[ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl; Busby response
C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Fri Apr 29 12:50:53 CDT 2011
I have never claimed lots of abortions after Chernobyl. Just to put the matter straight.
And regarding the Dapra statement, I have only just seen what he said about the infant leukemias. He is the second one of you to address this issue though it took him long enough.
Basically he is saying there were no excess infant leukemias in the Chernobyl fallout in utero cohort. The 5 difference groups got it wrong. Is that a fair analysis? Or have I missed something?
Incidentally, the paper on the Scottish infant leukemias was by the Oxford-based Childhood cancer Research Group.
The French IRSN report saying that ICRP was questionable has been translated into English for those who cant read French.
Well thats one way to do it I suppose. Cant argue with that. All 5 goups made up the data. Nice one Steven.
By the way, what are Mr Dapras qualifications? Has he done any research? Has he published anything in the peer review literature? I havent found anything published by him or his sidekick Helbig. Except attacks on me of course.
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
Sent: Fri 29/04/2011 01:10
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
Chris Busby talks nonsense and is
reluctant to substantiate any of his claims. He
is a chemist, not a health physicist. He
considers himself to be more of an authority on
radioactivity than is the ICRP. He finally gave
a few citations, some of them to Nature. Then,
in another e-mail he called Nature a "rag."
He complained loud and long that no one
would address his claims about infant leukemias
in the aftermath of Chernobyl. When I posted a
message here directly addressing his claims about
said leukemias he dropped out of sight. Does
that sound like a "debate", much less an "honest debate"?
In my estimation, calling Nature a
"rag," or claiming the Fukushima accident will
lead to hundreds of thousands of additional
cancers, does not exactly constitute "divergent points of view."
The "fact of the matter is" that most of
the world does not care about the benefits or
risks of the peaceful use of radioactive
materials. One can't even lead this horse to
water, let alone make him drink.
Busby and his fellow travelers are not
filling any void of inadequate education. What
they are doing is spewing more hogwash into an already vast ocean of hogwash.
And, yes, next time I'll really let you know what I think.
At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
>You ask why Chris Busby still gets space on radsafe. Radsafe would be much
>less interesting without the debate that comes from divergent points of
>view. The fact of the matter is, our industry has not done a good enough job
>of educating the world on the benefits and true risks related to the
>peaceful use of radioactive materials. People like Mr. Busby have rushed in
>to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz Schönhofer
>Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:39 AM
>To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList';
>radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
>Leo and RADSAFErs,
>I do not have access to the literature you gave, but I heavily doubt your
>statement, that "the number of excess induced abortions in Europe due to
>this fear has been estimated in the tens of thousands, and even higher".
>Some people, one of the most noisy is Chris Busby, have claimed very high
>numbers of abortions.
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
More information about the RadSafe