[ RadSafe ] Chris Busby

[Busby Chris]

Good point.
But your animal doses are enormous and you just assume linear. Huge amount of evidence that very low doses dont work like that, and uindeed the Second Event enhancement falls as the dose increases theoretically. Supporting this are some very odd effects at low dose for Sr90 in mice and dogs, also your own observations of lung cancer in your NO dose controls. Of course, they were housed in the same building and will not have been no dose. Its just that you guys dont think a dose is a dose unless it is in Grays.
There is a lot of evidence that Sr90 causes massive genetic damage in the peer review literature. I can send you a list from my 1995 book Wings of Death. The main one is Luning and Frolen 1963 who looked at Cs137 and Sr90 in mice for foetal deaths. Then Stokke Oftedal Pappas rat bone marrow, Ehrenberg on wheat genetics. Etc.
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Otto G. Raabe
Sent: Fri 22/04/2011 18:13
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Chris Busby
 
At 02:17 AM 4/22/2011, Dr. Busby wrote:

>1. Its is a comparison of two probabilities. "Very small" is not a 
>quantitative measure. You have to compare the probability of a Y90 
>decay in 12 hours with the probability of the same cell getting 2 
>hits in 12 hours from the same dose of external radiation. However 
>small the absolute probability for one atom sequence the number of 
>atoms involved is very large (as the overall contamination goes 
>up)  and so the product gives you the probability of a second event 
>in the body/tissue. The probability of a second event from external 
>is vanishingly small though calculable. There are 10^13 cells. The 
>probability of two tracks from external is 1 in E-26. The 
>probability from two tracks from Sr90 Y90 is a lot less (12 hr 
>period and 64hr decay so the enhancement is about E+22 for a simngle 
>atom, decay internal vs external.
>
>2. Not if they are bound to the DNA in condensed form. Furthermore, 
>there is the ionisation change at the decay locus from 
>transmutation. Sr++ to Y+++ is an ionisation. Then Y+++ to Zr is 
>also an ionisation from transmutation redox. And even if it is very 
>small (you can work it out on complete randomness into 4pi) it is 
>not as small as E-26 and there are a lot of atoms.
>
>3. But why doesnt someone do the experiment??
*************************
April 22, 2011

I don't see the point. What is this supposed to prove? Dr. Busby's 
imaginary model doesn't  relate to any biologically observed phenomena.

Lifetime studies in laboratory animals fed Sr-90 from birth and other 
lifetime studies of laboratory animals injected with Sr-90 have 
already been performed. They do not show any increase in cancer risk 
for cumulative doses below about 10 Sv. In beagles there was a 
statistically significant (p<0.047) reduction in the lifetime 
incidence of osteosarcoma associated with lifetime skeletal doses 
less than 10 Sv.

Otto


**********************************************
Prof. Otto G. Raabe, Ph.D., CHP
Center for Health & the Environment
University of California
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
E-Mail: ograabe at ucdavis.edu
Phone: (530) 752-7754   FAX: (530) 758-6140
***********************************************  
_______________________________________________
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