Busby makes absurd claim that 400,000 will die from Fukushima radiation releases -actual number will be zero

They multiplied radiation readings and multiplied damage effects. The surface contamination calculated from the gamma dose rates is twice to three times the highest level referred to by the IAEA in their bulletins. Also, radiation levels were based on spikes in radiation and do not look at the radiation levels lowering because of the short halflife of the sources.

As with the claims Senator Jon Kyl (claimed that 90% of Planned Parenthoods activities were abortion when they were 3%), Chris Busby is making claims that are not based on real facts. They are claimed to be true but complete fabrications. If Busby was competent the statements should be “Not intended to be a factual statements”.

The health outcome of the Fukushima catastrophe Initial analysis from risk model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, ECRR by Chris Busby

European Committee on Radiation Risk uses a radiation model where they multiply the radiation risks of the International Commission on Radiological Protection by about 1000 times. They also assumed higher radiation readings, because they had to compensate for a “cover up” and they used the peak readings from radiation spikes and do not account for lowering radiation as material with a short halflife decays.

Chris Busby was interviewed for some TV program

The radiation is mostly blowing out to the Pacific Ocean.

There are readings on the radiation and they are low.

There will not be excess radiation deaths from the population in Japan.

There are also claims of 985,000 deaths from Chernobyl they are wrong. The Chernobyl “study” blamed every death increase for any disease or cause on Chernobyl, instead of the fact that alcohol problems got worse. The Chernobyl study as the Busby “study” are not peer reviewed.

Radiation charts show that statistically significant increases in cancer risk do not happen until 100 milliSieverts.

There have been extensive studies of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which indicate the effects of high radiation doses.

I have looked at lifetime expected death per TWH from different energy sources. I used a high estimate of 9000 future deaths for Chernobyl, but actually believe a far lower number is the case.

World Health Organization Chernobyl impact study from 2006 (167 pages) The report uses empirical studies. The other method would be to use deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki where radiation doses were known and use those to project deaths for people effected by Chernobyl. If the method of comparing expected deaths at Chernobyl used the expectation based on what was experienced at Hiroshima and Nagasaki then the number of expected deaths would be far lower than the WHO report. The World Health Organization 2006 study has an estimate of 9000 possible future deaths from Chernobyl. About 47 to 200 people are believed to have died from Chernobyl up to 2011.

Understanding how civil nuclear technology is the safe green solution, Oxford Physics

Oxford Physics Estimate using the study of survivors of the atomic bombs based on radiation exposure as they were tracked for many decades – 28(acute)+3(thyroid)+
c.78(solid cancers)+c.3(leukaemia). Crude but unbiased estimate. Anyway less than 200 deaths.

•Radiation is like other hazards –life has defenses
•Low-dose repair time is on the scale of a day or so
•Doses below threshold (100mSv) cause no damage.
•Above threshold, permanent damage (scar tissue) results. Such scar tissue may remain benign, or later become malignant, like other scars

In Taiwan, there was an incident where radioactive steel rebar was used in a building and people lived with the radiation for many years.

An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life: 5.3 y), was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years. They unknowingly received radiation doses that averaged 0.4 Sv – a collective dose of 4,000 person-Sv.

Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person-years. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under age 19.

The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per 100,000 person-years. Based upon partial official statistics and hospital experience, the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children. Assuming the age and income distributions of these persons are the same as for the general population, it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.

The estimated radiation doses to people in Ukraine 0.02 Sv and Belarus was 0.03Sv. This is 13-20 times less than what the people in Taiwan experienced.

>Epidemiological studies of cancer in aircrew

There are about 250,000 pilots and flight attendants in the world. Another 450,000 pilots of other types.

Full time pilots and flight attendants can get two to four times the regular amount of radiation in a year.

2.2 mSv: airline crew member, short flights for one year
3-6 mSv: airline crew member, cross-country flights, 900 hrs/yr for one year
10 mSv: cooking with natural gas (radon) for a year
5-15 mSv: one full-body CT scan for about 20 minutes
6-18 mSv: one chest CT scan for about 10 minutes
9 mSv: airline crew member, polar flights, such as Tokyo-NYC, 900 hrs/yr for one year
13 mSv: smoking one pack of cigarettes per day for a year
20 mSv: nuclear plant worker, maximum 5-year average*+
50 mSv: nuclear plant worker, maximum total exposure in one year
50-100 mSv: changes in blood chemistry
100 mSv: lowest clearly carcinogenic level; 1 millimort

So airline crew flying long haul routes for ten years would get 30-90 mSv and for 20 year would get 60-180 mSv

Not for the 10,000 people in Taiwan and not for the airline crews
Where is the increased cancer ? The peer reviewed studies do not find it.

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks

About The Author