[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano andColleagues
sjd at swcp.com
Tue Apr 12 19:04:45 CDT 2011
Send citations, not word groups for Google searches.
At 02:40 AM 4/12/2011, you wrote:
>Lets start with the Chernobyl infant leukemias.The results are
>summarised in my paper in IJERPH last year: google busby infant
>leukemia chernobyl picks it up. Lest stay withthat one for now.
>So the question is, how is it that there are these infant leukemias
>in those childrne in the womb at the time of the Chernobyl accident.
>The doses were well below natural background. These 5 studies are on
>their own unequivocal evidence . There is no other explanation
>andthere are 5 different groups all reporting from different
>countries the same thing. The only exposure was internal radiation
>contamination from Chernobyl.
>If you cant find the paper email back and ill dig it out. I am in
>Berlin on another computer at the moment.
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Tue 12/04/2011 02:53
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute
> 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.
>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
More information about the RadSafe