[ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
rich at tgainc.com
Mon May 2 11:36:51 CDT 2011
I think that is something that the uneducated world might believe if not
answered. Busby is opening the dialogue, it is up to us to show how off base
or absurd his claims are. Hopefully we can make our point in a way the
general public can understand.
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 6:09 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
To keep it short, Busby has apparently claimed that Fukushima will
lead to 400,000 additional cancers. This claim is absurd on the face of it.
Do you really believe this constitutes "educating the world"?
At 10:23 AM 4/29/2011, you wrote:
>If my first post was poorly worded, my apologies. I'll give it another
>In the aftermath of a nuclear power crisis, the world is interested in
>the risks/benefits of nuclear power--Busby and his ilk are only too
>eager and willing to give their point of view--if we fail to engage
>him, they will accept his view simply because they don't know any
>better and don't have the resources or knowledge to engage him.
>I'm going to give Busby the benefit of the doubt and believe his
>motivation lies in educating the world and he is not just an
>opportunist looking to profit by his ideas (no matter how misguided
>those ideas are) and make a name for himself. I'm guessing that many on
>Radsafe disagree with me on this.
>From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
>[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Dapra
>Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:31 AM
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
> You rather strongly implied that Busby and his fellow
>travelers have rushed in for the purpose of "educating the world on the
>benefits and true risks related to the peaceful use of radioactive
>materials." They are not doing any such thing.
> Now you say it's a "useful exercise" to have his claims debunked.
>True, but that was not your original argument.
>At 06:37 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
> >I believe it is a useful exercise to have Mr. Busby's claims debunked
> >by experts in the field. If not us, then who? I'm afraid that if we
> >fail to respond, the uninformed might believe what he has to say. If
> >nothing else is accomplished, most of us now know what his views are
> >and the arguments against them.
> >Rich Gallego
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> >[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Steven
> >Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:11 PM
> >To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> >Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Psychological Impacts of Chernobyl
> >April 28
> > 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
> >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.
> >Steven Dapra
> >At 01:00 PM 4/28/2011, you wrote:
> > >Franz,
> > >
> > >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
> > >Busby have rushed in to fill that void. We all win with honest debate.
> > >
> > >Rich Gallego
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe