Sunday, July 8, 2012

Excess Mortality Statistics in the US From Fukushima


Bobby1's analysis is here
http://optimalprediction.com/wp/excess-mortality-for-selected-us-cities-in-2012/

I've had the opportunity to talk with Bobby1 on several occasions and I am absolutely confident in his expertise and research integrity.


5 comments:

  1. But do you trust the CDC?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. The CDC operates the largest radiation testing lab in the US. They know more about radioactive contamination in the US than anyone. But we have heard nothing about it from them.

      "CDC′s Mission is to collaborate to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health – through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats."

      They conceal information rather than provide it. They promote disease resulting from radiation rather than prevent it. It's the Orwellian thing that is going on with all major institutions... up is down, freedom is slavery, the ministry of truth disseminates lies.

      On the other hand, if they were going to screw with the mortality data, you would think they would adjust the number of deaths down rather than up. This means there is still useful info in the statistics, even if they are understated. If Syracuse shows up with a high death rate, this is probably true, even if Syracuse really had a higher death rate than they say.

      Delete
    2. Oh, sure, that's true. But don't forget that they may confuse researchers by saying that Portland is not worse off than Arizona, or some such, when it's actually twice as bad.

      Here in Japan, there have been plenty of deaths covered up. Ueno Park used to have at least a hundred old guys living there. Probably 80% or more are gone - and it's a similar story elsewhere.

      Delete
    3. According to the CDC, deaths in Jacksonville, Florida have dropped by 90%. That's the place to go. They must have found the fountain of youth there.

      Delete
  2. Bobby - a question for you.

    I went to your site and looked at your report, and then looked at your source data from the CDC and something didn't add up for me.

    I looked at several weeks in 2012 and the CDC is reporting on 120+ cities - which seemed to include all the large ones in my cursory glance.

    However the weekly total deaths only appear to add up to about 10,000 to 11,000 deaths per week.

    With a population of 300 million people , and an average lifespan of 77 years, I would expect around 3.8 million deaths per year, which equates to about 75,000 per week. Now I understand population growth and increasing lifespans should adjust this down slightly - my guess is no more than 10-20%.

    I understand that the CDC report doesn't cover the entire country, but at best it appears these figures only represent 10-20% of the entire population.

    Did I calculate that correctly? If so, is this 10-20% portion a statistically accurate representation that we can then forecast those excess deaths on the entire population? Or can we only say that for this 15% of the population, the death rate in 2012 rose by approximately 5% ?

    Or is the CDC leaving out a large chunk of deaths from the data? Perhaps they only report deaths inside a hospital or leave out deaths from heart disease or something like that?

    Or maybe just leaving out the suburban and rural areas misses 80% of the population.

    I'm not questioning your results or motives - if anything I'm shocked that the best information the CDC can report is 15% of the population.

    it's just that being an analytical type I usually check numbers like this to see if I can recreate them and what it tells me personally - and the poor quality of the input data surprised me a bit.

    James

    ReplyDelete