Marc Porat, CEO, Cal-Star
Did you know that cement manufacturing is responsible for 2.8 billion tons of CO2 emission? That’s the equivalent of gas emissions produced by all the cars on this planet. Sounds wrong, isn’t it?
“Not at all. That’s correct. But the worse is that since the creation of Portland cement in 1824, the making of cement has not changed. It still requires a lot of energy to manufacture cement: cement manufacturing represents 8% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel every year or 5% of all man-made CO2 emissions. No other building material has a larger footprint. And that’s what we’re about to change”, explains Marc Porat, the CEO of Cal-Star Cement that I met at Foundation Capital’s open house yesterday.
The goal of this secretive green building material startup based in Newark, Calif., is to reduce by 10-fold the amount of energy needed to produce cement by using “fly ash“. Its plan is to then sell its green cement at the same price than the regular one. But the process is not ready yet and the new green cement won’t be shipping probably for another year or so.
“Our go to market strategy is to target first the brick industry by producing bricks out of fly ash that are also 10 times less polluting to make than regular bricks. It will be available in volume by mid-next year”, adds Porat.
The startup just raised an additional B round of $12 million – after an initial $7 million round – that will be used in part to build its first factory – one of the 15 plants expected over the next 5 years.
Porat estimates the U.S. brick market to be a $4 billon opportunity versus $10 billion for precast cement. But its just mind-boggling that it “only” takes 15-people and $19 million to turn the construction business upside down, a $7 trillion a year industry!
“It’s simply the inventor’s dilemma. It’s still an industry where incumbents can’t disrupt their own businesses”, says Porat.
Fly ash bricks? So, these bricks are made from coal-burning residue – a hazardous industrial waste that is loaded with highly toxic heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, nickel, selenium, arsenic, selenium and the likes??? And the bricks are not fired?
Sounds like Henry Liu’s Greenest Brick technology – take a reactive, class C fly ash, mix with water, press and cure with steam. Only problem is that the brick has nowhere near the performance of traditional (fired) clay bricks and carries a host of occupational safety and environmental hazard risks.
Okay Porat – lets see the product and lets compare it side-by-side with clay bricks. Clay bricks are load-bearing, have excellent compressive strength, are fire-resistant, are freeze-thaw resistant, do not leach toxic metals, are safe to handle and use, are not environmentally hazardous, are completely recyclable, and last for hundreds of years. Lets see how Porat’s fly ash bricks measure up. In particular, lets see the strength and robustness data, and especially the safety data – fly ash and fly ash products have been investigated for decades, and the problems with them are well recognized – variability of fly ash, occupational and environmental toxicity, and lack of durability to mention a few.
To note – many companies are producing bricks using fly ash, but they either use portland cement and/or lime as binder and autoclave them, or they fire them as for clay bricks – their processes produce safe, high-performance products that can be used to replace more traditional building products.
As for Porat’s fly ash bricks – it remains to be seen, but judging from his past, I would be very cautious.
[We've removed this part from the users' comment at the request of Marc Porat, CEO of Cal-Star, that found it derogatory towards him]
Where is EcoRock? Anyone? The word on the grapevine is that Serious Materials gathered 50 million dollars for a factory, but to date have nothing to manufacture in it, and the insiders at Foundation are “rather concerned”. Time for Porat to roll out the hype wagon? Perhaps CalStar is the hype wagon? Oh no – another red herring. Lets look at the history of CalStar – started in 2006 – their first claim was for a magnesium phosphate cement that would change the world and cut global greenhouse gas emissions. They made all sorts of promises and projections for starting-up production in 2007, then suddenly went quiet. Turned out that they had shelved their product. I wonder why? Perhaps it didnt exist – perhaps it didnt work.. who knows with Porat’s hype wagon where the truth lies? Then they had a secret new cement product, which also fizzled out. And now, bricks! Where is the world-changing cement?
[More removed comments]… if there really is a product (and past experience would indicate that it is highly hyped, and possibly non-existent), it is likely to have major performance, safety and liability concerns.
I would look instead at companies like Calera – the founder – Brent Constanz is a visionary no-nonsense academic who has several successful startup companies under his belt. Calera has a very interesting bio-based technology for making a carbonate mineral admixture for portland cement by reacting CO2 emissions from power plants with seawater brines, and is looking at using its product in general use cement, as well as for making bricks, block, etc. It is interesting to note Calera’s connection to CalStar – Constanz apparenty had a run-in with Porat and decided to found his own company – one wonders why – Visionary Scientist vs A Fraud? Also, the grapevine indicates that several of Calera’s employees are ex-employees of CalStar, who left after becoming disaffected with Calstar and Porat. The latest rumor is that CalStar’s R&D director left CalStar recently, and might also turn up at Calera.
[...] partly edited it, but you’ll find the “un-edited” and colourful version here. And if you want to know more about green cement, check out this post on the Next Big Future [...]
Bkwaas – Thanks for the analysis – the background information is very useful.
Have been reading about the technology – the diagram does look like what is described on the Greenest Brick website (http://www.greenestbrick.com), and one website says Calstar licensed the technology (http://www.jumpintotomorrow.com/template/index.php?tech=166).
It looks strange. I know that there is a lot of concern about coal ash and its toxic properties. I have read recently that there is a lot of concern about coal ash and its environmental effects – like contamination of water with toxic metals. Some websites with information are:
http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/coal/coalwater.pdf
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/07/fly-ash-piles-challenge-rises-safe-disposal
http://www.catf.us/projects/power_sector/power_plant_waste/paminefill/07-01-Chap7-Conclusions.pdf
http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/Update42.htm
Do you have more information on fly ash?
It is claimed by Liu that the bricks absorb mercury. I dont understand this – coal ash contains mercury? Do you know anything about this?
I dont know if this brick product is real, but sounds like there could be many dangers and safety concerns as you pointed.
Do you have any more information on the brick? Has Calstar given any data – on strength, hardness, safety? They must have to give this before selling the brick? Who is regulating bricks?
Thanks for the information on Porat – do you have any links about him?
I had a quick look at Calera. Looks really interesting – I will read more.
Looking forward to more discussions.
Thereaux
Thereaux
Glad thet you found the information useful.
I can confirm from solid sources that CalStar is indeed using Henry Liu’s technology. I have managed to gather some information from investors who were approached by CalStar for round B funding, and they provided the following insights: CalStar has a license from Greenest Brick – whether exclusive or non-exclusive, I have to find out. Looks like they have not really improved Henry Liu’s technology – my contacts said that what they saw looked pretty crude and that a lot of issues remained. They saw some bricks, but commented that they did not look anything like clay bricks and did not look “solid”. CalStar has some sort of warehouse operation – making a small number of bricks a day, and have not scaled up production. The sources asked about IP, fly ash, brick performance and scale-up, but apparently did not get satisfactory answers and decided not to get involved. Will follow up to see if I can get more details. Sounds pretty murky.
I have trawled for more info on fly ash toxicity – I am attaching a few links below.
Here are examples of Material Safety Data Sheets from fly ash suppliers – note the toxicity profiles:
http://www.csiconcrete.com/msds/flyash.pdf
http://www.mahlerconstruction.com/msds%20book/Fly%20Ash.pdf
Here are more examples of the severe impact of fly ash on the environment and health:
http://www.catf.us/publications/view/23
http://www.gilespartnership.org/Safety%20of%20fly%20ash%20fill.pdf
http://www.catf.us/publications/factsheets
http://washingtonindependent.com/2515/dont-drink-the-water-clean-coals-downside/Impacts_on_Water_Quality_from_Placement_of_Coal_Combustion_Waste_in_PA_Coal_Mines.pdf
Here is an overview of coal-derived radioactive elements – uranium and thorium:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
The NAS study can be accessed at:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11592#toc
I read the piece on mercury absorption. I am amazed – a very unscientific piece of work with outrageous and dangerous conclusions – looks like Henry Liu has his own bandwagon.
Yes – that is the crux of it – in light of the evidence on the dangers of fly ash, and the promotion of this hazardous waste product by the energy industry (which is having problems with storage/disposal), a completely unproven product such as fly ash bricks should be very carefully examined.
I really have to take issue with “Greenest Brick” – how is this product even remotely Green? It is manufactured from a byproduct of the dirtiest industry on the planet – coal burning produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases, acid rain, particulate pollution, etc. What about the workers who have to deal with fly ash – what about their health? What about the toxic metals and radioactive isotopes in fly ash? What about hazard exposure to the consumer?
Oh, but all of that is conveniently forgotten by CalStar when marketing their “Greenest Brick”.
This is a perfect example of “GREENWASHING”.
A good example of a true “Green Brick” is a low-fired clay brick, a self-fired clay/shale brick, or a composite cement brick.
Yes – exactly – I am waiting to see what data CalStar provides on their bricks. I do not know which Federal/State agencies would certify/regulate the product. I will dig around.
Porat – there is a very insightful blog about him – I will look for the link.
Yes – Calera is doing interesting stuff – proof of concept should be in 2009/2010.
the only thing GREEN about Porat is his ability to get a lot of green from investors. this is the 4th or 5th “stealth” company he has started. he gets lots of cash, hires his friends and family members, they all collect fat paychecks for a few years, then guess what…the company folds and he gets a new “brilliant” idea. no website for the company? that is a huge red flag for this green scam.
FINALLY someone speaks the truth about Marc Porat. Mr. Porat knows nothing about Green. He uses money to get places and he just started in the industry in 2006. He is a huge bullshitter and not out for anyone else’s benefit but his own. He is abusive to people and cruel and has been caught in lies. He is about himself people. He is pissed that his companies have folded in the past so he is determined to become a hero for his own ego. He is cruel to people close to him and beyond a cheap scape. This is the truth! I cannot believe he actually has the president backing him? Connections and money that is all this is about, not helping people. I wonder when all people will see through this sicko.
techiefromsf
You have Porat’s modus operandi in a nutshell – a perfect example of greenwashing.
Sounds like you have some knowledge of Porat and his business dealings? Know anything about the COO of Calstar – Tom Pounds? A buddy of Porat?
By the way – 2 additional threads at:
http://techpulse360.com/2008/10/23/reader-comments-on-fly-ash-brick-toxicity-cal-star-hype/
http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/2008/10/20/here-comes-the-green-brick-664/#comment-3960
BK
Very interesting article today in New York Times on the unregulated nature of fly ash dumps in the US and the hazards therein:
“Hundreds of Coal Ash Dumps Lack Regulation”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/07sludge.html?hp
Some sobering quotes from the article:
“Numerous studies have shown that the ash can leach toxic substances that can cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems in humans, and can decimate fish, bird and frog populations in and around ash dumps, causing developmental problems like tadpoles born without teeth, or fish with severe spinal deformities”
“It’s such a large volume of waste, and it’s so essential to the country’s energy supply; it’s basically been a loophole in the country’s waste management strategy”
“In 2000, the agency came close to designating coal ash a hazardous waste, but backpedaled in the face of an industry campaign that argued that tighter controls would cost it $5 billion a year. (In 2007, the Department of Energy estimated that it would cost $11 billion a year.) At the time, the E.P.A. said it would issue national regulations governing the disposal of coal ash as a nonhazardous waste, but it has not done so”
So – Calstar wants to take fly ash from coal industry dumps, make bricks from it, and distribute the stuff in buildings across the US – exposing the general population to the toxic stuff? What a great idea!
Any news on the fly ash bricks?
Are they on the market yet – do they have a product?
Thereaux
bkwaas April 9, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Calstar Cement apparently wants to build a fly ash brick plant in Wisconsin – using ash from the Oak Creek power plant (http://journaltimesonline.com/articles/2009/04/03/local_news/doc49d559258c06e775588674.txt)
THE FACTS ON OAK CREEK FLY ASH.
Here is EPA’s data on the toxic metals emitted by the Oak Creek power plant in fly ash. The data was extracted from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory.
Oak Creek produces about 114,000 short tons of fly ash annually. The fly ash contains the following toxics (annual emissions):
Arsenic: 6,657 pounds
Barium: 214,501 pounds
Chromium: 18,000 pounds
Copper: 20,000 pounds
Lead: 4,600 pounds
Manganese: 13,000 pounds
Nickel: 9,000 pounds
Thallium: 10,000 pounds
Vanadium: 4,750 pounds
Zinc: 6,900 pounds
The total amount of toxics contained in Oak Creek’s annual production of fly ash is over 300,000 pounds.
From the above data you can calculate that JUST ONE FLY ASH BRICK (standard size, residential, 5 lbs) WILL CONTAIN OVER 3 GRAMS OF HIGHLY TOXIC METALS!
Oak Creek fly ash on average has the following concentrations of toxics:
Arsenic: 29 ppm
Barium: 941 ppm
Chromium: 79 ppm
Copper: 88 ppm
Lead: 20 ppm
Manganese: 57 ppm
Nickel: 39 ppm
Thallium: 44 ppm
Vanadium: 21 ppm
Zinc: 30 ppm
Compare this with EPA’s regulations on these toxics in drinking water
Arsenic: 0.01 ppm
Barium: 2 ppm
Chromium: 0.1 ppm
Copper: 1.3 ppm
Lead: 0.015 ppm
Thallium: 0.002 ppm
So, the toxics from just ONE FLY ASH BRICK CAN POTENTIALLY POISON OVER 13,000 GALLONS OF WATER and make it unfit for drinking!
Now, imagine the toxic hazard associated by a wall of fly ash bricks.
Imagine the toxics on your hands from handling these bricks.
Imagine the toxics you breathe in with the dust from these bricks.
Imagine these bricks in contact with water and the toxics leaching from the bricks.
Clay bricks do not contain the soluble toxics that are present in fly ash and are completely safe – they do not leach metals and are safe in contact with water.
THE FACTS:
1) Fly ash is hazardous and contains a range of toxics.
2) The concentrations of these toxics are far higher (sever tens to hundreds of times higher) than the levels found in the natural environment – soil, clay, etc.
3) The toxics present in fly ash are especially dangerous because they can leach out and poison the environment.
4) The toxics in fly ash make it hazardous by inhalation, contact and leaching with water.
5) The hazard posed by fly ash is clear – witness the dozens of cases through the years of severe drinking water contamination and environmental pollution by toxics leached from fly ash.
6) The coal/power industry has blocked the regulation of fly ash as a hazardous waste for decades.
7) With recent fly ash pollution incidents, the EPA is re-examining the regulation of fly ash as a hazardous waste.
FLY ASH IS HAZARDOUS.
POOR-QUALITY PRODUCTS MADE FROM FLY ASH ARE HAZARDOUS.
CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS ARE IN NO WAY COMPARABLE WITH CLAY BRICKS.
CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS ARE DANGEROUS .
CALSTARS FLY ASH BRICKS ARE TOXIC.
That’s quite dangerous indeed. I will ask Marc Porat of Calstar his comments on this. Thanks!
jb
To those of you who are uninformed.
First of bricks are not used in water systems. This would require mortar and the joints will leak at some point leading to catastophic failure.
It is true that coal fly ash, along with portland cement, some limestones, granites, and other building products or ingredients contain various levels of what are considered to be hazardous in one way or another. The detail that everyone seems to overlook is that the metals are not available.
In the case of fly ash most of the elements of concern are tied up inside the glass of the ash. This renders them unavailable. The magic you are trying to present is that the total is miraculously available and will intentionally seek out and destroy all human life forms! Before you condem something check out the facts.
EPA has a test procedure promulgated in SW846 which contains the procedure to leach out any toxic metals. If memory serves me I believe it is method 1312 but I am not 100% sure at this moment. This procedure simulates and acid rain exposure or the anticipated pH that may occur in a land fill scenario. Of course there will be those of you that will believe the EPA is in the pocket of “big” industry and biased the test to provide always positive results.
Following the protocols mandated, few of the ashes will actually fail the RCRA levels. Of course there may be the few that fail and those should be responsible disposed or stabilized. I don’t currently have access to the Oak Creek results of this test but I can assure you they were all below the RCRA standards for all the element of concern. Now they did not necissarily meet drinking water standards on thier own. This meerly indicates the need for another agent to provide the control function to prevent the solubility of these elements.
Once again befor one starts shouting the sky is falling perhaps they should look upwards first! I do believe the space craft that landed on Mars a few years back have actually been reconfigured to send death rays back to earth by the Martians, so this really doesn’t matter
bkwass, your comments about Cal-Star may be true, but you seem to have an agenda that involves fearmongering over these “green bricks”. Your latest comment about the toxin levels in bricks is especially inane and I must comment…
Comparing drinking water standards to the content of inert building materials is absurd. People don’t eat bricks! All of the ‘toxins’ you mentioned exist in far greater concentrations in every house: 100% copper exists in plumbing pipes, 100% chromium on bathroom hardware, 100% nickel on faucets, Vanadium in paints, lead in ceramic glazes, to name a few. Just imagine the harm if you breathe the air in the vicinity of these things!!!
If you wish to continue your assualt on a product that seems to have substantial benefits, why not obtain sample bricks from Dr. Lui and do some testing of your own, then you can rant (if appropriate) without looking like a non-scientific fool.
Pblok
You must comment?
In that case you really should make sure that you are not talking non-scientific nonsense.
Copper in pipes – yes – copper/alloys with protective hard oxide-coats that prevent copper leaching into water.
usuallyactually an electroplated nickel alloys – to which a significant portion of the population is sensitive and which causes contact dermatitis, unless it has a protective overcoat.
Lead in ceramic glazes? Yes – present as lead silicates which leach upon contact with water, and this is why lead glazes and lead glass are banned for food/drink-use.
Vanadium in paints? Rarely – as a catalyst, but largely replaced by non-toxic compounds.
None of these is volatile and none can be inhaled.
Any more nonsense?
Oh by the way, pray tell what benefits toxic fly ash bricks have? I am listening.
Pblok
You must comment?
In that case you really should make sure that you are not talking non-scientific nonsense.
Copper in pipes – yes – copper/alloys with protective hard oxide-coats that prevent copper leaching into water.
Nickel on faucets – usually electroplated nickel alloys – to which a significant portion of the population is sensitive and which causes contact dermatitis, unless it has a protective overcoat.
Lead in ceramic glazes? Yes – present as lead silicates which leach upon contact with water, and this is why lead glazes and lead glass are banned for food/drink-use.
Vanadium in paints? Rarely – as a catalyst, but largely replaced by much safer compounds.
None of these is volatile and none can be inhaled.
Any more nonsense you want to share?
Oh by the way, pray tell what benefits toxic fly ash bricks have?
I don’t have the patience to debate each of your ‘points’ but I’ll use one as an example.
It is a fact that all copper pipes leach some copper into the water they carry, with much more dissolution occuring in highly acidic water conditions. The “hard oxide coating” you speak of is copper oxide – the oxidation product of copper. That’s why copper pipes at the hardware store are tarnished just like pennies. Using your thinking we should ban all pennies from currency circulation.
The important point here is that these constituents like copper entombed within a brick aren’t bio-available. They do not evaporate, sublimate, peregrinate or otherwise escape from the bricks. There is simply no route into the human body. Even if you were to suck on the bricks with lemon juice, the concentrations of the constituents are so low that you couldn’t extract meaningful quantities anyway – well, maybe if you sucked on every brick in the whole house you could. Does this happen often over at your place?
Pblok
My, my – gotten a bit prickly heave we?
Once again I have to correct your spouted nonsense – the coating on copper pipes is not the simple oxide – if it was, it would take very little to dissolve it – ammonia, amines, sulfides, mild acids, etc. Copper pipes are actually made from low-carbon phosphorus-doped copper which are processed to form a thick copper oxide-phosphate coating which is much more resistant to erosion than simple copper oxide. Under normal conditions, copper leaching is well below the copper MCL for water. However, it is well documented that poor-quality copper alloy tubing, low/high pH and the presence of corrosion promoters can lead to copper leaching at above MCL and result in copper poisoning.
Copper pipes at the hardware store are typically tarnished by a mixed sulfide-sulfate-carbonate-chloride-oxide film.
Ban pennies? Why? Do you suck on them? With lemon juice? I see the problem – proliferating neural necrosis from chronic copper poisoning.
Anything to add? Want to discuss copper some more?
Sublimate? Peregrinate? Your knowledge of Alchemy is breathtaking! Turned copper into gold lately?
Oh so the constituents of fly ash brick are not bio-available? Really? So the dozens of incidents over the last three decades of large-scale contamination of water and soil by arsenic, boron, cadmium, lead and selenium are not real?
Maybe you can get together with Luke-Milos-Paddy-ABC? You know – revive them a bit?
Bkwaas, you are mistaken in some of your copper facts but at least your bottom line conclusion is correct and we agree on this: that the thin copper oxide film is insufficient to prevent leaching, and as a result, copper leaching in residential pipes does occur, the exact level depending on local circumstances.
But you have skulked away from the question of how the copper (and other constituents) bound in a brick wall could get into the human body in meaninful concentrations under any reasonable circumstances. Because of your avoidance of this question, I’ll assume you are in agreement with me on this point as well.
Pblok
I am mistaken?
Well, since you are an expert on copper, perhaps you can kindly point out what I am mistaken about and correct me?
I am waiting.
You know perfectly well that fly ash bricks are toxic – after all, you do work for Calstar Cement. But, lets just humor you on this occasion – and detail it step-by-step.
1) EPA, DOE and USGS data on fly ash (including Oak Creek fly ash) and leaching studies show that the toxic metals are present as the soluble sulfate, chloride and double salts, and arsenic as oxosalts, and that the constituents are leached out with water-based solutions.
2) Fly ashes, especially those high in sulfate/chloride, have high contents of leachable salts that are solubilized and migrate in contact with water, and that are left as soluble deposits – ultimately appearing as visible efflorescence.
3) Studies have shown that these salts – whether they have been mobilized/deposited or not, remain soluble for many years/decades, even in heat-processed fly ash products, and pose a toxic hazard. The toxics still retain solubility and mobility after long-cycle, high-temperature processing, which partially incorporates them into secondary silicate minerals.
4) The primary salts and resulting secondary deposits/minerals are soluble and contain highly bioavailable heavy metals and arsenic – direct proof of this is the dozens of documented cases of poisoning of human populations, vegetation and animals by water contaminated by arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, nickel and other metals, leached from decades-old fly ash ponds, embankments, etc.
5) From toxicological studies of these soluble heavy metals ad arsenic, it is clear that even casual contact with fly ash bricks, or inhalation of trace amounts of brick dust, will expose people (the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the bricklayer, the construction crew, the homeowner, the passer-by) to dangerous levels of these soluble toxic salts.
6) These toxic salts are known to readily to be absorbed/penetrate epithelia/mucosa (the eyes, nasal mucosa, lips, plantar surfaces, etc), partition across cell membranes, enter into circulation, and deposit in the CNS/PNS, bones, teeth and major organ systems, and cause systemic/chronic poisoning.
Is that clear enough?
Got anything to add, deny, fluff over?
You must be in a pretty sorry state there at Calstar Cement to be writing these desperate postings.
If your bricks are safe just show the proof. Oh – you would prefer to slink around and hide the issue when it is brought up?
No amount of anonymous postings and attempted obfuscations will cover up the fact that your Calstar Cement fly ash bricks are toxic and pose a serious environmental and public health hazard.
Back to the drawing board with Luke Pustejovsky?
Need to draw up a new Marketing strategy for your poisonous fly ash bricks?
Bkwass,I do not have any affiliation with, or interest in Calstar. (if I did, I could not have let your disparaging comments about this company go unchallenged in my first post)
Your latest comments continue to disingenuously confuse the toxicity of fly ash, with your alleged toxicity of fly ash bricks. Kind of like arguing that ammonia is a toxic chemical that can kill (true) yet it is used routinely in every house in the form of window cleaner.
You have failed to make your case despite many opportunities, and your well of points seems to have run dry, so I am finished your irksome college style debate.
Pblok-Luke
Great to hear from you buddy – I was beginning to think you had already abandoned Pblok
Luke Pustejovsky – so like your other alter-egos – Milos Vlatva aka Paddy Murphy aka ABC, you have given up?
Nothing to argue with? No facts? No science? No?
Oh dear – you still do not understand?
YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOUR FLY ASH BRICKS ARE SAFE!
I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT FLY ASH BRICKS ARE UNSAFE!
Science has clearly established that fly ash is highly hazardous and the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that fly ash bricks must be regarded as equally hazardous, unless proven to be safe.
Did you work for Phillip Morris? Your arguments are amazingly similar to those of the tobacco/cigarette industry, which until not too long ago insisted its products were safe. Using the same marketing techniques are we Luke?
LUKE – THEE IS NO DEBATE!
IT IS BEYOND DEBATE THAT FLY ASH IS HIGHLY HAZARDOUS.
IT IS BEYOND DEBATE THAT THE EPA IS CONSIDERING DESIGNATING FLY ASH AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE
IT IS BEYOND DEBATE THAT ANYONE MAKING PRODUCTS OUT OF FLY ASH HAS TO PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE PRODUCTS ARE SAFE
IT IS BEYOND DEBATE THAT CALSTAR HAS TO DEMONSTRATE BEYOND DOUBT THAT ITS FLY ASH BRICKS ARE SAFE
It is abundantly clear that you – Luke Pustejovsky and your employer Calstar Cement cannot demonstrate safety of your fly ash bricks on even the minimum level.
Clearly, you do not have any data to claim that your fly ash bricks are safe, or what data you do have is to the contrary and you do not want to disclose it.
Also, since you have been hiding behind a succession of idiotic pen-names, you are clearly afraid to publicly claim that your fly ash bricks are safe in your employed capacity, because you are very aware of the dangers that brings in terms of future liability.
LUKE PUSTEJOVSKY – IF YOUR BRICKS ARE SAFE – PROVE IT!
LUKE PUSTEJOVSKY – PROVE THAT YOU HAVE CONVERTED A HIGHLY HAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTE INTO A SAFE, EVERYDAY PRODUCT THAT WILL NOT POISON THE CONSUMER.
LUKE PUSTEJOVSKY – PROVE THAT YOUR FLY ASH BRICKS WILL NOT POISON PEOPLE AS FLY ASH HAS POISONED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF ACRES OVER THE YEARS.
LUKE PUSTEJOVSKY – PROVE IT!
Sadly – you will probably, as on previous occasions, scuttle into hiding before trying to attack under another pseudonym.
How Sad – Luke Pustejovsky The Director of Marketing of Calstar Cement who is too afraid to defend his product in public…
THE LEACHING OF TOXIC METALS FROM CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED.
The data is hidden away in Calstar Products (previously Calstar Cement) website – http://calstarproducts.com/resources/gradient-memorandum/
As suspected, fly ash bricks leach toxic metals – the data shows that even with EPAs very liberal leaching tests, metals including arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel rapidly leach from the bricks within a few hours.
Recall that, Calstar (Luke Pustejovsky, Director of Marketing) was previously claiming that no metals leached from the bricks.
Now, Calstar has changed its story and is claiming that the levels of the metals are below EPA control levels, and so their bricks are safe!
These are the very same EPA tests that have been used to declare fly ash stored in dumps as safe – that lie has been exposed many times with the discovery of severe water contamination and and poisoning of people and the environment by toxic metals leaching from fly ash – for example the recent TVA spill.
It is very telling that Calstar has chosen tests that have been shown many times to be seriously flawed and not properly assess hazard. The coal/fly ash industry has hidden behind these same tests for decades and used them to claim that fly ash is safe.
The danger of Calstar’s fly ash bricks is clear from the fact that even these very mild tests result in the leaching of a range of toxic metals. The leaching of these toxins and exposure to people will in reality be much worse.
More proof that Calstar is selling a toxic product that will poison people and the environment.
More on metals leaching from Calstar’s fly ash bricks.
Gradient Corporation – which did the report for Calstar, is a contract firm that works with the Coal and Fly Ash industries to promote fly ash as safe – in fact, it has been funded by EPRI – the Electric Power Research Institute – which is directly funded by the power generators who produce all the fly ash!
This explains why Calstar approached Gradient for this “report”. Gradient is not independent – it is a lackey of the coal and fly ash industries and has a history of working with these industries and promoting fly ash with dubious “evidence” for its safety.
This also explains why the report was not prepared by the lab (ACZ laboratories) which actually carried out the leaching tests – ACZ probably refused to provide a risk assessment – unlike Gradient. This shows Calstar’s desperation in wanting to claim fly ash bricks are safe.
Yet more proof of a desperate company trying to sell a dangerous product.
A quick analysis of the data on toxic metals leaching from Calstar’s fly ash bricks (you can find this at http://calstarproducts.com/resources/gradient-memorandum/)
In the case of Arsenic (a listed Carcinogen) – the results show that a staggering 800 ug of Arsenic will leach from one brick in one month – or almost 10 mg of arsenic per brick per year. THE ARSENIC FROM JUST ONE BRICK IS ENOUGH TO POISON OVER 250 GALLONS OF WATER. This is from Calstar’s own (selective) data.
How about the toxic cocktail of other metals that leach from Calstar’s bricks – beryllium, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel and thallium? OVER 2 GRAMS OF HIGHLY TOXIC METALS WILL LEACH FROM ONE BRICK – POISONING OVER 1,000 GALLONS OF WATER. JUST ONE BRICK.
How about a house faced with fly ash bricks? A standard residence in WI has about 1,500-2,000 square feet of wall face, requiring about 8,000 – 10,000 of standard facing bricks.
SO, A RESIDENCE FACED WITH CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS WILL HAVE A TOTAL TOXIC METALS CONTNT OF OVER 20 POUNDS! 20 POUNDS OF TOXIC METALS SURROUNDING THE OCCUPANTS.
THE FLY ASH BRICKS USED IN ONE HOUSE ARE ENOUGH TO POISON OVER 10 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER.
A HOUSE THAT HAS CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS IS A MINI FLY ASH LANDFILL – LEACHING TOXIC METALS – POLLUTING ALL OF THE SURROUNDINGS AND POISONING THE RESIDENTS ALL AROUND. JUST LIKE A TOXIC FLY ASH SPILL – LIKE THE TVA FLY ASH SPILL IN TENNESSEE. YOUR HOUSE IS NOW A HAZARDOUS WASTE DUMP.
For comparison – what toxic metals do clay bricks leach? NONE.
CLAY BRICKS DO NOT LEACH ANY OF THE TOXIC METALS THAT LEACH OUT FROM CALSTAR’S FLY ASH BRICKS. PERIOD.
CALSTAR PRODUCTS – THE TOXIC FLY ASH BRICK COMPANY.
CALSTAR PRODUCTS – THE COMPANY THAT WANTS TO MAKE MONEY BY TURNING HOUSES INTO TOXIC WASTE DUMPS.
Great 60 Minutes investigation on CBS about fly ash – highlighting the hazards of fly ash and products made from fly ash:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/01/60minutes/main5356202.shtml
Some interesting quotes from the investigation:
“Some of the ingredients, according to the EPA, were arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, cadmium and other toxic metals”.
Sounds familiar? These are the same toxins present in Calstar Product’s fly ash bricks – and their own data show that they leach out.
“while the government has never formally labeled coal ash a hazardous waste, it’s being treated as such at the Kingston site”
“The new head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, is reviewing whether the federal government should get involved by labeling coal ash a “hazardous waste,”
There you have it – fly ash – the toxic waste that the power industry wants to get rid of, that the EPA does not regulate, and that the disingenuous Greenwash company Calstar Products is trying to profit from.
Bkwaas – you’re spot on about Porat. I don’t know if you’ve had any interactions with Serious Materials, but their CEO, Kevin Surace, is a pretty unctuous character. Just completely full of hype and with little understanding of their own business model. Preaches to anyone who will listen that they are the next Google, but he struggles when you start asking him probing questions. Guys like Porat and Kevin Surace are a blight on the green industry. It’s amazing that they (Serious Materials) persuaded NEA to invest – I think the investment thesis is that they have QuietRock as the base business and the upside is EcoRock, but I’m not holding my breath on that… It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
And btw, Bkwaas – yes, Surace is a long time colleage of Porat, working with him at ThinkMagic and Perfect Commerce. But of course he has no experience in the building sector, home sector, materials development, etc.
UncleJ
No – I have not met with Surace, but I have seen enough to gauge he is of a similar if not worse bent to Porat.
Next Google? That encapsulates what Porat, Surace and the associated crowd are about – Ego and Money.
It is astounding how corrupt their “Green” operations are.
It is a replay of the Porat’s fraudulent General Magic play – hype, hype and hype a non-existent product, go IPO, and sell shares and run away with the money before it all crashes and burns.
No doubt, “Serious Materials” (the name is such an irony considering they have no product) is hoping to emulate General Magic’s glib operation, and Calstar is following in its corrupt footsteps.
The extent of Calstar’s spin knows no bounds – look at the snake oil job they are doing on their web site.
They claim on their web site that “Our process for making fly ash into bricks binds the materials within a strong crystalline matrix that holds even if exposed to the intense acids found in landfills.”.
So fly ash bricks are resistant to “intense acids”?
Lets look at the facts: Calstar’s test data are for the EPA’s TCLP and SPLP tests – in these tests, the bricks are exposed to very dilute acids for less than 24 h. TCLP uses a dilute organic acid with pH 5 and SPLP uses a dilute mineral acid with pH 4.2.
These are much weaker than stomach acid (pH 1-3) lemon juice (pH 2-3) and vinegar (pH 3-4), and even common soda (pH 2 to 4)! In fact, the acids used in Calstar’s leaching tests are about the same acid strength as rainwater (pH 4-5).
So these are “intense acids” according to Calstar ? Is Calstar’s R&D so incompetent that they do not even know a strong acid from a weak acid? Or are they intentionally misstating facts and covering up the hazard of their fly ash bricks? Or is it both?
When the cement, concrete and clay brick industry talk about acid, they are typically referring to Muriatic (hydrochloric) acid – 31% Muriatic acid is routinely used for cleaning clay bricks and portland cement/concrete. This acid is 31% by concentration – while the acid used in Calstar’s tests is about 0.02% concentration. So, the muriatic acid used for routing cleaning of masonry is about about 1,500 times more concentrated than the very weak acids used in Calstar’s tests.
Why does’nt Calstar test their fly ash bricks against Muriatic acid? The answer is simple – because fly ash bricks will disintegrate in Muriatic acid – unlike clay bricks and portland cement/concrete, fly ash bricks are not resistant to Muriatic acid. And worse still, Calstar’s own data show that fly ash bricks leach even in very, very dilute acids that are weaker than lemon juice, vinegar and soda.
So much for Calstar’s claim about their bricks being resistant to “intense acids”. Total fabrication and spin!
Even more lies from Calstar.
Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane is claiming that NO toxic metals leach from the bricks – to quote – he says the bricks are “inert with no leaching of any chemicals from the coal ash that is locked into the products chemically and permanently” (see the articles on Calstar’s bricks – for example on zdnet).
This is a blatant lie. Their own data shows that the CEO’s statement is untrue – a whole range of toxic metals, including arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel leach from the bricks.
These toxics leach very rapidly – within a few hours. Not only that – the toxics leach in very mild solutions comparable to rainwater.
Does Calstar’s management know no bounds for spin and deceit? Or are they so clueless about their fly ash bricks, even in the face of their own test results that show unequivocally that the bricks are toxic?
Is Calstar’s financial situation so desperate that its management is willing to say anything to sell its toxic fly ash bricks?
How does the safety of cement and concrete products containing fly ash compare with Calstar’s fly ash bricks?
Here is a quick overview:
Fly ash is used worldwide throughout the Portland cement/concrete production chain – for production of cement clinker, in blended cements and as a cement replacement in concrete – particularly in the EU, Canada, China and Asia and S. Africa.
The standards in these countries for blended cements and Portland cement-substituted concretes allow for usages from ~ 0% to 20% in the US, and from ~ 5% to 40% in the rest of the world. The actual usage rates are lower: ~ 0% to 15% in the US and ~ 0% to 25% in the rest of the world, with the overall averages being about ~ 3% to 5%.
When fly ash is used to manufacture cement clinker, it partially substitutes for clay, bauxite and iron ore, and the final product is indistinguishable from normal cement (the toxic metals present in the fly ash are vaporized – and the emissions from the kiln are scrubbed).
When fly ash is used in blended cements or in concrete, it undergoes a series of reactions with calcium-containing phases in Portland cement, resulting in the etching of fly ash particles, precipitation of calcium silicates/aluminates, exchange of calcium and magnesium in silicate/aluminate minerals with toxic metals, release of calcium and further etching and formation of silicate/aluminate phases, etc. The net effect is that the Portland cement degrades, mobilizes and mineralizes fly ash and in doing so binds the toxics into stable silicate/aluminate minerals. Portland cement is unique in this respect – its high calcium content and reactivity enable it to encapsulate and effectively immobilize fly ash and other hazardous wastes – including heavy-metal containing industrial sludges, low-level radioactive waste, etc.
A number of studies have shown that at low fly ash levels, fly ash is quite effectively encapsulated by Portland cement, and that cements, concretes and products made with Portland cement plus fly ash appear to be stable and have a low hazard. However, there is still a significant hazard of metals leaching from the fly ash under certain conditions – such as in salt water, acid rain, etc, and of metals exposure during recycling.
In the case of Calstar’s fly ash bricks, there are a number of problems that make their bricks unsafe:
1) Fly ash, even high-calcium class C fly ash, does not contain enough of the mobile calcium-containing phases to act as a reactive encapsulant in the same way as Portland cement (as seen from the leaching of toxics from the bricks).
2) The “proprietary” chemistry that Calstar – borates plus alkanolamines, is very poor in terms of hydraulic reactivity and binder capacity. Calstar’s chemistry is not proprietary – it is taken from decades-old formulations that were abandoned because of poor product performance.
3) Calstar appears to be using efflorescence control agents to reduce salt leaching – these are known to compromise hydraulic reactivity, set, strength and metal binding (as seen from the powdery white surface deposits and chalking).
4) Calstar is using sand in its bricks (probably for the purposes of improving texture and hardness) – however, the formulation they are using shows no matrix-aggregate bond, and this results in decreased strength, and increased permeability and leaching of toxics (as seen from poor edge structure, and surface porosity and efflorescence on the bricks).
All of the above problems arise because of Calstar’s “proprietary” technology – it is a badly performing decades-old abandoned technology known to have a range of serious problems.
The irony is that there are any number of ways to greatly increase the safety of the fly ash bricks – incorporate lime, Portland cement, use efficient fly ash binder and cure formulations, etc.
The fact that Calstar has such a poor product using such an outdated and substandard formulation shows that the company is dangerously inept and ignorant.
Some takes from visiting the Calstar booth at Greenbuild and examining their bricks.
The fly ash bricks look very different to clay bricks – even from a distance. Up close, they have a whitish bloom which rubs off.
Edge hardness is poor and seams are porous and friable. Dimensions and edge/face structure are variable.
Color is variable with pigment bleed around grain structure – since the coloring is from oxide pigment additions rather than firing.
The bricks show water beading and mortar pullback – typical of masonry impregnated with water repellents/efflorescence control agents.
Despite the additives, you still see salt migration – as pinhole breakthroughs, bleeding/staining and salt banding around sand grains and at the mortar joints.
EPA has announced a delay in pending decisions on fly ash regulation
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/85D3578E15C80DB98525768F006A097B
With recent attention on the toxic hazards of fly ash there is a good chance that the EPA will at last properly regulate fly ash as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
The delay might reflect that the EPA is moving in this direction. Calstar, the American Coal Ash Association and other vested business interests have been actively lobbying the EPA to keep fly ash under Subtitle D (non-hazardous) or grant special exemption from Subtitle C – so they can keep selling their poisonous products.
Thanks for the really great post. I found your site while searching through technorati. I will bookmark your blog
Delusions and untruths from Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane (at http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_c152a97a-ff0b-11de-a0d3-001cc4c002e0.html):
Quote from Kane: “We’re going to address the global warming issue,”
What fanciful Nonsense! Brick production accounts for about 0.3% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the US, and under 1% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions globally.
Also, about 50-80 tons of carbon dioxide are produced for each ton of fly ash. So, the truth is that the carbon dioxie emissions associated with Calstar’s fly ash bricks are about 125 to 200 times greater than with clay bricks.
Quote from Kane: “We’re the future.” and “The old methods of brick-making will fade away over time”
Lets compare Calstar’s fly ash bricks with clay bricks:
Calstar’s bricks.
1) Made from a hazardous waste.
2) Toxic to people and the environment.
3) Contain and leach highly toxic metal.
4) Very high CO2 footprint.
5) Completely unproven – no performance data.
6) Known to leach toxic metals.
7) Known to have freeze-thaw problems.
8) Known to have salt efflorescence problems.
9) Known to have mortar bonding problems.
10) Known batch-to-batch and within-batch variability
Traditional bricks.
1) Made from a renewable resource.
2) Completely non-toxic and totally recyclable.
3) Less than 1% of the CO2 footprint of fly ash bricks.
4) Proven for millenia across the world.
5) One of the most Green building materials available.
6) Performance proven for hundreds of years.
7) very high product consistancy.
So, according to Calstar and Kane, a high-performance, safe, established and Green product will be replaced by a toxic, non-Green product known to have a range of performance and toxicity issues?
A very grim future according to Calstar and Kane.
The scam continues.
More eye-opening quotes from Calstar at:
http://www.agrion.org/first_mover_advantage/agrion-en-Fly_Ash_Brick_putting_smokestack_residue_to_use_.htm
This time from their Director of Product Development – Julie Rapoport has been sounding off.
Rapoport concedes that Calstar’s fly ash bricks product is “is a prototype product and has not been field-tested over an extended period”.
So, how exactly is Calstar asserting that their product is “Green” and “Eco-firendly” when it is a “Prototype” that has not even been field-tested?
How is it that Calstar asserts that its fly ash bricks exceed clay brick specifications when they have not been field-tested?
So, why is this untested “prototype” being sold to consumers? Calstar needs guinea pigs to test out its toxic bricks?
Another great quote from Rapoport – “The ASTM standards for clay and concrete masonry products are quite similar despite differences in raw materials and production processes, so it is reasonable to expect that fly ash products that meet these standards will perform perfectly well in the field”.
What utter nonsense – Portland cement is totally different to fly ash is totally different to clay, as anyone with even a modicum of experience with building products knows. Sounds like Rapoport is desperately trying to find some way to associate Calstar’s unproven and toxic fly ash bricks with safe, high-performing and established cement and clay building products.
Even more nonsense from Rapoport – who says: “CalStar tests above and beyond ASTM C216″
ASTM C216 is not applicable to Calstar’s fly ash bricks. Period. ASTM C216 was established for fired clay bricks – and while it appears that it can be extended to fired fly ash bricks, it is certainly not applicable to Calstar’s non-fired fly ash bricks. Period.
Clearly Rapoport’s concept of testing “beyond” ASTM C216 does not include the bricks being “field-tested over an extended period”.
More hype and hyperbole from Calstar.
Calstar’s CEO – Michael Kane has jumped ship.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Boral-appoints-US-division-president-pd20100204-2BTYV?OpenDocument&src=hp14
In a striking and ironic refutal of Calstar’s fly ash brick product, Kane has moved to Boral, the largest clay brick producer in the US.
So much for Calstar’s “Green” and “Eco-friendly” fly ash bricks. Even Calstar’s own CEO did not believe Calstar’s hype and greenwashing.
Obviously Kane sees much better better prospects at Boral. Boral is a solid company with excellent products, including clay bricks, cement block and a range of building products made with fly ash. Quite the change from Calstar’s greenwash operations.
Damage control time for Calstar.
So “The Future” is in “Boral”‘s Clay/concrete bricks.
Wait a minute! Excellent building products made with… fly ash? I thought it was devil’s poop. BTW, what about that Cal-Star’s “R&D” director that “left” back in 2008? Did he turn up in Calera or is he still looking for a job?
Quite the shocker with Kane abandoning Calstar?
Kane’s statements – “we’re the future” and “the old methods of brick-making will fade away over time” were just marketing hype. My – it did not take Kane long to dump Calstar and go to clay bricks. So sad.
Great analogy – Calstar’s fly ash bricks are indeed “devils poop”. Many other companies make great products containing a proportion of fly ash – safe, certified, field-tested products. Not to be confused with the “devil’s poop” that Calstar is producing.
Oh – you have some gossip about the R&D director? I never did find out if he did go to Calera.
BTW, I hear that Calera is doing very well – $30 million plus from the DOE for scale-up of their carbon capture/utilization technology. What a contrast to Calstar trying to scrape together a series C for its toxic bricks.
Devil’s poop indeed.
Is Calstar testing the steam and condensate water discharges and all solids from its steam curing ovens for toxics?
If cold water alone makes all those toxic metals leach from Calstar’s fly ash bricks, one can only imagine what will leach out in steam and hot water. Also, the metals will be highly concentrated in any evaporated deposits. This could be a major operational hazard and OSH issue for the factory workers, and for builders and consumers down the line who are exposed to concentrated leachates from the bricks.
But then, Calstar’s toxic bricks are neither “Green” nor “Eco-friendly”.
Just ask Mike Kane, the former CEO of Calstar, who just left Calstar to go and work at a clay brick company. That says it all.
I thought Serious Materials had no products (that according to a moron scientist above): http://www.marketwatch.com/story/johnson-controls-selects-serious-materials-to-upgrade-windows-in-empire-state-building-2010-03-03?reflink=MW_news_stmp. Oh, before I forget, Kevin Surace, SM’s CEO, was named Entrepeneur Of The Year by Inc. Magazine last December. Do you think there is a global conspiracy against disgruntled morons?
You know something my loser pal, you remind me of Gomez from that old sitcom The Addams Family. In one episode he wonders if every one in the world is nuts and he’s the only one sane.
Dear oh Dear J
You just cannot get that chip off the shoulder can you?
It is sad to see someone end up in such a bitter state – reduced to nonsensical ravings and spewing childish insults.
You just cannot get any of your facts straight can you?
The windows product that Serious Materials sells was not developed in-house – it is a substandard technology bought from Alpen Windows. SMs windows products are known to have problems with perimeter sealing, U-factors, and SHGC and VT values – such that they are considerably inferior to standard NC-use US windows and far behind European PH standards like Beiber and Unilux.
SMs flagship product Eco-Rock has been promised for the last three years and still has not appeared. Big shock there.
That leaves Quiet Rock – a mish-mash of a product of dubious credentials that does not seem to be getting much market traction.
Please do try to show some semblance of technical understanding, rather than foaming pointlessly.
Inc Magazine? Entrepreneur of the Year? Quite an accolade from a piddling trade magazine. Want to try quoting something with a bit more merit?
I see you have your sights set on a starry ascent to fame, and KS is the perfect role model for your scheister operations. Toxic fly ash bricks should bring you plenty of fame, in due course.
Global conspiracy against disgruntled morons? Do tell – you are displaying all of the requisite signs of chronic suffering from such an unfortunate affliction.
Please do watch more episodes of The Addams Family – perhaps it can spur some innovation for cleaning your toxic heavy metal-laden fly ash bricks.
Remember – Scrub, Scrub!
WOW! Amazing inside information. What a network of patriotic spies you have at Serious Materials. Not only that, what a bunch of morons at Johnson Controls. Don’t they see??? Thank you pal, from now on I’m not going even near of the Empire State Building. Hellooooo Big Ben.
Nonsensical ravings? Again Gomez Addams in his unique perspective of the world. Thanks heaven for my pal, alone in his lunatic mission to “save” the world. Childish insults? Correct me if I’m wrong but this forum’s admin had to remove some derrogatory comments you threw up here. I’m only calling you humbly for what you are: A funny loser. However, I’m not asking but DEMANDING the consideration for you to admit I’m the ONLY ONE now giving you attention (well, aside from your other aliases such as theraux, ulrich and techiefromsf). After ½ million postings in hundreds of forums in 1½ years, you haven’t even raised the interest of Moron Magazine.
Loser, loser (Again pal, not an insult, just what you are).
My, My – you really have some deep festering issues with “morons”, scientists”, “the unemployed” and “losers”. What a category of ailments!
What with $15 million in funding announced, I would have thought that you would not have time for such rabid ravings – I really do recommend therapy.
Again – get your facts straight. The full comments are available, without any editing, on a link. Obviously, the editor did not deem them insulting.
I guess that even Snake Oil Salesmen have sensibilities – I guess that being discovered as a fraud selling a scam and being labeled as such is not conducive to business.
Oh, by the way – it is “derogatory” not “derrogatory”.
If you consider this blog irrelevant, why are you posting on it?
Perhaps your use of the term “loser” should be directed at yourself?
Scrub, Scrub – perhaps in due time you can wash away the accumulated grime of toxic fly ash, “losers”, “morons”, “scientists” and “the unemployed”.
No pal, nothing against the unemployed, morons, losers or scientists. But I have to say I find an unemployed moron loser scientist VERY amusing. Do you still wonder why I post on your blog? Man, the more lunatic you become the funnier you get. And all that fun is free.
Hmmm, snake oil. Does it come in curry flavor?
Amazing – now you have something against curry!
Your deranged ravings know no bounds – even ethnic cuisine is not safe! Have you no decency?
Or is that a snide, bigoted swipe against Asians?
That will probably not sit too well with your colleague Kumar. Why don’t you ask him?
So, do you have the fortitude to own up to who you are? Tom Pounds? Julie Rapoport? Michael Telischak? Luke Pustejovsky? Jim Greer? Gene Guetzow? Marc Porat? Probably not Amitabha Kumar, judging from the curry comment.
Oh, I already know why you post on this blog. You lead a very pained life and you need this outlet for its therapeutic value. Glad to be of help!
Scrub, Scrub – 12 million bricks are awaiting your attention!
My, my – gotten a bit prickly have we? Not only playing an ethnic card but also fishing for names. Bkwasssssup pal? Is the kitchen getting too hot? Wanna call the rest of your aliases for reinforcement? Moron Magazine still not calling? You know pal (we’re still pals, right?) what’s a clear sign of dumbness? Predictability. But don’t despair! Here is the solution to all your woes: http://tinyurl.com/yzeurl6
Again, you are so dumb and predictable.
Where is Calstar’s Product Warranty for their fly ash bricks?
Calstar is claiming a “brick” product that is better than clay brick, so it must have a better warranty?
Clay bricks have lifetime or 100 year warranties.
So where is Calstar’s warranty? No sign of it anywhere. Not mention of a warranty or any sort of product guarantee.
Maybe there is no warranty because, in the words of Calstar’s Product Manager – Julie Rapoport, their brick is a “a prototype product that has not been field tested over an extended period” (this from (http://calstarproducts.com/wp-content/themes/default/pdf/ConstructionSpecifier_0809.pdf).
Since Calstar just started production in February, I guess that Rapoport’s idea of “extended period” is anything over one month.
So no product warranty for Calstar’s “Green” and “Eco-friendly” fly ash bricks?
Can Calstar provide any sort of warranty for their product?
A warranty that it will not fade, flake, effloresce.?
A warranty that it will not leach toxic metals?
A warranty that it will not poison people or the environment?
A warranty that it will not crumble into dust after the first frost?
Any warranty? Anything? 10 years? 1 year?
No warranty from Calstar? So what does the builder do? What does the homeowner do?
Oh, of course, there is no warranty for a experimental “prototype product”! Use Calstar’s fly ash bricks at your own risk! No implied product warranty!
That is strange. Clay bricks carry a 100 year or lifetime warranty.
Here is a question for Calstar’s Product Manager – Julie Rapoport.
Where is the product warranty to back up all of your unproven performance claims for your “prototype” product?
Where is your guarantee that your product is a brick and will perform like a brick?
??????????
100-year warranty? Haven’t you read? The world is coming to an end in 2012.
So, no warranty, and no guarantee of any sort?
Calstar’s toxic fly ash bricks.
Use at your own risk.
Calstar accepts no responsibility for defects.
No express or implied warranty or guarantee.
What a “Green” and “Eco-friendly” product!
Why has Calstar removed the results of brick leaching studies from their website?
Maybe it is because the results showed that their fly ash bricks leach toxic metals….
Maybe it is because people saw what was in the results…
The report was at
http://calstarproducts.com/resources/gradient-memorandum/
MY MORON FRIEND IS BACK!!! I was worried about you brotha. You didn’t even leave any of your aliases in charge. Bad boy!
So finally you found the smoking gun… for the millionth time, uh? Did you make a real copy of that report or does it exists only in your mind… along with those voices that only you can hear? C’mon pal, why don’t you try waiting a few days and flush out all that cannabis and other psychoactive stuff from your system before posting your hallucinations here? You’re not going to get that job at McDonalds that way, you know.
Hey pal, question for you: Have you ever wonder how your life would be if you had enough oxygen at birth?
Loser, loser!!!
Nice article in ENR on the dangers of fly ash
“FLY ASH LOOMS AS THE NEW ASBESTOS”
http://greensource.construction.com/news/2010/100415Fly_ash-1.asp
The title says it all
More interesting articles
“IS FLY ASH THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S NEW ASBESTOS?”
http://www.hawaiigreenbuildinglaw.com/wordpress/2010/04/17/is-fly-ash-the-plaintiffs-attorneys-new-asbestos/
Looks like fly ash and is headed for regulation and litigation
Interesting article on the hazards of fly ash
“IS FLY ASH AN INFERIOR BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL MATERIAL?”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5204/is_2003/ai_n19124302/?tag=content;col1
Some quotes from the article
“fly ash can contain any number of more than 5,000 hazardous and/or toxic elements, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, lead, and mercury”
“Fly ash also includes harmful organic compounds such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, dimethyl and monomethyl sulfate, and benzene”
The EPA is considering regulating fly ash.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j8ybrc97riF29IcqTGOVAWufvhKgD9FG9J880
It looks likely that the EPA will opt for regulating fly ash as a “special waste”, under Subtitle C (hazardous waste) of RCRA.
Calstar has already started the spin machine on the EPA announcement
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100505007498&newsLang=en
Calstar states that the “rules avoid naming these by-products as hazardous wastes, placing them instead in a category of “special wastes”.
What Calstar does not mentions is that the “special waste” label is proposed as a sub-category of Subtitle C – Hazardous Waste.
By adopting this regulatory course, the EPA implicitly recognizes that fly ash has associated hazards and requires regulation.
More spin and misinformation from Calstar.
Calstar – the “Special” Hazardous Waste Brick Company
Amusing contortions by Calstars spin machine in the wake of the EPA statement on fly ash regulation
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100505007498&newsLang=en
Calstar now claims that it “fully supports increased federal oversight of this huge category of industrial by-products”
Calstar’s position prior to the EPA statement was that “Fly ash is not a hazardous waste”.
What a turnaround by Calstar.
Calstar – the “Special” Hazardous Waste Brick Company
Hey my moron friend,
It looks very obvious the EPA will be ruling to encourage fly ash recycling, EXACTLY what Cal Star is doing. But yes, I can understand your misinterpretation. It must be so distracting listening to those inner voices constantly. Now, let me encourage you to do something different and more productive like, say, creating a market for a new fashion style. What about wearing sandals with socks?
Loser, loser!
My moron bkwaas pal,
I have encouraged you to look for opportunities in the fast food industry
I have encouraged you to unclog your loo and not to drink from it
I have encouraged you to forget about the Moron Magazine interview. They have minumum requirements you know
And last but not least,
I have encouraged you to get treatment for those hallucinations and inner voices you suffer (+ a truckload of Stelazine)
Pal, don’t you see I’m your advocate, not your aliases? Don’y you see the only things twisted are your four stomachs? It’s OK man, we know life is not fair. Now go and play with your inflatable toy collection.
PS: I like your FlyAshScam alias. You’re so creative.
Very interesting story in the NY Times about business railroading EPA’s desire to regulate fly ash as hazardous waste
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/05/07/07greenwire-epa-backed-off-hazardous-label-for-coal-ash-af-10431.html?scp=3&sq=coal ash&st=cse
“EPA released the two-headed proposal Tuesday for public comments”
“But there was just one rule proposal that EPA sent to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget last October and that would have LABELED COAL ASH AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE”
“EPA SAID THEN THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE HAZARDOUS-WASTE REGULATIONS WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE BUT THAT COSTS WOULD BE OUTWEIGHED BY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS”
“EPA wrote then that “MAINTAINING A [NONHAZARDOUS] APPROACH WOULD NOT BE PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN AND THE ENVIRONMENT”
“Proponents of the hazardous designation say Jackson was bullied away from the agency’s original proposal by INDUSTRY LOBBYISTS and OMB economists”
Industry lobbyists like Calstar Products – lobbying to sell toxic fly ash bricks made from a hazardous waste.
Puzzolana – a company that has been making lime-fly ash bricks for years – http://www.flyashbricksdelhi.com
Funny thing is that Calstar’s LEED documentation (http://www.calstarproducts.com/wp-content/themes/default/pdf/LEED-FAB-FAP.pdf) is a wholesale, word-for-word copy of Puzzolana’s (http://www.flyashbricksdelhi.com/faqs), including funny grammar and typos.
What an amazing coincidence!
Imitation is a form of flattery – perhaps Puzzolana should be flattered.
Green Arrow is the Product Manager of Calstar – Julie Rapoport – that would explain why she is so upset and spewing vile incessantly.
Apparently Rapoport cannot muster any semblance of knowledge-based defense to technical critique, so she resorts to bigoted vitriol. So sad coming from a “Product Manager”.
“Green Arrow” aka Calstar’s Product Manager Julie Rapoport – a quote from her that says it all
“Calstar’s fly ash bricks product is a prototype product and has not been field-tested over an extended period”
http://www.agrion.org/first_mover_advantage/agrion-en-Fly_Ash_Brick_putting_smokestack_residue_to_use_.htm
A “prototype product”
Not “field tested”
No warranty
Made from a hazardous waste, soon to be regulated by the EPA
Calstar’s toxic fly ash bricks.
Just ask Julie Rapoport aka “Green Arrow”
I imagine there will be many construction sites established because of this “green” effort. In doing so, construction fire safety measures such as preventing fires on site, preparing for fires if they occur and learning how to effectively evacuate.
More of Calstar’s top management are dumping the company.
Now, Luke Pustejovsky (VP Business Development at Calstar) has left Calstar – ironically to join Calera.
So much for Calstar’s fly ash bricks.
The EPA has suspended the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) – a coal ash reuse promotion program, while the program “is being re-evaluated”.
http://yubanet.com/usa/EPA-Suspends-Coal-Ash-Promotion-Program.php
Also, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) wrote to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging her agency to rethink the full range of risks in putting highly toxic coal combustion wastes into an array of consumer, agricultural and commercial products – which is the object of the suspended C2P2.
More proof of the toxicity of fly ash and the danger of products like Calstar’s fly ash bricks.
More truth-bending statements from Calstar’s Julie Rapoport – aka Green Arrow.
In an ad piece in Masonry Edge Storypole, Rapoport claims that the fly ash bricks have been tested “to be absolutely certain there is no concern with handling the fly ash brick” and that “it is a safe product”.
The fact is that Calstar’s own test results show unequivocally that a range of toxic metals, including arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel are present on the surface of the bricks and are also rapidly leached in soluble forms by simple contact with water in just a few hours.
Handling the bricks, and breathing in dusts and aerosols generated from handling, cutting and washing the bricks will immediately expose the handler to these toxic metals.
Recall also that Rapoport previously conceded that “Calstar’s fly ash bricks product is a prototype product and has not been field-tested over an extended period”
http://www.agrion.org/first_mover_advantage/agrion-en-Fly_Ash_Brick_putting_smokestack_residue_to_use_.htm
Calstar – the toxic brick company
A report released today confirms that the fly ash used in Calstar’s bricks is hazardous and that it leaches toxic metals into water.
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/INHARMSWAY_FINAL.pdf
WE Energies operates the Oak Creek power plant and has known about toxic metals in the fly ash and how they have leached into the environment and contaminated drinking water.
In 2009, WE Energies informed nearby residents that their water was unsafe to drink and has been providing bottled water.
WE Energies is funding Calstar and their fly ash brick operation. The ash which has contaminated drinking water is the same ash that Calstar is using in their bricks.
This is the same ash that Calstar has claimed is non-hazardous and does not leach toxic metals.
This report and WE Energies actions prove that the fly ash is hazardous, that it does leach toxic metals, and that WE Energies and Calstar Products have known all along about the toxicity of fly ash. Also Calstar’s own tests on the fly ash bricks show beyond doubt that toxic metals are present on the bricks and leach very rapidly from the bricks.
There is no doubt and Calstar can no longer deny that the fly ash used in their bricks is hazardous and leaches toxic metals, and that their bricks are toxic.
bkwaas: You have gone strangely quite since August – any more shocking discoveries you could share with us? I am definitely interested. I can also see Calstar are manufacturing and selling the bricks, with EPA not producing as much as a squeak. Puzzling, with all the toxicity you mention. Actually, do you have an interest to declare?
Well, well – Julie Rapoport – Calstar’s Product Manager aka Green Arrow is back as “richtea”.
Any more shocking discoveries? Lets see:
Calstar factory in operation for almost one year, but next to nothing to show for it.
Bricks being stockpiled at the Calstar plant because they are not selling.
Efflorescence and hazing issues with Calstar bricks at model installations.
Color transfer, smudging, surface wear and edge loss issues with Calstar pavers at model installations.
Documented leaching and toxicity issues with the Oak Creek fly ash that Calstar bricks are made from.
Documented metal leaching and toxicity issues with Calstar’s fly ash bricks.
Did I forget anything Julie?
The EPA – well, I imagine that the EPA is quite busy formalizing fly ash designation under hazardous waste.
Interest to declare?
Oh yes, I certainly have an interest – in Exposing Greenwash Scams like Calstar.
What is your interest? Oh I forgot – Julie Rapoport – you stand to profit from your toxic fly ash bricks.
More absurd claims from Calstar – this time in their purported safety testing of their fly ash “bricks”. The document is at:
calstarproducts.com/pdf/fly_ash_overview.pdf
Calstar claims to have tested for 17 toxic metals, including the metals “Mb” and “Va”.
However, the elements “Mb” and “Va” do not exist.
Is Calstar so incompetent that it’s R&D lacks even the most basic understanding of chemistry?
Or is this more fabrication by Calstar?
How can one rely on anything this company claims, when their statements are full of wild inaccuracies and misrepresentations?
Calstar – the Greenwashed toxic “brick” company.
OK, so you are alleging some mistakes in company documents – would it not be good to let them know instead of spreading innuendo?
Having gone through your comments, I find them both informational & destructive, clearly designed to damage one particular manufacturer and product. That stinks. To my knowledge, Calstar has raised some 19 million dollars thus far; what have you to show for getting venture capital?
By the way, if you are as good at providing valid criticism as guessing names, I must doubt your judgment. So, what other scams are you exposing – or are you just a binkered dog barking at a single tree? One wonders, believe me.
Welcome back Julie Rapoport!
What innuendo? My statements are perfectly clear – Calstar is incompetent and engaged in Greenwashing a dangerous product made from a hazardous waste.
Would you like further clarification of that, Julie?
Calstar’s dazzling incompetence is abundantly clear from the long list of wacky pseudo-scientific statements made by you and your colleagues, and the loony documents you produce.
Case in point – your delinquent document claiming that Calstar has tested for the non-existent metals “Mb”" and “Va”. Quite stunning ineptitude by you and your “R&D experts”. The level of incompetence here is so shameful that one has to wonder if it is actually symptomatic of data fabrication.
So, would you like me to tell you the correct symbols, or would you like to invent some other new elements? I am happy to do so at no charge – with my compliments.
What stinks? Your “bricks”? Your “experts”? Your sales? Your incompetence? Take your pick.
19 million dollars. So, with your “brick factory” at partial capacity and stockpiling bricks, and with your staff cuts, how long will it take to run at a profit and pay back the primary debt? 10 years? 15 years? And this after three rounds of funding and five years of operation! Dazzling!
And here I am believing that a successful startup is one that does not need VC funding or is self-financed after the first round, and is operating a profit within three years. I must be mad!
I see that your spelling still has not improved – it is “blinkered” with an “l”.
One does indeed wonder – about Calstar’s Product Manager, Julie Rapoport. Blinkered beyond beggared belief.
OK, binkerkwaas, so you are a monomaniac (“I must be mad!” – was that an admission?). Either that, or you are getting paid for all the verbiage. Which would greatly undermine your credibility, just as your sudden interest in capital investment does. So, is it really the product you are bashing? Or what? Your motivation is obviously suspect. And that is all I have to say.
richtea – aka Julie Rapoport
Julie Rapoport – too scared to come out in person and stand by your numerous nonsensical statements.
So Julie – have you discovered any new elements lately? In addition to the non-existent metals “Mb” and “Va” that you claim were tested for in your safety document?
calstarproducts.com/pdf/fly_ash_overview.pdf
So Julie, which is it – mind-boggling scientific incompetence, or an equally incompetent at data fabrication?
Anything to say, or are you, as usual, going to hide behind another pseudonym and bark occasionally?
Calstar – the Greenwashed toxic “brick” company.
Looks like Calstar has “amended” their “safety document” after I pointed out that two of the metals (“Mb” and “Va”) they claimed they had analyzed for did not in fact exist.
They have now removed the non-existent elements from their document.
You are welcome Julie Rapoport aka “Green Arrow” aka “richtea” – Products Manager of Calstar!
Calstar’s hasty correction of their safety document poses the question – does this “mistake” in Calstar’s safety document indicate a pathetic attempt at data falsification? After all, how can Calstar’s R&D experts fudge something as trivial as chemical symbols – unless they are incompetent beyond belief, or they are (ineptly) fabricating data?
Calstar – the Greenwashing continues.
After resisting for almost a year, Calstar has finally provided partial warranties for their fly ash “bricks” and “pavers”.
http://calstarproducts.com/products/environmental-safety/
Calstar gives 10 year and 50 year limited warranties for their “pavers” and “bricks” respectively. These warranties are only for performance and not for product safety.
Calstar’s warranties are inferior to the standard 25 year, 50 year and lifetime warranties for concrete pavers and concrete bricks, and 50 year and lifetime warranties for clay pavers and clay bricks.
Why are Calstar’s products warranties inferior to those of concrete and clay products?
The answer is safety and durability. Calstars fly ash “bricks” and “pavers” leach out toxic metals, and are not durable – they are less hard, less shock and impact resistant, less abrasion resistant, less freeze-thaw resistant and less salt resistant than concrete and clay products.
And why is there no warranty for product safety?
Calstar offers no warranty with regards to the heavy metals and other toxics contained in their “bricks” and “pavers”. Why? The answer is simple – the products are not safe and Calstar’s own test data shows that the toxics leach out within a few hours.
The fly ash that Calstar uses to make its “bricks” and “pavers” carries a radiation hazard.
The radiation dose for the main radioisotopes – radon 226, thorium 232 and potassium 40 corresponds to a radium equivalent activity of 330 becquerel per kilogram. This compares with activities of 10-150 for soils, clays and rocks, and 90 for portland cement.
Worse still, the gamma index for fly ash is 1.2-1.3 – this is above the safe limit for building products (1.0) and compares with the values of 0.1-0.6 for soils, clays and rocks, and 0.35 for portland cement.
The fly ash that Calstar uses emits dangerous levels of alpha and gamma radiation – levels that are 2-12 times higher than for soils, clays and rocks, and 3-4 times higher than for portland cement.
Calstar – Greenwashing a toxic product.
The defection of top management from Calstar continues.
Jim Greer, the VP of Finance has left Calstar.
This follows the departure of the Director of Research, the CEO, and the Director of Marketing.
More evidence that Calstar is a Greenwash.