A Few Things Ill Considered

Logging the Onset of The Bottleneck Years

This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H. E. Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week’s Global Warming news roundup


skip to bottom

Information Overload is Pattern Recognition

April 7, 2013


co2now gfx skeptisci app gfx

 


It’s always nice to start with a chuckle:

Not much good news coming out of Fukushima:

 

 

Comments

  1. #1 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 11, 2013

    Regarding the Hyperthyroidism increase report in the Pacific Northwest, it must be noted that the paper’s authors have been caught-out using ‘poor’ data-anaysis techniques:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwest-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/

  2. #2 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    MBH98/99 were “caught out using ‘poor’ statistical analysis”, but the results were robust to that weakened analysis.

  3. #3 Wow
    April 11, 2013

    t’other got shitcanned.

    thyroid cancers do not immediately kill. therefore that website is displaying their strong bias by their strawman query: “are babies dying in the pacific north west”.

  4. #4 Marco
    April 12, 2013

    Wow, you have done it again: making claims and commenting on something without informing yourself. You should have, because you make a fool of yourself again.

    And to be quite honest, Coby also makes a fool of himself by advertizing the nonsense of Sherman and Mangano. Their study claims that the largest increase in hyperthyroidism in the Eastern US occurred within the three months following the Fukushima meltdown. However, their analysis cannot be trusted, as the prior “poor statistical analysis”, as Eamon calls it, actually is egregious cherry picking of the worst kind.
    Mangano and Sherman have previously claimed that *mortality* increased significantly after Fukushima (see http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/06/10/is-the-increase-in-baby-deaths-in-the-us-a-result-of-fukushima-fallout/).
    It’s this claim that the SA blogpost focused on, and therefore their title is not a strawman query, but directly responding to Mangano and Sherman.

    Now, as SA shows, Sherman and Mangano did a cherry pick that would make the “no warming since 1998″ crowd blush in embarrassment: use the 4 weeks prior to Fukushima and the 10 after, and yes, there’s an increase in mortality. Do the analysis with 10 weeks before Fukushima (rather than 4), and suddenly mortality has *decreased*!

    Calling it “poor statistical analysis” assumes Mangano and Sherman just accidentally picked 4 weeks, not realizing it was a statistical fluke. However, Mangano advertizes himself as a “epidemiologist” and thus should have known this stuff. I strongly suspect he knew what he did, hence me calling it deliberate cherry picking.

    With this prior questionable behavior (oh, and there’s much more from Mangano and probably Sherman, too), would you put any trust in a paper they managed to get published in a SCIRP journal (“you pay, we publish!”)?

    I definitely don’t.

  5. #5 mandas
    April 12, 2013

    Marco

    Firstly, I won’t argue with your criticism of wow – it is right on the money. And I won’t suggest that I am in any way an expert on this subject – so before I decided to comment I did some research.

    For those who may be interested, here is the paper in question:
    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599

    But given that you are criticising wow for cherry picking, I would like to suggest that you should not have indulged in the same error yourself.

    If you have a look at the SA blog linked to by Eamon, you will notice in the discussion that several commentators have taken the original blog author to task for ignoring other data that supports the Sherman and Mangano paper. Further, a lot of the criticism being levelled at the paper comes from the nuclear industry itself, or from nuclear power lobbyists (such as here):
    http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/17/shame-on-you-janette-sherman-and-joseph-mangano/

    Now, I am not claiming the paper IS accurate – it may be flawed as you suggest. However (and this is a big however), there is a lot more to this than meets the casual eye, and your post looks remarkably like it was written by a nuclear power lobbyist (such as that site I have linked to).

    I think there is a lot more to this than meets the casual eye.

  6. #6 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    “Wow, you have done it again: making claims and commenting on something without informing yourself”

    Really? You’d better be correct here, otherwise:

    “You should have, because you make a fool of yourself again.”

    Though if I’d written that sentence, mandy, in his ever ending quest to pick on anyone smarter than it is to belittle them, they’d have pointed out it would have been “Made” not “Make”.

    But lets see.

    #2 “MBH98/99 were “caught out using ‘poor’ statistical analysis”, but the results were robust to that weakened analysis.”

    Hmmm. plenty of error there, isn’t there.

    NOT.

    “However, their analysis cannot be trusted, as the prior “poor statistical analysis”, as Eamon calls it, actually is egregious cherry picking of the worst kind.”

    See post #2.

    Your link doesn’t appear to be any link to the paper. Just a blogroll post. Which is what Eamon was claiming; a “paper” not a “newspaper”.

    So though that blogroll is talking about deaths increased, any science paper wouldn’t have used such an assertion, I may be wrong, but available information means it wasn’t egregious.

    Now, are you going accept that your repeat of “Oh, it can’t be true, because they used ‘bad analysis'”, or are you going to continue to pretend that nuclear fallout is like fairy dust and benign if not magically curative?

    mandy, of course, won’t: they’re fixated on slagging off anyone who doesn’t sit in awe of its “magnificence”. Trollish twat that it is.

  7. #8 Marco
    April 12, 2013

    @Mandas
    I, nor SA, did any cherry picking. The original article did an analysis that required a very obvious cherry pick to make a claim that any truly skeptical person would be skeptical about. SA took Mangano and Sherman to task for that cherry pick. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Some commenters point to further data analysis, all of which are equally flawed for one reason alone: ALL blindly link any potential increase to Fukushima. An epidemiologist, heck, anyone with even the remotest understanding of diseases, would put some major question marks on the causal link, as
    1) there is no effort at all to correct for confounding factors (guess what an influenza epidemic does to infant mortality, for example; there are plenty of other issues, too)
    2) radiation doses that are known to be lethal are several magnitudes larger than those measured. If it really was this bad, infant mortality in several parts of the US should be at a constant elevated level due to the natural radiation background being much higher in certain regions.

    The *paper* is a different story, and as Eamon correctly points out: “the paper’s authors have been caught-out using ‘poor’ data-anaysis techniques”. Like Eamon, I would put major question marks with any paper of which the authors have previously been caught doing extremely poor data analysis. That is not a criticism of the paper itself, but rather of the prior behavior of these authors. Add the journal and its Publisher, and you have several major warning signs.

  8. #9 Marco
    April 12, 2013

    @Wow,

    1. You might want to learn to distinguish between me and mandas.
    2. I never said increased radiation levels are completely harmless; I (and Eamon) criticized the prior cherry picking of the authors of a paper in a bottomfeeding journal and Publisher, which is used here as some kind of absolute proof of the enormous dangers of radiation.
    3. Available information DOES show the blogpost by Mangano and Sherman was egregious in its data handling. As I said to mandas, the cherry pick is made worse by the one-to-one causal link implied by the authors, ignoring any and all other possibilities (and there are many).
    4. You’re an idiot. Again.

  9. #10 Wow
    April 13, 2013

    “I, nor SA, did any cherry picking.”

    Well, no, you are saying there’s “egregious cherry picking”.

    However, here’s the causation: radioactive caesium gets assimilated in the thyroid gland and causes genetic damage. If that genetic damage results in cells that grow, this is called a cancer.

    “They cherry picked” doesn’t prove the causation is not in effect. It’s just whining about a result you don’t really like to think about.

  10. #11 Wow
    April 13, 2013

    “1. You might want to learn to distinguish between me and mandas.”

    I have.

    “2. I never said increased radiation levels are completely harmless”

    And deniers never deny the climate changes. They just assert that the current warming is “egregious cherry picking” and that the science is all wrong.

    “3. Available information DOES show the blogpost by Mangano and Sherman was egregious in its data handling.”

    No, it asserts it.

    Where it has *some* validity is that the errors in the assertion of effect are not stated.

    You’re an idiot. Again.

  11. #12 Marco
    April 13, 2013

    @Wow,

    Do pay attention, will you? They cherry picked a time interval to claim a massive increase in mortality. They *had* to use the 4 weeks prior to Fukushima and the 10 weeks after to sustain this claim. Use 10 weeks prior to Fukushima and presto, there actually was a *decrease* in mortality after Fukushima. There is absolutely NO scientific argument provided that the period of 4 weeks is the relevant control period. It is very much like the pseudoskeptics selecting 1998 as the starting point. Using 10 weeks is scientifically much more tenable (same period as after).

    Mangano and Sherman also ignored any and all alternative explanations. They did not even check for e.g. influenza or other diseases related to pathogens being higher in the period after Fukushima, despite the fact that it is well known that such epidemics (not necessarily within the definition of an epidemic) can periodically increase mortality rates.

    Another little fact for you to think about: caesium accumulates in the muscle, iodine in the thyroid gland. Neither, however, would fit the claimed increase mortality (within 10 weeks after Fukushima), so that causation claim can go right out of the window.

    Again, this egregious cherry picking and data handling is what Mangano and Sherman did in the paper that SA reacts to. With that prior behavior (and there is a LOT more similar behavior from both authors), no one should trust any other papers these two people write.

  12. #13 Wow
    April 13, 2013

    “They *had* to use the 4 weeks prior to Fukushima and the 10 weeks after to sustain this claim.”

    So if they’d picked any other period, there would have been no effect?

    No.

    The data does indicate some evidence that there is a problem for the NW from the Fukishima fallout.

    The required inference here is that there isn’t “because it’s an egregious cherry pick”. That, however, is just an egregious load of bullshit.

  13. #14 Wow
    April 13, 2013

    “Neither, however, would fit the claimed increase mortality (within 10 weeks after Fukushima), so that causation claim can go right out of the window.”

    This is quite a bit wrong, however.

    Three problems:

    1) you’re already saying that the dates were picked to make a mountain out of the sloping hillside of the increase in mortality. And that means that any smaller effect would, in the longer term, be a big effect. This is not the happy-land story you seem to have intended.

    2) Chances of cancer are a fairly constant time factor, as long as the genetic damage is kept a random but equal effect, therefore some cancers will have already been found: they CAN form very quickly. .01% first month, 0.1% second month, etc. Therefore the causation is DEFINITELY possible within 10 weeks. If you’d said “unlikely to be so clear” rather than “right out the window” your assertions of even-handedness would have been feasible.

    3) Just because the figures are “poor statistics” is no proof that the problem is nonexistent. Causation proves that the null would be “There is some effect”.

  14. #15 het
    April 13, 2013

    Regarding #4, Marco
    “And to be quite honest, Coby also makes a fool of himself by advertizing the nonsense of Sherman and Mangano.”

    Just for the record, it’s my editorial integrity you should be impugning, not Coby’s.

    -het

  15. #16 Marco
    April 13, 2013

    Wow, yes, they HAD to pick the 4 weeks prior, or there’d be no ‘trend’. With 5 weeks prior the increase would have become insignificant. With 6 weeks prior the trend would have become at best flat. 10 weeks, and there really is no trend visible. In fact, the first 10 weeks of 2011 saw a *higher* mortality rate on average than the next 10 weeks (which followed the Fukushima incident).

    The data thus indicates no such thing as “some evidence that there is a problem for the NW from the Fukishima fallout”. It indicates that Mangano and Sherman did some egregious cherry picking.

    However, it is unlikely you will ever accept this, because the result of the study suits your ideology. In this respect you truly are no different from the Wattsians. Your scientific skepticism towards this study is non-existent.
    Being a nice guy, I do give you once more chance to prove me wrong on that. Do the analysis yourself, but use different cities, time periods, whatever. Show that there is an increase in mortality rates following Fukushima, and that this cannot be explained by other (known) factors such as epidemics (you’ll have to find data on cause of death). Good luck.

  16. #17 Marco
    April 13, 2013

    Regarding your point 1:
    Again you are wrong. There is a DECREASE if you’d take the whole 10 weeks prior to Fukushima. By your own logic, Fukushima DECREASED mortality rates! More nuclear accidents, please!
    (oh, that’s sarcasm, in case you didn’t catch that).

    2. Sure, cancers can form really quickly, but the increased mortality rates using the egregious cherry pick cannot be explained by increased cancer rates. The CDC data does not show any sudden increase in deaths caused by cancer.
    Add that the most likely cancer from iodine is thyroid cancer, a cancer that has one of the lowest mortality rates of any cancer (typical surivival rate over 30 years(!) is over 90%).

    3. Calling Mangano and Sherman’s paper on mortality rates “poor science” is an insult to “poor” scientists. They’ve done ideological science. Regardless of whether there are genuine concerns, such science should be called for what it is. There is no reason to accept the findings of a paper, knowing full well that its methodology is flawed and in this case closer to fraudulent, just because it fits with what we think may happen.

  17. #18 Marco
    April 13, 2013

    Mr. Taylor, point taken, apologies to Coby.

  18. #19 Wow
    April 13, 2013

    ” With 5 weeks prior the increase would have become insignificant.”

    Well since you assert that four weeks prior violates causality, how can you go using 5 or 6 weeks prior???

    You’re not egregiously CHERRY PICKING, are you???

  19. #20 Marco
    April 13, 2013

    Wow, I did not say what you claim I said.

    Why are you twisting my words? Can’t handle the facts?

  20. #21 Wow
    April 14, 2013

    No, you did.

    Whether that is what you meant is another matter.

    But you go and spoil it all by baseless accusation at the end there, don’t you markie-mark.

    Just claim your words are twisted, but meanwhile you’re twisting words yourself.

    Not smart.

    Not smart at all.

    Still, good job arguing about irrelevancies, you’ve nearly managed to avoid the big balls-up you made.

    April 11, 2013

    MBH98/99 were “caught out using ‘poor’ statistical analysis”, but the results were robust to that weakened analysis.

    But you don’t want that to be remembered, do you.

    Boo hoo.

  21. #22 Wow
    April 14, 2013

    PS rather than whinging about “Oh, you twisted my words”, why not try to untwist them.

    Or was that post a placeholder whilst you scrabble for your knickers?

  22. #23 freddy
    April 14, 2013

    Fukushima was a non-event. No casualities from nothing, only the proof that a huge earthquake and a tremendous tsunami had minor impact on an old nuclear power plant in Japan. No mortalities due to radiation.

    Wow, Mandas and Marco: what are your qualifications to talk about human diseases, e.g. thyroid cancer, as if you would understand more than zero about medicine? Explain!

  23. #24 Marco
    April 14, 2013

    Wow, you can do the exact same analysis as Michael Moyer did, you really do not even need advanced statistical analysis for that. The “poor” statistical analysis of Mangano and Sherman *does* affect the result, unlike MBH98/99. In fact, using 10 weeks prior would allow you to draw the *opposite conclusion* to that of Mangano and Sherman! Now, no scientist in his right mind would do so, because it is an enormously naive analysis focusing on one potential cause with questionable causality (otherwise there would hardly be a single infant born around Fukushima or at the nuclear tests in the 1950s in the US), ignoring a whole range of other diseases known to increase infant mortality.

  24. #25 Wow
    April 14, 2013

    Marco, doesn’t the “support” of trolls like freddykai give you pause?

    But I see no need to do the same analysis as Moyer did. The paper is “dog bites man”. If I lived in the Pacific NW I may be more interested in the actual danger, but I don’t.

    Because the statement that children in the Pacific North West are getting cancers from a nuclear accident in Japan is like telling us that kids without vitamins in their diet are malnourished.

    Whining about “poor statistics” doesn’t change that, despite the obvious need of Eamon to use that to pretend that there is no danger (completely different: proof is required for that, not the absence of proof, which this report isn’t either).

    “The “poor” statistical analysis of Mangano and Sherman *does* affect the result, unlike MBH98/99.”

    Not to the deniers. To the deniers, the “poor statistical analysis” of MBH98/99 by the EVEN WORSE Wegman and M&M papers “proves” that there is no problem in climate change. Despite, like I say above, that requiring proof not absence of proof, which the Wegman/M&M reports are not.

    “ignoring a whole range of other diseases known to increase infant mortality.”

    One of those things that can increase infant mortality is thyroid cancer.

    Please stop ignoring it.

  25. #26 Marco
    April 14, 2013

    I see, Wow supports a hopelessly flawed article (on child mortality), and doesn’t care it is hopelessly flawed, just because he likes the conclusion. You truly are no different from the climate science deniers, you are just on the complete opposite side. Or rather, you stand side-by-side, just each on your own side of the fence.

    Thyroid cancer is an extremely limited factor on mortality. Of all cancers it has one of the absolutely highest survival rates. Prostate cancer, not exactly known for its high mortality, has a higher mortality than thyroid cancer. For thyroid cancer to be a proposed factor in the observed mortality rates already a week (!!!) after Fukushima is just plain nuts to even propose (and note, not even Mangano and Sherman propose that – only you). If it were a factor in the mortality rates, ALL cancers should be massively up, simply because thyroid cancer has such a high survival rate. Or do you think radioactivity can only cause thyroid cancer?

    If we do a risk analysis, we should use honest analyses, not ideological analysis. Eamon at NO point claims there is no danger; otherwise he would not have linked to the SA blog, which states clearly “This is not to say that the radiation from Fukushima is not dangerous (it is), nor that we shouldn’t closely monitor its potential to spread (we should). But picking only the data that suits your analysis isn’t science—it’s politics. Beware those who would confuse the latter with the former.”

    Finally, I don’t see any support from freddykaitroll. And yet, when he did, it would not matter. Climate deniers may be wrong on climate change, but that does not automatically make them wrong on everything. I go where the evidence leads me, and if that brings me into a group of people that include climate change deniers, so be it. I will never ever give up on my integrity and adopt a position just because that position is opposite to that of climate deniers. Wrong is wrong, period.

  26. #27 Wow
    April 14, 2013

    I see, Wow supports a hopelessly flawed article

    Nope.

    I discard a hopelessly flawed refusal of the article.

  27. #28 Wow
    April 14, 2013

    You don’t really read much, you tend to read what’s inside your head, rather than what’s on the page.

  28. #29 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 15, 2013

    The earlier Sherman and Mangano paper had a few comments and responses to and from the authors in the journal which published it. I’ll try and track them down this week.

  29. #30 Marco
    April 15, 2013

    Wow, I clearly read much more than you do. If you’d read 10% of what I have read on this topic, you would already reject Mangano and Sherman’s attempted link of increased mortality to Fukushima.

    Apparently showing that a cherry pick of 4 weeks is necessary to make the claim of an increased mortality is “hopelessly flawed”. In reality, Mangano and Sherman confuse weather and climate, but based on the discussion with you so far, I don’t think I can ever get any sanity on this topic into your head.

  30. #31 Marco
    April 15, 2013

    Eamon, I assume you refer to these three:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993968
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993969
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993970
    If you have any full text links (other than at the journal), please do add them. I don’t have access to this journal at my University.

  31. #32 Wow
    April 15, 2013

    “Wow, I clearly read much more than you do.”

    So you admit you’re reading words not there, then, Marco.

    And you don’t read what you don’t like to read, either:

    I see, Wow supports a hopelessly flawed article

    Nope.

    I discard a hopelessly flawed refusal of the article.

    Do you.

  32. #33 mandas
    April 15, 2013

    Eamon / Marco

    I make no claims either way regarding the paper in question, but I am going to ask about your motives in bringing this issue up and question your criticism of Coby and/or HET.

    This thread is the same as is posted every week, and contains several hundred links to papers, media reports and other blog posts on issues related to climate change and similar topics. This paper was just one of hundreds in the list, and it would probably have been completely ignored by just about everyone if you hadn’t raised it.

    However, as I suggested earlier, nuclear power advocates and lobbyists have got their knickers in a twsit about it, and are doing everything in their power to discredit the paper and even the authors. The reasons they are doing so is obvious, but I have to wonder why you have taken their side and run with it.

    Now, I will repeat that I take no position either way on the accuracy or otherwise of the paper. But why it is so important to you to try to discredit it? Why did you single out this particular link from the hundreds of links in this thread?

    It make you appear to be a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry.

  33. #34 Marco
    April 15, 2013

    Wow, by claiming the rebuttal is “hopelessly flawed” without providing even the slightest evidence as such *is* supporting a hopelessly flawed article.

    Your reference to thyroid cancer as an explanation for increased mortality within 10 weeks after Fukushima shows you are simply not aware of even the most basic of cancer research. Chernobyl has caused approx. 6000+ excess thyroid cancers in 25 years. Mortality: 15.

    Let me write that again: Fifteen. In 25 years.

  34. #35 Marco
    April 15, 2013

    Mandas, I reacted to Wow, who created a strawman because he didn’t even check the link Eamon provided.

    Moreover, I am of the opinion that flawed papers need to be pointed out. It certainly is not true that this latest paper is just ignored, nor has Mangano and Sherman’s paper on excess mortality been ignored.

    Now, of course the nuclear industry is not happy with these papers. The reasons are “obvious” you say. Me and Eamon pointing out rebuttals of the excess mortality claims makes us appear “lobbyists” you say.

    If so, so be it. I cannot let hopelessly flawed and clearly ideologically-driven research remain unchallenged. It diminishes the credibility of this blog and of H.E. Taylor on the topic of climate change if both promote pseudoscience of the Mangano kind.

    Dismissing criticism of Mangano and Sherman’s work just because that criticism is *also* made by the nuclear power industry is just plain ideology. What’s next? Are you going to attack Ray Pierrehumbert for criticizing Jim Hansen’s “runaway greenhouse effect” claims? Call Mike Mann a fossil fuel lobbyist for pointing out problems with tree ring proxies (which caused a lengthy and angry rebuttal from the tree ring community)?

  35. #36 mandas
    April 15, 2013

    Marco

    I am perfectly happy for you to point out flaws in papers. But I suggest that if you are to do so, you would be doing nothing else with your time other than that. I suggest there are probably many papers on the list each week that are flawed and deserve critical analysis.

    And that is how I get to my point – why this one? What made you single out this paper for criticism? How did you know it was flawed?

    I doubt very much that you read through every paper on the list and found that this one was particularly egregious, and therefore worthy of your condemnation. Someone must have pointed you to it. Did you read about it somewhere? Because one thing is obvious – the criticism that you are levelling against it does not seem to be your own.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I have read exactly the same criticisms that you are making on nuclear power advocacy sites – I even linked to one of them earlier. That means one of three things:

    1 – you wrote those criticisms on those sites.
    2 – you read the paper and independently came to the same conclusions at the same time
    3 – you are just repeating what you have read elsewhere

    Maybe I am not giving you the credit you deserve, but I tend towards option 3 as the most likely situation. If so, the ethical thing for you to have done up front would have been for you to reveal your source. But as I say, there may have been other possibilities and I am being unfair to you. If so, I apologise.

    I am not dismissing criticisms of the paper just because it has been made by the nuclear power industry. Far from it. It may be perfectly justified. But it does go towards motivation for an action, and I always take industry criticsm of their own industry in a science paper with a huge grain of salt.

    So my questions to you are – how did you know that this paper was flawed? And are the criticisms of it all your own work, or are you just repeating what you have read (and which I have also seen) elsewhere?

    I think they are fair questions.

  36. #37 Wow
    April 15, 2013

    “Wow, by claiming the rebuttal is “hopelessly flawed” without providing even the slightest evidence as such *is* supporting a hopelessly flawed article.”

    Yup, so why did you defend and support Eamon doing just that, Marco?

  37. #38 Marco
    April 15, 2013

    Mandas, must I repeat everything I say to you, too?

    Once more:
    “Mandas, I reacted to Wow, who created a strawman because he didn’t even check the link Eamon provided.”

    I did, and it clearly wasn’t a strawman.

    Being the scientist I am, I followed up on Michael Moyer’s article, checking out what Mangano and Sherman had written in their counterpunch article (the one Michael Moyer reacted to). I found Michael Moyer’s criticism to be right on the money, based on my own knowledge of epidemiology. You’d probably call this “option 3″, I call it option 4: I inevstigated the claims made by both parties, and found Mangano and Sherman to be utterly untrustworthy for the following reasons:
    a) They had indeed cherry picked
    b) They ignored any and all alternative explanations. Mortality rates are known to vary wildly throughout the year. Moyer’s example just shows that once again: take the 10 weeks prior, and Fukushima ’caused’ a decrease in mortality rates!
    c) Mangano is an important factor in the Radiation and Public Health Project, a SEPP-like organization that lives on making large claims that are consistently rejected by medical scientists and organizations like the CDC
    d) the final paper making these claims was criticized by Alfred Körblein, certainly not someone to just dismiss and certainly not a pro-nuclear lobbyist. I happen to know him (not personally, but his work).

    If you had done your work, you would not have tried to taint my comments and criticism as “appear[ing]” to be coming from a pro-nuclear lobbyist. Also, you may want to think twice before so easily dismissing criticism from what you call the nuclear lobby. That I repeat their criticism actually suggests they are right, or at the very least much closer to the facts than Mangano and Sherman. You may want to rethink your own ideological bias on this topic (wow is already a lost cause).

  38. #39 Marco
    April 15, 2013

    Wow, Eamon was so nice to call it “poor statistical techniques”, which in reality was cherry picking and claiming causality while not even investigating other potential causes (and ignoring the known large intraannual variability in mortality rates).

    Your continued attempt to dismiss the criticisms just shows you wear ideological blinders. People like you are no different from the Wattsians, blindly following what they are being told, just because it fits their ideology, and attacking everything that doesn’t fit, screw the facts.

  39. #40 Wow
    April 15, 2013

    Marco, Eamon was doing PRECISELY what you claim I was doing wrong.

    Of course, I wasn’t do that, but you’re just not willing to read what’s there.

    NUCLEAR IS TRUTH! LOVE THE BOMB!

    You’re a feckless waste of my time.

  40. #41 Marco
    April 16, 2013

    No, Wow, you started with not reading the provided link, claiming there was a strawman while there wasn’t. Michael Moyer responded *exactly* to the claims of Mangano and Sherman. That same link also provided evidence of the latter two being untrustworthy scientists. Eamon used that analysis to use caution about the paper linked by H.E. Taylor. That’s quite different from you, you just claimed it was wrong, and managed to make it worse by suggesting a causality between the increased mortality and thyroid cancer, which goes against everything we know about thyroid cancer. In other words, whereas Eamon did not utter a single untruth (apart from the one act of kindness in calling it “poor statistical techniques”), you uttered several.

  41. #42 mandas
    April 16, 2013

    Marco

    Must I repeat everything I say as well? You should note that I have – on several occasions – stated quite clearly that I take no position either way on the accuracy of the paper. So to suggest that I “rethink (my) own ideological bias on this topic” is absurd. I have no ideological position on it at all.

    You also state that your criticism is based on “being the scientist that (you) are”. Then you say that you checked the SA article that they had written and that you had checked the claims of both parties to the debate – but nowhere do you state that you have actually read the paper. I assume that is just an oversight

    Therefore, I would be interested in your position on why the authors chose the periods that they did – which would surely be in the methods section of the paper. Was there a reason they only chose 4 weeks prior and 10 weeks after? Because, as you say, if more prior data was available that would indicate cherry picking. But surely they say why? I admit that I haven’t read the paper – but given that you are basing your criticism on your scientific training, you must have read it (to criticise it without having read it would be the worst kind of non-scientific ethics and I accept that you would not being doing that) and can therefore let us know what the author’s explanation is.

    Finally, my position on this issue is based almost entirely on your statement at post #4 where you said this:
    “And to be quite honest, Coby also makes a fool of himself by advertizing the nonsense of Sherman and Mangano.”

    That statement was uncalled for. Coby has neither made a fool of himself, nor has he advertised anything. All he did was to provide links to articles and papers of interest on climate change and related issues – like he does every week, The work was that of HET – and he didn’t advertise anything either. He simply did his usual outstanding a valuable work of pulling together all the information, and there was no endorsement either way of the information contained therein. I accept that you apologised to Coby at post #18 – but you have not yet retracted your claim about “advertising the nonsense”. You should do so.

  42. #43 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 16, 2013

    Mandas, regarding your post #33:

    Eamon / Marco

    I am going to ask about your motives in bringing this issue up and question your criticism of Coby and/or HET.

    I did not criticise Coby nor HET. Their work is very useful, and I was impressed by Coby’s response to the argy-bargy that became the Fukushima Thread.

    This thread is the same as is posted every week … This paper was just one of hundreds in the list, and it would probably have been completely ignored by just about everyone if you hadn’t raised it.

    First, it is not one of hundreds of papers on the list. A lot of the list is links to news stories on the climate. Second, I doubt it would have been ignored in the wider community – which is one of the reasons I raised it.

    However, as I suggested earlier, nuclear power advocates and lobbyists have got their knickers in a twsit about it, and are doing everything in their power to discredit the paper and even the authors. The reasons they are doing so is obvious, but I have to wonder why you have taken their side and run with it.

    I was interested in the news stores mentioning the report, as I live in a prefecture adjoining Fukushima, have a child, and have friends who have children and are having children. I checked the news stories, didn’t find much meat in them. I tried to get the paper referenced, but it was behind a paywall. After that I googled the authors’ names, hoping to find a pre-pub version of the paper, but instead found the Sci Am dissection of their previous paper on Fukushima effects in the US. Thus I sent out my cautionary post.

    I have to say, if Sherman and Mangano are correct, I think there would be widespread evidence of deaths and birth abnormalities in Eastern Japan. AFAIK there is not

    Why did you single out this particular link from the hundreds of links in this thread?

    Dealt with above.

    It make you appear to be a lobbyist for the nuclear power industry.

    Only if you consider valid scientific criticism of papers lobbying.

  43. #44 Marco
    April 16, 2013

    Mandas, claiming you do not take a position and then accuse someone of being a vested interest lobbyist is a bit disingenious.

    Second, I indeed did not read Mangano and Sherman’s paper referenced here (I have know), but followed Eamon’s link and noticed these are two people who are willing to make large claims that do not pass even a sniff-test of validity. Ignoring this prior evidence of ideology-driven research and then assess a new paper by these two on its own merits simply does not hold.

    Note that the SA blogpost refers to an article on the Al Jazeera website, NOT to the paper they later got published. The article on Al Jazeera provides no reason to take the 4 weeks prior, and there is no reason. Now, the paper they actually published is different, but at no point do they explain their choices (14 weeks prior and after is used, and compared to the same periods in 2010, but no explanation why 14 weeks). The funniest part of the paper is their mentioning of the geographical distribution, looking at some cities. No discussion is attempted to take that data into the discussion, which is unsurprising, since (as shown in one of the later responses to the paper) the largest increase is in the cities that were outside the plume, and a decrease in the cities that were in the plume. The paper thus has numerous alarm bells.

    Finally, I have no intent to apologize to H.E. Taylor. He put the link to a story written by known ideological hacks in a list. He will have to stand for that. I already apologized to Coby.

  44. #45 mandas
    April 16, 2013

    Marco

    Thanks for that. You criticised a paper you hadn’t read and also critiised someone who provided a link to a paper without making any claim or endorsement of said paper.

    I think that about says it all about your credibility.

  45. #46 Wow
    April 16, 2013

    Marco, courts find people guilty or not guilty.

    They don’t find them guilty or innocent.

    In the same way, not supporting a flawed argument against a paper is not supporting the paper.

    Now you have the analogy, do you understand?

    Or is understanding of secondary importance?

  46. #47 mandas
    April 16, 2013

    Eamon

    On the subject of credibility, your past post is typical of the quote mining and cherry picking that I find disgusting. You quote mined this from my post #33:

    “This paper was just one of hundreds in the list, and it would probably have been completely ignored by just about everyone if you hadn’t raised it.

    And you criticised that by saying this:

    “First, it is not one of hundreds of papers on the list. A lot of the list is links to news stories on the climate

    But let’s see what I ACTUALLY said – rather than your quote mine:

    “This thread is the same as is posted every week, and contains several hundred links to papers, media reports and other blog posts on issues related to climate change and similar topics. This paper was just one of hundreds in the list,”

    I will accept your apology for you completely unethical attempt at quote mining. That was – not too put too fine a point on it – a bloody feeble attempt to undermine my credibility my using a tactic typical of those who have zero integrity. I would have expected better.

  47. #48 mandas
    April 16, 2013

    And at the risk of belabouring a point, let me hark back to Marco’s original post (#4):

    “Wow, you have done it again: making claims and commenting on something without informing yourself. You should have, because you make a fool of yourself again.

    And follow that up with this (post #44):

    “… I indeed did not read Mangano and Sherman’s paper referenced here…”

    Wow is an idiot troll who deserves all the condemnation that can be heaped upon him. But seriously Marco…?

  48. #49 freddy
    April 17, 2013

    Mandas, the arguing of Marco is the one of a scientist, your’s not. You are no scientist and therefore not familiar with scientific thinking. As you are something like a ranger in a wildlife reserve you shouldn’t try to elicit the wrong impression that you have anything to do with science. You judge everything from your preconceived political ideology of a green leftist partizan guy who believes in global warming and hates nuclear power. From your love of the AGW movement and your hatred of nuclear power everything of your thinking can be deduced, easily.

    Wow is a similar case, but mentally much more insane and utterly uncivil, full of unbased cantankerousness.

  49. #50 freddy
    April 17, 2013

    mandas, please explain why you hate nuclear energy.

  50. #51 Marco
    April 17, 2013

    Mandas, I criticized a paper for drawing a silly conclusion (for that I did not even need to read the paper) based on the facts that its conclusion flies in the face of many hundreds if not thousands of papers evaluating the effects of radiation on health effects AND the fact that the two authors have been caught doing highly unethical data analysis before. I feel entitled as a scientist to dismiss such reports.

    You, on the other hands, felt entitled to just call me a lobbyist (don’t even try to point to that weasel word “appear”, it was a well considered attempt at deniability, but certainly not plausible).

    P.S. the claim that H.E. Taylor did not endorse the paper is the same lame argument Judith Curry and Anthony Watts often use when they publish a piece of crap.

  51. #52 Marco
    April 17, 2013

    freddykaitroll, you wouldn’t know science when it hit you in the face continuously for five years. You’ve already shown that by your own repeated errors and failure to even come close to acknowledging those errors.

  52. #53 Marco
    April 17, 2013

    Wow, did you forget your own hopelessly flawed attempts to claim there was a causal link, showing you had even less knowledge than even the most cursory reading of wikipedia could have given you?

    That’s endorsing the paper, supporting its flawed causality claims.

  53. #54 freddy
    April 17, 2013

    Marcotroll, you disqualified to be taken serious

  54. #55 Wow
    April 17, 2013

    “Wow, did you forget your own hopelessly flawed attempts to claim there was a causal link,”

    Ah, I see. You’re making shit up.

    I no more forgot that than i forgot my alibi on the assassination of JFK more than a decade before my birth…

    Cs for example is very close in body chemistry terms to Calcium and gets taken into the bones and accumulates there. I don’t know the biological entry for thyroid cancers, but Tritium has a similar bioloical problem in that it gets swapped in for Hydrogen in H2O.

    So where, precisely, is my causation that leads me to “this is a ‘dog bites man’ story” so “hopelessly flawed”????

    Is the answer “only in your head”, Marco?

  55. #56 Wow
    April 17, 2013

    “That’s endorsing the paper, supporting its flawed causality claims.”

    That is at least a valid way to assert “endorsing the paper”, but a long way from what you claimed earlier that was my “tell” for supporting the paper: refuting Eamon’s silly statement of ‘it’s statistically flawed’.

    Problem is, your assertion holds no more weight.

  56. #57 Wow
    April 17, 2013

    In case you wish proof of where I say your earlier assertion was based on my NOT supporting Eamon’s silly “poor statistical technique” is in post #34:

    “Your continued attempt to dismiss the criticisms”

    Since the criticisms made were solely ones about “they cherry picked!!!!”. Your post #34 gives further proof of this reading.

  57. #58 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 17, 2013

    Mandas,

    regarding your post, #47, I can see where you are coming from, however, your last sentence in paragraph 2, post #33 is unclear. This:

    “This paper was just one of hundreds in the list, and it would probably have been completely ignored by just about everyone if you hadn’t raised it.”

    Should have read:

    “This paper was just one of hundreds of links in the list, and it would probably have been completely ignored by just about everyone if you hadn’t raised it.”

  58. #59 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 17, 2013

    Marco #33

    Eamon, I assume you refer to these three:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993968
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993969
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22993970
    If you have any full text links (other than at the journal), please do add them. I don’t have access to this journal at my University.

    Yes, those are the ones. I don’t have journal access myself, but the abstracts of the responses to Mangano and Sherman’s papers are pretty damning – especially so as one is by the anti-nuclear stalwart, Dr. Alfred Körblein. Another is from the leukemia expert Dr.Robert Peter Gale, who has a track record of over 800 scientific publications over 41 years.

    Even if we dismiss these criticisms, we have to wonder why no goverment agency or academic body has taken up the “worrying” report. It could be a global conspiracy, or it could be because the Mangano and Sherman paper of 2012 is fatally flawed. I go with the latter, as I know how curious and tenacious scientists can be chasing up phenomena and data which are interesting or novel.

  59. #60 mandas
    April 17, 2013

    Marco

    I accept – and have always accepted – that the Mangano and Sherman paper may well be flawed. I have never argued otherwise.

    But – as you admit – you did not read it before embarking on a scathing criticism of the paper and the authors. You accused them – on numerous occasions – of cherry picking the data period, of drawing conclusions which are at odds with existing knowledge, and ignoring alternative explanations for their findings.

    Now that you have read it, you would obviously have noted that you were incorrect with your criticism of temporal period cherry picking. That, by itself, should have given you pause to reconsider both your position on the paper and your reliance on what you read in a non-peer reviewed source as the basis for your criticism. They got it wrong and led you astray – so I have to wonder why you would continue to accept what they have to say on the issue

    The number of times I have criticised deniers for not reading papers, and for using media reports and blog sites as supposed reliable sources is almost too numerous to mention. I should not have to do the same for someone who has a scientific background. For god’s sake – READ THE PRIMARY SOURCE BEFORE CRITICISING.

    Finally, here are a couple of quotes from the paper (which is open access by the way – there is no excuse not to have read it) :

    “There are limitations to the data in this report that call for future actions to address them……..to obtain more precise temporal and geographic data on environmental levels of specific radionuclides in the US after Fukushima, including I-131…….In addition, there are technical changes that may be made to data in this report, such as using a period greater than just 2010 as a baseline; including data on CH cases after 2011; and conversion of trends in cases to rates when official numbers of 2010-2011 live births by state and month become available.

    The data presented in this paper, including both exposure levels and CH incidence, should be considered as
    preliminary. They require confirmation and expansion, including long-term follow-up of infants and other children. However, the current findings should be noted, and encourage the conduct of future analyses of health effects from exposures to Fukushima fallout.

    Understanding why CH rates have risen in developed nations such as the U.S. is a complex task, as multiple factors are likely involved. Exposure to radiation, especially the thyroid-seeking radioiodine isotopes, should be
    considered as one of these factors. The meltdown at Fukushima Dai-ichi presents an opportunity to analyze this
    factor, and studies such as this one should continue.”

    I assume that you have read those sections of the paper – and I have to wonder how that gels with your earlier criticism where you were scathing about “…blindly link(ing) any potential increase to Fukushima…..there is no effort at all to correct for confounding factors…” (post #8).

    So I hope you can understand why I have been critical of your position on this. As I have been saying all along, you may well be correct with regard to some of the problems with this paper. But that does not excuse the ignoring of correct science processes – including reading the bloody thing first.

  60. #61 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 17, 2013

    But that does not excuse the ignoring of correct science processes – including reading the bloody thing first.

    Not always necessary – seeing how much Sherman and Magnano put out into the media. As for correct scientific processes, reading the abstract is certainly vital, reading the rest of the paper is advisable, save in the case where published comments are available for the paper – comments which show serious flaws in the work we are commenting on. That said, it would still be good to read the paper, which I will in time.

  61. #62 mandas
    April 18, 2013

    Sorry Eamon – no.

    You must ALWAYS read the primary source – ie the paper – before commenting. The reason is obvious, as this case demonstrates. Some of the criticisms in the SA blog were simply wrong, and that would have been picked up if you had read the paper first rather than relying on a blog post.

    You see that all the time from deniers – they sprout what they have read on wattsupmybutt and other websiites to criticise what is in a paper, without having read the paper itself. Often the wattsupmybutt comments are second or even third hand as well – based on a media report which is based on a statement by someone not associated with the paper who has read the abstract only.

    I should not need to say this to people who have been trained in the sciences, because it would have been drilled into their heads repeatedly at university. And I will keep saying this over and over again until people get it.

    READ THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT BEFORE COMMENTING. Anything less is not acceptable.

  62. #63 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 18, 2013

    Sorry Mandas – no.

    As is the case with literature searches, abstract reading is essential, and if more depth is needed a read of the paper is necessary, except in the case of a paper which has had flaws pointed out and published in the paper’s originating journal – in that case it is optional.

    If I am asked to read a paper, for example, that states that “the universe is not expanding, we are shrinking” – I can dismiss it out of hand. A layman, on reading published critiques of the paper can certainly dismiss it. either of us have to read the paper beyond the abstract.

  63. #64 mandas
    April 18, 2013

    Well Eamon, it looks as though we disagree.

    You keep on with your approach of relying on others to tell you what your opinion of a paper should be – never minding that a cursory reading of the paper in question would have revealed that their criticisms were wrong.

    I, on the other hand, will actually read the primary document before I put my foot in my mouth in regard to what it supposedly says.

  64. #65 Marco
    April 19, 2013

    Mandas, you are being disingenious and mixing things.

    You might want to read the abstract and the introduction as well as the study set-up for the CH study: it is completely built on the premise that the Fukushima radiation causes CH. The “multiple factors” referred to in the discussion refers back to the increase in CH incidence in many countries in the last few decades. It is *not* used as an alternative explanation for the observed claimed increase after Fukushima and one factor is just handwaved away in the discussion (ethnicity).

    I maintain that it is fully acceptable to reject papers written by known ideological hacks that come to conclusions that are at odds with the evaluation of experts in the field.

    Finally, note that several of my comments were related to the earlier mortality increase report. In particular the cherry picking of the time periods is related to those reports. Those criticizing Mangano and Sherman about that *non-peer reviewed* report were correct (although there were even worse issues as the responses to the final paper show).

    It’s like seeing yet another paper by Gerlich & Tscheuschner that the greenhouse effect does not exist and having to evaluate each paper on its own merits, ignoring the prior behavior of these authors.

  65. #66 mandas
    April 19, 2013

    Marco

    Then we are simply going to disagree on this issue. I will continue to act as I do – that is, to read the paper in question before I criticise it. And if I use someone else’s critique of a paper, I will appropriately reference them as the source of the critical analysis.

    It is the standard practice of deniers to criticise something without having read it, and to simply parrot what they have read in the denier echo chamber – and I haven’t been able to stop them from acting in that fashion. On that basis, I guess I won’t be able to stop you from acting the same way.

    Cheers

  66. #67 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 19, 2013

    Mandas

    Well Eamon, it looks as though we disagree.

    Indeed it does.

    You keep on with your approach of relying on others to tell you what your opinion of a paper should be – never minding that a cursory reading of the paper in question would have revealed that their criticisms were wrong.

    And absolute not the point I was making. You assume that everyone will be a beginner when approaching science, that our Sagan “balloney detectors” are non-functional, and that a good overview cannot be obtained save by delving into the guts of a paper. That is not the case, else most PhDs would stall at the beginning literature searches.

    I, on the other hand, will actually read the primary document before I put my foot in my mouth in regard to what it supposedly says.

    And so, I assume, you will disregard resources like “How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic” and Skeptical Science unless you can get access to the papers they mention, and time to read them?

    And how about comprehension? Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s “Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”. Is Math-heavy. I have read it, but in all honesty I cannot say I followed it all.

    Does this mean I should just say “They could be right?”

    No. Because from their statements in the abstract they show they have little comprehension of thermodynamics, and make an extraordinary claim, which as Sagan said “requires extraodinary evidence”.

    That evidence was not forthcoming, and the subsequent paper by Eli Rabbet et al showing the flawed reasoning of G&T.

    The same could be said for Shermasn and Magnano. They made an extraordinary claim, provided no extraordinary evidence, and the comments on their paper were damning.

    I did take a quick look at their paper – and find the comments it got were justified. I also note they rate the debunked “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment” highly. They also attribute a Sudden Infant Death spike in BC to radiation, even though the BC Coroner’s Service attrubutes half to sleeping position, says there is an even distribution of deaths in the province, and that higher birth rates could be a factor.

    Chris Busby’s “Wings of Death over Wales” is also considered relevant, even though his theories, through which he managed to get an inquiry in the Welsh Assembly, were put to rest by the Welsh Stastics Agency. Similar maulings occur in any professional journal Busby manages to get published in, e.g the BMJ.

    And talking of professional journals, why do S&M get published in “International Journal of Health Services”? It’s a very low-rated journal. I would have thought that researchers of S&M’s rank would merit a better journal for their views. This point and others are made in an informative piece here:

    http://www.reportingonhealth.org/blogs/2011/12/20/fukushima-alarmist-claim-obscure-medical-journal-proceed-caution

    The update is also worth following, as the IJHS editor responds and comments on publication and response to comments:

    We do not publish letters to the editors, but when we receive criticisms we believe merit attention, we publish them asking the authors of the original article to reply if they so wish, publishing the exchange in the same issue and let the readers judge. This is how academic debates should be handled.

    So yes, the comments merit attention.

    Now S&M responded to the comments with another paper “FUKUSHIMA UPDATE: RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT
    AND MORTALITY INCREASES IN THE UNITED STATES:
    IS THERE A CORRELATION?”

    I do not have time at present to go through that thoroughly, but I note that their comments on their 12th reference in that paper are completely wrong:

    a recent report found that 573 deaths in 13 municipalities in the evacuation zone have been attributed by officials to radiation exposure from the meltdowns, with dozens more deaths under review (12).

    The article in question is not available, as Japanese Newspapers seldom archive their stories, by the relevant part is available from ENEnews on the internet:

    “A total of 573 deaths have been certified as “disaster-related” by 13 municipalities affected by the crisis at the crippled Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to a Yomiuri Shimbun survey.

    This number could rise because certification for 29 people remains pending while further checks are conducted. […]

    A disaster-related death certificate is issued when a death is not directly caused by a tragedy, but by fatigue or the aggravation of a chronic disease due to the disaster. If a municipality certifies the cause of death is directly associated to a disaster, a condolence grant is paid to the victim’s family. If the person was a breadwinner, 5 million yen is paid. […]

    “During our examination of the applications, we gave emphasis to the conditions at evacuation sites and how they spent their days before they died,” a city government official said. “However, the screening process was difficult in cases when people had stayed in evacuation facilities for an extended time and when there was little evidence of where they had been taking shelter.”

    So, Sherman and Mangano – economical with the truth or poor readers. Either way, does not build confidence in tehir work.

  67. #68 Marco
    April 19, 2013

    So, according to mandas Scientific American is “denier echo chamber”…?
    That’s news to me.

    Mandas may also be wise to note that criticisms of Mangano and Sherman frequently come from experts in the field, with the “nuclear industry” or “nuclear power lobbyists” ‘merely’ coming to the same conclusions. It’s like dismissing criticism of Monckton’s nonsense because ‘vested green interests’ are criticizing him.

  68. #69 Marco
    April 19, 2013

    Eamon, more scare-mongering of Mangano here:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/15/fukushimas-nuclear-casualties/

    Note that Mangano and Sherman have published several papers in IJHS. It’s not exactly known for its politics-free reporting (it’s not as bad as the Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, but not that far off either). Some years ago they got the ire of several large US agencies for their scare-mongering in the Tooth Fairy project, making numerous large claims that were not supported by the data.

    The current stories are no different.

  69. #70 Wow
    April 20, 2013

    Problem is, Marco, the nuclear industry refuses (much like the biotech and agribusiness industries do too) to be anything but clandestine.

    The paper you and Eamon whine on about is a dog bites man story.

    Fukushima’s death toll will be almost entirely deaths due to the effects of the fallout. We have absolute evidence from the two bombs at the end of WW2 to show that even when employed AS A BOMB most of the deaths are not from the immediate effects of the explosion.

    “There are no deaths from Fukushima yet” is no different from “This smoker has not died from cancer yet”.

  70. #71 Wow
    April 20, 2013

    Indeed the agribusiness industry gives another nail for “The paper used flawed statistics!!!” whine Eamon started with and you picked up and ran with.

    The french study that found cancer rates increased with RR GMO and Roundup use on crops together, and with RR GMOs on its own doing so.

    “It used too few rats!!!”.

    Except it used the same number of rats the Monsato “study” did.

    “It used rats sensitive to cancer chemistry!”

    Yes, the same rats the Monsato “study” used, which are used in ALL such studies for that very reason: makes the test quicker and cheaper.

    What they changed was to do it longer. Which since they used three groups:

    1) No RR GMO or Roundup-contaminated food
    2) Roundup-contaminated food, no RR GMO
    3) RR GMO food and Roundup used on it

    they had the baseline to assert what should be done.

    Also the Monsato study data, as is the case with almost every such study, kept as “commercial in confidence” and unavailable for verification by anyone independent.

    The same routine PM used to “prove” that smoking didn’t cause cancer. When you can give out only those which say what you like, you can keep trying and if your 95% confidence limits are right, after about 20 goes, you’ll get a false negative MERELY BY CHANCE, and with 100% genuine data, no faking required.

    Replication would disprove your paper pretty quickly, but if that happens, obviously you can just scream “BAD STATISTICS!!!!” and a compliant grassroots will defend you.

  71. #72 Marco
    April 20, 2013

    Wow, if you admit that the effects are likely not to be visible yet, you implicitly admit that the study by Mangano and Sherman on mortality rates is wrong. Do we really want incorrect articles in the peer-reviewed literature, just because they can be used to create a scare about the nuclear power industry? There are plenty of other studies that DO use proper analysis methods. Only ‘problem’ is that they don’t come even close to the scare that Mangano and Sherman would like to create.

    Regarding the Roundup study…I would not put so much faith in that either, if I were you. Yes, there was some criticism that also applies to the Monsanto study. But Seralini’s “you’re all industry shills or supporters” as a response is a major red flag. His refusal to show the raw data is a red flag, too (“but Monsanto did it too!” – seriously, you want to use that as an excuse?). And if you knew just a little bit about toxicity, you’d put some major questions with the finding that the more GM corn the rats got, the less likely they were to develop cancer. Heck, give them Roundup to drink and they lived longer than those that did not! You fail to see the grassroots on the other side of the fence and to see that that grassroots ‘surprisingly’ does not include many mainstream scientists…

  72. #73 freddy
    April 20, 2013

    wow ““There are no deaths from Fukushima yet” is no different from “This smoker has not died from cancer yet”

    I have never heard more bullshit. wow, you are a ideologically mistaken idiot with zero knowledge in natural sciences including medicine.

    you are a psycho by profession, so stay in your esoteric world and spare others with your abimonable and perverse views of reality. ggggrrrrhh

  73. #74 Wow
    April 20, 2013

    “Wow, if you admit that the effects are likely not to be visible yet”

    Why would I admit something I haven’t tried to assert? If I haven’t done the sums, I won’t know how likely it is to be, right?

    And you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge anything that is said that is “off message” for your nuclear fluffing. Did you not see the bit about Phillip Morris being able to wait for a paper that demonstrated valid data “proving” smoking and cancer were unrelated by trying again and again until they got genuine data that genuinely showed what they wanted?

    Apparently not, because that rather blows the “unlikely to have been seen yet” out of the water as a “proof” of the error of the paper: there’s a CHANCE (and even you admit it without admitting you admit it) that it WOULD be seen. I bet you’ll only see part of the paragraph too.

    Why don’t you admit that you jumped the gun and claimed a lot of tosh that turned out to be incorrect? And you’re continuing this malodorous practice too.

    “Do we really want incorrect articles in the peer-reviewed literature”

    No.

    Though this isn’t solved by incorrect rebuttal, is it? Do you want incorrect rebuttal of papers that you don’t like?

    “Only ‘problem’ is that they don’t come even close to the scare that Mangano and Sherman would like to create.”

    Why do you think it is a ‘problem’? I don’t.

    As I’ve continually said, the paper is a dog-bites-man paper and the severity may have meant something to me if I lived in the Pacific North West, but I don’t.

    The *problem* is that those who fanatically defend nuclear power *will not* allow discouraging talk of nuclear and will jump to ANYTHING that will neuter those words, even if that method is as or more flawed than the flaws they are complaining about.

    You and Eamon are not at all concerned about errors, the overriding concern is that nuclear power is not being shown in a good techno-utopian light and the number one priority is to slam the opposing position with whatever is at hand.

    “Regarding the Roundup study…I would not put so much faith in that either, if I were you”

    No, your abilities in advising on this has proven poor so far.

    “Yes, there was some criticism that also applies to the Monsanto study. ”

    Since this study was supposed to be PROOF that the stuff was safe and the default position is that it is not, WHY THE HELL IS IT STILL LEGAL TO USE IT???

    The paper done by Seralini et al was *more* rigorous than Monsato’s. If that paper is too flawed to draw conclusions from then the Monsato submission is worse.

    But that never seems to get through the thick sculls of the idiots pimping the GMO, does it.

    “But Seralini’s “you’re all industry shills or supporters” as a response”

    Except that is YOUR paraphrasing of their response.

    Being a GMO fluffer techno-utopian, you WANT that to be the response so that you can summarily ignore it whilst still pretending to be “rational” about it (unlike EVERYONE who are against GMOs because they’re “ununformed” or “scaremongers”).

    “Heck, give them Roundup to drink and they lived longer than those that did not!”

    Yeah, and since there’s been no warming in the past 16 years, and know about CO2’s warming causation, this proves that the greenhouse effect doesn’t happen!

    But are you saying that Roundup is a health elixir? Please inform us of the causation. Have the alchemists FINALLY found the Elixir of Life???

  74. #75 freddy
    April 21, 2013

    wow, you criticize marco with “You and Eamon are not at all concerned about errors, the overriding concern is that nuclear power is not being shown in a good techno-utopian light and the number one priority is to slam the opposing position with whatever is at hand”

    and your position is exactly the opposite: your overriding concern is that nuclear power is not being shiwn in a good-utopian light because you hate nuclear power. Try to be honest for the first time in your life and confess that you hate nuclear power, you coward!

  75. #76 Marco
    April 21, 2013

    Wow, you are once again talking out of your behind. There are plenty of studies around that show the risks of radiation (regardless of the source). Those show that the risk of the Fukushima fall out *by necessity* must be limited. The amount of radiation simply is too low to have any measurable impact. There are literally hundreds of cohort studies that show this, and anyone who has spent even a few hours looking at this topic would have known this. I knew. Hence my incredulity with the CH study, and with Eamon’s link (and a bit of further digging) showing me that Mangano and Sherman are a bunch of ideological hacks.

    Regarding Roundup: why should I come with a causation? Seralini did not come with a causation for the GM corn and the increased mortality and cancer rates amongst the rats who got the least (ha!) GM corn of the three groups. It is simple: in the Seralini study spiking the drinking water with Roundup resulted in a lower mortality than the control group.

    It’s quite amazing, but freddy’s reaction appears to be right on the money. The pseudoskeptics referring to the 16-year ‘pause’ as a way to discredit CO2 as a significant forcing is, in fact, EXACTLY the same as what Mangano and Sherman have done: look at short term variations and draw large conclusions.

  76. #77 Wow
    April 21, 2013

    Marco, you are once again doing a mandy.

    Great opener, bub (not). “You is a poopyhead!!!”. Way to rebut.

    You see you go from “This is the rebuttal” to “that is why you are a poopyhead”. Progressing FROM the “you’re a poopyhead” rather indicates that you arrived at your poopyhead assertion before any evidence you’re trying to use to prove it.

    In short, you’re being a shithead.

    End of discussion.

  77. #78 Marco
    April 22, 2013

    Sometimes it is easier to start with the conclusion. The rest is for those who *can* discern fact from fiction (i.e., not you).

  78. #79 Wow
    April 22, 2013

    And that’s what makes it an ad-hominem, you imbecile.

  79. #80 Marco
    April 22, 2013

    Wow does not even know what an ad hominem is…unsurprisingly.

    Next he tells me we cannot say someone is wrong, because that’s an “ad hominem”.

  80. #81 Wow
    April 22, 2013

    Yes I do, dickhead.

  81. #82 Marco
    April 23, 2013

    Ah, we’re going to play *that* game. I can do that, if you so desperately want to:

    No you don’t.

  82. #83 freddy
    April 23, 2013

    Marco, yes he does. wow always thinks he has to have the last word, as an obsession.

  83. #84 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 23, 2013

    Wow@70

    Fukushima’s death toll will be almost entirely deaths due to the effects of the fallout. We have absolute evidence from the two bombs at the end of WW2 to show that even when employed AS A BOMB most of the deaths are not from the immediate effects of the explosion.

    The US-Japanese Radiation Effects Research Foundation gives between 150,000 to 246,000 acute deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (i.e. within 2 to 4 months of the blasts, from the immediate effects of the blast)
    http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html

    The RERF gives the total number of radiation-attributable cancers as about 1990 cases.
    http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html
    “There are no deaths from Fukushima yet” is no different from “This smoker has not died from cancer yet”.

    Do you have some data that counters this?

  84. #85 Eamon
    Tohoku
    April 23, 2013

    Wow@71

    If you look at my reply to Manada@67, you’ll see that Sharman and Magnano badly misrepresent what their references say, which is not only a good indicator of their honesty/reading ability, but also a good indicator as to the quality of their research.

  85. #86 Wow
    April 23, 2013

    Yes I do, Marco.

    (yeah, you started it)

    PS not the only ones to “misrepresent what the references say”, really.

    “It *had* to be four weeks!!!”

    “Oh, eh, ten weeks”.

  86. #87 Marco
    April 23, 2013

    Wow, you are wrong again. It’s becoming a real pattern (nope, still not an ad hominem).

    Mangano and Sherman used, in their counterpunch article, 4 weeks prior and 10 weeks after. In their final published paper they compared 14 weeks periods in 2010 and 2011. So, where do you get your apparent delusions that someone had to admit it wasn’t 4 weeks, but actually 10 weeks?

Current ye@r *