[ RadSafe ] The human sex odds at birth after theatmosphericatomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities
C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk
Sun May 29 04:07:30 CDT 2011
Sorry Steven I must have missed that. Bogus. THis is because the ICRP66 human respiratory tract model was examined in a phD thesis referred to and discussed by Ed Radford, ex Chair or BEIR III in his memoirs which I am editing. He (Radford) says that the penetration depth of the alphas from surface material in the lung was chosen by ICRP to be muchg lower than it is, therefore reducing the number of target cells for exposure and reducing the biological effectiveness for cancer induction per unit dose. Thertde was much more. I believe this got published somewhere and Radford took it up with ICRP but they ignored him. You may recall that Radford was pushed out of BEIR and his concerns were marginalised.
The question of my expertise has been addressed in the UK and US courts by those who do not wish to allow me to rtestify. In all cases they have been unable to persuade the courts to take the position that you take. The item youy refer to was sent to the court in the UK as evidence from some eminent lawyers in the USA and is ony one of a number of similar letters writtn in my support.
I think that you should ultimately assume that I know enough to assist the courts in making decisions in this complex area.
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Steven Dapra
Sent: Sat 28/05/2011 03:18
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] The human sex odds at birth after theatmosphericatomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities
At 02:00 PM 5/27/2011, you wrote:
>But the ECRR and the ICRP have exactly the same status. Can it be
>that you guys dont know this?
>They are both supposed to be independent.
>But just ask ICRP who funds it.
>It wont tell you.
Chris --- can you read English? Here's a link to the
Its funding is explained on the right side of the page, in
the last paragraph under the heading "About ICRP."
The ICRP has been operating for 83 years, and its work is
universally accepted. How long has the ECRR been in existence, and
how widely are its claims accepted?
With respect to 'sensible explanations,' a few weeks ago you
said an ICRP publication (No. 66?) had bogus coefficients, or
something like that. You used the word "bogus." I asked you why
they were "bogus," and so far you have not replied. How about a
"sensible explanation" for that? After all, according to your LLRC
report, you are an "expert" on radioactivity.
>ICRP has no official status. This is what its secretary Jack
>Valentin told us at a meeting in the European Parliament in 1997. He
>said, the European Parliament is free to consult any organisation
>for its advice.
>I still havent had any sensible explanation of the infant leukemias.
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