Talk:Christopher Busby

Notability

If anyone bothers to follow the links at http://chrisbusbyexposed.spaces.live.com they will soon find ample evidence of Busby's mediocrity as a "scientist". For example, check out the Menai Straits report on Busby's self-promoting www.llrc.org website. He knows it is littered with basic errors, yet he is happy to continue misleading the public by leaving it published on his website. Leaving aside his ineptitude, in my mind this indicates a lack of integrity that is incompatible with scientific enquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JunkScienceWatch (talk • contribs) 15:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He is a known scientist with several publications. Why deleting this article? Yann (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:NOTE), and nor does he pass the professor test (he fails all nine criteria of WP:PROF). Even within the area of fringe radiation research he is hardly notable (notorious, maybe). Verbal chat 19:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Journal of Radiological Protection

From the Journal of Radiological Protection:

"Chris Busby ... is apparently quite prepared to self-publish reports containing glaring errors in data and/or analyses; nonetheless, the findings are duly given publicity in the media, presumably a principal objective. Efforts should be made to enable journalists, in particular, to distinguish between the reliability to be placed upon the results given in self-published documents and those appearing in scientific journals"

"Chris Busby is essentially an aspiring politician who happens to have scientific qualifications – he is the Green Party’s spokesperson on science and technology and has stood for election to the European Parliament – and, in my view, his actions must be seen in this light. It would be asking too much of him to make substantial concessions on the very issue that has brought the media publicity that provides the fuel to drive a political career."

Chris Busby is one seriously discredited scientist or someone abusing their scientific credentials for political gain. MatthewFP (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My edits were deleted by anti nuclear sentiment. The edits I've made are neutral. They are valid and cited from a highly regarded Scientific Journal. Any disagreements should be filed on the talk page. MatthewFP (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it is from a scientific journal, it is an editorial, not a piece of research. You may include it again, but it would be convenient to mention that the editor-in-chief of said journal, and author of the aforementioned piece, is Richard Wakeford, the former chief scientist at Sellafield and one of the people whose work Busby has directly criticised. Therefore, giving prominence to Wakeford's "musings" is tantamount to allowing Richard Dawkins to muse on Ernst Mayr's work. Better not to add anything. It is not a disinterested piece.

144.92.43.122 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of Radiological Protection criticism was already in the body of the article, when you also added it to the intro, and the main body version was not deleted. The question is the prominance. I think it was already covered at an appropriate level of prominence. Note WP:BLP advises:

• "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced ... so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
• "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint ..."

I think both those point to not putting criticism in the first sentance. Rwendland (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS

None of the recently added sources meet the reliable sources guidelines. Please read this before adding more references to make sure that they wont be removed. Verbal chat 07:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Another example is the addition of Chris Busby Exposed, which fails on BLP grounds as well as RS - although there may be some useful information here. Please though, continue to edit the page and this talk page. Verbal chat 22:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Busby is a significant figure in radiation protection, whether you agree or disagree with his findings and assertions. He has been on two UK government committees and among other things has recently had an article article published by the United Nations disarmament forum. He is a Guest Researcher in a German Federal Institution and a Visiting Professor at a British University. He has several peer-reviewed publications and was recently the subjest of the main science news story in the prestigious New Scientist journal. Since his discoveries and writings are fatal tyo the nuclear industry, he is continuously attacked by nuclear industry hacks and supporters and this is more easy to do when they are writing on blogs and in a way that their identity and connections are secret. The rubbishing article , chrisbusbyexposed, contains no verifiable peer reviewed evidence apart from refernces to legitimate scientific arguments which should be aired in the peer review literature and not through hatchet jobs on wikipedia. Profwoland (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I removed a link to that article and asked people not to add it again above, per WP:BLP. Verbal chat 15:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As it says on the New Scientist page, New Scientist is not a scientific Journal MatthewFP (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

References and Publications

Hello,

Are the references now OK so that we can remove the warning template? Re Publications, I don't know how formatting should be done. If someone would be kind to help. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Thank you Verbal for your welcome. I wonder if we can put this to bed now. All the references are from independent sources and I have tried to be as neutral as I can; all of the changes I made relate to independently verifiable reports. If you wish, we can discuss this issue further, and certainly the entry could be expanded, but I was concerned that the attacks by the busbyexposed people might result in a biased entry. You should be aware that there are many changes taking place in radiation risk science and that the day of the physicist is over; effects are now clear due to biochemical and living system response discoveries. These are real, and have been published in many peer review journals, but many rad risk physicists maintain their aloof and outdated bag of water models.Profwoland (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The article is currently a puff piece which selectively reports and cherry picks viewpoints. It does not currently meet biography policy (+ive or -ive contentious material). See also WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:COATRACK for other applicable guidelines and policies. I will be reverting to the previous stub per bold, revert, discuss and changes should now be discussed and justified on the talkpage. I look forward to improving the article with you. Verbal chat 12:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Publications

Not all Busby's publications should be listed, only books and any important works should be included in the article. See our article on Arthur Rubin, for an example. Verbal chat 12:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Why has the previous version been changed? Why have the affiliations been removed? I wish to open a dispute on this issue which is independent of Verbal; please let me know how to do this. Profwoland (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have given my reasons above, in the edit summary, on your talk page and on my talk page. Per WP:BRD we are now at the discuss stage. Please discuss what changes you'd like to make and why in a new section on this page, and then we can all move forward. There is no reason for dispute resolution as yet, first we have to attempt to work through any dispute. To summarise my reasons again by linking to relevant policies: WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, WP:BRD... I suggest quoting some of the changes you'd like to introduce below. My main concern isn't adding the affiliations, but that they are worded neutrally and that they are reliably sourced. I have added back some of your material after resourcing it. Verbal chat 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned on this page (may or may not still be present), I have had my comments on this page (well sourced comments that are not in violation of policy) and edits to the main article removed without discussion. I agree that this article is controversial.

MatthewFP (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Affiliations: Kuhn and Ulster

I'd like to reinsert "He is currently guest researcher at the German Federal Agricultural Laboratory Julius Kuhn Institute in Braunschweig, Germany and is Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Life and Health Sciences in the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland." but it is currently unsourced. If you find a reference for this please add it and reinsert. Verbal chat 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to insert the following:

He is currently guest researcher at the German Federal Agricultural Laboratory Julius Kuhn Institute in Braunschweig, Germany and is Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Life and Health Sciences in the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland.

He is the author of the self-published Wings of Death and Wolves of Water, which outline Busby's studies and challenging beliefs regarding the effects of radiation on human health.

Publications

• Wings of Death. Nuclear Pollution and Human Health, Green Audit Books, 1995, ISBN 1-897761-03-1
• Wolves of Water, Green Audit Books, 2007, ISBN 1-897761-26-0
• ECRR 2003 Recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk. Health Effects of ionising Radiation Exposure at Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. 2003 ISBN 1897761-24-4
• CERI Recommandations 2003 du Comite Europeen Sur le Risque de'lIrradiation. Etude des effets sanitaires de l'exposition auzx faibles doses de radiation ionisante a des fins de radioprotection. Groups des Verts au Parlement Europeen. Editions Frisons-Roche. ISBN 2-87671-449-3
• with Prof A.V.Yablokov Chernobyl--40 years On Green Audit Books ISBN 1-897761-25-2

This includes a reference to a United Nations UNIDIR disarmament forum piece commissioned by them which lists Busby's affiliations. If the United nations are happy that he is these things i guess Wikipedia might be OK about that? Alos I have put in some other books in the bibliography. Is everyone OK with this? Unfortunately, the entry now seems corrupted. The last half has disappeared. Something I did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Profwoland (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was because you didn't close the ref tag - as the error message on this talk page told you. Also, please do not remove or change other people's comments on the talk page. This comment also properly belongs in the affiliations section, so I am moving it there. Please read the advice I left on your talk page about how to edit wikipedia. Further breaking of the page will be regarded as vandalism. Verbal chat 13:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe beliefs?

FRINGE beliefs??? --AdeleivdVelden (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:FRINGE. Verbal chat 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues

I agree that this article may not meet the notability guideline for academics. But the article portrays Busby as a ratbag "activist", and dismisses his work as being on the "fringe". This is hardly very flattering. I think there are some WP:BLP issues here. Johnfos (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

His work is not dismissed, but correctly described as fringe. He even holds this view - although he posits it is correct, something wikipedia cannot do. Verbal chat 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know Christopher Busby? Johnfos (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of his work and writings. Do you? See WP:COI Verbal chat 13:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never been to the UK, nor met Busby. My sole concern has been to get a fair BLP per WP guidelines. And Disembrangler has now revised the article and done that. Good work. Johnfos (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted many of the changes as they use non RS and selfpub sources, from a known dubious source. Red links to a deleted article were also added, and a biography should not be used as a WP:COATRACK. Verbal chat 23:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Undid reversion, which covered far too many changes (mostly additions) for a straight revert to be remotely acceptable. I added a number of sources - please explain which were non-RS or self-pub, we can discuss/address those. Which redlinks are to deleted articles? I don't know and can't find evidence, but obviously if correct that is an argument for removing the redlink(s) not blanket revert. Finally, how does the addition of a lot of material, some positive and some negative, have anything to do with WP:COATRACK? Disembrangler (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Chris Busby has been accused by the Journal of Radiological Protection of using/abusing his scientific credentials to further his political career and as such I have mentioned this and cited the Journal directly. It also seemed pertinent to mention in his career that he has stood as an election candidate in the European elections. MatthewFP (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

While it is not up to me to decide the original issues about radiological protection, i feel the need to point out the bias the recent edits show. The accusations about bias/agenda/political opportunism mentioned here and published in the Journal of Radiological Protection by Dr. Richard Wakeford can be easily reciprocated. In [12](Reflections on CERRIE) Dr. Richard Wakeford identifies himself as a representative of the "nuclear industry" to CERRIE. The fact that he is also the honorary chief editor of the Journal of Radiological Protection shows the Journals affiliation. Further we find editorials (not scientifical papers) [12] and [14](What to believe and what not to) outlining the need for publishing papers and the direction these papers should take. Since the edits cite editorial notes as peer reviewed scientific papers and therefore somehow neutral and true i suggest the following additions citing [12]: "According to the editor-in-chief of the journal, a fellow CERRIE committee member and representative of the nuclear industry, "much of Chris Busby’s work is self-published and difficult to access; he seems mainly to avoid publication in the recognised scientific literature, which presents difficulties for a proper review of the evidence underlying his conclusions."" Thank you for your consideration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks like an attempt to bias the article. Wakeford is also a professor of epidemiology (and editor of a peer-review journal), and when he made these comments he was no longer working for BNFL. Journals that look at radiology suggest an affiliation to the subject, not to any particular interest. I would look to the fact that the journal is published by the Institute of Physics as outweighing your allegations of prejudice.Flywheelbones (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The CERRIE website identified Wakeford as an employee of BNFL (see citation); as late as 2006, according to his LinkedIn entry[1], he was still working for them. I have added this affiliation to the article, even though I think Wakeford's characterization of Busby is accurate (see my other recent edits to the article.) Yakushima (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I do not think it is accurate to characterize Wakeford as a "representative of the nuclear industry" simply because he worked for BNFL; however, a pecuniary affiliation with the nuclear industry will attract attention no matter what, in this controversial subject area. So we might as well just state it as a fact somewhere, if we're going to be quoting Wakeford at all. Yakushima (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S: The precise wording under which "representative of the nuclear industry" might be justified as a description of Wakeford's role in CERRIE is this:

CERRIE membership was an eclectic mix of anti-nuclear campaigners [...], the National Radiological Protection Board [...], the nuclear industry (me) and five scientists with backgrounds in academia or research institutes who hold a variety of views on the health effects of exposure to low-level radiation.

Make of that what you will. In any case, Wakeford's got a great point: that a committee with such diverse views on nuclear power could somehow, with the exception of Busby and co., issue a joint report speaks volumes about how far out on the fringe Busby is. I'd say this merits mention in the article. Yakushima (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. ... to bias the article ... setting an ad hominem attack in its relative perspective is biasing the article? Maybe in wikiscience ...

2. The IOP is depending on charity to the rough amount of 40.000mio Pound (http://www.charitiesdirect.com/charities/institute-of-physics-293851.html), that makes them a little less than independent in my opinion.

3. If by fringe you mean scientist who are able to state their believes and still be somehow employed, i follow you. In Europe, the Green Parties are not fringe, they are conservative environmentalist with a faithful, usually knowledgeable electorate.

4. The books sponsored by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and written by Chris Busby are easier to access than most pure scientific writings as the intended readers of the former are the whole population. If Wakeford would wish to publish writings like the Minority Report, why should Chris Busby mind?

5. While i doubt the SET-Hypothesis personally, i am aware that many scientific articles can be ridiculed under enough scrutiny.

6. Natural laws are not subject to Democracy, science can be. 3 anti-nuclear activists and N>3 representatives with political dependent employment is a farce, not a "fair" assessment. The CERRIE-Report agrees with some articles and disagrees whith others without stating individual mistakes (except Busbys`) or specific scientific values. However it agrees upon many insecurities contempory radiation risk assessment is up against and also on a higher rate of childhood leukemia. They state the possibility of a population mixing process being to blame for the higher rates. This is a hypothesis for now, not universally accepted truth.

I think the edits to my edit make it less readable, but still have, in part, the desired effect of putting the attacks into perspective, if the reader knows what BNFL is.

While i love to discuss, i feel uneasy with the limiting rules in wikipedia, and will therefore not edit the article for now.

Sorry for foaming about the mouth (points 1-6) a bit :)

I forgot Chris Busby`s comprehensive cv (http://www.llrc.org/misc/subtopic/cvbusby.pdf), which seems impressive, regardless of the smutt hype in the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here ya go guys... a bit of investigation into Busby's claims... those on Hinkley Point and cancer in Sweden after Chernobyl. http://www.nuclearpoweryesplease.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=109 http://www.nuclearpoweryesplease.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=113 --J-Star (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank those who have disagreed with me and been civil and upheld the rules of Wikipedia in doing so. I have had previous attempts to only mention valid and relevant things deleted (while being appropriately and fairly sourced too) and removed without comment previously. I am glad to see that people are intelligently and thoughtfully addressing the issue of Busby's credibility.

At the time of writing this, the article is rich in terms like "distinguished scientist" and has no citations or sources. I would like to raise this article to be earmarked as controversial (as I believe it is fair to say it is) and for tighter controls to be placed on it. I have no idea how to do this. I am rolling back superlatives and unsubstantiated comments on the article. I am NOT going to be removing anything well sourced and I encourage continued discussion about Busby's credibility. I would like to point out that his views vary wildly from other scientists in the field.

Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842 Radiation and Reason http://www.radiationandreason.com/ Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University

An Exclusive Nuclear Street Interview with Low Dose Radiation Health Effects Expert Dr. Antone L.Brooks http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2010/01/14/an-exclusive-nuclear-street-interview-with-low-dose-radiation-health-effects-expert-dr-antone-l-brooks-01142.aspx Professor Antone L Brooks

Chernobyl's 'nuclear nightmares' http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm Dr Mike Repacholi and Others

I believe from my research that he is abusing his position obviously, but it's only right that I should be challenged and the evidence weighed up properly. I will try to remain open minded of course, but for me the evidence is becoming increasingly clear.

MatthewFP (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've made edits to the main article to remove unverified superlatives. I may have overstated that they were "rich" in the comment before. On careful reading I've only removed two. I've removed expert opinion and replaced it with controversial with sources to prove it (it is controversial). I've also changed him from 'distinguished scientist' to 'scientist'. There is no evidence or citation to indicate that he is distinguished and it just sounds like a superlative to me. I've linked to and included names of scientists that strongly disagree with his work and those scientists themselves are experts on radiation. All my input is sourced and I have tried to be obey neutrality and balance.

MatthewFP (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation/plagiarism of LLRC website

Starting with this edit[2], somebody copied -- WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR -- material from the LLRC website. As it says on every edit page, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." I have deleted the section. Simply leaving a footnote, with no indication that the words were quoted, goes beyond mere copyright violation and becomes plagiarism. If you don't know that's plagiarism, inform yourself. Yakushima (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the resume puffery sections were copied basically verbatim from Busby's VC. There's no need to list every paper he ever wrote. Yakushima (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias

The trial by internet continues. I see you guys with some type of evangelistic zeal attempting to portray Dr. Busby in the worst light possible. The Negative Bias is clear. Also Busby's paper published by Green Audit are important, so I disagree with their removal. Further to this important works including those by Karl Grossman highlight the industry's fraud and cover ups. Oz Waver (talk) 8:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Busby's papers published by Green Audit are, for all practical purposes, self-published. They are, in any case, not peer-reviewed publications. Wikipedia has standards with regard to such problematic material, especially when it's on scientific subjects. I suggest you acquaint yourself with them, particularly WP:FRINGE. Yakushima (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Trial by Internet? Evangelistic zeal? Attempting to portray in the worst light possible? Really? Are you serious? Don't you think that Busby's departure from the scientific community is relevant? I have only put things onto Busby's page that are verifiable and credible. Would you prefer that valid, verifiable and credible evidence be ignored? Now that IS the definition of bias. I have not once removed any verified, valid and credible thing that puts Busby in a positive light and I have no intention do so in the future either. All I see here is someone saying there is an outrage while they themselves aren't interested in all the evidence. MatthewFP (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another broader point is referring to the 'Nuclear Catastrophe at Fukushima' as euphemistically as an "accident". However this linguistic gymnastics again represents different semantic meanings portraying events of less significant consequence. The maximum rating of 7 is has been given to this event, it is a disaster. This clearly shapes perceptions.

I used the Wikipedia title for the article about what's happened at Fukushima. This title presumably reflects a consensus among editors about what sort of title is not in violation of WP:NPOV. Yakushima (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Yakushima on this. MatthewFP (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

RIchard Wakeford by his own admission in his "CERRIE reflections" article is representing the nuclear industry. Clearly Chris Busby is anti-nuclear. These two are diametrically opposed.

I actually added the connection to the article, including his affiliation with BNFG when he was serving on the CERRIE committee. So I don't know what you're complaining about. See discussion above on this question. Yakushima (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All the more reason to establish their scientific credibility within the peer review community. Of which Busby appears to demonstrate very little (as referenced by my sources). If you disagree, please by all means provide sources of other scientists backign up Busby's conclusions, I have not found any yet. All the ones I have found completely disagree with Busby. MatthewFP (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wade Allison’s article for the BBC claims that only 28 people died from Chernobyl http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842 Do you really believe that?

Wikipedia is not about who we believe, but about what people have verifiably said. Nowhere in THIS article does it say "Only 28 people died from Chernobyl", citing Allison as WP:RS. Please restrict your comments to issues related to improving THIS article, rather than putting words in the mouths of people who are trying to improve it. Yakushima (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, here are Allison's exact words:

And Chernobyl? The latest UN report published on 28 February confirms the known death toll - 28 fatalities among emergency workers, plus 15 fatal cases of child thyroid cancer - which would have been avoided if iodine tablets had been taken (as they have now in Japan)

There is a link from "latest UN report".[3] I followed it. That report does make the claims Allison attributes to it. So your accusation goes beyond "that crazy Wade Allison, with his wild-ass lowball fatality figures," it's really "that crazy United Nations that has apparently whored itself out to the nuclear industry." Willing to go that far and impeach the reputations of all the scientists on that committee? Be my guest. Just don't do it on Wikipedia. Yakushima (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is just a blatant misrepresentation of Wade Allison. If anything your demonstrating your own agenda and bias here. MatthewFP (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Authors published in the The New York Academy Of Sciences, have stated that close to 1 million people have died as a result of Chernobyl. Source: Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for the Environment and the People, The New York Academy Of Sciences Volume 1181, Written by Alexey V. Yablokov (Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Moscow, Russia), Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko (Institute of Radiation Safety, Minsk, Belarus). Consulting Editor Janette D. Sherman-Nevinger (Environmental Institute, Western Michigan niversity, Kalamazoo, Michigan). Volume 1181, December 2009 335 Pages http://www.nyas.org/Publications/Annals/Detail.aspx?cid=f3f3bd16-51ba-4d7b-a086-753f44b3bfc1 Now you guys are quoting this guy as an expert to question Busby's credibility. I am bewildered by that.

The editors of the New York Academy of Science write, in introducing that issue, "The expressed views of the authors, or by advocacy groups or individuals with specific opinions about the Annals Chernobyl volume, are their own." What the NYAS published is NOT something they put through a peer-review process of their own, but rather a translation of another work from Russian into English. The status of this publication in Wikipedia WP:RS terms is therefore to be assessed in terms of the extent and quality of peer review for the source materials when they were published in Russia. If it was not peer reviewed, and published by an advocacy group, it falls under the same suspicion here as anything from Green Audit. Yakushima (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

When I followed the link provided here there was no mention of the claims you were making, but this may just be because the content of the page has changed in the mean time. If you look on the Chernobyl page you will see reports that vary wildly. UNSCEAR and the World Health Organisation have the lowest estimated deaths. MatthewFP (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive my technology ineptitude. I am learning fast. Oz Waver (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you educated yourself about basic ethics of communication, fast. You've copied verbatim from another website, apparently thinking that simply leaving a footnote at the end would clear you of any suspicion of plagiarism. Which has nothing to do with "technology ineptitude", and everything to do with what editors should have learned about citing sources as early as their freshman year in college -- if not years earlier. Yakushima (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I do agree there is a lot of bias out there with regards nuclear power, there are a lot of people who don't know very much about it and are very scared of it. Ignorance and fear is quite a dangerous combination. I hope that the community can provide good quality, well sourced information. MatthewFP (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Media

Since I have consolidated this section retained the important comment of the forecast of 400,000 and also the reason for the follow up interview, the fact that this became a level 7/7 event. Busby, Valery N. Bliznyuk, Arnold Gundersen, Nicole Foss and others have been presenting their expert opinion on the Disaster at Fukushima bringing awareness to the public of downplaying of the disaster. Also the comments were sensationally selectively cherry-picked to create a bias, especially the removal of Dr. Busby's expert credibility, which should clearly stand. Oz Waver (talk) 9:48 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima was elevated to Level 7 largely on the basis of the estimated amount of radiation released. It did NOT qualify in terms of fatalities from radiation doses (there have none so far.) Busby's work is on the dangers from low-dose radiation. Any fatalities so far would have been from high-dose radiation -- NOT Busby's major research concern. Yakushima (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Media", by the way, is not a good name for a section, unless it's perhaps a section of a resume of a public figure, for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not exist for promotional purposes. See WP:NOTRESUME, among other relevant policies and guidelines. Yakushima (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the supposed vindication of Busby's predictions, because the sources cited don't say he predicted it was a Level 7 incident, only that he suspected that the severity of the incident was being suppressed. Of course, if he were right about his estimate of 400,000 excess cancer cases, it would have been a Level 7 on that basis alone. However, those estimates depend on a theory of his that has failed to meet acceptance in mainstream radiobiology. WP:SYNTH may be the applicable guideline here. Please review it. Yakushima (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC) And, as it turns out, on BBC, March 14, Busby described Fukushima Dai-ichi as "exactly the same scenario" as Three Mile Island -- a Level 5 event, not a Level 7, as he must have known. In that same appearance, he said that a "nuclear explosion" was possible if fuel melted down inside the containment vessel. He must know that this is physically impossible (in the "A-bomb" sense of "nuclear explosion"). Yakushima (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong! WP:HONESTY Busby describes it a Chernobyl event, it is Fells that likens it to Three Mile Island (where NO radiation is claimed to have been leaked). Please get use correct facts, you have berated me for errors. Oz Waver (talk) 18:59 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You the one raising the point of an "A-Bomb", Busby never mentions this.

He used the words "nuclear explosion". Watch the video. What do most people think of when they hear those words?

However Plutonium is apparently much hotter and there is indeed something called "prompt critical", Fukushima suffers from "inadvertent criticality", the presence of short half life substances has verified this. So the question remains, is it possible for a nuclear explosion to occur? Your saying it's impossible, better check into that... prompt critical.

I now have. The literature I've looked at so far suggests only that the very high heat costs by prompt criticality caused a steam explosion at Chernobyl.

The control rods are designed to prevent this from happening however there in the event of a nuclear meltdown and lack of cooling the structure heats and you can apparently get a China Syndrome or a Prompt Critical Event. Yakushima investigate this WP:CLARIFY.

Why don't you do it, and then write it up? There is an article prompt critical on Wikipedia already, perhaps you could contribute some understanding. Yakushima (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure with your tenacity you'll get the answer. I asked a Professor myself about it in Sydney.

Feel free to name the professor and quote him accurately, so that we can check his understanding of the issues against sources meeting WP:RS requirements. Yakushima (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

) Oz Waver (talk) 17:13 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the material is clearly not contained and both leaking out with some presence of fission. Radiation is now being registered globally from Fukushima. The underreporting is now widely acknowledged, a consistent point that Busby was making in writing Wolves of Water. Invisible radiation substances (as Busby puts it "wolves") contained in water is being released by Tepco into the sea. This water is leaking and Tepco has stated that this is not a priority and looks to reduce the leak in 3 months (not stop) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13107846. You are portraying Busby negatively. You've also introduced triviality like poems WP:RRULE WP:GAME(rather missing the point and meaning). Busby does take up debates, though you may see this differently... (there are 2 parts) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2JFxnAkTW4&feature=player_embedded#at=71 watch a documentary while your at it Oz Waver (talk) 17:58 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is anecdotal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivdFYL4z0_Y on Chernobyl and the effects, deaths and footage of mutations etc. You might view the UN report differently stating just a few deaths versus over a million, not the kind of thing that can be hidden you'd imagine. Oz Waver (talk) 18:58 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yakushima WP:NOTSCANDAL Controversy and Televised Comments. Oz Waver (talk) 19:21 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that Busby had described other researchers as "stupid" and "ignorant". He does so, in the article cited. How is quoting his own words a violation of WP:SCANDAL? Yakushima (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read Profwoland comments above. You comments and in fact the whole section is in violation, there are ground to delete the entire section. Your efforts are WP:NOTSCANDAL, just because something is cite does not mean it conforms. Further Profwoland has affirmed damage of radiation. Affirming Busby's arguments. See Neutrality section above and RRules above. You are in consistent violation WP:GAME. I might ask for Profwoland's assistance in this area as I feel your reckless and irresponsible comments are potentially liableOz Waver (talk) 20:26 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Above, Oz (who has since been blocked for making legal threats against me, here and elsewhere), pointed out that, in the March 14 BBC broadcast, Busby had actually equated Fukushima with Chernobyl (1 min 50 sec, [4]). My error. (But not a WP:HONEST violation, I simply misheard it.) I've corrected the article. I am quite happy to, in this case. After all, nobody who knows the details now (or for that matter, at the time) could think that Busby was correct in saying the two "scenarios" were "exactly" the same, as he asserts so confidently. Different underlying causes, different reactor technology, different outcomes for workers in the immediate vicinity. Yakushima (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting less biased help on this article

Someone needs to take up where I'm leaving off. I need to stop editing this article, for three reasons:

• I'm not sufficiently disinterested. My business in Tokyo (a small inn catering to inbound tourism) is physically intact but financially flattened, and in large part because of what I think are travelers' phobic reactions to Fukushima radiation releases. That's going to bias me against people like Busby and their WP:FRINGE theories about low-dose radiation risks, perhaps unacceptably so.
• I have no radiobiological credentials or education at all -- I follow the relevant literature only with great difficulty. I'd prefer to be making informed comments on the details of his theories and the responses to them. I find the science fascinating, insofar as I understand it. But I just don't have the time to do as good a job as I'd like.
• Finally, the last few days of tangling with a WP:SPA who was also an unapologetic WP:PLAG-violator, AND who resorted to legal threats against me ... well, it was unsettling, at a time when I'm already pretty unsettled. With my business possibly failing, I need to reduce stress wherever I can. Reducing Wikistress is a good place to start.

I am going to solicit help from relevant Wikipedia projects, starting with a selection of editors in the Medicine project who appear to have the right interests, and then leave off editing this article. I urge those of you here who want to see an unbiased, properly encyclopedic treatment of the subject to seek out the help of other editors where you feel you need it, especially on the technical and WP:BLP issues. Yakushima (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the recent report by Busby about the radiological effects from the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster ([5]), and interestingly, it concludes not only with recommending legal "sanctions" against those who knowingly held back data, but against those "minimising the health effects of this event in the media". I don't believe this should be a difficult issue to discriminate, although I say that not reading the past edits to this article. The central claim of the report is that the dose under consideration should be multiplied by about 1000 due to his arguments regarding internal emitters. Alright, so be it. The quarrel is between him and health physicists and Wikipedia should do nothing other than report that.

The idea, however, that those who claim the opposite on an issue should be subject to lawsuit goes against the fundamentals of science, a civic public debate, and is reprehensible in the first place. The issue is not new, and efforts to reform libel law in science has been coming from credible scientists themselves due to this kind of obstructionist tactics employed by anti-vaccine campaigners, global warming deniers, and so many more. I am sympathetic to your situation, and I hope the facts manage to get reported correctly. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello guys! I was asked to comment on this issue by the user Yakushima. I have to say I like to keep Mr. Yakushima happy, but reading the comments left by user Theanphibian makes the most sense to me. I am NOT at all knowledgable on the issue so I will say nothing on the merit, neutrality or points made about the personage in question or his scientific observations (best left for the experts in this field) but just quoting part of Theanphibian's saying "The quarrel is between him and health physicists and Wikipedia should do nothing other than report that", it makes the most sense to me! Having stated that, I also have to say that I probably would be inclined to agree (even though I am no expert) with Yakushima because the author's theories COULD (or not. I am not an expert) be false.(however that is my personal feeling which is why I wont reflect on it since I dont konw much). The point is that this is Wikipedia and as such it allows for expression of facts as long as they are properly sourced and documented and as long as they are not extraordinary claims. Yakushima maybe you like to take a look at Scientific skepticism for more ideas. I think in the end, from an encyclopedic standpoint two things have to be kept in mind: 1)No data should be curtailed even if it is nonsensical as long as it is clearly stated to be that. In other words, if Mr. X says that sky is Black, it is ok for an encyclopedia to state that "contrary to majority belief, Mr. X believes that Sky is black, however not a lot of people agree with him", but what is false is for an encyclopedia to simply quote Mr. X and say "Sky is black, according to research by Mr. X." 2)Personal challenges (like the one pointed out with your shop and tourism, and etc. should NOT take precedent over neutral (WP:POV), and source based reporting. Maybe Yakushima can work on the section that he believes to be biased and add more statements stressing that this is ONLY one person's view. Anyhow, I am sure you guys can work this out among urselves. I am positive a neutral ground is reachable. Sorry Yakushima that I could not be more of a help, I am not really that knowledgable in the matters of physics, or physical medicine. Thanks! Dr. Persi (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

User Yakushima is to be commended for having the wisdom to disengage under the circumstances. wp:NOTBATTLEGROUND etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear of Yakushima`s missfortune and hope the low in tourism is shortlived and will be successfully negotiated by him.

Please keep in mind that environmentalism is not about hurting small businessmen or other individuals but about protecting your whole surrounding from harm to the best of one`s ability.

While neutrality is a highly valueable ideal for any encyclopedia, it may be even detrimental to a global political discussion.

While i can see the point about criminalisation of political opponents, the liability laws in western societies are logically and morally accepted. It just seems to be the case that the governments lack the will or power to see them through.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he have the title "professor"

First, the use of titles such as Prof, Dr., Sir. Madam etc. in wikipedia articles is strongly discouraged; see Wikipedia:MOSBIO. Second, it is important that we determine how "Prof." Busby gain his professorship, for example at which university or institution was he elected to the position of professor? In the US it seems anyone who teaches at a university is "professor" but in the UK a professor is elected to that title by his academic colleagues after demonstrating considerable academic accomplishment e.g. publishing many peer reviewed papers and/or mentoring many PhD students. Since he does not publish in peer review (letters to the editor are not peer reviewed), gaining such an academic title would be very difficult. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As it says in the article, visiting professor at Ulster.[6][7] Rwendland (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

He is currently listed as Visiting Professor in The Nano Systems Biology group (Molecular Medicine), Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, Centre for Molecular Biosciences, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences, University of Ulster.[8] Here is his C.V.[9], he says he was "Appointed Visiting Professor" at the "School of Molecular Bioscience, University of Ulster" but he might have meant "School of Biomedical Sciences". His C.V. also states that he is (or was) an "Invited lecturer" at "Centre for Molecular Bioscience, University of Ulster". I think the article should reflect the University of Ulster website. Given the confusion, it is understandable why I could not find him on the University of Ulster website, there is no School of Molecular Bioscience at the University of Ulster. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Second Event Theory Controversy

According to the article, Pattison, Hugtenburg & Green (2010) found that Busby's "photoelectric effect might be less than 2% of what Busby has stated" and Busby responded by publishing in the International Journal of Radiation Biology and a subsequent follow up. However, "Busby's response" in the International Journal of Radiation Biology[10] is a criticism of his Second Event Theory by A. A. Edwards & R. Cox in 2000 [11] and a response by Busby [12] published way back in 2000. The "subsequent follow up" is just a link to his website. Busby has not, as far as I know, specifically defended the criticisms made by Pattison, Hugtenburg & Green (2010), that deal with the photoelectric effect. Also, the "Second Event Theory" is not the same as "the Photoelectic Effect". From what I have read, Busby's "Second Event Theory" specifically involves "dual emitters" such as the 90Sr-90Y decay chain, where an initial beta particle sensitizes a cell to a subsequent hit later in the 90Sr-90Y decay chain (these radio-sensitive cells are called G2). The photoelectric effect concerns the toxic effects of depleted uranium, whereby photoelectric elections generated by uranium oxide nano-particles enhance the effects of natural background radiation. See: [13] --Diamonddavej (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I just come across an excellent analysis of Busby's Second Event Theory (SET) in the Report of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE)' released in 2004. Regarding SET they concluded:

• the lack of biological plausibility for the basic preconditions of the SET;
• the paucity of supporting evidence in the proponents’ reviews of the SET;
• the weakness of studies cited in support of the SET; and
• the absence of supporting evidence found by the independent review commissioned by the Committee

I will incorporate the findings of CERRIE into the article to due course. --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Diamonddavej

I read those parts of the CERRIE-Report, too. If I remember correctly they recalculated the factor for an adjusted SET-Model with 2 or something like that. Personally, i wouldn`t call doubling the chance of cancer for someone insignificant.

Most members agreed that heightened numbers of childhood leukemia in certain areas are factual.

Most members agreed that a population-mixing occurrence might be a possible cause for the heightened numbers. This was a mere hypothesis by then and by now has received some serious scrutiny itself.

Now how would you judge me if i would go and make bios about all CERRIE-Members and then cite a bunch of papers that negatively test the hypothesis for population mixing as a cause of childhood leukemia. This would be very bad style for a scientist for sure.

Now if you only want to discuss scientific development, i am game, but maybe someone should give SET it`s own page.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It think you are referring to the Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor (DDREF) of 2, it is not related to SET. It was adopted by ICRP, UNSCEAR and NCRP, it is used to reduce by 2 the calculated risks of low level and low dose rate beta and gamma radiation derived from LNT. Thus, a single high dose of 0.10 Sv (Gamma Radiotherapy) remains 0.10 Sv, but if 0.1 Sv is spread over a year (high background beta radiation) it becomes 0.05 Sv due to DDREF.

"Because the model is based upon a two-hit process the cellular dose response would be highly curvilinear for low dose single decay isotopes and would predict an extremely high dose and dose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) for tumorigenesis whereas the current ICRP judgement for DDREF is only two." - CERRIE

They are saying that if SET was true, and cancer needs a double hit, then the DDREF would be extremely high for single decay isotopes i.e. SET would extremely reduce the calculated risk of many isotopes. It's quite straightforward. Also, I only heard about Chris Busby, SET and Photoelectric Enhancement a few days ago, so bear with me. If there are any mistakes I will fix them soon as I learn more. --Diamonddavej (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Böö, frankly now i don`t know what i was referring to no more and it seems i have to read the thing again :(

I was trying to make a point for a seggregation of Busby`s bio and the scientifical deconstruction of SET.

Thank you for handling my post this way, i`ll get back here when i found the passage in the CERRIE-Report i was referring to and reread it.

"Citation needed" in Membership/Peak Bodies/Committees

The edits following the above heading are mainly from Busby`s cv [1]. Is there dissent about the acceptability of [1]? Or could we cite it instead of the tags "citation needed"? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.215.105 (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)