[ RadSafe ] LET'S EVERYBODY CHILL - TFP - next questions
Vernig, Peter G.
Peter.Vernig at va.gov
Mon Jan 9 10:11:38 CST 2006
OK Folks,
Unless you want our esteemed moderator to quit in disgust, let's everybody calm down!
In my opinion all of those that have sent personal attacks should put themselves on probation. Stop sending messages for say a week. I'd like to suggest that the moderator suspend everybody who did so but I know that he has a real job [apparently unlike some of you] and the time he spends on the list is above and beyond that and frankly I don't think he has the time to examine all of the traffic and suspend those of you that have sent personal attacks, profanity, and other inappropriate content.
Something else I'd to recommend although it is probably futile. After three general exchanges on the list could those of you that are arguing the finer points of the validity or lack there of, of the TFP, hormesis vs LNT etc. TAKE THE DISCUSSION OFF OF Radsafe? Announce it so those that are interested but not taking part in it can also monitor it.
Please, let's everybody grow up, calm down and behave in a professional manner!
Any opinions in this e-mail are solely those of the author, and are not represented as those of the VA Eastern Colorado HCS, the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government.
Peter G. Vernig, Radiation Safety Officer, MS-115, VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, 1055 Clermont St. Denver, CO 80220, peter.vernig at med.va.gov, Phone= 303.399.8020 x2447; Fax = 303.393.5026, alternate fax, 303.393.5248
"...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is found to be excellent or praiseworthy, let your mind dwell on these things."
Paul of Tarsus
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of Haleem, Mahmoud S.
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 7:20 AM
To: Mitchell W. Davis; Franz Schönhofer; Jim Hardeman; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP - next questions
IT IS SO SHAMEFUL TO SEE SUCH POSTS FROM SENIOR FELLOWS WHO PRACTICE HEALTH PHYSICS. Therefore, I am here to declare that the profession of Health Physics really SUCKS.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Mitchell W. Davis
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:14 PM
To: 'Franz Schönhofer'; 'Jim Hardeman'; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Attention!!!!! Stop this sh it!!! TFP - next
questions
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/
_______________________________________________
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