Watch Video: Dr. Devra Davis’ “Cellphones and Brain Cancer” (Source: http://bit.ly/cCXm1v)

Watch Video: Cigarettes and Cell Phones (Source: http://bit.ly/c7Fz5z)

Watch Video: Cell Phones: Just Like Cigarettes? (Source: http://bit.ly/99dzpo)

Watch Video: “The Cell Phone Song” (Source: http://bit.ly/aIRLbf)

Read: “Brain Tumors In The United Kingdom Are Now The #1 Cancer Killer” (Source: http://bit.ly/aMfks6)

Read: “Israeli Study Shows Link Between Cell Phone Use And Oral Cancers” (Source: http://bit.ly/akHDtL)

Read: “Research shows mobile phones raise children’s risk of brain cancer by five times” (Source: http://bit.ly/9ZbjHo)

Read: “Cellphones and Brain Tumors 15 Reasons for Concern ” (Source: http://bit.ly/bu1MTj)

> WHO’s conclusion is that there is no health risk to the EMF radiation …
Not really; their conclusion is that the evidence is inconclusive.

> there is no evidence …
There is plenty of evidence; just no conclusion. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

> If EMF radiation posed a health risk … cell towers should be dismantled–not just those near schools …
Distance is a major factor on level of exposure and age is a factor on effects. There has hardly been EMF research specific to age. Therefore, adopting a precautionary principal near schools makes sense, even if not adopted for the general public. (Just like preventing certain medicine from kids, not because it’s known to be harmful, but due to lack of knowledge).

Thanks for your nice comments on the wine blogs I write for Mo’s Wine and Spirits(http://www.mos-wine.com/blog/. I like yours, as well. It does indeed take considerable time and thought to write these blogs. It’s worth the effort, though!

Some of my blogs can be seen on Bigelow Tea’s blog site (http://www.bigelowteablog.com/2010/01/01/years-resolutions-365-days/), as well as The Children’s Aid Society of New York (http://blogs.childrensaidsociety.org/childrensaid/2009/12/28/beating-statistics-childrens-aid-society-battles-child-obesity/).

Last November, I attempted to begin my own blog (http://heatherj50.wordpress.com/) but, due to time constraints with other client work, have not been as diligent as I would like.

Enjoy your blogging!

Best Regards,
Heather Marinos

1. A composite test is said to have been done using 30 samples from around the site. In the letter from Agresource, a test result for one particular sample that had a high level of something is mentioned, but no individual test results are provided, only this composite.

2. Federal limits on PCBs are at levels higher than fractions of parts per trillion. It does not seem reasonable that a composite result of 30 samples would be the correct method for identifying any PCB hot spots within the composting area, and in fact would seem to prove insufficiently sensitive if less than most/all of the samples had PCB contamination. So a good question to ask the lab would be, to what level of sensitivity can your lab detect PCBs? Using this level of sensitivity, one can guess how many of the samples MIGHT have contamination AT the maximum acceptable level and still end up with a composite sample that showed background levels of PCBs but no problem.

3. I am a gardener and I do soil tests every year. The instructions on a soil test are: if you have any area that is atypical of the other areas, test it separately. In land disturbed by typical grading operations used to create suburban landscapes, I have seen tests come back with enormous acidity difference that in a normal, undisturbed soil would be highly unusual (7.4 pH vs. 4.8 in the same yard). If a composite had been done of these two types, the soil might well appear to be a typical soil from the area, or perhaps slighly more acid than typical. The composite, for purposes of remediation, would have been meaningless.

The point is: when you do sampling, you have to know what your goal is. If your goal is to identify and remediate problems, you do not do composite samples of an entire area. The correct method of sampling would be done by a specialist in environmental hazard remediation, not by an employee of a firm with a financial interest in finding the compost clean (since it might be liable if contaminated, as it re-sells Stamford compost).

One method of remediating lead, for example, is simply to raise the pH and add lots of organic matter. Thus, if several samples had unacceptably high lead levels, the mere addition of the other organic matter samples would dilute that lead level to an acceptable level.

Legal levels of a particular contaminant appear to be separate and apart from whether those contaminants e.g. have any phytotoxic effect on plants. I found one discussion of phytotoxicity from dicamba that was at a much lower level than the legally acceptable rate ppm of dicamba in the compost.

State levels and federal levels also may be distinct. Federal level limits for lead, for example, are higher than state levels in CT.

Below is a quote from the CDC:
“It’s uncertain at this time how severe this novel H1N1 outbreak will be in terms of illness and death compared with other influenza viruses. Because this is a new virus, most people will not have immunity to it, and illness may be more severe and widespread as a result. In addition, currently there is no vaccine to protect against this novel H1N1 virus. CDC anticipates that there will be more cases, more hospitalizations and more deaths associated with this new virus in the coming days and weeks”

It seems that Ms. Sternberg is spending much of her last weeks here denying knowledge of the swine flu outbreak rather than handling the situation. As a Greenwich parent, I am outraged by how the situation is being handled.