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?
"I applaud him for doing
"I applaud him for doing this with great courage and absolute truth."
There is no absolute truth when it comes to science. I really think Busby is doing a good job as an activist, but his somehow messianic attitude when it comes to science is hurting his position. His work would be much more valuable if he had remained inside the peer reviewed scientific community generating debate instead of self publishing.
Busby Supporter
My response to "peer reviewed scientific community generating debate instead of self publishing."
Please note Busby has remained in peer reviewed communities. The self publishing material is often necessary to make a point, and self publishing is also very important when you have accumulated enough hard science, to nail it down. Yes, it is open for debate and indeed you can already see how people love to hack at him. Also please look at his CV alone. There you will find all the various facts that he is involved with numerous peers, and at an international level.
Here is a link to a Youtube poster, that has links to a just a handful talks sighting international conferences, with many different scientists alike debating and discussing the issues at hand, including Chris Busby. The information is out there, you just have to find it as it is mostly in Europe.
I agree it is important to stick with the science, but with nuclear it is also important to be an activist for the cause I think we both agree on that. I think self publishing is okay as long as you back up your science with other studies as he does in many cases.
What's this? A coalition of
What's this? A coalition of the shilling?
Could you point me to a post here where "LLRC supporters squirm and deceive" ?????
Or one where LLRC supporters are"confronted with an inconvenient truth"??????
Not seeing any of that here, maybe I missed it...
What's this?
Sue government over toxic town, activist tells Port Hope
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/891709--sue-...
Why single out Busby,
Why single out Busby, Caldicott, and Gundersen? By you're twisted logic all doctors are guilty? Foot doctor?? HA, no one dies from foot ailments. All foot doctors are guilty of "Intellectual and professional malpractice". Messing with feet ignoring the bad awful radon, cigarette smoke, and drunk driving. Same goes for chiropractors, ophthalmologists, I guess the BRAWM team, too. I don't see any of them handing out CO detectors.
The more I think about it OP, is anyone meeting your amazingly high level of professional responsibility?
Even MDs don't save 25000
Even MDs don't save 25000 lives per year. Somebody better call Dr House and tell him he is guilty of "Intellectual and professional malpractice" and not for his crazy antics, because he didn't squawk enough about radon.
Quick call out the 661, 400 physicians and surgeons in the United States they are all guilty too!!!
Both you and the poster
Both you and the poster above are having a laugh at the expense of others. Feel good?
The people in question are in a position, and it being their line of employment, to ferret out causes of disease fom low level radiation. Why give them a pass for missing a big part of their duty?
If I didn't know better, I'd almost call you apologists.
So is Dr House, I would bet
So is Dr House, I would bet that his audience dwarfs Busby, Caldicott, and Gundersen combined.
Just ask any American "Who is Chris Busby, Helen Caldicott, or Arnold Gundersen?" Then ask " Who is Dr. House?".
Do you have any proof that they missed Radon?
Well, the AMA and EPA have
Well, the AMA and EPA have worked together to educate doctors about Radon so they can tell their patients. I have not heard anything similar from those in question:
http://www.aces.edu/fcs/hndh/radon/publications/factsheets/RADON-PhysGui...
If the AMA and EPA already
If the AMA and EPA already told them, then what more are these brave scientists going to do about it.What do you want from them on this, a Jerry Lewis telethon, PSAs? Seriously dude
The EPA and AMA are only in
The EPA and AMA are only in the US. There's a whole bug world out there with an audience for her to talk about this issue. But, silence.
Right, because outside of
Right, because outside of the US no one has ever heard of radon, or $20 radon detectors on the internet. S
All day you can read quotes
All day you can read quotes from these guys on the dangers of radium, which decays into radon gas.
Moral Duties
So, your argument about one's moral obligations hinges upon the numbers, eh?
Veeeerrry interesting.
So, all of us should calculate the "quantity" of those we can help prior to making any decision to become involved in righting any wrong, or bringing to light any danger?
Do you really mean this?
Are you willing to go where this would take you?
Well, in any event, as Fukushima devolves and takes so many Japanese families, animals, farmland and others with it-extending even beyond the borders of Japan, I expect that your math will allow you to redeem the aforementioned folks whom you would like to sue for malpractice.
So the millions that die
So the millions that die from lung cancer are somehow less important than those affected by Fukushima and Chernobyl?
A dead person is someone's mother, father, child, brother or sister. Dead is dead. Looking at numbers is the only way to eliminate global suffering. You probably find it acceptable that drug companies would choose to go after higher profit drugs that help fewer people than making choices about a low-cost drug that would ease suffering in Africa.
It's simply a greater good to help more people than fewer. Or, do you disagree with this statement?
They are less important in 2
They are less important in 2 ways:
Radioactive contamination forever soils the gene pool.
Radioactive contamination is far more damaging to the Earth's life systems.
That's a truely laughable
That's a truely laughable excuse for ignoring suffering.
Genetic mutations have happened on Earth since life first started. It's the basis of Evolution, and while nuclear contamination is not the intended outcome, there are far fewer examples of this kind of mutation than Radon deaths, so my assertion is not swayed.
As for contamination of the Earths systems: do you think that millions of years ago, the natural Uranium in the soil (which contained much higher levels of radiation) stopped life on this planet? Do you also think that the contamination by Fukushima and Chernobyl have led to 12 million dead? Because that's the true cost of lives from Chernobyl until now from Radon.
But, my orignal point still is valid, more so even because you have just demonstrated that proven suffering is acceptable as a countermeasure to theoretical harm.
http://www.seered.co.uk/radon
http://www.seered.co.uk/radon25.htm
In the USA it has been estimated that a multi-billion dollar radon remediation campaign would have the same effect on premature death as a 1% reduction in smoking.
The distinction is that I'm
The distinction is that I'm not advocating remediation. That would imply fixing the problem of Radon entry, but not entirely hence the 1% gain.
What I'm referring to is an effort to alert people to the dangers and for them to open a window, door or get a fan to blow air around.
Would you say that a campaign to install smoke detectors is equally worthless? It would be better if every house had sprinkler system, but that's pretty expensive too.
Why not call out the home
Why not call out the home builders association of america?
Bad logic
So where's the malpractice?
Do you want them to hand out radon detectors or something? Do you have a statement from them saying radon is good for you or don't worry about it? Or maybe you think they should protest cigarettes? Do you have statements from them encouraging people to smoke?.....not seeing the malpractice here
Malpractice doesn't
Malpractice doesn't necessarily mean they have to advocate the wrong treatment, as it can be from negligence as well.
Given the visibility of PSR and the organizations within this group, I would expect that if they were truely concerned with the health effects of low level radiation, that they would have an effort to raise awareness of the dangers of Radon. They should certainly be advocating the UN and WHO do as much as they can to warn people of the danger, or even try to develop a low-cost Radon monitor for the developing world. These are the types of things an organization that is morally bound to it's cause would seek.
Yet, the people in question? Not so much. Their negligence is malpractice.
and what price do you put on killing the planet?
One difference with drunk drivers and smokers, is that those at least are individual choices, particularly the smoking. True, many innocents are kill by drunk driving, but there is personal responsibility there by someone.
Radon, as far as I can tell, is a natural occurrence, not something we have a choice in, nor control over it's emission. Yep, better awareness and counter measures would help, but just because those are all bad things, doesn't minimize the Lbadness" of the potential lifelong (species long!) Permanent damage by nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plants destroy the planet - they don't just kill people. They ruin water supplies, oceans, soil, etc. They permanently destroy dna, reproduction, etc, which is passed along for generations.
The underwater contamination from the local nuclear plant is creeping along, at least here locally - going in the opposite direction from where I live. All over the country this is happening, and will increase. The leaked radiation, which happens MUCH more frequently than publicly admitted) - when it kills or sickens, is not a one-time event, as the water, the soil, etc are affected.
And the rules (i.e. LAWS) don't seem to apply to these power plants - exceptions left and right. Just read today of a nat'l gas plant approved for the San Juaquin Valley that the EPA has exempted from it's clean air standards. The nuclear industry has exemption after exemption.
To affect change in society, there will always be those considered extremist. Happened during the civil rights movement, when women fought to vote, etc. We would be a different society if it were not for those with the courage to speak out, rather than foloow like sheep.
Cigarette smoke may not be a
Cigarette smoke may not be a choice either. Secondhand smoke is estimated at 45,000 deaths anually by the CDC.
Nuclear power is both an individual and societal choice as well. All power generation technologies pollute to some degree, either in operation, or in construction. While there are clearly more and less polluting technologies, the ones required to meet 24x7 any-day demand fall to Coal, Petrochemical and Nuclear, Hydro and Geothermal, which also have shown they have environmental drawbacks. Of these technologies for base load generation, when operating normally, Nuclear has the least environmental impact. When their are accidents, of course this is undone.
As citizens, we should be aware of where our power comes from, and what environmental impact our choices have. Conservation is more important than generation, and technologies that augment the grid should be encouraged to reduce base-load requirements. But, the base-load, while being able to be reduced, does not go away, and industrial output depends on the availability of this energy. Scaling back industry is also a choice society should decide the value of, and how much we consume.
But, we as citizens should also be demanding the safest power generation possible. New reactor designs may hold better sway with this idea, but also eliminating Coal as it kills more miners anually than does Uranium mining. And reducing gas turbine generation as gas extraction methods are ruining groundwater tables. And by developing solar cells that are not Arsenic-based as the effluent from manufacturing and recycling destroys the local environment.
Pollution is a problem of concentrations. Higher density energy generation will always bring concentrations of chemicals or isotopes that can cause pollution. Society and individuals can reduce their intake by reducing their energy consumption.
How is nuclear power an
How is nuclear power an individual choice?
Ha!
Nuclear power an individual choice? Give me a break....you really dilute anything valid in your argument when you make silly statements like that.
The US is in high power talks to build nuclear storage and power plants as far away as Mongolia - this is big business, this is not an individual choice.
"When their are accidents,
"When their are accidents, of course this is undone."
Even nuke advocates admit that at least one major accident every 25 years is to be expected.
The problem is the industrial-growth disease that allowed for 7 billion people and growing. Nothing of the current state of affairs is sustainable.
Industry
The original poster seems to be working for the nuclear industry. I say this because they do anything they can to get Caldicott and those telling the truth out of the picture. It's bad for business.
That's the typical tactic
Anyone that so much as questions the anti-nuke folks is accused of
"working for the nuclear industry" or being "pro nuke". Believe it
or not, there are people out there that don't blindly take the bait
offered by either side of the issue. And question *both* sides in
search of the facts. And it's not possible to have a constructive
discussion with anyone that doesn't understand that.
Well, buddy, you're wrong.
Well, buddy, you're wrong. But, I'd rather you justify what Caldicott does, and how many more people die each year on the same basis of what she's fighting against, than she actually helps.
R.E. original poster et
R.E. original poster et al....there has been a lot of research on effects of internal radiation...do the research on the web yourself if you don't believe it. Also, haven't you seen the picture of the bunny born at Fukishima recently that has no ears? I hope you never live right next door to a nuclear plant. And by the way, enjoy the milk, salad and seafood. One of the sites has microscopic pictures of radioactive materials in dandelion leaves. Look for it...if you don't believe it. Maybe you're not a scientist either.
Looks like you don't quite
Looks like you don't quite understand the concept here. The point is that greater harm is being done in the name of fighting nuclear emissions than if the sane effort was put firth to combat Radon.
But, it's a free country, I'm glad you can rationalize the extra deaths from Radon.
Cheers.
Guess what....anyone can go
Guess what....anyone can go out and buy radon detectors but apparently noone can stop Fukishima..certainly not TEPCO. If they are to be trusted enough to resolve this problem that is poisoning their own lansmen and sending rad isotopes around the hemisphere, they should be stopping the release of radioactive vapors etc. or at least they should be responsibly warning people so they can take precautions. At least they could be providing the nuclear scientists with reliable info/data so that some competent people could be making better decisions. Unfortunately, I have limited ability to stop the accident beyond calling my congressman and senator or engaging in advocacy. Don't you think instead of minimizing the risks of this disaster and justifying them by comparison to radon, that you may be missing the point yourself?
Ok, so how is this
Ok, so how is this malpractice? I believe the risks of accidents in living with this technology does much more harm/potential harm to the earth and those that live here than radon. Sorry.
Well please convince me with
Well please convince me with evidence.
How many have died from the Nuclear industry?
mortality/morbidity; nuclear industry
Dying is not always the most important thing. Death can be preferable to intensive suffering.
The 1.2 million deaths you quote are from 1 single incident. That does not include deaths stemming from TMI or the ones that will come from Fukushima. Many of the deaths will not be counted due to the fact that it takes up to 25 years for the cancers to show themselves, and governments are encouraged to underestimate. It does not include mutilated offspring due to genomic alterations which increase with each generation or the child cancer deaths due to the genomic alterations of ensuing generations. It does not include the effect from mining, pollution from the tailings, or damage to the water supply or the expense of maintaining depositories for spent fuel or possible damage from those sites for the rest of time.
Deaths is not all that is involved. An even larger group is found in the morbidity numbers. Many of the cancers are not deadly because the effected organ(s) can be removed. Often times the surgery has to be repeated over and over due to reoccurring tumors. In the case of Iodine-131 and the thyroid the ratio of morbidity to mortality is 1000 to 1. That's 1000 people with possible continuous debilitating diseases and frequent surgeries for each cancer death. Many of the morbidity numbers show multiple simultaneous diseases that create a kind of slow suffering death over many years and are therefore not counted in the 'deaths' quote.
The NRC sets their acceptable level of risk assessment due to mortality at 3.5 deaths/1000. Distributed equally among the US population that would be more than 1 million deaths every year. For the world population that would be 21 million deaths per year. Some people think that these are unacceptable levels for the energy generated from nuclear plants especially when there are design flaws and/or mismanagement.
Your slanderous statement about malpractice is unsupportable. Your comparisons with smoking and automobiles etc. are no more relevant than comparing to any other cause of death (such as death due to starvation). You seek to negate what they are saying not for what they are saying or doing but for what they are NOT doing (ie. not trying to reduce radon); this is illogical and therein your argument has no standing. Your argument is undone sir.
Good post David, it's good
Good post David, it's good to know that not everyone here is a brain dead zombie!
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.
I think I found some new "Intellectual and professional malpractice" for you.
Almost as many deaths per year as radon, without that pesky increased risk for smokers from radon.
Add x-rays and pet scans
Add x-rays and pet scans increased cancer rates and I think I found you a new cause OP.