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

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

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

Postby Lantzelot » 23 Dec 2012, 13:38

Part 3, continued from Part 2: The debate/interview between Chris Busby and Jack Valentin

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 3: Questions from the audience

XX: ...philosophy, but unfortunately one tried to repeat these experiment, we wrote about it, and I can say that I have tried to see what has happened since then. And they have not been able to repeat these experiments showing that heavy Auger electrons were much more harmful, but maybe there have been experimental faults in it but it was real experimental work on mice and very puzzling to me still why it has happened so that they are not able to really show that Auger electrons emitters are more harmful. They should be, they go into the DNA and they might be so but still no answer on it. I just tell you that there are things that has not been resolved in the radiation protection area.

CB: Well we talk about Auger emitters, yeah? Ok, well, we considered Augers emitters in CERRIE, and nothing ever came of it, because nothing much came of CERRIE but in the ECRR we put a weighting on Auger emitters, so they carry a weighting. This is what the ECRR does. The weighting factors that the ICRP use which are weighting factors of ionization density which they add to alpha particles, we also add to Auger emitters, and they will get a separate weighting if the Auger emitting element binds to DNA, because obviously if you have bound to DNA and Auger emission you will get twice the effect. So that is included in the ECRR along with a lot of other things that the ICRP model don't include.

JV: I am aware of that there are different studies pointing in different directions and I can just confirm that Auger electrons are on the table for discussion on almost every meeting.

CB: But nothing gets done?

JV: That was an unnecessary comment.

CB: Well it's nevertheless true, wasn't it Jack. You know, these people, I get irritated by this endless, endless sort of, you know, prorogation.

JV: As long as you get opposing results from different studies it is very hard to recommend something which makes a great difference in for instance nuclear medicine.

CB: Yeah, ok.

RR: Roland Reinholdsson, NGO organization SERO, Swedish renewable energy organization, and I will ask Miles to translate my question into English.
Efter Tjernobyl så har man fått väldigt små skördar, minskande skördar av frukt, och man har fått minskande antal insekter, bin och flugor och så vidare. Och samtidigt så ställer jag mig frågan, har det här någon betydelse när vi ser att ett av de stora utsläppen från våra svenska kärnkraftverk är radioaktiva gaser. Vi har haft väldigt mycket utsläpp av tritium, visserligen har de inte så stor påverkan, från läckage i turbinerna i Oskarshamn. Men vi har andra utsläpp av Krypton-81, Krypton-85, vi har utsläpp av Radon, Xenon, alla dessa radioaktiva ämnen med 14 nollor efter, utsläpp som varje år adderas i naturen. Kommer det att påverka våra insekter eftersom de har en väldigt kort livscykel?
[After Chernobyl there are very small harvests, decreased harvests of fruit, and there is a decrease in the number of insects, bees and flies and so on. And at the same time I am asking myself, does it have any importance when we see that one of the large releases from our Swedish nuclear power plants are radioactive gases. We have had very large releases of tritium, though they do not have so much impact, from leaks in the turbines at Oskarshamn. But we have other releases of Kr-81, Kr-85, we have releases of Radon, Xenon, all these radioactive elements with 14 zeroes after, releases that every year is added in nature. Will this affect our insects due to their short life cycles?]

CB: Ok. There have been many many anecdotal reports similar to yours, and in this book here there is a lot of evidence that the radiation from Chernobyl affected the entire animal kingdom in the areas where the contamination was. So the answer is clearly that around nuclear sites there will be similar effects. There was a study done in Plymoth of the tritium released from the naval dockyard there, which showed that the developmental and larveal stages of a number of marine creatures, invertebrates, were affected by tiny doses of tritium, the effective doses were well below 1 mSv. And tritium of course is of concern because it is beta emitter with very short range, very low energy beta emitter, so for 1 mSv of radiation from tritium you have lots and lots of hits, lots and lots of tracks. And this may well be the reason, but of course it's just, you can't wait.

JV: Well, not just perhaps. Let me take another take on this because, it's known already since the 60's in experimental systems if you irradiate populations of fruit flies generation after generation, they actually produce more flies, more unit by mass per unit food put into the experimental system, which proves of course a fact which is not all that nice, it proves that radiation causes mutations and for a population, the population might actually be served in certain circumstances by a high mutation rate but of course it is at the cost of “suffering” for the individuals, because many of these mutations will be useless and harmful. So there's no question of course that radiation causes genetic mutations. These might be bad for individuals, they are not necessarily bad for the population. And if you now go to Chernobyl, of course there's quite a lot of wild life, there's quite a lot of plants and animals living there very happily. And one of the major disturbance factors has gone away, this is the people who lived there.

MG: We are all mutants.

AW: My name is Andrej Wojcik, I am from the Stockholm University, I am a radiation biologist since 25 years, I am the vice president of the European Radiation Society. I do not belong to any agency, I am not associated with either UNSCEAR or the ICRP or any other radiation protection authority, I'm a researcher.

It's more like a comment that I would like to give. I think I know the literature related to the problems of low dose exposure, because I have worked with effects of low dose exposure. For every publication that you've showed, for every evidence you that you showed, I could show two other papers, for example from the book of Don Luckey, about hormetic effects of low levels of radiation. As you mentioned we could throw at each other papers showing quite different effects, and nothing would come out of it. And you see, you have been talking a lot about childhood leukemia, the German study, this newest case control study which was published, the so called KiKK study. The problem there was that they found, there's no question, they found a cluster of leukemia around German nuclear power plants, but it was certainly not due to radiation. There are other factors that cause childhood leukemia, there has been a number of studies, not only in England, not only by Richard Doll, showing that there are clusters of leukemia around nuclear power plants that were built, also around other large industrial entities. With respect to nuclear power plants that were never run, that were never operated. And we simply don't know why these clusters arise.

The situation in low doses of ionizing radiation is very similar to electromagnetic fields, to the question of healthy food or not healthy food, the effect of food on cancer, the effect of sunlight...well sunlight is clear, but, yes electromagnetic fields I think is a good example. The effect that you talk about of ionizing radiation in the range of up to a few mSv are so low, just like electromagnetic field, just like factors in the food. They are so low that you cannot repeat them up. And there are so many other confounders that influence the results of the study that it is basically impossible to say from at least the epidemiological evidence it is not there, and it will never be there, because the number of people affected are too low to give statistical power to these studies, you would never be able to show that radiation in the low dose region is harmful.

You have mentioned Chernobyl. Well, these studies that you talked about, about childhood leukemia after Chernobyl. There are quite a number of studies showing that this is not true. With respect to life expectancy, in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, it has gone down by ten years, approximately, and this is due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the medical health care system.

CB: How do you know?

AW: Because I come from Poland, I know how it looks like.

CB: You cannot know these things.

AW: Oh, yes. There is a major report published by the WHO about the effects of Chernobyl, where all these factors are mentioned. I really don't see why WHO should be biased.

CB: You must know...

AW: No I must not know. I am a serious scientist.

CB: Well I find your remarks very interesting because I hear this a lot. Because you believe you know you are right, and your mind is closed to the evidence. You tell me, you say that the statistical power of studies, epidemiological studies, the statistical power is too low to determine whether or not there are low dose effects or not. But you can only say that if you already know what those effects are. Do you not see this, I mean, can you not see that the vast pit into which you have fallen there? Because in order to say that the statistical power should be something you have to have a risk factor to begin with, to know what the numbers of people that you are going to find will be. And therefore you are using the risk factor which we are attacking in order to generate the statistical power which you then say doesn't exist. It's just bad science I'm afraid.

Now what I'm saying you should do, and maybe you say you mustn't do anything, because obviously you know the answer, but what I would invite you to take that video, there's a DVD there, which you can have. You can play it on a DVD player, it is quite entertaining. And it shows a Swiss television documentary about a most important meeting in Kiev about the Chernobyl accident. And in that video you will see two people covering up the effects of the Chernobyl accident on camera, on camera. So I invite you to have a look at that. And when you wonder why I get irritated and why I say the things I do it's because I continuouly having to face people who believe that they are right on the basis that they are scientists and therefore they feel superior to everybody else.

AW: You see, research is not based on looking for truth, research is based on finding correlations between facts and for this we have certain mechanisms. There are statistical mechanisms to evaluate the power of studies, and the way how to perform studies. When I hear you say that you have been going around knocking on people's doors and asking if they got cancer, I'm sorry but this is not serious science.

CB: Why?

AW: Because it proves that you are from the very beginning biased.

CB: Why is it not serious? Are they going to say that they have cancer when they don't have cancer?

AW: No but because they...

CB: Why would they say that they don't have cancer when...

AW: It is exactly the same like when you look at the effect of mobile phones. You talk with people and you start to collect data based on what the people... They experience harm from using mobile phones because they have head aches and this is a proof for the dangerous effects of electromagnetic fields. I don't claim that people have no head ache. Of course they will have head ache, but this is not a reasonable way to approach the problem. It is not reasonable way to go to people and knock at the doors and ask whether they have cancer in the household, in the family. And even for the simple reason because you will no be able to get an appropriate control group by this approach.

CB: Well, you are wrong, we can talk about this afterwards but you can get an appropriate control group.

MG: I'd just like to say that we have to be out of this room by 4, so I think we will take a break at quarter to, and then...

BC: My name is Björn Cedervall, I am a medical radiation biologist, I have been in the field for about 35 years. And various independent institutions and so on. I have three points I'd like to comment. The first is about the risk factor, five percent fatal cancers per Sievert as Jack said, and this number comes from survivors of those who received doses at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that's a very unfortunate event of course in the history, but that's a major event of available information of what you can get from very high dose rate exposure.

So what else could you use when you discuss the statistical... If we take for instance the German study you would need of the order of ten million children in order to be able to see if low doses cause those cancers in order to detect an increase in cancer.

Now there's another way of looking at childhood leukemias, and that is, you said, Chris, at the end of your talk, this about population mixing stuff for example like that. I think this is very important, you should all listen to this very carefully, because if you look at the literature, what people are doing to understand why certain children get cancers and in particular from common *** one called ALL, Acute Lymphatic Leukemia. It turns out that there are a number of other associated factors, associated economic factors, population mixing stuff, infections, there is a lot, it's been suspected for 250 years.

Now there is definite proof that some viruses, these are DNA sequence-specific so we know exactly what these viruses are doing. Some children obviously get these infections during pregnancy when the mothers are pregnant. And these cause specific transmutations which is rearranging the chromosomes and so on, we understand what happens.

Now, we're talking about so called relative risks, the German study, it tells about a factor of 1.4, 1.7 or something like that depending on how you interpret it, but also that is at one of the nuclear power plants in Germany, Krummel.

There are other correlations with higher risk factors, they are not 1.5 but rather 4 or 5. And the strongest correlation I have found in literature is for Californian children eating hot dogs, and those who get more than 12 hot dog meals per month have a 480% increase which is a relative risk of 5.8. Increase in ALL, yes. I am not saying that hot dogs are causing the ALL but they are probably pointing at averages of poor economy and all that. There are other things like living near waste dumps or near highways and so on.

So there is a complex world and if you want to understand it you must go into the literature and look at this. It was not only Richard Doll came up with population mixing, there was a number of other authors.

The last thing I want to say to put some perspective into this. Jack, you mentioned the fruit flies, that was published about 40 years ago. And that experiment, they gave fruit flies, bananflugor, the equivalent of 60 Gy, which you translate into gamma radiation to people would be like 60 Sv, an enormous dose. Many generations they gave this, they followed them for two years. They repeated the experiment three times and and got the same result each time. I am not saying that radiation is good for you and that you should improve every one by irradiating them, because there are other factors too which I can't go into. But it tells something about the proportions, these 60 Gray.

Now, how much do we get in Sweden from all the nuclear power put together? Radiation-wise, we talk about 10 manSv. That...computerized tomography in Sweden gives us today about 3500 manSv per year, those are some relations and perspective.

CB: I don't think you were listening to my talk about dose. All of you and the previous gentleman that was talking have been using dose as some meaningful concept. You ask what different experiment that could be done. You say that on the basis of the risk model of Hiroshima that even...

BC: It is not a model it is a fact.

CB: No it's not, it's a model I'm afraid. The model is associated with taking a risk to Japanese survivors and transfer everywhere...given an enormously large external dose of gamma rays and using that as a model to look at the effects of people who were given doses of internal radiation, from Sr-90. Now, that is not scientifically valid however you put it. There is no scientific philosophy that would enable you to extract the experiences of people who were exposed to a single large acute dose and to convert that into chronic internal dose to substances that bind to DNA.

BC: ***

CB: The reason that you can't do that is quite straightforward and absolutely rational, is because you are talking about ultimately the density of the ionization of the DNA. And that is not going to be the same as this Auger gentleman was mentioning earlier. This is not going to be the same for a substance bound to the DNA which is kicking electrons into the DNA

BC: I was not talking about that. ***

CB: You are, because you are talking about absorbed dose, external acute radiation. I'm sorry, the external acute radiation exposure of the Hiroshima survivors is the basis of the risk model that Dr Valentin and his bunch of people are using to predict the effects of internal radiation, and this is not scientifically valid.

All right, I have one other point while I'm at it, and that's the other guy who was talking about mobile phone controversy. Ok, let's go there. Now, actually it is not about whether people think they might have had a headache once they phoned their friend on the mobile phone after somebody asked them in a questionnaire. No, it's about studies like studies by Olle Johansson at your Karolinska Institute who showed slides at the Royal Society when I was there last year, showing the damage to skin tissue from exposure to normal radiofrequency radiation from a mobile phone which was identical to the damage to skin tissue from fairly large doses of ionizing radiation.

Its also about acoustic neuroma studies which show that people who get brain tumours in their brains, following the use of mobile phones always get the brain tumour on the same side that they hold the mobile phones whether they are left handed or right handed.

So I am afraid there are ways that you can do studies that you may not feel are accurate or valid scientifically but which yet give the correct answer.

MG: We can give the gentleman a short response if you like.

BC: Ok, I just want to say one thing here, very clearly. I refer to external acute exposure. I have nothing against a separate scientific discussion about particle radioactivity and internal contamination and so on, but that's another discussion. But I don't like to get rotten tomatoes thrown at me about something that I did not say.

CB: All right...

BC: I compared external gamma radiation *** with internal gamma radiation ***. And most of the radiation we talk about, for instance exposure at the nuclear power plants...

CB: No!

BC:'s not, but if we talk about at the nuclear power plant it's not about the internal emitters...

CB: It is. It is about internal contaminants, it's about...

BC: We have our dosimeters and they are sensitive to gamma exposure.

CB: The cause of the childhood leukemias near the nuclear plants it's the external and the internal radiation from the releases from the plants, that's what they are saying. But what I am saying is that all of these topics which I put up here are about internal are about internal radiation from releases from the plants. The Sellafield...the leukemia all along the coast of Sellafield and all along the Welsh coast and all of these discoveries which I made from the epidemiology. All of those are due to exposures from internal radionuclides. I agree with them about external radiation, I don't have a big argument about external radiation.

If external radiation was as dangerous as I am saying internal radiation is nobody would ever come out of a hospital after having an X-ray, they would have died long ago, they would have just fallen down dead as soon as they get from the X-ray.

I don't have a problem with external radiation. External radiation, there is a particular number of ionizations per cell. I mean, we can calculate what it is. You can take the number of MeVs, you can divide it into the number of ionization events and you can say the density of ionization events is so many events per cc. You can do that. But if you stick a piece of Uranium there or some piece of Plutonium or some other piece of crap that produces this radioactivity intrinsically, then you get much much higher doses. I mean, one alpha track across the cell will give half a Sievert, one alpha track, and will probably kill the cell.

Now what is happening when you put a particle in there, which is solid Plutonium, or solid Uranium, which is producing all these beta emissions from photoelectrons and so on, you get a very high local density of ionization. And that's the concern that I have that this external risk model doesn't represent a proper assessment of the risk from that kind of exposure.

MG: It's now quarter to two. I'd like to continue to two. If people need to leave, please, feel free to do so.

JS: My name is Johan Swahn, I work for this...nuclear waste issue for the MKG organization. I am a physicist to start with, but I have worked mostly on policy issues, in nuclear policy for a long time.
I did wasn't working. But I've done some studies of radiation physics when I was at the university.

What I found is interesting is that exactly what you Chris were mentioning now, the difference between internal radiation and external radiation, and I understand the controversy. My thinking about this on an almost intuitive level, a scientific level, is that mankind has been exposed to natural radiation, Potassium-40 for example for a long time. And those particles have been a part of our evolution.

Now when we insert artificial radioactive particles, they might not end up in the body in the same way as natural radiation. Is this something that is being studied? I ask both of you actually about this, because maybe we are looking for some sort of understanding why it could be that internal radiation is perhaps more dangerous than what we thought about before. It can be likened perhaps with the chemical issues where we think that artificial chemical compounds are more dangerous than natural compounds. It's not necessarily true, but it can be. Sometime it is very true at least. Could it be that artificial radioactive particles or radioactive elements have a different function in our bodies compared to natural ones?

MG: Should we let Jack respond to that first?

JV: At the level of something happening within DNA I would say that there's no difference between artificial and other radionuclides, but of course, one thing is clear. This is pointing to the fact that some material binds to DNA and of course the doses become different in that case. We have been talking about alpha emitters where you get a completely different dose than if you have gamma rays. So, of course there are differences although not at the level of DNA once the ionization happens.

CB: What I would like is for the ICRP or for some government to point me to head of a committee of young clever mathematicians, physicists, physical chemists, biologists, to investigate this exactly because nobody has looked at this very closely, no. That's the answer.

The only book that I have found in existence is a Russian book, the Russians have been reasonably interested in this up to some point in time. And they produced a report in 1972 which began to look at the effects of internal radiation, but they said that there was a lot more to do and as far as I know nobody has done it. That is to say nobody has published anything about it. Now this is quite a different matter whether somebody has done it or whether they have published something about it. I mean there are a number of communities that do research, particularly the military community, and it could be that they have done the research and they just haven't published it because it would be too embarrassing to do so.

JK: Confusion? In case of nuclear accidents, confusion is one of the most important and most lethal and detrimental factors when the authorities are to master the consequences. I am John Kristiansen, consulting engineer.

After the Chernobyl accident or disaster, the Stockholm county council asked me to instruct them very quickly about radiation and what the consequences would be and what to do. And that's what I do as well as I could. And thus I became aware of the risk of confusion. And taking part in the conference for instance by IAEA on the consequences to society of radiation. This was confirmed very expressively by the reporting from Chernobyl, for instance by the doctor ***.

Confusion, and what is the main reason for the confusion? The units! The system of units used is a terrible system of units. It is contradictory to proper principles of systematic of units. And I shall take the liberty just to quote a phrase or two from the paper that I presented to the conference. “Poor argo and violation of epistemiological definitions and principles, pair comprehension and statements about ionizing radiation and abolishment of the Gray and Sievert is one of the suitable measures I find to be urgently needed.” I shan't go into detail but I take the pleasure to present this paper to Dr Busby this paper. Dr Valentin has already...

RvM: After this Chernobyl accident I got hold of a Geiger meter. It was only one place in Europe I found any for sale. They were all sold out, I phoned all around Europe, Italy, France and everything. I found five in England and two were bought for Sweden, one I went around with myself. And the alarm was set at 20 counts per second which was to get out of a German laboratory and have it sanitized, that was 20 that level.

Still one year after Chernobyl inside and outside in Stockholm the level was over 20, so the alarm always went on when I put it on. But what surprised me was that the numbers we got of the radiation in Sweden was always measured one meter over the ground, all over Sweden. And I think that's because of this controversy. Because when I went down on the ground, if I had 20 in the air, it would be 600 or even under... in Stockholm under the pipe coming from the roof it was 3500. And I put it through the X-ray machine in Arlanda airport and then it only went up to 1500, so the radiation under the drain pipe from the roof was the double of this X-ray machine.

So the numbers which was presented to the people all around Sweden was taken at 1 m height and they were not looking at the ground. But when I went there the levels would go up because...and I would breath these things in, people would eat it and drink it. And I think this is controversial, in Sweden we were used to have the radiation in the rock, but people don't eat and breath very much rock. And this was completely new dimension and I think that this is the controversy which we have to...the reasoning probably was that a person is on average approximately 2 m high, so the radiation from the rock that reach a person can be measured from 1 m height. But this was nonsense measurements on the effects of Chernobyl and it seems that this controversy that you have is explaining now exactly the problem I was wondering, why the heck do they not tell us what's there on the ground? So is this? Does anyone of you know why they measured 1 m from the ground, was it the conception that you could compare the stuck radiation source of the rock with what we was breathing in?

JV: But you don't breathe the soil area, you don't eat the soil area. You breath air which is near your nose, as it were. And there are lots of reasons for why you do these measurements this way. I am not prepared to go into the details but it is not a way of trying to hide anything from anybody, it is a way to try to get comparable measurements to be able to calculate deposition in a sensible way. And of course there were other measurements which were presented to members of the public all the time, for instance the level of contamination in grass. And if you didn't see them I am sorry Sir, but there were measurements of the level of contamination in grass which were published all the time.

RvM: But there were also measurements which...from Swedish officials that were measured on Sergels Torg which were published by...Siemens had the results and Germany could read it, but in Sweden, when journalists went to the radio or television they got a pink paper that this was dangerous for the public to get nervous. And nervousness of the fear was more dangerous than radiation. so it was with... You would go to jail if you published the facts. This was the crisis in the Swedish...

CB: Ok, this is very interesting because what we have here is a scientific experiment. Now, the gentleman in the back would say that what you did was not scientific, so we can ignore it. Because it was not scientific, it was not published in a... You just went out with a Geiger counter, you had calibrated it, you...

RvM: I calibrated it with...

CB: I am sure that there'd be lots of explanations here but I could be wrong. But what I say here is that, what is interesting about this, because I know about this with radiation levels, I do a lot of court cases on this, and incidentally I win them all, all right, so watch it. Because what's gonna happen is that you people are going to be in court, again and again and again and again, and you are gonna to lose every time. Maybe not you but the nuclear industry who use your... and the environment people who use your model are going to lose, because they are loosing regularly.

What happened there was that you were measuring at 1 m gamma rays. And this is where they measure gamma rays, at 1 m, because a person is about 2 m high and so it is considered to be the average gamma ray dose, and it is a convention that the gamma rays are measured with Geiger counters so that they can be compared around different parts of the country. Because obviously if somebody was measuring here and somebody was measuring there, it would not be comparable, so it's just a convention.

But the interesting thing is that with gamma rays, if it had just been the rocks and you had brought the Geiger counter down close to the ground you wouldn't have got a much of a bigger reading, you see. The reason you got a big reading was because your Geiger counter was responding to beta, beta particles which have a much shorter range. And this means that Sweden was contaminated with hot isotopes which were beta emitters, probably Te-132, which is a kind of forgotten isotope which came out of Chernobyl, and there was a lot of it because it is quite ***.

So this suggests to me that this was a quite high contamination in Sweden. And I'm interested in that because Martin Tondel did an epidemiological study that showed that increases of cancer in levels in parts of Sweden that had high contamination, or conventionally high contamination. And he was certainly attacked by everybody, who brought in the ICRP model and said “I'm sorry Martin, but you must be wrong, you know your science is incorrect, you haven't got the right sort of doses, it could not possibly have happened.” and all this kind of toddle.

So, what I'm saying is that this for me, as a scientist, as a scientist, which I am, I listen to all the information. So if I knock on the door and somebody says “Yes, I have cancer”, that is information. You don't have to read it in the International Journal of Radiation Biology before you believe something. Otherwise we never had survived as human race, because it did not exist at the time.

JV: I just want to add that, of course I was very much involved during the Chernobyl accident. All else is ok, but do not try to claim that any information was secret and there were any threats of punishing people. That simply was not true. It is so boring to meet people who come with these claims which they cannot substantiate. This is the one sort of thing that gets me angry when people accuse me and my colleagues of having been dishonest.

RvM: It was not you. It was the psychological defense, and Lars Vestman tried to published these and he was shown by the TV this pink paper from a psychological defense that it was forbidden with punishment of jail if certain facts were emitted.

MG: I regret very much that time is running on. Eva Linderoth is going to take the last word. And please bring your questions up afterwards.

EL: Yes, I am Eva Linderoth, I've been working with MILKAS, I am on the board of MILKAS, who arranged this meeting. And I am very happy to have been able to assist at this meeting and it turned out properly what the differences are, and I take it from there. I want to thank you very much for coming here, both of you. You have elucidated much. And as a thank you I give you each a cup, and that's all. Thank you.

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 1 guest