Both the great Truths and the great Falsehoods of the twentieth century lie hidden in the arcane, widely inaccessible, and seemingly mundane domain of the radiation sciences

Thursday, August 5, 2010

The Trial of the Cult of Nuclearists: SCAM NUMBER TWENTY-TWO

What follows is the continuation, in serial form, of a central chapter from my book A Primer in the Art of Deception: The Cult of Nuclearists, Uranium Weapons and Fraudulent Science.

SCAM NUMBER TWENTY-TWO: Derive estimates of the risk to health from chronic internal contamination from research conducted on instances of acute external irradiation.

This point formed the basis of Exhibit C and need not be belabored. Radiation safety standards and the assessment of risk from radiation exposure are based primarily on the research of the survivors of the bombings in Japan and those who received x-ray exposure during medical treatment. In the incidents in Japan, populations were exposed to a flash, lasting a few milliseconds, of external gamma and neutron radiation. Based on the governing, unverified assumption that the quantity of energy delivered to tissue is the fundamental determiner of biological effect, the radiation protection agencies of the world fabricate risk estimates from these instances of acute external radiation and from them derive risk estimates for the entire gamut of possible patterns of chronic exposure from internal contamination by radionuclides. The whole basis of radiation safety is grounded on the conjecture that there is no difference in the cellular response, the organ response, and the whole-body response between an instant of gamma exposure and chronic, repeated exposure from decaying radionuclides inside the body emitting alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. NO RESEARCH HAS EVER BEEN CONDUCTED TO CONFIRM THE VALIDITY OF THIS FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION. In Wings of Death, Chris Busby relates an anecdote of his investigation into studies of the comparison between external and internal radiation. “When I wrote to the UK National Radiological Protection Board in 1986 asking about this, I received the reply that the board, ‘knew of no studies where internal and external radiation had been compared.’”

The estimates of the risk to health from many types of chronic, low-level exposure from internal emitters is based on unwarranted assumptions. Mankind’s safety from radionuclides awash in the environment is currently underwritten by fraudulent science. Risk factors may be substantially in error. Populations may be more endangered than currently believed. The radiation protection community has not done its homework.