[ RadSafe ] Member of European Committee on Radiation Risk: 400, 000 Fuku cancers based on health studies after Chernobyl | TheNuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley
C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Sat May 14 08:05:34 CDT 2011
I agree. But it does mean that you know nothing that enables you to understand the topics you so easily review andthe work of the people you criticise so easily. The ECRR model, for example takes the molecular level of exposure and looks at internal nuclide location at the molecular dilute solution biochemical and biophysical level. I doubt if you or Helbig have the faintest understanding of what happens at this level. Helbigs sniggering about my second PhD in Raman electrochemistry misses the point that my work on this and my first PhD and my previous work at the Dept of Physical Cemistry in Wellcome Research Labs enabled me to develop this approach. The ICRP physicists and the health physics people are just concerned with exposures based on a water in a bag approach and energy density.
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Doug Huffman
Sent: Sat 14/05/2011 13:44
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Member of European Committee on Radiation Risk: 400, 000 Fuku cancers based on health studies after Chernobyl | TheNuclear Engineering Department At UC Berkeley
Mr. Roger Helbig's career was senior in federal engineering management,
IIRC, Mare Island Naval Shipyard Code 200. We each were involved in the
Base Realignment and Closure Commission of 1993 decision to close our
facilities. We each provided input to the decision matrix and so saw
its development from the inside, so to speak.
Neither Helbig nor I purport to be scientists. Science is a way of
thought that may lead to truth. Self-proclaimed scientists are not.
Better an error from an honest man than dishonesty from a scientist.
Shift Test Engineer
CNS, C. 2340.X retired
On 5/14/2011 07:26, Busby Chris wrote:
> 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.
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