An example of a fly-ash brick plant
[Update: we removed the most "colourful" part of the user's comments at the request of Cal-Cement CEO, Marc Porat who found them derogatory]
I thought I would highlight one of our readers’ comments on a story we did this week about green building start-up Cal-Star and its fly-ash bricks/cement. I’ve partly edited it, but you’ll find the “un-edited” and more colourful version here. And if you want to know more about green cement, check out this post on the Next Big Future blog.
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.
Clay bricks vs Cal-Star fly-ash 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 Cal-Star 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.
I would look instead at companies like Calera which is funded by Vinod Khosla. The founder, Brent Constantz, 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 (Cal-Star’s CEO) 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-Cal-Star employees, who left after becoming disaffected with Cal-Star and Porat. The latest rumor is that Cal-Star’s R&D director left recently, and might also turn up at Calera.
Wow, the anonymous posting re: the fly ash brick is (breathtakingly) ignorant. It’s wrong about health and safety issues–and about brick performance vs. high-energy, CO2-intensive clay brick, etc. And it is absent supporting data re: its claims about the fly ash brick.
There hasn’t been real innovation in the brick and cement industries for a long, long time. And I don’t believe that CalStar (or Calera) have product in the market just yet.
Ad hominem attacks against M. Porat are not helpful or informative. There is a distinct “sour grapes” tone to the post. A disgruntled former employee? A clay industry lobbyist? A coal or natural gas industry apparatchik?
Good luck to Calera, CalStar, and all of the other Silicon Valley companies re-inventing building materials to be more sustainable. I heard John Fernandez (MIT) say that the construction industry spends only 0.5% of its annual revenues on R&D (vs. 5%+ avg. for all industries). Seems like an industry ripe for disruption. Silicon Valley can use its talent, capital, innovation, and rapid commercialization culture to make a big impact on the built environment. Porat, Khosla and a few select others are making it happen. Hats off to them.
I really wish this forum could be reserved for dispassionate discussion–the post trashing CalStar and its employees seems to have ulterior motives… . Reminded me of the BS “Obama is a Muslim” e-mails crowding my inbox–just trying to scare people before an election.
Milos
Milos
Excellent – let us have a reasoned discussion – and in doing so, you can correct my sweeping ignorance.
Now, since I do not have a handle on the relevant facts wrt fly ash bricks, perhaps you can supply them or point me to sources of information.
Let us get started:
I am wrong about the health and safety issues? Well, it is fact that fly ash contains a range of toxic elements. It is also fact that these elements have been enriched during the fly ash formation process. It is also fact that the levels of these elements in fly ash are typically much higher than those in coal, clay, limestone, etc. It is also fact that these elements can leach into the environment. It is also fact that many of these elements are toxic and covered by federal and state regulations. Fly ash is inherently a hazardous material. Is a fly ash brick (being manufactured in its entirety from a hazardous raw material) then of concern? Logic would dictate that great caution be exercised with such a product in view of its inherent hazard potential, and in view of the exposure potential to trades people, consumers and the environment. Please correct me where I am mistaken in my assumptions – perhaps you are privy to data that shows the product to be safe? If you can provide it or a link to it that would be great.
I am wrong about performance vs clay bricks? Well, I am familiar with clay bricks and their properties, and have gleaned some things from published works on fly ash bricks. Sounds like you have specific technical data on fly ash bricks? Data on strength, fire resistance, frost resistance, long-term durability in-field and recycling – any information on these would be most informative for comparing to clay bricks.
Energy-intensive clay bricks? Yes – they are energy intensive, but your comparison is misleading. You neglect the environmental footprint associated with the production of fly ash? In my view, this is unjustifiable when one looks at the enormous, global and cumulative effects of coal-burning on the environment and health.
There has not been innovation in the brick and cement industries for a log, long time? Really? You belittle an industry which is a foundation for civilization. You should brush up on the enormous research efforts of cement companies in refining cement manufacturing – particularly the decades of work on reducing emissions/pollution, improving energy efficiency and developing alternative cements. The worth of the cement and brick industry is proven and time-tested, and has always been based upon innovation.
Ad hominem attacks against M. Porat? If I have misstated fact, I will withdraw said offense(s) and apologize without delay. Sour grapes – never tasted them – some sort of delicacy? You seem to have a problem with ex-employees, the clay industry, brick industry, coal industry – not really relevant in this discussion.
Reminds you about the attacks on Obama? Well, last I checked, I was not a politically-motivated operative. A GOP-coal industry hire who hates fly ash – oh no, that does not make any sense. How about someone aware of the hazards of fly ash and the danger of greenwashing an unproven product?
Hoping to hear from you soon.
BK
Dear BK:
Please announce your identity and relevant credentials and I will be glad to have an open, reasoned discussion with you.
Regards,
Milos
My Dear Milos,
I am most disappointed.
I had thought that your frayed reply would be followed by a calm and substantive entry into detailed discussions on the technicals of fly ash bricks.
Instead, you elected to deliver an indignant one-liner that does not address in any way any of the issues raised. Should I assume that you have nothing to contribute to a technical expose of fly ash bricks?
As for my background – well, if that is your main concern – I am an engineer with 20+ years research and development experience in high-performance engineering materials, renewables and sustainable development, environmental stewardship, low EI technologies, systems modeling and analysis, and CGA, IA and LCA methods – that is a brief overview. Oh – one of my personal interests is debunking hyped and unproven “Green” and “Clean” technologies -especially those that carry whitewashed environmental costs – hence my very strong interest in the present case.
Happy now with my credentials? How about you – would you like to share your expertise with us?
Once again – hoping to hear from you soon and to starting a serious, in-depth analysis of fly ash bricks.
Warmest regards,
BK
Bkwaas
New thread I see.
Any more info on the bricks? Funny – nothing on Calstars website (www.calstarcement.com) – no documents – no links – nothing. Was expecting to see lots of technical documents and patents and brick photographs. I am surprised – no information – do they really have a product – supposed to ship in 2009 – strange.
I had a look at the 2006 patent application from the Freight Pipeline company on USPTO – looks weak and poorly written -i dont see what the invention is about – is it just the air-entrainment agent – is that what is novel? You confirmed that this is the same technology as Calstar? How can you make a good brick with this – looks like a poor technology?
What sorts of differences and problems will you expect to see with fly ash bricks when comparing to the traditional fired bricks? The toxic metals- less dense, less hard – lower strength – more absorbent – what else?
thanks
Thereaux
Thereaux
Dear BK:
Quit hiding behind your web pen name, announce who you are (legal name), your affiliation(s), and I will be glad to speak with you in-depth on these issues.
Thanks,
Luke
Dear Milos, or rather Luke,
Great to hear from you!
I had given up hope of getting any response from you – not that you have offered any insight to date.
So – you are Luke – judging from your strained commentary and total lack of technical response to date, I would guess that you are Luke Pustejovsky, listed as the VP of BD at Calstar cement.
EXCELLENT! We now have a direct line of communication with Calstar!
Surely then you are eager to engage in a technical discussion – or, if you are unable to handle a technical expose, perhaps you can nudge one of your colleagues to enter the fray?
Either way, I am looking to dissecting fly ash bricks in great detail.
Best regards,
Brad
Feel free to e-mail me your e-mail and phone number at milos.vlatva@gmail.com. I look forward to communicating with you.
Milos-Luke
This is getting very tiresome.
If you have something to contribute to this blog then do so.
I am not interested in entering into private communications – if you have something to say, then do so publicly on this board.
Brad
It would be exceedingly rare for a company to launch a new product in the blogosphere (and, if I were you, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen here). Further, it is unfair and dishonest for you to attack a product ahead of its launch–a product that you have not reviewed (technical specifications, MSDS sheets, installation guides, third party LCA analyses, actual EH&S data, etc.). You’re trying to effect a public flogging without a referenceable target. It’s odd. And that’s what makes your motives so suspect.
When information is available to industry professionals, I hope that you have the integrity to review the public information and reconsider/disavow your anonymous slander when you confirm to yourself that it was successfully and completely refuted. It (the slander) isn’t helpful, it doesn’t illuminate anything, and it’s a discredit to the spirit of earnest scientific inquiry and engineering innovation. No more ping pong on this blog.
Luke
Glad to see that you have come out!
Well, well – I see a lot of Huff and Puff – plenty of hypocritical waffle about integrity and earnest scientific inquiry and the like – amusing to some degree I suppose.
All the meaningless drivel aside, the point of note is that you have not offered any rebuttal of any scientific or logical merit whatsoever to the many points raised to date. Remarkable!
All your communications indicate that you are (in your own words) a lackey connected to Calstar who is extremely frustrated by the expose on your smoke-and-mirror operations.
The degree of ineptitude is astounding considering that you are the Director of BD at Calstar – one would think that you would be able to mount some semblance of fact-based defense of your claimed fly ash bricks.
MSDS sheets, installation guides, LCA analyses – most excellent – Oh but, I guess that you must have forgotten to attach links to these tantalizing documents? After all, you have a product ready to ship next year – you must have full validations for production, installation, performance and recycle – surely you would not ship a product without these? Unless of course you do not have a product? Sadly, I guess that this confirms the suspicions about Calstar, its management and fly ash bricks.
Slander? How does one slander something that is non-existent? Perhaps you can explain that to me?
No more ping-pong? What a pity – I was just warming up and looking forward to many more enlightening discussions with Calstar’s Director of BD!
Brad
called calstar last week – not sure who I talked to – maybe someone in sales – maybe this Luke guy – said bricks still in research phase – would be shipping mid-2009. I asked for samples, specification, price – said they were in process. asked about cement and samples – said they were working on the cement and that it would be ready for large scale production in 2009 – no samples or specifications yet. also said their top engineer was in France working on brick manufacture. seems like they dont have anything yet and are in the research phase – similar feedback from others who have called them – am wondering how far along they really are
Just found that interesting piece on Porat’s activities at General Magic – a rather amusing title – “Diary of a Disaster: General Magic goes Poof”!
http://www.grosen.dk/jp/Diary_of_a_Disaster.html
A most illuminating expose, and a great primer on the inner workings of Porat’s companies.
BK
Here is a great example of the environmental hazard of fly ash – the contamination of water supplies by toxic metals from fly ash – and a rare case of taxpayers winning the battle:
$54 MILLION: MARYLAND FLY ASH, CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WINS COURT APPROVAL.
A Milestone in Maryland Environmental and Legal History. Dec 31, 2008.
http://www.aggregateresearch.com/article.aspx?id=15322
Calstar wants to make bricks out of such toxic stuff? This is appalling even in this day – profiteering with total disregard for peoples health.
Brad
Well said and thanks for the link – an excellent real-world expose of the toxic nature of fly ash and the severe environmental and public health consequences it can have.
Perhaps Luke Pustejovsky – Director of Business Development at Calstar (aka Milos on this board) would like to respond – alas, I doubt he will have anything to say – he appears to have gone into hiding.
These sorts of issues should properly be delivered to the doors of Marc Porat (CEO of Calstar) and Tom Pounds (listed as COO of Calstar) – sadly, they appear to be more interested in profits from Greenwashing than addressing product safety or performance.
See the recent news on the fly ash sludge spill from a containment reservoir in IL -
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=355
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20081230/Flooded.Neighborhood/
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!
Brad – thank for the NYT link – nice story – bit short on details, but a good primer on fly ash.
That is exactly the point – fly ash bricks and similar products could directly expose contractors, homeowners, the general public and the environment to a range of toxins.
Fly ash bricks and the operations of companies such as Calstar need to be examined with a microscope to make sure that they are not putting profits ahead of product safety and endangering public health and the environment.
NYT has a follow up article about the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee looking into the issue -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/us/09coal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=fly%20ash&st=cse)
With some luck, we should soon see regulation of fly ash as a hazardous waste. Now that the Bush administration is leaving office, the EPA will hopefully be cleansed of its industry-friendly behavior, and people like Senator Boxer will take an aggressive look at the fly ash problem.
Also – I just saw another piece on the same issue from AP at
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_go_ot/coal_ash
BK
A nice overview of the hazards of fly as is given by the following report from the Clean Air Task Force – it highlights the presence of toxins in fly ash and confirms the undeniable case for the strict regulation of fly ash
http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/Laid_to_Waste.pdf
BK
Here is a 2007 EPA report on the risks of coal fly ash and other coal combustion wastes – entitled “Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Coal Combustion Waste”::
http://www.earthjustice.org/library/reports/epa-coal-combustion-waste-risk-assessment.pdf –
Here is a 2007 EPA report documenting environmental and health damages caused by these wastes – entitled “Coal Combustion Waste Damage Case Assessments”
graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/07sludge_EPA.pdf
So – the EPA is and has been fully aware of the highly toxic nature of coal fly ash, as proven by its own studies. However, under the outgoing Bush administration, the EPA has covered up the issue and has claimed time and again that fly ash is non-hazardous – in the face of a mountain of evidence that it is highly hazardous and should be tightly regulated.
The depth of corruption in the EPA is illustrated by it blatantly failing to enforce regulations on fly ash after promising to do so, and most visibly by C2P2 – the Coal Combustion Products Partnership – A PARTNERSHIP OF THE EPA AND THE COAL/COAL ASH INDUSTRY – working to minimize regulations on fly ash and promote its “beneficial utilization”!!!
“Beneficial utilization” – beneficial to who – this band of crooks that is making dirty deals and even dirtier money, while dozens of environments and thousands people all over the US are suffering daily from the toxic effects of fly ash???
One wonders whether Calstar has a connection to C2P2 – they do not indicate who they are funded by – perhaps part of the C2P2 consortium, or the coal industry, or the flay ash marketers?
BK
lot of new info since I last looked at this board – toxicity of fly ash seems to be a big problem. Talked to some people about Calstar cement – found some who had visited the company – saw their bricks – some interesting comments from them – they are a very small operation making pressed and autoclaved cured bricks – the bricks apparently dont look anything like clay bricks – commented that the bricks looked soft and crumbly and were covered with white powder. looked into this with people – the white coating is called efflorescence – composed of salts leaching from the fly ash – this is a major red flag – sources said that this efflorescence material has toxins like arsenic, mercury and cadmium – so the bricks are dangerous to touch and handle. sources also said that the calstar people didnt seem to know much about technical aspects and had made very few bricks – more bad signs. Sounds pretty scary – toxic fly ash bricks – better to stay away from this stuff Didnt hear any more on the cement – assume same problems if it is also made from fly ash
Wilson – effluorescence is very common to any manufactured cementitious product. Your “sources” are wrong in labeling effluorescence as a toxin.
It results from the interaction of lime deposits with moisture. This “whiting” happens regularly to pavers, blocks, and bricks shortly after installation. Or sometimes during completion of the project. High humidity climates or rains will bring it out quicker. For no good reason sometimes it will take 6-12 months or longer to show up.
Ergo the notice from most concrete product suppliers, or knowledgeable contractors, that the customer should allow only time and the elements to see it wash out by itself. Rather than do an acid wash to remove it. Which is problematic in terms of what can go wrong with acid washing if it isn’t done right.
The use of fly ash in concrete products (which is very common for many concrete product manufacturers in NA today to use 10-20% fly ash substitution to replace portland cement) offers positives and negatives. A positive of fly ash in manufactured concrete products is that it usually minimizes effluoresence problems.
As anyone with a pulse knows these days there is plenty of documentation and case studies that reference the negatives of fly ash material and the wave of new laws/policies on the way that will deal with the storage and use of coal ash.
Including the need for the EPA to classify it as a hazardous material. Which will certainly impact the CCP industry and concrete producers using it.
Govinda,
what does your experiments suggest?
moreover till todays discussion,can we conclude that we can manufacture flyash bricks,as because:1. since, it reduces the already produced waste i.e FLYASH.2. upon giving better quality cement in proper ratio and other additives as required for really GREEN BRICK.3.low cost and attractive form of modern material.
Paddy – my expert sources tell me – as I have confirmed with some of my own reading that efflorescence in fly ash has nothing to do with the lime that is the problem in portland cement. Efflorescence in fly ash results from salts leaching from the fly ash – and this includes the toxins like mercury, cadmium, chromium, lead and so forth. efflorescence on portland cement products is due to lime – because there is an excess of lime in portland cement and this reacts with carbon dioxide. there is no such lime in fly ash – suppose that is why fly ash reduces the lime efflorescence in portland cement
yes – looking at all the information on fly ash and the environmental problems this material should be tightly regulated
looks like Calstar cement is in trouble – over half of their scientists have left since 2008 – including a founder and the research director. very troubling – confirms the grapevine – shortfall in series B funding and problems setting up their ash brick business Still have not found anyone who has seen any pilot production of bricks or cement – all indications are there are no products and company is going south
The pressure for regulation of coal ash seems to be building. A coalition of Earthjustice, NRDC, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and 104 other environmental groups recently sent an unprecedented letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urging regulation of coal ash.
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub607.cfm
Mounting evidence of the highly hazardous nature of fly ash, the push for regulations, and increasing public scrutiny, should firmly put the focus on electric utilities, The American Coal Ash Association, and companies like Calstar which claim to make safe fly ash products. It will be interesting to see how these groups respond – panic must surely be setting in.
Also, some other interesting articles on the hazards and politics of coal fly ash:
Coal Ash: The Hidden Story
http://www.truthout.org/022009S
An article by Bill Chameides, Dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/finally-standards-for-coa_b_174070.html
A proposal for regulation of coal fly ash, sent by environmental groups to the EPA in 2007.
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=0900006480216bac
will somebody please comment on the industry that produces fly ash than that which tries to utilize it. there is talk on fly-ash regulation, nobody wants to regulate all those industries that generate fly ash, primary among them being the power, oil, steel and other important industries. commenting on these would lead to important but uncomfortable questions, i invite a comment and some light on the topic.
Calstar Cement apparantly wants to build a fly ash brick plant in Wisconsin – using ash from the Oak Creek power plant (http://www.journaltimes.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.
bkwaas you are correct. but it is bigger than that.
contact me directly. reinventordie@gmail.com
Paddy
I am correct? You have inside sources that confirm this? Dying to hear about it – please contact me at: milos.vlatva@gmail.com
bkwaas I have no interest in contacting Milos or Luke. You cannot rationalize the irrational.
If you believe these types of businesses and people should be stopped – as I do and you sound to be of the same position – it will require collaboration and initiative.
Its your call.
http://hamptonroads.com/node/503557
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/gov/2009/03/20-30/Cardin-asks-EPA-for-new-fly-ash-rules.html
Is fly ash the new asbestos – but worse?
Paddy
Merry game you have going on there – who else is playing?
Collaboration and initiative? Surely you, Milos and Luke can pool your many talents for this worthy cause?
Off you go – I’ll have your back – Dont look back – Press on – To Victory!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090411/ap_on_bi_ge/chinese_drywall
Drywall with fly ash = sick, broke and broken homeowners.
Attached is a link that looks into the respiratory ailments of workers after 9-11 and the fact that flyash was used in the site concrete:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/494684_1
For more info do a search on the following query:
Was the dust from the world trade center contaminated with flyash?
I think someone had some questions about the physical properties of flyash bricks. I can’t really comment on the health effects of flyash or any of that banter, but, what I can comment on is the known and tested physical properties of flyash bricks.
ASTM has set standards for building materials physical properties and specifications. The goal of the flyash brick was to meet or exceed the standards for clay brick as outlined in ASTM C216. Remember that these standards are created by those in the clay brick industry as “their” standard. The most significant of these are the freeze thaw durability and compressive strength and is what is focused on most.
C216 calls for a freeze thaw resistance of 50 cycles before breaking or losing more than 0.5% of its dry mass during testing. The flyash brick developed by Dr. Liu has met this standard for quite some time and is gradually being improved with changes in curing methods. It is of interesting note that c216 (also see ASTM C67) allows the alternative test of water absorption to pass a batch of bricks which is used my most of the industry. It’s much less rigorous than the actual freeze thaw testing which has to be used with flyash bricks because they absorb more water than clay bricks.
C216 calls for an individual brick compressive strength of 2500psi and a set (of 5) average of at least 3000psi. On this front I can also say that a flyash brick meets with resounding ease. I have seen bricks tested that exceeded 10,000psi before failure. Even some of the poorer examples of flyash bricks I have seen have performed right around the required strength level.
There are other tests that can/have been done but the two of significance is the freeze thaw testing and compressive strength testing.
Questions? Comments? Ugly faces?
jesse
Jesse
Good to hear from a colleague of Dr. Liu’s.
You forgot to mention that you used a “modified” freeze-thaw test and “extrapolated” the performance.
Oh yes – the water absorption test – very useful when a poor-quality brick does not pass freeze-thaw – use the “alternative” test to “qualify” the brick.
Oh, and you also conveniently forgot to mention that fired clay/shale and fired clay/shale-fly ash bricks routinely pass well over 100 full freeze-thaw cycles (not your “modified” test) and are routinely in the 10,000 to 20,000 psi strength range.
Freeze thaw and compressive strength are focused on most? Of course – because fired clay bricks are not toxic – unlike, for example, fly ash bricks!
The simple fact is that fly ash bricks in no way have the performance or durability of fired bricks. Period.
Did I miss anything?
Perhaps you would like to add Dr. Liu’s claim that “fly ash bricks absorb mercury”?
Anything else?
Funny faces?
bk
Good follow up, I think we can have a intelligent conversation without hostilities about perceived short comings of flyash bricks. As I stated before, I can’t comment on the perceived toxic issues surrounding flyash. that is something better left to a physician and not a mechanical engineer. I’ll try and respond to your query in an orderly fashion.
You mention that we use a modified freeze thaw process and that is true. if we were to follow the standard exactly, it would take at least 50 days to get any useful freeze thaw testing done. as you can imagine this would be a very costly venture and significantly slow down the development process. What would take two months now takes us two weeks. to address this specific “issue” that people might have, we performed a test to compare the two methods. Without giving out specific methods on curing, I can say that two different batches of flyash bricks were made in an identical manner and split between our modified method and the ASTM c67 method. our results showed that our modified method caused brick failure faster than the standard method. now while our modified method is not exactly as prescribed in the astm standard, I can say that our modified method is as good or better at determining freeze thaw resistance performance of a flyash brick.
you have also mentioned of the quality and performance of a clay brick and how they are so wonderful. yes clay bricks are good. clay bricks have been around for thousands of years for a reason and I won’t deny you that. we’ve actually tested many clay bricks in our lab to use as comparison and will continue to do so. What I need to stress here is not whether the best of flyash brick can compete with the best of clay brick, but whether a flyash brick can meet the minimum required standards for clay bricks established by the industry as a whole. we can and do meet that standard for physical properties as outlined in ASTM c216.
I could try and sell you on the other aspects of the flyash brick but I think I’ll keep out of the murky waters and just give the facts. Please let me know what questions you have about mercury and I’ll do my best to answer them. That particular test was done before my time but I have access to the relevant information.
jesse
Jesse
Excellent – now we can have a proper discussion!
So you are using an abbreviated version of the FT test that is used for clay bricks? A couple of points:
Since the modified test is a greatly shortened version of the ASTM test, and since it (presumably) has not been correlated with field testing and long-term durability indicators, it is of dubious value. What you have is a non-certified, non-standard and (until proven) non-rigorous test that passes fly ash bricks. By the way – what are the specifics of the test – lower and upper temperatures, cooling/heating rates, hold times, sample dimensions, water submersion, etc?
The modified test caused faster failure of fly ash bricks? This does not have any bearing on clay bricks – unless you have data showing such a correlation? FT and absorption tests were extensively investigated for fired bricks at the turn of the century and several decades of investigations have shown how water absorption/percolation, porosity, pore structure, brick chemistry and sintering conditions are interrelated, and how manufacturing parameters affect FT performance and long-term durability.
Fly ash bricks have not undergone any significant investigation or testing when compared to the centuries of knowledge on clay bricks, and the fact is that there is no evidence (unless you have years of field testing data to show) that fly ash bricks are durable even to short-term climatic exposure, let alone long-term use. Do you have such field testing data?
You do not know how fly ash bricks deteriorate, to what extent they will deteriorate in the long term, and you cannot certify that any structure made with fly ash bricks and exposed to the environment will be sound 50, 20, 10 or even 5 years from now. On the other hand, the durability of clay bricks is well enough understood and manufacturing suitably controlled, such that modern bricks are routinely certified to have a nominal LC rating of 100+ years.
It is interesting that you observed faster deterioration of fly ash bricks with the modified test – this indicates the effects of supercooling – hydrostatic deterioration caused by temporal dominance of liquid water rather than ice, and/or the effects of salt inclusions. This is not surprising in view of the shortened test – water confined in extended micropore networks is prone to wall-induced supercooling, delayed ice nucleation and phase-separation of salt-rich fluids. Ironically, the result may actually suggest that fly ash bricks may deteriorate faster in field tests since ice nucleation would progress further, you would see pressure swings from the crystallization of supercooled water, the hydrostatic pressure exerted by extended polycrystalline ice fronts in porous media would be greater than those of supercooled water in the sub-zero region, and the deleterious effects of chloride and sulfate fluids on silicates would be increased by long-cycle FT processes.
The question is not whether fly ash bricks can meet the minimum standards of clay bricks – after all, minimal performance is hardly the target for an untested product – rather, the question is whether fly ash bricks can compare with (any) clay bricks per se and be considered safe for engineering use. Lets take low-temperature fired mud clay bricks from the 12th century that have survived for over 800 years, that still bear loads and still show UCSs of over 3,000 psi. You cannot reasonably compare largely untested fly ash bricks to these, let alone to modern high-temperature fired bricks that show much higher UCSs and greater durability. There are no substantial performance indicators to show significant equivalence of fly ash bricks to fired bricks that would meet engineering requirements. It will require decades of testing and field evaluations to determine the true performance and durability of fly ash bricks.
Actually I was being sarcastic about mercury – I have read Dr Liu’s paper and his many claims. Politely speaking, Dr Liu’s paper is a work of nonsensical pseudo-science and is a blatant and dangerous exercise in marketing.
However, all of this is really a distraction. No matter what the engineering properties of fly ash bricks, if the constituent fly ash is toxic, and there is plenty of hard evidence that demonstrates this very vividly, then the immediate question is whether fly ash bricks pose the same hazard as fly ash.
It is very puzzling that data on the toxic constituents of fly ash, such as the Oak Creek fly ash that is used by Dr Liu, and the leaching of the toxics from fly ash has been readily available for many years – however, I have not seen any study by neither Dr Liu nor by Calstar Cement that addresses this very simple but very critical issue. There are plenty of statements about engineering performance, albeit with little or no hard evidence to back them up, but no mention of toxicity testing. Now, considering that the raw material used to make fly ash bricks can pose a huge environmental and human health hazard, why in all of these years has neither Dr Liu nor Calstar Cement done toxicity testing, and if they have, where are the results – because surely, it is of the utmost importance to demonstrate that fly ash bricks are safe and to reassure everyone that this is the case?
One point that needs to be cleared up:
There was the suggestion from some comments that fly ash is being manufactured in order to make these bricks; that is not the case. The bricks, like concrete and other products using fly ash aggregate, are making use of an existing waste product, sequestering it and reducing the strain of disposal. This gets to the heart of sustainability, reducing waste and consumption of new materials simultaneously.
In the concrete industry, we also had to deal with concerns about the fly ash health issues after last year’s high profile spills; to date, no tests have shown that any of the chemicals listed above leech out of concrete made with fly ash, nor that there is a greater risk at demolition due to fly ash.
sbsilver
Several points to clarify.
Fly ash as a SCM is currently used at low replacement levels – the average in the US is about 20% replacement – with the MRL varying state-to-state.
The limited research on heavy metals leaching from fly ash concretes suggests that cements/concretes containing high levels of Portland cement are quite safe – the unproven assumption being that the reactive silicates in Portland cement are sufficent to bind heavy metals, when the fly ash is present at low levels.
This just confirms that Portland cement is a good encapsulant for hazardous materials, like fly ash!
Also, fly ash when it is used as an SCM is usually type F fly ash – since type C causes problems with respect to set time, exotherm, water-reducers, etc.
Type C fly ash – from which fly ash bricks are made, is very different to type F, and studies show that it often shows higher levels of toxic metals and increased leaching when compared to type F.
So – the very limited data that is available for low-fly ash cements/concretes is not relevant to the case of fly ash bricks – unless you switch to type F fly ash and put in large amounts of Portland cement as binder and encapsulant.
some more information on Calstar – sources say company has changed method of making bricks because of manufacturing problems – company has been looking for vibratory compaction machinery for bricks. sources also said that Calstar has approached cement chemical companies for additives to control leaching and efflorescence – confirms there are problems with toxins leaching from the bricks. also spoke to people who tried to get safety information – said calstar was very hesitant to discuss safety and did not give any data. talked to people who were approached by Henry liu and tested his bricks – said the fly ash bricks performed badly in strength and freeze thaw tests and they saw heavy metals coming out in leaching tests. also commented that Calstar fly ash bricks looked worse. got a contact for someone who is testing the efflorescence – will try to find out more. also heard that the company brought in a new CEO and are looking to raise more money to keep afloat. no further info on fly ash cement – sources say Calstar has abandoned the cement and is only doing bricks
At Calera Mr. Contstantz is using ‘Pixie dust’ for their green cement.
At Calstar Mr. Porat may be using ‘general magic dust’ for their green brick and working out on freeze-thaw, efflorescence, safety and strength.
So Calstar Cement does not have a cement?
The story is like the story of Calera.
It seems that the “Pixie dust” and “General Magic dust” do not work.
Do these companies have anything at all?
Thereaux
Yes Thereaux. Unfortunately we have seen so much discussion leading in that direction. OPC is still the king. Leave it alone. Look at the bricks and the Freeze-thaw testing.
Do the “Green Bricks” pass the standard freeze-thaw test or not?
Of course, Calstar may have done some conventional freeze-thaw testing.
It’s a simple and straight forward enquiry and answer can only be yes or no.
What is the point in saying that ‘a new protocol is developed to pass our product’? To develop a product it takes time, effort, and understanding. I appreciate their scientists for their efforts and maybe one day the answer can go from no to yes. Until that time they can’t claim that they have a product. Certainly one can develop a new testing protocol, get it approved and save time, but that is another story for another time.
Has anybody thought of fly ash and soil mixture stabilization? I had conducted experiments to find out the strength of these mixtures for my research work.
Govinda
A peer reviewed article published recently in Environmental Science & Technology documents the toxicity of coal ash and the potential for long-term exposure to communities near the TVA spill.
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2009/08/toxiccoal.html
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es900714p
Wilson, any more info on efflorescence and leach test results of fly ash bricks?
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.
Have you heard any progress on freeze-thaw front? Any clues on the science behind.
It is interesting to see the nature of leaching in bricks. In the so called Flyash bricks the raw material is flyash and we know the toxic nature and its analysis. The product is Flyash brick. As it is made from 100% flyash, all the toxic material is still present in the product. Is it in a safe condition?
It can be safe under few conditions
1. removal of all toxic metals from raw materials ( ie., processing of fly ash)
2. physical or chemical containment.
If the toxic metals are not contained by either physical or chemical methods even a slow leaching should be taken seriously.
1. I don’t think calstar products are processing the flyash for making the bricks as it will be an extra step. 2. Physical containment is not occurring in the present case. 3) If calstar products is successful in chemical containment that can be a good news for both calstar and partly to CCPPs.
Spin-doctoring is there, but science and substance ????.
(Just on the side lines came across the article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/ludhiana/Brickkiln-owners-to-protest-govt-notification/articleshow/4973406.cms
It seems Ministry of environment, India directed or suggested the use of 25% flyash in their brick kiln. ( It is not a just press – it is kiln) The brickkiln owners association’ comments are: 1) “If thermal plants produce something hazardous, why should brick kilns be forced to compensate for it.” 2) workers at the kilns were not ready to work with fly ash due to health hazardous. 3) “The nearby agricultural lands can also get polluted. 4) “ We cannot afford using the fly ash as it can affect one’s health,”)
The situations may be different – but the spirit or say flyash remains the same.
Keeler
Some more info since my last entry – have talked to people who worked for many years on coal ash products -asked about Calstars bricks – said that the Calstar/Liu technology is not new – basic process – using coal ash C, borate chemicals to control set,forming the bricks by vibration-compaction and ambient or steam curing. he has been testing ash bricks for several months – says that the Calstar/Liu bricks perform badly – chip easily – so-so finish – poor coloring – do not stand up to freezing-thawing cycles – cracking, chipping and failure – also, a lot of efflorescence –analyzed, contains high levels of lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel, barium – leaching for months at high concentrations – was surprised at how much and how dangerous leaching was – Calstar must know this and are hiding facts – may publish results when finished Also talked to investors – Calstar is approaching VCs and banks for round C money – pitching ash bricks as green and sustainable. Have heard a lot of skeptics – say Calstar management has poor presentation – no data to back up claims and no understanding of market– sense that company does not have a product . also said that Porat is trying to raise money in DC – has been around energy/environment meets selling his companies. interesting side story – heard that Serious materials has more trouble with Ecorock – lot of problems in the factory – questioning the product – similar story to Calstar – perhaps how Porat and team operate
The Calstar story gets worse each time. I’d like to see those leach tests results published. A dangerous product like that should not be allowed in the market. A “green and sustainable” brick? Toxic and crumbly sound more appropriate.
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.
Have you read it?
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSTRE58K47220090921?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10522
My previous comments(in sequential order):
Aug 14
Author: jk
Comment:
Govinda,
what does your experiments suggest?
moreover till todays discussion,can we conclude that we can manufacture flyash bricks,as because:1. since, it reduces the already produced waste i.e FLYASH.2. upon giving better quality cement in proper ratio and other additives as required for really GREEN BRICK.3.low cost and attractive form of modern material.
Reply
Govinda K.C.
to WordPress.com
Aug 14
Dear JK,
Thanks for the concern that you have shown to my comment.
My experiment basically was dealt with the ascertaining the Strength of Stabilized Soil Fly-ash Mixture with or without addition of Lime.
Type of Soils: Fat Clay, Silty Clay and Silty Sand.
Additives: Fly-ash and Lime.
The result showed the highest Strength achieved on Silty Sand Fly-ash Stabilized Mixture.
My thinking is that it may be possible to produce Soil Fly-ash STABILIZED Bricks with Natural Curing, No Burning, No Firing, or even No Steaming.
As a consequence from the above, the following may be assumed:
1. Consumption of Waste Material (Fly-ash)
2. Reduction in Soil Consumption (Material for classical bricks)
3. No Carbon Fuel or other Form of Fuel Consumption
4. Zero Effect on Global Warming
5. Eco Friendly
6. Environment Protection
7. Carbon Trading Potential
8. & more
I shall be honored for further clarification if needed.
W/Best Regards,
Govinda
Forward
|
Govinda K.C.
to jrapoport
Aug 31
Hello! Ms Julie Rapoport,
May be this comment is interesting to you! My address is: govindaramkc@gmail.com
I look forward to know more on your project of ‘Green Bricks’.
Best regards.
sincerely,
Govinda
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 (the test show that arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel leach out from the bricks) – 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.
The solution may be the FLY ASH STABILIZED with SOIL for getting rid of the toxic elements from fly ash. The fly ash and soil stabilized material becomes different material and I believe that it does not exhibit the properties of neither fly ash nor soil. I had conducted the experiment to find out the strength of soil fly ash stabilized material.
Govinda
govindaramkc@gmail.com
Govinda Ram
Your idea of stabilizing Calstar’s bricks by incorporating soil and lime is very interesting.
The clay minerals and organic colloids present in soil should hep to partition and bind most of the toxins and the lime input together with clay flocs should increase the cement phase fraction and greatly improve dimensional and mechanical properties.
I see that you have some data on this – this is most interesting. I hope that you already have a patent on your invention – Calstar may well try to benefit from your ideas, so be careful.
Good to hear that there is some real low-tech scientific innovation going on – not the Greenwashed nonsense that Calstar is trying to peddle.
Dear Mr. bkwass
It is good that you responded to my comment. I appreciate it. Actually, I am not talking about calstar brick stabilizing.
It is a process that might eliminate the toxic minerals present in the fly ash and gain strength by stabilization through a considerable curing period (pozzolanic and other reactions).
Govinda
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) ? an unbiased authority dedicated to protecting the environment has a very useful review of coal fly ash (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/coalwaste/default.asp) and its toxicity.
NRDC categorizes coal fly ash as a Contaminated Coal Waste
NRDC states “toxic material is laced throughout” the fly ash
NRDC states “Coal ash contains many toxic metals, including arsenic, which unchecked, can leak into ground water and be extremely hazardous to breathe”
NRDC states that coal ash “is contaminated by 10 metals classified as toxic by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Cobalt, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Nickel and Selenium”
NRDCs states “Coal-fired power plants produced more than 126 million tons of contaminated coal waste”
It also states “the waste produced in a single year contains nearly 100,000 tons of toxic metals”
This is the waste that Calstar wants to make bricks of and sell to unsuspecting consumers.
Bricks that are laced with toxic metals.
Toxic metals that leach out from the bricks – according to Calstar’s own data.
Calstar would like people to believe that the toxicity of fly ash is not an issue.
Calstar would like people to believe that bricks made from a Contaminated Coal Waste laced with toxic metals are not an issue.
Calstar would lke people to believe that it is “beneficially recycling” toxic fly ash and producing a “Green” product.
How is a product that is laced with toxic metals “Beneficial”? Beneficial for lining Calstar?s managements pockets?
How is a product that is laced with toxic metals that leach out “Green”? Is polluting the environment and poisoning people with a contaminated waste the new “Green”? Perhaps the ?Green? is the money Calstar is hoping to make from selling the toxic bricks.
Does the management of Calstar have any decency?
Calstar – a company bereft of morals, trying to sell the new Asbestos.
Good job BK. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Fly ash is predominant already in the built environment. Homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces across NA. In paints, carpets, walls, tiles, roofs and even some wood/plastic kitchen utensils.
Slightly less than 100% of Americans have any idea just how they are surrounded by this toxic material every day anywhere in the country.
It will be interesting to see how the new Obama EPA office will rule on their revised material classification later this year. If they have any regard for the health of Americans it will be reclassified as hazardous at a minimum.
Anything less would be criminal given what has come into the public domain in the past few years.
As far as high volume ash in new building products greenwashed as beneficial? Horrifying isn’t enough!
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
“It’s like they decided to spare us having to breathe in these poisons, but now we have to drink them instead.”
PHILIP COLEMAN, who lives near a coal-fired power plant in southwestern Pennsylvania and has asked a state judge to toughen the facility’s pollution regulations.
Here is more disinformation from Calstar (http://calstarproducts.com/resources/) – concerning “Product safety” – I guess that they must have been alarmed that people have picked up on the toxicity of their fly ash bricks.
They claim: “Our commitment to green extends to product safety; we test our products extensively to ensure they are safe throughout their lifecycle, from manufacture to placement to use (and reuse) to end-of-life disposal”
This is very far from the truth – Calstar has not done any manufacturing – not even pilot runs, and have not produced enough bricks to do placement, reuse, disposal or any of the elements of lifecycle testing. Oh, and of course, they have not done an environmental footprint assessment of LCA – because, they know very well that will show what a Greenwash their product is.
They claim: “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.”.
This is nonsense. Calstar’s curing process does not form any significant crystalline matrix – the borate-alkanolamine system they use has been known for decades and is known to form an amorphous matrix which degrades over time and is not effective at binding toxic metals. In fact, alkanolamines increase metal leaching, and that is why they are not used in fly ash products. And what strong acids are they talking about? The short-duration leaching tests they cite use very dilute solutions which effect a very mild leach. And their own results show that toxic metals rapidly leach even under these very mild conditions.
They claim: “While hundreds of millions of tons of fly ash have been safely included in concrete buildings and infrastructures around the world for decades”.
Nice spin. Fly ash has indeed been used extensively in concrete around the world – however, in all cases, the fly ash is safely encapsulated with portland cement and/or blast furnace slag – these are known from decades of research to react with the fly ash and effectively bind toxic metals, and the products are known to be stable and safe. This has nothing to do with Calstar’s bricks.
They claim: “CalStar Products, Inc. has undertaken extensive testing of our products to ensure the same levels of safety apply. Test results on our products from respected third-party laboratories have been reviewed and analyzed by Gradient, a respected environmental consultancy in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They find that “the presence of coal fly ash metals in newly manufactured CalStar bricks is not expected to result in any exposures of health concern”.
More spin. Calstar has done no significant safety testing of their product, and has used a contract firm that is associated with the fly ash industry and which promotes fly ash, to certify its products. Important point here – Gradient did not do any of the tests – they were paid by Calstar to “interpret” the tests – hence the careful wording of the safety statement. If Calstar does any meaningful testing, the toxicity of the bricks will become very apparent – Calstar knows this all too well. The irony is that even their very mild preliminary tests show that the bricks are not safe and that metals leach out.
If BK’s last post is true – and nobody from Calstar has been able or willing to refute any of BK’s assertions – this is no longer just a hype job.
Apparently it is deliberately planned deception. aka a scam or fraud? New slogan = A Bernie Brick?
That appears to be the hallmark of Calstar – a lot of unsupported claims about its products, without any demonstrable expertise or substance.
It looks more and more like Porat’s previous ponzi scheme – General Magic.
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?
Have you forwarded your evaluations to those who fund Calstar? Other than this pathetically lame, contradictory and evidently erroneous recent statement from kane – has anyone from calstar tabled any factually supportable data to refute your assertions? The postings above suggest not.
Other than red herrings and spin from management who, at best, apparently doesn’t even know what they don’t know but have already disclosed to the public record?
But their record of such disclosures on toxicity levels, if your conclusions are correct, will point to clear culpability further down the road in terms of legal beagles I would think, would it not?
PaddyM – I have no doubt that these characters already know the facts – that is the only explanation for their duplicitous behavior.
Obviously all of the parties connected with Calstar are looking to recoup on their investments and make a profit from the white whale – at any cost – without any concern for safety.
Indeed – if the toxicity issues are valid, and all evidence points to this, Calstar will be digging a very deep liability hole from itself.
Interesting news from the community– Calstar has been approaching people for third round funding over the last couple of months – hear that VCs have been following the blogs – following BK and concern about toxic hazards – have heard some backed away from calstar because of concern about fly ash.
also heard that Calstar is linking Calera to the blogs – not sure what the angle is – buzz that people from Calstar are pointing blame for negative blogging at Constantz and Calera –not sure if there is any truth or if it is paranoia at Calstar
Evidently BK has tabled completely objective and scientific assessments of the calstar fiction, er products. Yet nobody from calstar has been able or willing to refute BK’s assessments with factually supportable data. Or any validation of calstar theories and alleged value propositions without their contrived lab assumptions = extrapolations = conclusions.
Am I the only one who thinks the new calstar website is totally preposterous? First Fly ash brick (FAB) and now fly ash pavers (FAP). Both unproven and unseen on construction sites after how many millions in funding already? Shouldn’t they at least offer some cookies to go with the stories and window dressing? OK next up fly ash cookies comin at ya.
Isn’t it interesting that none of the American or European fly ash processors ever hatched plans to turn their fly ash into bricks, blocks or pavers? Oh but yes they did. And how did that turn out after how many tens of millions many moons ago?
Paddy
Indeed – Calstar’s website and its PR and marketing to date smack of complete Greenwash, without and substantive evidence to support their “Green”, “Clean”, “Eco-friendly”, “Low-carbon” and “Sustainable” claims.
You can easily pick apart each of their claims and expose the falsehoods.
Their CEO claims their bricks “are inert and do not leach”, but their own data shows that their bricks leach a range of toxic metals.
Their marketing claims their bricks are “eco-friendly”, but their own data shows them to be an environmental hazard.
They claim the CO2-footprint is 10-20% of that of clay bricks, but their is no data nor independent analysis to support this, and even a cursory analysis shows that the real figure is much higher.
They claim performance equivalence to clay bricks but have no data to support this.
They claim a product life cycle equivalent to clay bricks but have not made enough bricks nor field-tested nor recycled them to show this.
The inescapable conclusion is that Calstar is a complete Greenwash desperately trying to fleece people with with their smoke and mirror operations.
bkwaas, can you explain how you convert the Gradient report data to a per brick per time rate to arrive at the 800 ug/brick*month?
Asdf
The SPLP data shows that the leachate contains 0.25 to 0.6 ppb of arsenic. And, the tests are conducted with 20-vols of leaching solution (relative to brick) over a period of 18 h.
So, a standard (5 lb) brick under the same leaching conditions will equate to (0.25 to 0.6) x (5 / 2.2) x (20) = 11.4 to 27.4 ug of arsenic per brick per leaching period (18 h).
So, over one month, the arsenic leaching is (11 to 27) x (24 x 30 / 18) = 456-1,094 ug of arsenic. Taking the mid-range – it is in the region of 800 ug of arsenic per brick per month.
The actual situation may be worse because the leaching of arsenic and other toxics from fly ash can have a significant lag phase (minutes to hours to days) characterized by a low leaching rate, after which leaching increases in a non-linear manner, and then decreases thereafter. This is because of the finite time required for infiltration, the kinetic barriers for reaction, equilibration and leaching from fly ash phases and diffusion controlled transport to the particle surface. So these results may represent the low-level kinetically-inhibited, non-equilibrium phase, and longer-term leaching may uncover the transition to a higher-level quasi-equilibrium state characterized by increased leaching of arsenic.
The main value of the SPLP and TCLP tests is to uncover the toxic hazard.
The fact that the tests show that toxics like arsenic leach, is an immediate and major red flag and indicates a significant health and environmental hazard.
The actual leaching may be much worse and long-term leaching tests (years, in-place, in-the-field) must be done, and the safety of the product proven, before any decision to introduce this product
The toxicity of fly ash bricks is a very serious issue – not one to be so lightly Greenwashed by Calstar.
If the bricks are truly “inert and do not leach” and are “eco-friendly” as Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane and their marketing state, then surely Calstar must be ready to back this up with a lifetime warranty that their fly ash bricks are non-toxic, not a health or environmental hazard and completely safe.
But they will never provide such a guarantee – Calstar knows, contrary to their claims that their bricks are toxic, and they know they cannot guarantee product safety – their own tests show that the bricks leach toxics within just one day.
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.
How bad coal is fly ash is?
Here is an eye-opening quote from a news story about the DHS trying to keep the location of fly ash dumps secret – for national security purposes.
To quote: “the Department of Homeland Security has told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that her committee can’t publicly disclose the location of coal ash dumps across the country.”
The full story is at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/coal-ash-spills-too-dange_n_214…
“The pollution is so toxic, so dangerous, that an enemy of the United States—or a storm or some other disrupting event—could easily cause them to spill out and lay waste to any area nearby.”
And Calstar wants to make money by selling bricks made from coal fly ash? The same stuff that is so dangerous that the DHS classifies it as a threat to national security?
“
I’m so grateful for your existence BK. You are such an eye opener.
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.
BK,
According to The Journal Times newspaper in WI the new Calstar plant in Caledonia WI is now running. They plan to start 6 new plants in the next 5 years.
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.
Delusions and untruths from Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane (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.
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.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100126/pl_usnw/DC43572_1
Does the CAA sniff a change in the air?
Outstanding writing. You have got a brand-new devotee. Please keep up the fabulous writings and I look forward to more of your newsworthy updates.
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.
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.
Indeed! So according to you there are companies that make great products containing a proportion of “devil’s poop” and are cool while one is practically the antichrist, uh? Yes, I was indeed confused but not any more thanks to your fair approach. Is your thought process always this “sharp” or are you making a special effort for this discussion?
But I have to admit your contradictions are entertaining. More please!
GA
Why hide behind a pseudonym, Luke?
You know perfectly well why Calstar, your company is a Greenwash.
But, since you want to pretend otherwise, here are some reminders for you:
1) As conceded by your Product manager – Rapoport – your brick is “a prototype”.
2) As conceded by Rapoport – your brick has not been “field-tested”.
3) As shown by your own testing data – arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel leach from the bricks, and concentrate on the brick surface, and all this from a test that lasts less than a day.
4) As is obvious from looking at your bricks at Greenbuild – your bricks are sub-standard and totally unsuitable for building. They have a whitish efflorescent bloom which rubs off. They have poor edge hardness, seams are porous and friable, dimensions and edge/face structure are variable, color is variable with pigment bleed around grain structure, bricks show water beading and mortar pullback, and you see salt migration as pinhole breakthroughs, bleeding/staining and salt banding around sand grains and at the mortar joints.
5) As shown by your own data on compressive strength, metals leaching and water absorption- your bricks are extremely variable, even within the same lot.
6) And where is the freeze-thaw data – why are you hiding that? We both know why – your bricks fail freeze-thaw – that is obvious from looking at your bricks.
Of course – as I have stated many times – there are many companies around the world that incorporate proportions of fly ash into construction products, typically blended with Portland cement. These companies make safe and durable products. Not like Calstar’s Greenwashed fly ash bricks.
Unlike Calstar, these companies have proven products that do not leach toxic metals, are consistent, are not “prototypes”, have been field-tested and proven in the building industry, and are not beset by problems of toxics leaching, efflorescence, poor mortar bonding, disintegration under freeze-thaw, etc.
Anything else Luke?
The biggest indicator of Calstar’s scam is that your company’s CEO – Michael Kane has left to join the clay brick industry. Say no more – Kane’s action has said it all – Calstar is a Greenwash, and Calstar’s fly ash bricks are a Greenwash scam.
Fume all you want Luke – no amount of anonymous postings will change the fact that you are running a Greenwash operation and that you have been exposed.
Just ask your former CEO – Michael Kane – he knows and that is why he is leaving Calstar.
Oh my – gotten a bit prickly?
I guess those bricks are “the” time bomb of the decade and it is a matter of time until the “scam” gets uncovered. What do you think BK? Is this the Bernie Madoff of the green industry? Oh, oh, I forgot! The government, VCs and the scientific community are all in collusion, right? Do you think Dick Cheney and Karl Rove are involved in this conspiracy too?
Anything else? Yes. C’mon brotha, find something useful to do. What about checking how many paper clips you can fit into a wall outlet?
More Ovaltine please!
Luke
Oh dear – Your CEO Kane leaving and Calstar’s crumbling fly ash bricks must really be getting to you.
Bernie Madoff of the Green Industry?
Hardly – Madoff had a genius bent and a wicked scheme which worked for many years before the scam was uncovered.
Calstar’s half-baked scheme was obvious from the beginning. Calstar’s incompetence is dizzying
- unable to make a safe product
- makes toxic bricks instead and tries to Greenwash them
- Calstar admits product is a “prototype” and has not been “field-tested”
- company data shows the product to be unsafe
- management is so paranoid about toxicity issues that employees, like you Luke, take to anonymous postings in the blogs
- Struggling to raise series C, without any revenue stream
- CEO leaves Calstar in wake of product issues
VCs, government and scientific community in collusion?
VCs – oh – you mean Foundation and the coal power industry that have a heavily-vested interest in Calstar? I guess they must be deeply concerned about consumers well-being? Altruistic types eh?
The government? Last I heard, EPA was thinking of regulating fly ash as a hazardous waste, and Calstar was desperately lobbying to stop this. Fly ash regulation as a hazardous waste – a death sentence for a company that cannot make a safe fly ash product. Where is the collusion? Dream on.
Scientific community? Like to give an example of any independent scientist or learned societies backing up any of your product claims? ASCE? ACS? NAS? ASTM? Anyone? Again, dream on.
Luke – I would have thought that your hands would be full with damage control, now that your CEO is dumping Calstar.
Blogging is all that is left?
No product to market? I guess not. That is why Kane left. Good for him.
OK, ok, I stand corrected. Much appreciated. I thought the government and scientific communities were as incompentent as that firm. So… what’s the concern? They are going to expose the bad guys soon, if not very soon. Now you can rest your mind.
Anonymous postings and blogging is all that is left you say? That was a great shot at comedy mirroring yourself BK. Have you considered you may be the next Seinfeld? Gosh, you really cracked me up!
More please!
Luke
“That firm”. You mean “your firm – Luke – you are employed by Calstar – Oh – you forgot to mention that, or did you leave with Kane?
I am not the one involved anonymous postings, Luke.
Unlike you Luke Pustejovsky
aka “Milos Vlatva”
aka”Green Arrow”
aka “anonymitybreedscontempt”
aka “emily”
et al
Have fun with your crumbling, toxic bricks Luke. Maybe you can still sell some and exit Calstar before the legislation kills them or the lawsuits pile up.
Oh – if you want comedy – all you have to do is look at your fly ash bricks – “the future of the brick industry”. More Costanza than Seinfeld.
Bkwaasssss….up buster? So you are not anonymous, uh? You fooled me completely. I mean it! And you keep cracking me up. Why have fun with bricks when you exist? At least tell me, what does bkwaas stand for? bkwaas@aol.com? bkwaas@yahoo.com? bkwaas@inandoutburger.com? But there is no need to tell me because I know who you are already. You are reason for contraception.
Thank you for a fun Saturday.
GA
I am “reason for contraception”?
My, My Luke – there must be some very angry hornets in your bonnet for you to sink to the indecency of gutter jabs.
The way you are riled up one might think you were the product manager for fly ash bricks at Calstar.
Why so Mad, Luke?
It must be tough with Kane dumping your company in favor of clay bricks, and what with all the problems with your bricks and the exposure of your scam – but all this spewing cant be good for you – you really have to watch out for those TG, LDL and cortisol levels.
You really do not sound like a happy camper – for the sake of your health you really should find alternative employment – maybe your buddy Kane can get you a jollier job at Boral?
Very best regards.
Your Pal,
Brad K Waas
Brad :
Are you sure that the product is just a “proto-type” , and that
no field-test data,
no data on Freeze thaw,
no data on long term-stability & safety,
no-convincing data on leaching/efflorescence,
no data on independent evaluation/verification of the product/claims,
no approvals/recommendations for the product from any independent /regulatory organization,
But they are going for large-scale production and marketing, that too with a known hazardous waste ( or devils poop – or whatever you may call).
If it is true it is completely unethical. In OPC, hell of field test data supported the replacement and usage. Calera might be still busy with their field testing.
Any comments/approvals/recommendations of the product from Calstar’s own scientific advisory committee.
No wonder Kane left the company.
Ulrich
You are probably right – calling Calstar’s fly ash brick a “prototype” is quite generous, considering how poorly it performs and its toxic characteristics.
Yes – there is a glaring lack of any significant short-term test data, and a complete absence of longitudinal performance and safety data.
As you say – there is a vast amount of data on OPC, OPC-fly ash and clay building products and their safety and performance are backed up by decades or centuries of use.
It seems likely that Calstar’s fly ash bricks will leach toxic metals and poison consumers and the environment, and/or undergo engineering failure and result in building damage and/or personal injury.
Calstar has a scientific advisory board? I have not found any reference to it. Do you know if there is a board or who is on it? It is difficult to imagine any respectable scientist/engineer associating with this company and its product.
What does everyone recommend as the best carpet cleaner I hope to vacuum less with the cleaner, is this possible with pets? What does everyone think?
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.
Looks like Calstar has raised series C funding
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/calstar-products-inc-raises-additional-capital-85379572.html
Wonder why it took them so long – almost a year since their ex-CEO (Mike Kane – who left to join Boral, a clay brick company) was brought in to pump the company and get them series C. And they needed five VCs to bring in the $15 million in funding. Not exactly over-subscribed for round C.
Must be hard – selling toxic bricks to investors – people must be getting wise to Calstar’s Greenwash
Fact: Cal Star bricks are in production and available for independent testing.
Fact: Cal Star successfully raised a Class C Series funding.
Fact: A moron scientist (yes, an oximoron but still a fact) is badly in need of attention and still looking for a job. Loser, loser!!!
What are you raving about now?
Many congratulations on the long-awaited funding – so, $30 million primary debt-load, three rounds of financing, zero revenue, extended payback, and a bulk, transport-intensive product with low-margin, lots of flaws and killer liability issues.
Very impressive!
And I was under the mistaken assumption that a “successful” startup was one which was generating revenue after series A, in positive CF after series B, self-funded and profitable thereafter, and did not require a series C. I suppose that the economic downturn must have depressed the expectations of startups.
Sounds like you have a pretty nasty chip on your shoulder – some sort of run-in with a scientist that left you all the worse? Do tell – it could be good therapy for you.
Oh yes – “the bricks” are “in production”. You might want to improve your QC (if you have any) – selling toxic, cracked, freeze-thaw susceptible bricks is probably not a good long-term business strategy.
Oh, by the way – the spelling is “oxymoron” not “oximoron”.
I do hope your managerial skills are better.
Credit where credit is due. You are absolutely right and it would be unfair with my pal if I wouldn’t admit my mistake. It is indeed oxymoron.
Now, admit it! You finally got some attention. You’re very welcome!
Glad to hear that you have calmed down and that we are Pals again.
I am afraid that you are a little confused. I am not the one in want of attention.
On the other hand, your toxic fly ash bricks do need quite some attention.
Happy scrubbing.
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. No 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?
And the response from Calstar – to quote: “100-year warranty? Haven’t you read? The world is coming to an end in 2012″.
Calstar – the Greenwash Brick company.
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!!!
The screeching meshuggah is back.
Ran out of tea parties to attend?
What an exemplary skill set you have – what with your hypertensive lambastings, bigoted vituperations and innane vapid grammar – were these rare abilities honed on the job at Calstar or are they innate?
Keep screaming.. and scrubbing…
PS. Why dont you be a Good Product Manager and re-post the leaching report on your website? After all, there is no smoking gun there – just some smouldering ash….
Geee! The voices in your mind insist in that report, uh? It must be sooooo fascinating to see things from your point of view but I just can’t get my head that far up my arse.
No news from McDonalds yet?
You are having difficulty inserting said bonce into the nether regions?
That is odd – invertebrates are well documented for their supreme segmental mobility.
Do tell what purulent tidbits you discover in those distal passages.
Yes, yes, I know my grammar is vapid. Bummer! Yours on the other hand is sooo funny. Bonce? Nether? OMG! Were you abandoned like a scabbies-ridden puppy and found hungry and homeless by a compassionate Brit in one of their sweltering colonies? Were you then taught basic surviving skills in his servant’s quarters, Tudor leftovers and grammar included? You may be a loser but you really glow with pride!
Any Moron Magazine news?
Quite the sociopath I see.
Neural degeneration would explain your blanking out on your own report. You had to sanitize it because your name was all over it? Made you nervous – the looming specter of liability gnawing at the marrow?
No worries – your report is at hand. Would you like me to send you a copy – so you can refresh your lapsing memory?
Very interesting reading – what with the bricks being coated with chromium, cobalt, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, silver and vanadium. Quite the neural tonic! Been partaking of it perhaps?
You found it? You mean, the real one? The world is safe now.
BK, my pal, I’d like to remind you again after ½ million postings in hundreds of blogs for 1½ years, the facts remain you’re still unemployed (18 months are up), angrier (your servant grammar shows) and more lonely (where are your aliases?). You know, that may upset your four stomachs and make your turds more rancid. Hmmm, that creates a new meaning for shitting a brick… and coming from you I’d wholeheartedly agree it would be extremely toxic.
C’mon pal, stock up on Stelazine and calm those inner voices down.
I have gravely erred – I have been chiding you all this time, when I should have been sympathizing on your pitiful descent into the morass.
I fear that one day your hate will split you asunder and thus shall the meshuggah vomit forth a vitriolic conflagration unto gehinnom.
May blessed hands heal you of your terrible afflictions and cleanse your tortured soul.
*** shall the meshuggah vomit forth a vitriolic conflagration unto gehinnom ***
Bloody hell! This one is worth framing. Your upsetmeter must be off the scale.
Now go on and have a great weekend scrubbing your baby brick.
What surely is worth framing are the famous words of Julie Rapoport:
“Calstar bricks are a prototype product that has not been field tested over an extended period”
(from http://calstarproducts.com/wp-content/themes/default/pdf/ConstructionSpecifier_0809.pdf)
What an outstanding product manager! With gems like that, it makes you wonder whether Rapoport is working for Calstar or for the competition.
Or maybe it is sheer incompetence with a grandiose dose of foot-in-mouth.
Well, it’s your choice to frame whatever words you like… if you find them. Chap, I’m sorry to inform you that’s another composted link. Are those inner voices having an extended April’s fools field day with you? I suggest to check your Stelazine’s expiration date.
I’m glad to see you calmed down
I can actually understand you now
scrub, scrub that baby brick of yours
before the voices tell you not to
Baby brick? Is that your new product line?
What’s next – Calstar’s Fly Ash Lego Sets?
Hmmm – scrubbing is not enough for your Baby Bricks – try sand-blasting, then a marine-grade sealer, followed by a few dozen liberal coats of spar varnish. Oh, and then just trash them – they will probably have crumbled by then…
Scrub.. Scrub.. Hype.. Hype.. Sell.. Sell..
No man, quick, go check your loo and and take it out of there. Do you think all that water pouring from your lav comes from an artesian well? Don’t you see it tastes funny? You silly goose!
You’re welcome! Happy weekend.
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.
Pal, your absence was getting me very worried. It was soooo boring here, not even your other aliases dropping by. McDonalds taking too much of your time?
So, what do you think sweetheart? Hoover Dam doomed because of the fly ash content in its concrete?
Anyway, I’m elated my moron friend is back and the fun is back.
Calstar Fly Ash “Bricks”
The “Green Brick” made from “Special” Hazardous Waste
Just ask the EPA
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
On 02/06/10 the moron quotes:
“Of course – as I have stated many times – there are many companies around the world that incorporate proportions of fly ash into construction products”
The inner voices having a wild party with you?
Loser, loser!
Interesting. Green Arrow = infantile drivel BK = scientific and engineering data now validated by EPA
Coming soon to homes, schools, hospitals and offices near you. Green bricks (is it even a brick?) unproven in the lab and the field – made from hazardous waste – but called by another name.
Evidently Green Arrow forgets there were also hundreds of companies around the world that “incorporated” asbestos in building products. Now unincorporated and ash in business boneyards.
Must be nervous times at Calstar.
From “fly ash is safe” to “fly ash is safe if used properly” to “fly ash is a “special” hazardous waste”
Lots of work for Calstar’s spin-meisters
Ha! I’m just realizing you just got a new alias. You are so cute! May I suggest “Tough Turd” next time you start feeling lonely again and/or the inner voices get too annoying?
Man, I’d really like to help you out but please, you have to tell me which way you came in.
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!
Calstar’s Spin Machine last year: “fly ash is not a hazardous waste”
Proposed EPA Regulation – “Special Waste” under Subtitle C – Hazardous Waste Category.
Calstar – twisting facts at every turn
Calstar – recycling HAZARDOUS fly ash into TOXIC bricks
Bricks that leach TOXICS including arsenic, antimony, beryllium, cadmium, lead, manganese, mercury and nickel – all within a FEW HOURS. As confirmed by Calstar’s own test results.
Calstar – more twisting of facts.
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.”
Hi there could I quote some of the material here in this post if I provide a link back to your site?
Rocky
Feel free to quote any of my postings
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.
Hey Sir Moron, what’s up!!!
Trying my best to take you seriously, I visited both sites and I have to ask you: Where in your twisted, smelly mush you call brain do you see the resemblance? Oh, I almost forgot, you have no brains but pure sacred cow’s manure. I’m telling you, parents should never ever be siblings.
Loser, loser.
Amazing – Calstar’s LEED documentation is an almost word-for-word copy of that of Puzzolana – a lime-fly ash brick company.
Puzzolana’s LEED doc: http://www.flyashbricksdelhi.com/faqs/leed_advantage
Calstar’s: http://www.calstarproducts.com/wp-content/themes/default/pdf/LEED-FAB-FAP.pdf
Puzzolana is an Indian company.
Interesting that “Green Arrow” (an employee of Calstar) is making bigoted comments against Indians.
Amazing indeed… only inside your skull.
Ha! Is a race card what is left in your wallet pal? So pathetic! And thank you for the generic job title but, didn’t you have me properly ID with first, last name and even a job title? C’mon, can you try to do better, even with manure instead of brains?
So, that’s your ethnic origin, uh? At least you have one, only one thing to be very proud. From Intel’s Chandrasekher to the humble but much disciplined franchise entrepreneurs who work their butts off to make a decent living, I have nothing but respect and admiration for that culture. That hardly makes that or any other culture safe from producing parasitic vultures like you though. I’ll say it again: After almost two years and thousand of messages in hundreds of blogs, the only thing you can show is a chip on your shoulder, a futile attempt to score something against a former employer. But I have to remind you in case you haven’t realized yet man, you’re not even raising the interest of Moron Magazine.
But don’t worry BK, I don’t mean I consider you a vulture. I only consider you something a vulture would eat.
BTW loser, are we still pals?
Thanks to Green Arrow – we have confirmation that she 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”.
What a trail of delusions – first Calstar claimed I was an operative of the Brick industry or the cement industry. That did not stick, so they tried labeling me as a henchman of a competitor like Calera, but that did not work either. So, now I am apparently a former employee.
Rapoport has dreamed up so many covert operations trying to underhandedly derail Calstar’s world-saving (toxic) fly-ash bricks.
What a diabolical conspiracy! Batten down the hatches Rapoport – everyone is out to get you and your (toxic) fly ash bricks.
I knew it! I knew it all along!!! You are a psychic… or is it psycho? Help me out BK. I know you’re good at catching typos.
You know what’s good too BK? You’re no longer ignoring me. So comforting to see my pal has a heart, a sweetheart, one a vulture can eat.
XOX…!!! (you stopped drinking water from your loo, right?)
“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”
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.
HelloWallet is a new service in personal finance. Unlike other personal finance services helloWallet is not paid by the banks.
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.
SIR,
I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF FLY ASH BRICKS FOR NEW PROJECT. PLEASE LET ME KNOW ABOUT THE PROCESS AND ESTABLISHED A NEW PROJECT THROUGH MAIL.
THANKING YOU
RAJNISH SINGH
Dear Mr. Singh,
Thank you for your message. I’m not sure if you are referring to the experts or to the lonely moron just above your coment. Please clarify.
GA
PS. If the moron is your choice, I’m not sure you’ll get what you want but you’ll have a lot of fun with him though.
Julie Rapoport aka Green Arrow is back.
So, how is your former colleague Luke Pustejovsky?
First your CEO Michael Kane dumps your company to go to Boral, then your Sales Director Luke Pustejovsky abandons your company to go to Calera.
I wonder why Pustejovsky left? The toxic bricks were not selling? Performance problems? Heavy metals leaching out? No future?
BTW – how many ex-Calstar employees are now at Calera?
Nice to have you back Julie Rapoport.
Rajnish
“Green Arrow” who is Julie Rapoport, the Product Manager of Calstar Products, can answer your questions.
However, you may have noticed from her postings that she is not too friendly, so you may not get many answers from her.
Good luck.
Brad
Dear Mr. Singh,
I hope I didn’t misguided you about bkwaas. He’s a very respected scientist with a stellar record in R&D. Do you know that, after years of research, he found out 2 feet of toilet paper is equally effective as 6 feet in fecal matter absorbing action? Amazing, uh? That earned him a job and the Green Award in the Port-a-Potty company he works for. He’s now the VP of R&D and is involved in making cement and bricks out of organic waste. A brilliant fellow although easily distracted by inner voices.
Good luck with bkawaas Mr Singh and don’t forget to wash your hands often.
Rajnish,
You see what I mean?
Julie Rapoport aka “Green Arrow” has a lot of issues.
One can only hope that Calstar’s fly ash bricks are not as toxic as Julie Rapoport’s foul language.
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.
Wow, it’s a great post!
Is the problem with flyash or with flyash brick? Is the brick as toxic as the flyash? Anyways flyash is being used to make bricks.
Raw fly ash is hazardous and is a problem. Fly ash products can be dangerous if they are not properly manufactured.
Fly ash is being used safely in two types of brick:
Firstly, fired bricks in which a small portion (less than 20%) of clay is replaced with fly ash. These are fired and are stable to leaching because fly ash components are contained within clay-derived glassy phases. Also, 100% fired fly ash bricks have been produced, and these appear to be similar in performance and safety to fired clay bricks.
Secondly, fly ash-lime-gypsum-cement bricks, which typically contain less than 40% fly ash and are autoclaved. In these, the lime/cement reacts with fly ash components, immobilizing them in silicate phases and preventing leaching of toxic components.
Calstar’s fly ash bricks are neither fired nor reacted with lime/cement. And, the fly ash they are produced from is known to leach toxic metals and is known to have poisoned ground water. Calstar knows this – see the report at
http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news_reports/documents/INHARMSWAY_FINAL.pdf
Also, Calstar’s own tests show that their bricks leach a whole range of toxics in a matter of a few hours on contact with water. These toxics are soluble and can form a poisonous coating on the bricks, generate toxic dusts/particles, and can be disperse by incidental contact and by water transfer.
The problem is Calstar’s fly ash bricks. They are made from a hazardous raw material by a process which is known to produce a sub-standard and hazardous product.
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.
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.
hmmm
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.
10 and 50 yr warranties from a 3 yr old company??
With new products made from proven toxins? The same toxins now proven by the EPA to cause cancer and deformities in fish, children and adults?
Now to be used in homes, schools, hospitals and offices around the country? By a supposed “green” business that is funded by a utility / power company desperate to get rid of the toxins it produces?
From a company that evidently resorts to infantile personal attacks when confronted by facts from an R&D scientist? Whose CEO and Business Development Director jumped ship?
What universe is Calstar from?
Yes – there are many questions about Calstar’s sub-standard warranties on their “bricks” and “pavers”.
Why is there no warranty against toxic metals leaching from the bricks/pavers?
Why is there no warranty against exposure to toxics contained in and leaching from the bricks/pavers?
Why is there no warranty against health and environmental hazards arising from the handling and installation of the bricks/pavers?
Why are the warranties much less than the industry standards for (concrete and clay) bricks and pavers?
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.