% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

VMware, Inc. Message Board

naydin2005 11 posts  |  Last Activity: May 24, 2015 11:44 AM Member since: Nov 13, 2007
  • The method to test the formalin vapor is absolutely ridiculous. In a normal house, you have the material on the floor and you have air circulation, windows, doors opening and plus a/c. Now you take off that material place it in a chamber in more exposed way, and wait for a few hours and measure the formalin and charge $575, that is a rip off. The test has to be made in house. Sending the laminate floor sample to a online lab is laughable. People are just ignorant, scared . This is not the way to punish a company. The only reliable and meaningful test is on site test. Right after the installation and under normal daily living conditions. The rest is not acceptable. By the way the test cost is probably less than 10 and yet they are charging 575. Go figure.

  • The government is responsible for testing all the imported materials. EPA is for that purpose. If this material exceeds the limits then firts thing to blame is the government officials Right does that make sense?

  • Reply to

    Lawyers need medical proof to win this case

    by naydin2005 May 23, 2015 8:18 PM
    naydin2005 naydin2005 May 23, 2015 8:24 PM Flag

    I have an allergy developed adfter this floor, I started sneezing that kind of approach will not pass. Those symptoms are considered nonspecific. To prove the direct link to formalin, you need blood changes such as altered blood count, changes in lymphocytes, bone marrow suppression. These changes only occur at high dose long exposure. All the other symptoms , yes they are real but cannot be unequivocally linked to formalin. Same issue always came up with agent orange other evaporant chemicals.

  • In medical lawsuits, you need the solid proof that the affected person has developed an illness directly caused by the involved agent. See asbetosis, agent orange cases etc. Formalin at this dose is not toxic enough to create the well known symptoms directly linked to formalin. The levels that can cause detectable changes are so high someone has to lie on the floor, and crush it and sniff it for 3 months. Why because formalin is inside and evaporant. It declines in few months to nil. In Pathology labs, the histology techbnicians and pathologists are exposed to much much higher formalin day in day out. In LL case, the formalin in the wood is declining as days go by. Let us say you got a client who claimed that formalin did this and that to her. When, how, what now, it is impossible to prove before the court. Like alcohol test. Just the presence of formalin at higher limits than state or federal levels cannot win the court battle for the clients. Only state or federal punishment will follow. Plus the company is already offering testing device free, and also replacement with the normal floor. This is the hardest thing to sue. I am a physician and experienced in toxicology.

  • Gunnar Nielsen (Copenhagen) pointed out that the exposure–response relationship for nasal cancer in rats is highly nonlinear, supporting a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) that allows deriving a health-based guideline value. Departing from the classical rat studies, an indoor guideline value of 0.08 ppm (0.1 mg/m3) formaldehyde was considered by WHO (2000) as being preventive of carcinogenic effects, also in compliance with epidemiological findings. The main reasoning was as follows (Nielsen and Wolkoff 2010; Wolkoff and Nielsen 2010): (1) Epidemiological studies reported no increased incidence of nasopharyngeal cancer in humans below a mean exposure level of 1 ppm and peak levels below 4 ppm, consistent with results from rat studies. (2) Rat studies indicated that cytotoxicity-induced cell proliferation (NOAEL at 1 ppm) is a key mechanism in the development of nasal cancer. (3) Lympho-haematopoietic malignancies are not consistently observed in animal studies and, if caused by formaldehyde in humans, are considered to be high-dose phenomena with nonlinear exposure–response relationships. Such diseases were not reported in epidemiological studies at peak exposures below 2 ppm and average exposures below 0.5 ppm. In rodents, the nasal cancer effect of formaldehyde is much more prominent than lympho-haematopoietic malignancies. Thus, exposure limits preventing nasal cancer were also considered to prevent lympho-haematopoietic malignancies.

  • Every day we deal with formalin. Formalin's effects on human body are not well delineated ;like heavy metal poisoning such as mercury or asbestosis. Formalin is a natural product. It is also broken down by liver, blood cells, kidney and even in fat cells. If a lawyer comes up and say my client is affected by formalin, in medical grounds, it is very almost impossible to tie up the symptoms such as allergy sneezing breathing difficulty to formalin. Sensitivity to formalin is incredibly variable. Other wise no one would be sitting at the labs as we speak. Pathologist.

  • Reply to

    Should be a good bounce coming!!!!

    by johnnyrules123 May 20, 2015 1:20 PM
    naydin2005 naydin2005 May 20, 2015 1:33 PM Flag

    go check netflix. it jumped from 50 to 100 100 to 150 then now 560 and never went down to close the gap. this is not baseball dude.

  • I doubt with 7.1 score the FED will allow them to raise dividents or buyback shares. They are number 6 in the top 10 worst list. Look at Benzinga news here.

  • naydin2005 naydin2005 Mar 1, 2015 6:20 PM Flag

    All stocks are sold with the action of " hands", no one is using his foot to sell the stocks. So the word " manipulation" seems strange. Otherwise it would have been called " pedipulation" if everyone had used his feet in selling and buying the stocks.

  • naydin2005 by naydin2005 Mar 1, 2015 6:17 PM Flag

    GS issued a convicted buy list. Since then BAC sold with conviction which also means in dictionary: a formal declaration that someone is guilty of a criminal offense, made by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law.

  • naydin2005 naydin2005 Mar 1, 2015 6:13 PM Flag

    Bottomline the stock fell. That alone proves what a crooked article this is. You only need basic algebra to prove this point. I have read this site many times. All B/S.

86.54-0.30(-0.35%)4:03 PMEDT