AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP -nextquestions
Mitchell W. Davis
radiation at cox.net
Sat Jan 7 16:29:18 CST 2006
Franz (aka Moron)...Please go back and read (if you can) my original post.
It was concerning your post where you used the word "s#$t" in a post to
RADSAFE. If you do, you will see it is appropriate and that I addressed
content in your post (as pitiful as it was). My point was had I used such
language on RADSAFE, I would have been rebuked (if you don't understand that
word, get a dictionary) for days by you and your ilk (get a dictionary). I,
for one, wish you would learn the English language before posting further to
RADSAFE though I must admit reading your posts displaying the diction of a 3
year old are quite humorous. Sometimes I wonder if you aren't really from
France.
MD
Midland, TX USA- Protectors of the free world and the reason all of Europe
doesn't speak German!!
P.S. Kiss my a%#!!!!!!!!!!
P.S.S... My apologies to the list...I have a low tolerance for moronic
individuals.
-----Original Message-----
From: Franz Schönhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer at chello.at]
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 3:51 PM
To: 'Mitchell W. Davis'; 'Jim Hardeman'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP
-nextquestions
Thank you, Mr. Mitchell Davis, for the good laugh you provided with your two
messages sent to RADSAFE and not to me privately, so I return my answer to
the list as another prove of what I claimed - that some RADSAFErs provide
our worst "enemies" with food to attack us. You did not provide anything on
the topic, what a pity.
Mr. Mitchell Davis, I was very surprised recently to read a contribution of
you to RADSAFE which did not advertise your business (not allowed on
RADSAFE) and not flaming me. Now you are back at your favourite past drive:
flaming me. If it only had been on topic!
By your question about LMAO you pretend to know one of the most (in)famous
citations from German literature written by Goethe in "Goetz von
Berlichingen". The original is anyway rather different, it reads "Sag dem
Hauptmann er soll mich ..." The three points are genuinly to be found in the
original text. In spite of your obvious attempts to claim to be familiar
with German literature you show in your funny (silly) question, whether LMAO
is Austrian or German that you are an absolute ignorant, who lacks any
general education. If you are interested in lectures on European culture,
basic information on European languages and lessons on how to behave in a
non-US-American environment you are welcome to subscribe to courses at the
same rates you charge for your courses. A surcharge of up to 500% might
apply because of your ignorance.
Please continue with your ridiculous outbursts, sometimes I (and other
RADSAFErs) need a good laugh.
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 Mitchell W. Davis
> Gesendet: Samstag, 07. Jänner 2006 08:33
> An: 'Jim Hardeman'; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP -
> nextquestions
>
> Now that is funny...So Franz...how do you say LMAO in Austrian?...or is
> that
> German?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf
> Of Jim Hardeman
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 4:27 PM
> To: radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP -next
> questions
>
> Franz *
>
> Glad to see that Dale Carnegie "How to Win Friends and Influence People"
> course is still payin' off for ya ... <grin>
>
> Jim
>
> >>> Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> 1/6/2006 15:15:08 >>>
>
> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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