[ RadSafe ] Fw: A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur R Tamplin?
franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Thu May 9 14:11:36 CDT 2013
I forward this mail which I found was originally directed to only a small number of people, but might contain a little addtional information for the list.
Is it just a coincidence that now when spring is arriving the trolls leave their hibernation caves? It must have been the same person who acted a few years ago as a troll on the topic of a (Canadian?) uranium mine and he went so far that I believe to remember that he was banned from RADSAFE. I do not know all the “merits” of Gofman. Though I have to take not only medication for high blood pressure or high cholesterol levels I never came across “Gofman” in that context. I am not impressed by a statement of a professor emeritus of the history of science at MIT. BTW: I thought the topic was Gofmans unbelievable statements and “scientific” papers about radiation (Sr-90!) and not medication!
Gofman has maligned his own work with his simply wrong statements. You yourself seem not to be very scientific, because you have no arguments, but prefer to downplay and ridicule our scientific knowledge – or rather deny that we have any. I do not think that you have any background to judge our experience or accomplishments – so please refrain from such attempts to downplay and insult the RADSAFE community. I use to say: Somebody like you cannot insult me. I would be ashamed if I had a CV of wrong statements, serving for money as “witness” in such US trials etc.
If you were honest, you would refrain from posting to RADSAFE before you are banned, because you have no scientific knowledge in this field. Repeating anti-nuclear slogans does not make you a radiation protection professional.
From: NiagaraNet at aol.com
; feinendegen at gmx.net ; tinyyoli at aol.com ; ANDREW.KARAM at nypd.org ; sjd at swcp.com ; franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Cc: niagaranet at aol.com
Subject: [ RadSafe ] A judges' criticism of John W Gofman ? Arthur R Tamplin?
As you malign yet another dead scientist, I find myself commenting once again to the Radsafe group in the defense of those that stand tall beyond the grave, while others living, can only be found to 'stoop low.' How sad.
I knew John Gofman and not one of you folks will ever be able to hold a candle to his life's work regardless of what shameless things you say or do in the name of your own brand of "science." Apologies if that sounds harsh. When you take your blood pressure or cholesterol medication this morning (if you do so), please also think of John W. Gofman, M.D.'s work in that area too.
Maligning the work of these two men (Gofman, Tamplin and others living and dead as I've read on the Radsafe list) is a tacit condemnation of your own industry and business self-interests. At least that's quite transparent to those of us reading in. There are few if any on the Radsafe list that have the publishing "legs," the scientific longevity, the educational background, years in the field, shear experience or accomplishment overall that the two scientists being maligned in your postings have. Anyone? What on earth is scientific about that? The dismissing of any scientific opinion in the supposed discourse of it, is not science at all. Put your CVs up to compare with either Gofman or Tamplin's please!
More information about the RadSafe