Nuclear Video Matinee: Fukushima Health Effects in North America (?)

Studies by Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano purporting to link radiation from Fukushima to health effects in the United States have made for alarming headlines in news outlets on occasion, and have come under fire by critics who charge flawed methodology (for example, What Can We Do About Junk Science and Researchers Trumpet Another Flawed Fukushima Study).

When the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation assesses the health effects of Fukushima in Japan and concludes that we are unlikely to see any increase in cancer rates or birth defects—ever, let alone  months or a few years later—well, somebody seems likely to be wrong.

Could it be Mangano and Sherman? For a careful and thorough examination, see the following—and for much more in detail and discussion, visit Mangano and Sherman Take Down at Atomic Insights.

Thanks to GoddardsJournal on YouTube and Atomic Insights.

sagan extraordinary claims 412x201

4 thoughts on “Nuclear Video Matinee: Fukushima Health Effects in North America (?)

  1. James Greenidge

    Thank you, Dr. Parthasarathy.
    The crux of the problem here is that reason stays mute while fear bellows. I have _pleaded_ for nuclear professional organizations as NEI and ANS, which have resources and reputations and press far beyond the average grass-roots advocate, to at least take as much aggressive action in de-FUDing nuclear’s mass media image as the antis have employed smearing it. Rebutting antis in blogs and letters to editors just isn’t going to cut it, much to anti’s jeering delight. I’d like to know at least whether these organizations have knocked on CNN and NBC’s and FOX’s doors and offered their services as nuclear media consultants instead their constantly whipping up the omnipresent likes Michio Kaku who royally has an axe shining for nuclear power. Why do these Nuke Pro outfits let his ilk get away with murder when they have the ready resources to de-FUD them? That’s the major question and roadblock in wide public nuclear acceptance of having a nuke up the block. Really, just what is it going to take??

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  2. Dr. K S Parthasarathy

    Dr James Greenidge made an important suggestion. Carpet bombing with scientific facts may help to cancel some of the evil effects of skewed reporting. It requires dedicated effort. If you are good at it, you will feel that you did only 50% of what you can . Whenever a peer reviewed paper gets published be it on Chernobyl or Hiroshima or an important report appears, try to bring out the essence of it in news papers. This requires nurturing your contacts with willing news papers with a discerning readership.

    If you evaluate the impact of your effort, by looking at only the comments column, chances are that you will be disappointed. There will be good discussion only if what you are write on is current and has triggered the imagination of a few.

    Hundreds of comments by viewers of a video which showed higher than normal levels of background radiation in Californian beeches is an instance in point. It clearly showed what we are l up against.Our effort should continue unconcerned about the returns.

  3. James Greenidge

    “When the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation assesses the health effects of Fukushima in Japan and concludes that we are unlikely to see any increase in cancer rates or birth defects—ever, let alone months or a few years later”

    But who in the lay real world ever hears this?? Truth is only as effective as the number of people exposed to it, which is about zit here since it’s not going to be on NPR or 60 Minutes or GoogleNews or any major news venues. It’s that old chestnut from Dr. Strangelove where the Russian Ambassador informs the POTUS that Russia has been secretly developing a Doomsday Machine to discourage and deter any attack on their country and Strangelove scolds Russia that the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret. The UN’s Fukushima assessment might be true as rain, but it all might as well be a deep dark secret if it’s kept bottled up in professional papers and web niches light-years away from the ears and eyes of the mainstream public. Rather than being clowns playing fast and loose with the “facts”, Mangano and Sherman (and most anti-nukers) have long known exactly what they’re doing, and that’s how to get their FUD agenda out where it counts, totally unchallenged on the mass media stage. Antis never ever have to be correct or factual since the end-game is scaring the clueless into rejecting nuclear, and like an “accidential” ink blotch permanently staining a white sheet, their slyly planted FUD and jitters never really go away. The only answer is massive media public nuclear education and for nuclear professionals to knock down FUD artists like gophers soon as they pop their rants up to keep them from spreading their poison.

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

  4. Joffan

    In order to debunk false claims, it is important to START with accurate information. Once the reality has been established, and after a clear indication that inaccurate claims are following, reference to the false claims can carefully be made and refuted.

    Unfortunately, in direct contradiction of the human response to such presentations, this video fails to follow this basic process. The chosen still for the front may be intended to draw in a skeptical audience, but in fact for most readers it will simply reinforce the false information it is attempting to refute.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>