Excess mortality for selected US cities in 2012.

The midpoint of the year 2012 has arrived. I looked at mortality statistics for this year from the the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), which is published by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

The previous report I made, for 2011, can be found here. I have only looked at certain cities so far. Making a full report will take quite a bit of time and effort, and I am in short supply of time and energy lately. Writing the programs for the 2011 report took me 3 weeks, and that didn’t include downloading the data, running the programs, and compiling results every week.

The table below can be enlarged on clicking. There is a pdf version of this table available here. Most of the cities which had elevated mortality in 2011 also have higher numbers of deaths in 2012. Some cities, such as Las Vegas, Detroit, and Charlotte, have higher mortality rates so far this year than they did in 2011. I have also included, in the last column, the age group in which mortality increased the most for each city. Infant mortality was highest out of all age groups in 8 out of the 22 cities. Babies are dying.

35 thoughts on “Excess mortality for selected US cities in 2012.

  1. Can you tell us how aberrant these increases are over, let’s say the last ten years? Have we seen spikes like this before?

  2. I wonder what the demographics and economics are in the increased areas. Detroit stands out like a sore thumb. I wonder of increased mortality can be tied to crime at all/ I am NOT disputing at all the fact that Fuk is increasing mortality. I just think about that stuff. I want the best info. Thanks for posting.

    • Detroit is an area of overwhelming poverty. Poor medical care and inability to afford bottled water probably contributes to the high mortality rate there.

      Not that bottled water is necessarily better than tap water, though.

        • Michigan in general has had a higher death rate than most of the eastern US. Maybe it has something to do with being surrounded by the Great Lakes.

  3. There is a dangerous campaign being organized by public health officials —nearly worldwide. SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) or other cases of unexplained infant deaths are being incorrectly attributed to parents bed-sharing with their children. You may remember the offensive PSA that Milwaukee launched with a baby sleeping next to a butcher knife —-equating co-sleeping with murder. Just the opposite is true. A mother regulates her baby’s breathing. The maternal-fetal dyad were designed to sleep in unison. http://worldbabyreport.com/?p=5815.
    Parents keep your infants close to you. As Bobby1’s reporting shows they are under duress. Trust your parental instinct.

    • Amen shinethelight, my daughter is apprehensive about sleeping with her soon to be born baby. Both myself and her father agree with the baby being better in the bed with the mother for the reasons you are mentioning. I did tell her tho, if you ever feel like you are going to sleep too deeply, then that’s the time to put them in a cradle next to your bed where you can even lay your hand across them….otherwise, sleep with them.

    • I could actually see a major problem if the mother was 400 LBS overweight, but Not if she was normal to medium sized.. I would think that the mother would be comforting to her child..

      With the way America has become so obese It would not surprise me that the mother could roll over in her sleep and crush her child, but on the other hand..

      Hitler during WWII did some experimentation “the Evil SOB that he was” to see if babies who had no contact from their mother or anyone else, other than the basics, Food, Changing, Water.. Could have a higher mortality rate when compared to babies who had Affection and contact, Hugs and love from “really anyone”.. It shouldn’t have come as a surprise that the neglected babies died prematurely as a result.. and there have also been studies to suggest that babies who get more affection and love from their mothers at an early age and more developmentally, Mentally, and Physically stable and capable, They also did not get sick as often.. so there you go.. (sorry about the book I wrote it Just for you)!! XD

      • i know right? i spent 6 or more months in a ‘facility’ after i was born and before i was placed for adoption with ppl who were not super accepting of me, in fact have not spoken to them in over 13 years. i am amazed that i appear ‘normal’ socially to most ppl! i definitely have observed or should i say ‘realized’ deficits in my ability to cope and have relationships throughout my life in the last few years as i tend to hyper analyze everything about myself and everyone else. yay, it’s so fun.. NOT 😉

    • My daughter Eileen, slept with me for her first 6 months. (she is 6 now) well, while sleeping with me , she forgot to breath 3 different times. she would began to flail her arms, since she was still too young to sit up. this would wake me. each time I would immediately lift her into the air above me. She would gasp in a large breath, and then be fine. I am sure she would have died of SIDS, had she not been in my arms. My experience with her has led me to a theory about SIDS, and a potential cure. I have an Invention in mind that could save babies lives. I however, have not had the opportunity/resources to develop a prototype (several actually, and have them approved for and tested in a maternity ward, and subsequently allowing the moms to take the device home and use it for 6 months, the high risk zone.) It adjusts with age in 2 month increments…from a mothers observations…

  4. None of the top ten cities are on the West Coast. As shinethelight has said, this catastrophe does not end at California, Oregon and Washington.

    Thanks Bobby, this is crucial, mothers and fathers NEED to see this. Brilliant work.

  5. Notice most of these cities are at the latitude of mid-America or higher…meaning most are at the latitude of the jet stream. Few cities on this list fall regularly south of the jet stream…

    • Cities with higher elevations or near higher elevations have higher death rates. Atlanta, Charlotte, Little Rock, Albany, El Paso, Las Vegas, Ogden, Sacramento, Boise. There seems to be more radiation the higher up in the atmosphere… areas that are high up are in it already.

      • It seems that iodine-131 concentrations are higher than cesium-137 at high elevations. From “Atmospheric radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor accident observed in Vietnam”:

        “The ratio at Dalat, where is 1500 m high, was higher than those at Hanoi and HCMC in low lands, indicating the relative enrichment of the iodine in comparison to cesium at high altitudes.”


        That would make sense, since most of the iodine has been released in gaseous form, and gases go higher in the atmosphere, compared to heavier aerosols.

  6. FUKUSHIMA FALLOUT is still ongoing

    ** ECRR = European Committee on Radiation Risk
    Dr. Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary wrote Introduction.
    book, 2006, was co-edited with Dr. Alexey Yablokov
    “ECRR Chernobyl: 20 Years On”
    the book!! http://life-upgrade.com/DATA/chernobylebook.pdf

    ** “Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment”
    Alexey Yablokov, Vasily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko
    Contributing Editor, Janette Sherman
    NY Academy of Sciences, Volume 1181, 2009.
    5,000 Slavic language studies reviews, over 1,400 cited.
    Yablokov authorized pdf; print orders@GrekoPrinting.com Call 734-453-0341 $12.50 in USA

    • well, this is true, however, the radiation can and will exacerbate problems someone is already suffering, thereby pushing them over ‘the edge’ and killing them, whereas had they not been exposed, they would not have died from their pre-existing conditions so soon.

      • You expect babies to have more health conditions than a old women or man? Suffering from diseases that take a life time to evolve?
        When babies are more immune than a old body?

        • no no, you are misunderstanding me. of course older ppl’s conditions will be worsened by radioactive exposure. Babies on the other hand are being damaged while in the womb with this exposure. and after birth, they are smaller with less mature immune systems, drinking either radioactive formula, or the radioactive milk from their own mother’s breasts. So yeah, tiny ones are dying from this.

        • Babies are much more sensitive to radiation than adults, in general. Infant mortality and first-day infant deaths are one of the things you look at when there is a large-scale radiation release, like nowadays.

        • “The ground-breaking work of Luning et al. in 1963 on foetal development in the offspring of Strontium-90 injured male mice has never been
          adequately or credibly followed up. The Committee finds it unacceptable that these critical findings have been ignored despite their applicability to human
          populations. In a very large study Luning et al. injected small quantities of Strontium-90, a major component of fallout, into male mice and mated them
          within an hour to females. The pregnant females were killed just before term to establish the extent of foetal death in the offspring in utero. Controls were injected with sodium chloride or the other fallout isotope Caesium-137. Results showed a significant increase in foetal death in the Strontium-90 group but no effect in either control. In a further series of experiments Luning went on to mate surviving males with untreated females to show that there was also a significant foetal death rate in the second generation. ”


  7. Hi Bobby, Thanks for your work on this. Can you explain what you are comparing here? For example, what does it mean when you say that the mortality increased by 9.1% in Tuscon from January to June 2012? Does this mean that the number of deaths in June were 9.1% higher than the number of deaths in January?

    I tried replicating the numbers for your first city, Tuscon, for 2012 and here’s what I came up with: weeks 1-4 (January), 720 total deaths; weeks 23-26 (June), 706 total deaths. This shows a decrease of 2%, not an increase.


  8. George, I should have been more clear. I compared the first 10 weeks of 2012 with the first 10 weeks of 2011, and weeks 11-26 of 2012 with those of 2010. Then I put them together.

  9. Thanks for the follow-up, Bobby. So, just to restate it, does the “Increase Jan-Jun 2012” column compare weeks 11-26 of 2012 with weeks 11-26 of 2010?

    And then for “Increase Mar-Dec 2011”, does that compare the first 10 weeks of 2012 with the first 10 weeks of 2011?

    • George,

      Increase Mar-Dec 2011 compares deaths to March – December 2010.

      Increase Jan-June 2012 compares deaths to January – March 2011 and March – June 2010.

      • Thanks for handling all the questions, Bobby. Can you clarify in week terms which data is being compared? For example, does Increase Mar-Dec 2011 compare deaths from weeks 11-52 of 2011 to deaths from the same period in 2010? Is that correct? Then, for Increase Jan-June 2012, is that comparing weeks 1-13 of 2012 versus weeks 14-26 of 2012?

        Thanks again!

  10. Yes, except Jan-June compares weeks 1-10 of 2012 vs 2011… and weeks 11-26 of 2012 vs 2010. The time periods are always the same, it is just the year that differs.

  11. I wonder how many of these cities are regularly down wind of a near by nuclear plant.
    I know Duluth is.

    Those plants have to vent bi monthly, can’t be good for one’s health.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *