[ RadSafe ] This "radiation journal" that probably doesn't exist

Busby Chris C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Thu Apr 14 05:56:21 CDT 2011

Dear Bjorn and others,

But you havent responded to my question about the peer reviewed paper I put up as evidence you guys are wrong. The Chernobyl infant leukemias. Why is that? That paper was in a peer reviewed journal.
And while you make a lot of fuss about peer review being necessary before you depend on something, where was the peer review of the articles on chrisbusbyexposed? It is an anonymous cowardly blog, probably Wakeford or at least someone close to him since irt relioes heavily on his outpourings.  And the Wakeford statements yiou depend on here were not peer reviewed either. Wakeford is the editor of the journal where this was written. 
And I see someone is hacking into my computer and sealing my emails. Basically I done mind, you are welcome. Burt it just shows the company you are in.
Incidentally PINCHER which you all find so hilarious resulted in several peer reviewed papers in Acta Paediatrica, a peer reviewed journal, one of them about the errors in radiation protection. 
These errors, supported by you guys, means that you are personally responsible for supporting a false ideology which has resulted and continues to result in the deaths of many millions of people. Doesnt that keep you awake at night, the possibility that this is the case? I suppose thats why you fall back on abuse and silly schoolboy jokes.

 Here is a video for you to ponder.
SHORT VIDEO: ICRP director Jack Valentin admits that ICRP model can 
 not be used to predict radioactivty health risk:

Warm regards

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Bjorn Cedervall
Sent: Wed 13/04/2011 01:46
To: RadSafers Forum; radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] This "radiation journal" that probably doesn't exist

Yesterday I posted the following:
"Notice - under 1.4 Editorial Boards (current) at:
Sort of interesting..."
I am surprised that almost no Radsafer reacted - because:
This "journal" (European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics) was to my knowledge never found in scientific library.
CB probably was a cofounder of the corresponding website. 
The "articles" were probably only peer reviewed by the authors themselves - CB had at least about half a dozen articles there (including uranium-DNA stuff). If I recall correctly - one was coauthored with Roger Coghill - a phenomenon himself with Kirlian photography and other "unusual stuff". The sample article of the "journal" was by Roger Coghill BTW.
Three of the CB articles have been used in the ECRR report (by CB, Bertell et al.).
The website ( http://www.ebab.eu.com/ ) seems to be gone - the articles can according to my understanding not be found at scientific libraries.
CB:s CV states that he is a current editor of the "journal".
Wakeford wrote about this mess as it was in Febr. 2008:
"As a brief aside, it is of some interest that, possibly in an effort to counter the criticism that he does not submit his work to be technically assessed for suitability for publication in the peerreviewed scientific literature, Chris Busby has recently had a rash of papers 'published' in the 'web-journal', European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics (www.ebab.eu.com) -a curious
entity that was launched in 2005 and claims to publish peer-reviewed papers, but which,
after five issues of Volume 1, appears to have run out of steam after Issue 1 of Volume 2
in 2006. I shall let you be the judge of just what might be going on here by pointing out
that Busby, a member of the Editorial Board, is an author of no fewer than eight papers in
the currently existing (as of February 2008) six issues of the journal! European Biology and
Bioelectromagnetics raises another important matter that I cannot pursue here, and that is
the question of what should constitute the recognised scientific literature and how any given
journal can be inferred reasonably to be a part of this literature. This is a complex question
that goes to the heart of what the public might consider to be a genuine scientific (rather than,
say, political) publication."
My personal initiative only,
Bjorn Cedervall
PS. Notice also ref. 13 here:
For more strange stuff - check out:
A gold mine for teachers in epidemiology (Sternglass level) - look at this for instance:
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

More information about the RadSafe mailing list