Nico, I would assume that like so many things, the radioactive hazard of these concrete blocks is blown way out of proportion. But I would like to know from an expert on the matter so that I can be better informed. While many people don't live in the same home for 23 years it is possible that effects from exposure may take a much longer period and therefore not considered a hazard to human health.
There is a small subdivision in Jacinto City, Texas, surrounded by Houston on the east side where most of the small homes were built of concrete block in the 1940'S OR 50'S. >From a RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE standpoint, concrete block homes and those with solid masonry exterior walls (those with no wood framing in the walls) take a lower insurance rate (premium) than the brick veneer homes in which many of us live. I haven't insured one of these in the last twenty-five years. MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL. Fritz _____ From: Nico Escamilla [mailto:pitboun...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:30 AM To: Fritz Holt Cc: Don Cooper; Simon Newton; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste I have lived in a cinder/concrete block house my whole life (23 years) and I am healthy as can be. a little overweight but thats another story. Nico On Dec 19, 2007 9:31 AM, Fritz Holt < fh...@townandcountryins.com> wrote: Don, "I know a little bit about a lot of things but I don't know enough about - cinder blocks". (Lyrics from a very old song). As I understand it, a cinderblock is one of the building materials of choice on many commercial buildings such as warehouses. I generally refer to them as concrete blocks and they have about three hollow spaces. Are these cinderblocks that contain Radioactive material? Is there a danger in long term exposure inside buildings constructed of this material? If so, why is it allowed to be used so extensively? Fritz _____ From: Don Cooper [mailto:wavyca...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:34 PM To: Simon Newton Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste That is correct! As well - consider that radioactive CARBON can create radioactive Carbon Dioxide. Radioactivity released by coal powered plants IS indeed significantly greater than any well-mannered nuclear power plant. This was something taught to me by the 'critical mass' nerds (nuclear engineers) that I sometimes hung out with when I was going to La. Tech. Another thing you might want to consider is how radioactive cinderblock is. I dont know exactly what the numbers are, but its enough to test a Geiger counter! -WaV On Dec 18, 2007 10:54 PM, Simon Newton <csnew...@gmail.com> wrote: Some food for thought... >From the article: Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash-a by-product from burning coal for power-contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nu clear-waste&sc=WR_20071218 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
