Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com
Your post are always very enlightening
Thank you
Caoimhin:
If your thread drift was designed to belittle my total lack of formal education… you’ve succeeded. You’ve also succeeded in demonstrating how someone with a formal education can at times… just not get it and that is part of the reason I try not to hire college graduates.
The reason one can use uranium miners to calculate the risk for mere homeowners is that the risk from radiation is considered to be linear, no threshold. In other words, the more the worse (like the poor uranium miners), the less the better (like the nurse who hides behind the wall when you get an X-ray taken). True for most risks.
Anyway, if you read my post #18 above… I already stated that one can never be 100% certain about what caused the cancer (but that doesn’t stop the nurse from hiding behind that wall now does it?).
However, your post #20, which reiterates my point that one can’t know for certain what caused the cancer, oddly then goes on to state that the uranium miners DID die from radon! You are certain of it to the point that you even excluded them in your silly Nobel Prize contest.
So much for that college education huh? Hee hee. See if you can get your tuition back… you are most deserving of a full refund.
Nick,
Interesting that you are discriminating against college graduates, but sad.
Caoimhin,
you can twist it and turn like you want, even if protocols define to measure contaminations in workloads, physics is not being changed not for the EPA and not for me or you, so the relationchip between pCi/L & 37 Bq/m[size=1]3 [size=2]from 1Ci/L = 37 Bq/m[size=1]3 [/size][/size][/size]remains.
Caoimhín, in my short experience here, Nick has never been concerned about being technically accurate. He is concerned about selling things and creating hype to sell them, like mold and radon test kits.
He is also very good at reading what he wants to and remembering what he wants to. But on the other hand, he is very good at what he does.
Mr. Newman:
Your comment:
even if protocols define to measure contaminations in workloads, physics is not being changed not for the EPA and not for me or you, so the relationchip between pCi/L & 37 Bq/m3 from 1Ci/L = 37 Bq/m3 remains
is true, but similarly my comment
My point was that 1 pCi/L of radon as reported using the EPA protocols does not equal 37 Bq/m3 because 1 pCi/L of radon as reported using the EPA protocols, does not equal 1 pCi/L in air. The pCi/L of radon using the EPA protocol is a made-up number that does not have a basis in objective fact, and is not based on physical realities. It is a made-up number based on a specific protocol.
is also true. I hope you can see that, and I hope that you can see that I’m not disagreeing with you, I am augmenting your statement with another truth.
Mr. Gromicko:
Most of your post, but particularly your comment:
The reason one can use uranium miners to calculate the risk for mere homeowners is that the risk from radiation is considered to be linear, no threshold.
Is quite simply untrue, and underscores my observations.
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
Caoimhin:
Try to keep up with the currrent thinking on the subject.
Even the man (Craig Venter) who was first to sequence the human genome said on the Charlie Rose show about 10 days ago about how they are starting to take a different view.
His quote:
“Cancer is getting broken down into more and more separate diseases as we’re able to subdivide the diagnostics and the genes associated with them, but we’re starting to take a different view of viewing cancer as an overall disease, and we’re looking at gene space where we think it can be targeted to deal with cancer as a whole. A lot of cancer’s been looked at genetically, and while there are genetic predispositions to cancer that we all have it’s actually somatic mutations that we get from toxins in the environment, from radiation, etc., that usually lead to cancer. The model is that as we accumulate mutations in more and more genes, we cross a threshold where all of a sudden we have unregulated cell growth.”
How true.
Mr. Connell, thank you for the education and insight. Some will simply believe what they choose to believe, regardless of the complete lack of scientific evidence to support it. For those of us who care about accurate and reliable information on the subject, your posts are excellent and appreciated.
How much more scientific evidence does one need? Even the man who sequenced the human genome (who we would expect to be biased against environmental causes) says…
"it’s actually somatic mutations that we get from toxins in the environment, from radiation, etc., that usually lead to cancer."
Not my words, don’t shoot the messenger.
I would expect nothing less from you than to ignore the very specific, scientifically based and factually supported conclusions presented by a professional in the field, in favor of a vague quote that offers no scientific support to your arguement, and likely was given in response to something completely unrelated to radon, specifically.
This is, after all, NACHI - where facts and logic come to die in the face of nick’s opinion…
Good morning, Mr. Gromicko:
Regarding, your comment:
Caoimhin:
Try to keep up with the currrent thinking on the subject.
Even the man (Craig Venter) who was first to sequence the human genome said on the Charlie Rose show about 10 days ago about how they are starting to take a different view.
Actually, you are a little confused, again. The quote you attribute to Venter is not a reflection of ground-breaking science, but is, in fact, actually rather old hat. If you had been in one of my toxicology and risk lectures at the University of Denver some eleven years ago (maybe twelve), you would have received that same information then. I dunno, ya think Venter may have been one of my students?
But since you have such a low regard for folks who have a college education, why would you believe this Venter guy anyway? - I suspect he is a college grad (maybe not).
In any event, doesn’t the Vice President of NAHCI have a PhD?
I consider the matter closed.
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
Caoimhin:
I didn’t say college grads where unbelievable, I said I try not to hire them.
Anyway…
The World Health Organization (WHO):
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/env/radon/en/
Centers for Disease Control (CDC):
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/brochure/profile_radon.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/clusters/Fallon/radonfaq.htm
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR):
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HEC/CSEM/radon/docs/radon.pdf
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5499&page=1
University of Iowa:
http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/misc/radon.html
But what do they know, they aren’t forensic IHs.
Oh and this one is a good one: http://dels.nas.edu/nrsb/presentations/sarah_darby.pdf
… a little slow to download though.
Frame # 11 in the aforementioned pdf looks pretty linear to me.
Hello Mr. Gromicko:
We have just come full circle. I have already addressed the studies you have referenced. I have even told you what the researchers themselves have to say about their own studies. You desparately want to ignore these facts, and that’s fine. I’m not going to keep saying the same thing for your benefit. If you don’t want to accept what these very researchers say about their own studies, it’s simply no concern of mine.
It’s entirely one thing to reference these documents. It is another thing altogether, to read them, understand them, and apply them.
Your membership seems to be very astute. I think they can understand these issues somewhat better.
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
Wow Caoimhin, you just won the award for vaguest post of all time! Congrats!
You were losing being specific, smart retreat.
Mr Connell
You have started to make your point not with fact but by attacking people - NOT GOOD
My background is probably equal to yours or maybe even greater in this area
Here is the question – Do you think one should know what the alpha radiation level is in ones home so one can say yes or no if one wants to change that level to live there?
Some people do not want their kids to be around second hand smoke even from your cigar (I smoke)
Most of us understand that radiation can help and hurt us depending on how, when, where, how much, how fast etc
I do not think someone is going to make money putting extra Radon into a home to help ones health at this point in time
Get real - It is easy to make it go away and it does not cost a lot of $$ to make it do so
At what level would you want it to not be around for your grad kids???
---- As a side note – Our Nuclear Subs were cleaner that our homes when I was serving as a reactor operator. Alpha radiation was something that we desired to be very low. (By product of radon)
Radon dials on watches were not allowed on board - All radon painted knobs on radio equipment had to be removed.
No test about long term exposure were conducted – The rule was NO
Yes, knowledge is how it should be - and not emotion - but a face mask is not a bad thing in a dusty area until all the facts are a little more clear
I want my basement full of clean radon free air
And by the way the reason for the requirement for the low alpha level one our neuclear subs was what???
It might take a little bit of research on that one but if you do not know you should enjoy the answer and the research
rlb
Hello Mr. Bennett:
Actually, I think that most of your post actually argues against your self. Here’s how:
“You have started to make your point not with fact but by attacking people - NOT GOOD”
If you believe this, then you haven’t read my posts. I have not attacked anyone, I have tolerated many personal attacks without retributions, and I have not only provided a wealth of facts, I have also provided dozens of references to back them up. Your comment is made in a vacuum without substance.
”My background is probably equal to yours or maybe even greater in this area”
Yet your post here contains so many technical errors that it is patently obvious you have very little actual technical competence in the area. This isn’t an attack (although you will undoubtedly become defensive and view it as one)- rather it is an objective statement backed-up up with facts: Here they are:
You say:
“Radon dials on watches were not allowed on board - All radon painted knobs on radio equipment had to be removed.”
There is no such thing as a “Radon dial.” You made that up. You so lack technical competency in the area of radiation safety that you don’t realize your error. Radon cannot be “painted” on anything. In spite of the training you received in the Navy (and thank you for your service and sacrifice) if you had even the slightest rudimentary training in actual radiation safety, you would have known this. So, here’s your first lesson for the day:
Radon is a gas. Radium is the stuff that was painted on dials. Radium is a solid. Radon is one of the (many) decay chain products of radium.
Lesson Two: (found in the answers to your questions).
“I want my basement full of clean radon free air”
Then you will have to move to a different universe; because EVERY house in the world contains radon. Every house with a radon mitigation system contains radon. If you were versed in radiation safety you would have known this.
“Get real - It is easy to make it go away and it does not cost a lot of $$ to make it do so”
Wrong again – “Get real” indeed – the cost necessary to “get rid” of radon form an house is SOOO expensive, it has never been accomplished in a single house ever. EVERY house with a radon mitigation system contains radon. If you were versed in radiation safety, you would have known this.
“Here is the question – Do you think one should know what the alpha radiation level is in ones home so one can say yes or no if one wants to change that level to live there?”
Here again, you are very confused. When a radon test is performed in an home pursuant to the EPA protocols, one does NOT know the alpha radiation level in the home (which is something I have discussed in length on this board). Instead, one knows what is called the radon PAEC based on a presumed equilibration ratio.
If you want to know the REAL alpha radiation level in your house, don’t call the CDC, don’t call the EPA, don’t call Nick Gromicko with a goofy little short term test, you will have to call an Health Physicist or an Industrial Hygienist who will come out to you house and will NOT use the EPA protocol and will perform a radiation survey.
“At what level would you want it [radon] to not be around for your grad kids???”
Ignoring the confusing syntax of the question for a moment; I understand the question. For a start, what’s the specified ER? In any event, the better answer is also a question: At what level do the risk assessments show harm to occur? (i.e… what is the LOEL?)
“And by the way the reason for the requirement for the low alpha level one our neuclear subs was what???”
The answer to this question is that the US Nukes were powered by U235 (not radon, Mr.Bennet); U235 is a massive alpha emitter. How do you quickly determine if you have a U235 leak or leak in the system? Why, measure the alpha concentration (Didja ever wonder why the US Navy didn’t use the EPA radon protocol to measrue radon on their ships? Now THAT’s a funny thought!)
By the way – if you are afraid of alpha radiation, then for heavens sake, stay away from milk, (1,200 pCi/L), beer (800 pCi/L), and bananas give off so much radiation that alarms were once triggered at the Rocky Flats plant by a banana coming out of the facility in a worker’s lunch box! Indeed, just looking at K40 (such as bananas), most Americans will consume about 3 or 4g of naturally occurring potassium each day. This radioactive material calculates to about 2,100 pCi of K40 which means (as pointed out by our good friend, Mr. Newman) a little over 80 radioactive decays each second. Mr. Bennett, do you realize that the 150 some-odd grams of potassium in a normal healthy US man contains about 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of K40; that equates to about 4,400 disintegrations per second. And that’s just from the potassium! And that occurs in our bodies each second we live! At least 98 % of these disintegrations take place within body cells, and are potentially capable of altering the cell’s DNA. So why doesn’t that happen and why aren’t we all dead from cancer by the age of five? Ask Mr. Gromicko - he’ll tell you we are (objective facts notwithstanding).
Hmmm…. Read my previous posts, and you will find the answer.
“Most of us understand that radiation can help and hurt us depending on how, when, where, how much, how fast etc”
By this comment, you demonstrate that unquestionably, you are far more versed in radiation physicis and safety than Mr. Gromicko.
Finally, regarding the rest of your comments – I find the following remarkably confused non sequiturs of which I am not sure how to respond:
*I do not think someone is going to make money putting extra Radon into a home to help ones health at this point in time
*No test about long term exposure were conducted – The rule was NO
*Yes, knowledge is how it should be - and not emotion - but a face mask is not a bad thing in a dusty area until all the facts are a little more clear
*
(By the way, did you know that the dust in the air decreases the risk from elevated radon expsoures? Hmmmm… go figure. Know why?)
*
**Some people do not want their kids to be around second hand smoke even from your cigar (I smoke)
*
The mind boggles.
Alas - I think the leader was correct “Colorado man dies from radon” The frustration of the discussion pushed him to the bottle, and the excessive whiskey collapsed his liver - and he died from radon.
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
Yes, I do know why “dust in the air decreases the risk from elevated radon.” It is because the dangerous unattached fraction decreases in a dusty room.
Anyway Caoimhin… is this your personal website? http://members.aol.com/Naimhling/frames.html
I should warn you that one of the reasons the data from Uranium miners is skewed is that they likely breathed more heavily during the manual labor of mining than homeowners… so be careful with those bag pipes http://members.aol.com/Naimhling/frames.html Don’t blow too hard.
Where’s the skirt Rambo???
“nany nany boo boo, stick your head in doo doo”.
Nick and Linas, you forgot to end your posts with “nany nany boo boo, stick your head in doo doo”.
I changed it Jeffery. Does that suite you now?? Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.