http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_reps.asp

I think it is made up, and would really like to see Sherman and Mangano either claim it, or have the opportunity to disassociate their names from it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/06/201161664828302638.html

You’ve already addressed the infant mortality rate, but there are a number of other points the article brings up that seem like good points to me. I am not a scientist, though, and don’t want to be caught up by an article that clearly has an element of sensationalism to it.

It appears from emerging information that we have no idea of the size or impacts of four to six uncontrollable reactors and storage facilities, but periodically we get updates, and none of them are about how things are safer than we thought, quite the reverse.

In addition, the plant on the Missouri which is now protected by a moat seems vulnerable to my untutored eye.

Reporters providing facts on environmental issues have been forced to be on the defensive about bias, and this is no accident. The big picture is so consistent, full of fascinating detail on a wide variety of effects, that it appears the defense has chosen to put a magnifying glass to every detail in hopes of finding flaws that can be taken out of context and set to weigh against a massive body of information.

My initial reaction to this was, why contribute to the argument which is already inflated? I’m well aware of Chris Mooney’s fair-minded tolerance. (For example, he does a wonderful portrait of William Gray in Storm World; I came away thinking he is such a good writer because he likes people.) But if you read Keith Kloor, for example, who is supposed to be against bias, he seems to hate Chris Mooney and takes every opportunity to jab at him. I can to a certain extent understand attacking Joe Romm, but Chris Mooney? I guess what I’m getting at is that playing to the gallery is a mug’s game.

The person relying on truth and evidence is handicapped in these wars. Those “all in” for denial are much better equipped, because they never try to put themselves in the other person’s shoes.

BTW, I believe the evidence is nowhere near in on the sum of radiation coming out of northern Japan, but am reasonably certain that the “reasonable” middle is understating the case. This baby study is wild, but time will tell.

Answers many of Jason Loxon’s excellent questions, and not to Sherman and Mangano’s credit,

He is not trying to attack the left – he is just being scrupulous about being fair. He assumes everyone who reads his blog realizes that for every one example of scientific misuse from the left, there are scarily huge number from the right – he’s already covered that in depth in previous blogs.

The back-up references were from from 3/16
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/16/local/la-me-0316-california-radiation-20110316

and 3/15.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0315/Radiation-exposure-Why-US-is-confident-West-Coast-isn-t-in-danger

We are three months into this. This is a very disingenuous presentation.

This is an article penned by David Brenner: We don’t know enough about low-dose radiation risk
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110405/full/news.2011.206.html

“The uncertainties over the long-term consequences of the releases are even more troubling, because they potentially affect much larger populations than those in or near the immediate evacuation zone.”

“One obvious, and largely untapped, source of information is Chernobyl.”

“So we also need to take a complementary approach, studying the basic mechanisms by which low doses of radiation cause cancer [in all organ systems not just thyroid and leukemia] — at the level of genes, chromosomes, cells and organs.”

With regard to evaluating the dangers of Fukushima with regard to the US…

1. Down-playing the dangers due to the lack of hard statistical evidence of the effects of low dose radiation does not preclude a rational person from examining the evidence we do have in terms of the behaviour of radioactive isotopes. Much is known about how these isotopes are absorbed and concentrated in the body. It is possible to extrapolate from what is known and make a rational decision.

2. The solution is to have more data for evaluation. It’s being gathered, but not shared. That is what we should be demanding. We shouldn’t have a false sense of security from our inability to see what’s going on. Here is link that discusses this:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110613/full/news.2011.366.html

3. From what I’ve observed in the media they are actually downplaying the risks, or simply avoiding the subject all together…mostly the latter.

4. I’m a conservative, and I have always thought nuclear was a bad idea.

@16, Richard D. Morey – liberals are the ones who tend to be very anti-nuclear. The context lies in past works by Chris, including the Point of Inquiry he linked.

@13, Matt – this blog is named The Intersection. It specifically addresses the intersections where politics and science meet (and sometimes end up in horribly mangled crashes). The bias created is in fact a heavy topic here; you’d probably find it rewarding to go back and read some of Chris’ posts from the last few months. The blurb under “Your Blogger” on the right of the page may also shed some light into what you’ve stumbled into here.