I doubt it too. There are four citations that mention Dr. Millette: references 52, 65, 89, and 138.
The text for reference 52 reads:
An EPA-funded research team headed by Rutgers University/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School found pH levels as high as 11.5 for one WTC dust sample collected outdoors on 9/16/01 or 9/17/01. 52 This is right at the 11.5 presumptive trigger level for tissue corrosivity. However, the other 2 samples tested had substantially lower pH levels of 9.2 and 9.3. All three of these pH results are questionable.
The study itself described taking the precaution to find outdoor samples that had been protected from rain, so as to reassure readers of their study that the original caustic WTC dust would not have been neutralized by contact with water and carbon dioxide from the air (a reaction called "carbonation"). However, if the study is read closely, before testing the samples for pH, the Rutgers team first added water to the samples, inverted the tubes several times, soaked them "several days" at room temperature, and then stored them in the refrigerator for an unknown time period before pH testing.53 Thus, by their own admission, the Rutgers research team was intentionally and deliberately neutralizing the samples before testing the pH.
So, they revealed a dangerous pH! Good for them. As for the accusation of "deliberately neutralizing the samples", the text for the pH of the samples reads (as cited by the Jenkins report):
The pH of an aqueous suspension of each sample was > 7; the Cortlandt Street sample had a pH of 11.5. Both the Cherry and Market Street samples had a pH of 9 (Table 1). ...
(Emphasis added. The full report is here:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.02110703).
How is that deception? They indicate clearly that it's the pH of the aqueous suspension! They are not claiming that it's the original pH of the dust. It's raw scientific data not subject to any interpretation. The article also deals with how the Senate offered a twisted interpretation of the results. How is that Dr. Millette's fault?
Even more, I need to ask,
is it even possible to test the pH of the dust by any other means? I am illiterate in this field but it seems to me that the measuring devices would not work properly if they're in contact with the dust, and thus the dust needs to be submerged in a fluid to take the measurement, just as they did. Maybe someone here can confirm or deny this.
Let's see the other three citations of Dr. Millette. As for reference 65:
There was a second EPA-funded WTC dust study headed by Rutgers University/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.65 This study including most of the same original researchers in the Rutgers outdoor WTC dust study, above. This time, the dust was collected from indoor locations near Ground Zero on 11/19/01. Not surprisingly, the highest reported pH level was only 11. The reason that this is no surprise is the fact that the researchers yet again soaked the samples in water for several days and stored them in a refrigerator for an indeterminate period before testing. See the discussions above on the first Rutgers study of WTC dust, showing that this
procedure pre-neutralizes the samples.
This time no quotation is given, but just as above, I doubt there is any reason to consider the results deceptive. I could not access the article from the given link (
http://www.awma.org/journal/ShowAbstract.asp?Year=&PaperID=1214).
Reference 89 is exactly the same as reference 52. But the interesting part of it is that it's brought up
in support of a higher pH than stated in another report!
The third false claim in the Landrigan et al. publication was that bulk samples of WTC dust only had a pH level as high 11.0. Again, the same 2 studies (McGee et al. and Lioy et al.) were cited as a basis for this claim. Because the McGee et al. study only reported a maximum pH level of 10.0, the Lioy et al. study would need to be the source for the claim that the highest pH was only 11. This also was a deliberate misrepresentation. The Lioy study89 found a pH level as high as 11.5 for one sample, which is over 3 times as alkaline as a pH of 11.0. Claiming that the pH was only 11.0 conveniently gets the pH level under the universally accepted trigger level for corrosivity to human tissues (pH 11.5). It would have been hard to overlook the pH level of 11.5 in the Lioy et al. publication, because it appeared in bold-faced type in the abstract, as well as being in the text of the article and also a table as well. This third falsification makes it clear that the other falsification of the pH levels for the smallest particles was no casual error in the Landrigan et al. paper.
Wow.
From villain to hero. Yes,
the very same reference, the very same pH level, is now praised for revealing the (purported) deception in another study (in which Dr. Millette did not participate, by the way).
Reference 138 is again the very same study of references 52 and 89, and the text mentioning it reads:
OSHA's laboratory test methods (either ICAP or AA) would simultaneously reveal a large range of metals, including calcium, sodium, and potassium.136, 137 OSHA cannot claim that it did not find calcium, sodium, or potassium. Calcium, sodium and potassium compounds have always being found and reported in WTC dust and air by all other researchers, government and private, both near and far outside the boundaries of the Ground Zero epicenter, using the same laboratory methods. See the references for 8 studies showing calcium, sodium, and potassium compounds in settled dusts, air, and the fire plume from the WTC.138
Once again, for villain to hero.
If anything, this speaks very well of the integrity of the Paul Lioy et al. team, including Dr. Millette, who indeed revealed a pH in the aqueous suspension that is right in the 11.5 level of dangerousness!
Not really a truther response, but just for the record (and since there is almost nothing new coming from truthers): 
). Anyway, factually, the whole progress in "nanothemite matter" from the middle of 2011 is shortly described in the article, including the study of Jim Millette and our effort on JREF. 
