AW: [SPAM][ RadSafe ] RE: What Are Radionuclear Materials?

[Franz Schönhofer]

Sorry, Rick, 

Your list of anti-SI-publications does not impress me at all. The journal of
Chem. Ed. I do not know, but it is without doubt not authorative in
Radiation Protection and opinions expressed there can be easily disregarded!
To refer to a discussion on RADSAFE, which is to the absolute majority
frequented by US-Scientists to back the anti-SI-unit movement against world
wide consent is absurd. BTW I am rather sure that I have participated in
this discussion and sure did not advocate the old units. 

The origin of this discussion was invention of new terms! I am further
afraid, that some new terms seem to either downplay or in the absolute
majority of cases enhance the perception of the population about nuclear
"dangers". 

Best regards,

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 Strickert, Rick
Gesendet: Montag, 21. September 2009 20:28
An: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: RE: [SPAM][ RadSafe ] RE: What Are Radionuclear Materials?

> "Inventing new units and terms seems to be a favorite pasttime 
> for people who have enough time for it."

... for whom there should be plenty of complaints and ridicule if such new
units and terms are arbitrarily enforced without a clear consensus and
demonstrated usefulness.  But "radionuclear" was not a term the IAEA
Glossary invented or enforced.

As for the "SI units" brouhaha there's been plenty of hits on that over the
years in many scientific fields, including:

Arthur Adamson, "SI units? A Camel is a Camel," _J. Chem. Ed._, 55(10),
October, 1978, pp. 634-637.   Comments and a response followed
in J Chem. Ed., 56(10), Oct. 1979, pp. 665-666.

Jack L. Lambert, "A m^3 is Bigger than a Breadbox," _J. Chem. Ed._,  56(10),
October, 1979, p. 638.

Robert A. Nelson, "On Finding a Middle Ground for SI," _J. Chem. Ed._,
56(10), October, 1979, pp. 661-2

P.G. Wright, "An Apologia for Accepting at Least an Approximation to SI,"
_J.Chem. Ed._ 56(10), October 1979, p.663-5.

John S. Rigden, Editorial: "Are SI units tending towards the ideological?"
in _Am. J. Phys._, 52(3), March, 1984, p.205. Responding Letter to the
Editor in _Am. J. Phys._, 52(9), Sept., 1984, p.777.
 
Robert Romer, "Units - SI-Only, or Multicultural Diversity?," _Am. J.
Phys._,  67(1), January, 1999, p.13-16. Numerous responding Letters to the
Editors in _Am. J. Phys._ 67(6), June 1999, pp. 465-70, along with Romer's
reply, "'You've Got Mail!'-The SI Jelly Donut" (p. 470).

Charles W. McCutchen, "'SI' Equals System Imbecilic," APS News, October 2001
(Volume 10, Number 9),
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200110/viewpoint.cfm

G. Anastas, A. Brodsky, and M. Stangler, "Scientific Advantages and
Absurdities of SI Units in Radiation Protection," presented at the 48th
Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, San Diego, July 22, 2003
(abstract in _Health Physics_ Vol.84, No.8(Supplement), p. S241, June 2003).
 
And, of course, Radsafe's 1995 "SI Units" thread
(http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/9506/threads.html#00202) and the
Radsafe-archived "'SI Oops' - A short 3-act play" (30 Sep 1999;
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/9909/msg00993.html).


Rick Strickert
Austin, TX
_______________________________________________
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/