[ RadSafe ] science vs. economic interest

Sun May 4 10:05:49 CDT 2008

Real scientists know that there's a difference between proving a negative
and determing determining how many adverse reproductive health effects
are attributable to DU aerosol inhalation.  We know that the number is
positive, but the lower end of the confidence interval is negative because
of the lack of aerosol inhalation health effect measurements.

But those who advocate for (and whose jobs depend on) nuclear power
have a negative economic interest in that quantity being known.  The true
test of scientific objectivity is whether they act in the interests of
their own
economic situation or the accuracy and knowledge.

Here on Radsafe we have former U.S. military who are too cowardly to
debate the number, but whose frequent advocacy goes by with silence
and approval.  And we have plenty who would call for censorship of those
who wants to know who is and is not in favor of determining the quantity.
The question needs to be asked, because the number needs to be known

James Salsman

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Syd H. Levine <syd.levine at mindspring.com> wrote:
> The absolute moral authority of the marginally insane never ceases to amaze.
> Mr. Salsman is so convinced what he has to say is important and correct,
> that rules simply cannot apply.  And the prove a negative crap is just
> downright funny; perhaps Mr. Salsman does not realize how foolish that makes
> him look to real scientists (best to save that kind of nonsense for folks
> not steeped in the scientific method).
>
>  Syd H. Levine
>  AnaLog Services, Inc.
>  Phone:  (270) 276-5671
>  Telefax:  (270) 276-5588
>  E-mail:  analog at logwell.com
>  Web URL:  www.logwell.com
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Fore" <BenjB4 at gmail.com>
>  To: "Franz Schönhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
>  Cc: "radsafelist" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
>  Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:01 AM
>  Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] German professor with ideas about nuclear
> power&health effects
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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?
> >
> > James Salsman
> >
> > 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
> > >  immediately.......
> > >
> > >  Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
> > >  MinRat i.R.
> > >  Habicherg. 31/7
> > >  A-1160 Wien/Vienna
> > >  AUSTRIA
> > >
> > >
> > >  -----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:
> > >  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/
> >
> >
>
>