AW: [ RadSafe ] German professor with ideas about nuclear power &health effects
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Sun May 4 08:53:44 CDT 2008
Mr. Ben Fore or whatever name you use:
Your comments on RADSAFE are mostly unwelcome. Your attitude to use fake
names is according to RADSAFE - which requires clear identification of the
persons participating - clearly a reason to ban you from the list. I urge
the list owner to do that for your many aliases. I have no objections if you
want to remain on the normal list, reveiling your name, your affiliation or
any similar identifications. BTW I never recognized anything like that in
I hope that Marcel will in the future ban any mails of people which do not
identify themselves. If somebody is afraid of disclosing his/her identity
then his or her opinion should be disregarded.
Once again - RADSAFE is sure not a forum for wannabe-contra and wannabe-pro
nuclear freaks. RADSAFE is a discussion forum for those who have knowledge
in radiation protection, mediction RP, environmental radiation protection
and any other topics related to radiation.
Mr Ben Fore or whatever you call yourself - Send your messages if you think
they are important to RADSAFE, but send them under your real name - so that
most of RADSAFErs will not be bothered, save time and can delete them
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Ben Fore
Gesendet: Sonntag, 04. Mai 2008 11:56
An: bcradsafers at hotmail.com; radsafelist
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] German professor with ideas about nuclear power
Dear Dr. Cedervall,
Your comment goes right to the heart of epidemiology:
> I don't think that a scientist who refers to Sternglass is serious.
> Sternglass was once asked about a correlation between
> childhood cancers and the vicinity on nuclear power plants -
> essentially "why didn't you correlate with the predominating
> wind direction?". Sternglass replied that he didn't get as good
> correlations that way....
Where is wind so predominately in one direction only that
aerosol dispersion is anything close to unidirectional?
Is it better to quantify risk by observation, i.e., using the
geographic correlation of adverse health outcomes to
determine exposure patterns, or is it better to assume
that they are a particular shape in advance?
Similarly, is it better to quantify the extent of adverse health
outcomes of a particular substance, such as reactor
radioisotope emissions or uranium smoke, or are those facts
better left unknown?
The thirst for knowledge is what separates the scientists
from the lobbyists.
Do you, Dr. Cedervall, support the empirical quantification
of the extent of reproductive harm of uranium smoke and its
James Salsman, as Ben Fore
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:
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
More information about the RadSafe