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

[Steven Dapra]

May 15

         I don't know as much about Roger Helbig as Dr. Busby 
apparently does, so I can't comment on his qualifications.  As to 
"abusing real scientists," I imagine that depends on how Busby 
defines "abuse," and a "real scientist."

         Here's the link to Wikipedia's article on the European 
Committee on Radiation Risk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Committee_on_Radiation_Risks

         According to Wikipedia, the ECRR is "is an informal 
committee formed in 1997 following a meeting by the European Green 
Party. . . ."  As an "informal committee" it has no official 
status.  I would be somewhat skeptical of anything that grew out of 
any Green Party.

         I don't know the credentials of the ECRR's members, nor do I 
know the credentials of the members of the "so-called official risk 
agencies," so I can't comment on any of that.  I looked at the ICRP's 
website today and learned that it was founded in 1928.  Regardless of 
its status in Dr. Busby's eyes, I doubt that it would have survived 
for 83 years unless it was a competent and reliable 
organization.  Perhaps someone at RADSAFE can elucidate us as to the 
amount of research that has been done and is done by members of the 
ICRP.  I find it hard to believe that "they have rarely done any research."

         To digress, what about Dr. Busby?  Is he a real 
scientist?  Sure --- in his field, which I believe is chemical 
physics.  As I have said before, Dr. Busby is not a health 
physicist.  (As I recall, that engendered a short-lived argument from 
Dr. Busby that "health physics" is an oxymoron.  How that is germane 
to anything I do not profess to know.)

         To me, one of the hallmarks of a real scientist is that he 
provides proper citations to work he invokes in support of his 
position.  It's been a long drawn out battle here to induce Dr. Busby 
to provide citations for anything.  He has done it again 
today.  Below he invokes "Tondel et al in 2004."  Where was this work 
published?  Perhaps one of us would like to read it and draw his own 
conclusions.  A few weeks ago when we were bickering about infant 
leukemias in the aftermath of Chernobyl, Dr. Busby gave us word 
groups and suggested that we do Google searches to find the studies 
he recommended.  Is this the behavior of a real scientist?

         I kept after Dr. Busby long enough and he provided a link to 
his article about infant leukemias.  I wrote an 800 word critique of 
his article, to which he said virtually nothing.  Five days after I 
wrote, he complained that it took me so long to reply ("though it 
took him long enough"), and then he said:

"Basically he is saying there were no excess infant leukemias in the 
Chernobyl fallout in utero cohort.  The 5 difference groups got it 
wrong.  Is that a fair analysis?  Or have I missed 
something?  Incidentally, the paper on the Scottish infant leukemias 
was by the Oxford-based Childhood cancer Research Group.  The French 
IRSN report saying that ICRP was questionable has been translated 
into English for those who cant read French.

"Well thats one way to do it I suppose.  Cant argue with that.  All 5 
goups made up the data.  Nice one Steven."  [The punctuation 
omissions are Dr. Busby's.]

         Not very impressive, is it?  I did not say there were no 
excess infant leukemias.  The studies said that and I merely quoted 
them.  I also did not accuse anyone of making up data, nor did I 
imply that anyone made up any data.

         I posted a detailed reply to all this, and asked Dr. Busby 
to explain his "5 difference groups."  He never said another 
word.  It might be worth pointing out that I provided citations for 
all that I said, and even provided the germane citations to Dr. 
Busby's article --- the one that he was so proud of, and that it took 
me so long to pry out of him.  I would never claim to be a scientist, 
let alone a real scientist, however some of Dr. Busby's behavior 
doesn't add up.

Steven Dapra


At 06:26 AM 5/14/2011, you 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.
>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)

[edit]