Hi Alan ,
The events of recent times have clearly shown the desperation of the pro- nuclear establishment to block the science of internal radiation damage to health.
Fissionline together with broader links forged with nuclear campaign groups, stalwarts like Ken McG and individual, investigative independent veteran campaigners such as Dave Whyte , Paul Langley’s nuclear history blog , John Urquhart and many others will I’m sure redress the balance of knowledge on this subject for the public .
Ownership of the science of radiation induced genetic damage does not belong in the national interest to government nor to nuclear industry : this knowledge belongs to all of us . This appears to me to be the message needed to enter the public domain and possibly the best way we can support Professor Busby and other independent scientists attacked by the establishment for speaking the truth.
I am hoping that Ian Anderson, particularly if he moves back to Edinburgh, will become involved as a legal advisor for what is now evolving.
There are several other postings on fissionline I will be commenting on when I can find the time !
Cheers for now ,
From: Alan Rimmer
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 8:18 AM
To: Dennis Hayden
Subject: Re: The exclusion of Professor Busby’s evidence at the Pension Appeal Case .
Thanks for this. Your information is very helpful…and it’s good to know someone who can put it all together as well as you do. I agree that Prof Busby needs our support…the jackals of the nuclear industry are out to bring him down. I know this for a fact.
Further to my email sent earlier today there is a situation arising from the NZ Ministerial advisory Groups’ conclusions on the Massey ‘cytogenetic Analysis’ that has left me somewhat bewildered as not being used in either the legal cases and especially the UK War Pension Appeals …
The chair of the Advisory Group made four recommendations to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs (see my earlier email for all the set of recommendations. The first is, I believe, of considerable interest and should carry some weight against the UK Government.. i) The Massey University mFISH study results do provide evidence that the nuclear test veterans were exposed to ionizing radiation. It is not possible to determine the extent of the exposure from these studies.
The importance of this finding is that it has come from a group of 6 scientists who are considered as experts by, and appointed by the NZ Government to investigate the impact of the service on the NZ Operation Grapple cohort and their families. The Advisory Group spent two years investigating this and some of NZNTVA’s issues. They selected and subjected the Rowland studies to six experts both nationally and internationally for further peer review. NZNTVA overturned the Advisory Groups intention not to consider any input on the studies from Prof’s Rowland and Podd who were then allowed to make written statements to the Advisory group.
What we have ended up with is a situation that has been totally politically controlled by the New Zealand Government. The research was put through the most rigorous set of scientific scrutiny. The NZ Government has accepted the end result that as stated in i) the mFish study does proved evidence that the nuclear test veterans were exposed to ionizing radiation.
What the UK Government is doing is ignoring the NZ political scientific scrutiny resulting from the politically appointed Advisory Groups actions which have I believe been far more intense than those of the UK Government’s which almost casually have dismissed the Massey research. As i mentioned before if the advisory groups finding of damage to the health of the NZ group had been presented to the courts and the Tribunal and emphasised the total NZ governments control of the set up of the Advisory Group and its peer reviewing and other processing of the Massey research, and the NZ Governments acceptance of the conclusion i), then probably the Massey studies would not have been dismissed so easily.
ALAN perhaps this situation may make good reading in Fissionline..Two Governments at odds with each other on the question of exposure..
Ian Anderson, Esq.
Kew Gardens, NY 11415-0362
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but only with mBAND can you calculate actual dose exposure from the number of intra- chromosomal abberations this technique can detect. In 2011 the IAEA also referred to the mBAND with approval as a cytogenetic method of dose reconstruction.
While the mFISH technique can detect inter- chromosomal abberations and some intra- chromosomal abberations, it is not specific enough to identify all intra- chromosomal abberations for the purposes of cytogenetic dose reconstruction.