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

Mon Aug 8 15:58:28 CDT 2011

It does, however, become hard to consider the data someone presents when
they have established a long history of doing bad science.  It is also
hard to be respectful of someone when they consistently respond to
respectful criticism with ad homs and intentional misrepresentations of
the criticism.  I is difficult to respect the integrity of someone who
repeatedly gets caught trying to slide poor quality-to-fraudulent "data"
by.    

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:35 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] FW: Reporter's questionabout lower
limitsofdetection (BUSBY)

What a rational post. 

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Felipe Gaitan <gaitan at impulsedevices.com>
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
_______________________________________________
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