AW: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fentograms - Testing by Axel Gerdes
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Thu Mar 9 16:36:56 CST 2006
Thanks John, I would have been very surprised to receive a different reply!
I hope you have not been offended by my comment, because I have many times
openly appreciated your comments - not all of them, but this is another
story.... Sometimes it seems very easy to offend persons on RADSAFE.....
I appreciate, that you share my opinion that scientific data are manipulated
by mass-media to suit their need for large circulation. How could the
intentions of those anti-everything-nuclear groups otherwise explained?
RADSAFErs should be aware, that my messages to RADSAFE are subject to
moderator approval and that the time of my sending (for this contribution it
is 23:34 on March 9th, Central European Winter Time) will be much delayed or
in the case of disapproval will not reach you at all.
PhD, MR iR
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird at yahoo.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. März 2006 22:15
> An: Franz Schönhofer; 'Roger Helbig'; 'radsafelist'
> Betreff: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] Fentograms - Testing by Axel Gerdes
> Actually, I only have a mild interesting is this
> issue. I have seen these arguements on the effects
> and analysis of uranium and DU go on and on and on.
> I only pointed out the additional statement that
> appeared in the newspaper article as being somewhat
> unclear. Yes, I know the differences between natural
> and DU.
> I do not doubt that Dr. Gerdes does good work. It is
> how the results are interpreted based on the bias of
> those who report the results.
> This is similar to the interpretation of
> epidemilogical data by those who are pro- or ant-LNT.
> Or who are pro- or anti-hormesis.
> --- Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
> > John,
> > Please read carefully the text repeated below again
> > and especially the
> > wording. In the first sentence it is reported that
> > only sample A "showed
> > clear signs of DU". The second sentence states "a
> > total uranium
> > concentration". DU and "total uranium" are rather
> > different substances, so
> > there is not necessarily any contradiction or DU
> > present in the control
> > group of two's urine.
> > You'll have to wait for more than half a day for
> > receiving my comment and
> > the associated links for facts, including numbers. I
> > have posted it at 1:45
> > pm Middle European Wintertime (12:45pm Greenwich
> > Mean Time), but since all
> > my postings to RADSAFE undergo a process of
> > moderator approval since some
> > time the spontaneity of immediate answers and the
> > velocity of exchange of
> > facts and information from me has been lost.
> > John, I hope that you do not fall into the trap of
> > the various persons who
> > object serious work - which Gerdes analytical work
> > is - because it has been
> > distorted and misused by certain groups or by
> > massmedia, which need some
> > horror stories to rise their sales.
> > Best regards,
> > Franz
> > Franz Schoenhofer
> > PhD, MR iR
> > Habicherg. 31/7
> > A-1160 Vienna
> > AUSTRIA
> > phone -43-0699-1168-1319
> > >
> > > After analyzing all three, Gerdes reported that
> > only
> > > sample A - Matthew's urine - showed clear signs of
> > DU.
> > > It contained a total uranium concentration that
> > was "4
> > > to 8 times higher" than specimens B and C, Gerdes
> > > reported."
> > > . . .
> > >
> > > So, how did the reporters get DU in their bodies?
> > > Also, note the lack of real numbers with units of
> > > concentraton.
> "Those who corrupt the public mind are just as evil as those who steal
> from the public purse."
> Adlai Stevenson
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird at yahoo.com
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the RadSafe