DEBUNKED: Medical Journal Article: 14,000 U.S. Deaths Tied to Fukushima Reactor Disaster Fallout

5 star + Pin request.

Great find!!

I ignored this when it was first posted on here because I was certain this was BS. The time frame wasn't nearly long enough to isolate one factor. The whole thing was such obvious BS.

Radiation and Manipulating Data makes my cat ANGRY!

Certainly radiation from Fukushima is dangerous, and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.

certain..yes..undoutedly..true..

BUT WHEN? HOW MUCH? WELL?

^That^

One wonders why scientific American has not done this(examine the methodology, agenda etc) with the global warming debate, maybe its just easier to take down small lies.

Also it does nothing to disprove what fukushima has and still is doing as plume and ongoing radiation debacle. I dont support lies of course, even if they are used to supposedly bring big issues to public attention.

agreed

"GE we bring good things to.."

This +1000

I feel so...used!

Last Edited by Mastema on 12/21/2011 03:56 AM

low dose studies.. (apparently never existed)?

before debunking and feeling unwell in the next few years, and then sorry for missing the point.... please watch the following report...

[link to www.fukushimaemergencywhatcanwedo.blogspot.com]

Last Edited by CitizenPerth™ on 12/21/2011 04:01 AM

A couple things:

1. This article explained how the study in question manipulated the data to achieve their desired outcome

2. Why are you spamming your blog in this thread. You could have easily posted a link to the youtube video and/or embedded the video

3. If you want to discuss the contents of that youtube video then start your own thread

4. The situation at Fukushima is a serious matter and any and all disinformation pertaining to the matter should be exposed--which is exactly what the author of this Scientific American article is doing

@ Op.

take care, this shill from Perth got a big mouth!

u can trust insurances,
for japan 1 in 4700
for west us 1 afir 25000

get cancer because of 03/11

Last Edited by The real and almighty Atom-Boy on 12/21/2011 04:28 AM

I knew this was the route they would take a while back. I was browsing the news a few weeks ago and an article was talking about how cancer rates after Fukushima would be hard to detect because of the already high rate of cancer.

Which didn't make sense because the news has also been saying that cancer has gone down.

It's just good ol' misdirect. Lead you here, lead you there now you're spinning in circles.

There is still a bit of Chenoble in us all,
What will Fuku do to every living thing?
It will have a say.

BUNK!

Agree.

Thanks Wonkish.

And quality debunk crap.....next thing on menu: it is not radiation it is bird flu! Roll out vaccines!!!

Great. Lets apply those parameters to ALL media releases concerning Fukushima, inlcuding .gov, Tepco, et al.

Not saying the publication referred to isn't bogus, but plenty of reports coming from the 'authourities' have been debunked too. And are therefore bogus.

Pot calling kettle black.

Cointelpro.

Discernment dammit OP.

Good points Baldrick, but fence sitters are rarely seen as impartial , unbiased and neutral, they are actually excellent scapegoats for all opposing sides, makes you wonder why.

Hey man I am all for trying to find out what is really going on, but there is a lot of disinformation on both sides. The individuals who authored the 14,000 deaths article also authored the article about babies in the PNW dying.

Their article about the babies in the PNW was also flawed and its flaws were exposed in this article:
[link to blogs.scientificamerican.com]

Bullshiters, disinformation artists, and data-forgers need to be exposed because their disinformation does a lot of damage. Janette Sherman M.D. and Joseph Mangano, the authors of both of these studies, seem to have a history of data forging/manipulation.

I disagree because I have seen with my own eyes the irresponsible behaviour of the US government when it comes to fallout. I used to live in the Weed - Mt Shasta area of northern California and one winters day when I was about 10 years old, my father was walking me and my sister to school at the top of the hill.

I said to him "Why is the snow green dad."

He replied that it was because of the nuclear bomb testing in Nevada.

So as far as the "Scientific American" is concerned I reckon that they are towing the party line, because they know which side their bread is buttered on.

What is there to disagree with? Did you read the International Journal of Health Services article at the end of the OP? You honestly believed that the researchers' methodology was not flawed?

Hi Sis, Hi Wonkish, these issues are divided and conquer, the jesuits and their ilk perfected it, logic can be used to propagate lies, and scientists especially in this age are virally prone to it, and that includes scientific so called American. So yes lets expose lies, but no lets not let that divided common cause, instead learn how to disagree but remain united in common cause for good and truth, imo.

By the way sis , if you saw green snow give us a date and thank you Lord for a confirmation from at least one other non religious party, amen.

These monstrous creatures who claim science as bastion, if you examine their lives in many many cases, end up being party lime towers who have private and extreme beliefs, which from a general public, man on the street, family oriented way, would be rejected as perverse and corrosive.

No I haven't read it yet. I'm just honestly assuming that the researchers methodology is flawed.

After all if they can lie to us through their back teeth that chemtrails don't exist, why should I trust em on this. And like I said I did see the green snow.
So cause and effect. I was doing scientific research (observation) on this matter back in the mid 50s.

Thanks, bless you too, by the way, what is India,s position on Fukushima, and has it affected India in public opinion and in physical actuality?

Here is the bogus study in its entirety (pdf format): [link to www.radiation.org]


the death toll is underestimated or overestimateD?