4 ms·

If Fukushima caused a 35% spike in infant mortality in the US, you gotta wonder what was the effect in Japan. Did they bother to check?

by nandemo 15y ago

glhaynes 15y ago
But it's not at all proven that "Fukushima caused a 35% spike in infant mortality in the US", is it? It seems sort of unlikely that no one would have noticed a tremendous spike in the amount of environmental radiation (such as would presumably be necessary to cause such an increase in infant mortality) in these northwestern US cities. Either way, though, that seems surprising to me that there'd be a 35% increase in infant mortality.
- nandemo 15y ago
  > But it's not at all proven that "Fukushima caused a 35% spike in infant mortality in the US", is it? I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but that's my point, it's so implausible. US is very far from Japan, so if there was a 35% spike there then the researchers' first reaction should have been to check the corresponding stats for Japan. If they didn't it smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
  - dugorama 15y ago
    by the way, it's not a 35% spike in infant mortality, which would be immediately noticed by every pediatrician in the world. it is reportedly a 35% spike in still births - defined as a non-live birth (not even a single breath taken) after gestational age of 20 weeks. Since these only occur 3 in 1,000 birth events in the US to begin with, an individual OB/GYN would never notice a 35% spike (which would increase the rate to 4/1000). This is the kind of thing only dedicated epidemiologist who are studying it intensely could ever notice in real time. The CDC won't even catch up with such a hard-to-measure spike until their next reporting cycle - several years from now.
srl 15y ago
I think it's too easy, with all this talk about nuclear meltdown and the world's worst industrial disaster (really?), to loose the following nugget of context: Japan just got hit by the fifth largest earthquake since 1900. They have bigger problems - at least in the short term - than radiation. One of the most frequent complaints that comes up is the lack of safety mechanisms built into the reactor. Sure, they could have done a better job (the fact that electricity is needed for a cool-down is particularly disturbing) - but really, /all/ industrial mechanisms are going to start to experience a significant problems when hit by a historically significant earthquake. Sure, the engineers should have expected earthquakes (and they did - this is Japan, after all), but it's unreasonable to expect them to be prepared for a 9.0, just as it's unreasonable to expect them to be prepared for a direct meteor strike.
- danielharan 15y ago
  By what definition of unreasonable? Would you build a plant that could only handle a 100 year earthquake, but not a 1000 year one? You'd give your children and grandchildren a 1/10 chance of catastrophe... in exchange for what, supposedly cheaper power?
  - srl 15y ago
    They have a 1/10 chance of catastrophe whether or not I build the plant. A 1000 year earthquake is going to cause much bigger problems then a nuclear meltdown. Would you construct a house that could withstand the sun going nova? Again, not that the engineers didn't screw up. But the fact that a nuclear power plant got destroyed by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake should come as a surprise to nobody, and should not reflect poorly on nuclear technology in general, any more than the fact that cars crash when driven by drunks should reflect poorly on motors.
    - dugorama 15y ago
      sure it does (reflect poorly on nukes in general). It means we now understand there is no possibility that they can be safely built. Unless you're okay with gradually radiating the entire planet or at least rendering little pieces of it permanently uninhabitable with each natural disaster. Chernobyl = 5% of Europe's farmland lost forever. Fukushima = 50% of the world's tuna spawning grounds permanently irradiated. I like to eat, how about you? How many more of these will you tolerate so your HD TV can have "instant on" capabiilty?

If Fukushima caused a 35% spike in infant mortality in the US, you gotta wonder what was the effect in Japan. Did they bother to check?

by nandemo 15y ago

If Fukushima caused a 35% spike in infant mortality in the US, you gotta wonder what was the effect in Japan. Did they bother to check?

glhaynes 15y ago

But it's not at all proven that "Fukushima caused a 35% spike in infant mortality in the US", is it? It seems sort of unlikely that no one would have noticed a tremendous spike in the amount of environmental radiation (such as would presumably be necessary to cause such an increase in infant mortality) in these northwestern US cities. Either way, though, that seems surprising to me that there'd be a 35% increase in infant mortality.

nandemo 15y ago
> But it's not at all proven that "Fukushima caused a 35% spike in infant mortality in the US", is it? I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear, but that's my point, it's so implausible. US is very far from Japan, so if there was a 35% spike there then the researchers' first reaction should have been to check the corresponding stats for Japan. If they didn't it smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
- dugorama 15y ago
  by the way, it's not a 35% spike in infant mortality, which would be immediately noticed by every pediatrician in the world. it is reportedly a 35% spike in still births - defined as a non-live birth (not even a single breath taken) after gestational age of 20 weeks. Since these only occur 3 in 1,000 birth events in the US to begin with, an individual OB/GYN would never notice a 35% spike (which would increase the rate to 4/1000). This is the kind of thing only dedicated epidemiologist who are studying it intensely could ever notice in real time. The CDC won't even catch up with such a hard-to-measure spike until their next reporting cycle - several years from now.

srl 15y ago

I think it's too easy, with all this talk about nuclear meltdown and the world's worst industrial disaster (really?), to loose the following nugget of context: Japan just got hit by the fifth largest earthquake since 1900. They have bigger problems - at least in the short term - than radiation. One of the most frequent complaints that comes up is the lack of safety mechanisms built into the reactor. Sure, they could have done a better job (the fact that electricity is needed for a cool-down is particularly disturbing) - but really, /all/ industrial mechanisms are going to start to experience a significant problems when hit by a historically significant earthquake. Sure, the engineers should have expected earthquakes (and they did - this is Japan, after all), but it's unreasonable to expect them to be prepared for a 9.0, just as it's unreasonable to expect them to be prepared for a direct meteor strike.

danielharan 15y ago
By what definition of unreasonable? Would you build a plant that could only handle a 100 year earthquake, but not a 1000 year one? You'd give your children and grandchildren a 1/10 chance of catastrophe... in exchange for what, supposedly cheaper power?
- srl 15y ago
  They have a 1/10 chance of catastrophe whether or not I build the plant. A 1000 year earthquake is going to cause much bigger problems then a nuclear meltdown. Would you construct a house that could withstand the sun going nova? Again, not that the engineers didn't screw up. But the fact that a nuclear power plant got destroyed by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake should come as a surprise to nobody, and should not reflect poorly on nuclear technology in general, any more than the fact that cars crash when driven by drunks should reflect poorly on motors.
  - dugorama 15y ago
    sure it does (reflect poorly on nukes in general). It means we now understand there is no possibility that they can be safely built. Unless you're okay with gradually radiating the entire planet or at least rendering little pieces of it permanently uninhabitable with each natural disaster. Chernobyl = 5% of Europe's farmland lost forever. Fukushima = 50% of the world's tuna spawning grounds permanently irradiated. I like to eat, how about you? How many more of these will you tolerate so your HD TV can have "instant on" capabiilty?