[ RadSafe ] Fwd: ruling out uranium vapor with x-rays

Thu Apr 17 10:46:30 CDT 2008

Hi Peter,

I agree with almost everything you said.  About the false name, I must disagree.  Yes, 
sometimes it is fine to use a false name.  In Salsman's case, the false name helps to make 
this seem like a new and untested issue.  But that is a lie, just as Salsman was lying about 
who he is.

If you want to know if he has any substance to his claims, just review the radsafe archives.  
Search for Salsman.  Until you do that, there is no point in reinventing the wheel.  30 minutes 
browsing the archives should convince you that engaging Mr. Salsman is a waste of time.

As for Salsman being "civilized and rational," you are only seeing tactics and strategy, and 
mistaking that for character.  Here is a reminder of his real character:

> [ RadSafe ] Salsman's effort to stifle debate
> Sandy Perle sandyfl at cox.net
> Fri Apr 6 03:36:31 CEST 2007
> 
>     * Previous message: [ RadSafe ] RE: three questions
>     * Next message: [ RadSafe ] Salsman's effort to stifle debate
>     * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> 
> Jaro,
> 
> There have been some pretty "low blows" on Radsafe since its inception back
> in 1993, but Mr. Salsman's letter to your CEO is the lowest of the low! It
> is apparently "a shot across the bow", an effort to stifle dialogue. Mr.
> Salsman obviously expects that your CEO will require you to "cease and
> desist" from all further communications to a member listserver. Perhaps he
> believes that your position would be terminated. There is no other
> justification for Mr. Salsman's comment requesting that he have the
> opportunity to discuss your comments. Actions such as this are the very
> reasons that many contributors refuse to provide any information regarding
> their personal or professional affiliations. I think any further dialogue
> with Mr. Salsman is futile. He has never answered any of the reasonable
> questions posed to him by both Steve Dapra and yourself, as well as others.
> He could be coined Mr. Teflon. 
> 
> I hope that your CEO will ask you about the letter he received, and, based
> on your reputation in the professional community, he will understand that
> the letter from Mr. Salsman is not worth responding to.
> 
> All the best!
> 
> Sandy

On 17 Apr 2008 at 9:27, Peter Bossew wrote:

Date sent:      	Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:27:46 +0200
From:           	Peter Bossew <peter.bossew at jrc.it>
To:             	"'radsafelist'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Subject:        	Re: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: ruling out uranium vapor with x-rays
Copies to:      	'Dave Blaine' <dfblaine at gmail.com>

> Sorry but that reply proves that THERE IS emotion on both sides. One
> may think differently about the tactics of using pseudonyms, but
> Salsman / Blane has put forward his points in a quiet and polite tone;
> he may be wrong but this is certainly not obvious at first glance (at
> least not for somebody who is not engaged in U research) and
> disproving him requires arguments, but not polemic.
> 
> Arguing in the DU case may already be boring to US scientists, 
> understandably given the ideologically loaded debate which often
> appears inaccessible to rational arguments, but as far as I can see
> from a distance Salsman / Blane tries to defend his position in a
> civilized and rational manner. That should be appreciated. For those
> in other parts of the world who have not been "blessed" (yet ?) with
> the DU debate, at least not in a similarly ideological / emotional /
> hysterical way, the discussion is quite instructive.
> 
> Reserving the claim of science to oneself (while maybe true in this
> particular case) is highly ideological, and not good style, I think.
> 
> regards,
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> Brent Rogers wrote:
> > "Dave Blane (or was it Blaine)" wrote:
> >
> > ****
> >
> > James Salsman, as Dave Blane pseudonomously
> >
> > P.S.  About pseudonyms:  The DU controversy evokes strong emotions
> > on both sides of the debate. It is often useful to have a clean
> > emotional state when addressing the issue with people who have
> > formed preconceptions about the issue or the people discussing it in
> > the past.
> >
> > ****
> >
> > ...or simply to allow those who have been discredited in the past to
> > further argue a point without the baggage.  The emotion is not on
> > both sides of the debate, only one of them.  The other side employs
> > science.
> >
> > Brent Rogers
> > Sydney Australia
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Peter Bossew 
> 
> European Commission (EC) 
> Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
> Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) 
> 
> TP 441, Via Fermi 1 
> 21020 Ispra (VA) 
> ITALY 
> 
> Tel. +39 0332 78 9109 
> Fax. +39 0332 78 5466 
> Email: peter.bossew at jrc.it 
> 
> WWW: http://rem.jrc.cec.eu.int 
> 
> "The views expressed are purely those of the writer and may not in any
> circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the
> European Commission."
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/