Chris Busby vs Jack Valentin, 22 April 2009, Part 1/3

A place for invalid arguments, faulty statements and general waste.

Chris Busby vs Jack Valentin, 22 April 2009, Part 1/3

Postby Lantzelot » 23 Dec 2012, 13:34

Full transcript of the video posted by Ditta Rietuma (BSRRW) with the debate in Stockholm between Chris Busby (ECRR) and Jack Valentin (ICRP), arranged by MILKAS, 22 April 2009.

The main reason for this transcript is to scrutinize the misuse by Chris Busby of some of the statements by Jack Valentin.
The transcript of a certain part can be found on several of Busby's web sites, for instance on the ECRR site:

The debate is spread over 2 videos posted on Vimeo:
Video 1:
Video 2:

The transcript is divided into 3 parts:
Part 1 (Video 1): Chris Busby's presentation, followed by Jack Valentin's presentation
Part 2 (Video 1 and 2): The debate/interview between Chris Busby and Jack Valentin
Part 3 (Video 2): Questions from the audience

The full transcript can also be downloaded as a pdf-file here.

Any errors in the transcript are mine.
/Mattias Lantz - NPYP

MG: Miles Goldstick (MILKAS)
CB: Chris Busby (ECRR)
JV: Jack Valentin (ICRP)
RvM: Roland von Malmborg (FmKK)
RR: Roland Reinholdsson (SERO)
AW: Andrzej Wojcik (SU)
BC: Björn Cedervall
JS: Johan Swahn (MKG)
JK: John? Kristiansen
EL: Eva Linderoth (MILKAS)
XX: Unknown persons

Part 1: Chris Busby's presentation, followed by Jack Valentin's presentation

MG (Miles Goldstick): ...because cancer is a terrible disease. No matter what side of the nuclear issue you are, most people understand that cancer is a terrible disease and we have to try to deal with it. We have with us two eminent scientists, Dr Chris Busby and Dr Jack Valentin.

Dr Busby has been the scientific secretary for the European Commission on Radiation Risk, ECRR, which was set up to deal with issues related to the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Dr Jack Valentin has been the scientific secretary for many years, he is now emeritus, just as of some short time ago.

I though I'd leave it at that, The format for today is that Chris Busby will give a presentation for half an hour, followed by Jack Valentin for about the same period. Then there will be a 15 minute break, with coffee and pastry outside and then there will be an interaction between the two, and questions from the audience.

So please Chris.

[Request of translation into Swedish from somebody]

CB (Chris Busby): This is a historic occasion in my opinion, because we have here the scientific secretary of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, an institution that has been underpinning the basis of all the risk models of radiation and cancer since 1952. It is the model of the ICRP that permits nuclear power stations to operate, that permits the American military and the British military to use depleted uranium.

It is this risk model which I am now calling into question. We've called it into question for quite a long time. But it was in 1997 at a meeting of the European Parliament, STOA group, where I first met Dr Valentin. It was a meeting that was to address criticisms of the ICRP risk model that were being brought forward by a number of people; myself, Alice Stewart, Rosalie Bertell, Jean Francois Viel, a number of eminent scientists and who were arguing that there are problems with this model and that it should no longer be employed for accurately predicting the effects of radioactivity.

At that time we set up the new committee called the European Committee of Radiation Risk and I'll talk a little bit about this and those developments. The model of the ECRR was developed and it was published in 2003. We will have a meeting at Lesvos in Greece in three weeks time, to which anyone can come, where a number of eminent members of the ECRR will be discussing this issue and try to take it forward.

I have to be quite rapid in this presentation because I need to get through quite a lot in a limited space of time so I will blast my way through. Many of you people will already know all of this stuff, so forgive me, some of you may not.

First of all I just need to say that there are various types of radiation and the three main types that we need to discuss or consider at the moment are gamma rays, which are electromagnetic radiation-like light, and then energetic electrons, beta particles, and also alpha particles, which are rather like Battlestar Galactica in terms of their damaging power relative to Luke Skywalker's... little... quite... aeroplane things.

Now, the electromagnetic radiation, the external radiation, the gamma rays, they produce, on interaction with matter, with living tissue, they produce fast electrons. And as these fast electrons
which cause the damage they interact with tissue they produce ionization, and that can damage the DNA, which is now known to be the target for these effects. It is the DNA that establishes if the cells can go out of control ultimately. But the effects of these are not just cancer effects, there are also a whole range of effects on human health and in fact you can probably argue that nearly every type of human health condition can be effected or harmed by radiation.

Now, ionizing radiation, whatever its source, external or internal whatever, it's absorbed and produces these electron tracks, and it is the electron tracks that will cause the problem when they react with DNA and they cause mutations, cancer and of course genetic defects which can be passed across the generations

Now, the important thing here to remember is that the absorption of gamma radiation is proportional to the 4th power of the atomic number. Those of you who are chemists will know that all the elements have an atomic number which is basically the number of electrons in the orbits around the nucleus.
The atomic number goes from one for hydrogen which is the lightest element right away up to 92, which is the heaviest element, it's uranium. Of course we've got heavier elements now that we've produced in nuclear reactors, but on Earth those are the numbers, they go right up. But most of the elements have quite low atomic numbers, and in fact there is a reason for that.

Now, radiation exposure and health has been modeled since 1952 on the basis of the cancer yield in the survivors of the Hiroshima bomb, the Japanese A-bomb studies. And this model is essentially the model of the ICRP, the ICRP model, the model that I'm attacking today, and have been attacking for a considerable part of my life. And the reason that this model is false is because it is based on the assumption that all cells in the body receive the same number of radiation tracks. If you're going to model cancer and radiation or if you're going to model health and radiation, you have to have some sort of...unit that you can measure the radiation in, in order to say “this number of units of radiation can be related to that amount of cancer following the exposure of a person.”

And the unit that was developed, was a unit based on physics, which is energy per unit mass, and it's called Absorbed dose. And so all energy per unit mass, all absorbed doses are related to the numbers of cancers that are produced following that exposure. It is not however a valid assumption for internal radiation and this is where the problem is because the people who in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were outside in the open, and there was a gigantic flash and their bodies where bathed in gamma rays and the energy from these gamma rays caused equivalent ionization in every one of the cells in the body. And so it was quite reasonable to take that as a measure of exposure of harm, because all of the cells had the same amount of harm.

But this is not true for internal radiation, because with internal radiation you are exposed to fission products, these substances which never existed on Earth prior 1945, substances which get inside the body and attach to cells and they have biomedical properties at the molecular level, and some of them have high affinity to the DNA, Sr-90 is a good example, but there are others. Uranium is also a good example.

So the external exposure model is modeled by physics, this is the original ICRP phantom. It's like a bag of water. And so it's exposed to external radiation and the doses are assumed to be the same for most tissues. But for internal radioactive exposure, particularly also for particles you can get this kind of effect here where you can see that, these are plutonium particle in a rat lung. You can see what's called an alpha star, so this is like sitting in front of a fire and heating yourself, warming yourself up in front of the fire. You get an equivalent dose of radiation, in this case infrared radiation, through all of your body. And the equivalent would be to reach into the fire and take out a hot coal and eat it.

So we're in the position now, that there is an anpass between two separate risk models. A risk model developed by the ICRP in 1952, at that time probably quite reasonably I guess, since they had to do something quickly. And now a set of models that the ECRR has developed in order to account for a number of anomalous discoveries. We have nuclear site leukemias, we have childhood leukemias near nearly all of the atomic plants that where epidemiologists have looked. There is a sea coast effect on the Irish sea due to material from Sellafield. There is an increase in infant leukemia in children who were in the womb at the time of Chernobyl, and a whole range of other things, part some of which I will look at.

So the ICRP radiation risk model is now manifestly proved wrong, in fact it is quite embarrassingly wrong. And this matters because it's resulted in the deaths of a very large number of people. The ECRR calculation of the cancer yield of the nuclear project, if you'd like to call it that, most of the radiation released in the environment this century is in the region of millions of people, 61 million people have died as a result of cancer produced by the radionuclides released during weapons fallout mainly.

And we have all epidemiological discoveries, the whole range of them here, and all of them have to be explained and cannot be explained on the basis of the ICRP model. And you have a whole list of theoretical falsifications of the ICRP model, or the basis of the ICRP model. The ICRP model is now bankrupt and needs to be tipped in the bin.

So as I said there are now two committees and two models for the health effects. The ECRR model you can get from Euradcom, you can order it from the ECRR or through Milkas, who have some copies. The ECRR, I just put up a some of the people in the ECRR. So we are not talking about people who, like me, are perhaps not so important, but some extremely eminent scientists here, we are talking about, this woman here, who's the head of a seminar institute of radiation biology in Moscow, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, now she is a deputy director of the institute of biochemical physics. There's a whole range of people here, Rosa Goncharova who is a geneticist in Belarus, has found all sorts of effects following Chernobyl.

These are people who are coming to this meeting in Lesvos on the 5th of May and as I said anybody else can come and Dr Valentin has been invited, and I think maybe someone might come from the ICRP, but I am not holding my breath.

Atmospheric nuclear testing killed babies. It caused increases in leukemia in areas of high rainfall in the UK, these are all from publications in peer reviewed literature. This is an increase in childhood leukemia in Denmark over the period of weapons fallout in the 1960's. It is the result from the deconvolution of a disgracefully biased and almost dishonest report by a number of eminent epidemiologists working in collaboration with the British Nuclear Radiological Protection Board. This is the standardized incidence ratio of all cancers in Wales, which you can see follows very closely the increase in Sr-90 twenty years before. One of these graphs is from the cancer registry, the red one, and the green one there is previous exposure to Sr-90, all taken from government documents.

So what we're saying here with this is that the cancer epidemic that everybody knows exist has been caused by the exposure to these same fission products, these substances like Sr, Cs, Pu and U of course, which were generated during the weapons fallout. What all of these substances I mentioned have in common is that the doses, remember what we called absorbed doses as calculated by the ICRP are far too low to account for these cancers on the basis of their model. And the level of error is this in these different cases. These are all clear situations where we have increases in childhood leukemia near nuclear plants.

In all of these, just take the dose and calculate how many childhood leukemias you'd expect to find on the basis of ICRP model, you are out by these factors. You notice that one of the factors is 300 the minimum factor, that is an interesting number, because it comes up again and again, and some of you will know that there's been a recently, a very large study done by the German cancer registries, the childhood cancer registry which shows the effect...

RvM (Roland von Malmborg): Could you in other words explain Barsebäck for example, I do not understand what's standing there. [referring to a table on the powerpoint slide]

CB: What's standing there are the... Forget about this, this just came in somewhere else. This is a study that I've been doing in Wales which I'll come on to of Sellafield pollution, but anyway... What you have here is... In 1983 they discovered an increase in childhood leukemia near the Sellafield nuclear plant. They looked to see what the doses were to children and they had a dose of so many Sv, it was a dose of about 400 microSv was the dose from the releases. Now, on the basis of the relationship between radiation and cancer, and leukemia, using the ICRP model, they have a risk factor which you can directly translate to doses into the number of cancers that you'd expect to find.

And what you do you work out the number of cancers that the ICRP will say would occur on the basis of that dose, and you divide it into the actual number of cancers that you see, and the number that you get is that and you can call it like an error if you like, a mistake factor or something like that. That number comes up again and again. I've studied the Irish Sea coast, this is a very highly polluted area. Substances are pumped out of the Sellafield plant historically lots of plutonium, uranium and strontium and all that stuff. It ends up on the beaches, and the beaches are like this, they are muddy beaches, this a beach in Northern Ireland in a place called Carlingford. And this is a map of Carlingford. And we went and knocked on doors and we asked all of the houses in this whole area how many cancers there were, you can see that the cancers are all next to the coast.

The rate of cancer by the distance from the coast is given by this. So as you go further away from the coast you get a rapid falloff of cancer. We also found this in the Irish Sea studies in, here we are, in Wales. So this is childhood cancer by distance from the coast in Wales, and this is adult cancer for all these different things, all cancers, leukemia, breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, all by distance from the sea. So there is a sea coast effect associated with polluted coast where there are fine sediments.

XX (unknown): Question here? There has been that you have more people may live by the sea compared with...

CB: No this is all factored in. And the age of people, and social class, and everything you can imagine is factored in. I have to go fast here you know.

XX: No, but I just want to...

CB: This is a hot particle from Sellafield that has turned up in an edible mussel. So that is just to show you that that stuff is there. Ok, now this is another nuclear site at Bradwell in Essex. This is representing breast cancer risk, and this is also a very muddy estuary, this is the sea here. So this is the muddy estuary here, this is the nuclear power station, and you can see that the risks are much higher close to the radioactive mud.

We kind of know what the reason is, because the sea influence of the waves causes a resuspension of particles in the fine sediment, and then they blow ashore, and they drop out over a period of approximately the same distance that you see that the effect of they exist, and it is about 1 km.
So people living within about 1 km of the coast inhale fine levels of plutonium and in fact we find them in autopsy specimen so we know that they are there. You can cut up animals and you can cut up human beings, in fact the National Radiological Protection Board did just that, and showed that there was plutonium inside the tracheal bronchite lymph nodes on people living near the coast.

We set up a committee, I managed to get the British government to set up a committee, but effectively the minister who set it up was sacked by Tony Blair, and the final report was altered and constrained. So just to show you that people know about this. How much time have we got?

Allright, we can go back to this then. Well, anyone who wants to know about this CERRIE process, will find a lot on the internet. The disgraceful way in which the, this attempt to bring these issues to the attention of the government was controlled and altered by legal threats and all sorts of shenanigans. But we made the minority report, which is called the CERRIE minority report, and that's available and you can buy that it gives the whole story. And also my book “Wolves of water” were I talk a lot about this stuff too.

Now, there is an unequivocal proof in the error in the ICRP model. This was published in the year 2000, but it has never been cited by any of the radiological risk people, in any of their publications, they just completely ignored it. This looks at leukemia in infants, not only in Wales and Scotland, because this is Wales and Scotland that I talked about, but it was first brought attention to in scientific and medical public, in peer review literature, that there was an increase of infant leukemia in Scotland just after the Chernobyl accident, and then also in Greece, and then also in Germany and then also in America and then I came in with my Wales and Scottish studies.

So we've got five different studies that all show that there was a sharp increase in infant leukemia, that is leukemia in children in the age group nought to one, who were in the womb at the time of the Chernobyl accident. Now you will probably not know but the Chernobyl accident in terms of absorbed dose produced very little absorbed dose.

So the maximum absorbed dose into a foetus, into a child in the womb, was in the region in the Chernobyl affected territories was about 2 mSv, just think of that as a number. That's about the same as the natural background radiation range that you will get in a whole year, 2 mSv. It's approximately the same, so if we're talking about dose this dose is not very big. So any person at any time will get a dose of 2 mSv. But there was an extra dose of from the Chernobyl accident in the Chernobyl affected territories of 2 mSv according to the radiation risk people.

And by the time you get to a place like Scotland, the dose was about 100 microSv, that's 0.1 of a Sv, allright... 0.1 of a mSv, so that's about one twentieth of the natural background average dose in a year. So these are tiny tiny doses as absorbed doses. Of course they are not absorbed doses in that sense becasue they are not external radiation, they have to do with internal radiation from these isotopes that were released from Chernobyl, Cs-137, Te-132, I-131, and Plutonium came to Wales too.

So there were internal doses to these infants, and we looked only at those infants who were exposed in the womb at the time, over the period of the Chernobyl accident. And here's the numbers for Wales and Scotland combined, and you can see, you don't have to be epidemiologists, to see, I mean they are small numbers, but you can see that just after Chernobyl, the rate went up. You see? It went up by a factor of about four.

We also know that in Greece it went up by a factor of about three I think, in Germany by a factor of two and interestingly in America by a factor 1.5, and in Belarus, which is nearly the only place where anyone published, it went up by quite a small amount, about 1.4, about 40%. So the effect was not dose related, but the effect was certainly there. And so using that we can see what the ICRP model predicted on the basis of the doses, we can divide it into the number of children who were actually diagnosed with leukemia in that year, in that cohort and what we got was a factor of about 300. So we're back to that number of 300. So there seems to be some error in the ICRP risk model regarding internal radionuclides of the order of 300 to maybe a thousand.

Of course the radiation risk community said that there was no problem after Chernobyl. This is Alberto Gonzalez talking in 2000 at a conference in Kiev. And there's an interesting DVD if anyone wants to see this, it's from a film that was made by Swiss television called “Atomic Lies” about the way in which that conference resulted in all sorts of bias and dishonesty and coverup and general skullduggery by people like Gonzales. These people are crooks, they should go to jail, no question. I would maybe say worse... Maybe they should just be sent to a deserted island somewhere, with a lot of nuclear waste.

And this is Alexey Yablokov who is a member of the Russian academy of sciences and he is at the same conference saying that members of the Soviet statistical ministry were arrested for falsifying health records. It was so bad that they actually reduced the number of leukemias in the Chernobyl cleanup workers to the extent that people ended up more healthy than the general public.

So nobody was allowed to record leukemia after Chernobyl you see. And of course, when somebody did start calling attention to problems, like professor Yurij Bandashevsky, also a member of the ECRR, and coming to this conference in Greece, he was locked up by the government for eight years of hard labour. And that is also in this DVD. So we're talking about some very heavy people here, some very big dodds. And I'm so glad to have their representative here, Dr Valentin, because I should be asking him some serious questions about this.

Now if you want to know what happens about Chernobyl there is a book that we have just re-published.
We published it in 2006 and now there's a new edition of it, 2009. And what is happening in the Chernobyl affected territories, it's disastrous, it's terrible. People are dying like flies. The average life span has come down by 10 years, the birth rate has fallen catastrophically. In 5 children only one of them is healthy, 4 children are unhealthy, it is just appalling. If you listen to Bandazhevsky talking about this, I know there are other people from there.

And all this information was published in Russian language peer reviewed literature, some of it in the west, and none of it has been considered by any of western radiological risk agencies. The ICRP report in 2007, which was the latest one, barely mentions Chernobyl.

Now I will finish by talking about depleted uranium, or what I call uranium weapons. This is the latest tragedy in the pollution of the environment, and many of you will know that uranium is a by-product of the nuclear industry that has been re-used in the last 20 years or 18 years as a weapon in order to destroy tanks and it causes a whole range of effects in people living in the countries where it has been used, and also in veterans who've been firing it and have been exposed to it generally.

I've been to Iraq and I've been to Kosovo, I measured the stuff, it sticks around a long time and flies all over the place. There I am in Kosovo in a nuclear biological kit on Nippon television. We brought back depleted uranium, one year after it had been used it was still there.

So this is my final theoretical falsification of the ICRP model, it has to do with the uranium and its ability to absorb gamma rays which I talked about earlier. I have been drawing attention to this since 2002, but more recently it has become more important because we managed to get the story into a number of journals.

Uranium has this high atomic number, it absorbs about 200 000 times more radiation gamma rays than background radiation. This is a 4th power relationship between the atomic number of uranium and the effective atomic number of water. We say that the effective atomic number on water is one, we just ratio it all after that.

Uranium will absorb 585 000 times more gamma rays. Where does that energy go to? Well it goes into the tissue where the uranium is. Now where is that tissue? We find that the tissue is the DNA, because uranium binds very strongly to the DNA. The affinity constant for uranium in DNA has been measured by an American called Nielsen, and it's extremely high. So it means that very low concentration of uranium, we can't be certain about this because this is all done in a test tube, we don't know about people, so experiments need to be done. But we certainly know that uranium is likely to be on the DNA, so if you're reckless on the DNA and its absorbing all this radiation.

Where does the energy go? Well it goes into these fast electrons that I was talking to you about, but in this case the electrons are called photoelectrons and they whiz out of the uranium which is stuck on the DNA. And they whiz into the DNA. This is a coil of the DNA, corrupted.

And this is what it looks like when you take a cross section of it, and this is a uranium ion, uranyl, uranyl 2++, on the same scale as the cross section as the DNA. So you can see, having uranium on the DNA standing in natural background is not very good for the health. Now, we have actually done a study of this, using a FLUKA model, which is developed by CERN in Geneva to look at particle physics. My colleague Andreas has done this study, and he sends a beam into a 10 nanometer diameter hypothetical uranium particle in a vacuum.

And he compares the absorption of this with the absorption of water and gold particles of the same diameter. I'm asking you to look at the top of this now. In this one he puts in 100 000 photons, so we got 4 electron tracks out of the little particle of water if you put in 100 000 photons of natural background radiation.

You see what this experiment is, it's having a hypothetical water or tissue particle, and it's bathing in natural background radiation and it's looking to see how much, how many fast electrons come out. And you can see 4 fast electrons come out for 100 000 photons. For gold, which has an atomic number of 72 or something, 79 I forget, anyway, that sort of order. So it's got quite a high atomic number though, you get a lot more. This is only 1000 photons and you got all of these tracks, and of course uranium 1000 photons you got a lot of tracks.

And this is not hypothetical, because a man in America called Heinfeld has done this experiment with mice and he's put gold nano-particles into tumours in mice and irradiated with X-rays and he's destroyed the tumours. So he's actually using this, he has patented the method to destroy tumours. So therefore it works. So this falsifies the ICRP model theoretically due to the uranium exposure, and the ICRP model underpins all the military arguments that uranium weapons are safe. So I think at that point, I have to say check mate.

This is a uranium bomb in Lebanon.

CB: What?
[explanation of the meaning of the word “underpin”]

So this is my uranium thing. These are the conclusions, I'll finish with this.
* The increases in childhood leukemia and other childhood cancers are primarily caused by exposure to internal man-made radionuclides.
* The ICRP model which is used to underpin the operation nuclear power and discharges of radiation in the environment are just nonsense, they are embarrassingly wrong. These people should just... They should put on sack cloth and ashes and check into a monastery for the rest of their lives, just sit down and kneal in a penitentiary and prayer.

This is arguable in terms of theory, and it's clear epidemiological studies, specifically in the Chernobyl infants. The current cancer epidemic in adults has the same cause, and therefore it's time to reassess the risks of radiation. And here's the yield. You see, 61 million cancer deaths. 1,600,000 infant deaths.
This is the whole of the nuclear releases since 1945 to 1995, I think up to 1992 I've got here.

There's a loss of quality of life. And the blame for this can be squarely placed at the door of those scientists and administrators who developed and supported the scientific risk model. And I say that this is a war crime. This is a crime. And it has far greater in magnitude than any that has occurred in recorded human history. This is serious, serious stuff. And if I make jokes sometimes, it's because I have to deal with the extraordinary awkwardness of it. And you can learn more about it from these web sites. Thank you.


MG: I'd like to ask the audience to try to please keep the questions to later, at the break.

JV (Jack Valentin): Thanks Miles, thanks Chris for your presentation, it was quite interesting. And thanks also for being here. I'm thinking it is fairly difficult to get into your line of thinking. We haven't seen your earlier published material in peer reviewed press. That has changed, certainly, I admit that. But, it may signify, I believe, some sort of a change in attitude that you've actually invited us to participate at your conference in Greece. I am not the right person to go, in fact back at the time of *** I knew a little bit of genetics, now I know quite a lot about how to shuffle papers.

We have about 20 people currently this very week at a meeting in the US discussing the details of internal emitters and problems with dose calculations, problems of uncertainties, all of that stuff. In May there will be a large international meeting where I've seen that a lot of the people from ICRP will participate. I didn't see any of names from the ECRR, but maybe you are there, maybe it's just that I don't know the names.

So what I'm trying to say is there seems to have been a little bit, your culture and it's an advantage if perhaps we can get slightly closer and talk to each other and of course I am happy if we can avoid throwing rotten eggs at each other, perhaps discuss what might be the technical differences between our ***.

So what I'm trying to say here is first of all: What is ICRP? And what are our roles of those organizations. And what is the development where we started out with the intention of protection of medical staff and our hope is that we're protecting man and the environment. Then a little bit about radiation risks and the scope of radiological protection and effects, and something about where we seem to agree more or less, and something about the areas where we certainly don't agree.

It all began as you all know in 1895, this nice picture shows Röntgen demonstrating his X-rays in Wurzburg. This is interesting, because the X-ray tube is actually completely unshielded, so all of these people are exposed to radiation, and wouldn't *** to happen.

Radiation which quickly was found to be dangerous only after one year and an American named Emil Grubbé described dermatitis due to exposure. He was a person with vivid imagination, so much of what he later said turned out to be completely false. But certainly he was one of the very first victims of radiation. And another American, Wolfgang Fuchs, published some advice on protection of hands at that time which actually summarizes the roots of radiological protection already after one year: Reduce the time that you are exposed, keep a distance to the source and shield yourself if you can't do these other things.

And at the same time was one of my favourites, Madame Curie was working in Paris. Not to easy to be a single mother there at the university which hated women and thought they couldn't understand mathematics and she made lots of interesting and important discoveries and then unfortunately she died of leukemia which almost certainly depended on her own exposure to radiation.

During the early 20th century concerns about radiation and safety escalated, because more and more doctors had most terrible wounds, many of them actually died. This was the beginning of ICRP which was formed in 1928 under a different name, the International X ray and Radium Protection Committee.
And as it happened that was here in Stockholm and the first chairman was Rolf Sievert, known because of the name of the unit. Most Swedes have no idea that we had a famous scientist here who is instrumental in making sure that radiological protection exist.

We're a registered charity in the UK, we're established to advance the public benefit of radiological protection by providing recommendations and guidance on ionizing radiation. And the structures is such that there's a main commission, this is currently lead by the chief medical officer of this country, the head of the Swedish national health services, Socialstyrelsens generaldirektör Lars-Erik Holm. And then we have five different committees dealing with various aspects of protection.

I have just retired, so for the next period a Canadian called Chris Clement is taking over my job. He was head of radiological protection at the Canadian licensing authority until he took the job. And this summer a radiologist in the UK, Claire Cousins, will take over as chair person. And of course this structure is now 500 years ago. We can see the chair person, over here I'm talking to my wife.

However, as you've already heard, not just Chris but I think Chris had the nuclear industry seem to agree on one thing, that this might be a representation of ICRP, because you need to recall that while Chris is talking about us underestimating risks something horrid, there are large other groups of scientists, which I find equally strange, who are claiming that we're over-estimating the risks. That the risks are not at all the size we say.

A few words about what we are and what we're not. Because the three organizations that Chris represents, Green Audit, the Low Level Radiation Campaign, and the European Committee on Radiation Risks, they all have information on their web sites which is patently false and misleading about ourselves. We were created by radiologists, not as it says by the LLRC, by the nuclear industry, also we were not created by ourselves.

We are independent, we are self-elected to remain independent. I might add that Greenpeace, an organization quite negative to nuclear is also self-elected. The French academy of sciences, is very positive to nuclear power, is also self-elected. We do not have a position on nuclear power, it's not our remit to say that nuclear power is good or bad.

We're financed by grants from governments and by sales of reports. We do not get one red cent from the nuclear industry. We are primarily biologists and medical doctors, quite a lot of physicist, but there are more biologists and medical doctors. We have public health experts and many other kinds of people, mostly from universities and expert bodies, and a lot of people from regulating authorities. We're not from, by not supported by or checked by anything from the nuclear industry.

In the cosmic scheme the United Nations has a scientific committee on effects of atomic radiation (UNSCEAR) where they publish huge reports in which, I fail to say, much about Chris work, which may be because they are all so stupid. The committee is very large and it looks quite a lot of people who are working since many many years with radiation.

This series is published on direct orders of the General Assembly. And that remit is to say here is how much radiation there is, and this is how dangerous it is. We use their material to express: Because there is much radiation, and because it's supposed to be this dangerous we think that you should “Blah blah blah”.

In order to be practically useful that in turn has to be translated into legal *** which are both by the UN, this is the most thing for the world at large, and by the European Union which is perhaps more important in a country like Sweden or the UK. They translate our recommendations into regulations which are of the sort: Thou shalt.

The early recommendations from the ICRP were only concerned with occupational exposures in medicine and had very high dose limits. Then we realized that perhaps other people than just people in medicine work with radiation. And at the time of course radiation was basically good for you, there were safe thresholds, people thought, there would be no alignment of concern. What we see here is face powder which is radioactive to make your irradiant, this is a radioactive compress, this is a headoscope to check the size of your shoes, in case you *** just the feeling.

Then things changed with advent of accelerators, reactors, fallout, the tragic event with the Japanese fishing boat, “The Lucky Dragon” which was exposed from Bikini. We were renamed ICRP because we realized that there were so many more things than just X-rays and radon. Excess leukemias were observed among the survivors in Japan, and radiation had become a concern for the public.

So then we published further reports where we realized that it was important not just to avoid burning holes in your cells, which is what we had worked with before, but also to minimize genetic damage and cancers, this is what is called the stochastic model. And we realized that because, as we agree with Chris, any dose of radiation confers some level of risk. There's no safe dose. And because of that we felt that a dose limit is not really an important thing, the really important thing is to reduce doses below whatever limit there are. This popularization, the requirements from that has increased more and more, and at the same time developments where risks appear to be higher on the spikes in Japan than what we had thought first caused us to reduce the dose limits as well. And we developed this system of protection where any use of radiation has to be justified, i.e., more good than harm.

Protection has to be optimized, doses has to be as low as reasonable achievable. Why not technically achievable? Well, if you go to the dentist you put plasterboards, gipsskivor, in the wall to avoid radiation to the public. You can have five meters of plaster boards and you'd still be able to detect some radiation outside that. There comes a time when you feel enough is enough.

Right, I'm in the final stage with the applications of dose limits. One of the seminal people here was Karl Morgan, a friend of Alice Stewart's and Rosalie Bertell's, who was the person who organized for us to know how to determine internal emitters. And together with a report on external radiation these reports [ICRP Report 2 and 3] that were published around the end of the fifties established ICRP as what was universally decided the leading international radiation protection authority.

Now, one of the problems of course is that we have uneven distributions of radiation, and this was addressed in 1977. We thought at that time that we knew how to weight a whole body dose of uneven distributions. And Wolfgang Jacobi devised the effective dose equivalent which permits combinations of exposures from different sources at different times from external and internal exposures and permits comparisons of different exposures.

And all of this of course is very practically important in protection. The documents up to 1990 happen to be more logical than readable I must confess. Incidentally for the Swedish participants I can just confirm that yes, my cartoons are made by the single mother, “Ensamma mamman”, known to most Swedes of our age.

The 2007 ICRP recommendations that Chris mentioned, they cover all exposures, including those to other species than man. We still have a lot of work to do before we have a fully functional system but at least we claim that is how it ***. And we have introduced details about something we call dose constraints, levels of individual dose below the limits in order to focus more on the individual's rights, with updated designs that the overall risk estimates remain much the same as it were in 1990.

During this process, which included a ten year period with two completely public consultations, we got comments, not the least from... not from Chris as far as I can remember but from your friends in LLRC, which compared me and my friends to Hitler, which was interesting. Because not just our documents but also the comments that are put from the public on our documents on our documents, are on this website, so you can see that there is at least one of Chris' colleagues who regards me as Hitler, something I find somewhat revoking with my Jewish heritage.

The report in 2007 updated tissue weighting factors. I am not going to go through the details, it's just to indicate the amount of science that we produce. Radiation weighting factors were updated. We have new computational phantoms, Chris showed you an older phantom which we used in the past, we now have a much more realistic phantom, based on real fetus, and real human beings, with.... Recall of course that accidents must not happen, which is a human failure problem.

We state that the effective dose that we use is there just for protection purposes. It is not something that is supposed to be used for exact calculations of individual risks. It's there for prospective planning of protection. If you have an individual person exposed then you need to do something else. Likewise the collective effective dose is for protection purposes, for optimization, for comparing options, but not for risk assessment, and particularly not for predicting the number of cancer deaths due to trivial exposures to large populations.

If you multiply a very small number, i.e., the risk to an individual after most types of exposure, with a very large number, i.e., a large population all of whom are exposed, you get huge uncertainties. So with “our” methodology, some people would stand up and say, the risk from Chernobyl would be 40,000 deaths, while some others would say, no it's 400,000. And we wouldn't be able to say which one is right, that's the sort of error you get. And therefore, we would say it's much more important to focus on the fact that Chernobyl was a tragic accident, it must not happen again. This is a completely different take on the problem.

So basically also we have the problem with collective dose that it's logical in a sense that it equates many small doses to a few large doses. But is it right? No, not necessarily. Think of road traffic accidents where about 500 people die every year in a country like this. And people don't give a shit. But if an aeroplane falls down and 500 people die at one time, well then it is a big problem. So we're not logical in other aspects, and therefore need not be logical in radiation.

The ethics we're basing all of this on is utilitarian at the outset. A utilitarian feels that an action is good if the consequences cause net benefits to the whole of society. And justification and optimization are exactly that.

Chris was using Star Wars, so let me briefly go to, oh goodness, what was the name of Spock and Kirk... yes, Star Trek, thank you. The picture is from a scene where their battleship is somewhere in a problem and some thing's gone arise, somebody needs to be into a radiation area and press red button and die, and this saves the ship. And Spock says, I'll do it. Then Kirk says, no you can't, you'll die. And Spock says the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. And this is basically the philosophy underlining the justification of optimization.

However, we also have some duty ethics where we say some actions are right or wrong irrespective of their consequences. Of course dose limits in radiological protection are an example of that. You must not exceed the dose limit no matter what. Likewise these new dose constraints put more emphasis on duty ethics and more emphasis on protecting the individual.

And actually in the next part of Star Trek, suddenly Kirk said, we need to find the corpse of Spock because if we just pick up the corpse somewhere in this eternal space, then we'll surely make him live again. And people in the ship doubted that. But then Kirk said: the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. Or in this case perhaps the many were the viewers of Star Trek who needed Spock to be alive again. I put *** mother there, because we all need to protect our mothers, don't we?

So hopefully you would find the recommendations interesting if you've read them. Now, to finalize, radiation risk, well, what are the doses? We know that Chris doesn't like doses but let's at least know what they are. The natural background dose is 2.4 mSv earthly, half of which roughly comes from radon. The dose from other types of exposure, from man made exposures, is entirely dominated by medical diagnosis.

Nuclear power has increased over the years of course, the global average dose is 0.0002 mSv but if you live near a plant the dose would be 0.02 mSv. Some of these huge amounts of medical is of course justified, it save lives. I have been irradiated and happy because of it and you too. But there is a 600% increase in the US over the last 25 years. The collected dose due to medical radiation in the US is now just as much as the natural background, and more amazingly, the doses from the use of computer tomography are of the same order of magnitude as the total integrated dose for all time from Chernobyl. Another comparison of course, atmospheric weapons testing much much more than either of these, 20 million manSv.

Of course this comparison is unfair because medical radiation is used basically for good purposes. But imagine that 1% of it could be taken away as unnecessary. And we all know that more than 1% is a waste. That would be the same as removing all occupational exposures, this gives you something to think about.

And of course lots of doctors perhaps they will not send you to a CT examination just for a common cold. But here's a web site where you can buy a gift certificate to give to your friends so they go through some more radiation

Here is another example, publicity material from a computer tomography machine producer who says, if only you maximize the number of patients, you can take ten patients a day, and then you earn two million dollars in five years. Not the sort of message we would like to send around. But then on the other hand of course you don't want to go to a dentist who is more happy to pull you teeth rather than take an X-ray of them.

You might say that I put too much emphasis on medicine, it is not to say that Chernobyl is a small matter, it is to say that we have many different problems and I think medical misuse of radiation is also a big problem.

The effects of radiation as we heard are basically in the DNA. DNA can be repaired such that there is no effect, this happens most of the time, all the time. I'm radioactive, you're radioactive, 5000 disintegrations every second in my body. Most of them repaired, of course. The cell could die, and if many cells die you get a hole in your body. And basically this can kill you if it is a nasty hole. And then, the worst part is if the cell survives but is mutated, which case of course you can get a cancer or genetic effect.

Our basic assumptions are that high doses are needed to get these deterministic effects but that all forms of dose can give you cancer or hereditary effects, and we believe that a linear no threshold model is suitable to talk about the possible effects. If you look at the whole of the dose range, obviously, if you have high doses you can get more than linear effects. If you have this area, we extrapolate a linear no threshold model. Chris doesn't like that because he feels that in this area there are higher risks. And I think, if I understand you right, that you wouldn't like me even to use the term dose because of the other type of effects you talked about.

Some other people talk about thresholds which make this area completely safe, and some people are even talking about hormesis where they claim that it's good for you to be irradiated with low doses.
So there are all sorts of people...

XX: [Question about deterministic vs stochastic effects]

JV: Deterministic is when you get a burn, when you get a hole in. because cells die. Stochastic that's when you randomly occurring cancer or genetic damage.

The health effects we're talking about, well, if you have a high dose, then certainly you can see both radiation sickness of this kind, and cancer, and you can determine at these stages that there is a direct relationship between the individual person's death and radiation.

And this is what Abel was talking about, what ICRP, and Abel Gonzales and of course also think is that we're absolutely sure that there are many many cancer cases where you can prove that there are cancer cases, that there is an excess, but you cannot prove for a specific individual that this person got cancer simply because of radiation. And to claim that Abel would not accept this is falsification, you can't say this kind of thing, people won't listen to you. I believe honestly that you have important thing to say. Don't waste time on such silly comments when you can talk about the technicalities, well perhaps you could convince us that some of our ideas are wrong.

Then we have a really low area where we still believe because of biological reasoning that there is cancer due to radiation but where we cannot even prove the existence of these cancers. It's just because of logical thinking.

So the probability coefficients that we are working with are at this moment in time 5.7% for the whole population, and a little less for adults, as children are more sensitive. It used to be slightly higher but we state very clearly that of course there is uncertainty, so when you're using these numbers for protection purposes the overall risk coefficient of 5.7% is appropriate.

So are we underestimating the risks? Well, that depends whose eyes you're looking with. It pleases me that at least I'm not at the end of a scale.

So where do we agree? Well, I don't think that we have any discrepancy when it's about deterministic effects of high doses. When we talk about low doses from external sources there are differences but not huge ones, like interpretations of epidemiology, assumptions about repair, non-targeted effects, modeling for genetic risk, whereas, as pensioner I can say that I personally believe that ICRP has overdone it a bit, that the risk is a bit higher there because of certain assumptions that I think were wrong.

The exposures from intakes are more complicated, we agree about that. There's variable duration, there's heterogeneity, there's uncertainties of a lot of things, including the photoelectric effect that Chris has been talking about here. But there are also some areas where we disagree.

First of all the concept of dose where we feel that the model we're using is actually useful for radiological protection purposes. You calculate the intake, you add by kinetic and dosimetric models which I believe Chris would agree with. You get the absorbed dose, you weight that with radiation and tissue weighting factors to get an effective dose, i.e., the dose that would apply to the whole body. And our position is that no better alternative exists, and the averaging implicit in dose is acceptable for protection purposes.

Chris some years ago suggested what he calls the second event theory that binding of Strontium in DNA causes a type of overburdening of the repair system. It was a brilliant idea but it is as far as I've been told by people who understand that better than me mathematically incorrect. The photoelectric excess effect we talked about. It exists but the experts that I've been talking to are assuring me that it is nowhere near as big as proposed by Chris.

We feel that epidemiology supports the use of dose for internal emitters if we look at the nuclear workers. If we look at radon, which is consistent from miners and residential ***, and where you get similar doses both from epidemiology and dosimetry.

If we look at thorotrast, a radioactive contrast medium that was used many years ago, if we look at plutonium. So we think that there is a burden on our back but we can still perhaps do this correctly.
Thank you.


MG: We will take a 15 maximum minute break and get back for an interaction and questions. Thank you. Oh, by the way, we will bring on some music, that music has been made by Chris.

[Continued in Part 2: The debate/interview between Chris Busby and Jack Valentin]
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 Dec 2008, 21:08
Location: Wako-shi, Saitama, Japan

Return to The Deep Repository

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests