Re: chinese dry wall

More | Report Post

Not only is the negative reference concerning Phil Goad a blatant
misrepresentation, but the statement that the Florida Department
of Health reports “that levels of three toxic chemicals were found
in all three Chinese drywall samples at levels many times higher
than have been reported before” is also a blatant
misrepresentation.

Bulk samples have indeed indicated higher PPB levels of sulfur
compounds than gas sampling (as one would expect). However, unless
one is consuming drywall in their diet, one cannot be exposed to
the levels reported in bulk samples. This is why gas sampling has
been used to determine occupant expose thresholds.

Gas sampling conducted by the EPA, Florida Department of Health
and private investigators has consistently shown concentrations of
sulfur based VOCs to be from 50 PPB to BDL (below detectible
limits). These levels are FAR below ANY exposure threshold from
ANY authority. “Authority” does NOT include Internet whack-jobs,
nut-cases and pseudo-scientists profiteering off other’s hysteria.

JTTT

On 4/30/10, MBobMean wrote:
>> The Florida Dept. of Health report is available for anyone to
>> read and it clearly says that levels of three toxic chemicals
>> were found in all three Chinese drywall samples at levels many
>> times higher than have been reported before, up to 1,000 parts
>> per billion which is a harmful level according to Niosh.
>
> I'm not attacking anyone here, just pointing out some facts:
>
> NIOSH does not promulgate standards of health and safety, but
> rather advises. They are also notoriously conservative, often
> driving values down incredibly low on the precautionary
> principle, not on what is known toxicologically or
> biologically. Since NIOSH dropped the one hit, one molecule
> theoryof carcinogenicity, it would be interetsing to see what
> theywould set standards st now. Many of their old numbers were
> based on the one-hit model. They now accede to thresholds for
> carcinogenic effects.
>
> Be careful when citing them as authorities in these areas.
>
> They are splendid site investigators and hard working scientists
> and health and safety professionls, but they do not set exposure
> values that are legelly enforceable or adhered to as much as say
> ACGIH does. In Industrial Hygiene, ACGIH is the gold standard
> currently. That's not to say NIOSH or anyone else knows nothing
> (and often their data and ACGIH's is the same), it's simply a
> fact that ACGIH currently has the best dataset and updates more
> often. NIOSH does not have the resources to keep up, neither
> does OSHA.