argument for their lying due to use of language and lexicon but it would not have accomphlished anything. Maybe I'd be wrong too.

This way maybe I'll learn something new, this way maybe someone else will see through a veil.

I know that in my short time at ATS, I've seen somethings I really don't like. The biggest being 'attack dogs' whose only reason for being it seems is to attack anothers character, intelligence and opinion and bait the well meaning into doing the same. Talk about ignorance.

I want to fight ignorance not deny it.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The source is highly dubious - the publishers - Bentham Science - use the "author pays" model - ie if you want to get published they will do it - if you pay them.



You can't dismiss this article because it is published in an Open source online journal. One, this could not have been published in a Main Steam Funded Journal where those Peer Review panels are funded by Big Pharma, Big Energy and the like. Often those with new ideas and approaches are ridiculed in the Main Stream Medical community. Two, there is a long history of suppressing the data on effects of radiation that have been collected since Hiroshima - much of that initial intensive data collecting is still classified.


There are plenty of people who get anti-big-pharma published in the recognised journals - when it is actually good science - eg Ben Goldacre (link is to his "Bad Science" blog.

This is a common excuse trotted out by CT's that is lazy and deceptive.

I don't know who or what "Bealles list of predatory, open access publishers" is and I am somewhat concerned of your ready recall of such a site and remind you that many such sites are in fact more sources to humiliate and stop cutting edge (threatening to the status quo) research.


I didn't have "ready recall" - I did a simple search on the web about the publisher - it's called research - looking for independantly sourced information about the topic in order to better judge the context.

Implying that someone would only do this in order to censor it is both insulting and nonsense.


Historically many scientists were "Self-Published" and there is nothing inherently 'dubious' about it.


Indeed - but self publishing is not the same as paying to appear to be "peer reviewed" - which is a highly dubious practice that smacks of deception
edit on 6-4-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Expand



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
I can't fathom how one can be a mod here and not be aware of the issues and coverup related to Fukushima.

Did I say I was not aware?


Well, you said you did not have a conspiracy mind, and Fukushima is one the biggest coverups ever and thus a conspiracy because someone must be behind the coverup, and you suggested that the problems associated with Fukushima could be non-radiation related. I was just surprised to hear a mod sounding like those either not aware of the coverup or part of the coverup.


Originally posted by ArMaP
I don't usually have a conspiracy theorist mind, but this case made me think about something.

All the problems (as far as I know) that have been associated with the Fukushima disaster can also be triggered by chemicals, so could it be that the event was used to make some "tests" without public knowledge?

Anyway, here's the link to the study.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The source is highly dubious

You would be correct. Too many people believe stories without the slightest bit of fact-checking.

The paper appears to be a junk-science propaganda piece written by someone (Joseph J. Mangano) who has been proven to have been discredited with his other junk-science papers in the past.

Don't believe the hype put out by propagandists.




edit on 7-4-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
For those interested in learning more about the health affects of Fukushima that we are not hearing about, or almost anything related to this story, you can check out this site, where much is DOCUMENTED:

Link to non-propaganda Fukushima news



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 





is it all the nuclear hoopla a complete hoax? wouldn't surprise me!


Cobalt-60 is supposed to be the big killer, and N.Korea has supposedly stockpiled large amounts that they could use for a 'dirty' bomb. Explode a Cobalt-60 clad conventional bomb over Alaska and it would kill the Alaskans, Canadians, and half of Americans! Yow! So I had to look up Cobalt-60 and how bad it is.
I suggest reading the following link.
The present top scare mongers are Jeff Rense and enenews.com, they must be paid by big oil to spout such unscientific drek. Anyway, to be fair, I'd like to be able to list all the scientific long-term studies of various levels of radiation on mice, rats, or other lab animals, so if anyone knows of such studies, perhaps they can post links to them here?




Effects of Cobalt-60 Exposure on Health of Taiwan Residents Suggest New Approach Needed in Radiation Protection

The conventional approach for radiation protection is based on the ICRP's linear, no threshold (LNT) model of radiation carcinogenesis, which implies that ionizing radiation is always harmful, no matter how small the dose. But a different approach can be derived from the observed health effects of the serendipitous contamination of 1700 apartments in Taiwan with cobalt-60 (T1/2 = 5.3 y). This experience indicates that chronic exposure of the whole body to low-dose-rate radiation, even accumulated to a high annual dose, may be beneficial to human health.


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE
Well, you said you did not have a conspiracy mind, and Fukushima is one the biggest coverups ever and thus a conspiracy because someone must be behind the coverup, and you suggested that the problems associated with Fukushima could be non-radiation related.

I was just trying to see a different conspiracy in it, one in which some people use the known Fukushima disaster to do their own dirty work.


I was just surprised to hear a mod sounding like those either not aware of the coverup or part of the coverup.

I guess I was not clear about what I was thinking, again.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The source is highly dubious

You would be correct. Too many people believe stories without the slightest bit of fact-checking.

The paper appears to be a junk-science propaganda piece written by someone (Joseph J. Mangano) who has been proven to have been discredited with his other junk-science papers in the past.

Don't believe the hype put out by propagandists.



I took a look at your source, a message board on the Nuclear Engineering Department of Berkely. Berkeley has been on the receiving end of funding for nuclear research and development since the beginning of the Atomic Era and so have a considerable bias towards Nuclear power in all it's forms. So you can hardly claim a non-partisan analysis of the article, the methodolgy or the conclusions. There is a clear conflict of interest shown.

This thread on a Public message board is dubious as well - just under the cover of a National Educational Insitiution - but they would never lie to us - nor try to discredit private research.

This is a tough call - both sides are clearly biased in their own way and for their own reasons. Government/Big Businees wants control, dominance and profit. Small NGOs generally want public well-being. Which motives coinside with your own?

It's a good idea to keep an open mind, important to see what's out there, increase your understanding and decide for yourself.

When I look at science - I've learned to question everything - most imortantly the funding and intent of the research and then looks at possible ramifications.

There was a day where science was an open field with discussion and collabaration amongst scientists in the interest of science and progresses. With the Manhattan Project (see "The Atomic Bomb" by Rhodes), really the aftermath that all changes - it became secretive (propriatory) and profit/power directed.

Simple physics tells us that ones expectations of an inquiry will lead to just such an outcome; that you can't talk the observer (and their intents and desires) out of the experiment.



posted on Apr, 7 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
You know, and this is a little off topic, I had a friend who is a doctor that thought homeopathic remedies were hooey. When I first met her, before I knew she was an Internal Medicine Phsyician, we traded playdates with our daughters regularly. One of her daughters was having a cronic problem with croup that my daughter had had in the past. Now, croup, though not dangerous, is truly annoying. Your child sounds like they are dying, they can't sleep and neither can you, on and on. I'd done everything my doctor had said, humidity so high the room was drenched in the morning. This went on and on, sometimes more, sometimes less; I got to my wits end. I finally tried the homeopathic remedies for croup and it was gone in a few days. It would come back (she is still prone to loseing her voice) but the remedy would work quickly to get rid of the croup.

Well - I gave a bottle of the remedy, to the girls Mother and told her how it worked for me. She was very polite but declined. She believed in placeabos but since she didn't believe in this one it wouldn't work for her. We had a great talk about the subject and are still friends to this day. One of her daughters is quite the homeopathic afficienado these days.

Years went by - and research in Europe ("The Field" Lynn McTaggert) has shown the mechanism by which water retains 'impressions' of substances after there is no longer any measureable amount of the substance left.

My friend is now willing to try homeopathics with varied success and great humor.

I had questions when I first read this study about the mechanism by which in-utero fetuses would be exposed to beta particles the mother inhaled or ingested. The placentia acts as a stong barrier protecting the unborn. The authors of the article did address this question in part but not in full nor to my satisfaction. That doesn't make me dismiss the findings out of hand - one part can be right another wrong and that is why - is precicely why science does experiements and calculations over and over. To refine and re-refine. No one else has broached this subject in public at all and it needs to be studied in detail and with public exposure.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
The source is highly dubious

You would be correct. Too many people believe stories without the slightest bit of fact-checking.

The paper appears to be a junk-science propaganda piece written by someone (Joseph J. Mangano) who has been proven to have been discredited with his other junk-science papers in the past.

Don't believe the hype put out by propagandists.



I took a look at your source, a message board on the Nuclear Engineering Department of Berkely. Berkeley has been on the receiving end of funding for nuclear research and development since the beginning of the Atomic Era and so have a considerable bias towards Nuclear power in all it's forms. So you can hardly claim a non-partisan analysis of the article, the methodolgy or the conclusions.


And yet some of the critique leveled there is clearly valid and damning, for example manipulation of statistical data, such as in case the intervals used for the calculation of the average values. That's a pretty non-partisan statement, and that's pretty much it.

By the way the fact that Berkeley folks have been doing nuclear science for a while also makes it likely that they know their chops... Like a lot.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

By the way the fact that Berkeley folks have been doing nuclear science for a while also makes it likely that they know their chops... Like a lot.



And that they have been trained (propogandized/indoctronated) by the system, owe the system for their livelyhoods and, seduced by the arrogance and power of position, unwilling to acknowledge the long view. Scientists are known for thier myopic vision, they are specialists not generalists.






top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join