This confirms my assumption that todays concrete blocks probably have no more radio active properties than other objects used in our daily lives. Thanks.
Fritz _____ From: egels...@satx.rr.com [mailto:egels...@satx.rr.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:17 AM To: Don Cooper Cc: John P Brooks; Fritz Holt; pitboun...@gmail.com; csnew...@gmail.com; texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste I am definitely NOT an authority on "Cinder Blocks". I do however have a daughter that works for a major company that fabricates them. The make over a million bricks per month right here in good old San Antonio. The reference to Cinder in the name is no longer accurate. The formula (I confirmed this) is water, portland cement, sand, and differing aggregates depending on the model of brick being cast. No ash from a coal fired power plant. I have worked with the former HL&P plant and they used to sell their soda ash to soil stabilization companys where they in turn mixed it with lime and used it to (guess what?) stabilize soil; at constructions sites. Usually parking lots and foundations. I would worry about that more than what might be in what used to be cinder blocks. It has been common in the past that some conctrete mixers used to insert a percentage of soda ash in their cheap grades of concrete to save money. It might be worth someone spending their time checking that out since concrete is so abundant. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Cooper <wavyca...@gmail.com> List-Post: texascavers@texascavers.com Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [Texascavers] OT - Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste To: John P Brooks <jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net> Cc: "fh...@townandcountryins.com" <fh...@townandcountryins.com>, "pitboun...@gmail.com" <pitboun...@gmail.com>, "csnew...@gmail.com" <csnew...@gmail.com>, "texascavers@texascavers.com" <texascavers@texascavers.com> > Ediger chimed in - and his explanation supports the unbiased > findings of my > random discoveries. > > I know I did not say concrete blocks, and according to Gill, > there's a > pretty good explanation to why cinderblocks from 50 years ago > could be > sufficiently radioactive to be read by a Geiger counter. It might > not be a > surprise that there is radioactivity of some level in almost > everythingincluding people. > > Caveat: Radioactive is - as far as I can tell a "relative" > measure. It is > not "either present or not present" In this place, it's all > around. The > radioactivity of cinderblocks was REAL. But is it significant > enough to > cause health problems in a hundred years? I HAVE NO IDEA. > > But thank you for the interruption- > Now back to your regular scheduled internet experience. > -WaV > > > On Dec 19, 2007 4:41 PM, John P Brooks <jpbrook...@sbcglobal.net> > wrote: > > Radioactive concrete block? That's absurd...I can assure you > that if > > there was even a small level of radioactivity or anything > harmful in these > > blocks...building codes would ban them and or our liability > insurance would > > prohibit the use...concrete block is safe...although I would > think twice > > about building a concrete block home or school in a high > humidity area.... > > > > Fritz Holt wrote: > > > 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-nuclear-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 > > > > > > > > > > >
