tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12198363410895854952024-02-19T06:21:50.892+01:00Numbers and opinionsMattias Lantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07229085767080389413noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1219836341089585495.post-53355618887797900782015-05-31T00:53:00.000+02:002015-05-31T00:54:17.944+02:00Follow-up on SCIRP - part 1After my <a href="http://numbersopinions.blogspot.se/2015/04/another-take-on-s-congenital.html" target="_blank"><b>previous post</b></a> there have been some interesting development.<br />
<br />
On April 22 I added a comment to the <a href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=54828#.VWo2848-s_B" target="_blank"><b>page</b></a> of the S&M (Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano) article, with a link to my scrutiny.<br />
<br />
Two days later, on April 24, I received an interesting email:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i><b>Dear Author,</b></i></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i><b>Greetings. It is really a great honor to write this mail to you. I am Jenny Shao, working in Scientific Research Publishing(www.scirp.org), an open access peer-reviewed publisher. </b></i></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i><b>At first, I would like to express gratitude to you for sharing your opinion under the paper published in SCIRP. It is very useful for the authors to conduct their future research. Based on your professionals insights on your study area, we are now cordially inviting you to submit your new findings or book reviews to us.<br /><br />SCIRP currently has more than 240 open access journals in the areas of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Medicine & Healthcare, Medical & Life Sciences, Computer Science & Communications, Chemistry & Materials Science, Engineering, Physics & Mathematics, Business & Economics and Social Sciences & Humanities. As one of the leading OA publishers, we have been always evolving and improving. We intend to bring you a perfect breeding ground for exchanging ideas and research achievement.</b></i></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i><b>We not only publish your paper on our website and the print, but also help spread them to receive more impact, visits and citations. As we believe every single paper has its value, it is not deserved to be just laid in the corner, but spread around. Our Open Access model is to let it be known by more people and make contributions. </b></i></span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i style="color: #6aa84f;"><b>Please let me know if you are interested in publishing with us.</b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i><b>Look forward to hearing from you.<br />Good day.<br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">-----------------------------------------------<br />Sincerely,<br /><br />Jenny Shao<br />Author Assistant<br />Scientific Research Publishing<br />Website: http://www.scirp.org<br />Email: xshao@scirp.org<br />Online Submission System</span></b></i></span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i><b><br /></b></i></span>
Wow, did they even read the comments, or my link? This was not exactly an invitation to comment on the S&M article. Instead it seemed to be a regular invitation to write any kind of article in any of their journals. Instead of ignoring it I decided to respond to it, this is what I sent on April 25:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">Dear Jenny Shao, </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">Many thanks for your mail and offer for me to submit an article to your journal.</span></b></i> </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">Before deciding if I should submit any work, I have a few questions that I hope you can respond to: </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">1: Why do I receive this mail from you and not from the Editor-in-Chief, or from any member of the Editorial Board who may have been responsible for the editorial work of the article that I commented on? </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">2: What is your role for the journal? I can imagine that you handle a lot of the practical work in order to get the journal going. But as far as I can see you are not part of the Editorial Board and you title does not indicate any scientific background of relevance. From my experience with scientific journals it is customary that editorial issues (or issues regarding scientific issues of a particular article) are responded to by an editor, usually the Editor-in-Chief. </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">3: Why are you not addressing the issue in my comment? My comment on the specific article is of scientific nature. The plot I attached in the comment shows that the main message of the article is an obvious cherry-picking exercise and thus is of no scientific value (attached is a more clear view of the same data). It is an example of bad science and its only purpose is to scare people about the effects of ionizing radiation. The article should be retracted if you are serious about the scientific credibility of the journal. In your email you do not indicate in any way that you have any interest in a serious discussion about this. </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqcTGfIQ-XIWCveA_AeUqCuMKw5a7wqOo9xEYWSCcDRVW2CW_e03K0mT-n0mYlCq0-1TIxaG8K9iPPjzZ-mqDh6FPJylXVdNts4fVdUrMXPX_aGeSLIPCkGAZC3XqA7MXe81n4GORGuNj5/s1600/02_SM_Table3_2007-2013_AprNov.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqcTGfIQ-XIWCveA_AeUqCuMKw5a7wqOo9xEYWSCcDRVW2CW_e03K0mT-n0mYlCq0-1TIxaG8K9iPPjzZ-mqDh6FPJylXVdNts4fVdUrMXPX_aGeSLIPCkGAZC3XqA7MXe81n4GORGuNj5/s320/02_SM_Table3_2007-2013_AprNov.png" width="320" /></a></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">4: Do you understand the difference between opinion and science?<br />You wrote "At first, I would like to express gratitude to you for sharing your opinion...".<br />This is not a matter of opinion, like a letter to the editor in a newspaper, or clicking "like" on a thread on Facebook, It is a matter of scientific credibility of the article, the authors behind it, of the journal itself, and of SCIRP. The authors of the journal cheat with statistics and the article should never have passed peer review. Comparing data for two years in the way that they do without even mentioning the trends for the other nearby years is not serious, considering the conclusions they draw from it. Any editor or reviewer with relevant competence in the fields that the article covers (epidemiology, ionizing radiation, etc) would easily see this. Progress in scientific knowledge is pursued through setting up models, trying to falsify those models, gathering data, presenting results in an honest manner, and carefully scrutinizing remarkable claims by others. It is not pursued by expressing interesting opinions. Therefore I find your response to be very problematic. </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">5: Does your offer mean that I would have to pay money?<br />I get the impression that you are not at all interested in addressing the issue raised in my comment. Instead you write about help with giving articles more impact and about how many journals that SCIRP has. It seems to me that you are only interested in making money out of me submitting a text, whether it would be a letter to the editor regarding the particular article, or on any other subject. In my humble opinion, I should not have to pay money for pointing out a case of scientific misconduct. If you are serious about the publication ethics statements written on the journal web pages, my comment should be addressed in a different manner than offering me to submit an article for money.<br /><br />Best wishes,<br />Mattias Lantz</span></b></i></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I never received any response. On May 19 I sent a reminder:</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">Dear Jenny Shao, </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">I never received any response from you regarding my questions, so I find it difficult to decide whether or not I should submit any article to your journal. </span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="color: #bf9000;">Best wishes,<br />Mattias Lantz</span></b></i></blockquote>
</div>
<div>
There was no response to my reminder either. Not that I expected any. But I was not aware of that SCIRP had already acted in a different way... (to be continued in part 2).</div>
Mattias Lantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07229085767080389413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1219836341089585495.post-39760046002002485092015-04-12T03:17:00.001+02:002015-04-15T23:44:15.430+02:00Another take on S&M - congenital malformations<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">It did not take a long time after the <a href="http://numbersopinions.blogspot.se/2015/02/s-fifty-shades-of-scaremongering.html" target="_blank">Alaska hoax</a>, Janette Sherman and Joseph Mangano (S&M) are back again, this time with a <a href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=54828#.VRyHDI8-s_A" target="_blank">peer reviewed article</a>, published on 19 March 2015. As we shall see this is not such an impressive feat.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In summary, here are a few interesting details that will be discussed in this text:</div>
<span style="text-align: justify;"></span><br />
<ol><span style="text-align: justify;">
<li>They cherry-pick data in order to claim a 13% increase in congenital malformations after Fukushima, when looking at the five US states that border to the Pacific Ocean (Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California). <b>A look at the available data for the time period 2007-2013 clearly shows a different story.</b></li>
<li>They use measured data for gross beta activity, trying to claim that the increased levels after Fukushima would lead to the increase in congenital malformations. <b>A look at their data shows that the levels of radioactivity are ridiculously low, even when taking into account the increase after Fukushima.</b></li>
<li>It is the third time they get something published in Open Journal of Pediatrics (OJPed). <b>After an inquiry it turns out that </b>t<b>his journal has no functioning peer review process and is neither fulfilling its own code of ethics, nor the code of conduct set up by COPE (Committee for publication ethics).</b></li>
</span></ol>
<span style="text-align: justify;">
</span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If this is enough for you, then you can happily stop reading. If you want the long and boring details you can continue.</div>
<ul>
</ul>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5x_VUCb4rLi5WfRPf8E2vkkx7rEKgBZKdF17m4gMXBDiDTVCedPldj2XTSXGrdbVwHRlNTIBxjlC4oqgwXnh3Sditq1fZc35Kx28xIZiwqDR7Og8k5-lqRCCaMl2rvi0DLvO1O5oUx3_F/s1600/move-along-nothing-to-see-here-7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5x_VUCb4rLi5WfRPf8E2vkkx7rEKgBZKdF17m4gMXBDiDTVCedPldj2XTSXGrdbVwHRlNTIBxjlC4oqgwXnh3Sditq1fZc35Kx28xIZiwqDR7Og8k5-lqRCCaMl2rvi0DLvO1O5oUx3_F/s1600/move-along-nothing-to-see-here-7.png" height="400" width="342" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: The Keep Calm-O-Matic (<a href="http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/">http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<h3>
<a name='more'></a></h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<h3>
1. The claims of S&M</h3>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is a quote from the abstract of the article, published in Open Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 76-89. They write:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b><span style="color: #6aa84f;">We compare rates of five congenital anomalies for 2010 and 2011 births from April-November. The increase of 13.00% in the five western states is significantly greater than the 3.77% decrease for all other U.S. states combined (CI 0.030 - 0.205, p < 0.008). Consistent patterns of elevated increases are observed in the west (20 of 21 comparisons, 6 of which are statistically significant/borderline significant), by state, type of birth defect, month of birth, and month of conception. While these five anomalies are relatively uncommon (about 7500 cases per year in the U.S.), sometimes making statistical significance difficult to achieve, the consistency of the results lend strength to the analysis, and suggest fetal harm from Fukushima may have occurred in western U.S. states.</span></b></i></div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The article is at times quite entertaining. The elaborate exercise of dividing the data into month of conception (which will not be addressed here, it is not necessary as the very first claim can be disqualified and thus making the rest of the reasoning meaningless), the use of terms like "borderline significance" (some concerns are raised <a href="https://mchankins.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/still-not-significant-2/" target="_blank"><b>here</b></a>, <b><a href="http://blog.amamanualofstyle.com/2012/06/18/bucking-the-trend-and-approaching-approaching-significance/" target="_blank">here</a></b> and <b><a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d3340" target="_blank">here</a><span id="goog_1702301333"></span><span id="goog_1702301334"></span><a href="https://www.blogger.com/"></a></b>), the extensive list of references, starting off with <a href="http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/resources/timeline/1927_Muller.php" target="_blank">Herman Muller's classical fruit fly experiments</a> in 1927, ending with a pompous quote from Rachel Carson's <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring" target="_blank">Silent Spring</a></i>. It all makes for a Sunday afternoon reading whenever the sudoku gets too challenging, or if the cultural pages do not cover any interesting topic.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Ignoring all that we should focus on their main message. <b>A 13% increase in congenital malformations for the children born in April-November 2011, compared with the children born in April-November 2010.</b> The five types of congenital malformations referred to are (each with a link to the corresponding wikipedia page explaining the illness):</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly" target="_blank">Anencephaly</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_lip_and_palate" target="_blank">Cleft palate or cleft lip</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome" target="_blank">Down syndrome</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastroschisis" target="_blank">Gastroschisis</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalocele" target="_blank">Omphalocele</a></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida" target="_blank">Spina bifida / meningocele</a></li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For each of the malformations S&M mention that ionizing radiation can be a cause, but considering the long list of references in the article, this particular section is lacking a comprehensive list, save for a few random shots.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reason that S&M looked at these five congenital malformations is that they are the ones available in the <a href="http://wonder.cdc.gov/" target="_blank">Wonder data base</a> at <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)</a>. So it is real data that S&M have used, but the way they use them is nothing to be proud of.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">
Checking the numbers</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From the Wonder data base at CDC the five types of congenital malformation can be extracted separately since 2007. Selections have to be made made for time periods and US states, there are also other constraints that can be used, such as maternal age, educational level, tobacco use, etc.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<h3>
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Technical side notes</span></h3>
<ol>
<li><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>In the following plots I have extracted data from the Wonder data base. For each searched option (for instance, number of cases of Down syndrome in Oregon in August 2010) the resulting data is divided into different categories:</b></span></div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>Total number of births</b></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>Yes (i.e. number of born children with Down syndrome)</b></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>No</b></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>Not stated</b></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>Not reported</b></span></li>
</ul>
</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>Due to privacy issues some of these categories may be suppressed if the number of cases within that category is less than 10. As the number of congenital malformations is relatively low it is quite frequent that the search returns suppressed categories, but there are some tricks in order to obtain the correct numbers.</b></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>S&M have handled this in a somewhat different way, and they have excluded the cases in the category "Not stated". This leads to a higher rate, especially for Alaska, but in most cases my data agree with the data of S&M to the second digit, though with a few exceptions. None of the deviations change any of the conclusions below.</b></span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #3d85c6; font-family: inherit;"><b>Unlike S&M I give all values rounded to integers, two digits accuracy is just silly in this case.</b></span></li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If we assume that the increased levels of radioactivity from Fukushima in 2011 could cause congenital malformations, then it would make sense to look at the five states that border the Pacific Ocean, i.e. Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington for the months following the exposure of pregnant mothers. S&M have done that by extracting values for the months April to November in 2011, comparing the rates of congenital malformation with the same time period in 2010. In table 3 of the article they show the numbers for the time period April-November, and then for the subsets April-July and August-November. They compare the five Pacific states (13% increase) with the other US states (4% decrease). If we plot the data for April-November it will look like in Figure 1 below. Added is also the total values for all of the US states (i.e. the combined effect of "5 states" and "Other US").</div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5UCSXfCaAttbYNq9XAptX04eWT8DPr1yUGAhjENhfmcA3UglyogRUx4Lghx5HZnbTIrg93XqA9DPxo8oLkew6blkgmMnCyDNnnX9M1eELjLbMNS7lFlPJBvz_8RrQ2w29WuT8p42f4xFz/s1600/01_SM_Table3_2010-2011_AprNov.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5UCSXfCaAttbYNq9XAptX04eWT8DPr1yUGAhjENhfmcA3UglyogRUx4Lghx5HZnbTIrg93XqA9DPxo8oLkew6blkgmMnCyDNnnX9M1eELjLbMNS7lFlPJBvz_8RrQ2w29WuT8p42f4xFz/s1600/01_SM_Table3_2010-2011_AprNov.png" height="325" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Figure 1.</b> Data showing the rate of the five congenital malformations for the</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
five Pacific states (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington), when</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
looking at births during April-November for the years 2010 and 2011. Data are<br />
also shown for the other US states, and all US states.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But as the Wonder data base has data for these five congenital malformations since 2007, it would be helpful of S&M, if they had an honest intent, to plot the entire time period 2007-2013. As seen in Figure 2, there is a good reason for them to not do it: <b>it effectively disqualifies the claim, and thus the entire article</b>.</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyHYmVDChV0PsX0mn7zAovwZAZq6JV10_VyvCsRXt2Tv0eKARKO3onUrISMIPc_ZZc18G6NL7RnDNbBDkcugCt9vyOzH1eSXRkVslOa7Jd6BEv9t1i671dbHYYsYVDriIpxiclAQn8zg5b/s1600/02_SM_Table3_2007-2013_AprNov.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyHYmVDChV0PsX0mn7zAovwZAZq6JV10_VyvCsRXt2Tv0eKARKO3onUrISMIPc_ZZc18G6NL7RnDNbBDkcugCt9vyOzH1eSXRkVslOa7Jd6BEv9t1i671dbHYYsYVDriIpxiclAQn8zg5b/s1600/02_SM_Table3_2007-2013_AprNov.png" height="326" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 2.</b> The same data as in Figure 1, but for the years 2007-2013.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
As seen the drastic increase from 2010 to 2011 is not so remarkable. The rate for 2011 is at a quite normal level. Instead it could be of interest to discuss the reasons for the drastic decrease in 2010, but such a discussion can not involve any radioactivity from Fukushima. Once again S&M have clearly showed that they are not to be trusted. They are cherry-picking data again, and celebrities like <a href="http://radiation.org/annual-meetings/" target="_blank">Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley</a> should spend their money elsewhere than <a href="http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/" target="_blank">filling Joseph Mangano's pockets</a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Any further claims in the article are pretty much irrelevant after seeing the time trend as displayed in Figure 2, but let us anyhow look at some of their other results. In table 4 they display the data for 2010-2011 separately for each state, and for all five Pacific states there is some increase. Figure 3 shows this, together with the data for the other US states. Figure 4 shows the same thing but for the time period 2007-2013.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ1duYTBh9uYE9IKW0HUa5qVWi6DJavr1UZlWAybFYEvBv5zn9mTLoQt3Ch3bWQCWx-ljJ-3725v6PXeUzQIOYtuk8grbHWLCRfrtVQ6e7lHnELMLSfrQ8CHTwB9XikgOSBiuBNSDaS3oP/s1600/07_SM_Table4_2010-2011.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ1duYTBh9uYE9IKW0HUa5qVWi6DJavr1UZlWAybFYEvBv5zn9mTLoQt3Ch3bWQCWx-ljJ-3725v6PXeUzQIOYtuk8grbHWLCRfrtVQ6e7lHnELMLSfrQ8CHTwB9XikgOSBiuBNSDaS3oP/s1600/07_SM_Table4_2010-2011.png" height="320" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 3.</b> Same data as in Figure 1, but divided into data for each state.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_88DvbxmdR7jaqIh3GG7JLripEQeo4gpt9gX_5cmAn16dQXM2JkTuHH4i6DPmo8Pa1RYwUYo_hyphenhyphenhFAlKUqktKkIpUNLw7p-PU-VLhhGHM1bIU4-rdpFSFb_3E9ifcF7ci7CBthDgzBU9T/s1600/08_SM_Table4_2007-2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_88DvbxmdR7jaqIh3GG7JLripEQeo4gpt9gX_5cmAn16dQXM2JkTuHH4i6DPmo8Pa1RYwUYo_hyphenhyphenhFAlKUqktKkIpUNLw7p-PU-VLhhGHM1bIU4-rdpFSFb_3E9ifcF7ci7CBthDgzBU9T/s1600/08_SM_Table4_2007-2013.png" height="320" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 4.</b> Same as Figure 3, but for the time period 2007-2013.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For states with relatively small populations, such as Alaska and Hawaii, the data scatters a lot for each year. The reasons for that is that a small change in absolute numbers will give a relatively large change in the ratio. Again, S&M has nothing to prove here. More noteworthy is the difference in average levels for these five states. California has a rate of about 100 per 100 000 births, while the other four states tend to have yearly levels above 200 per 100 000 births.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In table 5, S&M have separated the data into each form of the five congenital malformations. It could be of general interest to also compare the levels for the different malformations, so let us plot them. First in S&M cherry-picking mode, Figure 5, followed by a more honest display in Figure 6.</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivzO8n7f_jsUvy1jihWTaNJ1VDdQ3IN0kp4oGt0OiFnY1cl_tJ_hgm8PmX0H1NmJC7h-iXpepcMuhUyDg7ZdePJYlC3Dtsuj_SwIhaQJSio1Op_ztr9mX38CsinyLYLV85dDtSEEoc8lT9/s1600/09_SM_Table5_2010-2011.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivzO8n7f_jsUvy1jihWTaNJ1VDdQ3IN0kp4oGt0OiFnY1cl_tJ_hgm8PmX0H1NmJC7h-iXpepcMuhUyDg7ZdePJYlC3Dtsuj_SwIhaQJSio1Op_ztr9mX38CsinyLYLV85dDtSEEoc8lT9/s1600/09_SM_Table5_2010-2011.png" height="326" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 5.</b> The rate of birth defects for the five Pacific states, divided for each<br />
form of congenital malformation.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1WFYVflpnJsCBZNEmi1wIOcUZSM_dHz_d1qxxUERv86O2qjWcPyghNVNnzn5VFVGhU9o4GmpWYpPG7UbpCKC0VdY4T867CKVDvXtAjnRCOLYB7_Z3oHlNyc-SOMUwSztNJazQRSlousy4/s1600/10_SM_Table5_2007-2013.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1WFYVflpnJsCBZNEmi1wIOcUZSM_dHz_d1qxxUERv86O2qjWcPyghNVNnzn5VFVGhU9o4GmpWYpPG7UbpCKC0VdY4T867CKVDvXtAjnRCOLYB7_Z3oHlNyc-SOMUwSztNJazQRSlousy4/s1600/10_SM_Table5_2007-2013.png" height="326" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: left;"><b>Figure 6.</b> Same as Figure 5, but for the time period 2007-2013.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once again we see that the discovered increase from 2010-2011 is not very remarkable. S&M have no case to show. Again.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h3>
2. What about the radiation levels?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The data S&M show in table 1 of the article do indeed indicate an increase of radioactivity, they claim a factor of seven increase for the time period 15 March-30 April when comparing 2011 with 2010. It should be noted that they complain about lack of reliable data (only "gross beta" activity is used), but still they make some claims based on the official data that they have extracted. They give the average values with 5 digit accuracy, but no indication about how the data vary over time or between different measurement sites. The table with measurement sites that they supply in an appendix of the article is therefore not of much value. Ignoring all that, let us look at what this increase of a factor seven does mean. This part follows the reasoning in <a href="http://numbersopinions.blogspot.se/2015/02/s-fifty-shades-of-scaremongering.html" target="_blank">an earlier blog post about S&M (see Figure 5 in that post)</a>.</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In 2010 the average activity for the time period was 0.005 picocuries per cubic meter of air. Converting this to number of decays it means one decay every 5287 seconds in this cubic meter of air. Put in a more convenient time frame it means one decay every 1 hour and 45 minutes.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In 2011 the average activity for the same time period was 0.033 picocuries per cubic meter of air. This means one decay every 13 minutes in this cubic meter of air.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">An adult has about 5 liters of lung capacity. </li>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">This means that in 2010 there was an extra beta decay occurring within that person's lungs once every 12 days.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In 2011 there was instead one extra beta decay occurring within that person once every 2 days.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In 2 days an adult person has about 1 billion beta decays within his or her body, from natural sources (Carbon-14 and Potassium-40). <b>S&M want us to believe that one extra decay per 1 billion normal decays within the body of an expecting mother would cause a 13% increase in congenital malformations in the children to be born. Nah!</b></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
3. But wasn't the article peer reviewed?</h3>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
According to the journal <a href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/ForAuthors.aspx?JournalID=609#.VR27To8-s_A" target="_blank">web site</a>, submitted articles undergo a peer review process:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Submitted manuscripts adhering to journal guidelines are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an Editor, who will assign them to reviewers.</span></b></i></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But considering the fact that this is the third time that S&M succeeds with getting an obvious cherry-picking exercise through in this journal (here are the <a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=28599#.VSReYY8-s_A" target="_blank">first</a> and <a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=40157#.VSReY48-s_A" target="_blank">second</a> articles), and the way that earlier protests have been handled (see <b><a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/04/29/fallout-from-questionable-article-in-oa-pediatrics-journal/" target="_blank">here</a></b>) it is very doubtful that a proper scrutiny has been performed. Open Journal of Pediatrics belong to the open access publishing house <b>Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP)</b>, which is registered in Delaware, U.S., but operates from China. According to their own <a href="http://www.scirp.org/AboutUs/Index.aspx" target="_blank">publication ethics statement</a> they claim:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b><span style="color: #6aa84f;">SCIRP is committed to maintaining high standards through a rigorous peer review, together with strict ethical policies. Any infringements of professional ethical codes such as plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, or bogus claims of authorship should be taken very seriously by the editors, with zero tolerance. </span></b></i></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i><b><span style="color: #6aa84f;">SCIRP follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and follows the COPE Flowcharts for Resolving Cases of Suspected Misconduct.</span></b></i></div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Similar statements are to be found on the <a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/Publicat_Ethics_Statement.aspx?JournalID=609#.VSLtO48-s_A" target="_blank">Publication Ethics and OA Statement page</a> of OJPed. Furthermore it is interesting to read the Appointment Letters send to those who accept being on the <a href="http://file.scirp.org/pdf/Appointment_Editor.pdf" target="_blank">Editorial Board</a>, and the <a href="http://file.scirp.org/pdf/Appointment_Editor-in-Chief.pdf" target="_blank">Editor-in-Chief</a> (pdf). Of the eight duties expected by the Editor-in-Chief, the first three are worth noting:</div>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: left;">take an active part in the peer review process as Editor-in-Chief (http://www.scirp.org/aboutUs/ForAuthors.aspx) with quick response, </li>
<li style="text-align: left;">take the ultimate responsibility for the peer review process and the academic quality of the journal, </li>
<li style="text-align: left;">supervise editing of manuscripts for each issue with respect to scientific writing and layout conventions</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
With these in mind I contacted the Editor-in-Chief, asking about his involvement with the journal. The response was the following:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="color: #e06666;"><i>"I am listed as the editor-in-chief, but as it has turned out, I have no
substantive responsibilities and am not involved in editorial decisions.
I therefore plan to resign my "in name only" position."</i></span></b></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Quite interesting. If the person having the ultimate responsibility for the peer review process, and the academic quality of the journal, has not performed any duties at all for the journal, then who is in charge? One may imagine that somebody else has performed any sort of peer review, but since the person who is expected to take the ultimate responsibility has not done so, the academic credibility of the journal is close to zero. We know that the scientific relevance of the S&M article is non-existant (if you are still in doubt, please go back to Figures 1 and 2), and the fact that the entire journal is run like a ship without its captain makes it even less relevant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In hope of finding out something more I wrote to the 23 persons being named as members of the <a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/EditorialBoard.aspx?JournalID=609#.VSMajY8-s_A" target="_blank">Editorial Board</a>. These are respected medical doctors and researchers, some of them with quite impressive CVs. For Editorial Board members there are seven duties expected from those who accept being editors, again the three first are relevant:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: left;">take an active part in the peer review process as Editor (http://www.scirp.org/aboutUs/ForAuthors.aspx) with quick response, </li>
<li style="text-align: left;">review up to five papers during the year if it is necessary for the journal, </li>
<li style="text-align: left;">support quality control of the journal</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">Here is my email to the editors:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<i><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b>Dear Dr/Professor ***,</b></span></i></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i></i></b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i><i>I am scrutinizing an article recently published in Open Journal
of Pediatrics (
<a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/Home.aspx?JournalID=609#.VR2-0o8-s_A" moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.scirp.org/journal/Home.aspx?JournalID=609#.VR2-0o8-s_A</a>),
where you are named as editor.</i></i></b></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i>
</i><i></i></b></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i><i>It turns out that the article is a cherry-picking exercise, and
there are other flaws in the article that should have stopped it
from being accepted in the first place.</i></i></b></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i>
</i><i></i></b></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i><i>Therefore I contacted the Editor-in-Chief. He responded that he had accepted the position but that he
has never performed any service for the journal. If the named
Editor-in-Chief has never done any work for the journal, then
the entire peer review process is in doubt for this journal.</i></i></b></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i>
</i><i></i></b></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i><i>Thus I wonder about your involvement with this journal, have you
ever performed any service for it?</i></i></b></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i>
</i><i></i></b></span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i><i>Best wishes,</i><i>
Mattias Lantz - Uppsala university, Sweden</i></i></b></span></div>
<span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b><i>
</i></b></span></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So far 15 persons have responded. Each response is unique and has led to some further email exchange, but here is a summary of the answers to my main question:</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="text-align: justify;">5 of them have performed some sort of editing or peer reviewing of one or a few articles</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">2 can not remember if they ever did anything for this journal</li>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">They act as editors and reviewers for many journals and therefore can not remember what they have done for this particular journal</li>
</ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">6 have never been asked to perform any of the duties expected</li>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A valid reason could be that their area of expertise has not been or relevance yet</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">A more likely reason seems to be that the journal is only interested in showing their names, thus mis-using their reputation. Some of them have asked to have their names removed, or their contracts have ended a long time ago, but their names are still on the list</li>
</ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><b>2 were not aware of that they are on the list, thus their names were put there without their consent</b></li>
</ul>
So there have been a few editors that have acted according to the Appointment Letter. They have performed serious peer review in good faith. But none of them seem to have been involved in more than a few articles. If the same trend follows for the 8 editors that have not responded, then only a handful of the 206 articles published in OJPed since 2011 have been scrutinized according to the journal's own guidelines. These scrutinies are still lacking a quality stamp since the Editor-in-Chief never was involved, and thus never took "the ultimate responsibility for the peer review process and the academic quality of the journal." If somebody else has taken that responsibility, that person should be named. This is not the case.<br />
<br />
The fact that two of the named editors never have accepted to be on the list is of serious concern. It means that their names were put there to give credibility to the journal. A serious journal attracts real people to their editorial board, and they use them for the editing and peer review process. In such a journal, whether they charge the authors for the published articles or not (<a href="http://www.scirp.org/Journal/APC.aspx?JournalID=609#.VSmp6I8-s_A" target="_blank">this one does</a>), cherry-picking exercises like the ones by S&M would not pass the quality check. Open Journal of Pediatrics is clearly not a serious journal, and no article published there can be taken seriously. The question is: Can any journal from the SCIRP publishing house be taken serious? Jeffrey Beall's blog <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/?s=scirp" target="_blank"><b>Scholarly Open Access</b></a> indicates to me that the answer to that question is <b>No</b>. This is unfortunate for all researchers who have submitted articles in good faith. For S&M we can only say: <b>Congratulations, you managed to scare some people again!</b><br />
<br />
/Mattias Lantz<br />
<br />
<b>Acknowledgements:</b> Many thanks to all of the named editors, including the Editor-in-Chief, who have responded to my inquiry regarding their involvement with the journal.Mattias Lantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07229085767080389413noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1219836341089585495.post-56229128509389520752015-02-26T09:52:00.000+01:002015-04-09T22:21:33.221+02:00S&M: Fifty shades of scaremongeringJanette Sherman and Joseph Mangano (S&M) are at it again, trying to scare people about radioactivity from Fukushima. It is worth pointing out immediately that:<br />
<ul>
<li>Their claims are published in the magazine Counterpunch, not in a scientific journal.</li>
<li>Once again, their claims are based on embarrassingly low quality handling of health statistics that is publicly available.</li>
<li>S&M know very well that many people will get scared about their claims, and that very few of them will be able to check the numbers themselves.</li>
<li>As usual they are not really claiming anything, they just show the numbers and ask an open question if there can be any correlation with radioactivity. This is very convenient, they can portray themselves as heroes by showing some data, and if proven wrong they can always defend themselves by saying that they are just "asking questions".</li>
<li>There is no reason to believe anything they say, as this again turns out to be a lousy cherry-picking exercise.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9mn1j_AdidFZOD8zrhUhrs_U-TZHFvHqPStg-xWHkyKiFLNUwK8yZY3zccHSCbm3CClJ-jpPfkdTh2qXhILc2C6s0YPeHoUJbmTbcDnGjI0z4d_1URa_xk8S2XzDxBROzAia0oWb9fH5t/s1600/Counterpunch_2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9mn1j_AdidFZOD8zrhUhrs_U-TZHFvHqPStg-xWHkyKiFLNUwK8yZY3zccHSCbm3CClJ-jpPfkdTh2qXhILc2C6s0YPeHoUJbmTbcDnGjI0z4d_1URa_xk8S2XzDxBROzAia0oWb9fH5t/s1600/Counterpunch_2.png" height="275" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Figure 1.</b> The article by S&M in Counterpunch, February 19, 2015.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<h3>
So what do they say this time?</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
There was an <b><a href="http://www.adn.com/article/20150214/rash-sleep-related-infant-deaths-troubles-health-officials" target="_blank">article</a> </b>in the newspaper Alaska News Dispatch (February 14, 2015) regarding a recent increase in numbers of infant deaths. Every such case is a tragedy, and many of the deaths can be avoided if the parents know some basic information. Unfortunately, many of the cases occur in low income families where in some cases the use of drugs, tobacco and alcohol play a role. Other risk factors are letting the baby sleep on a sofa or together with the parent, suffocation may occur.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The number of infant deaths has slowly decreased in Alaska, as in the rest of the U.S., but recently there has been a reversal of the trend. Health officials in Alaska are investigating the individual cases and are trying to reach out better with information.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
S&M were quickly on to this story, and only five days later, on February 19, they had an <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/19/infant-deaths-in-alaska-a-fukushima-effect/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><b>article</b></a> published in the political newsletter Counterpunch where they come up with a different explanation: <b>Fukushima did it!</b></div>
<br />
They write:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i>"Infant mortality in Alaska has been falling for years, however 122 infants died in 2012-2013, compared to 85 deaths two years before.</i> </span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i>Research of causes of this highly unexpected increase is needed, and consideration should be given to the arrival of radioactive fallout from Fukushima after the 2011 meltdown. Radiation levels were highest in Alaska, Hawaii and the Pacific west coast .</i> </span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Since we know the un-born and young are at greater risk from exposure to nuclear radiation, effects that have been documented since the Marshall Islands nuclear tests, x-rays of pregnant women, and the Chernobyl catastrophe of 1986.</span></b></i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b style="color: #6aa84f; font-style: italic;">According to the CDC, infant (<1 year) deaths in Alaska have been falling steadily, but increaseds </b>(sic)<b style="color: #6aa84f; font-style: italic;"> after 2011:</b><b style="color: #6aa84f;"> </b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i> 2010-2011 390.82 per 100,000 births(86 deaths)</i> </span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><span style="color: #6aa84f;"><i> 2012-2013 533.66 per 100,000 births (122 deaths)</i> </span></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> This is a 37% increase in the rate per 100,000"</span></b></i></blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We ignore for the moment the rest of the article, where they make some confused sentences about radiation measurements in Alaska for 2010 and 2011, followed by a mix of references to Chernobyl in order to support their "hypothesis". Let us instead check the numbers they use on infant deaths.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Checking the numbers</h3>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
S&M refer to data from CDC, i.e. <b><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/cio.htm" target="_blank">Centers for Disease Control and Prevention</a></b>, that is an entity of the U.S. Department of Health. From their <a href="http://wonder.cdc.gov/" target="_blank"><b>WONDER data base</b></a> we can extract the data used by S&M in order to check them.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrAVSuCc6cVj3VDvv5Qmz4UwdD8cJCijseE0ZsrDUPkwzCdijsYSrCeriZKRamxCqFYt9En5Qa-VazVtZfpvn9acyFUpu_a461U-rr0gySZeSd8qat7XT1O_iHv7ObDn5LlgTHBms8_qoI/s1600/SMAlaska0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrAVSuCc6cVj3VDvv5Qmz4UwdD8cJCijseE0ZsrDUPkwzCdijsYSrCeriZKRamxCqFYt9En5Qa-VazVtZfpvn9acyFUpu_a461U-rr0gySZeSd8qat7XT1O_iHv7ObDn5LlgTHBms8_qoI/s1600/SMAlaska0.png" height="398" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Figure 2.</b> The data used by S&M. Inserted is also an extract from their article in Counterpunch.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In Figure 2 there are data extracted from CDC for the years 2010-2013 for the number of infant deaths and converted to infant death rate, i.e. the number of infant deaths per 100,000 born children. The error bars reflect the statistical uncertainty, any variation from one year to the next that is within the limits of the error bars can usually be explained as being due to random effects. But as seen there is indeed an increasing trend over the four years, just as S&M says, and when taking the difference between the average of 2012-2013 compared with 2010-2011 we do see the claimed 37 percent increase. So, are there any reasons to be concerned that this drastic increase could be due to radioactivity from Fukushima? <b>No.</b> First we need to look at a broader picture, something that S&M are keen to not do as it tends to ruin their story.</div>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOxz33ZpSBQKQEq_nV_vVa5Qe6QAUvucoigJWddb4BmhvaV2eEnEcILkCCs8QFUIUNhkS21423iw9AcFkfW4u-qOrW9r6oWcTJWYq_Bn4mq2fRrvPiao29dFM0e1diiCwpzFcG86doqpGa/s1600/SMAlaska2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOxz33ZpSBQKQEq_nV_vVa5Qe6QAUvucoigJWddb4BmhvaV2eEnEcILkCCs8QFUIUNhkS21423iw9AcFkfW4u-qOrW9r6oWcTJWYq_Bn4mq2fRrvPiao29dFM0e1diiCwpzFcG86doqpGa/s1600/SMAlaska2.png" height="396" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Figure 3.</b> The data used by S&M for 2010-2013 (red), together with the data for the time period 1990-2013 (blue).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirNp-SKGZGPi71pZ8eufOUb8EUqjcJEQcxCk3x8I_gEj2m2pFuXad3NxKeFZ9QmCezaOT90TClnzmAtiAQXx1uLoEIZqlUKUqC1U64lf7haaZxMOgaqrkH2_2vuY7TURFWOZexcS7EDMX7/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Figure 3 shows again the data used by S&M for 2010-2013 (<span style="color: #cc0000;">red</span>), but added are data for the time period 1990-2013 (<span style="color: #3d85c6;">blue</span>). What we see is:</div>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">That there is a long term decrease in the infant death rate.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">That there can be relatively large differences between two years, although the data tend to decrease along the general trend, indicated by the <span style="color: #3d85c6;">dashed blue line</span>.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">That the drastic increase in 2012-2013 is relatively large, but more remarkable is the drastic <b>decrease</b> in 2010-2011. In other words, in 2010-2011 there was a dip in the data compared with 2009.</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So the infant deaths in 2013 is in some sense back to the "normal" trend. Of course everybody would like it to stay at the low level reached in 2010, but there is no reason to accept what S&M want us to believe, that there is an abnormal increase in the number of infant deaths and that radioactivity from Fukushima could be behind it.<br />
<br />
"But wait", you may say, "Alaska is closer to Japan, so there is probably an increase compared to the rest of the U.S". CDC will give us the answer.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmZ4MU0spSSgeDNBfCnaOxPQz8WsqSkmfOOCfYygCWeL-wgCEV3GdPTvWuvFm42OXORVPJBVawJImabhdBDFUqqrd45QPc9vUpa6DQ7Rp45HDS6Y1WN17RENsKhAXewZ4j3RHAIIllDowT/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmZ4MU0spSSgeDNBfCnaOxPQz8WsqSkmfOOCfYygCWeL-wgCEV3GdPTvWuvFm42OXORVPJBVawJImabhdBDFUqqrd45QPc9vUpa6DQ7Rp45HDS6Y1WN17RENsKhAXewZ4j3RHAIIllDowT/s1600/SMAlaska3.png" height="398" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Figure 4.</b> Data for Alaska,compared with the entire U.S.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Figure 4 shows the same data as before, but added is the data for all of U.S. (<span style="color: #666666;"><b>grey line</b></span>). The general trend line is also shown (<b><span style="color: #666666;">dashed grey line</span></b>). Now we see that the infant death rate in Alaska is actually the same, or lower, than in the rest of the U.S. Any attempt to make us believe that the increase in 2012-2013 is abnormally high and could be due to Fukushima is simply not true.<br />
<br />
<h3>
What about the radiation levels?</h3>
S&M mention some radiation levels:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Few data exist, but CDC did collect gross beta in air (picocuries per cubic meter). The period March 15 to April 30 in 2011 was the peak period when Fukushima fallout entered the environment.</span></i></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">For Anchorage AK, the levels are:</span></i></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> March 15 to April 30, 2010 (14 measurements) .0029 pCi/m3 </span></i></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;"> March 15 to April 30, 2011 (13 measurements) .0113 pCi/m3 </span></i></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Dividing .0113 / .0029 and you get a ratio 3.86 times higher in 2011. </span></i></b></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="color: #6aa84f;">The 2011/2010 ratio for the rest of the year was 0.79 (2010 was actually higher than 2011).</span></i></b></blockquote>
<br />
Not very coherent, but a few things are worth noting:<br />
<ul>
<li>CDC do not perform any radiation measurements themselves. They have very nice information pages about radiation for different situations, and a <a href="http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/japan2011.asp" target="_blank">dedicated page</a> for the events in Japan. The data referred to by S&M comes from <a href="http://www.epa.gov/radnet/radnet-data/online-data.html" target="_blank">RadNet</a>, which is handled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). S&M should know this and be able to write that, at least if they want to portray themselves as being serious in this business.</li>
<li>S&M give no numbers for 2012, which would be of relevance in order to assess any correlation with infant deaths in 2013. This is based on the reasoning that any radioactivity could a affect the health of an infant from the moment of fertilization until 1 year of age.</li>
<li>To give the data for the time period 15 March - 30 April is quite meaningless if they are meant to indicate any effect when the number of infant deaths are counted over the whole year. </li>
<li>The radiation levels mentioned are ridiculously low. The average value for 15 March - 30 April 2011 of 0.0113 picoCurie means that there is one decay in a cubic meter of air once every 40 minutes. </li>
<ul>
<li>The probability of that decay occurring in an adult with good lung capacity (about 5 liters) is once every 5 days. Meanwhile the adult has had about 3 billion beta decays within the body from the natural decays of Carbon-14 and Potassium-40.</li>
<li>For an infant below 1 year we can assume (with some exaggeration) a lung capacity of 0.5 liter, thus there is almost two months between each decay occurring within the body. If we assume a low body weight of 2 kg then there will be about a billion of beta decays within the body from natural decays during that time. One extra decay per billion normal decays, not very likely that it is the culprit.</li>
<li>These two examples for adults and infants are somewhat simplified, we can reason about the lungs acting as filters where particles inhaled will stop there, thus enhancing the probability of decays occurring within the body, but the numbers above indicate that the extra dose should be negligible.</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Let us in any case assume that it would be worth looking closer at the radiation data from RadNet, then some clear patterns should occur. Figure 5 below shows the recorded data for gross beta decay since 2009 in Anchorage, Alaska (<span style="color: #3d85c6;">blue dots</span>). Is there any support in data for S&M's reasoning?<br />
<ul>
<li>If the values for the time period 15 March - 30 April (<span style="color: red;">red bars</span>) were of any relevance, then it is indeed feasible to expect an increase of infant deaths in 2012 due to the peak seen in 2011 (this is the peak directly correlated to the releases in Fukushima). <span style="color: #6aa84f;"><b>YES</b></span></li>
<li>But then we would also expect a large peak in 2012 since the number of infant deaths in 2013 were even higher than in 2012. <b><span style="color: red;">NO</span></b></li>
<li>Furthermore, the recorded data for the same time period in 2009 are on average almost as high as in 2011, contrary to what would be expected since the number of infant deaths in 2010 were at an all time low. <b><span style="color: red;">NO</span></b></li>
</ul>
<span style="color: red;"><b><br /></b></span>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7BCqc0D-bURIdsA3K99tHLonNoRIsIWnuW6wAJm9aiCb27C37hMQ_lRDQ3txznj345E40n-j93TJWCBYUk-L5clAy782egn4B0IueU7XjxCdL_VCEpRVcrI_Wvi0JyLv739LqVhVgScov/s1600/SMAlaska5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7BCqc0D-bURIdsA3K99tHLonNoRIsIWnuW6wAJm9aiCb27C37hMQ_lRDQ3txznj345E40n-j93TJWCBYUk-L5clAy782egn4B0IueU7XjxCdL_VCEpRVcrI_Wvi0JyLv739LqVhVgScov/s1600/SMAlaska5.png" height="398" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Figure 5.</b> Gross beta decay (blue dots) from RadNet since 2009. Yearly averages from the recorded data are given as green lines. The averages for the time period 15 March - 30 April are given for each year as red bars.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
How about giving S&M a final chance, by looking at the average values for each year (<span style="color: #6aa84f;">green lines</span>)?<br />
<ul>
<li>We have the largest average values in 2009. Admittedly the data set is only for part of the year, but it would be way lower if one should be able to correlate it to the low number of infant deaths in 2010. <b><span style="color: red;">NO</span></b></li>
<li>The 2010 data are low, supporting a hypothesis of few infant deaths in 2011. <b><span style="color: #6aa84f;">YES</span></b></li>
<li>The yearly average value is almost constant from 2010 to 2013, thus no support for the increased numbers of infant deaths in 2012 and 2013. <b><span style="color: red;">NO</span></b></li>
<li>S&M seem to have calculated the 2011/2010 ratio backwards, 2011 had on average higher beta activity than 2010, while they claim the opposite. The mathematical operation of dividing one number with another seems to have been challenge. So by doing the math right one could actually give them some support here, but it is indeed a very weak one considering the lack of other correlations. Therefore: <b><span style="color: red;">NO</span></b></li>
</ul>
So two out of seven is not very impressive. But who am I to complain, they are just asking questions, right?<br />
<br />
<h3>
Summary</h3>
Once again S&M have shown that they are not worth listening to. Based on earlier experiences it would be naive to expect them to admit the errors and withdraw their reasoning. Instead there will probably be an extended study, being accepted in some less than serious journal, and their press releases will scare even more people. For no reason at all, except for that they <a href="http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2012/08/29/joseph-mangano-never-stops-and-he-never-gets-it-right/rphp_revenue/" target="_blank">make a living out of it</a>, and that they say what some people want to hear. Janette Sherman's description in the bottom of the Counterpunch article <i>"Her primary interest is in the prevention of illness through public education"</i> <span style="font-family: inherit;">is an insult to the word "education". And how Joseph Mangano can hold a MPH (Master of Public Health) is also a mystery. Masters of scaremongering they can claim in any case, they have explored almost every possible shade of it.</span><br />
<br />
In Sweden we have at least one member of the present government who have referred to some of the earlier studies by S&M <a href="http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Debatter--beslut/Interpellationsdebatter1/Debatt/?did=GW10259" target="_blank">when arguing in Parliament</a> against nuclear power. That person has not repeated it for a couple of years, being a minister in government maybe forces him to act in a more responsible way than before. Or was his earlier (and enthusiastic) referral to S&M based on ignorance and he is better informed now? Let's hope for that, running a country can be done at least partly with a given opinion as compass, but it is good if that opinion is based on proper numbers, not fake ones.<br />
<br />
/Mattias Lantz</div>
<br />
<br />
<h4>
Other scrutinies of S&M</h4>
<ul>
<li>Links to my earlier scrutinies of S&M's scaremongering after Fukushima can be found in the bottom of this blog entry, together with a number of links to scrutinies by others: <a href="http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/17/shame-on-you-janette-sherman-and-joseph-mangano/">http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2011/06/17/shame-on-you-janette-sherman-and-joseph-mangano/</a></li>
<li>A collection of scrutinies and comments in NEI Nuclear Notes: <a href="http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.se/search/label/Joseph%20Mangano">http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.se/search/label/Joseph%20Mangano</a></li>
<li>A collection of scrutinies and comments on Rod Adams' Atomic Insights blog: <a href="http://atomicinsights.com/?s=mangano">http://atomicinsights.com/?s=mangano</a></li>
<li>Yuri Hiranuma's scrutiny of an earlier study by S&M together with another alarmist: <a href="http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.se/2014/04/a-letter-to-editor-regarding.html">http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.se/2014/04/a-letter-to-editor-regarding.html</a></li>
<ul>
<li>Alfred Körblein's scrutiny of the same study: <a href="http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.se/2013_05_01_archive.html">http://fukushimavoice-eng2.blogspot.se/2013_05_01_archive.html</a>: </li>
<li>Ian Goddard's excellent video scrutinizing some S&M claims: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOreFp9983I&feature=youtu.be">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOreFp9983I&feature=youtu.be</a></li>
<li>Jeffrey Beall's blog Scholarly Open Access about the same study and the refusal of the journal to make any amends: <a href="http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/04/29/fallout-from-questionable-article-in-oa-pediatrics-journal/">http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/04/29/fallout-from-questionable-article-in-oa-pediatrics-journal/</a></li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mattias Lantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07229085767080389413noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1219836341089585495.post-29057568332398488812015-02-26T02:46:00.000+01:002015-02-26T02:46:29.707+01:00Here we go...Time to start a blog of my own (10 000 years after everybody else...) in order to make things available that do not fit into other places. Focus will be on numbers, in particular about when people misuse numbers in order to give a certain impression, or in order to affect people's opinions.<br />
But I will probably also share some opinions of my own, not necessarily backed by numbers...<br />
<br />Mattias Lantzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07229085767080389413noreply@blogger.com0