2 votes

Medical Journal: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout

Impact Seen As Roughly Comparable to Radiation-Related Deaths After Chernobyl; Infants Are Hardest Hit, With Continuing Research Showing Even Higher Possible Death Count.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – December 19, 2011 -- An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.

Authors Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.

Read more http://www.radiation.org/...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

that was some shitty write up in the 2nd link

if you're going to switch from normal writing style to present some actual data, don't just type everything out in format by words.. use numbers.. for instance don't type a long string of "march 20th, 2011" then constantly jump back and forth to march 20th, 2010, and even add (parenthesis) between already confusing strings of dates and numbers.. instead type out 03/20/2010 etc.. use all numbers to present the data.. then there's the constant use of "they" to refer back and forth sometimes to "they the incomplete records" or "they the authors".. horrible write up that causes difficult to read paragraphs and confusion.. god i hate write-ups done by people in fields of science.. why don't they do some reading once in a while and pick up some writing skills? always make easy crap harder to read than usual.. perhaps they want to confuse people to create a pretense of knowledge?

"They find the CDC reports include 4.46 percent more dead people in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2011, than the reports did in the 14 weeks after March 20, 2010." talk about wordiness.. how about just say "compared to the same period post-03/20/2010?" this is like elementary school writing

and in the end he criticizes the methodology used in the statistics, but that doesn't address whether anything of concern has happened regarding the radiation leak. he merely says that there is a lack of evidence, which doesn't contribute to anything of relevance.

I read it but I still don't

I read it but I still don't understand it.

juan maldonado

Really? How? When

Really? How? When

juan maldonado