[ RadSafe ] Hawaii Health Guide - Big Island Dairy Farmersfightradiation with Boron

[Steven Dapra]

May 29

         Yup, us guys is purty iggerrant, ain't us'ns.

Steven Dapra
(serprized hee kan spel hiz own name. . . .)


At 01:09 PM 5/29/2011, you wrote:

>Franz, you clearly know nothing. How you can represent yourself as 
>knowledgeable in this area is astonishing. The concentration of Sr 
>in milk is well known, uranium also, they follow Calcium. 
>Measurements of Sr90 in milk were what resulted in the test ban in 
>1963. Go back to school and learn some chemistry. The ignorance of 
>you guys is beyond belief.
>Chris Busby
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at [mailto:franz.schoenhofer at chello.at]
>Sent: Sun 29/05/2011 17:20
>To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing 
>List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>Cc: Busby Chris
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Hawaii Health Guide - Big Island Dairy 
>Farmersfightradiation with Boron
>
>RADSAFErs,
>
>I am shocked, I am deeply shocked! Chris Busby makes a (partly) 
>correct statement on RADSAFE!!!!!!!
>
>I loan the word "idiocy" from him for the original story. There is 
>so much nonsense in this statement from Hawaii (who is  behind it?), 
>that if I ever had started to collect such statements it would be a favourite.
>
>Maybe I'll find time to comment the original message a little 
>closer. I am a member of the International Union of Radioecologists, 
>a real organisation, not a fake one like Busbys "European Commission 
>of something with radiation". I have suffered many years from the 
>Chernobyl aftermath in Austria - of course only because of the 
>hysteria and the drawback in my carreer, because I did not support 
>the hysteria and thought that other - naturally occurring 
>radionuclides - were of much  more importance for human radiation 
>exposure than the finally hardly measurable ultra traces of Cs-137.
>
>Chris, you are insofar wrong: Although I also hope that cows have 
>not ingested neutron sources, you should be aware that Sr-90 is 
>deposited in bones and it is hardly, if at all, possible to get rid 
>of it. Uranium concentration is enhanced in other organs - use the 
>ICRP XX or the valid EU directive to find out about critical organs 
>- I am not going to do this for you, unless you make a reasonable 
>financial offer, which should not be so difficult because of your 
>obvious fine income for instance from US lawfirms. Regarding the 
>hazards from plutonium (I suppose you mean Pu-239?) I refrain to 
>comment on this nonsense. If you know about any measurements of 
>Pu-239 in milk I would appreciate to learn about them. You seem not 
>even to be aware, that the long term concern is Cs-137, short term 
>also Cs-134. There have been more than enough experiments after 
>Chernobyl on how to reduce the Cs-137 in milk, with limited success. 
>I think that a reduction by a factor two does not justify the e
>  ffort and the costs.
>
>Why don't you try to avoid the antinuclear bla-bla like uranium and 
>plutonium in milk is a concern if you want to be acknowledged as a 
>scientist? I know, that "plutonium" sounds extremely well in 
>anti-nuclear propaganda!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Franz
>
>
>
>---- Busby Chris <C.Busby at ulster.ac.uk> schrieb:
> > There is no physics or chemistry based for this idiocy. How can 
> borax help in this situation? If the cows are contaminated the milk 
> is contaminated. Boron absorbs neutrons in a neutron field. I hope 
> there are no neutrons inb the cows.
> > They could perhaps push out the uranium and strontium with 
> calcium supplements. That might work. Its the Sr and U and PU that 
> are the nasty nuclides here in the milk.
> > Chris

[edit]