[ RadSafe ] Member of European Committee on Radiation Risk: 400, 000 Fuku cancers based on health studies after Chernobyl | TheNuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley

Sat May 14 07:26:34 CDT 2011

Dear Radsafers

This man Helbig has no scientific status, has published nothing, and spends his time abusing real scientists. The ECRR which he is abusing here has members who scientifically outrank (with research papers and position)anybody on any of the so-called official risk agencies. You know, i am sure, that the ICROP has no different status than the ECRR but ICRP's members are different in that they have rarely done any research. If you want you should look at the Lesvos Declaration on www.euradcom.org which lists some of the ECRR scientists.
The calculation that was done for Fukushima was based on scientifically valid comparisons with weapons fallout cancer yields and Chernobyl cancer yields in Sweden published by Tondel et al in 2004 which show 11% increase in cancre per 100kBq/m2 comntamination,. 
You should know also that my latest data shows the presence of micron AMAD radioactive hot particles in Japan and in the USA. Watch this space.
Sincerely
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Roger Helbig
Sent: Sat 14/05/2011 02:16
To: Radsafe
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Member of European Committee on Radiation Risk: 400,000 Fuku cancers based on health studies after Chernobyl | TheNuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/2970

This is a good example of why it is necessary to hold charlatans like
Christopher Busby up to standards and carefully examine their work and
statements.  This is a post to the webpage for the UC Berkeley Nuclear
Engineering Department radiation monitoring laboratory by someone who
believes Busby's claim of 400,000 cancers resulting from Fukushima - Busby
and fellow charlatans like Leuren Moret use the power of YouTube to promote
their scientific-sounding false assertions.  The original paper about
Chernobyl that Busby got into the poorly reviewed (they claim peer review,
but don't make any real effort to exclude close colleagues from being the
reviewers) MDPI for-profit on-line journals (you want to publish an article,
they will create a journal and maybe even a special topic to fit and they
are referenced by PubMed) in Basel, Switzerland.  

I was drawn to this by a claim that Leuren Moret is a member of the World
Committee on Radiation Risk, which does not appear to even exist, but which
references the heavily Busby influenced European Committee on Radiation Risk
(that I understand is not recognized by the UK Society of Radiological
Protection or similar European counterparts) 

Member of European Committee on Radiation Risk: 400,000 Fuku cancers based
on health studies after Chernobyl

It is critical that we support the BRAWM sampling and be grateful for them
and their work.

But we cannot simply ignore the risks that some, like the european committee
on radiation risk, the physicians for social responsibility, and the
radiation and public health project are warning us about.

This disaster will affect the world with sickness and death for generations.
Some of that will be right here in the United States. 

I think the analysis by this member of the European Committee on Radiation
Risk in this video is accurate and I challenge anyone on the BRAWM team to
say that it is wrong or explain why they believe it is inaccurate or an
unjustified analysis.

< Eggs "pack date" code Okay... I'm throwing the BS flag on this. Anyone
disagree? [by R. Cromack] >.

link to ECRR interview (with original post )

Submitted by Bill (not verified) on Thu, 2011-04-14 04:41.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0H-mtsdsgg&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0H-mtsdsgg&feature=player_embedded#at=15

Let me start by saying this:

I TRUST the European Committee on Radiation Risk model for assessing the
likelihood of cancers based on their research of Chernobyl and global
contamination since the beginning of the nuclear age.

Today the World Halth Organization said we need to have HOURLY monitoring of
the situation in Japan and that we will have NO GOOD IDEA what the
consequences will be for at least 20 years.

Since some cancers and cancer deaths take more than 20 years to even emerge,
it seems the real consequences may not be known for a generation.

BRAWM's tests are critical components of the research to come for the next
generation to see exactly what harm there is from socalled low doses as well
as the higher ones ion Japan.

I myself believe based on research and experience and many years of studying
and following these issues, that we will begin to seIt is critical that we
support the BRAWM sampling and be grateful for them and their work.

But we cannot simply ignore the risks that some, like the european committee
on radiation risk, the physicians for social responsibility, and the
radiation and public health project are warning us about.

This disaster will affect the world with sickness and death for generations.
Some of that will be right here in the United States. 

I think the analysis by a member of the European Committee on Radiation Risk
in this video is accurate and I challenge anyone on the BRAWM team to say
that it is wrong or explain why they believe it is inaccurate or an
unjustified analysis.

e spikes in spontaneous abortions and infant mortality and birth defects.
Certainly in Japan but also right here in the United States where the levels
are above "normal" background. Child Leukemia will follow infant mortality
in spiking and then thyroid cancers in a few years then organ and bone
cancer spikes, including adult leukemia.

_______________________________________________
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