Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Default radon for the unbelievers

    I usually show folks a photo of my sixth grade class, taken in 1956, and say,"If you had told us that if you bring peanut butter cookies to school you'll make someone sick", we were to polite to laugh in your face but at recess there would have been hoots of laughter on the subject.

    Times change and circumstances can vary. We may argue about what levels are "bad" but I don't believe that anyone,(medical professionals), would say that ionizing radiation is good for you. I can find several folks that will look you right in the eye and say that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer.(not med professionals)

    Anyway, the previous levels in Canada were 20picoCuries per liter.

    Re: Calomine's post on Dr Fields.
    I don't know Calomine and I don't know Dr Fields. I do think that Calomine's paper on Meth Labs should be required reading for all Realtors, inspectors and appraisers. I also know that Dr Fields has an international reputation in the radon field. It's been my experience that in a university environment there are plenty of young phd's wanting a reputation and an easy way to get it is to point out shortcomings in someones data and/or research. Happens all the time and it's a way to get your name out and become tenured.
    Calomine's post sounded to me like a realtor talking about a home inspector.

    When I was young we never worried about radon, who on God's green earth would have thought you'd have to worry about peanut butter? Radon is only one of many soil gases that will come to the fore. You young guns just wait .....You'll be surprised. Crap, now I'm worried about dog food from China.
    steve stokes

    Similar Threads:
    Inspection Referral SOC

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1,822

    Default Re: radon for the unbelievers

    Why then do you think that the French go down into caves at 200+ levels.
    They are by their own definition the smartest people on earth and proved that by settling in Canada. Where they can grow grapes and sit at sidewalk cafe's year round. "Global Radon" The next new blockbuster by Al Gore Coming soon to a French theater near you.
    I believe the phrase, " Test now, or forever hold your peace".
    or is that piece. DEPENDS


  3. #3

    Default Re: radon for the unbelievers

    Hello Steve Stokes:

    Curious post. Not entirely sure about your point. However, considering that your hero Dr. Fields has, in the past, been so dishonest, that he has assumed a variety of false names and, under those false names, has gone onto public chat boards such as this, and heaped huge praises upon himself as a great international scientist, while launching personal attacks against others, including me, so I squint a little while reading your post. When Fields got caught in those lies, he lied about lying.

    What he doesn’t know is that some web masters see through his fabrications and are willing to provide the ISPN data that tracks his posts. Hmmm…

    Considering that Fields has even posted using the names of other actual people ( a crime in my state), some of whom are also involved in radon issues, how am I to know that you are really Steve Stokes? Give me call this morning at 303-903-7494. I’d be happy to chat with you. (Just ignore the police radio chatter in the background, for most of my working day today, I’ll be in the field, busy doing what I love to do – catch liars, cheats, and others who cause harm, give ‘em a free pair of silver bracelets and free ride in the back of my police car). I would be happy to discuss with anyone the concept of "criminal impersonation."

    Curious, that, similar to Fields’ MO, your first and only post on this board is about Fields.

    Now – on to your technical points- if you are the radon remediation guy named Steve Stokes, you may be a good radon remediation contractor, but, I’m afraid your science is a little weak.

    “I don't believe that anyone,(medical professionals), would say that ionizing radiation is good for you.”

    Really? I suggest you contact the National Cancer Institute (who has one or two medical professional on its staff) and ask them what they think about radiation therapy. Similarly, you may be interested in learning a new word: “hormesis;” look it up, you will find a bright new world before you.

    “I can find several folks that will look you right in the eye and say that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer.(not med professionals).”

    Yes, I know. I am one of them. We place the discussion in the context of "dose." Indeed, if you dig a little deeper, you will find that those who can so do, are probably also well versed in (get ready for some big words), epidemiology and toxicology. As such, we recognize the paradigm and foundational underpinning that governs toxic responses and that is: the dose makes the poison (or the therapy) and that even for cigarettes, there is a dose response curve such that there is a dose below which not only is there no observable adverse effect, but the number of certain kinds of cancers actually decrease. I know what that level is, do you? Turns out, it is about 4 fags per day. Recognize that number? That is the same number the EPA uses to describe the risk of residential radon – sounds scary, but what they’re really saying is that at equivalent doses, there is no known risk. Doesn’t sound like that, though does it? It's called a "scare tactic." You may not have heard, but as you say, things change, and the the one-hit theory of carcinogenicity has been dead for a couple of decades now.

    It’s easier to frighten people unnecessarily, and make one’s self out to be a hero who will then save them from the imaginary boogey men than to have the patience and perseverance and tell the public truth as we know it; that which is substantiated by facts.

    If you can find one, just one, legitimate scientific study, devoid of fatal confounding flaws, that conclusively shows that exposures to residential radon substantially increase the risk of cancer, please provide the citation here. If you can, you will be in possession of the only such study on earth. Because, to my knowledge, not a single study has ever been able to demonstrate that - and hundreds of studies have demonstrated the contrary.

    I swear, I don’t get the peanut butter thing.

    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


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Near Philly, Pa.
    Posts
    1,633

    Cool Re: radon for the unbelievers

    Steven, it is considered etiquette to refer to someone by their name and not some slur. The gentleman's name is "Caoimhin"--he is not calomine lotion. Even if you disagree with him, please don't resort to childish games on this site.

    I don't know who this this Dr. Fields is and I am certainly not an expert on radon. I will say that based on my experience as a paramedic, I saw plenty of studies that were junk. They were not structured properly and did not use proper scientific method. From a PhD friend of mine, who was into cancer research and genetics, where an article gets published can be as important as the content of the article. If your study is questionable or junk, you will not get it published in respected journals. Moreover, before your work is really accepted, it usually must undergo peer review. The more in depth the review, generally the more valid the result. However, there is corruption at all levels and we learned there is a flood of junk science in this country. There is no single reliable yardstick to measure what is good and what is fluff.

    I can see Caoimhin's point about the dearth of quality studies on lung cancer and cigarettes. I have always heard smoking had a better chance of killing you through heart disease combined with other risk factors and lung CA was statistically much lower in incidence rates for smokers.

    Let's all be nice and respectful here.
    Thx,
    Bob

    Oh, Caoimhin, I think he was referring to the growing incidence rate of anaphylaxis from peanuts.

    Keep the fire in the fireplace.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    1,217

    Default Re: radon for the unbelievers

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Harper View Post
    I have always heard . . . lung CA was statistically much lower in incidence rates for smokers.
    That's interesting. I would like to see that data.

    "Baseball is like church. Many attend but few understand." Leo Durocher
    Bruce Breedlove
    www.avaloninspection.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    3,177

    Default Re: radon for the unbelievers

    Not trying to speak for Bob, but I think he must have meant that the incidence of lung cancer in smokers is lower than the incidence of cardiovascular disease in smokers, which I believe is true. Lung cancer is not the best reason to stop smoking, cardiovascular disease is.

    "There is no exception to the rule that every rule has an exception." -James Thurber, writer and cartoonist (1894-1961)
    www.ArnoldHomeInspections.com

  7. #7

    Default Re: radon for the unbelievers

    WOW
    I just got in and found a couple of messages in my personal e-mail.....one from a friend saying,"You big dummy, at least spell the man's name right".
    What can he be talking about? So now I've been to the list and saw Bob's post and the light dawns!
    ....... foot and mouth thing again.....
    I'm an old phart and the only games I'm interested in are with my grandchildren.I ment no disrespect and the mistake was in not proofing the message. The spell checker said,"Good" and I hit the send button.
    I do remember thinking as I was typing the post that I was using Caoimhin's first name and referring to Dr Fields with his title. But I figure that we're part of this HI list and we're all family and first names are permitted.
    If anyone was offended, I ask your forgiveness, no offence was intended.
    I'm sure that in this field we all can disagree on a lot of things but probably agree on many more than not.
    steve stokes


  8. #8

    Default Re: radon for the unbelievers

    Hello Mr. Stokes:

    No harm – No foul. With a foreign name like “Caoimhín” I expect misspellings, and indeed, it can be a way to “break the ice.” Many Irish simply change their names to more common sounding names. Indeed, for many years, I did as well and went by a different nickname for almost 25 years.

    Just a couple of weeks ago the AIHA announced a new publication “Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratory Assessment and Remediation Guidance” by … “Caoolmhin D. Connell” Sigh … even my own professional organization didn’t get it right! (Shows you how I rank, eh?) At least the publisher spelled it right in the book.

    I'm sure that in this field we all can disagree on a lot of things but probably agree on many more than not.

    I agree!

    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


    Last edited by Caoimhín P. Connell; 07-20-2007 at 04:07 AM. Reason: I forgot to include my name!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •