[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano andColleagues

[Howard]

". The excess risks in individual countries do not increase monotonically with the conventionally calculated doses, the relation being biphasic, increasing sharply at low doses and falling at high doses" 
is from the abstract at: 
> International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009; 6(12):3105-3114

"Excess risks - falling at high doses " (0.5 to 10 cSv, hormetic dose "high"?)
suggests Chernobyl radiation imcrease was NOT the cause of increased leukemia reported.
Their statistics would not download for my critical epidemiologic evaluation.

Remember that thyroid cancer deaths found after Chernobyl were NOT increased - although more cases of thydoid cancer were reported. Does fear cause one to look harder and report borderline conditions more? Low dose ionizing radiation, .5 to 10 cSv or rem, protects from cancer, as seems to be evidenced again here.

Howard Long MD MPH epodemiology

On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:57 AM, "Busby Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> Busby, C.C. Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation Risk Models. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 3105-3114.
> AMA Style
> 
> Busby C.C. Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation Risk Models. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009; 6(12):3105-3114.
> Chicago/Turabian Style
> 
> Busby, Christopher C. 2009. "Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about Current Radiation Risk Models." Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 6, no. 12: 3105-3114.
> 
> 
> Happy?
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
> Sent: Wed 13/04/2011 01:04
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano andColleagues
> 
> April 12
> 
>         Send citations, not word groups for Google searches.
> 
> Steven Dapra
> 
> 
> At 02:40 AM 4/12/2011, you wrote:
>> Good.
>> 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.
>> Chris
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> 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 
>> Mangano andColleagues
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> www.chrisbusbyexposed.org
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> Berlin
> 
> [