Follow us!

    Re: chinese dry wall

    Posted by Just Telling The Truth on 4/30/10

    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

    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.


    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.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.