Caoimhín P. Connell

Just for the record… Ms. Kramer's announced attendance created a serious problem in the program. I had several world-class speakers decline to speak at the conference arguing that if Ms. Kramer (and her ilk) were invited speakers, then the conference was not a serious or a credible conference on the subject matter. The individual who asked her to speak was at liberty to ask ANYONE to speak during his session (he could have asked his garbage man if he wanted), however, he was heavily criticized for his poor choice in Ms. Kramer. He explained that he wanted to display and highlight the remarkable ineptitude and ludicrous positions of the anti-science "toxic mould" nut-jobs in the realm of science and indoor moulds. Others argued that the purpose of the conference is to present valid, useful information, and Ms. Kramer could not fulfil that role. It the end, the image of conference was at risk of being tarnished when it was believed that such a person would be speaking. For a variety of reasons, Ms. Kramer did not speak, and to my knowledge was not even in attendance. It was only with the guarantee that she would not be a speaker that I was able to get some of the world class authorities to present. Finally, I agree with Ms. Kramer, read the OSHA Document - it will underscore the fact that Ms. Kramer is so very wrong on so very many issues in the IAQ realm. Indeed, is difficult to believe that one could find someone so amazingly consistently wrong on so many fundamental principles in this field. A synopsis of the OSHA doc, and other recent materials, can be found in my web discussions: Mould Remediation: http://www.forensic-applications.com/mo ... ation.html Myths of mould sampling and testing: http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/sampling.html And a discussion on the Health Effects of Indoor Mould http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/sok.html I have no idea what the toxlaw reference alludes to in Mr. Kramer's post. Thanks to those who brought this post to my attention Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Hello Marc! From a legal aspect, the project was extremely complicated and had to do with new construction of a multiple structure – multiple family housing development. I’m not an attorney, and so my understanding of the actual details may not be correct, but, ultimately through various gyrations, one of the litigants essentially wanted to walk away from the financial liability of building the estate and cash in on the construction bond. The bond holder on the other hand asserted that where deficiencies existed, those deficiencies were correctable. At the heart of the argument was an assertion that the entire estate was contaminated with toxic moulds and was, therefore, unfixable and uninhabitable, and essentially had to be scrapped. My testimony involved addressing just the microbiological aspect from an Industrial Hygiene perspective, and arguing that the entire “toxic mouldâ€

The only folks who are doing mould “testingâ€

Hello Randy – My take: Whenever someone sends me a “newspaperâ€

Scott has it right… (again). Relax, and don’t over-think the answers. If you already know something about radiation, DON’T try to give the correct answer, or you will fail the exam. Remember, the exam is pitched at a sixth grade educational level. Give them the answer they are looking for, NOT the correct answer to the question. Cheers! Caoimhín (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Hi Terry! As consulting scientists, it’s our job. People ask us to measure various physical entities for a fee and we do so. As such, in accordance with good scientific and Industrial Hygiene practices and procedures, prior to performing the work, our policy is to establish parameters known as Data Quality Objectives (DQOs). DQOs describe the error, accuracy and precision of the parameters being measured. The DQOs also describe the limitations of the data, the application of the data, confidence, comparability and completeness of the data. All this is done before we collect any kind of sample or perform any kind of test. The DQOs also describe the ability of the testing to answer the hypothesis that is being challenged. This is standard for all our work, regardless of whether we are measuring pyrethrin exposures in an home, or exposures to Class IV lasers in a factory, or alpha radiation at a radium site. Practically, EMFs are no different than any other parameter we measure, for example, if we are going into a factory to measure exposures to noise levels or airborne benzene levels, before the work is done the client is made aware of the limitations, DQOs, and other applicable parameters, (and the costs involved with doing the work) and they are required to sign a standard Service Agreement acknowledging the conditions of work. At that point, they are welcome to not sign (in which case we won’t do the work) or sign the agreement, and then we will perform our contractual obligations for the agreed fee. Yes of course, it’s our job. Just a few months ago, for example I was asked by a branch of the US Government to measure radon exposures in a mine shaft that was approximately one half mile long and was dug into the side of a mountain and wherein workers would be working shift work over the course of three continuous months. Our job was to estimate the anticipated alpha doses received and then to design engineering controls to mitigate the exposures. Hi Marc! Time to brush off the old books my friend! The inverse suqare law is applicable only in far field. I didn't read all the posts in detail but someone referenced some NRC or other study and HORRIBLY misinterpreted the findings. There is no evidence that EMFs from power lines or home electrical appliances etc, increases the risk of cancer. I know, I know, there's a new "report" that cell phones... blah, blah blah... until I see legitimate epidemiological studies reported in legitimate peer reviewed journals, I gotta just stick to the science. The science says - No hazard (as field strungths seen in residences). Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Thanks Mike! Hello Marc – The problem isn’t reflective surfaces (which of course can create some confounding problems), but rather the problem is that measuring EMFs of power lines occurs exclusively in the near field, and therefore, one has no idea what one is actuaslly measuring or how much of it is being measured. As the name suggests, an EMF has two components, an electrical field and a magnetic field. At a point source, these two components are garbled and as one get further away from the point source, the two fields sync up and become a traverse wave wherein the magnetic field and the electric field are perpendicular. As such, in the far field, one can measure the power density and report it with confidence (even where there are reflective surfaces). However, closer to the point of generation, the two fields are not generally in phase and the fields can vary WILDY in magnitude, direction and mutual angular relationship over extremely short distances . Therefore, it raises a very serious question about what a measuring device (an antenna) placed in the field is actually measuring and therefore, there is no way to convert what is being measured into absorbed power (the biologically important aspect). If memory serves, the rule of thumb is that one should be at least 10 times the lambda before making confident E/H (also called E/B) field measurements. OK, since the shortest lambda of the field from a power line is about 10,000 m, that means one has to be several miles away from the home (the powerline being measured) to be confident about what is even being measured. (Try to explain to the home owner why you are in a Starbucks in another city but billing her for measuring the EMFs in her home... ) The school bus parked down the road (or the delivery van driving by), or the massive node centered on the house from another power line 40 miles away, are just minor confounders by comparison. The way we get around it is we tell the client we will faithfully report what the dial on the meter reads, but we wont tell them what it means or what it is measuring (in any event the number on the meter will be completely different one foot way in any direction, or five minute later in the same spot, or in a different (polarized) direction at the same time in the same location.) By the way, we are getting snow, but I want to sit on my deck with a cigar. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Hi Gents! I just thought I would poke my nose in and say hello! Actually, I do EMF testing, and to call residential EMF testing “voodooâ€

Hello Safoo! Close-up photos are never as good as people like to think they are. In any event, the discolorations are due to condensation. They line up along cold spots – in this case the ceiling joists, and the nails in the drywall. As water condenses it does two things: 1) Draws contaminants out of the air with it, and 2) draws solubles from the substrate. Then as it dries, the water soluble materials precipitate out leaving distinctive discolorations. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Good morning, Fischer: We are concerned that (1) the mold could create structural issues ... Mould can virtually never create a structural issue. In fact, in the last 20 some odd years of performing mould inspections in several hundreds of structures, I cannot think of a single situation where the mould caused or contributed to a structural issue. We are concerned that (2) there may be even more mold than we see but we can't cut open the walls to assess this since we don't own the home The only problem associated with hidden mould would be an odor issue down the road. There are ways to perform wall cavity inspections with limited intrusion (see my "Facebook" page for photos and examples: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bailey-CO ... 887&ref=mf We are concerned that (3) we have a one year-old and while we're not of the "Mold=Death" mentality, his well-being is without a doubt the highest priority for us. Well, once the project is completed, there will be no worries about health problems. There are no health concerns with “hidden mould.â€

Howdy Gents! I have often had the opportunity to accompany Home Inspectors on their daily routine – sometimes when my favorite HI is inspecting my homes, and I have also had the opportunity to work in the field with many HI while they are doing their work. I’ve entered the 21st century and for those who are interested, I put together a Facebook site that gives an insight into my daily activities as an Industrial Hygienist. I have lots of photos and will be putting up more as time goes on. I will also be posting brief “newslettersâ€

Hello Terence- That’s a good point, and I think you are correct. Thanks for clarifying the point. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Well – I don’t know what happened there – the citation should read: 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051-2089 Cheers! Caoimhín

Hi Marc! It does help to find support for making a drastic recommendation when necessary. And, I’m sure there certainly are specific situations where the damage is so serious that gutting the structure is necessary. Under those circumstances, it would be good to point to the CPSC as a source. But at the same time, I would suggest caution when putting too much faith in the CPSC which really took a hit to its credibility with the implementation of the Consumer Product Safety Improvements Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2051#8722;2089). The CPSIA banned ATVs for youths because there was lead in the handlebars! The CPSC concluded in an official statement that ATVs were dangerous for youths to ride because it would expose them to lead! So, one’s own credibility (and liability) still lay with professional discretion and judging each case on its own merits. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Morning Gents! The material looks like common old efflorescence. It is a combination of sulfates, carbonates, and other “-ates.â€

I LOVE what I do... (and I'm very photogenic, eh?), but I just read my post and my spelling sux! Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Hello Anonymous Person hiding behind the pseudonym “IndoorRestore.â€

Man my spelling sux today! CPC

Good morning, Gents! Radon readings and snow cover, is not just a simple yes or no answer. In some cases, snow cover will increase a radon reading (which doesn’t actually measure radon); in cases it can result in a lower reading, and in some cases there will be no effect. Remembering that different monitoring devices look at different aspects of radiation associated with radon, and therefore, different devices will have different responses to snow cover. But let’s just take a simple device, such a charcoal canister and use that as our example. The device, like all other devices does NOT measure radon. Also the device has a huge bias towards the last 12 hours of monitoring (if the SLRDs were higher towards the last 12 hours, the results will be biased high; if lower, the results are biased low) This is because the device does not truly integrate the “readingâ€

Hi Terry – OK – but you won’t like it. “Objectiveâ€

Ya gotta love a good lively debate - pity it doesn't involve beer and cigars. That would make it a perfect debate. Caoimhín

Hello Greyboy! Greyboy, Friend, it is a question of perspective. Let’s look at your post – it tells me that you are a very decent fellow and I laud your concern forthe Earth, but a little perspective may be warranted. Each time you exhale, your exhalation breath contains about 40,000 parts of CO2 per million parts of air (40,000 ppm). You exhale about 12 times per minute. Your exhalation breath is about 500 ml of air. That means that every minute, as a matter of just living, you exhale about 450 mg of CO2 into the atmosphere. OK – now imagine that the 6,803,042,109 of our brothers and sisters across the globe are doing the same thing – just breathing. That means that every MINUTE the average loading to the Earth’s atmosphere, contributed by humans doing nothing more than just breathing is about 3,100 metric tons every MINUTE of every day. That’s over 184 THOUSAND METRIC TONNES per hour and that’s just from humans breathing. And you are concerned about “…pumping tons and tons of carbon into the air we breath…â€

Sorry Jim – You’re on the wrong side of objective facts (again). There is NOT general agreement in the scientific community that GW is real. There is general agreement in the Hollywood community, in the Democratic Party and on The Left – but the general agreement in the scientific community is that there is NO SUCH THING as Global Warming. Sorry mate, I hate to tell you this, Al Gore is not a scientist. Cheers! Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

Y'know, Marc, I'm glad to hear you say that because in a post I made earlier today to a professional Industrial Hygiene Board, I cautioned my colleagues that if we don't grow a backbone, and stop tolerating this nonsense, we will loose credibility in the public eye. With your permission, I would like to quote your timely message (I'll leave your name off, of course). CPC

“Greenâ€