14,000 US deaths linked to Fukushima fallout

[mavs>spurs]

The first study linking radioactive fallout to 14,000 U.S. deaths as a result of Fukushima’s nuclear meltdown following the 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami that struck the coast of Japan on Friday, March 11th last year has been published in the International Journal of Health Services (IJHS). According to a news release issued over the PR Newswire, the study is the first peer-reviewed study to appear in a medical scientific journal that documents the health hazards associated with the Fukushima nuclear explosion and meltdown catastrophe.

The study, authored by epidemiologist Joseph Mangano MPH MBA and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and Janette Sherman, a toxicologist and adjunct professor at the University of Michigan, states the number of radiation-related deaths linked to the Fukushima disaster is comparable to the number of deaths following the Chernobyl meltdown of 1986. The results of the study were gleaned from looking at U.S. death rates during the period Fukushima occurred, as well as in previous months and years.

You can read the actual study in PDF format here:

http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

Fuzzy math.

[InRareForm]

bogus

[SnakeBoy]

You can read the actual study in PDF format here:

http://www.radiation.org/reading/pubs/HS42_1F.pdf

Did you? No deaths were actually linked to Fukushima fallout.

[MannyIsGod]

I did some research over the past 6 months into heat wave mortality. One of the interesting things I learned from the literature was that although extreme heat events do cause more deaths, many of these are simply accelerated deaths of people in such poor health that death was imminent in the near term. In other words, the heat wave didn't really kill that person it merely made their death come a few days or weeks sooner than it otherwise would have. In those cases, I found it very difficult to attribute the mortality increase to the event.

I don't even see any mention of that type of situation in this paper. That isn't a good sign. Also if you read the section regarding how the mortality data is gathered you have some statistical issues that loom very very large.

[Wild Cobra]

I just did a quick scan of the report. All I notice was they were applying the flawed 'correlation equals causality." Why else could have cause this that wasn't ruled out. So many other things are going on. Fewer people with insurance, with good incomes, etc. I'm sure the list of other possibilities goes on and on.

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that the very low levels we would have received made any difference.