Editor-Reviewed Letters in Scientific Journals (Environmental Only)

  1. R. Russell-Jones (1981). Lead in petrol. Lancet i : 1160.
  2. R. Russell-Jones (1981).  Lead in petrol. Lancet ii : 100.
  3. R. Russell-Jones (1981).  Is low-level lead pollution dangerous? British Medical Journal, 182 : 477.
  4. R. Russell-Jones (1981).  Sources of lead pollution. British Medical Journal, 282 : 477.
  5. R. Russell-Jones (1982).  Lead in petrol. British Medical Journal 284 : 902.
  6. R. Russell-Jones (1982).  Lead in petrol. British Medical Journal, 284 : 1190.
  7. R. Russell-Jones (1982).  Lead in petrol and elsewhere. Lancet i : 1464.
  8. R. Russell-Jones (1982).  Lead and petrol. Lancet ii : 209.
  9. R. Russell-Jones (1983).  A weighty issue. Nature, 303 : 654.
  10. R. Russell-Jones (1983).  Lead in petrol. Lancet i : 1042.
  11. R. Russell-Jones (1984).   Blood lead on a traffic-free island. Lancet ii : 976.
  12. R. Russell-Jones (1984).  Leukaemia and Sellafield. Lancet ii : 467.
  13. R. Russell-Jones (1984).  Discharges from Sellafield. Lancet ii : 744.
  14. R. Russell-Jones (1986).  Cancer risk assessment in light of Chernobyl.Nature, 323 : 585-586.
  15. R. Russell-Jones (1987).  Chernobyl and cancer epidemiology.Lancet, i : 856.
  16. R. Russell-Jones (1987).  Relaxing the 10-day rule.Lancet, ii : 103-104.
  17. R. Russell-Jones (1987).  Radiation, cancer risk and the new dosimetry. Lancet, ii : 1143.
  18. R. Russell-Jones (1987).  Child leukaemia and nuclear establishments. British Medical Journal, 294 : 835-836.
  19. R. Russell-Jones (1988).  Cancer risk estimates for radiation. Lancet, ii : 1494.
  20. R. Russell-Jones (1989).  Infective causes of child leukaemia. Lancet, i : 94.
  21. R. Russell-Jones (1989).  Radiation limits. Nature, 339 : 20.
  22. R. Russell-Jones (1995).  Environmental lead and children’s intelligence. British Medical Journal, 310 : 397.
  23. R. Russell-Jones (1996).  Air pollution related to transport: Diesel is the main problem. British Medical Journal 312: 1605-6.
Advertisements

Peer Reviewed Articles In Scientific Journals (Environmental Only)

  1. R Russell-Jones (1981) Lead Pollution. Science and Public Policy. June 1981:195-202
  2. R. Russell-Jones (1983).  The contribution of petrol lead to blood via air, dust and food.  Atmospheric Environment 17 : 2367-70.
  3. R. Russell-Jones and R. Stephens.  The contribution of lead in petrol to human lead intake.  In: “Lead versus Health: sources of effects of low lead exposure”.  Chapter 8, pp 141-177.  Editors. M. Rutter, R. Russell-Jones, John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
  4. R. Russell-Jones (1987). Ozone depletion and cancer risk. Lancet ii: 443-446.
  5. R. Russell-Jones (1987). Radiation standards. In: Radiation Protection 40: 191-214.  Commission of the European Communities.
  6. R. Russell-Jones.  The health effect of stratospheric ozone depletion.  In: “Ozone Depletion – Health and Environmental Consequences”. Editors: R. Russell-Jones, T. Wrigley.  John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1989.
  7. R. Russell-Jones (1989).  The continuing hazard of lead in drinking water. Lancet, ii: 669-670.
  8. R. Russell-Jones (1989).  A logical view of radiation protection.  Radiological protection Bulletin NRPB, Chilton, Oxon, 107:16-19.
  9. R. Russell-Jones (1991).  (Editorial) Ozone depletion quickens. Lancet i : 1132-3.
  10. R. Russell-Jones (1991).  (Editorial) Protecting man from UV exposure. Lancet i: 1258-9.
  11. R. Russell-Jones (1991).  Ozone Depletion: Historical review and prospects for the 21st century.  Proceedings of an International Conference on Skin and the Environment, Chapter1.Editor: R.Marks.Published Martin Dunitz.
  12. R. Russell-Jones (1992).  Ozone depletion and its effect on human populations.  Br J of Dermatol, 127, Suppl. 41 : 2-6.

 

Books

Lead Versus Health

The Biological Effects of Low Lead Exposure. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1983. Jointly edited with Michael Rutter, FRCP FRS, Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry.

Radiation And Health

The Biological Effects of Low Level Exposure to Ionising Radiation.  John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1987.  Jointly edited with Professor Sir Richard Southwood, FRS, Chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) Former Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and future Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University.

Ozone Depletion 

Health and Environmental Consequences.  John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1989.  Jointly edited with Tom Wigley, Professor of Climatic Research at the University of East Anglia.

Radiation Conference. Conference Two

The second conference was held at the Royal Postgraduate Medical School in 1986. It was sponsored by Friends of the Earth and chaired by Professor Sir Richard Southwood FRS Chair of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).

Conference organiser Dr Robin Russell-Jones with Sir Richard Southwood (above right).

Below: Dr Robin Russell-Jones with three famous radiobiologists: Dr Alice Stewart, Professor Karl Morgan and Professor Ed Radford, Chair of the BEIR 111 Committee (BEIR = Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation Committee established by the US National Academy of Science).

The conference focused on the ICRP recommendations for exposure to ionising radiation and the observation of clusters of childhood leukemia around Sellafield and Dounreay, the two reprocessing facilities in the UK. The latest cancer statistics amongst the A-bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki indicated that the ICRP cancer risk estimates were too low and subsequently the NRPB recommended that they should be tightened, a recommendation that was adopted by the UK government (and subsequently by the ICRP).

The issue of childhood leukemias around reprocessing facilities was never satisfactorily resolved. There were three competing theories: that the leukemias resulted from parental exposure to ionising radiation within the nuclear facility; that it resulted from exposure of the foetus/child to alpha-emitters released into the environment (particularly from discharges of Plutonium and Americium into the sea); and the Kinlen hypothesis which postulated that groups of workers migrating into a new location resulted in exposure to a hitherto unknown leukemogenic virus. Evidence for and against these various hypotheses were debated and discussed but no definite conclusions could be drawn. Perhaps the most powerful data against theory number 2 (exposure of the foetus/child to alpha emitters) came from the data presented by Sarah Darby and Richard Doll who found no increase in childhood leukemia following the above ground nuclear weapons tests in the 1950’s and 60’s. On the other hand, noone to date has been able to identify a leukemogenic virus amongst the workers or their offspring.

Low Level Lead Exposure and Its Effects on Human Beings: Conference One

CONFERENCE 1

The first conference was entitled “Low Level Lead Exposure and Its Effects on Human Beings” and took place at the Royal Institute of British Architects in London from 10-12 May, 1982.  It was organised and sponsored by the CLEAR Charitable Trust.  The conference proceedings were edited by Michael Rutter FRS, Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry and Dr Robin Russell-Jones, Deputy Chairman of CLEAR, the Campaign for Lead Free Air. International experts attended from all over the world including Ellen Silbergeld, Chief Toxics Scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington DC, who had done ground-breaking work on the biochemical and neurotoxic  effects of lead in animal models; Herb Needleman, Associate Professor of Child Psychiatry and Paediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, whose seminal study on the relationship between lead in shed milk, teeth and children’s intelligence and behaviour had revolutionised thinking on a causal link between lead and IQ; Continue reading

Time-lapse History of Human Global CO2 Emissions

Animated time-lapse video of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in map form, spanning the 18th century until this current first decade of the 21st century. Shows the start in England and radiating to Europe, US and then Asia.

The video makes it easy to visualize the geographical distribution and trends in post industrial revolution anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions over 255 years.

Letter to the Observer

This letter was sent to the Observer on Sunday 25 September, 2011 in response to two articles that appeared in the newspaper on the same day. One was on Everest’s melting glaciers and one on the bizarre claim that neutrinos could travel faster than the speed of light. The letter posed the question as to which was the more important issue. The letter was not published.

Sir,

Pages 28-30 of  the Observer (25 September) contained some vital scientific observations. Suzanne Goldenberg reported on Everest’s melting glaciers whilst the reverse side of the page contained a brilliant analysis by Professor Frank Close of the claim by Cern scientists that neutrinos can travel faster than the speed of light. You can relax Professor Einstein.  E still equals mc2. Probably…  The question arises: which is the more important observation? Continue reading

Weighing up the cost of nuclear power

The Guardian29 March 2011:

I have every sympathy with George Monbiot, and his wish to abandon fossil fuels, but embracing nuclear power may not be the best solution. He claims that only 43 people died as a result of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. In fact, in 2006, the BEIR VII committee of the US National Academy of Science estimated that Chernobyl was responsible for an extra 4,000 cancer deaths among evacuees and workers involved in the clean-up, and 5,000 extra cancer deaths among the population of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation. Furthermore, if one accepts the linear no-threshold model of ionising radiation, then, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) , there will be a total of 16,000 excess cancer deaths worldwide as a result of this nuclear disaster.

Of course, these figures are dwarfed by the likely deaths resulting from climate change which will threaten millions through drought, famine and disease. So the current paradigm for the world community is to continue burning fossil fuels with the certainty of widespread environmental destruction, or to rely on nuclear power and risk the possibility of widespread radioactive contamination. Personally, I cannot think of a stronger argument in favour of renewable energy.

Dr Robin Russell-Jones
Stoke Poges, Buckinghamshire