[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano andColleagues

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Mon Apr 11 20:53:33 CDT 2011

April 11

         Okay, Chris, since you want 'us people' to examine the 
evidence, let's see some citations to the epidemiology, and to the 
"laboratory and theoretical science" that has "dismantled" the risk 
model 'us people' use.  You claim there are "hundreds" of peer 
reviewed papers.  Be forthcoming.

         I'm the one who said " 'nuff said".  Permit me to inform you 
that I don't drink --- at least not beer, and I don't hang out in 
"saloons" in any case.  As to "level of discourse" . . .  well, go 
look in a mirror.

Steven Dapra

At 02:49 AM 4/11/2011, you wrote:
>The piece at junksciencewatch is a lot of nonsense and vitriolic 
>misinformation believed by most to be the work of Richard Wakeford 
>ex head of research at British Nuclear Fuels. Check out 
>You people need to examine the evidence rather than writing knee 
>jerk (and not very original) attacks. Your risk model has been 
>dismantled by epidemiology and by laboratory and theoretical 
>science. There are hundreds of peer review papers which show this to 
>be the case. Ad hominem attacks on me wont change that. In addition, 
>cases are being won regularly in courts on the basis of the 
>uselessness of the ICRP model which you believe in. You can even see 
>Dr Jack Valentin, the editor and secretary of ICRP admitting that 
>his risk model is wrong and cannot be used for internal exposures on 
>vimeo.com. Just google valentin+busby+vimeo for the whole video 
>proceedings in Stockholm in 2009. I am happy to discuss all this 
>with you on a scientific level, but it seems that none of you are 
>scientists in the philosophical sense. I challenge you to show that 
>your risk model is not in pieces. UNSCEAR and ICRP just cherry pick 
>their supporting papers, all the A-Bomb stuff. They fail to cite any
>  thing that shows they are wrong. Check out www.euradcom.org for 
> the Lesvos Declaration. But you wont look at the research: you will 
> just attack everyone and say they are making a living out of 
> scaring people. Or some other attempt to deny what you must know in 
> your hearts to be true.
>If your most scientific analytical response is "nuff said" then 
>better get back to the kindergarten or the local beer saloon where 
>this is the level of discourse.
>Best wishes
>Chris Busby
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Mon 11/04/2011 04:49
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute 
>Mangano andColleagues
>April 10
>          Chris Busby at Wikipedia:
>          He's a chemist who has a lot to say about ionizing radiation.
>          Chris Busby at Junk Science Watch:
>          Chris Busby's article at Counterpunch:
>          He invokes Steve Wing and John Gofman.  'Nuff said.
>Steven Dapra


More information about the RadSafe mailing list