[ RadSafe ] Radiation Abuse? Not Deterrent

HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Fri Jan 30 12:55:34 CST 2009

The Livermore LNL people I've known for nearly 50 years 

 take great pride in the fact the not an A-bomb has been used 

since they improved on H bombs to retaliatate. 

Yes, Franz, like  concealed handguns,  

when equalizer weapons make aggression costly, it is less likely -- 

and HPs are less likely to have their skills tested 

Sleep well. 

Howard Long 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Franz Schönhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> 
To: neildm at id.doe.gov, "Mike Brennan" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV>, radsafe at radlab.nl 
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 5:27:42 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: [ RadSafe ] From offtopict to an ontopic comment 

Neil et al., 

Continuing the thoughts put forward by Mike and Neil we easily hit back to 

One of the next steps in this chain of "horrible weapons" is said to refer 
to Alfred Nobel. When he had developed nitroglycerin and later dynamite he 
is said to have considered the effect of the explosives to be so powerful 
and terrible, that no wars would be fought in the future any more because of 
the destructions caused. Later he had to recognize that he had been 
fundamentally wrong and his discoveries made war even worse. It is said that 
this was the motive to donate his wealth for the nobel prizes, one of them 
for peace achievements. His secretary (Bertha von Suttner) was extremely 
active in the movement for peace ("Down with weapons") and banning of wars 
and might have influenced him toward this decision. 

Now we have ended up with nuclear weapons, more destructive by orders of 
magnitude. Should mankind have become a little more rational in the face of 
potential destruction? At least this weapon has been used only twice in a 
war and never since. Also in the case of nuclear weapons there are 
decade-long attempts to ban these weapons. Much progress has been made, but 
a worldwide ban has not been achieved yet. To the contrary new "nuclear 
states" have emerged. 

Is this logic of increased destruction power from fire to crossbow to 
dynamite to nuclear weapons to be continued with even more destructive 
weapons? I cannot imagine anything worse in destruction power, but who could 
have thought in the thirties of the last century of the power of nuclear 

Food for thought. 

Best regards, 


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 neildm at id.doe.gov 
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Jänner 2009 00:20 
An: Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV; radsafe at radlab.nl 
Betreff: RE: [ RadSafe ] Fwd: Don't X-ray My Veggies - Offtopic comment 

 Actual occurrence: 

The leaders of Europe met and voted to suppress the use of the latest 
super weapon as it made war too horrible to countenance. 

The weapon was the crossbow, and the meeting was on August 30, 1146 

-----Original Message----- 
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On 
Behalf Of Brennan, Mike (DOH) 

 It reminds me of 
a short story I once wrote in which a council of Homo Erectus voted to 
suppress research into controlling fire because it was against the laws 
of nature.   


More information about the RadSafe mailing list