Talk:Christopher Busby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Medicine / Hematology-oncology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (marked as Low-importance).

Journal of Radiological Protection[edit]

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"[1]

"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."[2]

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. (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)


  1. ^ (PDF). Journal of Radiological Protection Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ (PDF). Journal of Radiological Protection Missing or empty |title= (help)


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[1] MatthewFP (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


  1. ^ Krauss, Lawrence. "Commentary: Editors must be our gatekeepers". New Scientist, no. 2671, 27 August 2008, p. 46.

References and Publications[edit]


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)

Busby's claims are at odds with the experiments and theories of Radiobiologists and the body of scientific knowledge. His approach has been profoundly unscientific, and his is rightly considered a crank with a political agenda. I think this should be noted in the opening summation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg85 (talkcontribs) 10:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[1]

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.


  • 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 (talkcontribs) 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)


  1. ^ []

Fringe beliefs?[edit]

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

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

BLP issues[edit]

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)


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 (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 (, 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 (, which seems impressive, regardless of the smutt hype in the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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. --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 Radiation and Reason Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University

An Exclusive Nuclear Street Interview with Low Dose Radiation Health Effects Expert Dr. Antone L.Brooks Professor Antone L Brooks

Chernobyl's 'nuclear nightmares' 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[edit]

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)


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)
Eeh? Except that his papers published by Green Audit *are* peer-reviewed publications! Do your homework before you make such dumb mistakes! And indeed, this looks like trial by internet. There's so much dishonest to be found in this article, it's hard to even start to correct it all! A disgrace to wikipedia, if you ask me. (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Correction: Green Audit publications are not peer-reviewed. They are self-edited and self-published. Some papers written by Busby were peer-reviewed and no one is suggesting removing those from the page.Jimjamjak (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2012 (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 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

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)


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) 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) watch a documentary while your at it Oz Waver (talk) 17:58 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This is anecdotal 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Does he have the title "professor"[edit]

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[edit]

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. --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 ([[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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I was reffering to ANNEX 3A, paragraph 7 in which "possible biological effectiveness" is stated as <2.

Together with the factor of 1.8 cited in paragraph 9, i mentally established an aroundtwoishness. Sorry for my lack of precission.
This and the other accepted inaccuracies described in the report made me feel quiet unease about traditional radiation protection and i wanted to mention something to that effect after realizing that someone found this report "excellent".
Also I was under the impression that a wad of papers was dismissed without further explanation. Usually foreign works.
That Beside, Busby surely didn`t try to establish that cancer needs a 'double hit' but that internal emitters are more effective than external emitters. Maybe it was unwise of him to start building hypotheses to that effect himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how much of a "controversy" this so-called second event theory really is. It seems to me that the definition commonly offered for the word "controversy" revolves around a prolonged or otherwise significant dispute between several parties. As far as I can make out, this theory is basically just that - a hypothesis. It also seems to have been largely discredited on the basis of a wealth of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Why does there need to be such a large section on a hypothesis that has been proven false? If Wikipedia were to include such large sections on every theory/hypothesis that has since been discredited, I feel that it would be unmanageably enormous. If someone sees true encyclopaedic value in this section, please can they explain their reasoning - otherwise I think that I'll make a fairly severe edit to this section.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
No one responded to the previous comment, which I made some years ago now. I think that the section on this so-called "controversy" is largely a waste of space, given that it is nothing more than an idea posited by someone with increasingly limited scientific credibility. I will delete much of it, including the diagram, which I think gives more credence to the "theory" than is warranted.Jimjamjak (talk) 08:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

"Citation needed" in Membership/Peak Bodies/Committees[edit]

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 (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cited reference [1] and deleted the tags. Still looks awkward. Maybe someone could check what i did. Thinking about regrouping the entries and referencing them together.
Claims about third parties such as the RSC citing self published sources (Busby's CV) are entirely improper per WP:SELFPUB, especially when such claims are self serving, as in this case. If independent sources cannot be found then this section should be removed in accordance with that policy. (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-Promotion, notoriety and the volume of external information[edit]

This article appears to do more self-promoting by citing references dependent on content that is controlled by the subject. Self-promoting articles are not permitted, neither is advertising. Controversy alone may afford notoriety but notoriety may be confined to a local community. This wouldn't be sufficient notoriety for entry into WP. Credentialing, determining whether someone is qualified in a particular area of skill or knowledge, isn't a WP requirement. So, it is possible for who lacks sufficient training. skill or expertise to be mentioned in a WP article. But references made to the person in the article that call attention to "expertise" need to be verifiable.

Some examples of NPOV are:

  1. The Date of Birth is cited but the reference is a personal resume. A personal resume does not offer a neutral point of view (NPOV). It is a marketing tool and a biased view is expected.
  2. Reference is made to being an officer an environmental consulting company. This may be true but does not confer notoriety on the subject. It would be an interesting anecdote if it were supplemental to other content that were notable.
  3. Books cited as references are self-published, ak.k., "vanity" books. This does not confer NPOV.
  4. subject is a "Visiting Professor" at the University of Ulster. Although reference to being a "Professor" was criticized recently, the underlying weakness is in the validity and credibility of the institution itself (as stated in my opening paragraph.)

I intend to remove citations that refer to content controlled by the subject of the article, unless accompanied by objective citations. Please use WP email or my Talk page to contact me. If using the talk page, please send a note to me using WP email so that I know I need to login to WP and check the talk page. Kernel.package (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am also concerned about the extensive use of vanity-press published books as sources for this article. It certainly leaves me with the impression that this article is more a front for self-promotion, marketing or promotion of Busby's ideas, than something worthy of entry in an encyclopedia.Jimjamjak (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New information about Fukushima and Busby to be incorporated into the article[edit]

"The Green party's former science and technology spokesman is promoting anti-radiation pills to people in Japan affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster, that leading scientists have condemned as "useless".

Dr Christopher Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster, is championing a series of expensive products and services which, he claims, will protect people in Japan from the effects of radiation. Among them are mineral supplements on sale for ¥5,800 (£48) a bottle, urine tests for radioactive contaminants for ¥98,000 (£808) and food tests for ¥108,000 (£891).

The tests are provided by Busby Laboratories and promoted through a body called the Christopher Busby Foundation for the Children of Fukushima (CBFCF). Both the pills and the tests are sold through a website in California called, run by a man called James Ryan.

Though a controversial figure, Busby has been championed by the anti-nuclear movement and some environmentalists. He is still consulted by the Green party on issues such as low-level radiation and depleted uranium, but when contacted by the Guardian the party distanced itself from Busy's activities. Penny Kemp, the Green party communications director, said that the party did not condone Busby's promotion of the products.

In a video on YouTube, Busby says that the calcium and magnesium pills will be supplied "at the cost of production". But the prices being charged by are far greater than those of other mineral supplements on sale in Japan. Chemists in Tokyo sell bottles of 200 pills containing similar combinations of ingredients for ¥1,029 (£8.49). James Ryan's website also charges a minimum shipping cost of ¥2,300 (£19).

The Japanese government already monitors human exposure to radiation and tests food and water, banning contaminated products from sale. It works to stricter radiation limits than the EU.

Fukushima prefecture has launched a comprehensive radiation testing programme, as well as distributing radiation monitors to 280,000 children at elementary and junior high schools. Hospitals at the edge of the exclusion zone are offering full body radiation scans and the government plans to check the thyroid glands of 360,000 children by March 2014 — with follow up tests continuing for the rest of their lives.

The CBFCF also solicits donations from the public, to be paid into an account called Green Audit at a bank in Busby's home town of Aberystwyth. Green Audit is an environmental consultancy and research organisation founded by Busby.

Launching the products and tests, Busby warns in his video of a public health catastrophe in Japan caused by the Fukushima explosions, and claims that radioactive caesium will destroy the heart muscles of Japanese children.

He also alleges that the Japanese government is trucking radioactive material from the Fukushima site all over Japan, in order to "increase the cancer rate in the whole of Japan so that there will be no control group" of children unaffected by the disaster, in order to help the Japanese government prevent potential lawsuits from people whose health may have been affected by the radiation. The pills, he claims, will stop radioactive contaminants attaching themselves to the DNA of Japanese children.

But Gerry Thomas, professor of molecular pathology at the department of surgery and cancer at Imperial College, London, describes his statements about heart disease caused by caesium as "ludicrous". She says that radioactive elements do not bind to DNA. "This shows how little he understands about basic radiobiology." Of the products and services being offered, she says, "none of these are useful at all. Dr Busby should be ashamed of himself."

Professor Ohtsura Niwa, a member of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, said that Busby had offered no evidence for his claims of deliberate contamination. "It is not possible for the government and Tepco [the company that runs the Fukushima nuclear plant] to cheat people, now that so many citizens equipped with dosimeters are measuring radiation levels all over Japan," he said.

Niwa described Busby's faith in magnesium and calcium supplements for guarding against radionuclides such as strontium, uranium and plutonium as "baseless".

A Japanese government spokesman also rebutted the accusation of deliberately contaminating other parts of Japan. Noriyuki Shikata, deputy cabinet secretary for public affairs in the prime minister's office, said that so far only tsunami debris from Miyako in Iwate prefecture has been transported to Tokyo for incineration, adding that the disposal of waste generated by the disaster applies only to Iwate and Miyagi prefectures, not Fukushima.

"At this point, there are no plans to transport radioactive waste outside Fukushima prefecture," Shikata said. "Efforts are now being co-ordinated to construct intermediate storage facilities for radioactive waste inside Fukushima prefecture."

Yasuhito Sasaki, executive director of the Japan Radioisotope Association, described the idea that large swaths of the country were being deliberately contaminated as "ridiculous". "No decision has been made on the final disposal of radioactive waste," he said. "Local governments in Fukushima haven't even approved a government proposal to store it locally on a temporary basis."

Busby told the Guardian that the money from the sales of pills and tests goes to the CBFCF, which was established by James Ryan. When asked what his involvement with the foundation is, Busby said: "It's got nothing to do with me. He phoned me up and asked if he could use my name and I said he could." But he added: "I'm conducting the tests. I promised him I would measure the samples he sent to me." Asked if Busby Laboratories was his operation, he said, "I'm Busby Laboratories."

Ryan did not respond to a question from the Guardian on why the products and services provided by are so expensive. Nor did he provide any evidence for the efficacy of the products when asked.

He did say: "All money from 4u Detox goes to children of Fukushima and children throughout Japan. We have donated a great amount to children of Japan". PRONIZ (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed The Guardian article myself. Also, there's no need to quote it here in full, copyright. Depending on how this story develops, it may evolve into a separate section. It's now located at the end of the "Conflicts with other Low-Dose Radiation researchers", I think it's the most appropriate section for it. Lastly, if anyone thinks it should be removed, please explain why first, thanks. I noticed someone deleted it once already. --Diamonddavej (talk)
It seems to me to definitely merit inclusion. If Busby is hawking dubious 'medicines' around Japan, his credibility as a commentator on nuclear issues is rather diminished. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this merits inclusion, but not extending to the detailed swear words used in the Monboit-Busby conversation. Firstly Monboit's account of the words used is a primary source regarding the conversation, when WP:BLP says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Secondly is is not aligned with WP:BLP "must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist". Rwendland (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I now think the section has improved a good bit,though I might have got carried away and included a little too much info. I would welcome comments and suggestions at this point, if any. --Diamonddavej (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Why was all regarding these pills, though well documented by sources, removed by the same IP user who did only worked on these pages? (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


Just a note in case anyone wonders why some entries in the Books section were removed in my edit. One was a second edition of a previous entry in the list and the other two have not been published, existing only as online documents. (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

May I add another note. The section which goes: A review of past studies of birth defects in Iraq concluded that there was no clear increase in birth defects and no clear indication of a possible environmental exposure including depleted uranium.[69] and it's reference should be deleted because it does not, as reported in this articel, show no clear increase in birth defects nor no clear indiction of a possible exposure to depleted uranium. It merely shows the Plausibility of other factors coming into play. The article is very misleading and biased here. (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

ProfWoland entry above[edit]

Professor Woland is Christopher Busby making comment on his own biography. There is substantial question on articles written by Busby having truly been "peer reviewed" and concerning articles that Busby has himself "peer reviewed". Busby's latest questionable claims concern Fallujah and Fukushima. Busby admits to receiving 750,000 Yen from concerned mothers and other citizens of Fukushima for questionable research. Suggest that a committee be formed to thoroughly examine the entire Busby biography since this is not supposed to self-promotional.Rhotel1 (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not too sure on WP policy on this, and whether it is actually a problem, but could you please confirm how you know that ProfWoland is Busby?Jimjamjak (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Chris Busy has a channel on youtube called "drdrwoland",[13] so ProfWoland maybe one and the same. I only just realised this. Does this mean a substantial portion of the article was written by Busby? It would make sense, as half the article is very similar to his CV. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Initially I was dubious about this theory that Woland = Christopher Busby, but after a little google I found this photo on ! Rwendland (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I should reiterate what I wrote above though, that essentially there is no particular Wikipedia policy on users making/editing their own pages. This only becomes a problem if the material itself written on this page infringes on actual WP policy. I would say that if extensive edits have been made to a page about a person by that person, then it falls on other editors to check on the contents of that page against policy all the more carefully.Jimjamjak (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry - I just looked through this talkpage in more detail and see that ProfWoland has been writing about Busby as though he were a different person. It's not for me to judge whether or not this is the case, of course. Anyone can choose any name they like as a username on Wikipedia, but if it were Busby operating under this name, it would certainly seem a bit disingenuous.Jimjamjak (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


I think that the section on "Conflicts with other Low-Dose Radiation researchers" is much too detailed at the present time. Sentences referring to reviews of his books, details of what he called certain other researchers etc. are - in my opinion - gratuitous and laboured. I think that it could be much better presented as a short paragraph describing issues takes with certain studies, and references to those. I realise that there is a personal element to such arguments, but the way it is presented here makes it very hard to follow and adds considerable bulk to an already bloated article.Jimjamjak (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I also note that there are very lengthy descriptions of a somewhat un-noteworthy interview on BBC television in the section "Televised comments on Fukushima I nuclear accidents". I would recommend this be considerably pruned.Jimjamjak (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead Vandalism[edit]

I have added a very good and updated summarization of Busby in the lead with proper reference. It appears an editor clearly does not like Busby, and wants to delegitimize him. (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics does not exist[edit]

An editor added material and several related journal references from the European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics to the section titled Research on WDU (Weapons Derived Uranium). I have not been able to find these articles nor the journal. However, I found allegations on the RadSafe message board claiming that the European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics is (was) a fake journal.[14] It is claimed that the "journal" and it's associated website (now long gone) were created by Chris Busby (CB) as a vehicle to promote this theories and CB likely "peer reviewed" his own articles, 8 papers in six issue of the journal. He was a member of the editorial board. The journal finally published volume 2 Issue 1 and then disappeared. Clearly these references are not from a reliable source, they are not verifiable. Other references in that section need to be looked at too. --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article published in the Journal of Radiological Protection that discusses the mystery of the European Journal of Biology and Bioelectromagnetics.
Wakeford, R., 2008, What to believe and what not to believe: Journal of Radiological Protection, v. 28, no. 1, p. 5.[15]
--Diamonddavej (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Research on WDU ..... sources may not be reliable[edit]

Sources indeed may not be reliable, but note the (my) intentionally careful wording: "he reported or published", with 'reported' (hopefully recognizably?) implying something of lesser quality than (peer-reviewed) 'published'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wda (talkcontribs) 03:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the extent of the list of information presented here is out of all proportion with the fact that it was just a talk given. Perhaps it is not really so very relevant for an encylopedia?Jimjamjak (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Book review by Dr. Roger Taylor[edit]

The "Conflicts with other low-dose radiation researchers" section begins by referring to a review of Dr. Busby's book. This review was done by Dr. Roger Taylor, who by all accounts can not be taken as a credible reviewer of scientific information. On this page he is claiming that using a "new state of matter", he's been able to cure "AIDS, cancer, and multiple sclerosis".[16] The section about the positive book review from Dr. Taylor should be removed. Thompn4 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the pointer. Does anything else need fixing? bobrayner (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Busby's academic credentials[edit]

Can anyone verify Busby's academic credentials? I am unable to get a hold of his PhD thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Visit Templeman library if you're interested. They have a copy [17] -- (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christopher Busby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Numerous dead links in article[edit]

There are many key links in this article which are no longer functioning. They should not be removed, of course, but if an editor is able to spend some time to find archived copies or alternatives, I feel this would be most helpful. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)