Christopher Busby

Last updated

Busby in 2007 Chris Busby.jpg
Busby in 2007

Christopher Busby (born 1 September 1945) is a British scientist primarily studying the health effects of internal ionising radiation. Busby is a director of Green Audit Limited, a private company, [1] and scientific advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign (LLRC). [2]

Contents

Following the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Busby established a television and internet presence where he discussed the risks of ionizing radiation and the Japanese Government's handling of the disaster. A Japanese language website marketed tests and a mineral supplement (dubbed an "anti-radiation" pill, and condemned by leading scientists as "useless") that Busby advised could mitigate the effects of ingested radioisotopes. [3]

Career

Busby obtained a BSc in Chemistry with First Class Honours from the University of London. He later gained a PhD in chemical physics at the University of Kent, researching Raman spectro-electrochemistry. [4] Busby was a member of the British government sponsored Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters (CERRIE), which operated from 2001 to 2004. [4] In 2001, he was appointed to the UK Ministry of Defence Oversight Committee on Depleted Uranium (DUOB). [4] Between 2003 and 2007 he was a Fellow of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Liverpool, in the Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, [4] and he was visiting professor at the School of Biomedical Sciences until his retirement in 2012 University of Ulster. [5] He was then Guest Researcher at Jacobs University Bremen for a year and is currently Scientific Director of Environmental Research SIA in Riga, Latvia.

Busby is a former National Speaker on Science and Technology for the Green Party of England and Wales. [6] [7]

Second event theory and photoelectric effect controversy

The Biphasic Curve: The cancer risk vs. radiation level in the low-dose regime (0 to 200 mSv) for LNT and the 'Biphasic Curve' promoted by Busby. Background radiation is ~2.4 mSv/year (diagram adapted by Busby from Burlakova et al. (1998)). Biphasic Curve.gif
The Biphasic Curve: The cancer risk vs. radiation level in the low-dose regime (0 to 200 mSv) for LNT and the 'Biphasic Curve' promoted by Busby. Background radiation is ~2.4 mSv/year (diagram adapted by Busby from Burlakova et al. (1998)).

From 1987 onwards Busby has written on the health effects of ionizing radiation and developed what he has named "second event theory" (SET) and "photoelectric effect theory" (PET). He claims that these theories demonstrate that the widely accepted linear no-threshold (LNT) model substantially underestimates the risk of low level radiation (the LNT model is largely constructed from the 1958 to 2001 'Life Span Study' of the 120,321 Japanese Atomic Bomb Survivors (hibakusha (被爆者)) who were exposed to a powerful external burst of neutron and gamma radiation). [9] Busby claims that in the low dose regime, radiation moderately above background causes more cancer than much higher levels of radiation i.e. a biphasic (bimodal) curve; a claim based on the work of Russian biologist Elena Burlakova. [8] [10]

Busby initially proposed the Second Event Theory (SET) in 1995, in his self-published book Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health [11] claiming that isotopes which decay sequentially, emitting two or more particles in a short decay chain, have far greater genotoxic effects than predicted by the LNT model. According to this theory, the 90Sr-90Y decay chain would be ~30 times more carcinogenic than predicted by LNT. According to SET, primary exposure to a beta particle alters a cell to the G2 Phase, which Busby claims would render the cell highly radio-sensitive and more prone to malignant changes when exposed to a second particle.

SET was criticised by Cox & Edwards (2000) [12] who stated that if Busby's "biologically implausible" theory was correct and all irradiated cells undergo transformation to the G2 Phase, it would cause an increased risk factor of just 1.3 times and predict, on the contrary, substantial risk reduction at low doses for single emitting radioisotopes. Furthermore, it was established in 1906 (The Law of Bergonié and Tribondeau) that cells in the G2 Phase are more resistant to radiation than cells in the M Phase (Radiosensitivity and Cell cycle). [13] The Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) report, on which Busby was one of twelve members, exhaustively examined the biological plausibility of SET and commissioned an independent consultant to conduct a literature review. In 2004 CERRIE rejected the SET by a 10 to 2 majority consensus (Busby and non-scientist Richard Bramhall, dissented). The rejection was made for following reasons: [14]

CERRIE also considered and rejected by 10 to 2 consensus the biphasic (bimodal) curve of Burlakova et al. (1999), [10] due to the study's "substantial shortcomings"; tables were so ambiguous that the risk-dose response could be interpreted as linear, biphasic or even promoting health (radiation hormesis). [14]

In 2011, Busby began selling a minority report for £25 on his website, in which he claimed that cancer risk from internal exposures to low doses of radiation is 300 times greater than predicted under the LNT model, that the LNT model is meaningless, and that cancer incidence rates in Sweden and Belarus increased by 40% since Chernobyl. [15]

Later work by Busby focused on the health effects of ingested depleted uranium particles and the photoelectric effect theory (PET). [16] The photoelectric effect theory proposes that ingested uranium particles vastly increase the potency of natural background radiation, by 500 to 1000 times, via the photoelectric effect. [17] [18] However, subsequent computer simulations by Pattison (2013) [19] indicate that radiation enhancement via the photoelectric effect is minute, the radiation enhancement effect due to one 10 μm-sized DU particle in 1 cm3 of tissue is just 2 in 10 million greater than a particle not being present.

Conflicts with other low-dose radiation researchers

Busby is the author of two self-published books on cancer incidence in Wales, Wings of Death and Wolves of Water.

The books were criticised in the Journal of Radiological Protection as "erroneous in consequence of various mistakes". [20] [21] According to Richard Wakeford, the editor-in-chief of the journal, a fellow CERRIE committee member representing the nuclear industry, and a specialist in the health effects of low-dose radiation (formerly with British Nuclear Fuels), [22] Busby's work is "Deeply flawed". [23]

Busby served on the UK Government's Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE), which operated between 2001 and 2004, and included medical professionals, scientists, delegates from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, and Richard Wakeford representing the nuclear industry. [23] Busby ultimately disagreed with the committee's conclusions and published a "minority report" with another committee member from LLRC. [24] On the LLRC website page selling the minority report, it's claimed (without citation) that north Sweden cancer rates have increased by 40% since Chernobyl. [25] A doctoral dissertation from 2007 was reported as saying that the area "has shown a small but statistically significant increase in the incidence of cancer". [26]

Antone Brooks (former Technical Research Director of the US Department of Energy's Low Dose Radiation Research Program) [27] has also had differences with Busby.[ citation needed ]

Televised comments on Fukushima I nuclear accidents

Fukushima's Harsh Warning, Chris Busby's interview

In a 14 March broadcast on BBC, Busby was interviewed along with Ian Fells, and characterised the accident as "exactly the same scenario" as Chernobyl. While admitting that the containment structure for Fukushima Dai-ichi was more advanced than that at Chernobyl, he claimed there could be "nuclear explosion" rather than (as reported) a hydrogen explosion, if fuel elements had melted down and collected at the bottom of the vessel. He also asserted that radiation levels measured at a reactor north of Fukushima Dai-ichi (i.e. Onagawa) indicated that "up to 100 kilometers away, we are getting concentrations of plutonium, cesium and iodine" (sic – presumably radionuclides thereof) released from Fukushima Dai-ichi, making the releases comparable in his opinion to Chernobyl, in terms of human health impact. In response to Fells' characterisation of the worst immediate effects being loss of power to an advanced industrial society, Busby said "this is a radiological catastrophe already", asserting in particular that plutonium releases were a major cause of concern. [28]

On 30 March 2011, Busby first appeared on RT (formerly known as Russia Today) stating that the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was worse than being reported. [29] During the follow-up interview on 13 April 2011, Busby stated that Fukushima radiation pollution could cause up to 400,000 added cancer cases among those living within 200 km of the reactor, with " reports of significant radiation ... even south of Tokyo". [30] [31]

Controversy regarding sale of "Anti-radiation" pills

Following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Busby established an internet presence discussing the risks of ionizing radiation and a conspiracy theory involving Japanese Government's efforts to spread radioactive contamination throughout the country. He also marketed online, services and a mineral supplement he claimed mitigate the dangers of ingested radioisotopes. [3]

Busby claimed radioactive caesium-137 released from the nuclear disaster can cause heart muscle damage and heart attacks in children and a mineral supplement, sold on his Japanese language website via 4u-detox of San Pedro, California, could prevent these deleterious effects (labelled Busby Laboratories, Formula 1, Christopher Busby Foundation for The Children of Fukushima). [32] Busby says he bases his cardiac claims on the work of husband-and-wife team Yury Bandazhevsky and Galina Bandazhevskaya; known for their controversial claims that arrhythmia and heart attacks occurred in children at caesium-137 levels as low as 50 Bqkg−1 and that oral apple pectin increases its excretion (by comparison banana contains ca. 3000 Bqkg−1 of natural potassium-40). [33] [34]

Busby later self-published a document that he claimed offered theoretical support for his supplement, namely an ability to block certain radioisotopes from binding to DNA. However, his document also explains that his supplement cannot block caesium-137, because it does not contain a protective dose of stable caesium:

Unfortunately, the laws prohibit the sale of such tablets despite the fact that Caesium is totally non-toxic at these levels. [35]

Note that even if the pills contained stable cesium it is unlikely that the stable cesium would increase the rate at which radioactive cesium is lost from a person. It has been shown by Prochazka et al. that the addition of stable cesium to the diet of pigs fails to increase the rate at which radioactive cesium is lost from the pigs [36]

Additionally, Busby alleges the Japanese Government is involved in a conspiracy to spread radioactive contamination throughout Japan, in an effort to hide cancer clusters from epidemiologists and thus hinder litigation (cancer clusters are typically statistically identified by comparison with an unexposed cohort). [3] Gerry Thomas, professor of molecular pathology at the department of surgery and cancer at Imperial College, London, condemned the "anti-radiation" pills as useless and described the claims made by Busby as ludicrous. Ohtsura Niwa, professor at the Kyoto University Radiation Biology Center and CEO of BioMedics Japan, disagreed with Busby's contention that radiation is being deliberately spread throughout Japan. Niwa noted that the ownership of dosimeters in Japan is now widespread and if radioactive contamination was actively spread about, people would know. Niwa also agreed with Thomas, that mineral supplements cannot guard against strontium, uranium and plutonium radioisotopes. Similar mineral supplements are widely available in chemists in Tokyo, at 1/8th cost offered by Busby Laboratories. [3] [37]

In 2008, a research team at the Experimental Radio-TOXological Laboratory (LRTOX), France, independently investigated the effects of high level (500 Bqkg−1) caesium-137 exposure in animals (heart, testes, blood, cholesterol, immune system, foetus etc.). For example, Guéguen et al. (2008) investigated the possible cardiac effects of 500 Bqkg−1 caesium-137 exposure in rats over 3 months. They observed that, while caesium-137 exposure did not cause any damage to heart cells or arrhythmias, results indicated that quite subtle cardiac impairment might worsen in some sensitive individuals over time. [38] Also, Le Gal et al. (2006) found that the excretion of caesium-137 was not increased by oral apple pectin, however prussian blue (the drug Radiogardase) enhanced faecal excretion of caesium-137 fivefold. [39] Furthermore, the study of Bandazhevskaya (2004) involving oral apple pectin was criticised by Jargin (2010), who highlighted a number of serious flaws that meant the claims made could not substantiated. [40]

Claiming that a supplement can be of use in the "cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease" renders it equivalent to a drug and subject to oversight by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act). Specifically, drugs must be demonstrated to work and proven safe. In April 2011, the FDA sent warning letters to an unrelated company, Premier Micronutrient Corporation of Nashville, Tennessee, US, who similarly claim that its "anti-oxidant" supplements are capable of preventing illness caused by radiation (Bioshield-Radiation R1 and Bioshield Radiation R2). The FDA pointed out there was no scientific data demonstrating the drugs safety or effectiveness in treating radiation exposure. [41] However, Bioshield Radiation R2 subsequently resumed sale with a legal waver, "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."; that it is a food supplement. [42] The FDA approves three over-the-counter drugs for iodine-131 and one prescription drug (Radiogardase) for caesium-137 contamination. [43] [44]

Research on weapons derived uranium and other matters

Busby has written and spoken about the potential health effects of depleted uranium. [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] He has claimed that people have been exposed to uranium during the 2nd Gulf War (2003), [51] the Bosnia campaign (1996), [52] [53] and in the Middle East, [54] [55] information which was completely denied by in-depth research by the UN. [56]

His claims that uranium exposure increased the number of birth defects in Iraq been proven completely wrong after UNEP analysis. [57] A review of past studies of birth defects in Iraq concluded that there was no clear increase in birth defects and no clear indication of a possible environmental exposure including depleted uranium. [58]

In November 2012, Busby gave a talk in Geneva at the Human Rights Council [59] about the failures of radiation protection as a human rights issue. [60]

He was arrested in 2018 in Devon after the nerve agent attack on the Skripals when some police officers visited his home after reports that his 29-year-old housemate was acting in a strange manner. He was not arrested in connection with the nerve agent attack but after two police officers felt unwell in his house. [61] He was arrested under the Explosive Substances Act 1883 before being released later. Chris Busby did state that he had a bottle of nitric acid somewhere in the house. Chris Busby expressed the view that his arrest and the search of his home were a retaliation against him for his work on nuclear matters. [62] The possession of nitric acid is regulated by the Control of Poisons and Explosives Precursors Regulations 2015 when the concentration of the nitric acid is above 3%. An aqueous solution which is 3% nitric acid is circa 0.7 M.

Selected publications

Books

ISBN 9780956513212

Book chapters

See also

Related Research Articles

Background radiation is a measure of the level of ionizing radiation present in the environment at a particular location which is not due to deliberate introduction of radiation sources.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Depleted uranium</span> Uranium with lower content of 235U

Depleted uranium is uranium with a lower content of the fissile isotope 235U than natural uranium. The less radioactive and non-fissile 238U constitutes the main component of depleted uranium.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents</span> Severe disruptive events involving fissile or fusile materials

A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." Examples include lethal effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, or a reactor core melt. The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactive isotopes are released, such as in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Radioactive contamination</span> Undesirable radioactive elements on surfaces or in gases, liquids, or solids

Radioactive contamination, also called radiological pollution, is the deposition of, or presence of radioactive substances on surfaces or within solids, liquids, or gases, where their presence is unintended or undesirable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Linear no-threshold model</span> Deprecated model predicting health effects of radiation

The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a dose-response model used in radiation protection to estimate stochastic health effects such as radiation-induced cancer, genetic mutations and teratogenic effects on the human body due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The model assumes a linear relationship between dose and health effects, even for very low doses where biological effects are more difficult to observe. The LNT model implies that all exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose is, and that the effect is cumulative over lifetime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hot particle</span> Nuclear risk to human health

A hot particle is a microscopic piece of radioactive material that can become lodged in living tissue and deliver a concentrated dose of radiation to a small area. A generally accepted theory proposes that hot particles within the body are vastly more dangerous than external emitters delivering the same dose of radiation in a diffused manner. Other researchers claim that there is little or no difference in risk between internal and external emitters, maintaining that individuals will likely continue to accumulate radiation dose from internal sources even after being removed from the original hazard and properly decontaminated, regardless of the relative danger from an internally sourced radiation dose compared to an equivalent externally sourced radiation dose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caesium-137</span> Radioactive isotope of caesium

Caesium-137, cesium-137 (US), or radiocaesium, is a radioactive isotope of caesium that is formed as one of the more common fission products by the nuclear fission of uranium-235 and other fissionable isotopes in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. Trace quantities also originate from spontaneous fission of uranium-238. It is among the most problematic of the short-to-medium-lifetime fission products. Caesium-137 has a relatively low boiling point of 671 °C (1,240 °F) and easily becomes volatile when released suddenly at high temperature, as in the case of the Chernobyl nuclear accident and with atomic explosions, and can travel very long distances in the air. After being deposited onto the soil as radioactive fallout, it moves and spreads easily in the environment because of the high water solubility of caesium's most common chemical compounds, which are salts. Caesium-137 was discovered by Glenn T. Seaborg and Margaret Melhase.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effects of the Chernobyl disaster</span> Assessment of Chernobyls impact on Earth since 1986

The Chernobyl disaster of 26 April 1986 triggered the release of radioactive contamination into the atmosphere in the form of both particulate and gaseous radioisotopes. As of 2024, it remains the world's largest known release of radioactivity into the natural environment.

Uranium in the environment is a global health concern, and comes from both natural and man-made sources. Beyond naturally occurring uranium, mining, phosphates in agriculture, weapons manufacturing, and nuclear power are anthropogenic sources of uranium in the environment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">TORCH report</span> Health impact report on the Chernobyl disaster

The TORCH report was a health impacts report requested by the European Greens in 2006, for the twentieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, in reply to the 2006 report of the Chernobyl Forum which was criticized by some advocacy organizations opposed to nuclear energy such as Greenpeace.

The European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) is an informal committee formed in 1997 following a meeting by the European Green Party at the European Parliament to review the Council of Europe's directive 96/29Euratom, issued in May of the previous year. ECRR is not a formal scientific advisory committee to the European Commission or to the European Parliament. Its report is published by the Green Audit. Dr. Busby is the secretary of ECRR.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases</span>

This article compares the radioactivity release and decay from the Chernobyl disaster with various other events which involved a release of uncontrolled radioactivity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact of nuclear power</span>

Nuclear power has various environmental impacts, both positive and negative, including the construction and operation of the plant, the nuclear fuel cycle, and the effects of nuclear accidents. Nuclear power plants do not burn fossil fuels and so do not directly emit carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide emitted during mining, enrichment, fabrication and transport of fuel is small when compared with the carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels of similar energy yield, however, these plants still produce other environmentally damaging wastes. Nuclear energy and renewable energy have reduced environmental costs by decreasing CO2 emissions resulting from energy consumption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster</span> Effects of radiation released from the Fukushima nuclear disaster

The radiation effects from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are the observed and predicted effects as a result of the release of radioactive isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichii Nuclear Power Plant following the 2011 Tōhoku 9.0 magnitude earthquake and tsunami. The release of radioactive isotopes from reactor containment vessels was a result of venting in order to reduce gaseous pressure, and the discharge of coolant water into the sea. This resulted in Japanese authorities implementing a 30-km exclusion zone around the power plant and the continued displacement of approximately 156,000 people as of early 2013. The number of evacuees has declined to 49,492 as of March 2018. Radioactive particles from the incident, including iodine-131 and caesium-134/137, have since been detected at atmospheric radionuclide sampling stations around the world, including in California and the Pacific Ocean.

The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) is a UK-wide advisory committee set up by the British government. It was established in 1985.

The committed dose in radiological protection is a measure of the stochastic health risk due to an intake of radioactive material into the human body. Stochastic in this context is defined as the probability of cancer induction and genetic damage, due to low levels of radiation. The SI unit of measure is the sievert.

Exposure to ionizing radiation is known to increase the future incidence of cancer, particularly leukemia. The mechanism by which this occurs is well understood, but quantitative models predicting the level of risk remain controversial. The most widely accepted model posits that the incidence of cancers due to ionizing radiation increases linearly with effective radiation dose at a rate of 5.5% per sievert; if correct, natural background radiation is the most hazardous source of radiation to general public health, followed by medical imaging as a close second. Additionally, the vast majority of non-invasive cancers are non-melanoma skin cancers caused by ultraviolet radiation. Non-ionizing radio frequency radiation from mobile phones, electric power transmission, and other similar sources have been investigated as a possible carcinogen by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, but to date, no evidence of this has been observed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fukushima nuclear accident casualties</span> Possible casualties and related deaths caused by the Fukushima nuclear disaster

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident genshiryoku hatsudensho jiko) was a series of equipment failures, nuclear meltdowns, and releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, following the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on 11 March 2011. It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out. However, studies by the World Health Organization and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged in the academic literature from none to hundreds.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear labor issues</span> Radiation workers health and labor issues

Nuclear labor issues exist within the international nuclear power industry and the nuclear weapons production sector worldwide, impacting upon the lives and health of laborers, itinerant workers and their families.

References

  1. ↑ chris. "NEWS". Green Audit, Atomic, Nuclear test veterans, Atomic test veterans, nuclear science.
  2. ↑ Green Audit, About Green Audit Archived 5 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  3. 1 2 3 4 Monbiot, George; Justin McCurry (21 November 2011). "Post-Fukushima 'anti-radiation' pills condemned by scientists". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 22 November 2011.
  4. 1 2 3 4 "Dr Chris Bubsy (CERRIE biography)". Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters. Archived from the original on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  5. ↑ "Professor Chris Busby". University of Ulster. Archived from the original on 6 October 2011. Retrieved 1 May 2011.
  6. ↑ "Greens launch radiation activist network". Green Party of England and Wales. 23 October 2004. Retrieved 26 January 2011.
  7. ↑ "Far more spin than substance". Green Party of England and Wales. 2 September 2002. Retrieved 26 January 2011.
  8. 1 2 Burlakova, E. B.; A. N. Goloshchapov; N. V. Gorbunova; S. M. Gurevich; G. P. Zhizhina; A. I. Kozachenko; A. A. Konradov; D. B. Korman; E. M. Molochkina; L. G. Nagler, others (1998). "Peculiarities of Biological Action of Low Irradiation Doses and Their Probable Relation to the Health State of Participants of Chernobyl Accident Liquidation" (PDF). Kurri Kr (21): 223–234. ISSN   1342-0852.
  9. ↑ Samartzis, Dino; Nobuo Nishi; Mikiko Hayashi (31 March 2011). "Exposure to Ionizing Radiation and Development of Bone Sarcoma: New Insights Based on Atomic-Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". J Bone Joint Surg Am. 93 (11). John Cologne, Harry M. Cullings, Kazunori Kodama, Edward F. Miles, Sachiyo Funamoto, Akihiko Suyama, Midori Soda, Fumiyoshi Kasagi: 1008–15. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00256. PMID   21984980. Archived from the original on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 30 April 2011.
  10. 1 2 Burlakova, E. B.; Yu. S. Antova; A. N. Goloshchapov; S. M. Gurevich; G. P. Zhizhina; A. I. Kozachenko (1999). "Mechanisms of biological action of low-dose irradiation". Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe on Human Health. New York City: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. pp. 11–38. ISBN   978-1-56072-699-9.
  11. ↑ Busby, Chris (October 1995). Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health. Green Audit Books. ISBN   978-1-897761-03-8.
  12. ↑ Edwards, A A; R Cox (January 2000). "Commentary on the Second Event Theory of Busby". International Journal of Radiation Biology. 76 (1): 119–122. doi:10.1080/095530000139087. ISSN   0955-3002. PMID   10665965. S2CID   5916027.
  13. ↑ Ribondeau, L.; J Bergonié (1906). "De quelques résultats de la radiotherapie et essai de fixation d'une technique rationnelle". Comptes Rendus des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences. 143: 983–985.
  14. 1 2 Goodhead, D.; R. Bramhall; C. Busby (2004). Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) (PDF). R. Cox, S. Darby, P. Day, J. Harrison, C. Muirhead, P. Roche, J. Simmons, others. London: Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. ISBN   978-0-85951-545-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 July 2011. Retrieved 23 July 2011.
  15. ↑ Bramhall, Richard; Chris Busby; Paul Dorfman (23 July 2011). "Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal Emitters – MINORITY REPORT". Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal Emitters. Archived from the original on 14 July 2011. Retrieved 23 July 2011.
  16. ↑ Busby, C.; E. Schnug (2008). "Advanced biochemical and biophysical aspects of uranium contamination" (PDF). In: Loads and Fate of Fertilizer-derived Uranium. Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim. pp. 11–22. ISBN   978-3-8236-1546-0.
  17. ↑ pacifica.org radio Archived 22 April 2003 at the Wayback Machine , 31 January 2003 interview with Busby, Retrieved 10 February 2008
  18. ↑ "Scientist raises new radiation fear", news.bbc.co.uk, 5 July 2001
  19. ↑ Pattison, John E. (2013). "The interaction of natural background gamma radiation with depleted uranium micro-particles in the human body". Journal of Radiological Protection. 33 (1): 187–198. Bibcode:2013JRP....33..187P. doi:10.1088/0952-4746/33/1/187. PMID   23295360. S2CID   25172194.
  20. ↑ Steward, John A.; White, Ceri; Reynolds, Shelagh (2008). "Leukaemia incidence in Welsh children linked with low level radiation—making sense of some erroneous results published in the media". Journal of Radiological Protection. 28 (1): 33–43. Bibcode:2008JRP....28...33S. doi:10.1088/0952-4746/28/1/001. PMID   18309193. S2CID   5134721.[ permanent dead link ]
  21. ↑ Wakeford, Richard (2008). "What to believe and what not to believe". Journal of Radiological Protection. 28 (1): 5–7. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/28/1/E03 . PMID   18309191.
  22. ↑ "Dr Richard Wakeford". Who's Who: Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters. CERRIE. 2004. Archived from the original on 12 September 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2011.
  23. 1 2 Wakeford, Richard (2004). "Editorial: Reflections on CERRIE" (PDF). Journal of Radiological Protection. 24 (4): 337–340. Bibcode:2004JRP....24..337W. doi:10.1088/0952-4746/24/4/E02. PMID   15682902. S2CID   250804725.
  24. ↑ Gould, Mark; Leake, Jonathan (1 August 2004). "Nuclear Experts Gagged". London: Times Online. Retrieved 19 April 2011.[ dead link ]
  25. ↑ "Minority Report of CERRIE (flyer)" (PDF). LLRC. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 July 2011. Retrieved 18 April 2011.
  26. ↑ "Increase in Cancer in Sweden Can Be Traced To Chernobyl". Science News. ScienceDaily.com. 30 May 2007. Retrieved 18 April 2011. Martin Tondel, the researcher behind this work, was at last report, active with the Swedish section of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). "In this capacity Dr. Tondel has visited India and Pakistan several times with International delegations arguing for nuclear disarmament in South Asia." http://www.sasnet.lu.se/environlink.html Archived 16 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  27. ↑ Brooks, Antone. "Dr". Nuclear Street. Retrieved 16 April 2011.
  28. ↑ "Professor Busby gives his assessment of radiation from Fukushima nuclear reactor". BBC News. 14 March 2011. Retrieved 14 March 2011.
  29. ↑ "Full meltdown in full swing? Japan maximum nuclear alert". RT News. Retrieved 30 March 2011.
  30. ↑ Kondo, Dwight (14 April 2011). "Scientist: 400,000 Cancers Within 200 km of Fukushima Evacuation Zone". Hawai'i News Daily. Archived from the original on 18 April 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
  31. ↑ "Busby: 400,000 to develop cancer in 200 km radius of Fukushima". YouTube .
  32. ↑ "Christopher Busby Foundation for The Children of Fukushima". cbfcf.org. Archived from the original on 18 April 2019. Retrieved 18 April 2019.
  33. ↑ Bandazhevskaya, GS; VB Nesterenko; VI Babenko; IV Babenko; TV Yerkovich; YI Bandazhevsky (2004). "Relationship between Caesium (137Cs) load, cardiovascular symptoms, and source of food in "Chernobyl" children-preliminary observations after intake of oral apple pectin". Swiss Medical Weekly . 134 (49–50): 725–729. doi: 10.4414/smw.2004.10219 . PMID   15635491.
  34. ↑ Blomfield, Adrian; Adrian Blomfield (24 April 2006). "Chernobyl scientist warns of 'nuclear folly'". The Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 30 September 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  35. ↑ Busby, Chris (7 November 2011). "Calcium and other supplements to protect against internal radiation".
  36. ↑ Prochazka, H; Jandl, J; Novosad, J; [1] Neruda, O; Hejzlar, J; Spelda, S, Veterinarni Medicina (Prague), 1991, 341–348 https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/5321449
  37. ↑ Monbiot, George (22 November 2011). "Christopher Busby's wild claims hurt green movement and Green party". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 22 November 2011.
  38. ↑ Guéguen, Yann; Philippe Lestaevel; Line Grandcolas (8 March 2008). "Chronic Contamination of Rats with 137Cesium Radionuclide: Impact on the Cardiovascular System". Cardiovascular Toxicology. 8 (1). Cédric Baudelin, Stéphane Grison, Jean-René Jourdain, Patrick Gourmelon, Maâmar Souidi: 33–40. doi:10.1007/s12012-008-9013-3. ISSN   1530-7905. PMID   18327657. S2CID   24085449.
  39. ↑ Le Gall, B.; F. Taran; D. Renault; J.-C. Wilk; E. Ansoborlo (November 2006). "Comparison of prussian blue and apple-pectin efficacy on 137Cs decorporation in rats". Biochimie. 88 (11): 1837–1841. doi:10.1016/j.biochi.2006.09.010. ISSN   0300-9084. PMID   17069947.
  40. ↑ Jargin, Sergei V. (17 July 2010). "Overestimation of Chernobyl consequences: poorly substantiated information published". Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. 49 (4): 743–745. doi:10.1007/s00411-010-0313-1. ISSN   0301-634X. PMID   20640449. S2CID   40800641.
  41. ↑ "Warning Letters – Premier Micronutrient Corporation 4/28/11" (WebContent). Food and Drug Administration . Retrieved 24 November 2011.
  42. ↑ U.S. Food and Drug Administration. "Consumer Information – Overview of Dietary Supplements" (WebContent). Food and Drug Administration . Retrieved 24 November 2011.
  43. ↑ Research, Center for Drug Evaluation and. "Bioterrorism and Drug Preparedness – FDA Approves First New Drug Application for Treatment of Radiation Contamination due to Cesium or Thallium (10/2/2003)" (WebContent). Food and Drug Administration . Retrieved 25 November 2011.
  44. ↑ U.S. FTC (21 March 2011). "FTC Warns Consumers About Scam Artists' Pitch for Potassium Iodide Treatment" (Government). Federal Trade Commission.
  45. ↑ Depleted Science: the health consequences and mechanisms of exposure to fallout from Depleted Uranium weapons in The Trojan Horses of Nuclear War M. Kuepker and D. Kraft eds. Hamburg, 2004
  46. ↑ Depleted Uranium Weapons, metal particles and radiation dose European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics 2005, 1(1) 82–93
  47. ↑ Does uranium contamination amplify natural background radiation dose to the DNA? European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics 2005, 1(2) 120–131
  48. ↑ Depleted Uranium. Why all the fuss? United Nations Disarmament Forum Journal UNIDIR, Nov 2008
  49. ↑ "Science on Trial: On the Biological Effects and Health Risks following exposure to aerosols produced by the use of DU weapons" Invited presentation to the Royal Society, London 19 July 2000 (also given at the Int. Conference against DU, Manchester, 4 Nov.) and on "Health effects of Depleted Uranium (again)" in 2001
  50. ↑ Dr Chris Busby at the Royal Society: Scientific Dishonesty on YouTube
  51. ↑ Did the use of uranium weapons in Gulf War 2 result in contamination of Europe? Archived 10 August 2012 at the Wayback Machine Chris Busby and Saoirse Morgan; 1 March 2006, European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics
  52. ↑ Uranium and Health: The Health Effects of Exposure to Uranium and Uranium Weapons Fallout Archived 4 November 2011 at the Wayback Machine Chris Busby; Documents of the ECRR 2010 No 2
  53. ↑ Ballardie FW, Cowley R, Cox A, Curry A, Denley H, Denton J, Dick J, Gerquin-Kern J-L, Redmond A, A man who brought the war home with him The Lancet, Vol. 372 No. 9653 p 1926
  54. ↑ Busby C, Williams D, Evidence of Enriched Uranium in guided weapons employed by the Israeli Military in Lebanon in July 2006 Archived 26 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine Research Note 6/2006 Aberystwyth: Green Audit (accessed 20 September 2014)
  55. ↑ Busby, Chris and Williams, Dai, Further Evidence of Enriched Uranium in guided weapons employed by the Israeli Military in Lebanon in July 2006: Ambulance Air Filter Analysis Archived 24 December 2012 at the Wayback Machine Green Audit Research Note 7/2006. 3 November 2006
  56. ↑ United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): "Israel did not use depleted uranium during conflict with Hizbollah, UN agency finds" 8 November 2006
  57. ↑ "Press Releases November 2006 - No Evidence of Radioactive Residue in Lebanon Post Conflict Assessment - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 7 December 2015.
  58. ↑ Al-Hadithi, T.; J. Al-Diwan; A. Saleh; N. Shabila (2012). "Birth defects in Iraq and the plausibility of environmental exposure: a review". Conflict and Health. 6 (1): 3. doi: 10.1186/1752-1505-6-3 . PMC   3492088 . PMID   22839108.
  59. ↑ Obama-backed UN "Human Rights" Council Facilitates US-bashing Meet by Anne Bayefsky
  60. ↑ Birth Defects study in Fallujah Iraq (Press release)
  61. ↑ "Bideford radiation expert held over home chemicals". BBC News. 13 September 2018.
  62. ↑ "Inside the backroom chemical lab that sparked a bomb scare - in Devon". Daily Mirror . 14 September 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.