Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,729 posts)
20. Because, unlike you, I actually understand the facts.
Thu Aug 22, 2013, 08:26 PM
Aug 2013

And it wasn't "fabricated"... it was clearly an example and I clearly said that they don't really know how many people get it.

The incidence rate of thyroid cancer in children is said to be one in hundreds of thousands

And that's because until now, the "incidence rate" in children consisted entirely of palpable nodules that were determined to need a biopsy (which then of course had to come back positive). And that's incredibly rare. Which is not the same thing as saying that thyroid cancer is incredibly rare. It's actually now thought to be quite common. In a couple autopsy studies of people who died from other causes, as many as half of them were found to have had thyroid cancer that never went diagnosed (it usually has no symptoms).

You should have learned this lesson years ago... when Caldicott tried to convince people that the thyroid "abnormalities" being found were also caused by Fukushima... because in her decades of experience, she had never found a kid with nodules but now as many as 40% in Fukushima were found with them. This was obviously because her experience was limited to nodules that a pediatrician could feel (usually greater than 20mm) and at that young age it's quite rare. The problem is that the ones they were finding in Japan were much much smaller than what was palpable (and, of course, it was far too early for radiation-induced thyroid cancer to appear)

Then the studies of kids far away from Fukushima came back with a higher rate of thyroid abnormalities - proving that (as with this result), the numbers were entirely within the normal range.

There were only two possible conclusions. One is that (as we've known from the beginning) they haven't seen any thyroid impact so far from Fukushima (which is not to say that there won't be any)... the other is to side with nuts like Busby who insist that the Japanese government is intentionally poisoning the kids in other parts of Japan so that the Fukushima results will look normal by comparison.

Is that really the camp you want to be in?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Fuck. nt ZombieHorde Aug 2013 #1
The panel says it cannot determine? FUCK it, of course these are related. CaliforniaPeggy Aug 2013 #2
Well, no, it's not obvious Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #9
Not too long ago some nuclear loving DUer upaloopa Aug 2013 #3
That was probably me. wtmusic Aug 2013 #26
. Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of deaths from coal? dixiegrrrrl Aug 2013 #34
Fair enough. wtmusic Aug 2013 #35
you're saying it's not so bad then CreekDog Aug 2013 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #4
There's a reason that it "can't be determined" FBaggins Aug 2013 #8
The fact that this result, which demonstrates that there's been no impact... phantom power Aug 2013 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #12
You are comparing a rate to a raw number? kristopher Aug 2013 #15
The 15-20 figure is just an example FBaggins Aug 2013 #17
Which begs the question of *why* you fabricated such a number... kristopher Aug 2013 #18
Because, unlike you, I actually understand the facts. FBaggins Aug 2013 #20
You fabricated numbers that grossly skewed the available data. kristopher Aug 2013 #21
No rational person could read that post as anything but a hypothetical. FBaggins Aug 2013 #29
Seems like many rational people did read your numbers as data-based estimates caraher Aug 2013 #62
You're saying most thyroid cancer goes into remission? cprise Aug 2013 #22
Not as I understand "remission", no. FBaggins Aug 2013 #30
They would have to be *either* remissive or not cancer at all (benign) cprise Aug 2013 #31
Not as the NIH/NCI define it. FBaggins Aug 2013 #32
you're linking to Natural News? CreekDog Aug 2013 #37
For treatment advice? Of course not. FBaggins Aug 2013 #39
Everyone does not interpret the world numerically Yo_Mama Aug 2013 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #14
Who the hell is Steven Starr wtmusic Aug 2013 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #41
He's a lab technician. wtmusic Aug 2013 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #45
No, they didn't win a 1985 Nobel Prize for their work. wtmusic Aug 2013 #46
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #47
It is not the same organization, and it's not an "arm". wtmusic Aug 2013 #48
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #49
There is no such thing as an "argument from science without prejudice". wtmusic Aug 2013 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #51
Funny you mention, nuclear waste can be reused. wtmusic Aug 2013 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #55
The risk exists only because we're short on money and short on time. wtmusic Aug 2013 #56
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #57
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #58
No prob, thanks. wtmusic Aug 2013 #59
Top UK Climate Scientist says Coal with CCS is the ONLY solution to global warming kristopher Aug 2013 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #54
Actually... it doesn't. FBaggins Aug 2013 #43
This message was self-deleted by its author mother earth Aug 2013 #44
18 so far ... more will develop it later ... nt bananas Aug 2013 #5
Incoming n/t Hydra Aug 2013 #6
I'm sure the local nuclear apologists will be along in 3...2...1 nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #7
errr... phantom power Aug 2013 #11
errrr.... Post #15 might give you food for thought. nt kristopher Aug 2013 #16
Only if he's entirely ignorant re: what "incidence rate" means. nt FBaggins Aug 2013 #33
I said nothing about nasty or mean. There is more to come, tell me that in five, ten years. nt Mnemosyne Aug 2013 #28
I see one of our resident nuke worshippers is already here mocking the very idea that kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #13
It doesn't. wtmusic Aug 2013 #24
in children it does? CreekDog Aug 2013 #38
It always has before FBaggins Aug 2013 #40
The page has been taken down. wtmusic Aug 2013 #23
More likely NHK is censoring it. kristopher Aug 2013 #27
The TV news video is still on youtube bananas Aug 2013 #61
There certainly seems to have been an awful lot of self-deleting on this subject ... Nihil Aug 2013 #60
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NHK: Thyroid cancer found...»Reply #20