[ RadSafe ] The human sex odds at birth after theatmosphericatomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities
sjd at swcp.com
Mon May 30 00:05:31 CDT 2011
One of my chief objections to Chris Busby's technique of
argumentation is habitual refusal to present source material. I have
brought this up before, but it doesn't seem to have been effective,
for Busby is at it again.
Who wrote this Ph.D. thesis; and if it was published, where
was it published? Where was Radford's discussion of it
published? You, Chris Busby, aren't even certain it has been
published. ("I believe this got published somewhere. . . .")
With respect to your testimony in courts, I would have to
examine each individual case and possibly draw some conclusions. The
only thing I am going to "assume" about what you "know" is that you
know enough to bluff your way through anything.
At 03:07 AM 5/29/2011, you wrote:
>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.
More information about the RadSafe