AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP -nextquestions
Franz Schönhofer
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Sat Jan 7 16:54:59 CST 2006
This person seems to be intoxicated. I wonder why his fellow USA citizens
are not upset and why he is not banned from RADSAFE.
I do not need a dictionary for his attempted insinuations. Such a person
cannot insinuate me, because of his ridiculousness. I lack any understanding
that such a person is allowed to distribute his blabble unrelated to RADSAFE
messages on the RADSAFE list. His attempted insinuations of non-US persons,
his ridiculous comment about France, his remark of TX USA - Protectors of
the free world and the reason all of Europe doesn't speak German. > P.S.
Kiss my a%#!!!!!!!!!! All of this should be reason enough to suspend him
from the list.
Franz Schoenhofer
PhD, MR iR
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
AUSTRIA
phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Mitchell W. Davis [mailto:radiation at cox.net]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 07. Jänner 2006 23:29
> An: 'Franz Schönhofer'; 'Jim Hardeman'; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Betreff: RE: AW: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP -
> nextquestions
>
> 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.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