[ RadSafe ] Chris Busby - troll? NO!
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Mon Apr 25 08:40:21 CDT 2011
I obviously have never been polite, when basic radiation protection
questions, including political concerns were on topic on RADSAFE. Otherwise
it would not be explainable, why I have been put several times under RADSAFE
observation, thanks to complaints of some US members of the list.
Maybe my opinion on Chris Busby is not RADSAFE-political-correct either. My
opinion about him and this "science" should already be known from my
previous RADSAFE comments.
Chris Busby, is not a troll! It seems that he believes, what he writes and
since this is not restricted to newsgroups it cannot be attributed to troll
behaviour. That he makes (maybe a lot of) money by his antinuclear agitation
is positive for him, but casts a more than dubious light on his character.
Contrary to Michael Stabins mail, (I always have appreciated his mails very
much since decades!!!) I do not think that we should ignore his messages.
Otherwise his and the bunch of other "activists", as they are now called
politely at least in the German and Austrian news media, agenda would be
taken by even more idiots (the public) for real. If this fails, at least
RADSAFErs should know about facts and not Busby-Inventions.
Busby is a member of an antinuclear network in Europe, dominated by "greens"
and charlatans even worse than him.
Best wishes to everybody!
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
Von: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] Im Auftrag von Steven Dapra
Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. April 2011 21:25
An: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] Chris Busby (Otto G. Raabe and Ayn Rand)
Michael Stabin is politely reminding us that we should not
feed internet trolls. My best guess is that he is alluding to you,
Chris Busby. By feeding, he meant debating with trolls, or trying to
reason with them. (Unlike Michael Stabin, I'm not polite --- at
least not right at the moment --- so I'll point it out in plain English.)
Below, you (CB) invoke Nature as a publication that is
worthy of our notice. In another e-mail, you wrote, "The data from
other publications in BMJ and Nature and various other rags." All of
a sudden Nature is a "rag." What happened, Chris? Are the man who
is described in James 1:8?
Who is GA Sacher? Again, you provide no citation. Yes, you
have on occasion in the past, but only after you were asked and asked
and asked. . . .
Your sarcasm is unbecoming, especially for someone who is
haranguing us about science, models, and peer review. It causes you
to look suspiciously like a troll.
At 09:33 AM 4/24/2011, you wrote:
>Dear Mr Stabin,
>What exactly is the purpose of your email to the group?
>You were asked to look at and compare with your risk model a paper
>on infant leukemia after Chernobyl, published in peer review and
>based on several other papers also published in peer review
>literature including Nature. In what way is that anything to do with
>internet trolls whatever they are?
>Otto has data on dogs exposed to huge amounts of radium, plutonium
>etc. His own papers comment that the controls had levels of lung
>cancer which were impossibly high for dogs. That is a fact. You like
>facts. That makes his results questionable even for dogs. But I was
>not making much out of it. It is the human data, the infant leukemia
>that you must explain. Humans are not dogs, no matter how much Otto
>would like them to be. In fact radiation rsistance in mammals is
>proportinal to life span (GA Sacher). Did you know that? Probably not.
>From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Stabin, Michael
>Sent: Sat 23/04/2011 18:37
>To: radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Chris Busby (Otto G. Raabe and Ayn Rand)
>I'm following this for weeks now, but still not understanding. Otto
>has actual data and rational conclusions based on those data. I wish
>more health physicists and regulators were paying attention to his
>very important publications, most notably Health Phys.
>98(3):515-536; 2010. I can't understand how science has become so
>irrelevant to scientists, while the 'perception is reality' insanity
>continues to rule. The Atlas Shrugged movies continue to take on new
>relevance 53 years later after the publication of the book.
>You all are intelligent people, but have not yet learned the decades
>old axiom of not feeding internet trolls. They are hungry always,
>and the more you feed them the more they want. Starve them of
>attention and they go elsewhere. As soneone noted we are REAL people
>to protect from REAL radiation hazards, can we stick to that, eh?
>Sorry if I'm out of line with this suggestion on this listserve.
>Flame on, trolls! I will ignore your blather while doing actual
>radiation safety work here.
>Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
>Associate Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
>1161 21st Avenue South
>Nashville, TN 37232-2675
>Phone (615) 343-4628
>Fax (615) 322-3764
>e-mail michael.g.stabin at vanderbilt.edu
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