 |
 |
Well in India they call it 'monsoon madness' - perhaps its just raining too much here! However I do agree with Part IIA etc - instead of bitching, why dont we put a list together re C659, and if we cant get the same nos as LQM, then this forum is the place to ask our colleagues for help. After all you shouldn't use a number for screening if you cant back it up. All the best Sarah Dack Principal Risk Assessor -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jackson, David Sent: 13 July 2007 09:02 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: LQM GAC - Benzo(a)Pyrene Seems to be a lot of built up aggression lately in the contaminated land forum.... I suggest we all get together at the standing conference armed with pugel sticks David Jackson Contaminated Land Officer Wakefield MDC (01924) 306924 -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilkinson, Christiaan Sent: 12 July 2007 17:09 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: LQM GAC - Benzo(a)Pyrene Ok ok point taken. Like I said no offence intended and it was my opinion, be it right or wrong. Perhaps it shouldn't have been aired in this forum as it is for the sharing of information I apologise to the forum for my indiscretion. However Adam I would like to hear your valued opinion by privet email as well as your useful criticism on this forum. Cheers, Christiaan -----Original Message----- From: Adam Czarnecki [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 12 July 2007 16:47 To: Wilkinson, Christiaan; [log in to unmask] Subject: RE: LQM GAC - Benzo(a)Pyrene They were omitted to promote a better understanding???? Go on a refresher training course?? Do you really think that you should be making such comments in a public forum? The guidance is vague on the choice of the pathway.....but then again I probably need to go on another course to tell me just that. Maybe Paul N will shed some light on it. Adam -- Adam Czarnecki Head of GeoEnvironmental Division Clancy Consulting Ltd. Dunham Court 2, Dunham Road Altrincham Cheshire WA14 4NX Tel: 0161 613 6000 Fax: 0161 613 6099 Clancy Consulting Ltd. Registered Office: 2 Dunham Road, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA14 4NX Registered in England No: 3693529 We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary before opening any attachment. The information contained in this message is private and confidential. It is intended only for the use of the named E-Mail addressee. If you are not the named E-Mail addressee please E-Mail or telephone us immediately with your confirmation that you have destroyed it. In no event should you disclose the contents of this E-Mail to any other person nor copy, use, print, distribute or disseminate it or any information contained in it. Thank you for your co-operation. Please visit our website at www.clancy.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wilkinson, Christiaan Sent: 12 July 2007 16:32 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: LQM GAC - Benzo(a)Pyrene I don't mean to be rude or point out the obvious but it is one thing to recreate one of the CIEH GAC values by simply inputting the published parameters and another to understand which pathways are applicable to the contaminant being modelled. How valid are GAC's in general if they are not backed up with an understanding of the fate and transport of a contaminant or more to the point how valid are the CIEH GAC's if they are blindly used by practitioners who simply quote a published value? I believe the CIEH GAC's are there to assist practitioners during the research stage and have been extremely useful for this purpose. I also believe and this is my own opinion, that the HCV selection of oral or inhalation yes and no was omitted from the CIEH publication in order to promote a better understanding of the fate and transport mechanisms of the individual contaminants. Basically we all should be able to read the document and this should give us enough information to determine which selection is appropriate. I suggest in the nicest possible way :-)that if anyone doesn't feel confident doing this they should think about going on a course or refresher course. Christiaan -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ian Grand Sent: 12 July 2007 15:05 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: LQM GAC - Benzo(a)Pyrene **** This Message Originated From The Internet. Please Be Aware Of Suspicious Attachments And Content **** All. I'm trying to recreate the LQM GAC for Benzo(a)Pyrene. I have no problem inserting the general data for CLEAUK as it is all prescribed through the LQM document. The one section I am unsure about, which isn't prescribed, is: Compare HCV with: Oral Yes/No Yes/No Dermal Yes/No Yes/No Inhalation Yes/No Yes/No Integrate Assessment Criteria Based on Oral and Inhalation HCV Yes/No Do anyone know what the above options should be set at. Any help would be gratefully appreciated Ian ************************************************************************ **** ************************************ Vinci PLC Group of Companies Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual not the company, unless specifically indicated to that effect. This e-mail together with any files attached is confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you have received this in error, please delete it from your PC and inform our IT Department on 01923 470407 or [log in to unmask] This footnote also confirms that this e-mail has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. Vinci PLC Registered in England and Wales No. 737204 Registered Office : Astral House, Imperial Way, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD24 4WW ************************************************************************ **** ************************************ The WMDC Disclaimer can be found at: http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/SiteInformation/E-MailDisclaimer/default.htm This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail may be solely those of the author and are not necessarily those of Mouchel Parkman Mouchel Parkman Services Ltd, Registered in England at West Hall, Parvis Road, West Byfleet, Surrey UK KT14 6EZ Registered No : 1686040