[ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower limitsofdetection (BUSBY)

Mon Aug 8 12:42:22 CDT 2011

Please, please, please.  I am sick and tired of reading all of these
(not so) thinly veiled attacks against each other.  Can't you PLEASE
take them off-line so that the rest of us don't have to read them?  Even
though I stop reading after the second or third line (once I realize
what I'm reading) they're still annoying, irritating and IMHO, quite
childish.

RADSAFE didn't used to be this way.  I'm seriously thinking about
unsubscribing.  Even though I've been a subscriber way back to the
Melissa (as moderator) days. I still read some interesting posts - but
the constant negativity and bickering is wearing me down...

PLEASE STOP!  All of you! This is not the way that RADSAFE should be.
We're supposed to help each other and exchange ideas (and opinions), but
not in a negative way...

Joel Baumbaugh 
...and yes, this is my own opinion.... I hope that you agree with me.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower
limitsofdetection (BUSBY)

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'.
> 
> Radmax
> 
> 
> -----
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Vienna
Austria
mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227

_______________________________________________
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