Fukushima controversies that the mainstream media ignores

|
(11)

This week, we wrote our annual analysis of the list of censored stories released by Project Censored. We wrote that “in one study that got little attention, scientists Joseph Mangano and Janette Sherman found that in the period following the Fukushima meltdowns, 14,000 more deaths than average were reported in the US, mostly among infants.”

It’s true that the study got little attention in mainstream media, with a few exceptions including coverage in Al Jazeera. It was, however, the subject of scrutiny from multiple sources.

Sherman is a physician and former advisory board member for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxic Substances Control Act, and Mangano is an epidemiologist and public health administrator and researcher.

The debate that followed the release of their study got into important issues of the health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Both those defending and attacking the study, and the general principle of the health impacts of nuclear energy, had their say. But all this happened outside mainstream media, and in the wake of Fukushima, mainstream media has largely ignored health implications. That's why the story was highlighted by Project Censored, which explores stories underreported by the mainstream media, in their book Censored 2013: Dispatched from the Media Revolution.

An article by Sherman and Mangano about their research was first published in June 2011 in Counterpunch, a left-leaning political newsletter. It was criticized then. Counterpunch came back with a response from their “statistical consultant” Pierre Sprey, who found that there was an increase in infant deaths, although not as stark as the increase Sherman and Mangano found. He found that the increase was amplified by including other cities in the Pacific Northwest in the set.

An updated version of the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of International Health Services, in December.

Sherman and Mangano came to their conclusions by comparing deaths in a set of US cities during a 28-week period during which the meltdown occurred on March 11 to the same 28-week period in 2010. They found that in the 14 weeks before March 11, deaths were up 2.34 percent in 2011, but in the period after the Fukushima disaster, they were up by 4.46 percent. They extrapolated this data and determined a "a projected 13,983 excess U.S. deaths"

Again, the study was widely criticized. One source of critique was Michael Moyer, who wrote an article in Scientific American lambasting the study. He said that the authors cherry-picked the data they used. Moyer wrote that “No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are anti-nuclear activists unaffiliated with any research institution).”

But aside from the Scientific American article and a few other instances of mainstream coverage, the critical response to Sherman and Mangano’s story was also underreported. The people who took another look at their numbers were writing for alternative press. Websites like nuclearpoweryesplease.org, whose creators are “are convinced that nuclear power is vital to securing energy production in a sustainable way until science can provide us with a truly limitless source of power.” and atomicinsights.com, written by self-described “pro-nuclear advocate” Rod Adams.

The whole incident raises interesting questions about what constitutes mainstream media and alternative media, the value of peer-review and fact-checking, and the way that corporate interests control news stories. Almost every person who weighed in on this story was likely biased in some way, from the researchers who set out to see if there was a correlation between US deaths and the Fukushima meltdown to the pro-nuclear activists who attacked their study.

The nuclear industry has plenty of mouthpieces. The Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group for nuclear companies, releases its own press statements. A blog associated with the NEI, neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com, has been a part of the online debunking frenzy surrounding Sherman and Mangano’s work.

Does being associated with the nuclear industry make critiques incorrect? In this situation, it seems clear that the refutations are credible.

It does make them suspicious, as the nuclear industry’s profits rely on the belief that nuclear energy is perfectly safe.

Mainstream news is supposed to serve as a credible and reliable source of information. But coverage of the effects of the Fukushima Daiichi disaster have been mostly left up to bloggers and activists. And Sherman and Mangano’s flawed study is far from the only outcry. In Canada, concerns were raised about radiation levels in rainwater. A series of investigations into RadNet, the EPA’s radiological detection network, found that the system suffers from maintenance and reliability issues, and may have reported false low levels of radiation in the weeks following Fukushima.

In Japan, a strong protest movement insists that they and their children aren’t safe following the meltdown. The country announced plans to phase out nuclear power by 2040 following Fukushima. Strong anti-nuclear sentiment also exists in Germany, where the government has plans to phase out nuclear energy by 2022.

In the United States, the controversy over nuclear energy rages on. The nuclear industry is a powerful corporate interest, and likely has something to do with the suppression of mainstream coverage of nuclear hazards. At the same time, corporate flaks are just as capable of creating “alternative” media sources that twist stories to reflect a pro-nuclear agenda. Of course, so are anti-nuclear advocates, who may be equally willing to ignore facts to promote their agenda.
As Censored 2013 points out, that debate is largely underreported by the mainstream media. Nuclear power may not have led to 14,000 excess deaths in the US following the Fukushima disaster. But it has certainly led to a confused circus of less than reliable sources, competing to be believed as truth, while traditional credible reporting falls away.

Comments

The mainstream media didn't pick up the story because it was a hoax fool!!
The rate of infant deaths in any given city is going to be different in any given month. Therefore the "researchers" simply chose all of the cities that happened to be above the average for that month, and stated that Fukushima killed babies. You could have done the same thing by choosing all of the cities that were below the average and said that Fukushima saved babies. There's nothing scientific about that.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:57 pm

Or at least feigning ignorance so you could pretend to exonerate Fukushima from infant deaths. You are a real piece of work.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 12:29 am

that any death in the US was caused by the events in Japan. No direct link can be shown. Correlation and coincidence does not imply causation.

Scaremongering - pure and simple.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:13 am

Except in extreme circumstances, you can never prove direct causation between a radiation release and human illness or death. What you can say (Gofman, Radiation and Human Health, is the definitive work on the topic) is that an increase in a population's exposure to radiation is linked to an increase in health consequences. A certain number of people will die of cancer from "natural" causes every year; if there are toxics in the environment, more will die. If there's radiation from a nuclear release, still more will die. Can anyone ever prove that any single death was caused by that radiation? No.

That's the problem with small-dose exposure to radiation and toxics. You simply have to look at large populations and extrapolate data from notable increases in health problems because there's no other way to examine it.

I'm not saying this particular study is without flaws. But I am saying that you can't take a typical cause-and-effect scenario -- Man A shot man B with a gun, Man B is dead, therefore Man A cause his death -- with these sorts of events.

 

Posted by tim on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

The last sentence of your piece sums up the SFBG more accurately than anything I've read.

Posted by Chromefields on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 11:33 am

It would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss an "alternative" news site (like enenews dot com or enformable dot com) just because they link to stories focusing on Fukushima.

If it weren't for those sites, many people wouldn't be informed on what's going on at Fukushima and the dangers of nuclear energy.

But...

that's what the nuclear industry wants...to keep everyone like a mushroom (kept in the dark and fed poo)

I have learned more from the intelligent posters and comments on the alternative news sites than I have from any MSM sources.

The pro-nuclear crowd hates these sites, but here they are anyway and they are highly recommended:

www dot enenews dot com
www dot enformable dot com
www dot nuclearcrimes dot org
RadChick on Facebook
www dot nuclearhotseat dot com (excellent interviews)
www dot enviroreporter dot com

And these are just a few excellent alternative sites.

Posted by Dee on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:59 pm

Repeat, are people really this stupid?

So, when was the period following the meltdown, and what is the supposed cause of death of these 14,000 deaths that are related? This is so absurd how can it possibly be in a legitimate news organization, or better, how can a news organization that prints this kind of thing be legitimate?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

Lets face it if we have learned anything at all from what has happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima where cores have melted down and isotopes released into the environment it is that ANY release of nuclear material DOES have an effect on population both real and measurable in health terms but also in the psychology of thought and mental well being....
Nuclear power is clearly NOT as safe as previously once believed and whether by accidental release or the intentional storage of nuclear material we have cocked the hammer on a potentially lethal and destructive source of future health issues.
I do feel that the suppression of the facts surrounding health issues by groups clearly able to understand that the problems won't go away if you bury your heads in the sand is completely unacceptable. But on the other hand neither is extremist reporting helping either..... The core issue is that very little balanced reporting is ever going on now in a world where there are very few media/ news groups that are not funded in part by money coming from the very companies with an interest in keeping the truth suppressed no matter how many times that money changed hands.
It truly is a disgusting state of affairs that political gains and financial profits are deemed to be so much more valuable than honesty integrity and objectivity....and still the issues are not going to go away... And the decisions made in the past and present will ultimately have consequences that reach far far into the future.
One of my major concerns is that the truth of the matter even if if falls somewhere between the 'nuclear totally safe' and 'nuclear totally unsafe' camps is that we as a species are taking the risk at all when there are clearly safer and cleaner ways to power our world that have been suppressed or not investigated fully because the source of power is ultimately free (ie solar, wind, water etc) once you have built and sold the system unit....and that is not a sustainable business model.....it all comes down to money..... the root of all evil.

Posted by Ki11more on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

Lets face it if we have learned anything at all from what has happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima where cores have melted down and isotopes released into the environment it is that ANY release of nuclear material DOES have an effect on population both real and measurable in health terms but also in the psychology of thought and mental well being....
Nuclear power is clearly NOT as safe as previously once believed and whether by accidental release or the intentional storage of nuclear material we have cocked the hammer on a potentially lethal and destructive source of future health issues.
I do feel that the suppression of the facts surrounding health issues by groups clearly able to understand that the problems won't go away if you bury your heads in the sand is completely unacceptable. But on the other hand neither is extremist reporting helping either..... The core issue is that very little balanced reporting is ever going on now in a world where there are very few media/ news groups that are not funded in part by money coming from the very companies with an interest in keeping the truth suppressed no matter how many times that money changed hands.
It truly is a disgusting state of affairs that political gains and financial profits are deemed to be so much more valuable than honesty integrity and objectivity....and still the issues are not going to go away... And the decisions made in the past and present will ultimately have consequences that reach far far into the future.
One of my major concerns is that the truth of the matter even if if falls somewhere between the 'nuclear totally safe' and 'nuclear totally unsafe' camps is that we as a species are taking the risk at all when there are clearly safer and cleaner ways to power our world that have been suppressed or not investigated fully because the source of power is ultimately free (ie solar, wind, water etc) once you have built and sold the system unit....and that is not a sustainable business model.....it all comes down to money..... the root of all evil.

Posted by Ki11more on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

Lets face it if we have learned anything at all from what has happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima where cores have melted down and isotopes released into the environment it is that ANY release of nuclear material DOES have an effect on population both real and measurable in health terms but also in the psychology of thought and mental well being....
Nuclear power is clearly NOT as safe as previously once believed and whether by accidental release or the intentional storage of nuclear material we have cocked the hammer on a potentially lethal and destructive source of future health issues.
I do feel that the suppression of the facts surrounding health issues by groups clearly able to understand that the problems won't go away if you bury your heads in the sand is completely unacceptable. But on the other hand neither is extremist reporting helping either..... The core issue is that very little balanced reporting is ever going on now in a world where there are very few media/ news groups that are not funded in part by money coming from the very companies with an interest in keeping the truth suppressed no matter how many times that money changed hands.
It truly is a disgusting state of affairs that political gains and financial profits are deemed to be so much more valuable than honesty integrity and objectivity....and still the issues are not going to go away... And the decisions made in the past and present will ultimately have consequences that reach far far into the future.
One of my major concerns is that the truth of the matter even if if falls somewhere between the 'nuclear totally safe' and 'nuclear totally unsafe' camps is that we as a species are taking the risk at all when there are clearly safer and cleaner ways to power our world that have been suppressed or not investigated fully because the source of power is ultimately free (ie solar, wind, water etc) once you have built and sold the system unit....and that is not a sustainable business model.....it all comes down to money..... the root of all evil.

Posted by Ki11more on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:34 pm

All radiation is cumulative. The slow drip drip drip of radiation is what is going to kill the ignorant commenters here.

Posted by Sam on Oct. 25, 2012 @ 3:37 am

Also from this author

  • Privatization of public housing

    Many residents feel they're moving from the frying pan of Housing Authority control into the fire of developer and nonprofit management

  • Homeless for the holidays

    Changing demographics in the Bayview complicate city efforts to open a shelter there

  • Betting on Graton

    Newest casino targeting Bay Area residents promises to share the wealth with workers and people of color