quote:
Originally posted by VancouverIslander
geochem: while I'm a proponent of geothermal energy, I think gypsy69 is posting personal experience and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. .... but I'm not going to tell someone their experiences are invalidated by my preconceptions.
....
In the end, the buyout is what it is (I hate that phrase, but I suppose it fits here). I wish gypsy the best of luck coming to a decision and best wishes for a happy healthy future.
Me ka ha`aha`a,
Mike
Mike,
I appreciate your comments. Although I don't believe that I dismiss Mr. Gpys post out of hand or based on preconceptions. To begin, there is some very good science behind my skepticism. There was an epi study done by researchers from UC Berkeley and the NZ public health service on the effects of long term exposures to "low" levels of hydrogen sulfide in the city of Rotorua. I posted a link to the study on this forum some months ago. Very briefly, the results of that study showed that, of the participating residents, those who lived and or worked in the
highest exposure areas of Rotorua suffered
lower frequencies of respiratory distress than those living/working in the lowest hydrogen sulfide exposure areas. As I recall, I believe the study included residents who had lived/worked in the city for thirty years or more. The study authors cited as supportive evidence for this finding that people who experience reactive airway syndrome (asthma and the like) have been found to have lower levels of endogenously produced hydrogen sulfide in their cells than the population at large - they speculate that the exposure to those levels of hydrogen sulfide may have had a therapeutic effect on that fraction of the population who might otherwise have suffered from the effects of reactive airway syndrome.
With respect to the "low" levels of hydrogen sulfide in Rotorua, I calculated the equivalent hydrogen sulfide exposure levels that would occur at the PGV fence-line monitors - using the same averaging intervals that the Rotorua study used - over a period of several years. The
highest calculated exposures at the PGV fence-line came out to about 1% to 2% of the
average long-term exposure in Rotorua with the long term calculated average exposure being three to five times lower than the short term averages. These calculated averages were at the PGV fence-line; a mile, or two miles, or ?? miles away, the exposures would be lower still.
On a more basic level, though, if I thought that my family was living in an area that posed a significant health threat to them, and I was offered a buy-out so that I could relocate, the only question I'd need an answer to is: "where do I sign?"
