Radioactive Times
NEWSLETTER OF THE LOW LEVEL RADIATION CAMPAIGN JAN 2019

SCOTS LAW BREAKTHROUGH
A decision made last month by a Scots
judge in a radiation pensions appeals casefor a nuclear submariner has re-opened theissue of the legal status of evidence thatwill force both the Ministry of Defence,and the nuclear industry, to re-justify all
nuclear operations. In
2015,
the
Campaign asked for help to organise the
Nuclear Test Veteran Radiation Pension
Appeals in the Royal Courts of Justice.
You rallied round and sent us enoughmoney to bring 4 eminent experts from
Germany, the UK and Japan and for Chris
Busby and colleagues to conduct the
3-week hearing in June 2016. In a
disgraceful and Soviet-style final
Decision, the Judge, Sir Nicholas Blake,excluded all the evidence advanced by the
LLRC experts–on the basis that they werebiased. This echoed the 2014 decision by
Sir William Charles to exclude Chris as anexpert because of “bias”. Chris promptly
changed his status from “Expert” to“Representative”.
Back in the game: Your move!
Blake’s 2016 Decision was based onevidence presented by the Ministry of
Defence experts only. He excluded all theevidence that the radiation risk model was
faulty and ignored our witnesses. The 2016case was intended to provide the last word
on all radiation cases that followed. But
new decisions by judges in England andnow also Scotland have changed thesituation. The Ministry of Defence has

1

Chris and daughter Cecilia outside theRoyal Courts of Justice, June 2016

been placed on the back foot. Theirlawyers have to deal with two newexpert witnesses in London, and in
Scotland, to justify their previous
exclusion of evidence but now under
Scots law. (Full story page 3 and 4)
Final Success is in Sight
The Low Level Radiation Campaign
has fought since 1996 to overthrow theradiation risk model which has
permitted the deaths of millions ofpeople from internal radioactivity andunderpins nuclear war. We are uniquein the anti-nuclear movement because
we take on the science. One example,
which we report in this issue, is the useof alpha-track etching plastic to showthat nuclear sites, like Hinkley Point
release billions of radioactive particles
which are inhaled by locals, leading tocancer and leukemia. We are now
winning this battle and will give
examples in this Radioactive Times.

30
25
20
15
10
5

2004

2001

1998

1995

1992

1989

1986

1983

1980

1977

1974

1971

1968

1965

1962

1959

1956

1953

0

1950

Indicator on 1000 population

The graph below was presented by Prof Yuri Bandashevsky at the 2009 Lesvos
conference of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR). It shows clearly
the effects of the Chernobyl contamination on the people of Belarus. There wereincreases in every kind of illness, a reduction in the birthrate and an increase in
the death rate. We have since heard that those many thousands who were evacuatedto Kiev have mostly died below the age of 40. The birth defect rate increased
significantly in Europe. More than 20 scientific studies from many countries showsuch increases, and a scientific paper published by Profs. Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake,
Sebastian Pflugbeil and Chris Busby in 2016 demonstrated how the current radiation
model is in error by more than 1000-fold for these congenital effects. In itself, theBandashevsky graphs are a microcosm of what has been happening in the world
since the atmospheric tests rained down the Strontium-90, Plutoniums andUraniums etc. in the 50s and 60s, followed by the nuclear site disasters and thegeneral licensed releases from sites like Sellafield and individual nuclear powerYears
Birth rate

Death ratestations like Hinkley Point. This must now stop. And LLRC can stop it. The
evidence that the risk model that permitted these releases is dangerously incorrect
is now unarguable. In the last 5 years we have manouvered the authorities into a
corner from which they are unable to escape. We have done this using scientificstudies published in the peer-review literature, though constant pressure in the
courts, through the government Stakeholder dialogues, through lectures in theUSA, Europe, the United Nations, Japan and Korea. There are now some very
important developments which we ask you, our power-base, to help us with. This
new Radioactive Times contains a selection of what it is we have done includes
an account of our best achievements in the last 10 years and selected publications.
We have done all this with very little money. The Campaign has not been fundedby any Grant-funding body since 2009. We have soldiered on because we know,
from our research, that the banning of releases of man-made radioactivity is themost important development in human history. The effects of Chernobyl inEurope are now repeating in Japan following Fukushima. The nightmare ofradioactive contamination is underpinned by the false radiation risk model uponwhich we are forcing change. We can achieve this. We must.

2

PERILS OF THE DEEPRADIATION, SCOTS LAW,AND EVIDENCE
In 2016, Chris Busby was approached by
the widow of a Scottish nuclear submarinecrew member, Mr Forbes who had diedfrom non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL).
She had applied for a war pension on thebasis that the lymphatic cancer wascaused by radioactivity–he was a reactor
technician and every day had to sample
the reactor cooling water which he wasoften soaked in. The Ministry of Defence
refused on the basis that (first) the
disease was not caused by radiation and(second) that he could not have been
exposed to radiation anyway. Mrs Forbes
appealed the decision and brought in
Busby’s report. This included references
to scientific studies showing that NHL
was indeed caused by radiation. Thus the
MoD defence was dishonest.

Scots Law different
The Scottish judge agreed. He
allowed the appeal, but specificallyon this point, of Busby’s evidence andits exclusion. In December he gave
the MoD one month to frame anargument justifying the removal of
Busby’s evidence but now on thebasis of Scots Law, not English Law.
There were seven specific questions
which had to be answered by the MoD
lawyers, the most interesting of which
was whether the exclusion of theevidence breached the principle offairness. The Secretary of State for
Defence asked the judge on 9th
January for an extension in time,
writing: The issues raised in thisappeal are of significant andcontinuing importance totheMinistry of Defence. We are
instructing Scottish Counsel to liasewith the Counsel who appeared for
the MoD in the 2016 hearings in
England.
This opens a crack in the door which
had been slammed in the faces of the
Test Veterans in the 2016 case: it isa very important development for theveterans and for LLRC also.

Evidence excluded
By 2016, when the case was heard, theEdinburgh Tribunal found for the MoD
and refused the pension. The judge statedthat they were not permitted to look at
Busby’s reports because by then he had
been kicked out as an expert by the High
Court in London after a motion to exclude
him was brought by the MoD in 2014. The
judge in that “get Busby” hearing, Sir
William Charles, said Chris was “biased”
and so could not act in radiation cases as
an expert witness. Advised by Chris, Mrs
Forbes appealed to the Scottish Upper
Tier. The argument was that it was unfair
and unjust to exclude evidence that might
have affected the outcome of the case.

3

ATOMIC VETERANS ANDPANCREATIC CANCER

death is about 1 in 50, and theprobability of getting 4 in theseven veterans with cancers isutterly remote.
New case; new experts
In the new case, which Chris isorganising for Mrs B, he has
called an expert statistician tomake this point. In addition, Chrisis arguing now that the cancer
was caused by a combination ofchemical and radiological effects
caused by internal exposure to
Uranium particles. This new
approach gets round the questionof the radiation dose being too
small, and thus avoids theprecedent defined by the 2016
decision. He is calling Prof Keith
Baverstock, who was a radiation
advisor to the World HealthOrganisation.
(Continued on page 5)

In 2016, there were 16 test veteranswhose appeals were heard in the Royal
Courts of Justice. None of the appeals
succeeded for reasons already discussed,
including that of Don Battersby who wasrepresented by Chris Busby and his
daughter Cecilia; the others wererepresented by Hogan Lovell solicitors.
One of these, Trevor Butler died frompancreatic cancer after the case ended.
This was not the illness he had been
appealing for and Mrs Butler made a new
appeal; now for pancreatic cancer. Don
Battersby had also died from pancreaticcancer during the case, also two otherveterans. Don was awarded a pension,
but in 2016, after this, the MoD changed
its position. According to their new“expert witness”, Professor Geraldine
Thomas, pancreatic cancer was no longer
caused by radiation.
Improbable events
Just like throwing four sixes in a row, thechance of getting 4 deaths frompancreatic cancer in 16 veterans isvanishingly unlikely, which suggests thatthey had all suffered the same cause. But
all they had in common was being at thetest sites. This was one of the pieces ofevidence brought by Busby in the 2016
case. The judge dismissed it because the
MoD expert had dishonestly referred tothe probability of 4 pancreatic cancers
among the entire 20,000 veteran
population, quite a different calculation.
The chances of throwing 4 sixes in 16
dice throws is small enough, given thateach throw has a 1 in 6 chance. But thebackground rate of pancreatic cancer

4

CHRISTMAS ISLAND: WHAT REALLY HAPPENEDIn January 2019, CNN reported a very strange development. The British locked up
all the records relating to the atomic tests. They were no longer to be available toresearchers or historians. No one could understand why. Chris Busby and colleagues
representing the veterans in the radiation appeals have seen all of these public
documents and a large number of restricted ones also. Some of these were suddenly
made secret during the cases. Some secret data was asked through Freedom ofInformation requests and refused on the basis that they would affect Britain’s
relationship with other countries. What other countries? Thereis only one: the USA. There is another pointer. In 2006 theBBC broadcast a programme in the series “Document”,
producer Michael Thompson. Busby was an advisor in this;the item has since disappeared from the BBC Archive although
we have a copy. According to the programme, documents
released from the public records office showed that in 1957,
Britain did not know how to make an H-Bomb. In order toimpress the Americans (and Soviets) Britain was exploding
huge A-Bombs, very dirty Uranium bombs with massive
Grapple -X.
amounts of U-235. Then suddenly there was Grapple Y,
Britain’s phonyclearly a H-Bomb. Hurrah! Clever old Aldermaston.
H bomb?
The conclusion is obvious. The USA
contd. from p 4
wanted an ally at the nuclear high
The Ministry of Defence has run out of table. The public were screaming
experts. The judge gave them 90 days to about fallout (quite correctly). The
respond to Busby’s statement about USA McMahon Act prevented their
Uranium as the cause of the cancers. But helping the Brits. So here was anothing was forthcoming. No Geraldine quandary. Did the USA provide theThomas. When the case date was set for 29th Brits with the knowledge or even theNovember, MoD were 63 days out of time. material for Grapple Y? If so, then
They hastily produced a report by Dr Anne evidence for this might be put
Braidwood who had been a expert in the together by those historians and2013 case. But under cross examination in scientists researching the issue. The
2013 she had admitted under oath she was US certainly took over the British
not an expert on anything. Busby promptly so-called independent deterrent after
wrote to the judge with a copy of the the 1960s. The British bombs are alltranscript where she stated this, and asked US bombs. We are the US Aircraft
the judge to exclude her evidence by the Carrier sitting off the coast ofsame token as his own reports had been Europe, with our nuclear subs
excluded. This request is still with the judge. patrolling the deeps (and it seems,
This puts more pressure on the MoD in the killing their crews). And maybe thisTest Veteran Chess Game. If it cannot is the true “special relationship”
respond with an expert, we must win the forged in 1957 with Grapple Y.
case.
5

JUSTIFYING RADIATION EXPOSURES: EURATOM
In 1998, the Greens in the European
Parliament had to address a new legal
document about radiation exposure. This
was the Euratom 1996/29 Basic Safety
Standards Directive. It unified theregulation of all exposures of the publicand defined the levels of radioactive
contamination that might be legally
released. The Greens called in the experts
to advise: Alice Stewart, Rosalie Bertell,Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake, Chris Busby andAlexey Yablokov. We all met in Brussels
where we were joined by the otherinterested parties, including Jack Valentin,
the Secretary of the International
Commission on Radiation Protection,(ICRP). One of the outcomes of thismeeting was the formation of the newEuropean Committee on Radiation Risk,
the ECRR. But the other outcome is also
very relevant.
Justification and new evidence
We pointed out that the basis for the BSS
was the ICRP radiation model, and that thiswas unsafe for internal exposures. New
evidence from Chernobyl was showing thisand more would emerge. There had to bea clause which allowed for a change in thescience on which the law was based. The
Greens introduced one. Article 6.2 of theCouncil Directive 96/29/Euratom states:
Existing classes or types of practice may
be reviewed as to Justification whenever
new and important evidence about theirefficacy or consequences is acquired
By 2016 more that 20 peer-reviewed
studies had shown that the science
underpinning the BSS was false. These will
be discussed on page 9.

6The late Prof Alexey Yablokov of
ECRR with Chris in Berlin 2016
In 2017 the Campaign started theEuratom Justification Campaign.
Individuals in UK, Ireland, Sweden,
Denmark, Germany and France
wrote to the State radiation
protection authorities and demandedthat they obey EU law and set about
re-justifying all exposures fromradiation and radioactivity. They allrefused to comply, employing
different strategems in each country.
One favourite way, employed by
Sweden, was to say it was up to ICRP
(which it is not). In the UK they said
that there was no new and important
evidence (which there is). The
French refused to respond altogether.
The Irish wrote that they didnt
expose anyone to radiation. And soforth. Nevertheless, the Euratom
Justification campaign has shaken
them up; and they all had to respondby law. The next stage is to reportthem to the EU Commission and ask
for the law to be followed.
Meanwhile Richard Bramhall is
ramping up pressure in the UK.

SOME LLRC SUCCESSES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS
his evidence had been excluded (butsee story on p1).
2002-2018 CB publishes more than
40 scientific papers in the peerreview literature showing that theradiation risk model of the ICRP isfaulty.
2011 CB invited to Japan to speakon Fukushima effects. Attacked in
Guardian by George Monbiot.
2016 CB publishes paper in thejournal Genetics showing that theJapanese A-Bomb studies were
dishonestly manipulated and theirconclusions are therefore invalid.
2016 Profs Schmitz Feuerhake,
Pflugbeil and CB publish a study
showing that increases in birthdefects in Europe after Chernobyl
were significant: an error of 1000
fold in the risk model.
2017 CB gives evidence to the
Swedish Court which then refuses topermit the development of thenuclear waste repository at Forsmark(story p8)
2012-2018 Richard Bramhall (RB)engagedwith
theNuclear
Stakeholder meetings with the
British government ministries.
2018 RB becomes Chair of the Wales
Anti Nuclear Alliance.
2018 RB opposes the dumping ofradioactive dredged mud from
Hinkley Point to Cardiff on the
Welsh Coast.
2019 RB persuades the British
Government to engage in further
work discussing the failures of theradiation model (story p 13).

2009 International Conference of theEuropean Committee on Radiation Risk,
Lesvos, Greece brought 20 scientists from
Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, UK and USA to
discuss the 2003 Risk Model of the ECRR.
The model was updated in 2010 as a result.
Copies were sent to all the major Radiation
protection authorities in Europe in 2012.
A new 2019 edition is in preparation.
LLRC is a supporter of the ECRR whose
scientific secretary is Chris Busby (CB).
2009 CB made visiting Professor at
University of Ulster, Coleraine.
2009-2012 Studies by CB and colleaguesof the effects of Depleted Uranium
weapons in Iraq revealed very large
increases in cancer and birth defects.
Excess Uranium was found in the hair of
mothers of the children. CB reported theresults in the peer review literature andalso at the United Nations in Geneva.
2004-2010 Work by a PhD student, CB
and Prof Vyvyan Howard at the University
of Ulster confirmed the dangers of
Uranium particles through photoelectron
amplification of natural background
together with the strong affinity of
Uranium to DNA.
2009 CB interviews ex-ICRP secretary in
Stockholm. ICRP relocates to Canada.
2012 CB and de Messieres publish studyof nuclear test veteran children showing
10-fold excess of congenital effects, 8-foldin grandchildren. Sunday Mirror story.
2012- 2016 CB acts as expert witness andlater representative for several nuclear test
veteran cases. Six of these were successful
until the Ministry of Defence collapsed theremaining cases into one hearing in 2016at the Royal Courts of Justice after CB and7

SELLAFIELD AND HINKLEY HOT PARTICLESALARMING DISCOVERYThe photo opposite shows the alphaparticle tracks from a uranium particle
discovered by Green Audit in January
2019 in an engine filter from a car based
3km from Hinkley Point nuclear site. The
existence of this and other smaller (2-10
micron) particles in the filter shows
clearly that releases from the plant
directly or by sea to land transfer can beinhaled by people living there. The
imaging used a 2 month exposure ofpieces of the filter to the alpha detecting
CR39 material. The technique wasdeveloped by Green Audit to look at DU
particles in Kosovo and the Lebanon.
This alarming finding shows clearly
that the 2012 concerns about high levelsof Uranium, reported near the site, butdenied by the authorities, were justified.
The inhalation of these Uranium particles
we believe to be the cause of the cancer
and infant mortality found downwind in
Burnham-on-Sea.
Also Sellafield
Green Audit previously found hotter
microparticles in samples and filters fromnear Sellafield. The famous childleukemia cluster there, dismissed by theauthorities, is almost certainly the productof exposure by inhalation to suchmaterial. The argument that the “dose is
too low” dilutes all the radioactivity into
the whole body, and makes no concession
to the very high real local doses andUranium concentrations near particles
like that in the photo. In the case of
Sellafield the sediment particles were of
Plutonium and Americium-241.

Welsh mud dumping
For these reasons, the stirring up of
sediment at Hinkley Point and its
removal to be dumped in the sea near
Cardiff is a very dangerous project.
None of the government agencies,
including those that measureradioactivity, look for hot particles,
or Uranium particles as small as thoseseen using the CR39 technique. These
are airborne, invisible and can passdirectly through the lung into thebody. Richard Bramhall has broughtthese results to the Welsh Assembly
government, as he explains on page
13. It is truly astonishing that no-one
has previously carried out suchresearch. Instead, the releases ofparticles at Hinkley Point wereconsistently denied in 2012-2014.
The authorities at Sellafield havedesigned and use special vehicles, atenormous cost, to look for hot
particles. But these cannot see suchmicroscopic alpha-emitting particles;
they can only detect very large andhighly gamma radioactive ones,
which in any case could not be inhaled.

8

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS IN PEER REVIEW JOURNALS
Science is supposed by all to be the test of truth. Western government state that
their laws relating to radiation are based on science. By this they mean scientificstudies of the health effects of radiation,published in the peer review literature, in
Scientific Journals. But all the evidence in scientific journals that is relied upon andincorporated into laws, were written by scientists funded by the same States that
require nuclear energy and nuclear power to run their war machines and makenuclear weapons. The true effects of exposures to internal radionuclides have neverbeen cited or discussed in the publications that underpin current laws on exposure
limits. The latest risk model of the International Commission on Radiation
Protection (ICRP) does not refer to or cite any research on the effects of Chernobyl.
When interviewed by Busby in Stockholm in 2009, the retiring Scientific Secretaryof the ICRP, Dr Jack Valentin, editor of the ICRP2007 admitted that this was wrong
but that he had to do what he was told. The interview was videoed and can be foundon YouTube at https://youtu.be/k2JFxnAkTW4
The problem has always been that the Green and anti-nuclear movement has
had few qualified scientists examining the health effects of ionizing radiation, andthose that there were had huge difficulty getting their studies published in thepeer-review literature. The late Dr Alice Stewart told RaT that her paper showing
the Japanese A-Bomb studies to be faulty was rejected by 9 journals. This was in1997. But in the period of internet expansion, from 2005, paper journals began tobe threatened by web publication in what was known as “open access” journals.
This situation forced the traditional paper journals to have to compete by producing
their own “open acccess” journals. So instead of getting money by selling paper
journals to university libraries, the charge is made to the authors. Often there is alsoa charge to those wanting to download the paper from the web.
All of this expansion in journals has led to a huge opportunity for open science.
The traditional journals would have referees who kept out what was seen as
dissident science. A good example is The Lancet. This journal published on theanniversary of Chernobyl in 2016, an astonishingly dishonest compendium accountof radiation and health, whose authors were all well-known nuclear industry
apologists and in some cases (Dr Richard Wakeford) ex nuclear industry employees.
A number of independent scientists complained and asked for a small space topublish a letter saying that the health effects of Chernobyl were significant and that
the Lancet paper questionable. The editor refused to publish anything. Busby,
Yablokov and Schmitz-Feuerhake wrote on behalf of the Geneva-Based
Independent WHO to the editor of The Lancet and sent it by email and post recordeddelivery. It was ignored.
But the scientific literature box is now open and the control of science ended.
Busby is now a reviewer for several journals, can reject bad studies (and does) andhas published more than 40 scientific studies. (Continued on p 10)

9SCIENTIFIC PAPERS and BOOKS from LLRC
From p9)
The scientific literature is the second new arena ( the other being the courts) where
the nuclear industry science can be questioned or shown to be false. In time, these
two routes will win us the loss of further radioactive pollution, the banning of
Uranium weapons and the realisation that a nuclear war will be the end of life onearth. Studies carried out by Busby and other members of the European Committeeon Radiation Risk have destroyed the status of the current ICRP model. The mostrecent examples of evidence which is fatal to the ICRP are (1) the review analysis
of congenital malformations in children after Chernobyl published in Environmental
Health and Toxicology in 2016 and (2) the 2016 invited letter to the prestigious
US journal Genetics which showed that the Japanese A-Bomb study, which forms
the entire basis of the ICRP model, was dishonestly manipulated half way through,in 1973, when the unexposed control group was removed. These two studies wereadvanced in Europe as New and Important Evidence forcing a legal re-Justificationof all exposures under the European EURATOM Directive.
A list of the more important scientific papers follows. These can mostly be foundon the web, but for those who want copies, LLRC can print off copies and post
them if requested by email to: lowradcampaign@gmail.com or a letter to theoffice. We will charge £5 for this, payable by cheque or to the paypal account shownon the back page.
Scientific papers● Busby Christopher (2018) A risk coefficient for radiation-induced dementia.
Advances in Alzheimers Disease. 7 (2) 13-35, June 2018
● Busby C (2017) Radiochemical Genotoxicity Risk and Absorbed Dose. Res Rep
Toxi. Vol.1 No.1:1● Busby Christopher (2017) Child health and ionizing radiation: Science, Politics
and European Law. Pediatric Dimensions. 2(3) 1-4● Busby C (2017) Childhood leukemia, atmospheric test fallout and high voltage
power distribution lines. Pediatric Dimensions. DOI 10.15761/PD.100156● Busby Christopher and Mangano Joseph J (2017) There’s a world going onunderground—infant mortality and fracking in Pennsylvania. Journal ofEnvironmental Protection. 8(4) 2017
● Busby Christopher. Letter to the Editor on “The Hiroshima Nagasaki survivor
studies. Discrepancies between results and general perception.” By Bernard R
Jordan. Genetics. 2016; 204(4) 1627-1629● Busby Christopher. Is There Evidence of Adverse Health Effects Near US Nuclear
Installations? Infant Mortality in Coastal Communities near The Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Station in California, 1989-2012. J J Epidemiol Prevent. 2016, 2(3):030

10SCIENTIFIC PAPERS and BOOKS from LLRC (2)From p10)● Sacks Bill, Mayerson Gregory, Siegel Jeffrey A (2016) Epidemiology without
Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions and Specious Statistics inRadiation Science (with commentaries by Inge Schmitz-Feuerhake and Christopher
Busby, and a reply by the authors). Biol Theory. 2016; 11: 69–101● Schmitz-Feuerhake, Busby C, Pflugbeil P Genetic Radiation Risks-A Neglected
Topic in the Low Dose Debate. Environmental Health and Toxicology. 2016.
31Article ID e2016001● Busby Christopher, de Messieres Mireille and Morgan Saoirse (2015) Infant andperinatal mortality and Stillbirths near Hinkley Point nuclear power station inSomerset, 1993-2005; an epidemiological investigation of causation. JJ Epidemiol.
Prevent. 2015 1(2) 013● Busby Christopher (2015) Editorial: Uranium Epidemiology. Jacobs Journal of
Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine 1(2)- 009● Busby Christopher (2015) Editorial: Epidemiology and the Effects of Radioactive
Contamination: Time for a New Approach. Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology andPreventive Medicine 1(1)- 02● Busby Christopher (2015) Breast Cancer Mortality in Estuary Wards near Bradwell
Nuclear Power Station, Essex, UK 2001-1995 . Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology
and Preventive Medicine 1(1)- 06● Busby, Christopher, de Messieres, Mireille (2015) Cancer near Trawsfynydd
Nuclear Power Station in Wales, UK: A Cross Sectional Cohort Study. Jacobs
Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine 1(1)- 08● Busby C and de Messieres M (2014) Miscarriages and congenital conditions inoffspring of the British Nuclear Atmospheric Test Program. Epidemiology(Sunnyvale) 2014, 4:4● Mangano J, Sherman J, Busby C (2013) Changes in confirmed plus borderline
cases of congenital hyperthyroidism in California as a function of environmental
fallout from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown. Open Journal of Pediatrics 3:
370-376● Busby Christopher (2013). Aspects of DNA Damage from Internal Radionuclides,
New Research Directions in DNA Repair, Prof. Clark Chen (Ed.), ISBN: 978-95351-1114-6, InTech, DOI: 10.5772/53942.
● ALAANI, S., AL-FALLOUJI, M., BUSBY, C*., HAMDAN, M.. Pilot study ofcongenital anomaly rates at birth in Fallujah, Iraq, 2010. Journal of the Islamic
Medical Association of North America, North America, 44, Aug. 2012. Available
at: <http://jima.imana.org/article/view/10463>● Alaani Samira Tafash Muhammed, Busby Christopher*, Hamdan, Malak andBlaurock-Busch Eleonore (2011) Uranium and other contaminants in hair fromthe parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq Conflict

Health 5, 1-15

contd.p12

11

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS and BOOKS from LLRC (3)From p11)● Busby, Chris*; Hamdan, Malak; Ariabi, Entesar. (2010) Cancer, Infant Mortality
and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005–2009. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public
Health 7, no. 7: 2828-2837.
● Busby C.C. (2009) Very Low Dose Fetal Exposure to Chernobyl Contamination
Resulted in Increases in Infant Leukemia in Europe and Raises Questions about
Current Radiation Risk Models. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health.; 6(12):3105-3114.
● Busby Chris, Lengfelder Edmund, Pflugbeil Sebastian, Schmitz Feuerhake, Inge
(2009) The evidence of radiation effects in embryos and fetuses exposed by
Chernobyl fallout and the question of dose response. Medicine, Conflict,
Survival 25(1) 18-39● Busby Chris (2008) Is there a sea coast effect on childhood leukaemia in
Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, 1975-2002 ? Occupational andEnvironmental Medicine 65, 4, 286-287● Busby Chris and Schnug Ewald (2008) Advanced biochemical and biophysicalaspects of uranium contamination. In: (Eds) De Kok, L.J. and Schnug, E. Loads
and Fate of Fertilizer Derived Uranium. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The
Netherlands, ISBN/EAN 978-90-5782-193-6.
● Busby C and Fucic A (2006) Ionizing Radiation and children’s health: PINCHE
conclusions Acta Paediatrica S 453 81-86● Busby C (2017) Childhood leukemia, atmospheric test fallout and high voltage
power distribution lines. Pediatric Dimensions. DOI 10.15761/PD.100156● Busby Chris and Bramhall Richard (2005) Is there an excess of childhood cancer
in North Wales on the Menai Strait, Gwynedd? Concerns about the accuracy ofanalyses carried out by the Wales Cancer Intelligence Unit and those using its
data. European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics. 1(3) 504-526● Busby Chris and Morgan Saoirse (2005) Routine monitoring of air filters at theAtomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston, UK show increases in Uranium
from Gulf War 2 operations. European J. Biology and Bioelectromagnetics 1(4)650-668
BOOKS; posted on request; postage included:● Busby C (1995) Wings of Death Aberystwyth: Green Audit (£15)● Busby C (2006) Wolves of Water Aberystwyth: Green Audit (£15)● Busby C & Yablokov AV (2009) Chernobyl 20 Years After Aberystwyth: Green
Audit (£15)● Busby C,Yablokov AV, Bertell R, Scott Cato M (2010) The 2010
recommendations of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (£10)

12

The Cardiff Mud Dump goes to Westminster
Building the new reactor at Hinkley Point requires
Electricité de France (EdF) to dredge 300,000 tons of
sediment, clay and rock from the bed of the Severn
Estuary. This is to allow construction of sea-water inlet
and outfall pipes and a harbour. In 2014 the Welsh
environment agency Natural Resources Wales (NRW)gave EdF a licence to dump all the material on Cardiff
Grounds, a submerged sandbank a mile and a half fromthe Welsh capital. Cardiff Grounds has long been used
as a dispersal site for silt dredged for navigational
purposes. Few people knew about thisplan until late 2017 when marine expert
CEFAS used were incapable ofDr. Tim Deere-Jones found the licence
detecting particles of Plutonium andburied in thousands of pages of EdF
Uranium which are known to be
documentation together with a report frompresent in the estuary and which can
the Westminster government's laboratory
be resuspended, blown inland and
CEFAS on the levels of radioactivity ininhaled.
the mud. His sons' skill with social media
At the instigation of the Welsh
ensured that within a few weeks most of
Government's Petitions Committee,
south Wales and southwest England knew
NRW asked EdF to take further
all about the plan and it was reported bysamples but EdF refused. Through all
UK national media. Online petitions
the months of protest and debate EdF
attracted thousands of signatures. An
and NRW insisted that theofficial Welsh Assembly petition started
radiological hazard was trivial.
by Deere-Jones himself became theProtestors replied that this claim waslargest and fastest-growing in theunreliable because there was no
Assembly's history.
information on particles. The Welsh
LLRC contributed a review of our own
Government's Environment Secretary
research on official cancer data showing
Lesley Griffiths accused them ofthat populations near the sea havelying and scaremongering.
elevated cancer rates. At the same time
In June 2018, as LLRC's Secretary, I
we applied to CEFAS for the data behind
wrote to NRW pointing out that, in
their report. Chris Busby was able to open
addition to their failure to establish
and understand the computer files CEFAS
the presence or absence of Plutonium
supplied and wrote a second reportand Uranium particles, they could notshowing that there were many knowledge
rely on the scientific advice they were
gaps and assumptions. Too few samples
getting from officials. The science
had been taken and only the top two
was questionable.
inches had been sampled; the tests
Contd on p14

By Richard Bramhall

13

Contd from p13
The point about these particles is that thescience of radiation risk is in crisis
because of over-simplification. It took awrong turn in 1943. In the dash to develop
nuclear weapons America forced theadoption of an average energy model. It
treats the alpha decays of inhaled oringested Uranium as if they affected thewhole body. In fact they pack a hugepunch to a tiny volume of cells. You can't
treat this as a whole body dose any morethan you can say there's not much heat ina cigarette end so it's ok to stub it out in ababy's eye.
EdF sent a glossy briefing to all themembers of the Welsh Assembly claimingthat the public radiation dose from the
mud would be equivalent to eating 20
bananas. This Banana Equivalent Dose isjunk and no real scientist would mention
it except as a joke but the sad thing is thatpeople were using it to belittle theprotests. My letter to NRW took the formof a detailed critique of arguments madeby the Westminster Government's
Department of Business, Energy andIndustrial Strategy (BEIS). In 2016 weapplied to BEIS for a review of thejustification of the proposed new Hinkley
Point reactor. Justification is a simple costbenefit analysis. The costs are measured
in terms of health detriment. We presented
incontrovertible evidence that Uranium
fallout from the Chernobyl disaster caused
a sharp increase in congenital
malformations thousands of times greaterthan predicted by the official risk model.
BEIS responded with misdirection,
evasion, and pretended incomprehension.
There is a clearly a crisis of competence.

14

I pointed out to NRW that Chernobyl
is relevant to the mud dump because
Uranium particles are common toboth. The dispute represents anuncertainty in the terms of a Welsh
law — the Environment (Wales) Act
of 2016 — that requires special care
to be taken.
The bad news is that NRW is justas dodgy as BEIS. They claimed thatthey had to follow protocols of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency
which is simply untrue. The one
sensible thing NRW wrote was that I
should take the scientific debate backto BEIS. I've done that.
I represent LLRC and the Welsh
Anti-Nuclear Alliance in a regular
Forum where NGOs meet civil
servants from BEIS. Last October I
reported to BEIS that the Welsh
Government had told me they had
confidence in NRW and that NRW's
advice was to reopen the issues inWestminster. BEIS offered me aseparate meeting. There I and Peter
Wilkinson presented the idea of Joint
Fact-Finding. We were asked to makea formal proposal for the next Forum.
That happened on January 24th anddiscussions are continuing.
All documents at www.llrc.org

AN APOLOGY AND PLEA FROM CHRIS BUSBY
Photo shows Profs John Goldsmith, Ed
Radford, Ernest Sternglass in Germany
in 1998. They are all dead now, as are
Rosalie Bertell, Alice Stewart, John
Gofman, Karl Morgan, Alexey
Yablokov. There are no scientists left
attacking the nuclear risk model but me.
By now, evidence that it is madly wrong
and has killed more than 60 million isincreasingly apparent everywhere.

WHAT HOPE IS THERE?
Anyone reading this Radioactive Times
must feel like jumping off a cliff. Whatcan be done to save future generations
from this mad science, driven by jobs andmoney and military power? The answer
is we need young scientists to work in thearea. We need to do the research andpublish it in the scientific literature. I am
getting old. I am sorry that this RaT looks
like the Busby show. But there is only me,
Prof Inge Schmitz Feuerhake, Prof Shoji
Sawada, a few other oldies left. But weare winning and if we stay alive and can
do our research, we can win. Hope: thecurrent state of radioactive pollution, if
stabilised with no new releases, will
mostly decay away by 2100. The genomic
damage in humans will decay away intwenty generations. Lifespans will shorten
and fertility reduce. We know all this fromexperimental and epidemiological studies.
But the alternative is much worse.
If you or you loved ones had cancer
The cancer rate increase in the last 30
years is alarming. By 2020 one in two will
have been diagnosed. You have all been
touched by this. It is most likely that thesecancers were caused by the weapon test

fallout, Chernobyl fallout, beachparticles and other sources. We now
know that all diseases are increasedby radiation, not just cancer.
What I want; what I can do.
I want to set up an Institute. An ECRR
centre for alternative research into
radiation, from radioactivity and fromelectromagnetic sources. This would
be a building with an address and withlaboratories. It would attract young
scientists and carry on the work if or
when I lose my marbles. It would bea focus for a revolution in the current
tired and dangerous science. I can get
one in Riga and run it for 5 years fora few million Euros. In the past, wehave been left some money in the Willof a supporter. You might consider
doing the same. After all, it is throughyour money that we have survived for
25 years and kept up our research andour fight for the children andgrandchildren. On the back page wewill put down what we need to donext and how much we want for it.
Please help with whatever you canafford. Thank you!

15

Success in Sweden

In September 2017, Chris gave a whole
day’s evidence to the Swedish
Environmental Court which legallyadvises the Swedish government about
the proposed high level nuclear waste
plant to be built 500m under the Baltic
Sea at Forsmark. He pointed out thatthe risk model, upon which theproposal rested was wrong. In January
2018, the Court published its findings.
It advised that permission should be
refused the billion pound project to bepermitted. This success failed to bereported in any major newspaper.
Photo Osthammer Nyheter

WHAT DO WE IMMEDIATELY NEED MONEY FOR?
● The Test Veteran and Submarine Veteran court cases, bringing witnesses andtravelling to London and Scotland (see stories on p 1 and 3).
£5000● Funding the preparation and printing of the 2019 new edition of the Risk
Model of the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR).
£5000● Open Access Scientific Peer Review publication of 6 new studies supporting
the scientific arguments, including work on Uranium genotoxicity, childleukemia, dose response relationships, hormesis.
£8000● Laboratory measurements of samples from Hinkley Point.
£4000● Travel£2000
And general survival. This Radioactive Times should show you that we are theonly NGO working on the science, and making real advances in the project tostop nuclear energy and the use of nuclear weapons, including Uranium.
You can send us a cheque “Low Level Radiation Campaign” pay with paypal: as“Low Level Radiation Campaign” or make a standing order or a BACS payment
to our bank account:
HSBC sort code 40 30 05 Account 51384007 Low level Radiation Campaign
Thank you,
Richard Bramhall
Low level Radiation Campaign, Times Building, South Crescent, Llandrindod
Wells, Powys, LD1 5DH. Tel 07887 942043
Email: lowradcampaign@gmail.com
Website: www.llrc.org

16