AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP - next questions
Franz Schönhofer
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Fri Jan 6 14:15:08 CST 2006
RADSAFErs,
What most of you post about this is shit. Yes, it is ---shit-----. And it
gives the Anti's the munition they need - if they ever are able to comment
scientifically on what you distribute here.
I started this thread to find out whether anything about the TFP-method of
analyzing was available. I did not start it to give some wannabees the
possibility to see their name on Radsafe. Most of the responses are
absolutely ridiculous and finally I have to thank one of the most rejected
posters for his information.
Chemiluminescense interference - ridiculous, no comment
K-40 -ridiculous, no comment
C-14 - ridiculous, no comment
Tritium _ ridiculous, no comment
Ra-226 and progeny, ridiculous if correctly measured.
I still wait for a more concise description of the analytical prodedures. I
have contacted the TFP contacts but not received any answer.
What has been distributed here at RADSAFE is more than 90 % shame which
might be used by real experts to show that RADSAFE-scientists have no clue
about the method used in the TFP.
Please flame me or rather give me correct information!!!!
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag von Jim Hardeman
> Gesendet: Freitag, 06. Jänner 2006 15:14
> An: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions
>
> Jim / Steve *
>
> Thanks for such excellent responses to James' assertions. I would only add
> to the discussion of chemoluminescence that the whole discussion of how
> LSC was performed on these samples is lacking. We could get into the
> esoterica of dark adaptation of samples, temperature control of samples,
> QA/QC in terms of how many blanks / splits / duplicates were performed,
> etc. etc. etc. Blindly believing sample results that come spitting out of
> a laboratory simply because a laboratory scientist wears a white coat and
> the printout came out of a computer doesn't strike me as the way I would
> want to do business. Does the laboratory that performed these Sr-90
> analyses participate in any laboratory-intercomparison programs?
>
> My $0.02 worth ...
>
> Jim Hardeman, Manager
> Environmental Radiation Program
> Environmental Protection Division
> Georgia Department of Natural Resources
> 4220 International Parkway, Suite 100
> Atlanta, GA 30354
> (404) 362-2675
> Fax: (404) 362-2653
> E-mail: Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us
>
> >>> <StevenFrey at aol.com> 1/6/2006 3:11:28 >>>
>
>
> Thanks, Jim. I stand corrected (was thinking C-14 rather than K-40), and
> am
> flattered that anyone is reading my ramblings.
>
> As for the point that Mr. Salsman was making that "K-40 or something
> instead
> of Sr-90....is killing kids", the larger response remains: there is no
> credible scientific or statistical evidence of that claim, either.
>
> Steve
>
> In a message dated 1/6/2006 2:40:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> jimm at WPI.EDU
> writes:
>
> Hi Steve, A good response, but note that K40 is not cosmogenic. It is
> a
> primordial radionuclide, half-life 1.3 billion years, and makes up
> 0.000117
> of natural potassium, which is essential for biology to function, and is
> a
> significant source of direct radiation from the ground, especially in
> those
> areas that have low natural uranium and thorium concentrations.
>
> Regards, Jim Muckerheide
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> > Behalf Of StevenFrey at aol.com
> > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:46 PM
> > To: james at bovik.org; radsafe at radlab.nl
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] TFP - next questions
> >
> >
> > Hi James, pretty entertaining comments. Couple thoughts:
> >
> > - you suggest that the nuclear power industry should bear the cost for
> > sampling bone to help understand the tooth results. I would counter
> > suggest that
> > it is the responsibility of the study producers to do that, since it is
> > they
> > who are making the suggestion (read: veiled claim) claim that there
> is
> > causation.
> >
> > - chemoluminescence is not contamination. It is a source of counting
> error
> > in liquid scintillation samples in which fluorescence photons produced
> > from the
> > interaction of the sample material with the cocktail will produce
> counts.
> > And lots of them, even in ordinary cases. Radioactivity does not have
> to
> > be
> > present in the sample to produce it. That is why care in sample
> > preparation is
> > vital. Having a liquid scintillation counter that can automatically
> > detect
> > and discount chemoluminescence counts would help, too. The Report
> makes
> > no
> > mention of whether chemoluminescence was anticipated or discounted.
> >
> > - Why did the study producers apparently not split their tooth samples
> and
> > send them to multiple labs? Relying on only one lab, and that one
> being
> > selected by the study producer, eliminates objectivity from the
> claimed
> > results.
> >
> > - Your quoting of cancer statistics below is missing any objective
> > causative
> > mechanism that nuclear power caused it. There could be other sources
> of
> > error that were not identified in the Report as having been
> considered.
> > For
> > example, chemical exposure, air pollution, lifestyle, gerrymandering
> of
> > the
> > statistics themselves, and so on. Besides, there are other, much
> better
> > controlled
> > data, that indicates that at low doses, there is no increase in cancer
> > rates
> > among the studied individuals. The DOE Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study
> is
> > one
> > such data set, and it involved a pretty convincing study population of
> > many
> > tens of thousands of individuals. Plus, there does not seem to be an
> > increase
> > in cancer among nuclear medicine or radiology practitioners. So you
> see,
> > my
> > statistics can beat up your statistics.
> >
> > - statistics again: a claim of p < 0.002 by the study producers means
> > nothing without any explanation provided as to how it was calculated.
> > Again,
> > selective gerrymandering of the tooth statistics can easily produce an
> > even lower p
> > than that! The quality of the p depends in part on how small one cuts
> the
> > sample, that is, number of individuals against whom a single incidence
> of
> > tooth
> > Sr-90 (real or fancied) is detected, and then including only those
> > kernels
> > in the final statistical summary. The Report offers no explanation on
> how
> > its
> > p was calculated.
> >
> > - K-40 is a naturally-occurring radionuclide, produced by cosmic ray
> > interactions with the atmosphere. Nuclear power doesn't produce it, and
> > the medical
> > profession doesn't use it, either. You would have to erect a 1000-foot
> > thick
> > concrete astrodome over America to effectively stop its production. But
> > would
> > you want to do that? There's no scientific evidence that K-40 in
> natural
> > concentrations causes cancer, and you can bet that graffiti artists
> would
> > be
> > busting to get at all that clean 'canvas' up there.
> >
> > Thanks for your thoughts...Ernie's, too. :-)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 1/5/2006 6:50:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> > james at bovik.org writes:
> >
> > I guess I get to be the lone defender of Sternglass on RADSAFE.
> > Just what I've always wanted!
> >
> > > Two potential error factors that do not appear to be
> > > addressed in
> > > http://mtafund.org/prodlib/radiation_health/final_report.pdf
> > > are chemoluminescence and K-40 LSA correction, either of
> > > which can easily produce a 'false positive' for Sr-90/Y-90
> > > presence.
> >
> > Why would this confound the blinding of the teeth source?
> >
> > Is there any reason that chemoluminescent contamination is
> > expected to be more prevalent in areas near reactors?
> >
> > If the increased radiation is due to K-40, what difference
> > does that make if the higher scintillation activity is
> > strongly correlated with geographical regions where the
> > cancer death rate is 13% above the national mean (24% above
> > for breast cancer; 16% for childhood cancer) but all other
> > causes of death are only 0.1% about the national mean.
> > Where is the hormesis effect that should be occurring?
> >
> > > Another problem is the absence of comparative sample media
> > > to help understand and correlate the study results. If we
> > > assume that Sr-90 in teeth ought to correspond with Sr-90
> > > in bone from the same individual, too, then bone sampling
> > > and analysis should be part of this particular study.
> >
> > Certainly the nuclear energy industry associations will
> > immediately front the money to pay for independent study
> > of bone-teeth correlations to clear their good name at
> > their earliest possible convenience, right?
> >
> > Right?
> >
> > Any takers?
> >
> > You -- at your desk with the funny trefoil stickers on your
> > monitor -- can you spare fifty grand for some bone studies
> > of cows in the Tooth Fairy Project's hot areas?
> >
> > Please?
> >
> > [crickets chirping]
> >
> >
> > > Finally, the claim by the Report that the data shows more
> > > Sr-90 in teeth near nuclear power plants than elsewhere
> > > seems to be a weak correlation at best....
> >
> > Is there any actual mathematical argument against the reports
> > claim of p < 0.002 (p. 24), or is this just a thinly veiled
> > argument from emotion?
> >
> > > simply precipiting carbonates is not specific enough for
> > > Sr-90 analysis. A whole range of natural (and artificial)
> > > radionuclides would carry through the procedure.
> >
> > So where's that mass spectroscopy money from the nuclear
> > energy industry associations?
> >
> > [more crickets]
> >
> > And, so what? If the kids are getting killed by massive
> > amount of K-40 or something instead of Sr-90, is there any
> > evidence that whatever isotope(s) are the culprit aren't
> > coming from the reactors near which the activity levels are
> > found to be much greater?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > James Salsman
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:
> > http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> >
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit:
> > _http://radlab.nl/radsafe/_ (http://radlab.nl/radsafe/)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list