AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: [UnplugSalem] Fw: Chernobyl 20 year later

Wed Apr 12 14:13:55 CDT 2006

Let me just start off by saying that Sandy Perle has unvoluntarily confirmed
all my reservations as to his two recent mails. Sandy Perle is obviously so
much convinced of his outstanding importance, that he is not even able to
accept any mild criticism, not to talk about a harsh one. He does not mind
to attack others who have a different opinion, but twists when it comes to
attacks on his queer opinions. 
I repeat that Sandy Perle has not regarded the messages of two persons on
RADSAFE, which clearly show that his reasoning is wrong or even ridiculous.
I personally prefer the latter expression. 

Going further into detail would be to much of an honour for Sandy Perle, who
is in my personal opinion not only not qualified to speak out on nuclear
power, even if he had been 22 years on some power plant (in what position?),
but with whom I have a personal experience of about a year ago, which puts
him on top of my list of not only unreliable, but contemptible persons. I
would recommend that you, Sandy, stop your insults. If not I am very willing
to distribute details about your behaviour, if not possible at RADSAFE I
would use the single e-mail addresses. 

Franz

Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Sandy Perle [mailto:sandyfl at earthlink.net]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. April 2006 18:35
> An: 'Brian Rees'; radsafe at radlab.nl; 'Norm Cohen'; Franz Schönhofer
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: [UnplugSalem] Fw: Chernobyl 20 year later
> 
> On 12 Apr 2006 at 18:10, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
> 
> Let me just start off by saying that Franz assumes too much when he
> makes conclusions regarding what I read, what my opinions are, and
> ultimately what I post.
> 
> > A very good example are the two recent comments by Sandy Perle. First of
> > all it seems that he - like so many others - does not read the postings
> of
> > most other RADSAFErs. John Jacobus has pointed to the IAEA website as
> > information on the findings of the International Team on the Chernobyl
> > Forum quite a long time ago and many more information on scientific
> > treatment of the Chernobyl accident is readily available on RADSAFE.
> 
> Julian asked about a link to reports, and I reported such website.
> Besides that, what is Franz's point here? The IAEA posted reports on
> their website. I simply reported on the NCRP Meeting where IAEA
> representatives were also presenters at the meeting. Again, what is
> your point regarding John's posting about IAEA?
> 
> > More annoying is that Sandy Perle has obviously really read neither the
> > posting by Norman Cohen nor the newspaper article he forwarded - or
> should
> > I suspect that he did not understand it? The article clearly stated,
> that
> > "During the past decade approximately 40.000 cleanup workers have died."
> > It was not stated that they died from radiation. So what, Sandy???? How
> > much is mortality in the former USSR? Hopefully you understand the other
> > messages on RADSAFE on that topic.
> 
> And what do you think the point was in reporting 40,000 clean-up
> workers died? You don't see the implication here? Why not mention all
> the workers in Russia who died and not just report the local deaths?
> 
> As far as your last sentence Franz, I really would be interested in
> what precipitated this attack on my ability to understand Radsafe
> posts.
> 
> > Further Sandy Perle writes on April 12, that according to the Chernobyl
> > Forum Report "up to 4 000 COULD eventually die. They haven't yet..." How
> > cynical and obscene! Should they die faster in order to fit Mr. Perles
> > queer "statistic"? Or would he allow them to live a few more years? He
> > also writes that "40,000 clean-up workers did NOT die". How does he
> know?
> > See the other comments. Disgusting!
> 
> These are not my conclusions. I only posted what was not only written
> by others, but presented at the NCRP Meeting. The post simply states
> there is the POTENTIAL for up to 4,000 deaths. Again, what is your
> point? What is this reference to my statistic? It's not my number.
> It's a conclusion reached by others, who obviously may or may not fit
> into Franz's acceptable description of an expert. Obviously I am not,
> nor have I stated such. And Franz, you agree that 40,000 have died?
> You discount my comment that they have not (based on other more
> knowlegable individuals). What is your evidence that they HAVE died,
> and not potentially would die. What is your statistic?
> 
> 
> > I am as well very impressed, that Sandy Perle attended an NRCP meeting
> in
> > DC with the focus on Chernobyl. I have personally been involved in WHO
> and
> > many IAEA meetings on that topic. Even more interesting that "the
> > presenters included the most knowlegable from USA, Russia and other
> > countries, where real data were presented." As should be well known, the
> > contamination from the Chernobyl NPP affected first of all the Ukraine,
> > even more Bjelorussia and most of all certain parts of Western Europe,
> > others being spared because no precipitation occurred. (My home country
> > Austria was the most affected one.) So where did your "most knowledgable
> > experts from the USA" come from and who were they? The USA was
> practically
> > not affected at all, except control of imports. What could Russian
> > scientists say about the far, far away Chernobyl accident? Should you
> > really not know the political and geographical facts? National
> Geographic
> > always complains about the very low knowledge of people of the USA on
> > geographic questions. And what about "presenting real data"? You can
> find
> > them almost "everywhere", if you only bother to search (search engines)
> > for them.
> 
> You want to know whom I refer to? Easy, just check the NCRP website
> for a list of all the presenters.
> 
> > Another question is of course whether the Vice President of a Dosimetry
> > Company is the right person to comment on the Chernobyl accident and
> > nuclear power.
> 
> Oh really! Now you're trying to censor me! I didn't realize there is
> a litmus test here on Radsafe. As far as my ability to post what I
> want whenever I want, I suppose my 22 years in NPP doesn't count for
> Franz. I think it allows me to address the NPP option, and what I
> believe is out to destroy that option, such as the Un-Plug posts.
> 
> > I understand the criticism of other RADSAFErs.
> 
> I don't think that you understand anything at all when it comes to
> this criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle
> Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
> Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
> Irvine, CA 92614
> 
> Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714  Extension 2306
> Fax:(949) 296-1144
> 
> E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
> E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net
> 
> Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/
> Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/