|
By what stretch of the imagination do you consider this opinionated,
inaccurate bad science to be research? Does the repeated rejection of your
half-baked conclusions by the accomplished professionals on this list (no, I am
not one of those accomplished professionals), somehow, in your mind, validate
your thinking? You have already said the researchers who have corrected
some of your mistakes are part of some kind of cover-up. What is
the point of this exercise when you reject even factual information that
contradicts your position?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 9:51 PM
Subject: The Bomb That Fell--Re:Cs
reference
This is what I was talking about in
RS Digest V1 #806.
Citation is
provided for Mr. Steven Darpa sjd@swcp.com
Excuse me Steve, but would you mind looking up some of these on your
own?
This one is a very easy find and
I am continuing my research, so no offense, but unless you
have a "need" for some of this
information to be used in your research
somewhere,
I am way too busy to
continue the harangue just for the sake of it.
THANKS
and best
regards,
L.H.
Ricciuti
NiagaraNet@aol.com
"I always have tried to be forthright. Fifthright too."
-----
In a message dated 6/8/2003
1:52:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, sjd@swcp.com writes:
COMMENT: Where did you hear about the
Cs-137? Can you
provide a citation to a primary
source? (PLEASE-Emphasis
Ricciuti)
Do you want
to gain some credence at RADSAFE? If so, why not
give
forthight answers to the
questions you have been asked. (PLEASE-Emphasis
Ricciuti)
Steven
Dapra
sjd@swcp.com
------ ------
------ -----
MY
FRIENDLY RESPONSE-
Dear Mr. Dapra-Here
it is-Primary enough?
*1981, Assembly
State of New York, History of U.S. Military Involvement in
the
Toxic Contamination of Love Canal and
the Niagara Frontier Region, Pg. 93.
--------------
|