Good morning, all –

I was recently contacted off-list and advised that some participants of this list may suffer from legitimate mental and/or emotional issues and made it clear earlier that I had no intention of increasing the personal burden on anyone. Having said that, I think it is equally important to address specific objective issues, without my usual tongue-in-cheek jabs (however harmless I may mean them to be).

So, without identifying any person in particular, where, for example, a participant like, Mr. Gerhart, makes a statement or tautology that is objectively incorrect, it benefits all to point out those errors.

As I have mentioned in the past, it is truly incomprehensible how profoundly incorrect Mr. Gerharts assertions are, and how profoundly incompetent his technical grasp of the subject matter. It is similarly difficult to understand how when one answers Mr. Gerhart, he doesn’t seem to realize that someone has actually provided him with the information he requested, and he seems to carry one with his arguments as if no-one is actually responding. Mr. Gerhart banters around a lot of words and phrases of which he clearly has absolutely no concept of what they mean, how they are used, their limitations, or the concept which underlie they terms and words. Instead, he seems to just keep repeating links, and references to work he has never read, and clearly is incapable of understanding.

As an example – in an earlier post, Mr. Gerhart stated:

Dr. Kitto's info was not published because the MIA is trying to get their hands on it before it is finished. His original study is posted in its place, and shows that most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.

This is a good example of how Mr. Gerhart exhibits not only a complete lack of understanding of what a researcher is saying, but even an apparent obsession to take what is being said, and pervert the statement into something that is not being said, but that seems to support his otherwise unsupported argument. So, Let’s see what Dr. Kitto actually said…

Contrary to what Mr. Gerhart believes, Dr. Kitto did NOT say that “…most granite will raise a homes level under 1 pCi/L but it is possible to raise the Radon levels over 4 pCi/L.” Rather, Dr. Kitto’s paper concluded that: “It is estimated that in most cases, the contribution of decorative stone to the indoor radon concentration will be less than 1 pCi/l, but may exceed 4 pCi/l in rare cases.”

What this means is precisely what the author states: It is unlikely that the radon contributed into an home by decorative stone will be significant. That’s all. Considering that there is not a single study yet performed to date, that has demonstrated that this kind of contribution (even if it is above 4 pCi/l) results in any known demonstrable risk, it is a moot point.

It is clear that Mr. Gerhart is incapable of reading, let alone understanding what is written by other people. Even on this forum, Mr. Gerhart entirely ignores or otherwise completely misunderstands or deliberately misconstrues or deliberately mischaracterizes what other people say. There is a very real phenomenon known as “pathological science” and a specific psychological profile is particularly susceptible to the advancement of ideas developed under poor science and an understanding of scientific processes.

At the heart of the advancement is the repetition of references, and statements to the exclusion of any kind of consideration of what is being said, and the denial of contradictory objective fact. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how many times you answer Mr. Gerhart, or provide him with examples of studies or legitimate references, because he won’t read them, can’t understand them, and will simply continue to deny they exist and continue to ask “Why won’t you back up what you say?”

It is sad, but it is true.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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