[ RadSafe ] Chris Busby

[Steven Dapra]

April 24

         A "huge amount of evidence", again invoked sans citations.

         A dose is a dose, and a rose is a rose is a rose.  (How do 
you know what 'us guys' think about Grays vs. rads?)

         "A lot of evidence" --- again sans citations.  Instead of 
threatening to send citations from your book, why don't you send 
some?  Can't you find something more recent than 1963?

Steven Dapra


At 09:56 AM 4/24/2011, you wrote:

>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