35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown Might Be the Result of Fallout Fuku

35% Spike in Infant Mortality in Northwest Cities Since Meltdown Might Be the Result of Fallout Fukushima

Remember the toxic clouds of radiation that drifted across the Pacific, settling over the Northwest United States and government told you there was nothing to fear.

Source: www.nytimes.com...

Well, as it turns out, there is a slight chance the government was not correct.

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.

Source: www.washingtonsblog.com...

reply to post by smartbuddy


Others with more data may be able to correct me on this, but I fear attributing this to Fukushima may be jumping the gun a little bit. I don't really trust the Government's word on anything but the online displays of radiation counters people have had set up in their own homes since this began are something I've been watching and that hasn't shown any major increase. It hasn't been long enough yet for the cumulative threat to load high enough for this to happen, although I certainly believe it is going to eventually.

IMHO, the spike is real enough but something else closer to home is causing it.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by smartbuddy

 

Others with more data may be able to correct me on this, but I fear attributing this to Fukushima may be jumping the gun a little bit. I don't really trust the Government's word on anything but the online displays of radiation counters people have had set up in their own homes since this began are something I've been watching and that hasn't shown any major increase. It hasn't been long enough yet for the cumulative threat to load high enough for this to happen, although I certainly believe it is going to eventually.

IMHO, the spike is real enough but something else closer to home is causing it.

We have radiation sitting in our own backyard, need I remind you of the Nevada/desert tests in the 50s !?

reply to post by smartbuddy


The deaths per week statistic is useless without the total births per week. It is springtime afterall, perhaps the total birth rate has a similar 35% jump, and therefore the mortality rate per birth is no different at all?

I am certain that the radiation fallout will reach the US and probably the entire world, and it makes sense that infants would be a great place to see the first indication, so I'm not killing your theory, just saying the data is incomplete and not usable without the larger data set to compare to.

hello, I just posted another thread on this, it will be shutdown as you were first...but I'd like to add my OP to your thread:

Wow, I understand that statistics require longer periods of time to be considered accurate but look at this:

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.

Notice the cities.....downwind.

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.

www.counterpunch.org...

Meanwhile, MSM has pretty much swept Fukushima and Japan under the rug...

This could be the "smoking gun" people, are we are being lied to about radiation levels ?!?!?

Link to CDC site and Weekly Mortality and Morbidity Reports-

www.cdc.gov...

THIS NEEDS TO BE SHOUTED TO THE ROOFTOPS, MAKE VIRAL!!!

In the weeks after fukushima accident began, these cities were very high on radiation monitors, as I was keeping a close eye on them. I wonder about infant mortality in Japan? does anyone have any statistics on that? I haven't found any info on death rates in Japan yet, and info is not being made public much anymore.

I would like to know what the postmortem reports state for the infant mortality's.

Was it upper respiratory or other I wonder?

Another thing to watch for will be still births and a rapid increase in birth defects and other anomalies.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by smartbuddy

 

The deaths per week statistic is useless without the total births per week. It is springtime afterall, perhaps the total birth rate has a similar 35% jump, and therefore the mortality rate per birth is no different at all?

I am certain that the radiation fallout will reach the US and probably the entire world, and it makes sense that infants would be a great place to see the first indication, so I'm not killing your theory, just saying the data is incomplete and not usable without the larger data set to compare to.

It seems like the are comparing percents to percents - not the total number. It went from 6% to 9%.

I would also like to know the percent of birth defects as the months go on. I not sure if this is tracked?

america is suffering from disaster left right center
but , don't most americans have to be sheeple and support the destruction of third world . hell, so many americans are obsessed with hating and looting us third worlders that they dont notice the plunder there own elite is doing

Depopulation, as its not going to rely on one single disaster but the progressive sum of 'em all.

Originally posted by Enkii
Depopulation, as its not going to rely on one single disaster but the progressive sum of 'em all.

Yeah but it's probably mother earth who's doing the depopulation. At least that's what I believe, feel free to believe something else though.

The eugenics elites are powerfull because of long standing accumlated money...
multi generational inbreeding too
they are not really smart...

they just have money and momentum...

Oh well
minions die hard...
TOO

wouldn't the mortality rate in hawaii be 80% higher ? 2,987 % higher in japan ?

Has Obama visited the west coast since the fukishima disaster started?

reply to post by getreadyalready


The Mortality rates are based on a Birth/Death model .. they take a set number of births, usually 1,000 or 100 and then add mortality to the equation. A 35% increase would mean a 35% increase in the average of infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

The number of births is irrelevant in the average, and even more so considering a geographic significance in the increasing mortality.

We can all agree more children are dieing than normal.

We may not agree on why though. I personally don't believe Fukushima is responsible for the deaths.. there would have to be detailed autopsy reports for all the dead children to determine is radiation poisoning could be responsible.

reply to post by smartbuddy


If you compare the infant mortality rate of Washington State to say, Louisiana, it would take around %100 increase for them to be equal. When you are dealing with such low numbers, such as half a percent, a %35 increase is rather insignificant. Here is a site that shows the infant mortality rates by state so you can see how much this varies.
That being said, I do not disagree that there will likely be problems arising from the disaster in Japan, I just think that it is very important to not exaggerate these problems like the media often is wont to do.

Originally posted by Drezden
Has Obama visited the west coast since the fukishima disaster started?

Not here in Washington State...

His last visitseattletimes.nwsource.com...

Previous SONIC BOOM visit:blogs.seattleweekly.com...

Nothing up here since...

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
wouldn't the mortality rate in hawaii be 80% higher ? 2,987 % higher in japan ?

That's a good question that no one has answered yet.

This should be the story of the century!

NOT that slut that killed that poor babygirl.

I've been searching but can anyone find data on the number of miscarriages?