[ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP - next questions

Mitchell W. Davis radiation at cox.net
Fri Jan 6 20:14:04 CST 2006


FLAME!!!!!!!!!!!!...You know how I feel about you moron!!!!!!!!!...Had I
just made these comments, I would have gotten a 2 day lecture on
professionalism from you you piece of crap.  Practice what you preach
moron!!!!!!!!

Mitchell Davis, RRPT
Midland, TX.  United States of America...The protectors of jerks like
YOU!!!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf
Of Franz Schönhofer
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 2:15 PM
To: 'Jim Hardeman'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP - next
questions

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/


_______________________________________________
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