Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

infant deaths up 35% in Pacific NW and Northern Cal in weeks after Fukushima

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 09:34 PM
Original message
infant deaths up 35% in Pacific NW and Northern Cal in weeks after Fukushima
Edited on Sun Jun-12-11 09:35 PM by yurbud
So nuclear power kills our infants...why exactly do we have to boil water to turn a turbine using this shit?


The recent CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report indicates that eight cities in the northwest U.S. (Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley) reported the following data on deaths among those younger than one year of age:

4 weeks ending March 19, 2011 - 37 deaths (avg. 9.25 per week)
10 weeks ending May 28, 2011 - 125 deaths (avg.12.50 per week)

This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant. Of further significance is that those dates include the four weeks before and the ten weeks after the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant disaster. In 2001 the infant mortality was 6.834 per 1000 live births, increasing to 6.845 in 2007. All years from 2002 to 2007 were higher than the 2001 rate.

Spewing from the Fukushima reactor are radioactive isotopes including those of iodine (I-131), strontium (Sr-90) and cesium (Cs-134 and Cs-137) all of which are taken up in food and water. Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid, Sr-90 in bones and teeth and Cs-134 and Cs-137 in soft tissues, including the heart. The unborn and babies are more vulnerable because the cells are rapidly dividing and the delivered dose is proportionally larger than that delivered to an adult.

Data from Chernobyl, which exploded 25 years ago, clearly shows increased numbers of sick and weak newborns and increased numbers of deaths in the unborn and newborns, especially soon after the meltdown. These occurred in Europe as well as the former Soviet Union. Similar findings are also seen in wildlife living in areas with increased radioactive fallout levels.

http://counterpunch.com/sherman06102011.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. Now, are we sure the cause is Fukishima?
All we're looking at is correlative data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Were there similar increases in other parts of the country?
Edited on Sun Jun-12-11 09:44 PM by Commie Pinko Dirtbag
If so, the cause may be increasing poverty and lack of access to health care, not radiation.

Edit: Amusingly, I wrote "company" instead of "country". Maybe that means something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. did you read the excerpts I posted? It only rose 2.3% for whole US compared to NW's 35%
and they had data for immediately before and after.

You can't spin that away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. I call bullshit on this entire story.
Read the actual CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. You'll find out it doesn't track the data that this report claims it does. In other words, the article is flat out lying, repeating nonsense that's circulating on lunatic conspiracy theory websites like AboveTopSecret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
66 dmhlt Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. U of Cal. Berkley, Dept. of Nuclear Engineering Analysis of Story:
Edited on Mon Jun-13-11 09:31 AM by 66 dmhlt
Not enough data to make a call, but bears watching:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4550

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. nuclear engineer versus epidemiologist: who is the relevant expert on disease causation?
I do hope that engineer guy is right since 90% of my family and 100% of those likely to have children in the future are in the Pacific Northwest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. you're right, it could be a batch of baby formula, or an allergic reaction to pampers
Those have certainly caused infant mortality to spike 35% in a few weeks in one part of the country haven't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor Hurt Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
49. uh, if the rate is already very low
an increase of 35% can be generated by one bad batch of pampers, yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. Carefully selecting these eight cities to make a point, maybe?
(Boise ID, Seattle WA, Portland OR, plus the northern California cities of Santa Cruz, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Berkeley)

I tried last night to find the full data, all cities, and also to look at a longer period of time.

This doesn't have the look of solid data analysis.

Author's link, here, doesn't lead to the study: http://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D53.

So I'll wait for something more solid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. that's not a dead link, it says you have to do a formal request to get the data
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. Yes, data that the CDC does NOT offer.
They only list infant mortality data through 2006, making it impossible for someone to have done a search through 2011.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. they are in the Northwest and Northern California, where the jetstream would carry fallout first
in the lower 48.

I imagine the effect is significantly smaller in Chicago, New York, or Atlanta, but you already know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yes, I already knew that.
I also know that there are DOZENS of cities larger than Santa Cruz that could have been included in the eight cities, and that would have been further NORTH and closer to the jetstream.

"Hey, let's pick Santa Cruz!"

It's that very fact that makes me suspect and should make anyone suspect who has experience with understanding data.

Thanks for the input.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Those Cities Are In the Path of the Radiation and All Got a Lot of Rain
Also, the jetstream happened to loop unusually far south this year (bringing temperatures 20º below normal and lots of rain well after the normal rainy season).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
25. Carefully selecting the 4 week period before Fukushima to make a point
You can get the figures for each city, and the total for 122 cities in the US, and this those 8 and the total for the weeks in 2011 so far:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=607069&mesg_id=607503

Notice the 4 week period (11+9+8+9) before March 19th is unusually low in the NW. In fact, there's no clear pattern - the numbers are low, and vary a lot from week to week. But the authors managed to find a short period with low numbers before Fukushima, and claimed this showed a 'spike' after it.

The data for the 8 NW cities for the first 22 weeks of 2010 and 2011 are here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1277345&mesg_id=1283589 , if anyone wants to compare it with another year. Again, you can see there is a large variation from week to week, but no overriding pattern (eg from seasonal illnesses). The deaths in the 10 weeks after March 19th 2011 were fewer than the equivalent period in 2010.

These data do not show a 'spike'. It is not 'statistically significant', as they claimed - the data are far too noisy for that. The authors are being dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
4. I would like to have some mechanism by which radiation could cause this sort of result
Edited on Sun Jun-12-11 10:12 PM by bemildred
in this short of a time period before I give much credence to this article. It's not that I doubt the pernicious effects of Fukushima, but if one is to think it affected infant mortality in the ten weeks immediately after the event, you have to have a mechanism for the harm to perinatal infants, and I don't see it, the effects I know about from this sort of thing would take a long time to manifest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. if you read the full article it talks about similar outcomes near Chernobyl, also
I remember reading up on mutations near Hiroshima and Nagasaki once, and rather than lasting for generations, those who were affected were in utero at the time of exposure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I'm not questioning that its bad.
Edited on Sun Jun-12-11 11:53 PM by bemildred
I'm asking for some way it could affect peri-natal infants so quickly. Radiation has to be extremely high to act quickly. Infants in the womb are protected by the mother. It does not seem likely that the quantities involved in the Northwest can be large enough to work as direct poisons.

I'm not even questioning that the spike happened, the USA has had shitty neonatal results (relatively speaking) for a long time now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Inhaled or Ingested "Hot Particles" Would be Delivered Directly to the Fetus
Edited on Mon Jun-13-11 01:20 AM by AndyTiedye
Infants in the womb are protected by the mother.


Anything the mother consumes or inhales goes directly to the fetus.
That would include any radioactive particles in the air she breathes,
or any that are on/in the food she eats.

More on "hot particles":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=299181&mesg_id=299181
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #17
29. "Anything the mother consumes or inhales goes directly to the fetus."
Right. I can see this is an emotional issue for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
30. Look, I don't like nukes, any kind of nukes, I'm OK with shutting them all down.
But this sort of fearmongering and woo-science does not help, in due course it will be used to discredit anti-nuke people as morons and dipshits, because it makes no sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heddi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
34. Anything the mother consumes or inhales does not go directly to the fetus
Please do research on "Placental Barrier".What you have just stated is physiologically, anatomically, and biologically erroneous. Such information can be easily found in any of the hundreds of Anatomy and Physiology 101 textbooks used in colleges and universities across this great land.

Thanks~~

Heddi,
Registered Nurse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nuclear lobby has already been by to unrec, I see....
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. there must be more cities in the usa where babies are dieing at theses rates.
Edited on Sun Jun-12-11 10:19 PM by madrchsod
it would seem there are agencies in this country that are concealing this information to benefit our nuclear industry and it`s suppliers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheMadMonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Or someone has cherry picked through data to find anomalies.
There is no credible mechanism whereby the levels of radiation detected could possibly have such an outcome. Indeed for that period, the pollution from Fukishima was only detectable because of its unique isotopic signature, and then only just barely.

European mothers & babies were exposed to far, far higher levels of the contaminants mentioned in the OP without such a corresponding immediate increase in infant mortality. And increase which should have been far higher given the increased levels of exposure.

However elevated levels of stress hormones in the mothers can result in premature labour and other birth complications which are proven absolutely to lead to an increase in infant mortality.

Fukushima almost certainly did not "kill" these babies. There is every possibility that their mother's FEARS about Fukushima, fanned by a sensationalist media did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. have you heard of the jetstream?
If you aren't familiar with weather patterns, the jetstream passes over Japan, arcs north, then skirts along the Pacific coast, which would carry the fallout in that pattern, so it makes sense that the effect would be localized there, and more diffuse after.

I come from that area and there's a rain shadow effect, which means moist weather hits mountain range and causes precipitation, which would pull down the fallout, before the now drier air moves further inland.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Rec, I think that this radiation is coming to us on a lower level than the jetstream
This is why it took 6 days not 3 to reach the US.

But it's also why we're getting slammed with it .. especially if it rains.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Being conveyed some way other than the jetstream?
God, one fears for what this will mean in another 10 or so years...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
32. I forget the term but it's the zone where storms occur, lower down nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
18. Using radioactive material to boil water.....
...is clearly in the Top Ten Stupidest Things Humans Have Ever Done.

- Period.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #18
23. No -- it was the MIC's way to save themselves from "Ban the Bomb" 'ers....
Hey look -- we have a useful purpose for this deadly weapon we developed!!

BS!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 04:11 AM
Response to Original message
24. how much of this shit is rained down on us?
the radiation cloud has circled the world how many times? and when thunderstorms 60 000 feet tall come over how much is rained down on us?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BobbyBoring Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. I dunno
But maybe the drought we've been having on the MD eastern shore is a good thing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
26. What dishonest drek
I love how they act like those numbers are meaningful despite not comparing the birth rates in March and May.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
27. kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
28. I'm waiting for someone to claim that it's causing sunspots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
33. Obviously bogus "studies" help no one - they just make people look stupid
I'm not a fan of nuclear power, and I hope in the long term we phase it out, but this kind of nonsense just makes people look stupid.

If you can't see the problems in the "study" right away, ask yourself why the first figure is for 4 weeks, and the second figure is for 10 weeks. Then ask why or how the selection of cities were made. Cherry picked data can be made to "prove" anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heddi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
35. It would be helpful if the author of this article had any exposure to an Introduction to Statistics
class. Many are available at community colleges and universities.

Had the author taken such a class, he/she would have found that their "evidence" is really nothing of the sort.

Anyone can cherry pick data to prove anything.

This article is not based on any sound research or statistical methodology. It is based upon someone's inability to understand how data are collected and sorted, and how one can reach certain conclusions (or not reach certain conclusions) from that data. This person has no understanding of what an outlier is. Their use of the term "statistically significant" shows that those words do not mean what they think they mean.

Since infant deaths generally are cause for autopsy, it would be helpful to know what the official cause of death of these infants are. There would certainly be cause for concern if a low-risk pregnancy suddenly ended in fetal demise unexpectedly. How many of those that died were already in high-risk categories, or were considered high risk births? THe article does not state

There also is no comparision between the same weeks in previous years, or between a different set of weeks in the same study period.

This is garbage that is being peddled as science
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. one of the authors is an MD who edited a book on Chernobyl and the other is an epidemiologist

From the end of the article:

Janette D. Sherman, M. D. is the author of Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer and Chemical Exposure and Disease, and is a specialist in internal medicine and toxicology. She edited the book Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature, written by A. V. Yablokov, V. B., Nesterenko and A. V. Nesterenko, published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009. Her primary interest is the prevention of illness through public education. She can be reached at: toxdoc.js@verizon.net and www.janettesherman.com

Joseph Mangano is an epidemiologist, and Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project research group.



If you are sincere in your concerns about their methodology, you should contact them and ask them to drill down further in the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor Hurt Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #38
50. I've taught both MDs and epidemiologists
and those credentials do not impress on their face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heddi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #38
52. So? That doesn't make them statiticians.
And it's evident that they're not statisticians based on the shoddy work they are passing off as "research" or "science" or whatever they call this nonsense they're publishing.

Anyone can write a book...doesn't mean that they're a good author, or that what they're writing is right, truthful, or evidence based.

As far as my concerns with their methodology, no letter I (or anyone) write will have any bearing on the junk science they are pushing. I'm certain I would not be the first person to criticize their "research".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
36. Since this is such an important issue please provide the data
for all cities, not just a random handful. I live in the Northwest, this study leaves a 600 mile gap between cities it looks at, I'm in the middle of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
39. Terrible news and most alarming...
Thank you for a very important article, yurbud!

When it comes to human life, I'd rather be forewarned, even if it's with incomplete or non-statistically relevant data.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. ...as opposed to what our government is currently doing, which is to scrub stats and monitoring info
...when and wherever possible...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. U.S. Nuclear Industry: Japan Accident Won't Harm Health
Yeah. I noticed that, too, villager. And odd how quickly the subject as a whole dropped from the television screen.

It's still in the papers, though:

U.S. Nuclear Industry: Japan Accident Won't Harm Health

EXCERPT...

While the nuclear institute praised Japan's response, Mr. Pardee of Exelon said the Fukushima accident may have been exacerbated by flaws in the Japanese regulatory culture. He said at the news conference that the U.S. has a "more challenging process" for operators to demonstrate safety and a "very transparent industry."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
42. I emailed the authors and got A LOT more details in their reply:
My letter:

I cross-posted your Counterpunch article "Is the Dramatic Increase in Baby Deaths in the US a Result of Fukushima Fallout?" to Democraticunderground.com, a progressive discussion board that gets a lot of traffic.

Several people have replied questioning the data, claiming cherry-picking, too small a sample, and so forth. One legitimate issue critics bring up is the reader's access to the data you used is difficult at best--that cdc.gov/wonder link doesn't lead to a data set but a message saying "Access to WONDER data is only available by completing and submitting a request page. Please go to a desired request page, or click "WONDER Home" above and navigate from there."

I went to the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and it took me a while to find the relevant data but it didn't have the previous data to compare in the same report.

Could reply either to me or directly to the board with the CDC data you analyzed or the variables you entered into Wonder to get that data?

The Democraticunderground discussion is at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=607576&mesg_id=607576

Will you be publishing these findings in any peer reviewed journals?

I am from the Pacific Northwest and most of my friends and family likely to have children in the future live there, so I have a personal stake in getting your article taken seriously. Whenever someone in the family has gotten cancer, I have had to wonder if it had anything to do with a lifetime of swimming in the Columbia River, most of which is downstream from the Hanford Nuclear facility.

Sincerely,

Yurbud



Their response:

From Mr. Mangano, the co-author

Begin forwarded message:

From: Odiejoe@aol.com
Date: June 9, 2011 11:01:15 AM EDT
To: toxdoc.js@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Press release and report

Great

In a message dated 6/9/2011 10:26:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, toxdoc.js@verizon.net writes:

On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:07 AM, Odiejoe@aol.com wrote:
Radiation and Public Health Project
Joseph J. Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director
716 Simpson Avenue, Ocean City NJ 08226
odiejoe@aol.com
www.radiation.org
609-399-4343
Directors Robert Alvarez
Christie Brinkley
David Friedson
Karl Grossman
Judith Johnsrud PhD
Joseph Mangano
Ernest J. Sternglass, PhD
________________________________________________________________________
INFANT DEATHS SOAR 35% IN PACIFIC NORTHWEST ---
AREA HIT HARDEST BY JAPANESE NUCLEAR FALLOUT
Embargoed until 12 p.m. EST, June 9, 2011 Contact Joseph Mangano 609-399-4343

June 7, 2011 – Infant deaths rose 35% in the Pacific Northwest since mid-March, when fallout from the meltdowns at Japanese nuclear reactors reached the U.S., according to data published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and featured in a new report by health researchers.

Soaring infant deaths occurred in the region where the highest levels of environmental radiation were found in Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) samples, raising the possibility that there is a link between Japanese radiation and risk of infant death.

“The fetus and infant are highly susceptible to harm from radiation,” says Joseph Mangano MPH MBA. “The Fukushima meltdowns are still releasing radiation, so trends should be monitored further,” he adds. Mangano is Executive Director of the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a New York-based health research group. He is the author of the new report on Fukushima fallout in the U.S. and infant death trends.

The airborne radioactive plume from Japan reached the West Coast on March 17, six days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns in four reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant. EPA data shows that most of the highest levels in the continental U.S. of radioactive Iodine-131 (I-131) in precipitation in late March were found in Idaho, northern California, Washington, and Oregon.

The two highest precipitation levels found by EPA were in Boise ID (390 and 242 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water, hundreds of times greater than the typical level of about 2). Along with Boise, samples from Richmond CA (near San Francisco), Portland OR, and Olympia WA made up 6 of the 10 highest measurements in the U.S. I-131 is one of over 100 radioactive chemicals found only in nuclear reactors and atomic bombs.

Infant deaths reported to the CDC in eight northwestern cities averaged 9.25 per week for the four weeks ending March 19. The average jumped to 12.50, a 35.1% increase, in the following 10 weeks. Cities include Boise ID, Portland OR, and Seattle WA, plus the northern California cities of Pasadena, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, and Santa Cruz. Total U.S. infant deaths increased 2.3% during this time.


Infant deaths are published in the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. They are preliminary (final figures are available in 2014), but are often similar to final data. The CDC data can be accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html; EPA data is at http://www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet_sampling_data.html#precip.

RPHP health researchers (www.radiation.org) have published 27 medical journal articles and 7 books on health hazards of radiation exposure. Their work has been covered by the New York Times, USA Today, CNN, and Fox News.




ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION IN THE UNITED STATES
FROM THE NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS AT FUKUSHIMA JAPAN
AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON INFANT MORTALITY RATES

Joseph J. Mangano MPH MBA, Radiation and Public Health Project, June 7, 2011

Purpose. This report will present and analyze data on radioactivity levels in the U.S. from the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns, and any changes in health status since this radioactivity entered the U.S. environment and diet.

Background. On March 11, 2011, a powerful earthquake and tsunami caused the Fukushima nuclear plant, with six reactors, to lose cooling water (from loss of electricity). Three reactor cores and two waste pools suffered meltdowns. Explosions caused breaches in containment buildings, and high levels of radioactivity entered the environment. The radioactive plume moved east, reaching the West Coast on March 17.

Japanese radioactivity in the U.S. is being ingested by Americans through breathing and the food chain. This phenomenon has occurred previously, such as above-ground nuclear weapons tests and the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown.

This report examines changes in environmental radiation levels in the U.S., along with changes in health status, since the arrival of the plume in March.

EPA System of Measuring Environmental Radiation. The federal government has monitored levels of environmental radioactivity since 1957, during the time of above-ground nuclear weapons testing. Originally managed by the U.S. Public Health Service, this task has been assigned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency since 1975.

The EPA makes periodic measurements of radioactivity concentrations in air, precipitation, water, and milk. It operates a system known as RADNET, which includes 124 stations in the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Saipan, and Guam.

Historical data beginning in 1978 are available on the EPA web site, and earlier data are also available in hard copy format. After Fukushima, the EPA increased the frequency of their measurements, and on April 5, made 2011 data available in interactive format. However, on May 3 the Agency reverted to its normal schedule of quarterly measurements, claiming recent samples could detect no radioactivity.

For March and April 2011, the EPA has made available online hundreds of radioactivity measurements (Table 1). All individual readings can be accessed by visiting www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip.


Table 1
March-April 2011 EPA Measurements of Radioactivity

Indicator Precipitation Milk Drinking Water Air (Filter) Air (Cartridge)
Number of Sites 32 36 72 21 12

Number of Samples 157 67 153 79 150

Samples with 77 9 34 72 105
Detectable Iodine-131

The EPA made measurements of 10 radioactive chemicals only produced in atomic bomb explosions and nuclear reactor operations. The vast majority of measurements did not detect radiation, and were marked “ND” (not detectable). The one exception to this general inability to detect radiation was Iodine-131 (I-131). This chemical has a short half-life (8 days), which means it originated from a current source – most likely a nuclear reactor. It is not clear why the EPA detects I-131 more easily than other chemicals.

I-131, like all forms of radioactive iodine, attacks the thyroid gland after ingestion. It can cause cancer and other disorders of the thyroid, which plays a key role in physical and mental development, especially in the fetus and infant.

The greatest number of detectable I-131 samples are in air (cartridge method), air (filter method), and precipitation, with 105, 72, and 77, respectively. Unfortunately, the air cartridge samples cover 12 sites, only 4 in the continental U.S., limiting a national analysis. Air filter samples include 13 sites in the continental U.S., just 6 outside California and Florida. Precipitation has the greatest geographic spread of measurements and will be analyzed as a rough proxy for U.S. levels of radioactivity from Japan.

Patterns of Iodine-131 in Precipitation. Historical EPA data shows the typical level of I-131 in U.S. precipitation is about 2 picocuries of I-131 per liter of water (pCi/l). This number was determined by measurements at 9 U.S. sites on May 1-3, 1986, just before the plume from the Chernobyl accident arrived over the nation. A picocurie is a measure of radioactivity, and is one-trillionth of a curie.

After Fukushima, from March 22-25, samples of I-131 in precipitation at 12 U.S. sites had an average (median) level of 39.6 pCi/l, or about 20 times greater than normal. This figure was roughly half of 1) the peak level after Chernobyl and 2) after a large above-ground atomic bomb test by China in late September 1976 (Table 2):


Table 2
Historical EPA Measurements of I-131 in Precipitation

Event Dates No. of Sites No. of Samples Median I-131
Large Chinese 10/ 4/76- 11 26 75.5
Bomb test 11/ 2/76

Prior to Chernobyl 5/ 1/86- 7 9 2.0
(“normal”) 5/ 3/86

Chernobyl peak 5/14/86- 36 45 99.5
5/16/86

Chernobyl end 5/27/86- 18 20 25.5
5/30/86

Fukushima peak 3/22/11- 22 37 44.5
3/31/11

Concentrations of I-131 in 77 EPA measurements in precipitation with a detectable level varied greatly. Some were quite small, while others were much greater than normal, approximating or exceeding 100 times the normal concentration. Table 3 lists the 10 highest individual U.S. levels of I-131 in March and April.

Table 3
Iodine-131 in Precipitation, Highest Levels in U.S., March/April 2011

Location Date I-131 Level
* 1. Boise ID March 22 390
* 2. Boise ID March 22 242
3. Kansas City KS March 29 200
4. Salt Lake City UT March 28 190
5. Jacksonville FL March 31 150
* 6. Richmond CA March 22 138
* 7. Richmond CA March 22 138
* 8. Olympia WA March 24 125
9. Boston MA March 22 92
* 10. Portland OR March 25 86.8

* Located in the Pacific Northwest

Of the 10 highest samples, 6 were from stations in the Pacific Northwest, including northern California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. A seventh, Salt Lake City, is not technically part of the Pacific Northwest, but is relatively close to the region. Thus, it is prudent to conclude that this region received the greatest amount of fallout from Fukushima, and thus any changes in health status that might be linked to the Japanese meltdowns would occur there.

Trends in Infant Deaths in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has published the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) for decades. Since 1993, each edition of the MMWR includes deaths by age group for each of 122 U.S. cities with a population of over 100,000. The MMWR is available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html.

The MMWR report on deaths has certain limits. It only represents 30% of all U.S. deaths. It lists deaths by place of occurrence, while final statistics are place of residence. It also represents deaths by week a report is filed to the local health department, rather than date of death. Finally, some cities do not submit reports for all weeks.

Despite these limits, patterns of deaths reported in the MMWR are often consistent with final statistics, if a large enough group of cities and/or long enough time period are used. Final data for 2011 deaths are released in 2013 or 2014, and are only available for full years. Thus, MMWR data are helpful to make before-and-after comparisons in a year.

One age category used by the MMWR is under age one (infants). This is the most likely group to detect any link with Japanese fallout. All humans are affected by radiation exposure, but the fetus and infant are much more susceptible, because of their rapid growth and cell division. Damaging a fetal or infant cell makes it more likely that the cell with divide into more damaged cells before it can repair itself, as opposed to a slower-dividing adult cell. Damaging a cell’s DNA code, as radiation does, makes it more likely that a baby will be stillborn, die in infancy, be born prematurely/at low weight, or be born with a birth defect.

There is a precedent for radioactivity linked with higher infant deaths. On May 5, 1986, fallout from Chernobyl reached the U.S., just 9 days after the meltdown. EPA measurements of I-131 in U.S. milk showed that from mid-May to late June, average concentrations were 5-6 times greater than in the same period in 1985. Several years later, a journal article presented official CDC data showing the U.S. infant death rate rose in the four months after Chernobyl compared to a year earlier (+0.43%, compared to a decline of -4.22% for the other 8 months, an excess of 593 deaths). CDC data confirm the magnitude of this four month “bump” was unprecedented, suggesting Chernobyl fallout may have contributed to higher infant death rates in the summer of 1986 (Table 4).

Table 4
Changes in Infant Death Rates, U.S., 1985-1986

Deaths < 1 Yr Rate/1000 Births % Change
Date 1985 1986 1985 1986 In Rate
May-August 12788 12800 9.85 9.90 + 0.43
Other 8 Mos. 27242 26091 11.04 10.58 - 4.22

Note: Chernobyl fallout arrived in the U.S. environment on May 5, 1986. Excess Deaths = <0.43 – (-4.22) > x 12,800 = 593. Source: Gould JM and Sternglass EJ. Low-level radiation and mortality. CHEMTECH, Jan. 1989, 18-21.

The MMWR 2011 data show that in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout, an average of 181.5 infant deaths were reported (in 111 cities with full reporting for each week). For the 10 weeks following, the number increased to 185.6 deaths per week, a 2.3% increase, which is not statistically significant (Table 5).

Table 5
Infant Deaths, 111 U.S. Cities, By Week, 2011

Week Ending Infant Deaths
BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
2/26/11 173
3/ 5/11 189
3/12/11 164
3/19/11 200
Number /average 4 weeks 726 (181.5)
AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
3/26/11 182
4/ 2/11 200
4/ 9/11 187
4/16/11 154
4/23/11 167
4/30/11 190
5/ 7/11 183
5/14/11 200
5/21/11 212
5/28/11 181
Number /average 10 weeks 1856 (185.6)
% Change in Average +2.3%

Note: Includes all 122 U.S. cities in the MMWR, except for those with at least one week missing data (San Francisco, Duluth, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Columbus, Fort Worth, Paterson, New Orleans, Phoenix, Worcester, Tucson).

The MMWR includes 8 cities in the Pacific Northwest, namely Boise ID, Portland OR, Seattle WA, Berkeley CA, Sacramento CA, Santa Cruz CA, San Francisco CA, and San Jose CA. Weekly reported infant deaths in the four weeks immediately preceding the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following are given in Table 6.


Table 6
Infant Deaths, 8 Pacific Northwest Cities, By Week, 2011

Week Infant Deaths (Deaths < 1 Year)
Ending Boise Portland Seattle Berk Sacra S. Cruz S. Fran S. Jose Total
BEFORE JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
2/26/11 2 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 11
3/ 5/11 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 3 9
3/12/11 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 2 8
3/19/11 0 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 9

AFTER JAPAN FALLOUT ARRIVES
3/26/11 1 2 6 1 2 0 2 2 16
4/ 2/11 0 0 3 0 1 1 --- 1 6
4/ 9/11 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 6
4/16/11 0 1 2 1 5 0 0 2 11
4/23/11 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 4 11
4/30/11 0 3 5 0 4 0 1 5 18
5/ 7/11 1 0 2 1 4 0 3 7 18
5/14/11 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 1 13
5/21/11 2 1 2 2 5 0 1 2 15
5/28/11 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 5 11

4 Weeks Before Japan Fallout Total (Average) Weekly Deaths 37 ( 9.25)
10 Weeks After Japan Fallout Total (Average) Weekly Deaths 125 (12.50)
% Change in Average +35.1% (p<.09)

Note: No data reported for San Francisco, week ending April 2

The average weekly infant deaths for the 8 cities rose sharply from 9.25 to 12.50, a jump of 35.1%. Because a large number of deaths are involved (37 and 125 in the two periods), the change approaches statistical significance at p<.09 (p<.05 is significant).

A review of MMWR data shows that the average weekly number of deaths for all other age groups in the Pacific Northwest (and the U.S.) changed little in the periods before and after the arrival of Japanese fallout.

Discussion. The EPA increased the frequency of monitoring environmental radioactivity in the U.S. after the meltdowns at Fukushima. The Agency documented higher concentrations in the U.S., especially in late March. However, most measurements of chemicals other than I-131 did not detect radioactivity, and after observing declining levels, the EPA decided to resume its normal schedule of quarterly measurements.

Despite these limitations, it appears that the Pacific Northwest received the most Japanese fallout in the U.S. While these levels are much lower than near the Fukushima plant, it is still important to review health status data for unusual patterns.

The MMWR is useful for examining very recent mortality data in cities across the nation. A comparison of infant deaths during the four weeks prior to the arrival of Japanese fallout and the 10 weeks following showed a 35.1% rise in 8 Pacific Northwest cities.

The data suggest that the following steps be taken to enhance the research:

1. Review independent measures of U.S. radioactivity to confirm EPA data are consistent

2. Review changes in environmental radioactivity and infant deaths in Japan, as high radioactivity levels and rising infant deaths would be expected

3. Continue to monitor infant deaths in the Pacific Northwest and the U.S., using MMWR

4. Request data from state/local health departments on infant health, even if incomplete

Finally, the data should be shared with the appropriate regulators, namely the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the EPA, and state radiation protection bureaus. Information suggesting that relatively low exposures to radiation from nuclear reactors are linked with infant health problems should be part of the regulatory process.


REFERENCES:

1. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs. Environmental Radiation Data. Montgomery AL: Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility. Report 8, April 1977 (hard copy reports with radioactivity in precipitation after China bomb test), and Report 46, September 1986 (radioactivity in precipitation after Chernobyl).

2. Environmental Protection Agency. RadNet, formerly Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/erams_query.simple_query (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk, beginning 1978).

3. Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/japan2011/rert/radnet-sampling-data.html#precip (radioactivity in air, precipitation, water, and milk for March/April 2011).

4. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_cvol.html (weekly deaths by age for 122 U.S. cities).
<letterhead - 7 Bd., June 2011 - Japan inf. mort..doc>.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. But not, as far as I can see, the answer to "why did you pick a 4 week period"?
Edited on Mon Jun-13-11 07:14 PM by muriel_volestrangler
or "did you check if that 4 week period was typical for 2011, or typical for that 4 week period compared to previous years?"

Their reply seems to have nothing to relate to the charges of cherry-picking. Not surprising, because it seems to be just the full press release, and thus entirely written before we said anything on DU, with the infant death data in full that some of us had gone to WONDER to pull for ourselves.

I had also sent them a question - specifically asking why the 4 week period was chosen. I sent it about 5 hours before you started this thread, so before you sent yours. So far, they haven't replied to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. If you read the CDC infant mortality charts, those are the cities listed in the Northwest and
the press releases go into more detail about why that area was chosen, which is roughly the reason I guessed earlier.

If you google the ''CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report'' and find last years reports for that period, you could make that comparison yourself and post your findings though since the overall increase in infant mortality was only 2.3% I doubt that it's going to look anything like the post-Fukushima period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 03:34 AM
Response to Reply #47
54. I had already made the comparison and posted the findings
Edited on Tue Jun-14-11 03:36 AM by muriel_volestrangler
In the earlier thread about it in E&OA (which you have posted in yourself) here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=607069&mesg_id=607503 , I compared the NW cities and the cities from the whole country; and I compared the NW cities for 2010 and for 2011 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1277345&mesg_id=1283589

I don't question the selection of those cities; I accept those are the cities in the NW, and if there was spread of radioactivity, they could be at the most risk. What I question is why, when the CDC tables include data going back to the beginning of January 2011 (and all of 2010, and much further back too), the authors only compared the post-Fukushima period with the 4 weeks before it. As you can see, the 5th week before it had 19 infant deaths for the 8 cities - higher than any week post-Fukushima, and more than double the 9.25/week average they got for the 4 weeks after that. If they had compared the 10 weeks post-Fukushima with the 5 weeks before it, their results would look very different - an increase from 11.2/week to 12.5/week. In the 6 weeks pre-Fukushima, the average was 12/week. You see, it looks like it really was pure chance that the 4 weeks pre-Fukushima had a low death rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. that is curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. One interesting thing - the article claimed statistical significance, the press release denied it
Edited on Mon Jun-13-11 07:21 PM by muriel_volestrangler
which seems strange. From the Counterpunch article in the OP:

"This amounts to an increase of 35% (the total for the entire U.S. rose about 2.3%), and is statistically significant."

From the press release they sent you:

"The average weekly infant deaths for the 8 cities rose sharply from 9.25 to 12.50, a jump of 35.1%. Because a large number of deaths are involved (37 and 125 in the two periods), the change approaches statistical significance at p<.09 (p<.05 is significant)."

Even ignoring the question about the pre-Fukushima period chosen, this seems to indicate a problem introduced by whoever prepared the Counterpunch article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. the sentence you pulled ends with what would normally be considered significant
and this is far above that.

I don't know this statistical jargon, but my guess is it means a change of .09 (in numbers not percent) is significant, and this was a change of 3.25, which is several times more than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. No, the detail in what they sent you said the chance was 0.09 (about 1 in 11)
of the increase from the 4 week to the 10 week periods happening by random variation alone; and the level below which this would be called 'statistically significant' is 0.05, or 1 in 20. So that said, correctly, that the result was not statistically significant, though it wasn't far off.

The Counterpunch article just changed this to claim, without giving the 'p' (probability) figure, that it was statistically significant. That contradicts what they sent you, which was, as far as I can tell, what the authors originally sent out. Whether someone at Counterpunch changed it, or Sherman and Mangano changed it for the Counterpunch article (since they are listed as being the authors of it, rather than just being quoted), I don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
46. Tried to send you a ...
Edited on Mon Jun-13-11 07:49 PM by defendandprotect
PM msg, but got a msg that you can't receive PM's yet?

Maybe just part of the week's screwups where a few things

happened?


D&P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dj13Francis Donating Member (343 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
51. Wow.
Here's a big surprise. This just in on the AP wire - radiation is harmful. That is all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #51
55. it's clearly a shock to some people here, who probably dress their kids in asbestos pajamas & give
them BPA bottles while smoking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreezCz Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-16-11 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
57. Hawai'i?
It makes you wonder why when this was happening, the media
said the radiation would be harmless to us, instead of scaring
us to death like they normally do with(actually harmless)bull
shit. It should be interesting to see the statistics from
Hawai'i in this same time frame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-11 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. the jetstream blows in a Northern arc
but it seems like there should be some effect on Hawaii.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC