[ RadSafe ] German professor with ideas about nuclear power & health effects

[Steven Dapra]

May 4

         Some interspersed comments from Steven Dapra (SD).


At 02:56 AM 5/4/08 -0700, Ben Fore wrote:
>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?

         I would say it's better to quantify by observation.  You, 
James/Ben, qualify by ideology.  DU exposure is harmful so let's go look 
for some "evidence" to prove what you have already decided.  SD

>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 facts tend to show that neither reactor emissions nor U smoke 
are harmful.  Of course, this flies in the face of James'/Ben's 
ideology.  (So why is he asking about this??)  SD

>The thirst for knowledge is what separates the scientists from the lobbyists.

         I guess that makes you a lobbyist, huh, James/Ben?

>Do you, Dr. Cedervall, support the empirical quantification of the extent 
>of reproductive harm of uranium smoke and its
>uranyl ion?

         So far, J/B, you haven't been able to show that there is any harm, 
so it's a moot point.  SD

>James Salsman, as Ben Fore