[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano and Colleagues

Thu Apr 14 14:31:16 CDT 2011

I am only a nuclear physicist who has practiced mostly operational health physics for the last 35 years, so I am easily confused.

I thought I had learned that epidemiological studies do not establish cause-and-effect; they establish correlations through statistical means, which I hasten to add is an honorable pursuit. And yet the titles of these three papers tell me that "Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe."

Admittedly, I have not read the articles and have no desire to do so. However, going only by the titles, did I miss something? Physical and biological sciences look at establishing causes-and-effects. Did epidemiology become a physical or biological science when I wasn't looking? 

Or do the papers involve actual measurements of individual fetal doses including numerous appropriate controls and following appropriate experimental protocols that are replicable; i.e., are the papers reports of actual scientific experimentation?

I will hazard the guesses that the answer to both questions is "no." This means that the titles are misleading, disingenuous, and untrue. Propaganda often has similar characteristics.

Bob C

---- 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 and Colleagues
>  
> 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 and Colleagues
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> 
> [edit]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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