Deniers Trotted Out for Fukushima One-Year Anniversary While Experts Find Spike in American Deaths After the Disaster

by on March 5, 2012 · 6 comments

in California, Energy, Environment, Health, Popular, San Diego

With the first anniversary of the Fukushima disaster approaching, expect a barrage of “experts” braying that there was little to no damage to human health as a result of Fukushima’s radioactive releases.

But others say thousands have already died in the US alone as a result of Fukushima fallout.

This coming March 11 will mark the first anniversary of  Fukushima’s multiple meltdown nuclear disaster.

The mainstream media has already begun trotting out assorted “experts” to assure us all is well and no one’s been harmed by all the radiation the reactors released.  For example, on March 2, The Wall Street Journal-Japan ran a piece, “Fukushima Health Impact: Minimal?”

It lead off, “The health threat from radiation in the wake of the Fukushima accident is extremely low…according to a panel of American radiation experts who studied the Japanese case for the past year.”

The WSJ reported that this panel, which remained unnamed, made a presentation in Washington DC on March 1, exact location unrevealed.  One panel member said, “From a radiological perspective, we expect the impact to be really, really minor.”

“I received more radiation on my flight from Tokyo to Washington DC than I did at the reactor site,” said another.

Perhaps because of remarks like this, the reporters did include one dissenting opinion, hence the question mark at the end of their title.

 14, 000  US Dead, 800+ Babies

But another message came from an earlier study. A peer reviewed article in the December edition of the medical journal International Journal of Health Services found that “An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster of the Fukushima nuclear reactors,” a press release for the article asserted.

“The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among US infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks,” it went on. This worked out to be over 800 excess infant deaths compared to the previous year during the same time period.

Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano and internist/toxicologist Janette Sherman MD co-authored the article. Both work with the Radiation and Public Health Project (

Note that their study is about post Fukushima deaths in the US, not Japan.

The authors reached these disturbing conclusions after analyzing federal government data for Fukushima fallout in the US, and mortality statistics in the 14 weeks after that fallout reached the US.

“Just six days after the disastrous meltdown struck four reactors at Fukushima on March 11, scientists detected the plume of toxic fallout had arrived on American shores,” the authors’ press release stated. “Subsequent measurements by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found levels of radiation in air, water and milk hundreds of times above normal across the US.”

For example, radioactive Iodine 131’s normal level in precipitation is 2 picocuries per liter. But after March 17, a measurement in Boise, ID, was 390. Another in Salt Lake City was 190. Jacksonville, FL had one of 150, Olympia, WA 125, Boston 92.

Mortality data came from the Center For Disease Control’s “weekly reports on mortality in 122 US cities…representing 25 to 35 percent of the nation’s deaths.”  It covered the 14 week period following Fukushima’s initial hot stuff passed over the US, the study reported.

The authors found “During weeks12 to 25, total deaths in 119 US cities increased from 148.395 (2010) to 155,015 (2011), or 4.46 percent. This was nearly double the 2.34 percent  rise in deaths (142,006 to 145,324) in 104 cities for the prior 14 weeks.

Further computations “projected 13,983 excess deaths in the US in weeks 12-25 of 2011.”

Using the same methodology, the authors found that “Between 2010 and 2011, the total number of infant deaths for weeks 12 to 25 rose 1.8 percent (2674 to 2722), compared with a 8.37 percent decline (2520 to 2309) in the prior 14 week period.” After similar computations this “projected 822 excess infant deaths in the 14 weeks after March 19, 2011.”

In their press release announcing the release of the study, co-author Janette Sherman wrote, “Based on our continuing research, the actual death count may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have underdeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults.”

Co-author Joseph Magano stated in the release: “This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world. Findings are important to the current debate of whether to build new reactors, and how long to keep aging ones in operation.”

Mangano is executive director of the Radiation and Public Health Project, and author of 27 peer reviewed medical journal articles and letters, the press release reported.

For more info:          –     

International Journal of Health Services, Volume 42, Number 1, Pages 47-64


{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Vincent DiTizio March 6, 2012 at 7:10 am

The idea that the radiation level is low is deceptive. The real threat is the cesium, plutonium, strontium, and other isotopes that will be migrating into our cells.


unspokenhermit March 6, 2012 at 8:47 am

It is yet to be believed that thousands have died in the USA due to the radiation from Fukushima disaster. Many believe the report was fabricated or it was a sponsored propaganda by some powerful Medias. The Fukushima fallout can be seen from different point of view as I recently discovered the following dispersion model, which someone had linked to Berkeley’s discussion page. It uses TEPCO emission data to model possible dispersion patterns for Neptunium and Plutonium

If this model is accurate, it is very disturbing. Where are all of the so-called experts who claimed these elements were too heavy to travel far from the plant site?


Justin March 6, 2012 at 1:28 pm

It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks. Is it a threat, is it fear and hype? Who cares, it doesn’t matter anymore. As your wondering if it’s a threat or not to your health, or waiting for someone you trust to tell you the truth (government or television) your DNA has been slowly being ripped apart by these highly dangerous radioactively charged particles. You cannot avoid it California, or North America. Many of your bodies cells are (unbeknownst to you) malfunctioning and reproducing other malfunctioned cells as we speak. My sister just recently was diagnosed with a mass attached to her thyroid. The CDC predicts Cancer rates will skyrocket in the next 5-10 years. I wonder why? European governments have warned people not to drink too much milk and other dairy because of radiation detected in the soil. But everything is ok in North America!? Makes no sense to me.

I personally know a well-known physicist, and he has personally and off-the-record informed me that the government, and many universities are withholding the truth from the public about how bad the radiation really is. It’s better to protect people against fear, than to protect their health. Welcome to the New World Order.


john March 8, 2012 at 9:37 am

While I am strongly against nuclear power (and even more against nuclear weapons though I concede a small number will always be required for a MAD balance of power)this story doesn’t prove a lot other than how statistics can be manipulated to show a desired outcome. What jumped out at me was this:
The authors found “During weeks12 to 25, total deaths in 119 US cities increased from 148.395 (2010) to 155,015 (2011), or 4.46 percent. This was nearly double the 2.34 percent rise in deaths (142,006 to 145,324) in 104 cities for the prior 14 weeks.
Which leaves us with an unexplained 2.34 percent rise in the death rate without the presence of Fukushima’s radiation, so the following rise could merely be the continuation of a trend caused by another factor. (it probably isn’t but we’d like to know what the cause of that 2.34 percent was first)
I’m not raising this point to argue that Fukushima’s release was safe but to draw people’s attention to flaws in methodology in research. It works both ways, and it helps for us to spot flaws in our own arguments before they are spotted by the other side.


John March 9, 2012 at 9:43 am

To be safe around radioactive materials, the three factors are time, distance, and shielding. The kind of radioactive materials that would harm someone from the Japanese reactors on the other side of Earth would have to be eaten or inhaled. Just touching the skin isn’t harmful for the majority of radioactive particles, especially ones in the air. And If you wash off something the radioactive particles go down the drain with the germs. Depending on the filter, they can be trapped in a home or car ventilation filter.

So how contaminated could our food and air really have been? Most if it is contaminated to begin with. It started growing months before the earthquake probably in some other country to the south and manipulated for profit. In terms of soil, the produce affected hadn”t even begun growing.

Concentrations in the atmosphere would decrease as each second passes. As the plume rises it expands from the lower pressure. Add motion and the moleclues spread even further. Add the millions of idiosyncratic details the atmosphere contains as it tumbles it’s way over the Pacific. It’s like pissing into the wind. The molecules don’t huddle together but let go and spread out.

This article implies that a dense isotope laden cloud arrived from Japan and killed people upon its arrival. Not decades later with cancer which our government prefers. Just looking at a short periods of time and comparing it to long term statistics will always yield inaccuracy.

It’s equal to when it gets a little colder than normal or snows more somewhere and people say “where’s your global warming now”? Taking a small snapshot of the big picture and applying big picture thought to it.

From the online greenpeace archive : “It is estimated that the total yield of all the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted is 438 megatons. That’s equivalent to 29,200 Hiroshima size bombs. In the 36 years between 1945 and 1980 when atmospheric testing was being conducted this would have been equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima size bomb in the atmosphere every 11 hours. Approximately 3,830 kilograms of plutonium has been left in the ground as a result of all underground nuclear testing and some 4,200 kilograms (over 9,000 lbs) of plutonium has been discharged into the atmosphere as a result of atmospheric nuclear testing.”


“The U.S. carried out 27 PNE’s (peaceful nuclear explosion) between 1961 and 1973: one in Carlsbad, Colorado, one in Grand Valley, Colorado, one in Rifle, Colorado, one in Farmington, New Mexico, and 23 at the National Test Site in Nevada.”

Time, distance, shielding.


john March 9, 2012 at 11:42 am

I have to agree, you do have your science correct on this.

cool name too!

We’ve been playing with the forbidden fruit for many years now, its ability to harm cells is not yet fully appreciated. One major misconception that persists is that most people think all radioactive materials have the same destructive properties.
It would be nice to think such powerful elements could be the solution to providing energy for us, but they always seem to be a ticking time bomb, waiting for human error to trip.


Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: