Oxford Professor in Japan: Well so what if Fukushima had triple meltdown? People enjoy effects of radioactive contamination; Sunshine is much more dangerous; Effect of radiation same as oxygen — Former WHO Official: “The man is dangerous… He’s a crank” (VIDEOS)

Published: December 4th, 2014 at 2:39 pm ET


Wade Allison, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Oxford University, Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, Dec 3, 2014 (emphasis added):

  • 7:30 — Nuclear protestors have no good arguments for saying that nuclear is dangerous, this is demonstrated by what happened at Fukushima.
  • 19:30 – The scientific question is, ‘Why is radiation so safe?‘ Because it is very powerful and so that’s very surprising… That’s the job biology does… Any life form that did not look after the effects of radiation and oxygen, which does the same kind of thing, would fail.
  • 27:30On holiday we should take [children] around a nuclear power station.
  • 31:00 — What can we do to explain… to people and shove under their noses?
  • 39:15 — That excellent film Pandora’s Promise, anybody who hasn’t seen that should.
  • 45:00 — [Bury the used nuclear fuel] anywhere, anywhere… Fission products [have a] half-life is 30 years or soit quickly becomes the same activity as the stuff that you dig out of the ground. You need a mine or a hole in the ground which is going to contain stuff for 500 years — but it doesn’t have to be perfect. Here in Japan, people go to Onsen, and enjoy the effects of radioactive contamination of groundwatereverybody’s very happy to do that. That’s what they do on holiday.
  • 47:30 — Triple meltdown? Where did you get those words from? Hollywood? What do you mean by a triple meltdown? So what? I’m telling you — so nothing, very muchTriple meltdown, well so what?… It wasn’t a tragedy.
  • 52:45 — The sunshine… that’s much more dangerousthan nuclear radiation.
  • 1:01:45 — We need people’s confidence. We need to talk to children in school.
  • 1:04:45 — The idea that special precautions have to be taken just doesn’t wash, nuclear is not especially dangerous. It’s not as dangerous as fire.

Allison at the Institute of Physics: New safety levels for human radiation exposure are suggested… 100 mSv in total in any month; 5,000 mSv as a total of whole-of-life exposure.

Keith Baverstock, head of the World Health Organization’s Radiation Protection Program for Europe (1991-2003), Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan, Nov 20, 2014:

  • 20:00 — Question: My name is Hiroyuki Fujita, [inaudible] Shimbun editor/writer… According to [Dr. Wade Allison], so called low dose radiation, 100 mSv or less, not so bad for human health… all the scientific knowledge is rooted on the experience of the fruit fly.
  • 21:00 Wade Allison, do you know what his scientific expertise is? Physics… not public health, not medicine, not biology… I did a review of [his] book… I said his book is highly entertainingit is fiction… We don’t have to rely on fruit flies to know what the effects of radiation are. We know what they are on human health. We have a lot of epidemiological information — which he ignores. I think the man is dangerous, I think you are putting yourself in a dangerous position if you believe him… He’s a crank.

Watch Allison’s FCCJ presentation here | Watch Baverstock’s FCCJ presentation here

Published: December 4th, 2014 at 2:39 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Official Data: Lettuce from US West Coast nearly topped Chernobyl contamination limit; ‘Most dangerous’ alpha radiation also detected — TV: Fukushima poses “significant health risks” to areas thousands of kilometers away (VIDEO) September 29, 2014
  2. Local official measures alpha radiation on bridge railing — Up to 1,000 times more dangerous than beta or gamma (VIDEO) April 5, 2012
  3. Second explosion at Mitsui plant — FNN confirms depleted uranium — Kyodo: 3,400 drums with radioactive materials — “Did not appear to have any effect on radiation levels” (VIDEOS) April 22, 2012
  4. Fox Host: I wasn’t aware sickness among Navy sailors was so widespread after Fukushima; Experts say dangerous radioactive releases to air and ocean — Tepco didn’t give U.S. radiation data for 3 to 4 days (VIDEOS) December 20, 2013
  5. Report: 1.68 µSv/hr detected in Canadian rain water sample — Geiger counter display reads “DANGEROUS RADIATION BACKGROUND” July 18, 2011

256 comments to Oxford Professor in Japan: Well so what if Fukushima had triple meltdown? People enjoy effects of radioactive contamination; Sunshine is much more dangerous; Effect of radiation same as oxygen — Former WHO Official: “The man is dangerous… He’s a crank” (VIDEOS)

  • rogerthat


    … The NRC also came under criticism from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) for implementing too many new regulations and policies that have “marginal” safety value. Inhofe said the “NRC has grown too large,” partly because he and others had expected more substantial growth in the nuclear energy industry. The industry’s growth has been lower than expected, “but the NRC got the money anyway. And what do government agencies do when their budget grows faster than their mission? They overregulate.”

    Inhofe called for reducing the NRC’s budget. “I think a smaller NRC, at this point in time, will enable the commission to focus its efforts on its core mission and not on the development of unnecessary and redundant regulations.”

    The cumulative impact of regulation compounds the economic challenges facing nuclear energy facilities in competitive electricity markets, Nuclear Energy Institute Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Tony Pietrangelo said at the hearing. He said these markets have not yet developed mechanisms to value the “public good” that nuclear plants provide, such as fuel and technology diversity and forward price stability in the electric sector…

    – a smaller, underfunded NRC may mean, among other things, less compliance. and it's already criticised for being too close to the industry it regulates

  • rogerthat


    Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica
    6 Dec 2014
    Lessons not yet learned from the Fukushima disaster
    Jens-Uwe Klügel

    The Fukushima nuclear catastrophe has led to a wide-spread international discussion on how seismic and tsunami hazards can be better predicted and adverse consequences be prevented.

    In some countries the event led to the complete phase-out of nuclear energy.

    The lessons drawn by different organisations including earth scientists, earthquake engineers, non-governmental and governmental organisations will be reviewed from an independent position.

    This review captures the following areas: (1) Hazard assessment, (2) Engineering design and defence in depth concepts, (3) Emergency preparedness.

    It is shown that not all important lessons from the catastrophe have been drawn, because some of the root causes of the accident are not yet addressed.

    Especially the need of a holistic approach towards hazard assessment and the implementation of defence in depth and diversity of design principles for critical infrastructures like nuclear power plants hast to be stronger emphasized to prevent similar disasters.

    Author Affiliations
    1. NPP Goesgen-Daeniken, Daeniken, Switzerland
    2. International Seismic Safety Organisation (ISSO), Arsita, Italy

  • rogerthat


    Penry, Shazzam

    18 min
    Fukushima Cover-Up: SFP #4 Fire & Emissions Released, Areva, Consortium (Plume-Gate)

    Published on Dec 5, 2014

    ''… the industry group is in control of the response to Fukushima…''

  • rogerthat


    See the Super High resolution very close up look in the video below.
    (5min 40sec)
    Please scroll down for photo gallery

    The trees are all dying from absorbing the radioactive aluminum and barium fallout from the Chemtrail spraying and the Fukushima radiation fallout.. Trees that are cut down are being used as fuel and that well re-release the contaminates into the atmosphere..

    As you have seen on this website, it is not just the bark and just the trees that are sick.. And you well remember all the mutated leaves and plants everywhere.. Mutations are caused by radiation..

    – Halifax, Nova Scotia. Lots and lots of photos as well as a video

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    I object to your conflation of the effects of Fukushima with the effects of chemtrails. We know that radiation damages tree cells, both inside and outside, we know this from Chernobyl studies. To my knowledge, there has not been a similar level of scholarship on the effects, exact composition, frequency, and quantity of those substances people have associated with the so-called chemtrails. If you wish to discuss that, please take it to the non-nuclear discussion board, above right.

    Yes, I know the effects of radiation and the effects of other contaminants are synergistic, but we just don't have enough evidence, I think, to suggest that these tree mutations are caused by both.

    Sorry this response to this discussion thread was so late in coming – am catching up on my reading! Re: comment on the above article – just too totally deluded to even begin to comment on. I suggest the good professor read some Jon Gofman, but then I suggest that to everyone I argue radiation with.

    • SadieDog

      Arizonan, So you feel it necessary to comment a week later on someone's opinion and tell them to post in another forum. Give me a break. Nothing wrong with rogerthats post.

      • Arizonan Arizonan

        I was suggesting merely that it might be helpful to these discussions that IF the writer WANTED to talk about the genetic effects of chem trails on tree bark, they MIGHT be willing to please take it to the off topic discussion forum in the interests of clarity for the rest of us. I have apologised for commenting a week later, as I said, I am just catching up with my reading. Be well SadieDog.

        • SadieDog

          Arizonan, I understand, but his comment was relevant and I think the purpose of these boards is to have a discussion. I just didn't see a reason to school him on one sentence. Plus, the OT forum has been f'ed up for months. I myself post in OT material in recent story boards due to this. Anyway, nothing personal. I would have asked the same for someone redirecting you. Thanks for being civil. Be well, yourself.

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    The respected professor says there is no danger in radiation…wonder if the survivors of Hiroshima would agree with him?

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Fire as a risk is a good analogy in some ways…it is risky. It sure is. However, an interesting part of this analogy is that the difference between internal and external radiation dose is like the difference between standing next to a (controlled) fire to warm your fingers, and reaching into the fire to pick up a glowing coal and eating it. Emeritus and senile professor Allison suggests that the linear no threshold model only applies to external radiation, and fully and obscenely ignores long-term internalised radionuclides, from breathing, eating or drinking. These particles irradiate a little area of cells in all directions, in whatever tissue they land, like little machine guns. Some stay longer or less long inside the body, depending on their chemical form and half-life. 'Housewives,' he says, are worried about internal radiation.

    And radiation standards are not set by a 'top down' process, but rather through the efforts of hundreds of research scientists, like those reviewed in BEIR IV, which is almost as moderate and conservative a body as UNSCEAR, and both these august bodies funded by the nuclear power and weapons countries, still suggest that cancer increases as dose increases. Allison is an intellectual coward to depend upon mathematical models imported from physics rather than use a thorough investigation of the epidemiology.

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Then he talks about Goyanya, a caesium accident, 50.9 million million becquerels, source of accident in Brasil; compare with
    (100 Bq litre of water limit Japan)
    4 people died of acute radiation syndrome, cell cycle breaks down, not cancer; too many cells die, and no new cells can be made bcz cell cycle out of action. All who died had 100 million Bq….he doesn't say if painted on their faces or in their milk. Then he says does switches 'or about 4000 millisieverts' half way through his sentence. 25 yrs since accident. Doctor who reported to IAEA, last March, no one has died of radiation-related dance run that time. 1 of these 249 ppl, already pregnant, had 200,000 Bq; 4 mths pregnant, normal time, normal child, also radioactive child. So are all the animals at Chernobyl radioactive now. The question is, he says, why is radiation so safe? Because life has stabilised, and has been for over 4000 million yrs. Any life form which has not [adapted] to radiation would fail. A stabilised system, so that stress does not cause failure. Beyond a certain amount of stress the system is overloaded, and you do get failure, he says. Initial radiation damage to atoms and molecules, he says, is quite indiscriminate, most damage os to pieces of water molecules, reactive oxidants floating about, attacking molecules and causing damage to DNA. So effect of rad is actually chemical, protection is same as against chemical effect of oxygen. DNA repair enzymes, anti-oxidants, immune…

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    So, he says, 2 kinds of failure, when cell cycle fails, like sunburn, and when whole organise fails, acute radiation syndrome, then long term overload, which gives dance when surveillance by immune system fails.
    We are talking, he says, about a toroise and hare race, between a UN committee, discussing something for 60 yrs and discusses rules but doesn't cure; and their effects of a regulatory systems that has been working for thousands of millions of yrs. (UNSCREAR? IAEA? who is is talking about – unnamed] no doubt which is better, he says. Then goes on to say clean up is not worth it, might as well leave soil, no point in cleaning the soil, taking away soil, he says. [Iguess bcz rad so harmless, no need to remove soil??] No he computers ultraviolet rad from sunlight right next to X-rays; tho not as efficient at busting molecules as X-rays are, he says. [wow so colloquial] sunlight causes skin dance, but we don't bring whole us economic model to a grinding halt bcz of skin cancer. [unlike ol' harmless nuclear I guess]. Take children round to a nuclear power stain on holiday. [sure, just where we want to be on our hols, old boy.] People don't trust nuclear. Its a problem. Just like bankers. Bankers have trust. HOw/why? They print ppl on pieces of paper, like scientists. Mentions Curies, and how much we shd trust them. Fear is the problem, not nuclear, he says. [Skipping the Florence Nightengale story in this summary. That she's a scientist, basically.

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    God, then he shows a diagram of monthly area dose rates radiotherapy.
    40,000 millisieverts per month for the tumor,
    20,000 millisieverts per month, nearby cells;
    1 millisievert is the ALARA limit. safety is unjustifiably strict by a factor of a thousand, the old boy says.
    [Yet so many other scientists says the danger is unjustifiably low by a factor of a thousand]

    wow he really has never dealt with internal radiation yet at all, and I am listening to entire lecture and summarising it.
    He goes on to dismiss nuclear waste as a non problem bcz there is no chain reaction.
    In Fuku, he says, no chain reaction by time tsunami came. [Where does he get that crap?Has he ever seen the radiation diagrams, the charts of up and down I131 for months and months afterwards, even til today. A-hole Professor!]
    The public round the world is horrified, he says, by the rising cost of electricity, but these terrible unnecessary regulations add so much cost to nuclear, he says.
    Decommissioning of nuke reactors ought not to be happening, we ought to be building more reactors, educating ppl, helping the economy, by building more and more nuclear reactors, he says.
    [I wonder how much he got paid for giving this propaganda lecture to the Japanese Foreign Correspondents Club?]

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    He says a bunch of crap, as noted above, about how wonderful Pandoras Promise, the movie is.

    Q and A from the Japanese Press:
    No questions?
    ? german tv, no angst, isn't nuclear energy just to expensive, expense, expense, expense, so why not focus on renewables?
    A: renewables imp, but ran nuke is expensive, bcz of all this safety, all these safety regs, screening, safety, makes it all too expensive, he says. Reactors cd be built in half the time if you just cut safety corners, he advises. Build the containment with less concrete, he suggests. He suggests fossil and renewable biz is glad its so expensive for nuclear. In authoritarian regimes like russia and china, they don't have to worry about this sort of thing, and they are bldg nuclear power plants every week.
    Q: waste?
    A: waste problem is a commercial decision. thorium ur 238, so on, mostly a commercial matter; shunt b a big problem, CO2 a bigger problem. just busy it anywhere, anywhere. lack of political will bz of fear. if u sep waste, fission products, its half life is 30 yrs or so, in 500 yrs its activity is same as stuff u dig out of the grand…dsnt have to be perfect. Then Onsen comment. In Germany to rad spas too. What u do on holiday gets sep from what u do in econ, and it shouldnt, he says.
    Q: BBC reporter asks about triple meltdown, overwhelming response is fear, most don't want to go home even after clean up. what do u say to them?

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    A: it will b a generation b4 we put this fear behind us. You get that triple meltdown language from hollywood? fuel elements melted to bottom of container, and didn't come out the other side. at chenobyl it id of course, got out of containment. death toll from chern very small, by standard of mjr accidents, whereas Bhopal grtr death, smaller than Piper Alpha[?], smaller than Deepwater Horizon, the well in Gulf of Mexico. Triple meltdown? well so what? its a mess. sell afield – a few decades to clean up but we don't bring the world to a grinding halt or change the way we get our energy. its not that it wasn't an accident, but it wasn't a tragedy.
    Q: ppl can't go home is not a tragedy?
    A: but they shd go home, as i sd in 2011 when i came here. [hes must b getting a lot of air time]
    Q: just layperson, masai, wondering, why standard of the UN committee is so behind, also i feel that in japan, the research like yrs is not reported by mass media.
    A: i agree with u; pity so many clever ppl in jpn, but their work not coming forward. then there r ppl like baverstock who've staked carers on view of protecting us from radiation for 60 yrs. but what they r saying is not science based as we now understand it, this is coming from the whole SANI {?} group. Sunshone far more harmful than nuclear radiation. NUbr of fatalities at FUKU was not reduced by implementing regulations.

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    [that lady sounded like a plant in the audience]

    Q: 2011 cancer risk comparison; finshta? from comomi research?? 1 millisievert is equal to of lack of vegetables lack of exercise; 2000 miliiseivert like drinking 300cc alcohol; over 2000 miliisievert equivalent to smoking – thats the risk of cancer, he says. it gives me impression not 100 millisievert, but 2000 millisievert is not so bad, he concludes. not as bad as smoking, drinking.
    A: p-ob with millisievert is thats a "dose" – now if u have dose of 20 aspirin at once, book a taxi to hospital, rt then, but 1 or 2 a day will cure headache. making this distinction is not made in the LNT model, he maintains. we have to look at dose rate, he says [altho this old tire theory has long since been disproved. effects do not differ based on rate.] [I think this guy who asked this pronuke question was also a plant]

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Q: amused bat marie curie, died in 1934, of aplastic anemia brought on by exposure to radiation, is this not an example of what happens to doses of radiation that continue over time.
    A: a horrendous dose of radiation, she and her husband won the nobel prize for discovery of polol=nium i think. 1926, pierre died of horse drawn carriage action, she did not die until 1934. I've never seen anyone try to quantify her owe. safety reg then was bat 734 times more relaxed in her day. he thinks that standard wd be about right. [wow, he wants us to have the same safety regs that existed during Marie Curie's time??]
    Q: Jap Parlmntrn, how to form unanimous agent, on effctvnss of better use of nuke energy, from province with rad hot spring, we have lower rate of caner, more positive approach, we need to use radtn, nuclear energy, what is yr advice for how to cope? [Oh God, another plant! 3 in arrow]
    A: we have to talk with ppl, not at them, to get their confidence. don't wear protective gear, shake pals hands, talk to chldren, make sure they know about radiation, we teach them about fire we shd teach them about radiation.

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    His 'ways of promoting cultural change' are really orwellian] otherwise the chines and russians will be more competitive, he says.
    Q: with afb, get pt abt fear of radiation is faulty, but sev respected scientists, say not enough scientific evidence of impact of low level radtn to humn health; it is a consensus that it is not harmful under 1 millisvrt, but also no evidence of no impact on human health, so peoples fears r based on those conflicting views and lack of evidence. how to respond to peoples fears? she asks.
    A: we have 70 yrs of nuke tech, and 100 yrs in nuke med; u can't say we don't know anything about it; the idea that special precautions r needed, just doesn't wash. nuclear is not especially dangerous, not as dangerous as fire, i sigegst, but there r still things that biologists r learning, but not so big that they affect safety and the econ well being of humanity as a whole. I'm ageing with academically, but sociologically I'm saying we already know enough. [wow the bullshit continues]
    Q: when u talk to nuclear refugees at Fuku, they fear dust on playground, caesium in mushrooms, how we know if anything safe? shd we b worked about people berating it in? they believe that internalisation is dangerous. how do u address that?
    A: I tried to address that with the Goyonya accident, and then he talks about burns to their skin. he mentions whole body doses, but only in Japan, 32,000, but in goyanya, about 1000-10,000 times smaller dose. [still doesn't say…

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    A; we get out of this problem by educating people he says [ie, brainwashing them to think that radiation is more harmless than anyone could ever have suspected]

    Last word: thanks to dr allison, host says. gets another one yr honorary membership to fccj. please come back.

    [Okay, what do you DO with this? He still never distinguished internal from external radiation doses at Goyanya, Brasil. He makes no reference to the great body of Scientific Work that opposes his view, and this is deeply dishonest. He instead criticises the very conservative international regulatory bodies, who are probably UNDER estimating harm by a factor of 1000, not OVER estimating by that much, as he claims. He makes no mention of Gofman, the European Committee on the Effects of Ionising Radiation, and a great many other scientists whose work is discussed at length in the "Low Level Radiation" discussion forum, upper right column, this webpage. His main arguments are economic ones, and this is when he gets most heated. Had he actually read the reviews of the evidence and epidemiology published by Gofman and the ECRR, among many others, then he would know that his old tired arguments have long since been smashed to bits, even if they would be more comfortable economically, at least for the one percent.

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Also, please note that the science on the effects of the harm from low level radiation are not based (solely) on the fruit fly studies mentioned above, which showed that drosophilia had higher rates of genetic mutation when exposed to low dose of man-made ionising radiation (to which they were not 'stabilised' and 'adapted') but rather upon the effects of the high acute doses of radiation suffered by hundreds of thousands of human beings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Who also suffered long term chronic ingestion in food, and those were the control areas, thus diluting the hypocenter results in such a way that the cancers are UNDER estimated. However, the Atomic Bomb Survivor Study does show that at high evils of radiation (like Goyonya), the effects are muted because you or your cells just die outright, whereas at lower doses the effects are MORE pronounced because the cells and the DNA survive to reproduce in a damaged form. So Prof Allisons very simplistic approach to low dose equals lower effect, high dose equals higher effect, is simply not borne out in the evidence, as flawed as the ABSS is. Dr Allison talks a game that works in the debating halls of Oxford, but not in the real world of science. Alas, he appears to be packing to the converted in Japan. All Japanese who spoke at the end asked pronuclear questions, basically agreeing with Allison as they spoke. All foreign correspondents were more forthright in their challenges of his information, but even they were…

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    ….they were muted. Are they intimidated by an Oxford Professor Emeritus of Physics? Why on earth should they be? Guess the pronukers felt they had to bring out the big guns for that audience, however slightly senile and ill-informed, however poorly read on recent published research he may be. Tracking down the Gpyanya doc and have a heart to heart on the telephone doesn't really count as evidence either. Remember, the Marshall Islanders, like the Atomic Bomb Survivors, all had their own special docs too, you know. Special docs. What special docs to oversee that fraudulent research. all of it, all those examples were overseen by corrupt doctors. Of course, the USA has perfected the art of paying off corrupt doctors to oversee illegal activities, as we now know from the Torture Report, but that is another matter, an off topic reference. Or is it? What if their lie is so big and so massive so that they save themselves war crimes tribunals, and crimes against humanity tribunals, but now they are somehow worried the lie isn't big enough, so they bring in expensive hacks like Allison, to make the lie bigger, just so it can cover their collective asses a little wider.
    BTW, he also lies about containment. Allison says no nuclear material melted out of containment. Well, that does not appear to be the case, and even if it were, the water is certainly meeting the radioactive core-melts and 'uncontaining' them into the Pacific Ocean.

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Allison makes no mention of the numerous bits of evidence all of us here at enenews have seen, that also strongly supports the theory that Reactor #3 or something near it DID blow up sky-high, that radioactive material was also made airborne from the spent fuel pool fires; in the case of airborne burnt cores or burnt waste, this means the core materials are also OUT OF CONTAINMENT, as they are now accessible to the environment.

    What really gets me about Allison is that he pretends to respect the nuclear establishment (at least for economic reasons) yet he maintains that all the nuclear engineers and health physicists over the past 70 years who have tried to improve reactor containment, and personnel safety, have been wildly misguided and poorly informed. All that engineering know-how was for nought; why, nuclear energy is so safe we should be making little open pile reactors in our city parks, so the kids can really enjoy a hot holiday, shouldn't we Professor Allison? You would think a respected Oxford physicist wouldn't have to self-publish his own books, wouldn't you? His book, Radiation and Reason (2009), was self-published. Odd. His only other book, despite his 40 YEARS at Oxford, was a little intro, a basic text, on medical physics in 2006. Not much of a publishing career then. For a more complete run-down of Prof Allison's many mistakes, you can read a column from the antinuke side of the world, the only major story on Allison I could find pre-Fukushima

  • the great professor claims Fuku is only 1% of Chernobyl…


    Comparing Contaminated Zones Around Chernobyl And Fukushima Plus Total Ocean Radiation Released; via A @AGreenRoad

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Published in 2010, "Full Spectrum Ignorance" discusses Wade Allison at length. "Allison’s arguments are based on the premise that ionizing energy is always evenly distributed in the body, which is demonstrably false." See article: https://uglyrumors.wordpress.com/tag/wade-allison/

    The author of a news article is faulted because he simply repeats the " 'industry friendly information' (lacking any scientific credibility) he received from Allison. Besides, the first thing he should have done is explain what “dose” really means, that it is not based on scientific measurement but just a theoretical, mathematical construct: to give an estimate based on a physical “ model”, multiplied with another factor to give “RBE”, which is supposed to enable the quantification of risk (the likelihood and extent of biological damage). A great source of information for all these questions is the 2004 CERRIE Report (and the surrounding controversy of political influence) which the guardian reported –" And, as I have said, the best source to go to in order to learn how and why the calculations they use to figure out "dose" are so flawed, please see the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). Their 2010 recommendations, which advocated dose calculations sometimes reflecting 1000x more risk than those of UNSCEAR or IAEA, is available for free at: http://www.euradcom.org/2011/ecrr2010.pdf

    Does anyone know if Dr Chris Busby has ever spoken at the Japan Foreign…

  • Arizonan Arizonan

    Or would he not be allowed to speak there?

  • Jebus Jebus

    The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan
    Yurakucho Denki North Building 20F
    Yurakucho 1-7-1, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-0006

    Tel: +81-3-3211-3161; Fax: +81-3-3211-3168

    Email: front@fccj.or.jp


You must be logged in to post a comment.