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

Mon Aug 8 16:38:38 CDT 2011

I agree that poor methodology was used. People have offered suggestions as to how to improve it. 

It is pointless to argue. Chris Busby's current belief is that nuclear is bad. 

I am a very strong supporter of Nuclear Power now. I was not always. Over time I came to the realization that humanity does not survive without access to cheap, reliable energy. 

The nuclear industry provides baseload power cheaply and safely. It is there when people need it. See 
http://bit.ly/o8Rn6O for load vs wind availability in Texas now in the middle of a heat wave. Talk about anticorrelation, there it is. 

Through nuclear medicine, it brings people back from the dead. What more can you ask from an industry?

I changed my mind. Maybe, others can too. In my experience, one can politely disagree, offer suggestions, and continue talking. 

Alternately, we can call each other idiots, but then we would be politicians instead of scientists. 

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 8, 2011, at 3:58 PM, "Brennan, Mike  (DOH)" <Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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