The major scaremonger behind the Radiation and Public Health Project, a dedicated anti-nuclear activist non-profit 501(c)3 corporation which pays this scaremonger $82,000 a year, has co-authored a paper which has probably set a new record for the rate at which it was totally torn apart by careful review. Actually, the review required to debunk it didn't have to be that careful.
This report details the deaths supposedly associated with a radiation plume (sic) that hit the US after the Fukushima Daiichi accident. (Long time readers here might recall that the Los Angeles area air quality site had a radiation detection widget up for a month or two and took it down after never having detected anything.) The report was supposedly "peer reviewed," but since for people of this ilk the term "peer review" means that only a few like-minded and paid activists will see it before it's published the term is meaningless. The paper, likewise, has not appeared in any reputable medically oriented venue.
I will give some links below to the paper itself first, and then some articles everyone might want to read in order to get a clear idea of who is at work here and what their agenda is... as well as just how lousy the science is. Heck, Mangano himself doesn't even back up the paper in interviews with both barrels.
First we find a presentation of the paper in the International Journal of Health Services, which as Rod Adams has discovered really has less to do with health and more to do with an agenda. Here is the RPHP link.
Here is the discussion of this "paper" by NEI NUCLEAR NOTES.
Scientific American takes care of this "paper" in this new post. If you want to see what Scientific American had to say previously about Mangano's work you can also click here. (Thanks to Yes Vermont Yankee! for reminding me about this older story.)
Finally, we get a statistical dissection of how the data were manipulated by reading the fine article at The Capacity Factor.
I have debated Mangano before and find even his basic knowledge of nuclear accident history to be not just seriously lacking, but populated entirely with lies. It's certain that this new study has already been subjected to enough withering review that its lies are also now exposed. What this author hopes most of all is that the "peer review" process that such disreputable "scientists" are using is exposed for what it really is and is not. Who reviewed this one... that's what I'd like to know.
5:20 PM Eastern Tuesday December 20, 2011
ATOMIC POWER REVIEW
UPDATE 6:15 PM TUESDAY... Rod Adams at Atomic Insights has just posted another piece covering the paper in question, and it's well worth reading. Click here to read Rod's analysis.
UPDATE 4:35 PM WEDNESDAY... Cheryl Rofer at Nuclear Diner has sent along a link to another dissection of the report. Click here to see it. Thanks, Cheryl!
UPDATE 5:05 PM THURSDAY... Dan Yurman has tipped us off to the following story run on Vitals @ msnbc.com which further disassembles and invalidates the new "report." Click here to read this story. Thanks, Dan!
TVA, OPG & Synthos Green Team Up for BWRX300 SMR
19 hours ago
Excellent post and thanks for the mention!ReplyDelete
Good informative update! I rue that mentions like these are almost never picked up by the "balanced" and "accurate" media and few laypeople wonder why! We so desperately need a "nuclear Carl Sagan" to counter the bilge these anti-nukers spew and get away with by their easy uncritical media access! BTW that's a cool looking plant in the illustration above! Small and low-key in the rolling landscape without oil/coal freight train tracks additionally soiling the scene. Also no cooling towers. I loathe cooling towers! They're monstrous, ominously huge and alien looking contraptions. Half the reporters covering TMI took them FOR the reactors! (had to LOL at the state of science education...). I think the things significantly added to the anti-nature mystery and alarm of nuclear power. I hope future plants take this into PR consideration.ReplyDelete
@James: Thanks very much for your kind commentary. I appreciate it very much. By the way, the new artwork for the top of APR that you commented on is the final design for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor project; the site is now earmarked for construction of from one to several small modular reactors.ReplyDelete
i agree with meredith. why not make nuclear plants more aesthetically pleasing ? There is a plant in my area called ginna that has no cooling tower and the reactor is surrounded by a structure,it looks like a factory.I believe the iconic cooling towers evoke a negative instinctual response due to all the fear mongering over the years. retire them.ReplyDelete