[ RadSafe ] Busby YouTube Videos - Claims to Public Audience of Millions of Deaths from Fukushima

Mon Oct 10 12:10:36 CDT 2011

Amazing!

Mark

Sent from my iPad

On 10 Oct 2011, at 20:54, "Stewart Farber" <SAFarber at optonline.net> wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> 
> 
> I had drafted much of the following post some time ago, but did not send it
> to Radsafe, because I expected that Dr. Busby would have faded away long
> ago.  However, since he has persisted in pushing beyond-the-fringe
> assertions,  I'm sending the YouTube links below so interested readers can
> see and hear Dr. Busby's even more extreme, and inflammatory behavior when
> he is talking to the general public than his comport in dealing with
> Radsafe.  If not interested in this subject any further, please hit delete.
> 
> 
> 
> It just hit me that there is a real benefit to Dr. Busby writing Radsafe. It
> consumes some of his time, we get the opportunity to think about, and gather
> facts about how to reply to anti-nuclear nonsense, and it keeps him from
> doing even more mischief with people who are influenced by a scientific
> shell-game.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to understand how some people can continue making claims after
> their assertions, or those of sources they cite as supporting their views
> like Sternglass,  have been so thoroughly discredited. But some never give
> up hope as is said,  that if you repeat a lie often enough, it somehow
> becomes true.  For those possibly interested in witnessing the public
> behavior of  a professional anti-nuke  -- there are some utterly fascinating
> statements  in a two-part YouTube Busby interview video  ["The Negative
> Health Effects of Low-Dose Radiation from Fukushima]. 
> 
> 
> 
> The two Busby YouTube segments give a sense of  how the public is being
> swept away by a tsunami of misinformation, as it were,  and conned by absurd
> claims of dedicated scaremongers. The two YouTube videos below show Dr.
> Busby having a one-on-one interview with a Rush Limbaugh-like radio progam
> host on a Texas radio station after the accident at Fukushima.  It shows how
> a professional anti-nuke will make scary sounding and unsupported claims to
> get themselves interviewed,  and receive some sort of ego gratification, and
> the Lord knows what else as a motivating factor.
> 
> 
> 
> These YouTube clips provide further evidence that just  because an
> inflammatory claim is stated in a  British accent,  and preceded by SI units
> like Mega- or Giga- it is not necessarily true, or relevant to the issue at
> hand --and often quite meaningless.  
> 
> 
> 
> See:
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher Busby - "The Negative Health Effects of Low-Dose Radiation From
> Fukushima ---Part 1 of 2":
> 
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCmP83mgUnk
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCmP83mgUnk&feature=related>
> &feature=related>
> 
> 
> 
> -Part 2 of 2:
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZszDrDfL5A
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZszDrDfL5A&feature=related>
> &feature=related> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Busby's  extreme claims in the above YouTube performances stem from his
> claiming to have  found ONE particle of Am-241 on HIS filter.   I'm not sure
> whether the filter he is talking about is his widely touted automobile
> filter on which he had claimed previously to have detected some Cs-134  in a
> seemingly endless series of pointless discussions on Radsafe about the
> filtering properties of auto air filters, etc, etc. But whether Dr. Busby's
> one claimed Am-214 particle was trapped on his auto air filter, or from
> passing contaminated air around Fukushima through the felt of a very
> fetching beret is really irrelevent to the issues involved.   
> 
> 
> 
> In the video, he claims that whenever white smoke is seen emanating from one
> of the reactors, it indicates "particles" of isotopes of Am, Pu, and U are
> being released. Has it been found that white smoke always contains Am-241?
> Did I miss a class or fail to read some credible research paper where it was
> documented that "White" smoke invariably contains Am-241, Pu-239, and
> U-235/238? From here it is only a small step for Dr. Busby to predict on
> this YouTube video that millions of people will die from the Fukushima
> accident.
> 
> 
> 
> There is little point in reviewing the details of most claims made by Dr.
> Busby in the YouTube links above, but in his highlighting his ONE particle
> of Am-241 on HIS filter, he states it had an activity of 1.5 Bq -IN THE
> ENTIRE ONE PARTICLE.  He further states on the video that this one particle
> had a 5 micron diameter which he claims is the optimal size to penetrate
> deep into the human lung.   This kind of accuracy and understanding gained
> from as he told Radsafe 
> 
> "studying so hard" and earning two PhDs, clearly qualifies a person as an
> "Expert Witness".   As is known from actual scientific study, 5 micron
> particles are much too large to pass through the nasopharynx and upper
> tracheo-bronchial region, and get into the deeper portions of the lung with
> any great probability. But let's not get too picky about details, especially
> about one particle. The inflamatory claims he makes on point after point in
> his YouTube video sound scary to a scientifically illiterate person. But
> scaring the public, and legislators, and regulators who don't know anything
> about science or nuclear technologies other than a few buzz words is rather
> the point of the exercise, is it not? 
> 
> 
> 
> In this YouTube video we witness his claim of "Millions of deaths" from
> Fukushima,  of fuel rods blasted a mile high into the atmosphere due to the
> hydrogen explosions outside the plant containment, and then crashing to
> earth,  etc, etc. Wow.
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Busby waxes ecstatic in this YouTube video about Am-241 having  "GBq per
> kg"  showing how serious a threat it represents.  Who talks about the
> Specific Activity of any radionuclide in units of Bq per kg?  And so what?
> What am I missing? Yes, Am-241 has a SA of 120 GBq/kg =  120,000,000,000
> Bq/kg = 3.24 Ci/g.  Gosh, the SA of Am-241 in SI units like 120 GBq/kg
> sounds so much more scary than  3.2 Ci/g.  One could also state that Am-241
> has a SA of:
> 
> 
> 
> 120 E-3 TeraBq, or
> 
> 120 E-6 PetaBq
> 
> 120 E-9  ExaBq
> 
> 120 E-12  ZettaBq
> 
> 120 E-15  YottaBq
> 
> 
> 
> Is 120 E-15 YottaBq somehow less dangerous than 120  GBq or 3.24 Ci??
> 
> What is the SI prefix larger than Yotta one may ask??.  How about we propose
> the unit  "Lotta" [ = 1,000 Yotta ], and "WholeLotta"  [= 1,000 Lotta].
> Sorry, the Devil made me do it. J
> 
> 
> 
> In considering it, the move to SI units is the best present the anti-nuke
> movement ever received, since it made nuclear power immediately 3.7E+10  [or
> 37 Giga times]  more dangerous that the danger of a Ci vs. a Bq.   
> 
> 
> 
> As a side-bar thought regarding Specific Activity, the natural particulate
> isotope Be-7 is constantly falling to earth from the upper atmosphere as it
> is created by cosmic ray interactions in the stratosphere, and it ends up in
> the mesophere. Be-7 is a gamma emitter which generally shows up at easily
> measurable concentrations on any environmental air filter analyzed by decent
> sensitivity gamma spec after the short-lived Radon daughters are allowed to
> decay. 
> 
> 
> 
> Be-7 has an SA of  3.5E+5 Ci/gram or 13,000,000 GBq /kg!!   Is Be-7
> therefore 108,000 times [the ratio of their SA ] more hazardous than Am-241?
> Certainly not, but it would be if you have an anti-nuke agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> Think of it.   Be-7 with a large SA is present in small particles [and not
> just ONE as with THE particle of Am-241 claimed to have been found by Dr.
> Busby] we're all inhaling as we read this!!! Should we be wearing high end
> respiratory protection to try and reduce our inhalation of 13 Mega-GigaBq
> per kg Be-7 particles? This would be the case if one believes the basis of
> concern expressed by experts like Dr. Busby? We know that Be-7 delivers a
> certain trivial dose [ about very approx. 7 uSV or 0.7 mrem/year ] to each
> person on earth as part of the background radiation dose received by
> humanity [approx 3.1 mSv/year  avg in US]. 
> 
> 
> 
> This 7 uSv  annual average dose from natural Be-7  represents more radiation
> dose than will be delivered, on average, to each member of the world's
> population from Fukushima. To believe anti-nuke fear-mongers who are so
> easily manipulating lazy reporters and making  exaggerated risk claims with
> the public,  if Fukushima will result in 4 million deaths, then 3.1  mSv
> from normal background to every person on earth would cause about 1.2
> billion deaths per year.  That's Billion with G for Giga J. 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical radiation exposure averages about 3 mSv/year in the US and less in
> developing countries. Let's assume a quickly calculated, based on
> conservative assumptions, weighted average of 0.7 mSv/year to each person on
> earth from Medical exposure. If one believed Dr. Busby's stated claims of 4
> million deaths from Fukushima, medical exposure each year would cause 250
> million deaths a year from radiation exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It only takes the back of an envelope and a few facts to see the absolute
> absurdity of such claims.  If 1.5 billion people could be expected to die
> each year from ubiquitous background radiation and medical rad exposure, it
> would be rather obvious and the world population would not be growing
> exponentially.  Many years ago there was a book published: "Population
> Control" Through Nuclear Pollution by  Dr/ Arthur Tamplin after he joined
> John Gofman and K.Z. Morgan in their geriatric anti-nuclear actions.
> Perhaps Radiation should be added to the four Horseman of the Apocolypse. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, whether Am-241 has a SA of  120 GBq/kg  vs. Be-7 with 13,000,000
> GBq/kg by itself has no significance regarding total risk,  no matter how
> much hand waving someone does.  We need to know what are the exposure
> pathways and what doses are received by how many people.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently,  Dr. Busby is trying to be the SI incarnation of Carl Sagan  who
> used to love to say "billions and billions" of ... Various things.    Today
> we have someone who can't resist saying "Giga and Giga Bq", or GBq per
> kilogram.....
> 
> 
> 
> As someone with a much longer CV than I once said,
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> Stewart Farber, MSPH
> 
> Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
> 
> Bridgeport, CT 06606
> 
> email: SAFarber at optonline.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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