Inside the Green Brick House

Pls order my *green* CalStar bricks with extra mercury, lead and arsenic.  My kids love that stuff!  Viva Greentech!!

CalStar shows how adding a *green* name to common poisons makes a building product we can all enjoy. Please install the super *green* poison patio pavers for my kids to play on.  I can grow my vegetables right next to these pretty poison leaching pavers that come in so many complimentary colors!

Here’s how the Thom Calandra thing unfolded….

http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=54392

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.

hmm glass comes from sand sand comes from soil soil comes from GREEN BRICKS so the answer is B

Got some more info from the people who are analyzing Calstar’s fly ash bricks - in their leach tests - they said that they found some organic chemicals leaching along with heavy metals.  results showed polyacids and alkanolamine degradation products - they said that these classes of chemicals are used in portland cement and are linked with problems like reduced strength, color and leaching    

So analysis shows Calstar’s processing uses borate, polyacid and alkanolamine chemicals.  Will get more data on leaching soon - will post asap

Wilson:  that is very interesting.  Can you give more specific information - what types of leaching tests and samples - more details about the organics found and the analytical methods used?  Any more news on the metals leaching?

It sounds like the “polyacids” may refer to set regulators, air entraininers and/or efflorescence control - we know that they are tring to find additives that will control freeze-thaw failure and efflorescence.  By “alkanolamines”, I take it that you are referring to diethanolamine/triethanolamine - these are used as grinding aids and primary set accelerators for OP?  Please confirm. 

It is very surprising - using ethanolamines as accelerators and borates as retarders for fly ash has been known for decades - as have the associated prolems of poor set control, strength retrogression, formation of oxidation products and enhanced leaching of metals.  If this is what Calstar is using, it is pretty pathetic - the chemistry is old and sub-standard.  It just confirms that these people have little or no understanding of fly ash and are just desperately trying known recipes and claiming innovation.  It also explains why the bricks perform so badly.

Actually, the problems of the bricks are quite clearly seen in some of the pictures.  The picture of the “wall” is especially amusing - you do not need to look too closely to see a number of interesting features:
1) It looks like the bricks have been sanded before placement - probably to remove surface efflorescence deposits.
2) You can see capillary efflcorescence on the brick edges - where water from wet mortar placement has ingressed into the fly ash bricks and leached efflorescence to the surface.
3) You can see staged efflorescence zoning at the mortar-brick interface - this is typical of the initial stages of mortar bond failure seen with substandard high-salt bricks.  I bet that if the “wall” is put through a few wet dry cycles, you will see major peripheral efflorescence and mortar joint expansion and failure.

Ironically, the “wall” picture illustrates very graphically how this awful product will fail if some unsuspecting individual installs the fly ash bricks - efflorescence leaching plus freeze-thaw degradation leading to massive mortar joint failure and brick fragmentation.  Not to mention the host of toxic metals leaching from the bricks.

All in all a great “Greenwash” product!

I am aware of polyacids and alkanol amines in op based systems ( both together??). But in flyash systems- ie., systems with high toxic metals – these additives form soluble metal complexes and leach out.  Hence should increase the toxic metal leaching.  It is a known concept.  Wilson’s comment on heavy metal, ethanol amines, polyacids presence in efflorescence is in line with this.  One can change the conditions for minimization of complexation, but the basic aim of these additives will be lost.  Very interesting to see the performance.

The 60 Minutes Special on Coal Ash (the url is:  http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5362297n) is a real eye opener.

Coal ash is so toxic that you need a respirator and protective clothing to handle it, and you and all equipment then need to be thoroughly hosed down after any contact. Coal ash is very hazardous. No wonder that the coal power plants are so keen to get rid of it any way they can.

Coal fly ash bricks are a time bomb just like the ash dumps. The EPA requires that coal ash is stored in ponds with protective clay or plastic liners to prevent the toxic heavy metals from leaching out and poisoning the environment and water supplies. The report on Calstars bricks website (the url is:  http://calstarproducts.com/resources/gradient-memorandum/)  shows that heavy metals leach into water.

Is Calstar going to use liners to prevent the toxic metals from leaching out of their bricks? The bricks are like miniature ash dumps that are loaded with toxic metals that leach out when they are in contact with water. Is Calstar going to coat or paint the bricks to prevent contact with the fly ash content?  Why even make a toxic fly ash brick if you then have to then coat it with something inert to make it safe to handle?

And what EHS measures is Calstar taking to protect the workers at the factory? From articles and pictures it looks like there are no safety measures and that workers are being directly exposed to the hazard. And what about the retailers and the contractors and the consumers - how will they be protected from the toxic ash bricks? Will Calstar hand out protective clothing to everyone who comes into contact with the bricks?

Why is this company allowed to operate and make such a dangerous product?

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 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.

The photo comparing clay bricks and Calstar’s fly ash bricks and the accompanying caption are ripe with disinformation and spin.

Clay bricks do not leach salts - the white discoloration, which is present on some clay bricks, is a non-leachable bloom that is formed during firing.  Clay bricks standards set limits for sulfate, which can cause mortar deterioration.  In practice, this is never an issue because the clays used for bricks are typically very low in sulfate salts.

Fly ash on the other hand typically contains much higher levels of sulfates (USGS data shows that fly ashes typically contain from 8 to 34 times more sulfate than brick clays), and these sulfates are soluble, and remain soluble in the fly ash bricks, since they are not fired.

If you want to see salts leaching and efflorescence, then simply soak the fly ash bricks in water - there will be extensive efflorescence.  As one blogger has remarked - efflorescence is a huge problem for Calstar’s fly ash bricks.

The salt leaching and efflorescence problem is very evident in the indoor fly ash brick wall in the photo - there is visible efflorescence even though this wall has not been exposed to the elements.  One can only imagine the amount of efflorescence that would form if it were outside.

More spin and deceit from Calstar.

Here is more disinformation from Calstar’s website - 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.

Mr. Bkwaas’s comment “new Asbestos” is very scary and hope Flyash brick is not a repetition of Asbestos.

(Extracts from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

The first documented death related to asbestos was in 1906.

Approximately 100,000 people in the United States have died, or will die, from asbestos exposure related to ship building.

In 1951, asbestos companies removed all references to cancer before allowing publication of research they sponsored.[39] In 1952, Dr. Kenneth Smith, Johns-Manville medical director, recommended (unsuccessfully) that warning labels be attached to products containing asbestos. Later, Smith testified: “It was a business decision as far as I could understand…the corporation is in business to provide jobs for people and make money for stockholders and they had to take into consideration the effects of everything they did and if the application of a caution label identifying a product as hazardous would cut into sales, there would be serious financial implications.”[40] In 1953, National Gypsum’s safety director wrote to the Indiana Division of Industrial Hygiene, recommending that acoustic plaster mixers wear respirators “because of the asbestos used in the product.” Another company official noted that the letter was “full of dynamite” and urged that it be retrieved before reaching its destination. A memo in the files noted that the company “succeeded in stopping” the letter, which “will be modified.”[41]

In 1989 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase Out Rule which was subsequently overturned in the case of Corrosion Proof Fittings v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. This ruling leaves many consumer products that can still legally contain trace amounts of asbestos.

Current trends indicate that the worldwide rate at which people are diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases will likely increase through the next decade[56].)

It has taken nearly a century for EPA to ban asbestos. Atleast with the flyash bricks I,

Hope the company is serious on health and safety issues for employees as well as end users.
Hope the company has fully evaluated the hazards and is honest.
Hope the scientific advisory committee is judicious with its judgements
Hope the company will evaluate long term effects before entering the market.
Hope some independent agency like EPA will evaluate/certify the product.

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?

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

First, Calstar blamed the concrete and clay brick industries for trying to sabotage Calstar, and now they are trying to blame Calera?  Who is the next bogeyman that Calstar will dream up to?  This is so pathetic!

The sad truth is that Calstar has no “Green” nor “Clean” product, they are a very obvious Greenwash operation, and they are breathtakingly incompetent.

RedSaint - to your question

Yes – 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.

I ordered bricks, they delivered half started the job. Well the other half nevered delivered, put off for 2 months
they claim they finally found some bricks to match. Castaic sienna cored tumbled. Well I have noticed
since they started working on the newer delived bricks, they are leaching salt. The other 2,000 brick
are not. What happed?Are these newer bricks fired differently, cheaper bricks, Do I now need a sealer
for the new area going up?Is the mortar mixed wrong? Is Fly ash to high levels? I need help fast

browncoat

Are you using Calstar’s fly ash bricks?  You have two different batches and one batch is leaching salts?

If these are fly ash bricks, be extremely careful - the salts that leach out contain high concentrations of toxic metals and are very hazardous - by contact and inhalation.

browncoat

Calstar and its management are liable for product failure and toxic hazards - sue them.

Brad - Luke - so you want to improve the world?  Wonderful!

Why don’t we team up for a most worthy cause - exposing the Greenwash of Calstar for all to see and hear, and saving unsuspecting consumers and the environment from being poisoned by toxic fly ash-based products?

What a comparison - arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, mercury, lead, chromium, nickel, uranium and all those toxics in fly ash versus carbon dioxide - a gas we all breathe. 

Tough choice - poison yourself and the environment with cancer-causing and neurotoxic metals that accumulate in people and in the environment and maim or kill you, or breathe in a few more ppm of carbon dioxide?

I love your politico-marketing comment “Even if t is true that fly ash has toxins”...! 

It is a FACT that ALL FLY ASH HAS TOXINS!

Funny - you are sounding exactly like the global warming deniers that you are berating!  You are a “fly ash has toxins” denier?

Perhaps you are not really interested in improving the world?  Perhaps you are more interested in marketing Greenwash, and monetary gain from Calstar’s toxic fly ash bricks? 

Recognize fly ash bricks for the toxic hazard they are.  Admit that Calstar is a Greenwash.  Walk away from dirty money.  Protect people and the environment.

That is my challenge to you Luke.

Brad, Why do you want to encourage the “New Asbestos”?  Are you the owner/CEO/marketing personnel of Calstar?
Ulrich

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?

Emily-Luke

So, you believe the story about the fantasy about mercury absorption?  Really?  The test that was done was done under conditions of sub-critical, non-specific adsorption - that is to say, conditions where a low-vapor pressure metalloid like mercury/compounds will readily condense onto ANY SOLID MATERIAL.  The results have nothing to do with actual absorption of mercury/compounds - the specimens were simply providing a high heat capacity substrate for the mercury to condense on.  That is very obvious from the experimental conditions and the results.  So the question is, how do you find it credible?  Why dont we talk about the many journal articles on particulate and vapor-phase emissions of mercury from fly ash - funny that you do not mention any of those.

Oh, so you have a problem with emissions from the manufacture of clay bricks?  Oh, but wait - how is it that you happily ignore the far greater emissions associated with fly ash production?  How is it that you ignore the toxics load in fly ash versus none in clay bricks?  Trying to sell your fly ash bricks Luke?

Oh Luke, by the way, if you believe in the mercury absorption fantasy, why is it not mentioned on your Calstar Products website?  Afraid to publicly claim that your bricks absorb mercury?  Afraid that the truth will come out? 

Pity that you have to hide behind yet another pseudonym to sell your toxic bricks.

Emily :
“Wow” – “wonderful article”– “ A Castle in the sky” – “You can see everything when you see a flyash brick absorb mercury”

Emily-Luke

Nice fraud - you claim that Calstar’s fly ash bricks “absorb mercury” when your own wipe sample data show that the bricks leach out mercury. 

Like to explain that Luke?  Magic Ying-Yang fly ash bricks?

Oh, and your own results show that the bricks also leach out:
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
LEAD
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
SELENIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM

Perhaps you want to claim that your fly ash bricks “absorb” all of these toxics as well - in the face of your own test results that show all of these toxics leaching out?

Delusions and untruths from Calstar’s CEO Michael Kane (at http://www.journaltimes.com/news/local/article_c152a97a-ff0b-11de-a0d3-001cc4c002e0.html):

Quote from Kane: “We’re going to address the global warming issue,”

What fanciful Nonsense! Brick production accounts for about 0.3% of total carbon dioxide emissions in the US, and under 1% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions globally.

Also, about 50-80 tons of carbon dioxide are produced for each ton of fly ash. So, the truth is that the carbon dioxie emissions associated with Calstar’s fly ash bricks are about 125 to 200 times greater than with clay bricks.

Quote from Kane: “We’re the future.” and “The old methods of brick-making will fade away over time”

Lets compare Calstar’s fly ash bricks with clay bricks:

Calstar’s bricks.
1) Made from a hazardous waste.
2) Toxic to people and the environment.
3) Contain and leach highly toxic metal.
4) Very high CO2 footprint.
5) Completely unproven – no performance data.
6) Known to leach toxic metals.
7) Known to have freeze-thaw problems.
8) Known to have salt efflorescence problems.
9) Known to have mortar bonding problems.
10) Known batch-to-batch and within-batch variability

Traditional bricks.
1) Made from a renewable resource.
2) Completely non-toxic and totally recyclable.
3) Less than 1% of the CO2 footprint of fly ash bricks.
4) Proven for millenia across the world.
5) One of the most Green building materials available.
6) Performance proven for hundreds of years.
7) very high product consistancy.

So, according to Calstar and Kane, a high-performance, safe, established and Green product will be replaced by a toxic, non-Green product known to have a range of performance and toxicity issues?

A very grim future according to Calstar and Kane.

The scam continues.

More eye-opening quotes from Calstar at:

http://www.agrion.org/first_mover_advantage/agrion-en-Fly_Ash_Brick_putting_smokestack_residue_to_use_.htm

This time from their Director of Product Development - Julie Rapoport has been sounding off.

Rapoport concedes that Calstar’s fly ash bricks product is “is a prototype product and has not been field-tested over an extended period”.

So, how exactly is Calstar asserting that their product is “Green” and “Eco-firendly” when it is a “Prototype” that has not even been field-tested? 

How is it that Calstar asserts that its fly ash bricks exceed clay brick specifications when they have not been field-tested? 

So, why is this untested “prototype” being sold to consumers?  Calstar needs guinea pigs to test out its toxic bricks?

Another great quote from Rapoport - “The ASTM standards for clay and concrete masonry products are quite similar despite differences in raw materials and production processes, so it is reasonable to expect that fly ash products that meet these standards will perform perfectly well in the field”.

What utter nonsense - Portland cement is totally different to fly ash is totally different to clay, as anyone with even a modicum of experience with building products knows.  Sounds like Rapoport is desperately trying to find some way to associate Calstar’s unproven and toxic fly ash bricks with safe, high-performing and established cement and clay building products.

Even more nonsense from Rapoport - who says: “CalStar tests above and beyond ASTM C216”

ASTM C216 is not applicable to Calstar’s fly ash bricks.  Period.  ASTM C216 was established for fired clay bricks - and while it appears that it can be extended to fired fly ash bricks, it is certainly not applicable to Calstar’s non-fired fly ash bricks. Period.

Clearly Rapoport’s concept of testing “beyond” ASTM C216 does not include the bricks being “field-tested over an extended period”.

More hype and hyperbole from Calstar.

Calstar’s CEO - Michael Kane has jumped ship.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Boral-appoints-US-division-president-pd20100204-2BTYV?OpenDocument&src=hp14

In a striking and ironic refutal of Calstar’s fly ash brick product, Kane has moved to Boral, the largest clay brick producer in the US. 

So much for Calstar’s “Green” and “Eco-friendly” fly ash bricks.  Even Calstar’s own CEO did not believe Calstar’s hype and greenwashing.

Obviously Kane sees much better better prospects at Boral.  Boral is a solid company with excellent products, including clay bricks, cement block and a range of building products made with fly ash.  Quite the change from Calstar’s greenwash operations.

Damage control time for Calstar.

Congratulations Michael Kane - Well done.

Time to re-evaluate Calstar’s Flyash brick future.