Caoimhín P. Connell

Good morning, Gents: Kurt – Who is Mr. O? Oh, and you can repeat/reprint anything I say. Mike- Its not that the government is lying to anyone, per se. For example, within the EPA studies and public documents they very “clearlyâ€

Hello All! OK – Response to an email which raised a valid criticism. In my previous response to Kurt in Chicago who asked: If there is no credible reference for the EPA's claims, what are they basing their most current radon campaign upon?id="blue"> I merely pointed back to the original EPA studies. I did this because the EPA themselves tell us that is what they did. So the question was – where is the reference and how do we know the EPA is still using the same data and models? OK – That's fair. So here we go... In the “latestâ€

Good morning, Gents! Sorry about the delay in replying. Kurt asks: Do you (Caiomin) have credible source(s) for that statement?id="blue"> Response: Yes. If you take a look at my previous discussions, you will see that I actually reference the US EPA’s own work which indicates there is NO MEASURABLE risk. Additionally, I have referenced the NESHAPS docs as well as the DOE docs. In each of these docs, we see that these organizations themselves admit that they cannot observe a risk, but merely presume that one MUST necessarily be present. But dang it! Folks, if it really was present, then why, after exhaustive attempts, can we not observe the increased risk? More importantly, why, after hundreds of studies, do we see a DECREASED risk in lung cancer at concentrations normally seen in residences? Essentially, articles like those referenced above by Mike add to the tautology of the argument, (repeat it often enough and it becomes “factâ€

Hello Kurt! Sorry about the detour – OK Back to topic – Actually, you question begs a question, since, as posed, it requires one to prove a negative. For example, I cannot find one singe scientifically valid study that PROVES that there is NO association between owning a green car and the incident rate of pancreatic cancer. Therefore, are we to conclude that since there are no such scientifically valid studies, we must therefore conclude that such an association MUST be present, however tenuous? Of course not. But that is EXACTLY the rationale that the radon, toxic mould, and high voltage power line (EMF) proponents have used to “supportâ€

Good morning, Gents! You bunch are too funny. No, Gary, the arrests are not “citizen’sâ€

Good morning, Gary – Funny you should ask that. Before I answer, let me tell you this. It’s 3:00 a.m. and I just got off duty from my other vocation. I just wrapped up a D.U.I. case, wherein I arrested a guy who hit two pedestrians resulting in what appears to be serious bodily injury in both. I responded to that call from another wreck wherein a slightly intoxicated man rolled his pickup, resulting in head injuries to his passenger. By contrast, on Wednesday, I conducted a drug interdiction on a car that resulted in less than one ounce of marijuana; the driver was clean, and apart from being a knucklehead, didn’t hurt anyone. I’ve had to fight my share of drunks (tonight wasn’t one of them, he was a decent respectful individual). But, I cannot think of a single time when I have had to fight a pot head (drawn down on a few, but that deescalated the confrontation). Much of the harder criminal activity I see with pot stems from its prohibition, and the necessity of the criminal element to supply the drug. On the balance – my experience with small time pot users is much less dramatic and less threatening than alcohol users. My experience with pot sellers, and distributors is somewhat more deadly, hair-raising and chilling. Having said that, the intentional introduction of another legitimate intoxicant troubles me. I think that there are legitimate medicinal uses for THC, and I also believe that marijuana has legitimacy in specific religious practices, but at the same time, I have seen marijuana as a gate-way drug, and I’ve pulled too many corpses from cars to think that it is “harmless.â€

Good afternoon, Mike: Well, pretty much. On the scale of things that kill and make humans ill, radon is so far at the bottom of the list (if at all), it hardly is worth the time considering it. But because it is an emotional hot-button, it gets a lot of attention. When we look at lung cancer rates over the years, we see a correlation with other societal aspects, but there is no legitimate evidence that radon mitigation has any effect on the lung cancer rate. I’m all for warm and fuzzy. I’ve been told that underneath my callous and insensitive exterior I’m just all warm and fuzzy, myself. 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 afternoon, Gents! Terry:id="blue"> You ask: How do you respond to a home, where the furnace cycles constantly in cold or hot temperatures, and has high Radon readings? Or a home where the furnace fan is set to on and has high Radon readings. Is that any different than a ceiling fan? Rhetorical question, I'm sure you'll find a way. Yes, I will, and I'm happy to help you out there. Read my post titled SLRDs vs. Radon measurements. But it you were as well versed in the subject matter as you like to think, you would have already known the answer to your question and would not had posted it. I’m sorry that the facts disturb you, but I noticed that you could not actually criticize a single point I made. I presume this is for one of two reasons: 1) you don’t understand what I said and/or 2) there was nothing inaccurate in my post. Otherwise, if there was something incorrect, and you understood the topic, you would have provided a technical rebuttal. Instead, you attacked my disclaimer! I find that folks who don’t like the facts, but also don’t understand the topic, generally refer their detractors to links, and references they themselves have never read. Since you like the EPA let’s see what THEY say about their models: Currently there is very little information about...the health effects associated with exposures to radon at levels believed to be commonly encountered by the public. The only human data available for predicting the risks to the public are studies examining the health effects of exposure to radon and its progeny in underground miners. This information would be appropriate for predicting the risks to the public if everyone was a miner, everyone lived in mines, and a large fraction of the general population smoked cigarettes. (U.S. Department of Energy "Radon- Radon Research Program, FY 1989, DOE/ER-448P., March 1990) Well, guess what? We don’t live in mines. So, the information is NOT appropriate. By the way, speaking of “guessing,â€

Good morning, Gents! In anticipation of the questions raised in my most recent comments on costs of radon mitigation, and ceiling fans. Since the questions are bound to lead into a new area, I thought I would start a new thread. Some inspectors may be confused and argue “Well, we did testing before and after the installation of the ceiling fans and the radon levels were exactly the same; therefore, the ceiling fans didn’t work.â€

Good morning, Gents! I hope all is well. Inspector Joe has hit the nail on the head. Inspector Gary is in close pursuit. Having concluded some toxicological studies with strong beer last night, I not moving in normal sprite fashion this morning, so do me a favor and read this post a little slower than usual. First a little refresher course in the basics. When one installs a radon mitigation system, are they really trying to get rid of the radon? Answer: No – of course not. Radon (Rn) is a “noble gasâ€

Good morning, Gents! Not being one to spoil the fun, I won’t disagree with any of the preceding posts. However, neither will I miss the chance to throw a spanner in the works. So – here’s the deal. Virtually each of the above “radon mitigationâ€

Good morning, Jesse: Just to set something straight, my education and experience doesn’t exceed that of any other poster on this board – my education and experience is just different than everyone else on this board. I’m not an home inspector, or a building inspector, and although I have inspected hundreds and hundreds of homes and buildings, I have never performed a single “home inspectionâ€

Aw shucks…. A little tremolite never hurt anyone… Actually, all joking aside. I assume that you are making mention of the vermiculite because of the concern for asbestos. Vermiculite may or may not contain tremolite or crysotile as secondary mineralization. It is entirely possible that the vermiculite is essentially “asbestos freeâ€

Good morning, Gents: Allow me to chime in. The issue regarding the overall comment that vapor barriers are not effective is due to the caution the instructors want to exercise so that “quick-fixesâ€

Good morning, Gents – I just now saw the video on the mould inspection scammers. I’d like to point out there are some issues that should be clarified. Some of the questions put to the IH, Brian Daly were loaded, and some of the responses appeared to be edited, and may have been presented out of context. And, importantly, the data quality objectives, and sampling rationale performed by Daly were not revealed in the video. By the way, I don’t know Mr. Daly and I have never met him; I have only ever reviewed one of his reports, and it would appear that he is a legitimate and competent IH. For example, the reporter asked Daly the following loaded question: “Can an expert tell that it's dangerous toxic mold just by lookingid="blue">?â€

Good morning, Gents – I haven't visited for a while. I have been slammed for the last several months. Kurt, thanks for the reference to the discussion by Pirages. Frankly, in large part, I blame my own profession and our affiliates, since we had the responsibility of educating the public and placing risks into perspective at the beginning of the whole “toxic mouldâ€

Hi Terry – Whereas with some compounds, there is a simple linear dose response curve, except that the left hand side of the risk curve is usually considered to be asymptotic and there is a point known as a NOEL (no observable adverse effect level) or LOEL (lowest observable adverse effect level). Usually the extreme right side of the curve, too, peters off; with a certain range in between the two extremes that exhibits some reasonable degree of linearity. However, with some materials, this dose-risk relation ship is GROSSLY in appropriate, and risk estimates based on the model are WIDLY inaccurate. The dose risk relationship is not the simple linear-no-threshold-dose-response the EPA insists on using, and not only is there no science to support their use of the model, buried deep within their risk estimates they come right out and admit that the use of the LNTDR curve is not appropriate (sometimes referred to as the “one-hit theory of carcinogenicity.â€

Hi Vik3001: 1) Jim Katen is dead on target. 2) Terry’s close 3) Kurt’s got a great point. In reality, the reading of 6.2 pCi/l tells you that the actual radon concentration (in pCi/l equivalents) is probably somewhere above 0.1 pCi/l and is probably somewhere below 15 pCi/l (but it may not be). The value to the right of the decimal is completely meaningless, and there is not even a statistically significant difference between a reading of, say, 2.0 pCi/l and 10 pCi/l. From an health risk perspective, there is ABSOLUTELY no difference in risk between say, 0.05 pCi/l and 40 pCi/l. Katen’s right since he correctly points out that the test is HIGHLY unreliable. Terry’s kinda close, but in truth, the property will never reach equilibrium since the concentration is a dynamic balance between 1) source, 2) sinks, and 3) pathways, and equilibrium is actually never seen in most cases, which is why the US EPA arbitrarily used a made up equilibrium ratio that has never been demonstrated to be correct. Kurt’s point is well taken since his comment addresses both accuracy and precision. The 6 month alpha tracks have an uncertainty of plus or minus about 50% when estimating the annual concentration (compared to plus or minus 90% for a 3 or 4 day test), and the 12 month alpha tracks have a plus or minus about 23% uncertainty for estimating the annual concentration. In any event, even if none of the above were true, look at it this way… Even if the very very very worst case risk scenarios regarding radon were true (which they are not), a concentration of 6.2 pCi/l would carry an increased risk of death roughly equal to being 2 pounds over weight! (And you would have to be exposed to that radon for 70 years). Hardly something to loose sleep over. The actual HARD scientific epidemiological studies suggest that at a concentration of 6.2 pCi/l, your risk of lung cancer is actually LESS than an house with no radon. But then, I believe in God - so what would I know, eh? 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 “Torgaâ€

Good morning, Gary: Thanks for the question which I see as having two elements; it addresses the accuracy of air samples, and the utility of tape samples. To begin, since the precision of fungal air samples is notoriously AWFUL, I assume you meant to say your expert friend said that the accuracy was good. But, your friend is wrong about the accuracy of air fungal samplers; the accuracy of an air sample for mould is almost as poor as the overall precision associated with air sampling (and the precision is REALLY bad, as you alluded in the fact that the value can change in a matter of minutes). The accuracy will be dependent on the specific method selected, but is mostly poor for all methods – which is why good air sampling theory requires us to rely on other statistical considerations (relevancy, reference and precision) to look at airborne mould results. Accuracy asks the question: How close is the reported value to the true value? (see my target drawing here http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/accurateonly.jpg) Precision asks: How reproducible are multiple measurements? (See my target drawing http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/preciseonly.jpg) So accuracy asks a pin-point question devoid of a time-frame. “Does my single air sample really reflect the airborne fungal profile as it exists right now?â€

Hello Gents- Just a quick note to chime in. Listen to Hausdok - those are pearls of wisdom. Last week I became involved in (yet another) legal suit as an expert – a multi million dollars on the line legal dispute. Guess whose gonna drop first? The Home Inspector. What did he do? He performed $5,000 worth of useless Pro-Lab “mould testingâ€

Hello All! As some of you may know, for the last couple of years I have been providing methlab training through the Colorado Department of Public Safety, Division of Criminal Justice. Although the training has been free, it has also been mostly restricted to law enforcement and emergency first responders, due to the “Law Enforcement Sensitiveâ€

Hi Zeb – Scott’s point is well taken. Many states have LBP specific regs. In my case, I used to have a couple of XRFs (lead-specific and broadband) which would allow me to take several hundreds of “samplesâ€

Hello Gents: Actually – the ad hominem attacks are normal fare in my business and the three posters (Fumento, Niton and ordasea) and are actually the same person; [:-paperba I also believe I know who the poster(s) really is; he is in Iowa and made a terrible embarrassment of himself in another forum. It looks like he did not learn his lesson… Maybe I should contact the ethics department at his university admin…. Hmm… As a general rule, folks like him lack technical competence to argue the technical aspects and must necessarily resort to ad hominem attacks. It’s for these reasons, that they never use their real names. In one case, the individual (a professor in Iowa) resorted to fabricating a new name (as he has done here) and began making posts about himself wherein he lauded himself as one of the greatest scientists to walk the Earth, whereas I was evil, stupid, corrupt, etc … what he didn’t realize was that the forum displayed his ISP number at the bottom of each post which actually identified him as the same guy…OOOPs. I don’t think he realizes that if I wasn’t so tolerant, I could probably own his university pension (not to mention his home) following a libel suit. His tactic was essentially the same as that seen here: The repetitive regurgitation of blocks of text, which out any apparent understanding of the content or context and the repetitive use of links. This is an exercise in tautology; repeat it over and again until you repeat it so often it becomes “fact.â€

Mike: Thanks for your service to our country. Les: My name is Irish, and the Irish alphabet was, until just recently, different than the English alphabet When I was a kid, we only had 18 letters in our alphabet! There was no “Qâ€