[ RadSafe ] Findings of enriched U in Fallujah and elsewhere

[Roger Helbig]

Busby,

Who is we?  Who monitored this?  Who conducted the laboratory analysis?  Who
peer reviewed your paper on Fallujah?  Was it a racket like your being the
peer reviewer of the Rita Hindin paper often cited by James Salsman?  Why
don't you publish your research in respected journals where peer review is
meaningful?  Why don't you cite the specific page, etc. with quote instead
of just chattering "read the paper" - by the way, Mr Dapra has read your
papers.  Who is the YouTube personality drdrwoland that posts your clever
songs?  If it is you, why the fake name?

For the record, Busby and a now deceased anti-nuclear colleague Dr Michel
Fernex were the peer reviewers of the following article.  The principal
author, Rita Hindin has become a chef.


http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069X-4-17.pdf



Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an
epidemiological perspective Rita Hindin , Doug Brugge  and Bindu Panikkar



Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source 2005, 4:17
doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17

Pre-publication history (I am glad that this journal does post this
information even though they made no real effort to assure independent peer
review)

Top of Form

*Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an
epidemiological perspective*

*Rita Hindin* <image001.gif><http://www.ehjournal.net/registration/technical.asp?process=default&msg=ce>,
*Doug Brugge* <image002.gif><http://www.ehjournal.net/registration/technical.asp?process=default&msg=ce>and
*Bindu Panikkar*
<image001.gif><http://www.ehjournal.net/registration/technical.asp?process=default&msg=ce>

*Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source* 2005, *4:*
17doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17

*Pre-publication versions of this article and reviewers' reports*

*Original submission - Version 1*

Manuscript<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/1228387848700344_manuscript.pdf>

19 May 2005

*Reviewer's Report*

Chris Busby<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/2019191015707343_comment.pdf>

27 May 2005

*Reviewer's Report*

Dr. Michel Fernex<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/2051641087233682_comment.pdf>

16 Jun 2005

*Resubmission - Version 2*

Manuscript<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/6915495876414495_manuscript.pdf>

Authors' comments<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/1824936194764126_comment.pdf>

05 Aug 2005

*Resubmission - Version 3*

Manuscript<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/8333653917688104_manuscript.pdf>

Authors' comments<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/1840127213768781_comment.pdf>

11 Aug 2005

*Resubmission - Version 4*

Manuscript<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/9750193097730441_manuscript.pdf>

Authors' comments<http://www.biomedcentral.com/imedia/1215002017773022_comment.pdf>

17 Aug 2005

*Accepted*

26 Aug 2005

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Busby, Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> wrote:

> Not enough counts for the water samples, concnetrtations too low, so we
> didnt report isotope ratios for water samples.
> The soil samples were extracted and concentrated by ion exchange.
> The 95%CI was obtained from the total counts per channel of the
> concentrated ion exchange extracts relative to the total counts per channel
> of the spikes of known concentration.
> C
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Joe Toole
> Sent: Wed 19/10/2011 23:37
> To: List Radsafe
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Findings of enriched U in Fallujah and elsewhere
>
> Chris,
> I have now looked at your 'Fallujah' uranium paper. From what I can see
> there, the mean 238U/235U mass isotopic ratio for hair is between 132.26 and
> 138.06 (two standard deviations). For soil samples, the mean 238U/235U mass
> isotopic ratio is between 117.2 and 140.8 (two standard deviations). It is
> also mentioned later in the paper that the 2sd confidence interval for
> natural uranium for the soil analysis method is 132.1 to 144.1. It is
> difficult to see where you get your certainty that EU is present.
> Further, there is no information in the paper on the results of U isotopic
> quality control standards - were they run, did they show a measurement bias,
> was the bias corrected?
> What of the U isotopic results for tap water, well water and Euphrates
> water, I dont see them reported. Did they show any evidence for EU or DU?
> In my opinion, if you are going to make exotic claims about widespread
> contamination by EU mystery weapons, you need to have strong QC to support
> the claims.
> Maybe Harwell Scientifics will allow you to send me the lab reports, I was
> manager of the radionuclide analysis section there for 13 years. I would
> also not mind seeing the German lab report.
> regards
>
>
> Dr Joe Toole
> Director
> EnviroRAD Ltd
>
> 9 Westhaugh Road
> Stirling
> Scotland
> FK9 5GF
> Phone 01786 445013
> mob +44 (0)7899955394
> joe.toole at envirorad.com
> www.envirorad.com
>
> Registered office:
> MacFarlane Gray House
> Castlecraig Business Park
> Springbank Road
> Stirling
> FK7 7WT
>
> Company number SC383713
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>