Busby hopes that people applying the ICRP model (airplane equivalent) will be sent to jail
Busby's new book describes why application of the ICRP model, ie airplane equivalent is wrong. He states that it is being used to pacify the masses and the people advocating it are responsible for the suffering of the people who will suffer and die due to it's use. Also supplies more info on the 'hot particles' which others, displaying their ignorance, on this forum have denied.
He further goes into lethal non-cancer effects. Also what happens to researchers who publish non-friendly data regarding nuclear power.
If you want to see some of the human effects from a small amounts of radiation from a nuclear melt-down (that are typically covered up) then the video is a good watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDzO-y9zeh8&feature=related
Quack like a Nazi...
Sir,
You certainly like to quack all over the place, like a duck that is.
Stop with the Nazi accusations!
Why??
When the Nazis were on trial at Nuremberg, were there cries to stop the Nazi accusations.
When we have someone behaving like a Nazi, and advocating what the Nazis advocated; why should we stop calling the Nazi, a goddam Nazi.
I think the reason you keep harping on this, is that it has hit a nerve.
You really understand that one of your own anti-nukes is behaving like a Nazi, and the self-righteous anti-nukes can't have that.
So the continually WHINE about the Nazi accusations.
No I am sure Prof. Busby is correct not you
On all accounts your information especially the parts in bold letters just has that pro nuclear spin, like a regular politicial hot head getting paid to rally pro nuke.
And for the record, Prof. Busby is not a Nazi.
And freedom is speech is fine and dandy except when it comes to Guenther Grass and his little poem.
So there you have it.
Yes I am anti-nuclear and for all the right reasons including, people like you.
You object to good scienctists explaining the proper science.
That's the problem with the anti-nukes. They can't evaluate information based on the information itself. They don't have the intellect nor knowledge. They have to ask whether the information is pro-nuke or anti-nuke; then they make their assessment. They "think" ( term used loosely ) only with their politics.
They can't handle the truth the the argument posed in favor of nuclear power may have some validity. If the "spin" is pro-nuke; then they can't believe it because they don't think like scientists. They have an anti-nuke religion. The opposition is 100% bad, and they are 100% good. The stupid little pinheads really take the cake when it comes to being self-righteous.
You say Freedom of Speech is fine; but when some other anti-nuke says the people should be imprisoned for their speech; you don't have the moral compass to say that one of your own is wrong.
Again, it all comes from "thinking" ( for lack of a better word ) with your politics.
Stuttering
You've worked yourself up so much that you are stuttering:
"They can't handle the truth the the argument..."
Calm down and please try to remember that not everyone is out to get you.
Who is worked up?
Who is worked up? I'm just making a factual assessment.
Practically any time I hear the anti-nukes make a claim about the truth of a statement, the reasons given all have to do with whether the "nuclear industry" supports that position, or if it helps the "nuclear industry".
If some statement is echoed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, then it has to be in error because everything the NEI says is wrong and self-serving.
They never give a reason about the information at hand. It's always about who that information helps or doesn't help.
I don't believe anyone is "out to get me".
I just don't like to see false information held out on a forum like this as if it were true. I don't know how many times I've seen think some slam at the "nuclear industry" must be true; because nobody answered in rebuttal.
Prof. Busby is not a Nazi
Okay I still am sure that Prof. Busby is not a Nazi.
Nuff said,about Prof. Busby. Who said I was doubting the BRAWM team. I am not, so stop putting words into my mouth.
Yes, I think we can do without nuclear power. I am sure we would be much better off.
BRAWM uses the airplane analogy
Nuff said,about Prof. Busby. Who said I was doubting the BRAWM team.
===============
BRAWM has used the airplane analogy many times in the course of these discussions. Your "hero" Busby wants to send them to prison for doing so.
Make up your mind. Do you support BRAWM and their explanations; or do you support your "hero" Busby that would send BRAWM members to prison for their explanations here.
Again, if someone disagrees with you; then the way you redress that is with the truth and with your opinion.
You don't send them to prison as advocated by that goddam NAZI
What do you think the Founding Fathers who wrote the US Constitution would have to say about imprisoning people for their speech?
Ah hah
So you say I have to chose between Prof. Busby and BRAWM? Why?
I think the airplane analogy should only be used for passengers riding on an airplane concerned about the time they are in the sky.
Internal exposures are quite a different matter, they remain in your body radiating your body inside.
Some aspects of the BRAWM team are great, this item I think needs more concern.
And for you, the hot headed farse, maybe we should call in Prof. Busby to this forum to set the record straight for you.
You like to belittle and call names, it is so childish really. I suggest you stop trying to change the subject, in this forum and please, please be careful who you call a Nazi.
I AM careful
please be careful who you call a Nazi.
========================
I am careful who I call a Nazi. In this case, the term Nazi is applicable.
Where is your honor for the one of the great freedoms that the Founding Fathers enshrined in our US Constitution - the Freedom of Speech.
We can all express our opinions openly without fear of imprisonment.
Of course, imprisoning those that disagreed with them is precisely one of the things that the Nazis did.
If someone "quacks" like a Nazi, and wants to imprison his detractors instead of honoring Free Speech; then that person is a goddamn NAZI
WRONG!!!!
Internal exposures are quite a different matter, they remain in your body radiating your body inside.
=============================
Actually, the internal exposure DECAYS following the natural radioactive decay of the the particular radioisotope. This is a common ERROR we see in the anti-nuke propaganda. For example, if you ingested Iodine-131 last March when Fukushima released Iodine-131; that Iodine-131 was essentially GONE from your body in August.
External whole body exposure delivered in a short time are actually WORSE than an internal exposure of the same magnitude.
That's because the internal exposure is metered out over a longer time; like the 5 months in the case of Iodine-131. That gives the body's DNA repair mechanism more time to repair the modest amount you get each day.
If you get that same dose all at once, or over 5 hours in the airliner; because you get a higher dose per unit time, the DNA repair mechanism is not as effective, and the dose in the airliner is WORSE for you.
Back to basics -data provided by EPA / stop read and learn...tdm
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#q1
Effects of Radiation Type and Exposure Pathway
Both the type of radiation to which the person is exposed and the pathway by which they are exposed influence health effects. Different types of radiation vary in their ability to damage different kinds of tissue. Radiation and radiation emitters (radionuclides) can expose the whole body (direct exposure) or expose tissues inside the body when inhaled or ingested.
All kinds of ionizing radiation can cause cancer and other health effects. The main difference in the ability of alpha and beta particles and gamma and x-rays to cause health effects is the amount of energy they can deposit in a given space. Their energy determines how far they can penetrate into tissue. It also determines how much energy they are able to transmit directly or indirectly to tissues and the resulting damage.
Although an alpha particle and a gamma ray may have the same amount of energy, inside the body the alpha particle will deposit all of its energy in a very small volume of tissue. The gamma radiation will spread energy over a much larger volume. This occurs because alpha particles have a mass that carries the energy, while gamma rays do not.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#q1
Do chemical properties of radionuclides contribute to radiation health effects?
The chemical properties of a radionuclide can determine where health effects occur. To function properly many organs require certain elements. They cannot distinguish between radioactive and non-radioactive forms of the element and accumulate one as quickly as the other.
Radioactive iodine concentrates in the thyroid. The thyroid needs iodine to function normally, and cannot tell the difference between stable and radioactive isotopes. As a result, radioactive iodine contributes to thyroid cancer more than other types of cancer.
Calcium, strontium-90 and radium-226 have similar chemical properties. The result is that strontium and radium in the body tend to collect in calcium rich areas, such as bones and teeth. They contribute to bone cancer.
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#q1
My comment - you decide is busby wrong ( not talking about his prison banter) if you take an objective look at exposure their is vast diffrences which in my opinion is lost in the airplane analogy...
That is ALL taken into account
That is ALL taken into account when you calculate the dose equivalent.
The differences between alpha, and beta, and gamma all go into the dose equivalent calculation.
You are in ERROR that the reason alphas are worse than gammas is due to their mass. NO - the reason is that the strength of the Coulomb force - the electro-static force between the two protons in the alphas and the electrons in the medium is greater than the force between the gammas and the electrons.
Yes - we all know that Iodine concentrates in the thyroid.
The thing that you are missing is that for EQUAL DOSE, the radiation delivered during an airline flight is delivered faster, at a higher rate because of the shorter exposure time, and hence the body's repair mechanisms don't work as well as they do with the lower rates of an internal emitter.
Secondly, the airliner dose is a whole body dose. If you have Iodine-131 giving a dose of X mrem to the thyroid, and you compare that to the whole body dose of X mrem from the airliner flight; in BOTH cases, the thyroid is getting X mrem.
However, in the airliner flight, the left arm is also getting X mrem, the right foot is getting X mrem, the brain is getting X mrem - the whole body is getting that X mrem; hence the name whole body dose. It's the same dose to the thyroid, plus MORE; and hence that makes it WORSE.
Therefore, for the SAME DOSE, the airliner flight is WORSE for you because it is a whole body dose, and your body's repair mechanisms are overwhelmed by the greater dose rate.
Not my Word direct EPA quotes
" You are in ERROR that the reason alphas are worse than gammas is due to their mass. NO - the reason is that the strength of the Coulomb force - the electro-static force between the two protons in the alphas and the electrons in the medium is greater than the force between the gammas and the electrons."
------------
Sir ,if you took a few minutes to review the data I posted you would see the data I posted is directly from the EPA website link included .let me get this straight your claiming the EPA web site is wrong and I should take the word of a anonymous poster on a open intenet forum .thanks but I will stick with the epa's data....tdm
If you have doubts....
If you have doubts...get a Physics book.
The anti-nukes always think the EPA is infallible.
Prof. Busby
I think the person who called him a Nazi or dispicable is sort of a nut head. Perhaps Prof. Busby does not talk like a marketing blood hound, or sport the elegance of a "typical main stream media mouth piece," but he does however know what he is taliking about. Where people like George Monbiat and Ann Coulter are just blabbing for thier peice of the income to support corporate thieves.
Perhaps Busby uses this language to make a point, to nail down the consequences. I do believe that war crimes are still crimes, and also that nuclear crimes are also crimes even if they are done through covert actions like hiding the risks, and consequences to protect corporate profits. If lives are not lost instantly does that make it invalid? The problem with nuclear pollution is that it can not be measured instantly as far as it's dangerous effects on all life on this planet and water, and such.
Who do you think uses all this energy anyway it is not the households of America. It is the big corporate giants and their big office buildings and manufacturing centers ect. Personally I think instead of letting corps. go free with no taxes, they should pay for a huge portion of all the nuclear energy costs including the saftey and clean up. They should also be regulated on how much they can use each year. Have you ever seen a city scape skyline at night with all the lights on at 2AM? You think you might make a difference by turning off your hall light at night when you go to sleep, look around you it will take a lot more especially from the people to urge regulation of corporate mobsters. Ask yourself "who" is using all this energy and "who" is making all the pollution? As far as Busby goes I think he is fricking awesome and wish we had more people like him around.
MISINFORMED anti-nuke - how typical
We have above the typical misinformed anti-nuke parroting the anti-nuke party line that they believe corporations should pay for safety, clean-up, waste disposal, insurance...
THEY DO!!!! The safety is built into the plant. For example, the big containment building that worked so well at the Three Mile Island accident. ( The containment was 100% effective. The only releases to the environment were intentional in order to vent a portion of the containment to lower the dose to workers that needed to enter ). The plant owner pays for the construction of that containment building.
As for clean-up, our ignorant anti-nuke doesn't know that all nuclear power plants are required as a condition of their license to put away money in an escrow fund to be used to pay for the eventual decommissioning of the plant. So the plant owner pays for that.
As far as waste disposal. The operators of nuclear power plants pay into the "Nuclear Waste Fund". It is a special tax on the nuclear power industry that Congress passed. The Government would dispose of the waste, but the nuclear industry pays for it via the Nuclear Waste Fund. Of course, now that Yucca Mountain is canceled; those companies are paying for a service they are not getting:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-sued-over-nuclear-waste-fund-89826842.html
The Department of Energy was sued Friday by state utility regulators who challenge whether consumers should continue paying into a $30 billion government nuclear waste fund if a Yucca Mountain repository is no longer in the plans.
The program is patterned after the Air Traffic Control system. The Government runs the important function so we know it is done right; but the industry pays. In the case of the Air Traffic Control system, airlines pay "landing fees".
Then there is the oft quoted line by our idiot anti-nukes that reactors can't get commercial insurance. That's another of their self-serving LIES. Here's the website for American Nuclear Insurers which insures nuclear power plants:
http://www.amnucins.com/
American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world
In addition, the Price-Anderson Act provides a second tier of protection with the Government acting as a no-fault insurance company. But the money comes from the nuclear industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_I...
Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2011[update], $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference.
As far as Professor Busby; the damn charlatan wants to use the State's power to imprison to counter those that oppose his views. Any decent scientist would use science to counter those that oppose his views. However, Busby is eschewing the principle of free speech enshrined in our First Amendment, and wants people to go to prison for their views. That's what the Nazis did.
If Busby "quacks" like a damn Nazi, then he's a Nazi.
The anti-nuke crowd should disown Busby; the fact that they don't tells us a lot about them.
Prof. Busby is NOT a Nazi and....
First off Prof. Busby is NOT a Nazi. Second I do find offense in your post.
All your blabble about supposed insurance industries covering nuclear facilities clean up is really ho hum, and doggy hoggle wash.
Nuclear waste gets shuffled off by underground mofia who toss it around and it ends up in our own backyards.
If your so sure clean up gets handled properly then why is Fukushima still contaminating the whole frigging region and ocean?
Pehaps you and Ms. Coulter should open at dayspa on the Fukushima beaches and bath in your so called safe clean up and safe radiation.
Why do people always bring up the Nazi card anyway, it is totally off subject here.
Because Nazi is applicable..
The offensive term Nazi ( and I agree it is offensive because it describes an offensive thing ) is applicable. We have someone who has cast off any cloak of scientific legitimacy by saying that someone's statements should be countered by the imprisonment power of the State. That's offensive because that's exactly what the Nazis did.
If someone "quacks" like a Nazi; then they are a Nazi.
A legitimate scientist would counter untruths with the truth; and not imprisonment like a goddam Nazi
Furthermore, Busby is just plain WRONG scientifically.
The airline analogy can be used to put the radiation exposures into perspective because people are exposed to radiation in airliners, yet they willing accept that exposure, along with the minimal risk of the plane crashing; as a small price to pay for getting to their destination.
That's why our hosts, BRAWM; legitimate use the analogy in explanations in order to put things into perspective and proper context.
Busby is despicable and wrong!!
Busby is DESPICABLE and WRONG
What a despicable person this Busby must be. Advocating sending people to jail because of what they say??? The Soviet Union did that! Other communist states and military dictators do that!!
That's NOT the way people in enlightened democracies behave.
That just tells me that Busby has LOST the argument.
What a horrible, despicable person he is for suggesting this.
The scientists at BRAWM and others have shown that the airplane analogy, while not identical, is very useful in keeping radiation exposure in perspective. In fact, the airplane analogy is actually conservative; a whole body dose due to an airplane flight is actually worse for you than a numerically identical dose of a single isotope that targets a given organ.
People here should join me in e-mailing this charlatan of a scholar, Busby and express our outrage and disgust at his suggestion.
What a horrible, despicable person this Busby must be.
Yes, horrible and despicable
Wow, you are finally getting it, this is a breakthrough! Yes, isotopes can target single organs! Now comes the next revelation: age is important! The younger the age, the more exposure, due to smaller organs and faster metabolic activity of children, as compared to the model used of a 150lb male and an external dose. You are on the learning curve. Next we will teach you manors!
MISINFORMED anti-nuke
Contrary to your ill-informed and arrogant assumption that I and the other scientists here didn't know about isotopes targeting organs; we most certainly do know that and have known it longer than you have.
However, it is not germane to the airplane analogy argument. The reason is that the airplane analogy is a whole body dose. So while a given radioisotope may be targeting the thyroid like I-131; in a whole body dose ALL the organs are being dosed. What the ignorant anti-nukes don't realize is that when we compare a dose of "X" mSv to the thyroid targeted by I-131; to a whole body dose ( as in an airplane ) of "X" mSv; it means that in the airplane, not only is the thyroid getting a dose of "X" mSv, but the liver is getting "X" mSv, the spleen is getting "X" mSv, the brain is getting "X" mSV.... Clearly the whole whole body dose as in an airplane is WORSE than a targeted dose. ( That targeted dose is a proper subset of the whole body dose ).
As far a children, yes the damage due to radiation is worse for them; but that includes BOTH the targeted organ specific dose; as well as a whole body dose. So how does anti-nuke logic ( an oxymoron if there ever was one ) argue that the greater susceptibility of children somehow invalidates the airplane analogy.
As the other poster inquired; since children are more sensitive to radiation, should they be banned from airliners? I don't see you or any other anti-nuke answering that question.
Simple question
So does that mean that we should ban children from airliners?
Should parents that take their children with them on flights be charged with child endangerment?
A simple "yes" or "no" will do.
Attacking the Messanger
When all else fails and you can't address the data, then attacking the messenger through name calling, just shows your complete ignorance. Indeed Dr. Busby addresses just this sort of ignorant response when he discusses other imminent scholars who have been attacked so much that they have been driven from the field and will work the area no longer. The world is much worse off when enlightened researchers are driven from the field through this sort of attack after publishing the results of their research . It's bad enough that the 'big dogs' of the industry can make research funds dry up and get researchers removed from their labs and posts, but when idiots pretend that they know more than a renown epidemiological researcher, especially a researcher with Dr. Busby's background, then we will all lose if he too is driven from the field.
If you think that his research is somehow flawed, then show your data supporting different results. We are NOT interested in your uneducated, unsupported opinion. Just because you may think that the world is flat does NOT give you the right to call people names who are pointing the the world being round. If you have nothing constructive to add then shut your diarrhea ridden mouth! (And yes, you go to jail if you are saying something that will result in causing physical harm others; ie. try 'FIRE!' in a movie theater.)
The world needs more researchers like Dr. Busby who are willing to take on the powerful status quo with enlightened research which we can all actually use to obtain better, healthier lives instead of the usual garbage that comes from those with significant investments in industries which pollute our environment with toxic, deadly materials.
It is encouraging to see such an emotional response by industry supporters to Dr. Busby's research. This indicates that at least someone is getting through the iron curtain of the industry's blindsided, unfounded assertions that the radiation they generate is harmless, and especially the ridiculous idea that momentary external exposure to radiation can somehow be compared to continuous internal exposure from radioisotopes which are bound to our DNA and will continue to irradiate the surround cells causing damage for a lifetime, and whose damage will be passed along to ensuing generations.
The above poster is wrong about shouting fire.
The above poster is wrong about shouting fire in a crowded theater. There are very few exceptions to the concept of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The other poster is correct that in Schenck Justice Holmes identified one of the few exceptions to free speech; that exception being faking an emergency. You can not fake an emergency, and then escape responsibility by saying you were just exercising your free speech rights. The First Amendment does not protect you when you fake an emergency.
However, espousing the airplane analogy, even if it were wrong, is not faking an emergency. Therefore, espousing the airplane analogy does not fit Justice Holmes' "shouting fire" exception to the First Amendment. Therefore, anyone publicly espousing the airplane analogy, even if it were wrong, is exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.
Quentin T. Brownell, J.D.
Attorney at Law
GADS - more ignorance
Evidently you don't know the applicability of the shouting fire in a crowed theater argument.
That analogy was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a case where the US Supreme Court was unanimously upholding the conviction of a man who was passing out anti-war leaflets at a US Army induction center. See Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919)
The reason you can hold a person responsible for shouting fire in a crowded theater is that the receivers of the message are in exigent circumstances and can't critically examine and consider the warning. If it is a true warning of a fire, they have to act.
We are NOT in such exigent circumstances with the material Busby is discussing; so Justice Holmes example does not apply. You ignorantly applied a legal principle that is not applicable to the circumstances at hand.
Only a damn NAZI would advocate for settling a scientific issue by use of the State's power of imprisonment.
Or that was also the tactic of the Soviet Union. Are you still mourning the demise of the Soviet Union?
Your comparison between the "instantaneous exposure" and the continuous internal exposure doesn't make sense because we are talking about comparable dose.
Put your brain in gear and consider the following. Suppose Person A drinks one bottle of vodka during a 4 hour airplane flight. Person B drinks one bottle of vodka over the course of 4 months, and not 4 hours.
The "dose" is the same; they both drank one bottle of vodka.
Person A is going to get drunk. An entire bottle of vodka hitting Person A in a short 4 hour time is going to have a pronounced effect.
Person B who consumes the same amount of vodka over 4 months ( the time it take Iodine-131 to decay ) is not going to get drunk because his body is going to be able to metabolize the small amount taken each day. Therefore, Person B is not going to be drunk, even though the exposure is longer.
It's not just about the exposure time.
Are you intelligent enough to understand the analogy?
Probably not!
Yes, thank goodness for the
Yes, thank goodness for the "imminent scholars", most especially the trained monkeys that know just enough English and pay juuust close enough attention to ape the language of the truly educated and qualified, and have a tenuous enough grasp of "mannors" to use their canned Armageddonesque rhetoric to indict ACTUAL scientists and researchers, like the BRAWM Team, and use insipid emotionalism to accuse them of duplicity, dishonesty, deceit, and outright despicability. And who then vamp about how anyone who disagrees with their doomsday predictions is a "shill", an idiot or a liar.
All hail the fear fleas!