Intellectual and professional malpractice by Caldicott/Busby/LLRC
This is a topic that most people will not want to accept if they follow the reasoning of Caldicott, Busby and LLRC.
The simple fact is that their efforts are championed by a Doctor (Caldicott), and backed up by health physicists (LLRC) as well as research scientists (Busby). Their claim is that nuclear plants cause cancer, disease and deformation by internal emitters, that are not differentiated by mainstream radiation methodology.
They have estimated that Chernobyl has killed nearly one million people, and that Fukushima may kill up to 200,000 individuals.
Now, 1.2 million deaths from nuclear accidents seems like a lot, and it is. But the CDC estimates that there are 160,000 deaths from lung cancer every year. They also estimate that 16% of these cases are directly attributable to Radon exposure, an internal emitter. That works out to 25,000 deaths, each year, in the U.S. alone. That 1.2 million deaths from nuclear accidents, likely very much inflated, would be equalled in 50 years time. But this is just for the U.S., so worldwide there would be roughly 20 times that amount (admittedly a very rough guess given population alone), or 1.2 million deaths every 2.5 years.
Now, why I claim that Caldicott, Busby and LLRC are suspect of malpractice is that even with their inflated figures of death and disease from nuclear plants, every 2.5 years, more people die from internal emitters that are very much preventable. A Radon detector and the means to circulate air are all that is necessary to avoid this toll. Yet, these medical professionals see fit to wage a battle against a foe that will never kill as many people, but the method by which it kills is the very same that this group subscribes to eliminating.
Tell me, where does the Doctor's moral duty lie? To help as many people as possible, or to demonize a technology that so far has killed fewer people than cigarettes, drunk driving, drugs or even Radon has individually?
PERFECT is the enemy of good
.
Anonymous trolls demand perfection of the good doctors...
------------------------------------------------------
"Perfect is the enemy of good" is generally attributed to Voltaire whose poem, La Bégueule, begins...
“ Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien
Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.
(In his writings, a wise Italian
says that the best is the enemy of the good) ”
Pure Red Herring
.
This thread is one of many examples of a red herring logical fallacy.
Discussion of radioactive fallout hazards does not equate to endorsement of automobile fatalities, bad diet, smoking or drinking purple Kool-Aid.
---------------
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
The particular types of this red herring fallacy, (among many).
Ad hominem: attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
Poisoning the well: a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says[41]
It's not a Red Herring. It's
It's not a Red Herring. It's simply a question of which type of radiation brings more suffering and which should be the primary objective with which to eliminate the greatest suffering.
So far, Nuclear accidents don't live up to the hype, while Radon has countable deaths, not simply speculation. Nuclear accidents suffer from a problem of proof of harm. It's not saying they don't cause harm, but the trouble in establishing honest metrics are not trivial.
Bill, your point of view is very clear, but if you step back, greater suffering is not tolerable if you believe in social justice.
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
.
The logical fallacy of the above post is Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or the "appeal to ignorance".
This is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa).
This represents a type of false dichotomy which excludes a third option, that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information.
Further, there may be four (4) or more choices: (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) unknowable.
No one really cares about
No one really cares about how you have to "win" this argument Bill. You have already proven yourself a worthless human being for trying to disprove and minimize the death that is ongoing.
You can say whatever you like to discredit this reply. It doesn't matter. I still think you are filth.
Anonymous
.
'Anonymous' has out-posted everyone with a name. This particular 'Anonymous' specializes in logical fallacies, and is particularly fond of scurrilous attacks.
This type of argumentation, is generally speaking, the product of a trained mind, absent honor.
A Good Battle Plan
.
“I would rather have a good plan today than a perfect plan two weeks from now.”
General George S. Patton
Another attributed version:
“A good battle plan that you act on today can be better than a perfect one tomorrow.”
OP here: There is no need to
OP here:
There is no need to call people names. Bill's point is that there is no valid logical reason to attack Busby and the others on the grounds that they shouldn't be held responsible for informing people about Radon.
Each person has an opinion and while they are entitled to their belief, it doesn't change the facts. If Bill was accurate, then this whole thread is quite pointless and trying to get those in the know to step up their game. Of course we already have Busby's own comment on this matter, so we can all see for ourselves that the issue of Radon doesn't matter to him. Why then, should we put so much trust in what he says, since he is acting in his own best interests.
And, Bill, for the record, by arguing against this course of reasoning you are condoning the actions that follow from it. You have been a vanguard for information and it's quite sad to see your position on the matter. So be it.
WASHOUT
.
Perhaps THE salient question of our time is the danger level thrust upon us by Fukushima. Certainly, national governments, international governmental organizations, TEPCO, Hitachi, General Electric, Areva and the press have been less than candid regarding the threat level from this massive radionuclide storm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjb5AaDL6rs
http://www.helencaldicott.com/childrenshealth_proc.pdf
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/28/fukushima-how-many-chernobyls-is...
So, how many Chernobyl equivalent radioactive fallout disasters have been unleashed on Japan, North America and Europe from Fukushima?
Does the Fukushima radionuclide oceanic ‘WASHOUT’, into the North Pacific, exceed the total antecedent cumulative human radioactive release into our planetary marine environment?
1 by 1
.
Generally speaking, physicians treat patients one by one, for their chief complaint. Except for emergency room triage, the cases are often not priortized except by mutually agreed on scheduling.
So perhaps, in a given day, a family practitioner may treat a migraine, absess, syncope, insomnia, malaise, depression and alopecia.
Someone, somewhere in town suffers from a more serious condition.
So?
My Dr. Doesn't Go 1 By 1
Every time I go in for a dr. appt, they check my temp, blood pressure
and weight. And I'm asked if there is anything bothering me other than
my primary reason for the appt. They are interested in my health in
general. They don't get tunnel vision on just what I came in for. Any
dr. that practices 1 by 1/Whac-A-Mole medicine should get out of the
field.
Exactly. Thank you.
Exactly. Thank you.
Was this you OP?
http://health.phys.iit.edu/archives/2011-May/032291.html
Still not seeing the malpractice...
OP here: Wow. That is an
OP here:
Wow. That is an incredibly callous statement by Busby. It clearly shows his agenda is not about saving lives. If he is needed elsewhere, what are the people to do about this, more important issue? He has washed his hands of the necessity to inform about other issues around low level radiation. When he was on RT talking about Fukushima, I don't remember him talking about the more serious dangers of Radon. Why is this?
The sad fact is, people are still dying from Radon, so it's not mission accomplished yet. More people will die from his inaction than if he ceased his activity to focus on the problems of Radon. So, by him saying he is not needed is a prima facie admission of malpractice.
There are plenty of other
There are plenty of other people working on this. You sir, are a jackass. People interested and educated enough to follow Busby already know about the dangers of radon. I remember being taught about the stuff in elementary and Jr high school.
Touched a nerve, eh? OP has
Touched a nerve, eh?
OP has a point. With the media exposure around Fukushima he could have brought it up as a freebie to help people out.
And, obviously not everyone knows about radon or else people wouldn't still be dying from it.
So because you know about
So because you know about something you can't die from it? Nice to know, guess since I know about cigarettes I can smoke with no health effects! Thanks Dr. Busby!!!
And, obviously not everyone knows about car accidents or else people wouldn't still be dying from them. Yes!
The home builders have more liability here. There are ways to build houses that minimize exposure to radon gas.
"Touched a nerve, eh? "
I can't help it, I hate bad logic and dishonest people.
"OP has a point. With the media exposure around Fukushima he could have brought it up as a freebie to help people out. "
He could have also brought up seat belts, condoms, CT scans, exposure to the sun, pollution,smoking, drinking,drunk drivers, drug interactions, medical mistakes and many other things. None of these things, or radon add up to Intellectual and professional malpractice.
Sorry.
You keep ignoring the fact,
You keep ignoring the fact, and making excuses for Busby. His field is radiation awareness. His duty is to tell people about the dangers of radiation. By him ignoring the biggest danger if his field, he is committing malpractice.
It's not bad logic, and doctors routinely ask if you smoke and wear your seatbelt, use condoms, etc to
judge your risk level. If your Doc doesn't, maybe you should find a better doctor.
Why are you minimizing and covering up for Busby?
"His field is radiation
"His field is radiation awareness. His duty is to tell people about the dangers of radiation"
Where are you getting this info from? I just looked at his wiki and couldn't find it there.
Ha that's a pretty good
Ha that's a pretty good response from Busby. He sounds more like an A$$ then I thought possible. Total douche.
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf
7.3 Radon
The Committee feels that the situation with regard to assessing the effects of Radon gas should be clarified. It identifies another problem of the ICRP model in addition to that involving internal vs. external exposure: there is another large area of discussion involving whole body vs. partial body exposure. The latter category includes both Radon gas and medical X-rays. Both of these may have been misrepresented as greater hazards than nuclear pollution in exposure quantity arguments. Nevertheless, there are a number of open questions regarding the risk modelling of Radon exposures. For example the absorbed dose to bronchial epithelium is weighted by a factor of 0.2 by ICRP from 5.5mSv average (derived from the RBE of alphas and the ICRP66 model which dilutes the energy into surface cells) to an effective dose of around 1mSv. ICRP considers that contribution to other compartments of the body is negligible and it has been argued that due to this ICRP underestimates Radon dose to the bone marrow and other critical organs.
Estimates of Radon releases from natural soil vary widely from 0.2mBq/s per square metre, to 52 mBq/s per square metre. It is influenced by the condition of the soil, its porosity, moisture content and temperature. The emanation is reduced by snow and ice, heavy rainfall and increasing atmospheric pressure. There are also diurnal changes, with a maximum emanation towards the end of the night and a minimum (by half the rate) in the afternoon. Near Uranium mining the rate is several orders of magnitude greater due to the technologically enhanced releases (TENORM). Surface level crushed rock will release more Radon gas than radium buried in rock deep within the earth's crust. Much of the Radon gas problem of today has been generated by Uranium activities in support of nuclear weapons and nuclear power since 1950: this includes Radon released from Uranium wastes discharged to the sea (Hamilton 1989). To summarise, the Committee believes that the doses from Radon and its daughters may have been overstated and that this misrepresentation has had the effect of minimising the contributions to human exposure from artificial radionuclides. Nevertheless the health effects of Radon may include development of conditions not currently considered by the ICRP model which neglects the radiation exposures which lead to cancers other than lung cancer. A number of studies of miners and others exposed to Radon does support such an idea. Radon exposure and health will form the subject of a separate report.
65
As stated in a comment
As stated in a comment below: the actual causal issue with radon exposure is not directly from the gas. The ICRP is correct that Radon does not give you a significant dose.
However, the same can not be said of radon's byproducts which are what cause the cancers. So, that statement you posted seems to only be talking about radon exposure in isolation, which is misleading.
http://www.heyokamagazine.com/HEYOKA.4.ENVIRO.HelenCaldicott.htm
John LeKay: Brain and kidney cancer seem to be escalating. There is also an unusually high rate of birth abnormalities and an increase in women having miscarriages. What does this indicate to you and what do you think these Native Americans should be doing about this situation?
Helen Caldicott: Well, they live near uranium tailings and uranium mines, and they are exposed to radiation continuously. Either from the radon gas which is continually excreted from the uranium tailings. Radon gas is an alpha emitter, a very potent carcinogen. It causes lung cancers and various other cancers. The other material that they are exposed to continuously is radium; which is the daughter of uranium; which is very soluble and which LEACHES from the uranium tailings into their water supply and re-concentrates back into their food. So they are eating radioactive food. Radium itself causes bone cancer or leukemia but can cause other nasty side effects such as congenital anomalies and the like. So these people are living in a consistent field of radioactive materials. That's why their incidences of cancer and congenital defects are high.
Radon gas is an alpha emitter, a very potent carcinogen. It causes lung cancers and various other cancers.
OP here: One must ask
OP here:
One must ask themselves why she was investigating this mine. Being an anti-nuclear activist she was there to protest the mine and the Uranium it produces for the Nuclear Industry. Would she have been there if there was no mine, but high levels of Radon causing the same problems to the inhabitants?
Probably not. She can make a case for Radon when it's convenient, including getting the facts wrong, but she wouldn't otherwise be drawn to the site if not for the industry it supports. That is superficial and only impeaches her more.
Well, she's wrong on two
Well, she's wrong on two counts, but give her credit for trying.
She says that Radon is an alpha emitter and a potent carcinogen. Only part 1 is true. Radon, with a 4 day halflife is expelled before decay. Radon byproducts, however - various isotopes of lead, bithmus and polonium, have a bigger impact and are actually responsible for the cancer as they attach to dust particles and lodge in the lung. Radon as a gas does not stay in the body, and is not particularly radioactive by comparison.
She also states that she believes the uranium tailings and radium are the cause of the problems. According to the EPA, which has a remediation program ongoing, the problem is actually that the adobe used in construction of the dwellings is very high in natural uranium and that better reporting are responsible for the increases.
I'm not the OP, but if Calidcott can get these two things wrong, it doesn't add much to her credibility.
Actually she's wrong on
Actually she's wrong on another count as well. The most significant source of Radon in the location she's referring to is from the mine itself, not from the tailings.
She might even be wrong on a
She might even be wrong on a fourth count. The Radium she claims is leaching into the water table was already present in the ground, and only relocated to the surface. It's not easy to see how it's effect on groundwater would be any different unless it's new amounts being added to the area.
OP responding to various
OP responding to various posts:
It is truely disgusting to see people defending the blatent disregard of those that I mention. They are in a position of power and influence, where they have a duty by which they could save lives instead of chasing theoretical damages. Millions of people will die as a result of exposure, proven beyond a shadow of doubt, where anti-nuclear efforts show barely recognizable statistical elevations from all known nuclear accidents of death and suffering. All of you that support these people should be ashamed at your continued support of negligence where high numbers of deaths are the result, by focusing efforts on prevention of damages yet to be conclusively proven.
To those that wonder why I single out Caldicott, Busby and LLRC: it is because they are proclaiming that they are the source of truth with respect to the dangers of low level radiation. But, by ignoring a threat as great as Radon means they have forsaken their covanent of trust in order to rend political victories. They willfully ignore a known epidemic in order to increace the presence of their case.
If Caldicott honored her hippocratic oath, she would be honest in describing the dangers of internal emitters from Radon, and morally bound to prevent its ills:
"...I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm."
(Hippocrates)
Since it us clear that those I mention are physicians in name only, I have included information to assist others in realizing their risk and taking appropriate actions to minimize exposure.
Below are some links to information that are important to risk analysis of Radon exposure. It is terribly disappointing that the champions of low level radiation dangers are completely ignoring this epidemic. At least there are some to thank: the EPA, AMA and WHO and associated radiological protection studies that at least try to define risk from this exposure, fully 1/3 of each person's annual radiation dose.
WHO:
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/radon/en/
EPA & AMA:
Lifetime Risk of Lung Cancer Death (per person) from Radon Exposure in Homes
pCi/L General Population
20 11 out of 100
10 56 out of 1,000
8 45 out of 1,000
4 23 out of 1,000
2 12 out of 1,000
1.25 73 out of 10,000
0.4 23 out of 10,000
http://www.epa.gov/radon/risk_assessment.html
http://www.aces.edu/fcs/hndh/radon/publications/factsheets/RADON-PhysGui...
You can site all the links
You can site all the links you want and talk in circles until you turn blue, but unless you can supply us with a link that proves the people in question don't advocate the dangers of radon (radium). STFU
I have a link where Helen Caldicott advises a town to sue over radium/radon
Warning Port Hope a toxic time bomb; the only solution? Move
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/888301
Seems like a warning that radon is harmful to me. Just look at the headline, the first word is warning.
You can't prove that they don't advocate limiting radon exposure.
OP again: I will give you an
OP again:
I will give you an example:
In the Democracy Now interview between Monbiot and Caldicott, Monbiot incorrectly attributes statistics to Radon induced cancers. Caldicott responds by completely ignoring Radon and cancer correlation. She could have pointed out his flaw on that matter, or expounded on the risks of Radon. But, she did neither and in fact goes on grousing about her pedigree and how good of a doctor she is.
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/11758
This one interview is hardly
This one interview is hardly proof of malpractice. Quote (the only mention of radon in the whole piece)
GEORGE MONBIOT:—whereby anyone who doesn’t go along with the line of the climate change deniers, that carbon dioxide is not connected with climate change, for example, is in the hands of the carbon trading industry or something like that.
Now, you know, there is a very large body of evidence from Chernobyl, from many other nuclear incidents, from people’s exposure to elevated levels of background radiation, whether it’s radon gas coming from granite masses, whether it’s higher solar radiation because of where they live, and what we do not see is a clear relationship between those lower levels of radiation that you predict and the incidence of cancers, let alone the higher incidence of death. It’s just it’s only there in very particular cases, generally with extremely high exposures of radiation, or in specific cases like, for instance, the combination of radon exposure and smoking, which raises the incidence of lung cancer among smokers from 10 percent to 16 percent. But the radon exposure seems to have almost no impact on the level of cancers among the rest of the population. So, I just think, you know, we’ve got to be very, very careful—
HELEN CALDICOTT: George, this is wrong, George.
END OF QUOTE
My take
George: Long twisted, incorrect statement....But the radon exposure seems to have almost no impact on the level of cancers among the rest of the population.
Helen: You're wrong
No Intellectual and professional malpractice here
If you feel that the evidence is so strong that you need to defend this charge so extensively here maybe you should file a civil suit. You could use all of your winnings to create the Radon Awareness Network (RAN). Think how many lives you could potentially save just by telling people to turn on the fan.
Your take?
Just for the record, I'm not the OP.
How can you translate "George, this is wrong, George" into a response
to any specific statement that Monbiot made?
There were a few comments from Monbiot in your paste above that she could
have been responding to:
1. "whereby anyone who doesn’t go along with the line of the climate change deniers, that carbon dioxide is not connected with climate change, for example, is in the hands of the carbon trading industry or something like that"
2. "what we do not see is a clear relationship between those lower levels of radiation that you predict and the incidence of cancers, let alone the higher incidence of death. It’s just it’s only there in very particular cases, generally with extremely high exposures of radiation"
3. "radon exposure seems to have almost no impact on the level of cancers among the rest of the population"
Which was she responding to? Some or all of it?
My *guess* is she was responding to #2, which goes directly against what
she is championing. But, since she didn't see fit to elaborate on her
response, we have no idea which statement/s she considered wrong or why.
To the OP's point, anyone who is truly concerned with radiation exposure
would look at all of it, prioritize based on highest risk and operate
accordingly. And, as the BRAWM team has attempted to do, put exposures
from various sources in perspective. From the perspective of those close
to Fukushima, the exposure is very high. From the perspective of the US,
the exposure is very low relative to all other background sources (which
includes radon). It's when a pundit presents all man made exposures as
high that they lose credibility.
Caldicott and other anti-nuke folks are pointing out VERY valid dangers
with nuclear power. Some areas of the US with populations in the millions
are in great danger if a nearby plant melts down. That includes Boston,
Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami and New York City just to name a few. But,
they lose credibility when they overstate dangers of specific incidents or
ignore information when it doesn't help further their cause. People then
don't know what to believe from them at that point.
Well, 3. "But the radon
Well, 3. "But the radon exposure seems to have almost no impact on the level of cancers among the rest of the population. So, I just think, you know, we’ve got to be very, very careful" was the last thing he said before she said "George, this is wrong, George" .
Someone asks a long winded, meandering statement like this one and my natural tendency is to respond to the last thing they said.
I don't know what part of that train wreck of a statement she was responding to. Your guess may very well be right. But either way I don't think this example proves or disproves the OPs allegations.
If you give me a list of everything that is wrong in the world and I don't respond to every point it doesn't mean I support the wrongs. Especially if you are still there adding new points to the debate while the moderator is trying to steer the debate back to the topic (Fukushima).
If you think you could prove me guilty of "Intellectual and professional malpractice" based on this slim evidence, I say Go ahead and file a civil suit, see you in court.
It's not like there is a big debate about Radon, or a lack of information on the risks. See google. Also, there is no radon lobby. Not a really big need for activists to counter that.
Quite weak my friend. You
Quite weak my friend. You have cut the quote short for one, but regardless there isn't any excuse for her behavior, which if you read the transcript shows that she is more concerned with her reputation than the science. I agree that she may mean well, but the OP has a valid point and I'm starting to look at her in a different light now.
Nowhere in the article you
Nowhere in the article you link does it say anything about Radon. It concerns low level radioactive waste in soil from
mining operations.
STFU yourself.
Actually, radium is
Actually, radium is mentioned in the article, and in this article on the same story
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/891709--sue-...
Now, guess where radon gas comes from....
Again, the article you link
Again, the article you link is taken out of context. There is one quote where she says children are more sensitive to Radon, but nothing about the dangers therein. But, the article is talking about her belief that people are directly inhailing Uranium and Radium, not Radon:
"Aghast at cancer-causing smokestack emissions that are “blowing over town,” she said Cameco should be shut down. The refinery is a “secretive, diabolical factory” that is adding to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, she said."
Radon does come from Uranium and Radium, as well as Thorium. It does not come from smokestacks.
So any radium that settles
So any radium that settles anywhere (not inhaled directly) then decays into radon gas (or decays in the body if it was inhaled) what happens to that radon?
Since it is predominantly
Since it is predominantly particulate matter falling onto soil outside, according to the article, it is not under the foundations of the houses and not contributing Radon gas to interior spaces.
No, the article is talking about inhailing Uranium and Radium from the plants and the resuspension of those elements when the soil is disturbed.
And none comes in with the
And none comes in with the air or decays inside the body after inhalation?
You have much more to worry
You have much more to worry about inhailing Uranium (constant alpha emissions) and Radium (constant gamma emissions) than you do from Radon (infrequent alpha emissions). Radon gas has a 4 day halflife and would be expelled before it could decay.
Two Radon progeny are of concern Polonium-214 and 210. They are deeply embedded in the lungs and irradiate for longer durations. They are attached to household dust from Radon decay inside the house. It is doubtful that Radon concentrations exhaled by individuals inhailing Uranium and Radium would constitute any concentration comparable to natural sources under foundations.
Your example is interesting
Your example is interesting but irrelevant.
Unless these people promote Radon elimination over Nuclear plant pollution, more people will die. It's an ongoing problem and one example does not exonorate.
STFU indeed. How you would love to silence this debate.
Maybe they could promote
Maybe they could promote avoiding CT scans too while they're at it.
What about the medical
What about the medical benefit to the scan?
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/22/2071
This rapid expansion of CT is undoubtedly causing cancers. Recent studies suggest CT causes 29,000 cases of cancer a year, leading to 14,500 deaths. To put that in perspective, an equal number of people die from ovarian cancer each year. CT scanning is a real and significant cause of death.
OP again: This is an
OP again:
This is an important thing to bring up. However, the point of this thread was dealing with the damage from internal emitters than is overlooked and uncontrollable. CT, scans are elective and external. Undoubtedly they cause cancer, and should be promoted as only medically necessary, but it is not the problem domain of LLRC. Although I would be happy if those in question raised awareness as well.
This OP's clearly stated
This OP's clearly stated confirmation that low level radiation is indeed a threat to health is certainly useful to know.
Yes, none of that Ann
Yes, none of that Ann Coulter stuff for this guy.
It's hilarious to watch the
It's hilarious to watch the LLRC supporters squirm and deceive when confronted with an inconvenient truth.
Keep it up. It's amusing.
Lacking some grey matter in your noggin, are you now ?
To the people that doubt Busby, mainly the character that opened this topic, I do believe you need to take a closer look at what you are saying. And pay attention to David's post in this thread. He is right on target.
My suggestion is that you first go to Busby's CV and examine it ! The man is dedicated and educated, and yes he is an activist too, which makes him even better. Also Busby, could have retired by now to spend time with his seven children and eleven grandchildren, thank goodness he is still out there doing battle and educating people for our sake ! It is a dirty ugly job to fight the nuclear industry and to find the facts, and present them. I applaud him for doing this with great courage and absolute truth.
Here is the CV link, I wonder how the people you follow, or believe in measure up !
http://www.chrisbusbyexposed.org/busbys-cv.html