You need a lawyer as soon as you think you do. And probably sooner.
Getting arrested and charged can affect every aspect of your life including your future ability to earn an income. That's right, get charged with a crime and the next time you apply for a job and they do a background check you will be shown the exit faster than you can say "I am innocent!!!"
There are lots of protected classes when you apply for a job but being a criminal is not one of them. So before you stand before a judge or rather before you talk to the police about anything they think you may have done, get a lawyer. get a competent lawyer, like Terrance Rooth and shut your mouth. Because believe it or not when they say, "anything you say can be used against you in a court of law" Guess what? they mean it. Especially if you are on vacation. Because you may not be thinking in real world mode. If you get convicted of a crime in Central Florida it is on Your record from Los Angeles to New York. Don't let a mistake ruin your life.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Dangers of Granite
Holy Smokes! There is Something to That NY Times Article
While the original NY Times article about radon in granite countertops could be seen as hyperbole and a media campaign against the high end countertop industry, after reading the industry response, It may be the coming onslaught of a wave of fear brought on by the real danger of radon.
The problem is in the industry’s own independently cited research they try to prove that granite is safe by underestimating the amount of granite in a typical home. Then use average home sizes in the entire US instead of more typical home sizes in New York City (The NY Times audience). The people of New York City area are generally confined to a much smaller home.
Here is the mind numbing math.
According to this article on CNN, the typical New York apartment is 1,300 square feet. Air volume equals square footage multiplied by the ceiling height. In the University of Akron study they used a container less than one cubic foot so in order to get a comparable ratio one must multiply the cubic footage of the housing unit by 1.49. So for the sample equation of a typical New York Apartment the volume is 15,496.
The University of Akron study uses a 13 by 2 foot countertop with a thickness of 2 centimeters, making the total surface area of the granite about 54 square feet. That number deceptively low as homes with granite kitchens are generally more modern and have at least two counters (one on each side of the kitchen or an L shape) as well as a back splash. In addition, many apartments also have a breakfast bar and additional counters in the bathrooms. Conservatively using 104 Square feet of total surface area is more typical for kitchens with granite counters. To use the University of Akron equation to get a comparable square footage one must divide by 2.5 square feet. So for this example our countertop surface area number for a New York City apartment is 41.6.
Since the study chose the highest level of radiation sample to down play the risks of radon gas in a home it makes sense to use the same sample to show the risks. The example stone in the countertop material gave off 292 pCi/L (picocuries per liter of air).
To figure out the radiation from granite in a New York City apartment one must use the equation
292 pCi/L X (the surface area of the counters with multiplier) ÷ (the volume of air in the home with multiplier) = the amount of radiation from the counter tops.
OR
292 X 41.6 ÷ 15522 = .783 pCi/L or almost three times the amount in the University of Akron study example.
To get to the crux and see if this fades into the general background radiation one must first consider the radiation already present in the typical home of 1.3 pCi/L
With the average radon level in a home at 1.3 add to this to the .783 from granite counter tops and the home is over background levels (2.0) and the University of Akron study suggests considering fixing the home. For example, if the homeowner is a non smoker the risk of getting lung cancer from radon increases from 2 per one thousand to 4 per one thousand, in other words, doubling the risk of lung cancer from Radon.
While not trying to cause a panic and not suggesting ripping out existing counter tops without testing. Testing of individual pieces of granite for radon off gassing prior to installation and getting currently installed granite tested would be a good start. It should also be part of a thorough home inspection before buying a home.
As an aside a red flag warning to the installers and fabricators cutting this stone or handling it in a warehouse where the exposure is much higher. Use the proper ventilators and other safety equipment.
Census Data
Age of American Homes
While the original NY Times article about radon in granite countertops could be seen as hyperbole and a media campaign against the high end countertop industry, after reading the industry response, It may be the coming onslaught of a wave of fear brought on by the real danger of radon.
The problem is in the industry’s own independently cited research they try to prove that granite is safe by underestimating the amount of granite in a typical home. Then use average home sizes in the entire US instead of more typical home sizes in New York City (The NY Times audience). The people of New York City area are generally confined to a much smaller home.
Here is the mind numbing math.
According to this article on CNN, the typical New York apartment is 1,300 square feet. Air volume equals square footage multiplied by the ceiling height. In the University of Akron study they used a container less than one cubic foot so in order to get a comparable ratio one must multiply the cubic footage of the housing unit by 1.49. So for the sample equation of a typical New York Apartment the volume is 15,496.
The University of Akron study uses a 13 by 2 foot countertop with a thickness of 2 centimeters, making the total surface area of the granite about 54 square feet. That number deceptively low as homes with granite kitchens are generally more modern and have at least two counters (one on each side of the kitchen or an L shape) as well as a back splash. In addition, many apartments also have a breakfast bar and additional counters in the bathrooms. Conservatively using 104 Square feet of total surface area is more typical for kitchens with granite counters. To use the University of Akron equation to get a comparable square footage one must divide by 2.5 square feet. So for this example our countertop surface area number for a New York City apartment is 41.6.
Since the study chose the highest level of radiation sample to down play the risks of radon gas in a home it makes sense to use the same sample to show the risks. The example stone in the countertop material gave off 292 pCi/L (picocuries per liter of air).
To figure out the radiation from granite in a New York City apartment one must use the equation
292 pCi/L X (the surface area of the counters with multiplier) ÷ (the volume of air in the home with multiplier) = the amount of radiation from the counter tops.
OR
292 X 41.6 ÷ 15522 = .783 pCi/L or almost three times the amount in the University of Akron study example.
To get to the crux and see if this fades into the general background radiation one must first consider the radiation already present in the typical home of 1.3 pCi/L
With the average radon level in a home at 1.3 add to this to the .783 from granite counter tops and the home is over background levels (2.0) and the University of Akron study suggests considering fixing the home. For example, if the homeowner is a non smoker the risk of getting lung cancer from radon increases from 2 per one thousand to 4 per one thousand, in other words, doubling the risk of lung cancer from Radon.
While not trying to cause a panic and not suggesting ripping out existing counter tops without testing. Testing of individual pieces of granite for radon off gassing prior to installation and getting currently installed granite tested would be a good start. It should also be part of a thorough home inspection before buying a home.
As an aside a red flag warning to the installers and fabricators cutting this stone or handling it in a warehouse where the exposure is much higher. Use the proper ventilators and other safety equipment.
Census Data
Age of American Homes
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Government and Alternative Fuels
In these trying times, I hear my neighbors talk about government regulation of fuel prices and subsidies. Subsidies are, in my opinion, not the answer. Take farm subsidies for example. We pay farmers subsidies to keep prices low for consumers, then we pay farmers not to plant all their fields to keep prices higher so the grain they do sell fetches a higher price, then we pay subsidies to support an ethanol industry that drives demand for grain and forces prices even higher. So, by logical reasoning we (because the government is funded by us) pay three times so that we can have higher prices at the supermarket. The system is broken. I believe we should subsidize the alternative fuel industry even more to drive the demand up for the ingredients for ethanol. This increased demand would then be the farm subsidy because farmers would be paid more for the product they produce and not paid not to produce. When ethanol or some other non-fossil-based energy system is a fully established business and we have an oversupply of grain and we need to cut back production, there is nothing that says the government cannot go back to paying the farmers not to plant. This is obviously oversimplified but I think the premise is sound.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Farm Subsidies
We pay farmers subsidies to keep prices low for consumers, then we pay farmers not to plant all their fields to keep prices higher so the grain they do sell fetches a higher price, then we pay subsidies to support an ethanol industry that drives demand for grain and forces prices even higher. So by logical reasoning we (because the government is funded by us) pay three times so that we can have higher prices at the supermarket. The system is broken. I believe we should subsidize the alternative fuel industry even more to drive the demand up for the ingredients for ethanol. This increased demand would then be the farm subsidy because farmers would be paid more for the product they produce and not paid not to produce. When Ethanol or some other non fossil based energy system is a fully established business if we have an oversupply of grain and we need to cut back production there is nothing that says the government cannot go back to paying the farmers not to plant. This is obviously over simplified but the premise is sound.
Gas Prices
The oil companies say it is all about supply and demand. That would be true, if all the suppliers were also capitalism based economies. Instead the world oil markets are dominated by OPEC, Russia and other countries that have government controlled constraints to free markets. In other words, in the commodity markets demand outstrips supply because foreign governments are withholding oil to create a higher market price for crude oil. This is not capitalism its highway robbery that diverts additional capital to tyrants and despot (not all oil exporting countries are like this take Canada that is benign), but enough of them are to effect the supply and create a demand. In addition these tyrannical governments are unstable which adds fear to the markets and further stimulates higher pricing. In stocks fear means selling in oil it means buying. And for all of us in America wondering how oil affects us outside of our cars think of all the home products produces using crude oil, from roofing shingles to plastic to the trucks delivering food and homes heated with oil.
Solving the Social Security Crisis
Why do we have to increase taxes?
There is absolutely no reason. There is a much simpler solution and it is based on the original set up of the social security system. When social security was conceived and how it basically works today is today's payers are paying for today's receivers. This works great as long as you have more contributors than recievers. So in the future we need more payers than receiversas well.
Our government thought there would always be a surplus because we have an ever increasing population. since population growth has slowed and people live longer the reciever end is ballooning while the payer end is shrinking.
here are two ways to increase the population to increase the number of payees so that the system remains solvent. One is to encourage legal immigration so that the young immigrants pay social security tax into the system. second is to encourage business through tax incentives and other programs to encourage working families to have more children. For instance increasing maternity leave to a year as the are doing in Western Europe as well as having more kid friendly workplaces, such as on site child care. Having flexible work schedules so that two working parents can manage child care and having a family.
The bottom line is simple if we keep going down the path we are on we will end up with an inverted pyramid. the few payers paying for the massive number of recievers. And the payers will have to give more of their pay because they are supporting more retirees per worker.
The simplest solotion is to have more payers to share the load. think of it this way its alot easier to have 20 grandchildren supporting grandpa than one.
So go out and tell your congressman you want to have more kids to solve the social security crisis. When he looks at you funny show him this blog. when he looks at you even funnier tell him it takes how many taxpayers to pay your salary. What if there were fewer taxpayers. Which in just a few years there will be if we keep going down this population path.
There is absolutely no reason. There is a much simpler solution and it is based on the original set up of the social security system. When social security was conceived and how it basically works today is today's payers are paying for today's receivers. This works great as long as you have more contributors than recievers. So in the future we need more payers than receiversas well.
Our government thought there would always be a surplus because we have an ever increasing population. since population growth has slowed and people live longer the reciever end is ballooning while the payer end is shrinking.
here are two ways to increase the population to increase the number of payees so that the system remains solvent. One is to encourage legal immigration so that the young immigrants pay social security tax into the system. second is to encourage business through tax incentives and other programs to encourage working families to have more children. For instance increasing maternity leave to a year as the are doing in Western Europe as well as having more kid friendly workplaces, such as on site child care. Having flexible work schedules so that two working parents can manage child care and having a family.
The bottom line is simple if we keep going down the path we are on we will end up with an inverted pyramid. the few payers paying for the massive number of recievers. And the payers will have to give more of their pay because they are supporting more retirees per worker.
The simplest solotion is to have more payers to share the load. think of it this way its alot easier to have 20 grandchildren supporting grandpa than one.
So go out and tell your congressman you want to have more kids to solve the social security crisis. When he looks at you funny show him this blog. when he looks at you even funnier tell him it takes how many taxpayers to pay your salary. What if there were fewer taxpayers. Which in just a few years there will be if we keep going down this population path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)