[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 3

Fri Oct 7 02:47:28 CDT 2011

Yes  

The study is here:

Research
Open Access Highly Accessed

    Uranium and other contaminants in hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq

Samira Alaani, Muhammed Tafash, Christopher Busby, Malak Hamdan and Eleonore Blaurock-Busch Conflict and Health 2011, 5:15 (2 September 2011)

http://www.conflictandhealth.com/content/5/1/15

Please apologize

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Dan W McCarn
Sent: Thu 06/10/2011 19:45
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 3

Dear Chris Busby:

You wrote, "I recently did an enormously complicated and expensive study of
uranium in Fallujah."

Just a couple of questions... Did you ever have boots on the ground in
Fallujah?  Did you design and conduct the sampling program?  And where was
this "study" published?

No, I really don't want to hear the answer to that because you have
impeached yourself too many times.  But I wish that you would not try to
dominate this list.

Years ago, in preparation for expert testimony, I was advised to never
describe something as "complicated" or "complex" and to especially avoid the
word, "expensive" because those words fall on deaf ears in a courtroom. 

I have become deaf to your words.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 11:40
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 3

I agree about peer review and dont rely on it, nor do I say that my own peer
review articles are any more believable as a result of peer review. Its it
is just that others demand this as some kind of requirement before they even
read it. I have been contacted by many people in Japan giving symptoms that
suggest the same scenario as Bandashevsky found. I figured out that it was
mechanistically plausible, and this made me realise that i could save lives.
Hence Youtube. I recently did an enormously complicated and expensive study
of uranium in Fallujah. It took almost a year to get through peer review.
Its now published. In that time, a lot of children could have been saved.
Scientists like anyone have a duty to warn the public of what they have
found if that can possible save lives.It would, in my opinion and belief,
have been irresponsible NOT to say something to everyone.  
Cheers
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Harrison, Tony
Sent: Thu 06/10/2011 16:35
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 3

Many thanks to Steven Dapra, Bjorn Cedervall, Bob Cherry and Roger Helbig
for providing the Sternglass debunking references. 

Your work on heart attacks might have had some merit if you had introduced
it as a model, based on a series of assumptions (with references to
Bandashevsky's work, if relevant) that was worthy of consideration.  You
didn't do that, you announced to the world (on Youtube, not in a peer
reviewed journal) that Japanese children were dying of heart attacks.  It
was irresponsible and narcissistic.

I'm not an academic, I work for a living, but I am second author on one
paper, "Hprt Mutant Frequency, Non-Pulmonary Malignancies and Domestic Radon
Exposure: Post- Mortem Analysis of an Interesting Hypothesis"; Ruttenber,
A.J., Harrison, L., Barron, A et al; Environmental and Molecular
Mutagenesis, 2001;37(1):7-16.

It combined data I collected I collected for my Master's thesis with some
other data collected at the University of Vermont, to show that a study
published in The Lancet (Possible Association between mutant frequency in
peripheral lymphocytes and domestic radon concentrations; Bridges et al.
1990, Lancet, 337, 1187-1189) was nonsense, a finding that the authors
agreed with in their own study around the same time.  So much for the peer
review process.

The main thing I learned in graduate school was to read peer reviewed
literature CRITICALLY.  Peer review by itself does not guarantee truth.

Back to lurking.

Tony Harrison, MSPH
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Laboratory Services Division
303-692-3046

Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 21:26:35 +0100
From: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 2
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>,
"radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu"
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:

<33024CCAFFB61C429DF9581DDE814DF40510B608 at MAILSERVICE.ad.ulster.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

The heart attack point was predicated on the work of Yuri Bandashevsky who
carried out work in the Belarus areas where children were contaminated by
the Chernobyl fallout. This was epidemiology. I dont know how many children
are suffering in Japan, just that some mothers have contacted me with
description of symptoms: there was a item on Al Jazeera. But thats not
epidemiology. What I did do was some calculations about Cs137 content of
heart muscle and the number of heart muscle cells. I dont think you know
about what Sternglass did. There was no cherry picking of data, and his work
was published in peer review, as much of mine is. If you want to knock it,
you should also publish in peer review. What Sterngalss did ( and Robin
Whyte in the BMJ in 1990 who followed it up) was to look at a graph of
infant mortality in UK and USA and notice that after the weapons fallout the
infant mortality suddenly increased. I fail to see how that is cherry
picking. It conforms to the causalit
 y requirements of Sir Austen Bradford Hill (Principles of Medical
Statistics 1961)  who is generally recognised as being the gold standard in
these affairs. Please explain.
Sincerely
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Harrison, Tony
Sent: Wed 05/10/2011 19:32
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 764, Issue 2

Sternglass got his results by cherry-picking data, as do most of the other
researchers you cite.  It's impossible to tell if his work is correct or
not, but the odds are against it.  Like your claims of heart attacks in
Japanese children, it's not science, it's pushing an agenda through
pseudo-scientific obfuscation, designed to impress the scientifically
ignorant.

Tony Harrison, MSPH
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Laboratory Services Division
303-692-3046

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 16:40:56 +0100
From: "Busby, Chris" <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and
	pseudo-science. (was Rational Thought)
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
	List"	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>,
"radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu"
	<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Message-ID:

<33024CCAFFB61C429DF9581DDE814DF40510B607 at MAILSERVICE.ad.ulster.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="iso-8859-1"

Steven Dapra takes some time to attack me. 
But talking about creationism, I believe that Steven Dapra is a Creationist.
Is that right, Steven?
And dont knock Sternglass. His work is broadly correct. 
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Harrison, Tony
Sent: Wed 05/10/2011 15:02
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Drawing the line between science and pseudo-science.
(was Rational Thought)

Interesting blog here:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2011/10/04/drawing-th
e-line-between-science-and-pseudo-science/

The example given is the debate between evolution and "creation science" but
the arguments apply just as much to anti- (or pro-) nuke opinions.  Take a
moment to think about what sort of evidence it would take to convince you
that your beliefs are false, and then see if such evidence exists.

Busby's citation of Sternglass et alia is laughable, but so are some of the
pro-hormesis papers cited here over the years.  Both just show that the
peer-review process is far from perfect.  Too many propagandists out there,
and not enough 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