Probable Fookooshimar nonsense on infant thyroid issues

There has been a lot of buzz in the tinfoil hat community about a paper entitled "Elevated airborne beta levels in Pacific/West Coast US States and trends in hypothyroidism among newborns after the Fukushima nuclear meltdown", published in a newish journal, Open Journal of Pediatrics, and written by Joseph J. Mangano and Janette D. Sherman, who have Fookooshimar form. Furthermore, the publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, does not get a terribly good write-up on Wikipedia.

I’m not able to comment on the content of their paper, but I see that the Alaska Dispatch has already questioned the validity, and from a simple sniff test if there really was a 20% increase in hypothyroidism from just one week’s worth of minimal exposure, I would have expected the recent surveys of Fukushima thyroids to have shown something statistically significant.

BTW, RT (Russia Today) gets its headline spectacularly scaremongeringly wrong!

Leave a comment ?

13 Comments.

  1. Explain yourself properly or get no advice at all.

    ReplyReply
  2. Probable? Based on past form, more like certain. Sherman and Mangano are major Fookooshimars. Sherman was one of the main figures behind the English publication of the million deaths at Chernobyl book (along with Mousseau from bird death manzai Møller & Mousseau). Their 14,000 baby deaths in the US claim article was also trashed here and here by a Scientific American blogger. Another popular science blogger took the journal that published it to task but was – incredibly – stonewalled by the editor, despite clear evidence that the study was utter, utter crap.

    They’re not genuine researchers. Whether or not they are conscious that they cheat to get their results is an interesting psychological issue.

    It’s worth noting from the wikipedia page that Scientific Research Publishing have in the past accepted randomly generated text as publishable.

    ReplyReply
  3. Another great one from the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305560/Radiation-Japans-nuclear-disaster-blame-hundreds-malnourished-seals-washed-California.html

    Headline: “Radiation from Japan’s nuclear disaster could be to blame for a THOUSAND malnourished seals washing up in California”

    The only mention of radiation in the article: “[NOAA] told CBS Los Angeles that it’s unlikely radiation is to blame”

    ReplyReply
  4. The Daily Fail article now appears to be mostly plagiarized from a much longer article from Wired, which makes no mention of radiation or Fukushima.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/starving-sea-lions-pups/

    ReplyReply
  5. Paul Hackshaw

    @Glenski:

    The OP is not giving us much to go on here

    ReplyReply
  6. Heh, I get a comment approved on a Japan Times Fookooshimar article!

    ReplyReply
  7. And more bad news for the Fookooshimar vampires, Radioactive cesium not detectable in 99% of Fukushima residents: study.

    A Fookooshimar commenter tries his best to salvage the situation by claiming Twitter anecdotes offer proof that the doctors are lying. :headdesk:

    ReplyReply
  8. @Ken Y-N: And just in case this doesn’t get past the JT mods, here is a reply I wrote. It might be of interest to people here if they want to see the original data, as it looks like Jiji screwed up per body versus per kg :facepalm:

    Since the figures in the article look a bit funny, I decided to go to the source, this paper:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574806

    The article here says “300 becquerels per kilogram of body weight”, but looking at the published paper it is “the detection limit of 300 Bq/body”. I don’t know where you get your threshold of 20Bq, or indeed the article’s “For the remaining 1 percent, or 212 people, 10 becquerels were detected”. Children were also being tested, so an average weight of 30 kg would give us, perhaps, at least 10 Bq per kilogram.

    We also have the original Japanese paper to look at:

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byf-QYeE0N7pTWFyRnVhMnhZNmM/

    Interestingly, Table 2 shows us that although 1% of adults in 2012 had cesium detected, only 0.09% of children did.

    Furthermore, the two graphs on the right of Figure 6 shows us that the average detected in Bq/kg was approximately 10, which explains the strange sentence I highlighted earlier.

    Therefore, I conclude that your German figure is 20 Bq/kg, so you are not comparing like with like.

    ReplyReply
  9. JapanFocus, the “peer-reviewed” :lol: journal is carrying an article based on a few of the American service personnel who think they got acute radiation sickness and cancer during operation tomodachi. These are the people whose court documents (PDF) cite a roll-call of the major Fookooshimar idols and conspiracy wingnuts. For some reason, the “peer reviewers” at Japan Focus found no problem with this. Still I didn’t notice any typos, so they’re getting better.

    Here’s the title:

    Fukushima Rescue Mission Lasting Legacy: Radioactive Contamination of Nearly 70,000 Americans

    :roll:

    According to his own website, the author Roger Witherspoon used to be in greenwash for Exxon and also lectured on technology and ethics. He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, the International Motor Press Association, and the Automotive Press Association. An interesting CV.

    ReplyReply
  10. @VK: Interesting indeed, including co-authoring a book on ancient wonders that might wander into Ancient Alien territory.

    Anyway, the main body of the text did not match the headline, and indeed was rather well-written once you got over “neoliberals” in nearly every paragraph and other buzzwords. I look forward to the second half, which may very well be a :facepalm: fest…

    ReplyReply
  11. He did severely underestimate the true distance between Atsugi base and Fukushima (= Daiichi?). However you calculate that, it is more than 100 Km.

    ReplyReply
  12. @Ken Y-N: Ack, I was mixing up two Japan Focus articles; here is the neoliberal overdose.

    ReplyReply
  13. @Ken Y-N:

    I’ve read less than half of it so far, and dear me, it’s poor. It doesn’t help that he doesn’t appear to know what “neoliberal” actually means. :facepalm: (or a few other basic economics terms).

    Apparently the author won the Pulitzer Prize. Go figure.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>