[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
AW: AW: Prussian Blue as Tmt for Exposure to Radioactive Exposures
Franz,
The Report was
sponsored by the IAEA (through the European commission (EC) the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, The World Health
Organization (WHO), The World Meterological, the IAEA and UNSCEAR).
The International Chernobyl Project
(ICP) Conclusions and Recommendations were approved by the ICP International
Committe on 22 March 1991 and presented for scrutiny to an international
conference in Vienna 21 24 May, 1991 (weren't you there?). You can try and
purchase a copy from the IAEA website of the overview (STI/PUB/884
(1991)) or spring a few extra shekels for for the full report
(STI/PUB//894 (1991)) ISBN 92-0-12939. and READ it (it is out of print and
mine is currently unavailable for refreshing). This was an exhaustive study
and covered many aspects of the accident only one small thread was that of
which I mentioned. I therefore do not consider it to be a faulty
one
Thank you for this information - though I would have
preferred a report downloadable on the net, which would have enabled me to
comment directly. For your information: We have now EURO's in Europe and if
I would purchase a copy I would pay it in EURO's..... So, what was your
comment on shekels intended for???
What I stated, was clearly, that the message on RADSAFE was not in
compliance with the objective facts. If the ICP has not compiled all the
information available in the open literature (Cumbria, Austria etc.) it is
their fault. If they did not take into consideration possible differences in
the chemical composition of the ferrocyanides investigated, this would be an
absolutely unacceptable fault. I still insist that a categorization
according to country of origin is unacceptable as well and that I simply
cannot believe, that this was stated.
But if these differences had been described as I would
expect from a scientific publication it would be your fault, not to forward
correct information. I myself have several times apoligized on RADSAFE for
distributing an opinion, which turned out to be wrong. I do not believe that
something like this is humiliating.
The information, that this report was issued in 1991 is of interest,
because much information has been published afterwards, but data on Cumbrian
sheep, Austrian deer etc. was available before
1991.
For me your vulnerability to some comments, which I personally would
if they were directed to myself regard as a very welcome contribution
to discussion, is a little surprising. A research program, not stating what
kind of compound was used, is simply not
believable.
Though I do not
dispute my potential for a fallable memory on a decade old plus study,
I wish to state emphatically that no conclusions were drawn by myself
now - nor were any drawn from that data at that time - as no
explanation for it was proffered.
[So I cannot understand, why you regard my comment as
offensive.
The differences may well have been due to
unmeasured variations in the chemical composition of the compounds from the
various nations used (I do not know what scrutiny was applied this).
Additionally I consider the lead thread of your
response unprofessional without having an understanding of the report nor
its' findings.
I believe that I am enough professional, since I have not only
followed the research on this topic very closely, have been even been in
Cumbria for information on the treatment of sheep and have in very close
contact with scientists from other countries like Norway. I conducted
extensive research in Austria on Cs-137 contamination in game and we did
extensive experimental research on the reduction of Cs-137 in game. And all
this - and other research - was not mentioned in your posting. Regarding the
report in question I have clearly asked the RADSAFE community to provide me
with a web-address, where I could download it and study
it.
You have a habit of being aggressive on this
list. I do however, welcome the constructive commentary that would help
clear up any misunderstandings I may have in the
matter.
It is nowadays a sad truth, that anybody of non-US- origin who does
not share unconditionally the opinion of a US-citizen or US-politicians is
regarded as being aggressive and is even subject to threats. I hope that my
comment has been constructive from a scientific point of view, if you do not
consider it constructive - well, then it is not. I might contact you
personally on the question of "agressivity".
Best regards,
Franz