3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoby 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.