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

Sun May 15 13:02:34 CDT 2011

Yes there is loads of stuff on individual variation to radiation. I am editing Ed Radfords memoirs where he says this is the cause of the supralinear dose response seen in the A-Bomb Japanese RERF data. They find it in radiotherapy work. Also the genomic people tell me it varies between people but also inside people, i.e. some tissues more radiosensitive than others; I mean apart fropm the ICRP organ stuff. Eric Wright says about 1/5th people are immune from radiation effects as their cells commit suicide rather than deveoping genomic instability. Interstingl;y about 1/5th of the astronauts havent died of cancer.

No it is not. If there were no nuclear energy and no uranium mining and no weapons fallout there would be major control of internal fission products and uranium. It is politically possible to control internal. And anyway at least lets know the truth. Surely. 

C

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Howard
Sent: Sun 15/05/2011 01:35
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Cc: 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

Chris,
Have you given any thought to ( or seen studies on) individual variation 
with ionizing radiation defenses, as with sunshine, like light skin sensitive to sunburn?

I am glad you see the LNT blindness to data. Did you read the new refs Feinendigan sent us?
It is only the EXTERNAL doses we can currently control.
Howard

On May 14, 2011, at 12:18 PM, "Busby Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> 
> I met Feinendegen at Oxford in 2004 and listened to his arguments and those of others who make the same points. I do not disagree that low doses of external radiation in the 10-50mSv range may induce repair efficiency. I agree. I think there is massive evidence in animal studies that this is so in animals. I do not subscribe to LNT. The dose response is complex, I believe it is biphasic and there is a lot of evidence for this from many sources. I refer you to Burlakova. Of course, that is not to say this is a good thing. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
> 
> But you must move on from there, expecially in species which have such efficient repair like humans. Did you know that the lifespan of a mammal is proportional to its radiation resistance? Check Sacher 1955 or my book Wings of Death 1995 where I make a graph of this. 
> 
>  You need to consider that for certain internal exposures the dose that matters is the dose to the DNA or to certain biological elements near to the DNA. We know this from e.g. Auger experiments using DNA bound molecules which have had Auger substituents like I-125. 
> 
> The cell dose from a single alpha track is about 500mSv, far in excess of the levels of EXTERNAL cell dose which causes the effects Feinendegen is talking about. If there is inducible cell repair like "radiation suntanning"£ then clearly it can be (a) overwhelmed and (b) bypassed, as in the 2nd event processes I postulate, due to sequential decays.
> 
> Chris 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Howard
> Sent: Sat 14/05/2011 17:46
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Cc: 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
> 
> Chris,
> You clearly have education to understand the 2011 Health Physics articles 
> recently referenced here by Feinendegan on the effect of low dose radiation.
> How does a person of your persuasion view the data presented there?
> 
> Howard Long (Family doctor, epidemiologist and DDP Board member)
> 
> 
> On May 14, 2011, at 6:05 AM, "Busby Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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. 
>> Chris
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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.
>> 
>> Doug Huffman
>> Shift Test Engineer
>> CNS, C. 2340.X retired
>> http://www.navsea.navy.mil/shipyards/norfolk/nnsy/NuclearTED.aspx
>> Washington Island
>> Wisconsin
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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