[ RadSafe ] Rosalie B. et al.
bcradsafers at hotmail.com
Tue May 4 20:07:53 CDT 2010
The votes on this one,
make it clear that mainly anti-nuclear people watch this kind of stuff. I suggest that RadSafers log in to YouTube and cast their votes on material like that coming from Bertell, Busby et al.
Some RadSafer asked about the "scientific" works by Bertell. In 1987 made a review of some 80 references that came from RB. Most of these were not references to scientific journals etc (rather to hearings and testimonies, contributions in local papers, religous publications, and even a computer manual). As I I recall it, only five of those works had been published in journals that could be called "scientific". One or two of those articles were actually arguments related to radiation risks etc (in Health Physics in the early 80:ies). The other 2-3 papers were math stuff (not much more than high school level as I saw it) published in some Canadian Journal for Medicine. Besides that one can question whether math belongs in a medical journal I noticed that many of the papers in that journal were by the editorial board. Therefore I took on two full volumes of that journal and went through all the articles and cross-checked the authors with those of the editorial board. It turned out that around 50 % of the papers were from the editors themselves - a great way to scratch each other's backs. One article that resembled more "medicine" was published in a popular magazine for electronics. These are excellent ways of having papers published. Another method is to invent journals that actually don't exist and then refer to them like "European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics". The website may have been taken down now but among the editors were people like Olle Johansson, Henry Lai and Busby. The free "sample paper" was by Roger Coghill. Busby had at least half a dozen "papers" there.
RB:s PhD was in mathematics and stems from Catholic University of America (in "Washington" - probably D.C.) in 1966. How she became a "radiation expert" would be interesting to know - her book "No Immediate Danger" (published around 1985) which I have and read keeps, according to my opinion, a low and distorted level of science. The book contains insinuating comments to the radiation protection community at large and has unrealistic estimates of people dying from radiation caused cancer and so on. It is actually very boring reading. References include an Indian Chief (who had said something around 1850), Toronto Star, Buffalo Evening News, Mother Jones magazine ("You are what you eat"), a Catholic (more general) magazine and other stuff making the argumentation seem "solid". See also:
I can probably and eventually dig up more info if anyone is interested. Nowadays there is much of this madhouse has been continued on the Internet.
My personal ideas, comments etc,
Bjorn Cedervall bcradsafers at hotmail.com
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
More information about the RadSafe