[ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano and

Thu Apr 14 21:37:49 CDT 2011

Dear All,

I thought I would add my two bobs worth and stir the pot!!

Chris Busby is correct in only one thing and that is the current radiation protection risk model is wrong. If I put my research hat on into the biological effects of low dose radiation, it is quite clear that low doses of radiation (certainly below 50 mSv) are somewhat protective and biological mechanisms such as increased apoptosis of damaged cells, adaptive and bystander responses etc are being studied to determine how this works in vivo. Now in this area there really are 1,000's of published peer-reviewed articles spanning many years. If you haven't already, visit the US DOE Low Dose Radiation Research website where a considerable amount of investment is being put into this research (http://lowdose.energy.gov/). 

Now, whilst I don't agree with the LNT model in terms of radiation risk, if I put my regulators hat on, the LNT model is easy to use, it makes everyone involved in the use of radiation at least consider the principles of radiation protection such as ALARA. Unless someone (ICRP??) decides on a threshold dose or a different model, I think we will be stuck with the LNT model for some time unfortunately which will mean that we will spend an inordinate amount of time and energy regulating doses of radiation that have no detrimental biological effect or are beneficial!! Why do we regulate doses of radiation that are below background levels?

I am also very sceptical of so called people who are referred to as experts in a particular area and then when you do a pub med or ISI Web of Knowledge search you can only find 1 article which refers to a radiation risk study (and 8 papers in total) in what appears to be a career spanning 40 years??  I often wonder what you have to do, firstly to become a professor?? and then to become "expert"!! The recent spate of so-called experts regarding Fukushima spruiking mis-truths in the media has been almost over-whelming and extremely frustrating for those of us who are involved in radiation protection work!

Just my thoughts. 

Tony Hooker, PhD, B.Biotech(Hons),MARPS

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:23:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Richard D. Urban Jr." <radmax at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano
	and Colleagues
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:
	<21677572.1302798214798.JavaMail.root at elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Chris...
Where are the "hundreds' of peer reviewed papers?

I count one, two, thr... oh wait... these are citations of the SAME paper from the SAME issue of the open journal... ONE which has had FEWER than 2200 total views, both abstract and full since publication 2 years ago.

ONE in which you reference your OWN work 8 times (only slightly circular there), not to mention numerous assumptions... 
"Busby and Scott Cato.. examined the likely absorbed doses to the children..." LIKELY?
"If we assume a 10mSv X-ray dose causes a 40% increase in childhood cancer..." ASSUME?
"Because the number of exposed children is so large, it can be safely concluded that there was a real increase in infant leukemia..." CONCLUDED, how, where are the ACTUAL numbers?, not the biased ones you used...
"If the exposures were to milk from cattle fed in the winter of..."   IF?

BTW, where are all the stats for the other EU countries??? BeNeLux, England, France, Ireland, Italy... 
Please don't try to tell me it didn't rain down on those country's as well (and thus your random cattle/milk distributions) as your handpicked Germany, Wales (since proved erroneous), etc... I lived in Brussels from '76 to '79, and visited almost all of the current EU, as well as the USSR.

If only I had the time... and didn't actually have to WORK for a living, actually PROTECTING people from REAL radiological hazards...

radmax

-----Original Message-----
>From: Busby Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
>Sent: Apr 14, 2011 3:57 AM
>To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>, "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Developing Body of Evidence to Refute Mangano	andColleagues
>
>
> 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
>
>[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

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
RadSafe mailing list
RadSafe at health.phys.iit.edu
http://health.phys.iit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe

End of RadSafe Digest, Vol 599, Issue 2
***************************************