[ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima

Steven Dapra sjd at swcp.com
Wed Jun 22 14:30:43 CDT 2011

June 22

         Initially, you (CB) wrote, "But I think you will just have 
to wait now for the Fukushima deaths."  I would construe this as 
meaning deaths from the Fukushima accident itself.  Now, you are 
saying "The deaths in Fukushima".  This could be construed as deaths 
from any cause --- car accidents, domestic violence, etc.

         Let's assume you mean cancer deaths as a result of exposure 
to radiation from the Fukushima accident.  Since solid tumors have a 
latency period of 20 y or more, do you expect us to wait around for 
at least 20 y to see if your prediction will come true?  Who will 
maintain the records of other exposures to this immense cohort to see 
what else they could have been exposed to that could also have caused 
cancer?  Are you going to attribute all lung cancer deaths in smokers 
to Fukushima?

         How do you propose to *prove* that any subsequent cancer was 
cause by the Fukushima accident?  Not all cancers are caused by 
radiation, and the causes of some cancers are unknown.  I can see 
some methodological and analytical problems here.

         On a practical note, Busby will turn 66 y old in 
September.  Hence, by the time we can tell whether or not his 
predictions are coming true he will be at least 86 y old.  I rather 
doubt that they will come true, but even if they do, at age 86 (or 
more) it's going to be a hollow victory.

Steven Dapra

At 12:19 PM 6/22/2011, you wrote:
>Dear Sandy,
>The way this works is through epidemiology.
>So what I predict is this:
>The deaths in Fukushima say within 100km from the site will be 
>statisticallly significantly higher than the deaths in Osaka. I am 
>predicting greater than 30%. This means that something caused this 
>increased mortality. The rate before the Fukushima releases will be 
>roughly the same in Fukushima as in Osaka or in all Japan. It will 
>be a simple matter then to associate the deaths/ cancer incidence/ 
>infant mortality with the exposures. OK? If you fine they are the 
>same, no difference, I will apologise for my error. If you find that 
>what I predict is true, then you must do the same.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Perle, Sandy
>Sent: Wed 22/06/2011 15:41
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing  List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>My opinion, purely opinion, is that there are probably more deaths 
>from various incidents such as Chernobyl, but percentage wise, not 
>significant. However, when someone states that there have been 
>nearly a million deaths from Chernobyl, anyone who can think for 
>themselves has to ask, what credible data is there to justify such a 
>claim. I don't see it and the general scientific community don't 
>accept it, even those who may be considered liberal or conservative 
>on the subject of dose, effect and prognosis. You quote individuals 
>who have made statements in the past that are simply not credible. 
>To quote them on future incidents and accept their current 
>projections, well, not realistic. This reminds me of a murder trial 
>where there is significant evidence, such as DNA, unquestionably 
>reliable. Then you have the defense witness who contradicts 
>everything, and the defense banks on the jury being swayed based on 
>the individual's qualifications. The facts get lost. The jury can be 
>swayed. That is what I see with the various groups that you 
>reference. Their track records is just not that great, nor credible.
>You say that we have to wait for the Fukushima deaths. Well, I can 
>assure you 100% there will be deaths in Fukushima, whether there was 
>an accident or not. Some die from natural causes, some from genetic 
>causes, some from lifestyle selections. They will all die. Did they 
>die from Fukushima. No. Will they all be counted as deaths from 
>Fukushima. Yes. Is that credible? How will you and your colleagues 
>define what is Fukushima related or not. Individuals who have died 
>in the last month, did they die from Fukushima? I seriously doubt 
>that. How about in a month, 6 months, a year, 5 years?
>In the end, you'll hold your opinion and I'll hold mine. Mine is 
>like my politics. I don't follow like sheep. I make my own educated 
>decisions. In some cases I agree with the conservatives, some with 
>the liberals and mostly moderate. I don't follow the trend, I assess 
>each case individually. Same here. If there are issues in my 
>profession, I speak out, just go back the 15 or so years I've been 
>on radsafe. I call it like I see it. Am I always of the correct 
>opinion? No. but I learn when facts, irrefutable facts are presented.
>The Chernobyl and Fukushima numbers thrown out, not a chance!
>Sander C. Perle
>Mirion Technologies
>Dosimetry Services Division
>2652 McGaw Avenue
>Irvine, CA 92614
>+1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
>+1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)
>Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/
>"Protecting people, property and the environment"
>-----Original Message-----
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
>Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 7:12 AM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How many curies were involved in Hiroshima
>The easy way out is to discount any study that you dont agree with 
>as not being credible.
>There really is no answer to that.
>Thats what UNSCEAR do, ignore any study that disagrees wth their position.
>But thats not science.
>And why, for example, is my meta analysis study of infant leukemias 
>after Chernobyl not credible?
>I cant remember you answering that question way back when I started 
>this discourse?
>And Tondel's study of Sweden after Chernobyl?
>Or the many studies of nuclear site child leukemias? e.g. KiKK.
>There are plenty more.
>But I think you will just have to wait now for the Fukushima deaths.


More information about the RadSafe mailing list