Radon myths and units

These message board pages are now for archival purposes only. Please visit https://www.nachi.org/forum/ for our most recent forum discussions.

Radon myths and units

AuthorMessage
Brian Kelly

Dwelling Doctors LLC
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1699
User: bkelly2
Posted: Aug 17, 2005 2:39 PM       Post Subject:
Quote:
So to answer your question, even very low radon exposures HAVE THE POTENTIAL to cause cancer. However, the chances at very low concentrations (less than 1 pCi/L) are extremely low. As compared to other risks, I personally would call exposures less than 1 pCi/L relatively safe


So Bill in your opinion radon levels less than1 pCi/L would be ok and levels greater than 1 pCi/L would require some action?

--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Back to Top
Bill Field
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 6
Posted: Aug 17, 2005 6:31 PM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Quote:
So Bill in your opinion radon levels less than1 pCi/L would be ok and levels greater than 1 pCi/L would require some action?


That is a personal choice and in some cases it may be very difficult to remediate a home below 3 or 4 pCi/L. I would follow the Surgeon General's guidance that concentrations should be reduced to 4 pCi/L or below as a year round average. See:
http://www.epa.gov/radon/

I mitigated my home when I saw the results of the studies. The radon concentrations over time were getting higher (likely as new cracks developed in the foundation, etc) in my home. It now averages between 1.5 and 2.5 pCi/L , which is pretty good for Iowa where 70% of radon screening readings are above 4 pCi/L.

I hope this answers your question.

See Surgeon General's report below- Radon's health effects are not limited to one political party.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343


Surgeon General Releases National Health Advisory On Radon
U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona warned the American public about the risks of breathing indoor radon by issuing a national health advisory today. The advisory is meant to urge Americans to prevent this silent radioactive gas from seeping into their homes and building up to dangerous levels. Dr. Carmona issued the advisory during a two-day Surgeon General's Workshop on Healthy Indoor Environment.

"Indoor radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States and breathing it over prolonged periods can present a significant health risk to families all over the county," Dr. Carmona said. "It's important to know that this threat is completely preventable. Radon can be detected with a simple test and fixed through well-established venting techniques."

Radon is an invisible, odorless and tasteless gas, with no immediate health symptoms, that comes from the breakdown of uranium inside the earth. Simple test kits can reveal the amount of radon in any building. Those with high levels can be fixed with simple and affordable venting techniques. According to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, one in every 15 homes nationwide have a high radon level at or above the recommended radon action level of 4 picoCuries (pCi/L) per liter of air.

National Health Advisory on Radon

Radon gas in the indoor air of America's homes poses a serious health risk. More than 20,000 Americans die of radon-related lung cancer every year. Millions of homes have an elevated radon level. If you also smoke, your risk of lung cancer is much higher. Test your home for radon every two years, and retest any time you move, make structural changes to your home, or occupy a previously unused level of a house. If you have a radon level of 4 pCi/L or more, take steps to remedy the problem as soon as possible.

"Americans need to know about the risks of indoor radon and have the information and tools they need to take action. That's why EPA is actively promoting the Surgeon General's advice urging all Americans to get their homes tested for radon. If families do find elevated levels in their homes, they can take inexpensive steps that will reduce exposure to this risk," said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

"Based on national averages, we can expect that many of the homes owned or financed by federal government programs would have potentially elevated radon levels. The federal government has an opportunity to lead by example on this public health risk. We can accomplish this by using the outreach and awareness avenues we have, such as EPA's Web site, to share information and encourage action on radon to reduce risks," said Edwin Pi?ero, Federal Environmental Executive, Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE).

A national Public Service Announcement (PSA) that was released to television stations across America in January, National Radon Action Month, is reinforcing this recently updated health advisory. In the television spot, the camera scans a neighborhood with rooftop banners that remind the occupants of the importance to test their homes for radon. The television PSA can be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/radon/rnpsa.html

For more information about radon go to EPA's Web site www.epa.gov/radon; or call your state radon office; or call a national toll-free hotline at 1-800-SOS-RADON (1-800-767-7236).

The Surgeon General's Workshop on Healthy Indoor Environment is bringing together the best scientific minds in the nation to discuss the continuing problem of unhealthful buildings. Indoor environments are structures including workplaces, schools, offices, houses and apartment buildings, and vehicles. According to a recent study, Americans spend between 85 and 95 percent of their time indoors.

In just the past 25 years, the percentage of health evaluations that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has conducted related to indoor-air quality has increased from 0.5 percent of all evaluations in 1978, to 52 percent of all evaluations since 1990. This means that in those years, the evaluations related to air quality concerns have increased from one of every 200 evaluations to one of every two.

The problem is also adversely affecting our children's health as millions of homes and apartments and one in five schools in America have indoor air quality problems. This can trigger various allergies and asthma. Asthma alone accounts for 14 million missed school days each year. The rate of asthma in young children has risen by 160 percent in the past 15 years, and today one out of every 13 school-age children has asthma. Dr. Carmona is especially focusing on how unhealthy indoor environment affects children, as he promotes 2005 as The Year of the Healthy Child.


Regards, Bill
Back to Top
Brian Kelly

Dwelling Doctors LLC
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1699
User: bkelly2
Posted: Aug 17, 2005 7:00 PM       Post Subject:
Thank You Bill.

--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Back to Top
Jay Moge
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Very Active Poster
Posts: 694
Posted: Aug 17, 2005 7:59 PM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
oh sure just keep 'em going. icon_rolleyes.gif
Back to Top
Caoimh?n P. Connell
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 108
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:19 PM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Hello folks ?

I confess that I haven?t read all of the questions posed on this board since my last posting. And I did not read a lot of the repeated material by Dr. Fields. However, let me address some of the questions I did read, and also address some of the off-line issues that have been raised. (Please, post your questions to me here, as I don?t always get around to answering direct emails on the subject.)

For a start, Brian Kelly, your question is a good one, and Dr. Field?s response helps to underpin my position that he hasn?t quite got an handle on the technical aspects of the issue. For example, Dr. Fields opines that ?Risks are all relative. What one person considers safe another person may not.? In making this statement, Dr. Fields begins to indicate his unfamiliarity with the terms of the business ? in that his answer confuses ?risk? and ?safety.? It simply is not true that all risks are relative, and in many cases we have absolute risk, and indeed we can quantify those risks as absolute. However, what we cannot quantify is ?safety? since the issue of safety is perceptual and subjective, and frequently even irrational. It is partially because of statements like this that I realize that Dr. Field is, well, out of his field. Dr. Fields answers your question by saying ?So to answer your question, even very low radon exposures HAVE THE POTENTIAL to cause cancer.? But he does not go on to clarify that that potential may be so low as to be non-existent from a practical perspective. In other words, it is equally true to say that Eating a single peanut (exposure to a single peanut) HAS THE POTENTIAL to cause cancer. However, without the benefit of placing that statement within the context of the actual risk ? what kind of a conclusion will you draw? Answer: Peanuts are dangerous at all levels. But are they?

Dr. Fields also brings up the recent North American and European Pooling of Residential Radon Studies paper (in fact he brings up the reference more than once). Now, to be honest, Dr. Fields is a minor author (listed sixth on the list) of that study, and so I won?t state that he has a vested interest in it. But frankly, I have to conclude that either Dr. Fields did not read the study, or lacks the technical ability to understand what the study found. I say this because in a nut-shell, ?his? study provides far more support for my argument that his!

Let?s see what ?his? study says ? For a start, he states that the study DIRECTLY examines the relationship between residential radon exposure and lung cancer. This statement is ABSOLUTELY not correct. The study in question is called a ?metaanalysis? study which is an analysis of an analysis or an analysis ? etc. In such a study, the errors associated with the foundational study used in the analysis are often ignored, and frequently compounded (and the probability of systematic errors increases).

So let?s see what ?his? study says, and why it supports my argument, not his: (by the way, as a risk modeler myself, I am not casting stones at the actual authors, rather, I am casting stones at the inappropriate interpretations of the study by Dr, Fields). The Pooled Study states:


To date, 20 case? control studies of residential radon and lung cancer have been completed, including 7 studies in North America, 11 in Europe, and 2 in China (Table 1). Some of these studies reported a positive or weakly positive association between lung cancer risk and residential radon concentrations, whereas others have reported results consistent with no association.


OK? in layman?s terms this statement acknowledges that not all studies have shown that exposure to radon, at concentrations associated with household exposures, produces a risk of cancer ? indeed some studies show no increased risk of cancer.

The study then contains a terrible logic gaffaw which I am rather surprised to see survive the peer review process:


?To date, no case? control study has reported a statistically significant negative association.?


The lack of a negative correlation study, cannot ever, ever, EVER be used as support for an argument of causation or hypotheses test (even a null hypothesis test) since, in an argument known as reductio ad absurdem , it requires one to prove a negative; which is impossible. It is rather like saying ?To date, no case? control study has reported a statistically significant negative association between looking at a blue chair, and developing glaucoma. Ergo, we have found evidence that looking at blue chairs can cause glaucoma.? Essentially what we have is a terrible editing problem in an otherwise interesting (but largely uninformative) paper.

Dr.Fields own study makes it very clear that:


Although excess odds ratios for all but 2 studies (West Germany and Shenyang, China) were positive, confidence limits included the null value of zero in all but 4 studies...


(Layman?s terms: The studies failed to show evidence that radon exposure results in significant cancer risk!) and continues with?


These results reflect a range of lung cancer risks, including the possibility of no risk , suggesting the need for an overall assessment of the findings from different studies.


This IS EXACTLY what I have been saying ? and which Dr. Fields argues against. If it was wrong, why then did he not object to the inclusion of the statement in a paper that bears his name? (I have the answer in my back pocket, and it will remain there, in deference to professional courtesy toward Dr. Fields, who may choose explain for himself, or not). I don?t care to go there.

Further, this recent study, that is held up as a banner by Dr. Fields, which openly tells us that 1) a lot of studies show that radon doesn?t cause a problem as concentrations seen in houses, and those that do only show a ?weak? correlation, the study starts right off by telling us that:


Underground miners exposed to high levels of radon have an excess risk of lung cancer. Residential exposure to radon is at much lower levels, and the risk of lung cancer with residential exposure is less clear.


No kidding. This is what I have been saying ? quite in contrast to the definitive nature of Fields? statements here on this thread which are entirely devoid of doubt and uncertainty. The reality is that Fields? own study makes it clear that we don?t have sufficient evidence to conclude that radon exposure at concentrations seen in houses results in a significant risk.

Fields study makes a statement that is DIRECTLY in opposition to his comments here on this board. Fields has stated in this thread that
?Additional studies are now complete DIRECTLY examining the relationship between residential radon exposure and lung cancer.?


This is absolutely NOT true, and in fact, in Fields? own study, the authors very clearly and unequivocally state EXACTLY the opposite:


The National Research Council has estimated that residential radon may account for 10% to 15% of the lung cancer burden in the United States. However, there has been no unambiguous direct evidence of an increased lung cancer risk associated with residential exposures.


That?s worth repeating since it is PRECISELY what I have been saying here, and it is exactly the opposite of what Fields has been saying here. So to repeat Fields OWN study states:


However, there has been no unambiguous direct evidence of an increased lung cancer risk associated with residential exposures.


I respectfully submit that either Dr. Fields did not read the study which he references, or possibly that he lacks the technical expertise to understand what the study says. And as a personal note, to Dr. Fields, I say that with all due respect ? but what other conclusion can I possibly draw, when your own words on this thread are entirely inconsistent with the study to which you allude?

Dr. Fields further states in this thread:


Residential radon studies do not require linear no threshold extrapolations, so this is not an issue.


Of course they don?t, that is the whole bloody point, for heaven?s sake. Not only do they not require linear no threshold extrapolations, they should NOT be used since they are grossly inappropriate (which is what Bernie Cohen?s studies demonstrated ? all the rest of Dr. Field?s talk about hypothesis testing indicates further evidence that Dr. Fields is terribly confused and doesn?t understand the nature of these issues). In any event, apparently Dr. Fields is not aware of the fact that in ?his? own study, the lower confidence interval in the overall data gave a negative correlation; with the mean value ever so slightly positive; even in the restricted data set, the LCI was flat (indicting no risk). I?m am not sure that Dr. Fields understands this since it argues completely against what he has attempted to state on this board. Still further, if these exposure studies not require linear no-threshold extrapolations, and they should not be used, then why, in the name of good science, did Fields attribute his name to a metaanalysis that relied EXCLUSIVELY on linear no threshold extrapolations? The Pooled Study to which he alludes states:


All analyses were conducted using conditional likelihood regression with a linear model for the odds ratio (OR) of the form OR(x) =1+Bx, where x is the mean residential radon concentration in the exposure time window in Bq/m3 and B is the excess odds ratio


Dr Fields, if its inappropriate, and its not required ? why was it used, and why did you argue in favour of it in one place and agin it here? Why are there so many glaring contradictions between what you have presented here on this thread and what you have presented in ?your? paper? And how, in the light of such GLARING inconsistencies do you have the gumption, to call my challenges a ?disservice.? It would be an act of disservice to ignore this kind of behaviour.

Fields paper tells us:

Although radon is one of the most extensively investigated human lung carcinogens, the weight of evidence for radon carcinogenicity derives largely from occupational studies of underground miners exposed to much higher radon levels than those typically encountered in homes.


Don?t we know it. This was EXACTLY the same data set which the NRC stated

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.


But folks, we don?t. It?s that simple. We don?t. And when the foundational data set upon which the metaanalyses are performed are flawed, those metaanalyses are also necessarily flawed unless corrected ? which in the case of the Pooled data study ? they absolutely were NOT.

(I need to slow down a bit, and take a break, my wife tells me I?m furiously pounding the keyboard again?) Pauses to breath? OK. I?m back. Where was I? Oh yes, pontificating?

Dr Fields ?own? study states speaks to the issue of those challenged data:

There are also marked differences between the conditions of exposure in mines and in houses. These differences include the relative proportion of radon itself to its decay products (which affects the amount of energy deposited in the lung), respiratory rate (which affects the rate radon and its decay products are inhaled and retained in the lung), and particle size distributions (which affect the fraction of radon progeny attached to particles and the depth of penetration and site of deposition within the lung). All of these factors complicate the direct extrapolation of occupational data on radon lung cancer risks to residential settings.


No kidding. Isn?t this what I?ve been saying?

Dr. Field?s study tells us:

Metaanalyses of published odds ratios from North American and other residential radon case? control studies found a statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk. However, the odds ratios in 13 studies included in the more recent metaanalysis exhibited heterogeneity among studies, possibly as a result of the inability to directly adjust for other confounding factors.


Folks, the subtlety and profound importance of this statement cannot be overstressed ? since within the cause of the heterogeneity lies the crux of the problem, and the foundation of my argument. For example, smoking remained a confounder in four of the seven studies and in NONE of the studies was there a negative control.

Let?s look briefly at the validity of the data sets used in the metaanalysis:


The Iowa study also measured only one home?.


OUCH!

?and historical profiles of radon concentrations in houses based on detector measurements or on the original investigators? best estimates.


OUCH!

Results are based on the best estimates of radon concentrations, including both measured and imputed radon values supplied by the collaborating investigators.


OUCH!


The residential radon measurements in these case?control studies are subject to measurement error. No formal adjustment for this source of error was attempted. Such adjustments require repeated radon measurement in the same


OUCH!

The authors are honest and tell us:

The analysis is inherently limited by the quality and reporting of the original residential radon studies, as well as the need for a common data format.


The tautology of the argument was not overlooked by the authors who stated,

It is possible that the findings for the restricted data were the consequence of differentially excluding participants in the negative studies.


Look; I?m not trying to slam Dr. Field, I am sure he is now rather embarrassed about referencing a paper which he obviously didn?t read or didn?t understand. Neither am I casting stones at the primary authors (Fields was only a minor author, listed sixth), who performed a metaanalysis and appeared to be quite open with their assumptions. Indeed overall, the paper was important in that it reemphasied many of the things that I have argued in these radon threads.

Ultimately, my problem lies with policy wonks and others who parade poor science as fact, and present conclusion not supported by their data, and or conclusions bereft of context and/or perspective. I would like to thank Dr. Fields for referencing a study, indeed participating in a study that very effectively argues my point.

Cheers ? I?m going fishing.

Caoimh?n P. Connell
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
Back to Top
Kevin Williams

NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1477
User: kwilliams
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 3:34 PM       Post Subject:
WOW ----- interesting reading for sure
thanks for some of the layman?s terms,
I for one could use more......
Back to Top
Harry
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 2
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 9:04 PM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Quote:
Look; I?m not trying to slam Dr. Field, I am sure he is now rather embarrassed about referencing a paper which he obviously didn?t read or didn?t understand. Neither am I casting stones at the primary authors (Fields was only a minor author, listed sixth), who performed a metaanalysis and appeared to be quite open with their assumptions. Indeed overall, the paper was important in that it reemphasied many of the things that I have argued in these radon threads.


CONNEL - PRETTY LAME EMAIL. Do people really pay you to testify? Yikes! They must be pretty desperate for a hack.

I checked out Dr. Field's Community of Science Site - Many first author papers in fact one with these same authors.

Metaanalysis - Even I know a pooling is not a meta analysis - they used the raw data!! Metanalyses doesn't.

I guess another way at looking at this is that he published a landmark paper on the subject and he is a co-author listed in alphabetical order.

I wonder who would have more a priori credibility in court, you or him? Pretty obvious answer.

Looking at the summary of the Iowa Study, I see these quotes from famous scientist about his study - http://www.epa.gov/iaq/radon/iowastudy.html

pretty impressive.

Where's the beef Mr. Forensic Toxicologist?

His community of science information is very impressive including work with the world health organization,

http://myprofile.cos.com/Fieldrw

Where is your resume posted Mr. Forensic Toxicologist??

I have seen a lot of people like you in the courtroom and outside. Dr. Fields provided evidence to refute what you said about Dr. Cohen's work and substantiated all his views. All we get from you is childish attacks. It is clear you have the view that if you can not defend your position, just attack the person.

You talk the authoratative talk, but aparently do not walk the walk.

Dr. Field, thank you for providing coherent, educational posts. - I would welcome you as a speaker at our next conference.

Harry Homestead
Forensic home inspector icon_lol.gif
Back to Top
Brian Kelly

Dwelling Doctors LLC
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1699
User: bkelly2
Posted: Aug 20, 2005 10:03 PM       Post Subject:
Very interesting Gentlemen

--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Back to Top
Kevin Williams

NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1477
User: kwilliams
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 6:43 AM       Post Subject:
Mr Field - Unique ID: 762A-9F-0CD2A9
Harry - unique ID: 762A-9F-0CD2A9

what's up with this ?????
Back to Top
Caoimh?n P. Connell
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 108
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 8:35 AM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Hello Mr. Williams:

Actually, that kind of response is more common than you might imagine. A couple of years ago, during a criminal/civil case in Florida, I was the expert in a case wherein I opposed and eventually exposed a very high profile PhD consultant in Florida who frequently testifies, claiming to have a PhD in toxicology (and had been accepted as such by many courts). However the claim was fraudulent and he did not have a PhD in toxicology as claimed.

Shortly after loosing the case, this particular PhD began posting a variety of ad hominem posts under a variety of pseudonyms on a particular board without realizing that his identity was actually being tracked by the board host?s ISP. Of course, he too denied making the objectionable posts which always complimented himself for his great contributions to science whilst making wild attacks on me (for example claiming that I was under investigation by the FBI and that I was part of a secret insurance misdirection organization out to destroy him ? apparently earning % million $$ per year, too I might add!).

So, it isn?t too surprising to see Dr. Fields creating a sudden pseudonym and trying to attack through the back door. He has to be very embarrassed at this point.

Regards,
Caoimh?n P. Connell

(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
Back to Top
Bill Field
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 6
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 10:43 AM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Quote:
So, it isn?t too surprising to see Dr. Fields creating a sudden pseudonym and trying to attack through the back door. He has to be very embarrassed at this point.


Mr. Connel,

Investigate further!

No pseudonym, visiting scholar using same wireless connection. No pseudonym needed to argue the points that were brought up. I would know enough to change IP.

I am still waiting to hear factual information to substatiate why radon does not present a hazard in the residential setting.
Back to Top
Kevin McMahon

ABC Home Inspection, LLC
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 3363
User: kmcmahon
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 10:47 AM       Post Subject:
Well, I'm indeed smarter for reading the first part of this thread....the second part seems a pissing match of sorts between two brainiacs.

Wow...that's a first....a pissing match between two non-inspectors!!! icon_biggrin.gif
Back to Top
Caoimh?n P. Connell
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 108
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 11:00 AM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Dr. Fields-

You state:

No pseudonym, visiting scholar using same wireless connection. No pseudonym needed to argue the points that were brought up. I would know enough to change IP.

I see, a ?visiting scholar? eh? Who just happened to be using your connection? Who just happened (by coincidence) to sign on to the NACHI board to chime onto your comments? A ?visiting scholar? who just happened to provide a bogus homepage? Who just happened to be using your computer??

By the way, a ?visiting scholar? who just happens to have the same misspelling patterns that you do?

A ?visiting scholar? who just happens to accidentally use the same logical fallacy patterns (argumentum ad verecundiam) that you do?

Dr. Fields, you have been entirely discredited. Your initial thread indicated a lack of intellectual honesty, and that has now been carried over into the rest of the posts. The first rule of getting out of a hole is ?Stop digging.? The shovel is in your hands.

Don?t invite me to ?investigate further;? I happen to be very good at what I do ? and it is very likely that you would regret the invitation.

A ?visiting scholar? eh? Dr. Fields, what?s his name, and why did he use a phoney name while using your computer?

I suggest you step down while you have the chance ? you have made a terrible fool of yourself, and you have discredited yourself.

Feel free to contact me directly off-line as I won't respond to you further here.

Kind regards,
Caoimh?n P. Connell
Fiosrach@aol.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
Back to Top
Marcel Cyr

Cyr Home Inspections
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 795
User: mcyr
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 11:25 AM       Post Subject:
icon_smile.gif icon_smile.gif

Good job of expressing educational views on the subject.
Come again. Very rewarding views. Thank you.

Marcel
Back to Top
Bill Field
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 6
Posted: Aug 21, 2005 11:33 AM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Mr. Connel,

Shared facilities is very common in a lab.


I would urge all NACHI members to explore the offerings of both the NRSB and AARST.

NRSB http://www.nrsb.org/

AARST http://www.aarst.org/

They provide a tremendous reseource for education in thsi area.
Back to Top
Harry
NACHI Member: No
(as of 3/25/07)
Inactive Poster
Posts: 2
Posted: Aug 22, 2005 7:33 PM       Post Subject:

Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Mr. CONNELS,

Way to get off topic and out of a debate............

Very sad behaviour! Accuse and run! I am not surprised you never heard of a wireless node with a single IP address. I like the assertion that the post ID is linked to a single computer, very creative.

I was shown your sad unprofessional response and had to respond. I am an Academic Industrial Hygienist who welcomes the chance to debate you in court. Your views are very much out of mainstream science. You do not need to know who I am. I surely do not want unwarranted attacks like you attack anyone who offers an opinion contrary to yours. Perhaps we will meet in court. My expertise is in nanoparticles so look out for those cases, please!

In reviewing your posts, I failed to see one that contributed any sound scientific information. I question your motives! Surely your posts do not give credit your profession. If anyone has been discredit, you have!

Mr. Connels attacks are based on his inability to respond adequately to Dr. Fields posts. While Gruf and cheeky --- they are just a screen to cover his embarrassment.

I do apologize to NACHI members for my last post. It was a knee jerk reaction after I was shown his unprofessional attacks on Dr. Field.

See you in court Mr. Connel. Cheerio!
Back to Top
Brian Kelly

Dwelling Doctors LLC
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1699
User: bkelly2
Posted: Aug 22, 2005 9:52 PM       Post Subject:
Harry why has the web page in your profile changed? icon_confused.gif

--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Back to Top
Kevin Williams

NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 1477
User: kwilliams
Posted: Aug 23, 2005 8:48 AM       Post Subject:
well at least he used a different computer this time
Back to Top
John Nosworthy

Delmarva Home Inspection Services and Environmental Testing
NACHI Member: Yes
(as of 3/25/07)
NACHI Member
Posts: 80
User: jnosworthy
Posted: Aug 23, 2005 11:24 AM       Post Subject:
Wow ... Tangle of the Titans ...rounds I and II ... I'm certain I was learning something there for awhile. You know ... healthy debate and all like that. All this and more for only 79 cents a day!
Back to Top
Go to page: Previous 1 2 Next