[ RadSafe ] FW: New Scientist report on Uranium risks compromises ICRP (UNCLASSIFIED)

Wed Sep 10 09:56:22 CDT 2008

Take a look at ref. 2,
www.ebab.eu.com (including the sample paper: cross-check on Google Coghill with words like healing...)
and the editorial board including
http://www.vof.se/visa-forvillare2004eng

Henry Lai, PhD in psychology and professor at some acupuncture institute for Herbal Medicine (Artemisia to use against malaria...)... (My ideas: anti-EMF activist, anti-mobile phones etc).

The Journal seems to have a limited distribution...

This is enough of credibility indicator - must I read the rest?

Then draw your own conclusions,

My personal comment only,

Bjorn Cedervall
------------------------------------------------------------------> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:47:16 -0400> From: Jerry.Falo at us.army.mil> To: radsafe at radlab.nl> Subject: [ RadSafe ] FW: New Scientist report on Uranium risks compromises ICRP (UNCLASSIFIED)> > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE> > All,> > FYI from the "Low Level Radiation Campaign." I thought that this might> be of interst to the group.> > Enjoy,> Jerry> > > _____ > > From: bramhall at llrc.org> To: list at llrc.org> Sent: 9/9/2008 3:00:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time> Subj: New Scientist report on Uranium risks compromises ICRP> > > ICRP model in trouble> > A New <http://www.nuwinfo.se/tickell20080903newscientist.html>> Scientist report on Uranium toxicity reveals a massive gap in the> scientific modelling of the International Commission on Radiological> Protection (ICRP). There are massive implications for all aspects of> nuclear policy and Uranium weaponry. > > > "Secondary Photoelectron effect" > > The dangers of Uranium may have little to do with its inherent> radioactivity. The Low Level Radiation Campaign's Dr. Chris Busby has> proposed that genetic damage is caused by the interaction of natural> gamma and other radiation fields with Uranium or any element of high> atomic number. The impact of the gamma causes localised showers of> ionisations close to particles and even single atoms of elements of high> atomic number. Research by Busby in conjunction with Pr. Ewald Schnug, a> colleague at Germany's Federal Agricultural Research Centre, is about to> be published [see footnote].> > All elements absorb gamma radiation and re-emit its energy in the form> of secondary photo-electrons. Their ability to do this varies with the> fourth power of the atomic number of the element; Uranium absorbs gamma> rays 585365 times more effectively than water does. The shower of> localised ionisations caused by the secondary photo-electrons creates a> mechanism for genetic damage which is ignored by the conventional model> of radiation risk. (The arithmetic is in LLRC's journal Radioactive> Times April 2008 page 8. www.llrc.org/rat/subrat/rat72.pdf)> > In 2003 Busby reported this "Secondary Photoelectron effect" to the> British Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal> Emitters (CERRIE). It was one of the many important topics omitted by> the CERRIE Majority Report. Subsequently Busby published two papers [see> footnote] and described the effect to the UK Ministry of Defence> Depleted Uranium Oversight Board and CoRWM (Committee on Radioactive> Waste Management).> > Heavy metal poisoning > > The New Scientist has discussed the Secondary Photoelectron effect only> in relation to Depleted Uranium, although it has far wider relevance. It> has potential to explain why heavy metals are toxic. Heavy metal> toxicity exists despite wide differences in chemistry; until now no-one> has understood the reason.> > Uranium DNA affinity> > Uranium itself has a high affinity for the phosphates in the DNA> molecule and it is known that, at small total body burdens of Uranium, a> very high proportion of it will be on the DNA. Meditated by the> Secondary Photoelectron effect, Uranium focuses the energy of natural> gamma radiation onto DNA. This has the potential to explain observed> high risks of genetic diseases associated with nuclear facilities and> events like Chernobyl which are ignored by the ICRP and sneered at by> the pro-nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health> Organisation (which has to defer to IAEA in matters of radiation and> health).> > Policy implications> > The mining, processing, use and disposal of Uranium must now be seen as> creating health hazards far greater than predicted by the ICRP's out of> date modelling. There are extremely important policy implications for> nuclear power, disposal of radioactive waste, and nuclear weapons> (including depleted Uranium and new generations of weapons containing> other types of Uranium). > > As LLRC has said since 1992, the effects of other types of radioactive> pollution have probably been underestimated too, but it now seems that> Uranium is the dominant problem.> > New light on Busby's "Second Event theory"> > In the last 20 years Chris Busby has proposed his "Second Event theory"> as a possible explanation of how radioactive elements that decay more> than once (Strontium 90 is an example) may have a greater effect on> genetic mutation. A first radioactive disintegration that hits a cell> without killing it forces the cell to repair itself. If a second> disintegration hits the same cell during the repair process, which takes> a few hours, it may cause a mutation that the cell cannot repair. This> is all in Wings of <http://www.llrc.org/wings/wingspage.htm> Death> > (http://www.llrc.org/wings/wingspage.htm) > > Supporters of nuclear power have attacked the theory, not least because> they said radiation could not initiate the repair process in cells, but> in the New Scientist article the ICRP's Hans-Georg Menzel accepts that> "double hits of energy are known to be the most damaging to cells." The> Majority Report of CERRIE denied this in 2004 after long arguments. See> the Minority <http://www.llrc.org/wobblyscience/subtopic/cerrie.htm>> Report (http://www.llrc.org/wobblyscience/subtopic/cerrie.htm) for the> true state of the debate on the Second Event theory.> > The Secondary Photoelectron effect is now seen to be another case of the> general Second Event theory, describing how sequences of radiation> events can be concentrated into very localised cellular targets. These> considerations make nonsense of the conventional model of radiation> biology, which views radiation in terms of average energy transfer> across large volumes of tissue. The old concept of "dose" is now useful> only for those exposure regimes where the radiation truly is> well-averaged. The regulation of radioactivity in the environment is> about to enter a new phase in which "ionisation density" will be the> vital parameter. > > Compton scattering> > In the New Scientist article Mark Hill of Oxford University is reported> as saying that Compton scattering would reduce the importance of the> secondary photo-electron effect. However, Hill only discusses high> energy gamma; the low energy part of the natural gamma spectrum will> create relatively high ionisation densities with a correspondingly> enhanced probability of causing double hits to DNA. > > The> <http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19926723.800-how-war-debri> s-could-cause-cancer.html%20> New Scientist article in full is only> accessible to subscribers > > but it is free on http://www.nuwinfo.se/tickell20080903newscientist.html> > and <http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=93531>> http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=93531 > > > The Low Level Radiation Campaign plays a key role in all this. LLRC> funds much of Dr. Busby's research. It was LLRC's publicity material> that alerted Professor Schnug to Dr. Busby's existence, and our office> put them in touch with each other. It was our journal Radioactive Times> that alerted New Scientist to the imminent publication of Busby and> Schnug's new paper.> > LLRC does all this and much more on a microscopic budget, but we need> money. Please consider a donation. http://www.llrc.org/donation.htm> tells you how you can give money - cheques, Standing Orders, transfers,> and Paypal (you don't need to have a Paypal account of your own)> > Clicking on this> <https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_xclick&business=bramhall@llr> c.org&no_shipping=0&no_note=1&tax=0&currency_code=GBP&bn=PP-DonationsBF&> charset=UTF-8> link takes you to our Paypal account, which is a safe way> to send money and costs you nothing.> > You can do this even if you don't have a Paypal account - when the> payments page opens, scroll down to find where you can pay with plastic.> > > > _____ > > > 1. "Advanced Biochemical and Biophysical Aspects of Uranium> Contamination". Chris Busby and Ewald Schnug: Institute of Plant> Nutrition and Soil Science, Federal Agricultural Research Centre (FAL),> Bundesallee 50, D-38116 Braunschweig, Germany in "Loads and Fate of> Fertilizer Derived Uranium", pp. xx-xx Edited by L.J. De Kok & E. Schnug> (c) 2007 Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands> > 2 Busby C (2005) Depleted Uranium weapons, Metal Particles, and> Radiation Dose European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics Vol 1> No 1 p 82-93 www.ebab.eu.com <mip://043805e0/www.ebab.eu.com> > > 3. Busby C (2005) Does Uranium Contamination amplify natural background> radiation dose to DNA?> > European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics Vol 1 No 2 p 120-131> www.ebab.eu.com <http://www.ebab.eu.com/> > > > > ________________________________> > The statements and opinions expressed herein are my responsibility; no> one else (certainly not my employer) is responsible, but I still reserve> the right to make mistakes.> > Don't panic! - Douglas Adams in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"> > Gerald A. Falo, Ph.D., CHP> U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine - Health> Physics Program> jerry.falo at us.army.mil> 410-436-4852> DSN: 584-4852 > >
_________________________________________________________________
Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/direct/01/