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

Mon Aug 8 15:30:13 CDT 2011

I heartily agree to this.

Sandra Matzkin
Radiation Transport
INVAP SE
Bariloche
Argentina

At 05:20 PM 8/8/2011, you wrote:
>So do I. Just because a person is antinuclear or has a "shady" 
>background doesn't justify being rude or condescending. Or that any 
>data he/she presents is not even worth considering.
>
>Ad hominem arguments should simply not be allowed on a list made up 
>of scientists.  Perhaps the moderator could send a clear definition 
>of this type of argument and several examples.
>
>Aren't we scientists supposed to be setting an example of rational 
>discussion and decision making for the rest of the word?
>
>Felipe Gaitan
>
>
>On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Jess Addis wrote:
>
> > I do generally concur with your opinion Joel.
> >
> > Larry Addis,
> > Clemson University
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> > [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Baumbaugh, Joel T
> > CIV SPAWARSYSCEN-PACIFIC, 55360
> > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:42 PM
> > To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) 
> MailingList; The
> > International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List; 
> Richard D.
> > Urban Jr.
> > Cc: Busby, Chris
> > Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's question about lower
> > limitsofdetection (BUSBY)
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
>D. Felipe Gaitan, Ph.D.
>Chief Research Scientist
>Impulse Devices, Inc.
>13366 Grass Valley Av.  Unit H
>Grass Valley, CA  95945
>Phone: 530-273-6500 Ext. 112
>Fax:  530-273-6566
>email: gaitan at impulsedevices.com
>website: http://impulsedevices.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>THIS INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE(S) 
>AND MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, OR PROPRIETARY 
>INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE 
>OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED 
>RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, 
>DISTRIBUTION, DISPLAYING, COPYING, OR USE OF THIS INFORMATION IS 
>STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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