{"id":2732,"date":"2011-06-17T02:29:21","date_gmt":"2011-06-17T00:29:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nuclearpoweryesplease.org\/blog\/?p=2732"},"modified":"2013-08-30T12:50:31","modified_gmt":"2013-08-30T10:50:31","slug":"shame-on-you-janette-sherman-and-joseph-mangano","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nuclearpoweryesplease.org\/blog\/2011\/06\/17\/shame-on-you-janette-sherman-and-joseph-mangano\/","title":{"rendered":"Shame on you, Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano!"},"content":{"rendered":"

On several web sites there has recently been references<\/a> to an article published on the web site Counterpunch with the title “<\/a>Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?<\/a> – <\/a><\/strong>A 35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown<\/a>“<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The article, published on 10 June 2011, is authored by Janette D. Sherman and Joseph Mangano, both renowned persons in the anti-nuclear movement.\u00a0In the text the authors claim a statistically significant increase of infant mortality deaths with 35% after the Fukushima accident in eight selected cities on the U.S. west coast.<\/p>\n

They write<\/p>\n

The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:<\/em><\/p>\n

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 – 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)<\/em><\/p>\n

10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 \u00a0– 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)<\/em><\/p>\n

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. \u00a0 Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Furthermore, they try to link the releases of radioactivity from Fukushima and Chernobyl to the relatively high infant mortality rate in the U.S. A look at the data used by Sherman and Mangano does indeed seem to indicate an increase in the number of infant deaths in northwest U.S. after Fukushima, see the plot below:<\/p>\n

\"Infant<\/a>
Infant mortality for 8 northwest U.S. cities, as reported by Sherman and Mangano<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Fukushima events started on March 11, i.e. by the end of week 10. Then it took slightly more than a week for the first release of radioactivity to reach the nortwest part of the U.S. The data do show an increased infant mortality rate after Fukushima. The black line shows the average value for the 4 weeks before March 19, and the orange line shows the average value for the 10 weeks after that. The error bars on each data point indicate the statistical uncertainties.<\/p>\n

But why are the 10 weeks after Fukushima compared with only 4 weeks before? There seems to be a reason for it, commonly referred to as\u00a0cherry-picking<\/a><\/strong>, i.e. you select the data that supports your theory without showing the full picture. To show the full data set may falsify what you want to show. This is quite common in politics and by people who have an agenda that is more important than the truth. \u00a0But here we have two persons in medicine, one Medical Doctor and one Master of Public Health, they should be trustworthy professionals who are keen on giving people honest information, right? Let’s check their deck of cards closer.<\/p>\n

So, if we include data for, say, the first 7 weeks of 2011, we get a very different idea about the situation:<\/p>\n

\"Infant<\/a>
Infant mortality for 8 northwest U.S. cities, less biased version<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Very interesting, the first seven weeks of 2011 actually has higher infant mortality than the weeks after Fukushima<\/strong>, quite different from what Sherman and Mangano wants us to believe. There is no spike after Fukushima, instead there is a dip during the 4 weeks before!\u00a0A more detailed report on the closer scrutiny of Sherman and Mangano’s article is found in our Deep Repository<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

So, why does a Medical Doctor mistreat official data in this way? It is quite remarkable, and embarrasing, especially since Janette Sherman writes about herself on her web page (http:\/\/janettesherman.com\/about\/<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Dr. Sherman\u2019s primary interest is the prevention<\/strong> of illness through public education and patient awareness.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

She seems to have forgotten about her primary interest in this case, I fail to see how cherry-picking data can be part of public education and public awareness. And if anybody can see how you can prevent illness through scaring people with false statistics, then please explain it to me. Embarrasing, Janette Sherman…<\/p>\n

Joseph Mangano already has a track record of handling data in not so honest ways, we may come back to that in other blog entries (a few links to examples, as requested by a commenter: http:\/\/neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com\/2005\/08\/joseph-mangano-and-art-of-deception.html<\/a> and http:\/\/www.nei.org\/resourcesandstats\/documentlibrary\/safetyandsecurity\/factsheet\/scienceonradiationhealtheffectsdispelstoothfairyproject\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n

What baffles me the most is that he and Sherman try to get away with this alarmistic claim by such a lousy handling of official data. Anybody can easily check it for themselves and see that Sherman and Mangano are wilfully interpreting data so that they agree with their already decided view on things. What is worse, they are scaring a lot of people with their claims, for no reason at all. Therefore: Shame on you!<\/strong><\/p>\n

\/Mattias Lantz – member of the network Nuclear Power Yes Please<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Follow-up blog entries on the same subject<\/h3>\n

19 June 2011:\u00a0More bullshit from Joseph Mangano, take 2<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

21 June 2011: CounterPunch verifies infant mortality was alarmism but seems keen to create more of it<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

27 July 2011:\u00a0Sherman & Mangano admits errors \u2013 or do they?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

21 December 2011:\u00a03 strikes and you’re out! Sherman & Mangano does it again…<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

29 August 2012: Joseph Mangano never stops, and he never gets it right<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Update 24 June 2011<\/h3>\n

Several other people have scrutinized the Sherman-Mangano joke (by now I do not want to mis-use the word “study” in connection with these people), most notably in Scientific American. Here is a list:<\/p>\n