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

Flood, John FloodJR at
Thu Apr 13 11:52:02 CDT 2006

I would like to join in asking for an end to this thread.  It is apparent to anyone who knows Sandy Perle that the attacks are not valid.  Further, the succession of messages indicates that Sandy has attempted to take the conversation off-line, but without success.  It appears that Mr. Schoenhofer is never going to forgive Sandy for not calling him while visiting Vienna, but that is purely a personal matter and does not belong on Radsafe.

Bob Flood
Nevada Test Site

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at [mailto:radsafe-bounces at] On Behalf Of Eddie Selden
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 8:37 AM
To: 'Franz Schönhofer'; 'Sandy Perle'; radsafe at
Subject: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: [UnplugSalem] Fw: Chernobyl 20 year later

I strongly prefer to stay out of these kind of exchanges, but I can no longer remain silent about this.  Mr.  Schonhofer's attacks on Sandy Perle's character and professionalism are unfair, dishonest and absolutely wrong. Schonhofer has from the start of this issue misunderstood and misconstrued Sandy's messages to this forum, has seriously misjudged Sandy's character and personal qualities, and his rantings have moved far beyond acceptable public discourse to the point where they now border on being slanderous. Sandy does not deserve this attack in front of his peers or his colleagues.

Nothing Sandy has said on Radsafe is "wrong" or "ridiculous" or "queer." Anyone, including Mr. Schonhofer, may disagree with them, but for Schonhofer to call Sandy's defense of himself or his position "insults" is so irrational that it is laughable, and to accuse Sandy of bad behavior is the height of hypocrisy.  The only insults in this exchange that I have seen have come from Schonhofer.

Sandy Perle is a very knowledgeable and experienced nuclear professional, and Schonhofer's refusal to believe this simply demonstrates his own irrationality in this exchange.  Sandy is also a decent and honorable human being.  He does not deserve the attacks thrown at him here.

Eddie Selden

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	radsafe-bounces at [mailto:radsafe-bounces at]  On
Behalf Of Franz Schönhofer
Sent:	Wednesday, April 12, 2006 2:14 PM
To:	'Sandy Perle'; 'Brian Rees'; radsafe at; 'Norm Cohen'
Subject:	AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] FW: [UnplugSalem] Fw: Chernobyl 20 year later

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

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Sandy Perle [mailto:sandyfl at]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. April 2006 18:35
> An: 'Brian Rees'; radsafe at; '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
> E-Mail: sandyfl at
> Global Dosimetry Website:
> Personal Website:

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list