[ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower limitsofdetection (BUSBY)
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Mon Aug 8 11:40:07 CDT 2011
A saying in German is "Attack is the best defense". I would be surprised if this proverb did not exist in other languages. Chris Busby actually uses it in practice.
You claim that some at RADSAFE who question your expertise are "rude", but what you provide is much more than rude. You qualify us as complete idiots.
You write about "Jap cars", which is to my knowledge an unacceptable and offending expression for "Japanese cars". There is an absolutely unacceptable similar expression in German, no paper and no person would ever think of using it.
I have already recommended that you should take a break and learn about radioactivity (and other topics like statistics) for a few years before returning to RADSAFE.
I cannot help you if you think that I am rude pointing to all your shortcomings, the fundamental flaws of your claims, your financial interests, your more than questionable connections to such dubious and mock organisations like "Green Audit", the ECRR (or similar) with all those questionable and dubious people like Schmitz-Feuerhake or Rosalie Bertell, the former one having been found guilty to falsify data in order to get the results she wanted to have.
A nonscientific, but a comment on your conduct. I might be wrong, but I have never experienced on RADSAFE that I was called "Mr. Franz". Is this another attempt of you to ridicule me? I know "Franz" - 99% usual on RADSAFE and also used by my many British friends and collegues, I know "Mr. Schoenhofer" in very few mails on RADSAFE, mails in German are increasingly using "Franz", the other and official ones use "Herr Schoenhofer" and very few use my other titles like "Ministerialrat" - they are from those with whom I use to joke about our official titles. However I know from experience that in Arab and other countries the first name is used to characterize a person, but you seem to be a British citizen, though you use US units for radioactivity matters.
Going back to your claim, that uncertainties and assumptions are a part of science I agree in principle. But as in your case, where uncertainties exceed by far the measurement results or make them so uncertain that no conclusions can be drawn, I cannot understand, how you can calculate doses to the population. (Have you really?)
You are clearly not entitled to judge whether people on RADSAFE (including me) are SCIENTISTS. You seem not to be - at least not on the topic of radioactivity. How do you dare to make such a comment? How do you dare to call people who do not share your queer opinions as "idiots"? Somebody like you cannot insult me. I do not recommend the list owner to ban you from the list, because I regard it as important for us SCIENTISTS to get to know the opinions of persons like you.
No regards, Mr. Chris!
Franz, Mr. Franz, Herr Schoenhofer, Mr. Schoenhofer, Herr Ministerialrat Dr. Franz Schoenhofer bla, bla, bla
---- "Busby schrieb:
> Dear Radmax,
> Is that how you see yourself? Amazing!
> Most of physics is done with estimates and assumptions, but maybe you have not ever done any real physics. You then have a calculation result with levels of uncertainty which you allow for. Otherwise most of physics cannot be done. What we do know is the activity in Cs137 and Cs134 of the filters. The cars were driven for 150km before the filters were removed. The engine cc was 600cc (these are small engines that the Jap cars use). The assumption is that the mean rpm was 2500. This is a very conservative assumption as these were commuter cars. So the real value is likely to be higher. This would make the activity higher. Perhaps you know that a 4 stroke engine transfers its cc worth of air every 2 revolutions. As to the 50% trapping assumption,this ia also likely to be conservative. So if there is any error the real value will be higher.
> You, and Mr Franz, and a few others are so appallingly rude it is very difficult to deal with you as if you were scientists and not ignorant rednecks in some cheap bar. I thought the radsafe list was a discussion arena not some internet blog where idiots insult each other. Try to remain civil.
> Best regards
> Chris Busby
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Richard D. Urban Jr.
> Sent: Sun 07/08/2011 20:24
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower limits of detection (BUSBY)
> And just how did you calculate that volume... RPM's??? Were you driving with the owners of these cars? What gear were they in? What speed were they driving? Correct tuning or improper air-fuel mixture? Uphill, Downhill, standing still or moving slowly in traffic/debris fields, A/C on or off.. ? Distance's from Fuku, time after event, direction to plume...? How many thousands of cubic meters of air had entered these filters PRIOR to Fuku ???
> 50% eff but not 'sure', Really? You always seem to 'ASSUME' alot.
> Your numbers, just as the rest of your drivel, is again more ABSOLUTLEY CHERRY PICKED B.S.
> Any REAL scientist would not publish anything with your levels of uncertainty.
> Please just go away. Don't come back until you have something actually 'quantifiable'.
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227
More information about the RadSafe