[ RadSafe ] German professor with ideas about nuclear power &health effects
BenjB4 at gmail.com
Sun May 4 09:01:38 CDT 2008
Dear Dr. Schönhofer,
Thank you for your direction to send what I think is important to you and
the RADSAFE list.
Do you, Dr. Schönhofer, support the empirical quantification of the extent of
reproductive harm of uranium smoke and its uranyl ion?
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 6:53 AM, Franz Schönhofer
<franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> wrote:
> 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
> your messages.
> 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
> MinRat i.R.
> Habicherg. 31/7
> A-1160 Wien/Vienna
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> 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
> &health effects
> 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
> uranyl ion?
> 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