Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Yes I read through Carl, thanks for taking your time- I allot one to two hrs each day for my education- you are allways worth it. --- In , " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@h...> wrote: > > Quack, > > Thanks for the detailed reply. My responses are below your comments. > To help separate all the statements and responses between us I have > identified my paragraphs in this post by beginning with *****. > > > > >Can you direct me to the source(s) of your information on the > > >soluability of mycotoxins? > > >Yes, I read this on Medline and the reference is > >Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982 August; 44(2): 494–495. > >Identification of " Water-Soluble " Toxins Produced by a Stachybotrys > >atra Strain from Finland [snip] > > *****As I replied to you offline, I got the study. Thank you! I was > not aware of this. The term is in quotes as " water soluable " and the > conclusion makes clear they aren't talking about plain water, but > body fluids. I know you are aware of this based on your off-line > response to me. For others who may be reading this, I want to make > clear the difference. Also, those few mycotoxins that are " water > soluable " are also solvent soluable so you don't have to clean two > different ways. > > > > > > > Thats one of the reasons why some experts often suggest using some > > > > kind of semi-abrasive inert slurry, which is then immediately > > > > sucked > > > > up by a powerful vacumn.. to do serious stachy remediation.. > > >> Can you be more specific about this process? It has characteristics > >> of both cryo-blasting and Modec. > > > You know, Carl, I am not a professional, so basically, I'm just > > synthesizing this opinion from a number of facts that I'm aware of > > on the relative success of different remediation/decontamination > > > methods. > > *****You are right that there are a number of processes for removing > mold, primarily simple cleaning. The ones you describe are for > removing mold growth from semi-porous surfaces on non-removable > structure like studs, joists, under side of roofs, etc. S520 goes > into great detail about these. When the locations are hard to sand or > wire brush then pressurized abrasives can be more cost effective. > This is especially true in attics where the nails are difficult (and > dangerous) to clean around by hand methods. > > > > > >These 'successful' processes are usually (making up this concept, > > >sorta, here) 'slurry/abrasive' based and the equipment used to > > >undertake them always seems to have two hoses coming out of a > > >truck.. > > *****The abrasive ones typically use sand, glass beads or corn cobs. > The cryo-blasting uses dry ice that you correctly identify as removal > by sublimation, with the CO2 dissipating into the air. The " slurry " > is the Modec or similar process that applies a combination of > chemicals to the surfaces which then are sucked into another hose. > > > > >>>Also, I'm not familiar with > >>> different levels of stachy remedaition. > > > I was under the impression that there are different 'levels' at > > which different cleanup methods are either required (in some > > jurisdictions) or strongly encouraged.. Even here in Calif. in my > > conversations with local officials it seems like they have internal > >guidelines which maybe are not published that are based on square > >footage of visible mold.. > >I ran into this when talking with my local Health Dept people.. for > >example, it seems like after a building exceeded 10 square feet of > >visible mold they might be able to do more.. (no, the parts of my > >building that I can see, all added up together come close, but they > >don't reach that [snip] > > *****This is a very important point you are making about Square > Footage of Visible Mold and one that is causing more and more > confusion. Brief history, posted here previously. NYC Health Dept was > first to write a guidance document for their own use. They identified > areas of visible mold to determine when their own people could remove > the mold or if professionals should. The square footage was also used > to decide containment and other engineering controls. Others picked > up on it, including EPA, but changed the Square Footage rules to what > they preferred. > > *****The problem now is that as the landlords, adjustors and property > managers are beginning to pay attention, they go with what is easiest > to understand, whether it is accurate or not. They not only use > Square Footage but they misuse it. Instead of helping to decide who > removes it and how, they distort it to IF it should be removed. > > *****I used a discussion here in October about this at an S520 > meeting to make some language changes. We have another meeting in > about 2 weeks. S520 originally ignored the Square Footage guidelines > for a variety of reasons and replaced them with their own > terminology. This created more confusion and slowed acceptance > because visual clues are so much easier to understand and apply. The > S520 revision process (not complete yet) is working on language to > acknowledge the Square Footage guidance and its historical basis. The > focus will probably change it to one of several pieces of the total > information necessary to make decisions rather than the only final > criteria for action. Square Footage is an important part but isn't > the only part of the inspection, assessment and remediation process. > > > > >Ive also read a fair > >amount about biowarfare decontamination techniques.. really, the > >same thing.. I could probably find this stuff for you if you want me > >to, though.. *if its important and would help you* > > *****Yes, the two are really the same thing. The difference is not in > the procedures but in the diligence. Mold remediation and > verification allows some to remain, but infectious organisms that > kill have a zero tolerance in their remediation. Dr Eugene Cole has > an excellent paper on this: Suggested Practice for Remediation of > Highly Infectious Biological Agent Contamination in Indoor > Environments (Applied Biosafety, 6(3) pp.136-138). > This is discussed in a column and interview I wrote for IE > Connections available free at: > http://members.aol.com/iecnews/Grimes-Nov03.html > > > > > > Other mycotoxins are hormone-like substances, which act as > > >endocrine > > > disruptors and cause infertility and other sexual issues.. > > >I was specifically thinking of zearalenone and perhaps some > > >others..again, let me see if i can find good refs.. but I am > > >pretty sure that its been shown many times over that zearalenone > > >has a host of different reproductive effects in animals and there > > >is no reason to believe that we are any different.. In fact, I > > >think it has been proven that zearalenone causes ovarian cysts, > > >and accellerates the onset of puberty in people chronically > > >exposed to it.. But I am not sure.. and it will take me some time > > >to find them.. Can it wait till tomorrow? > > *****It would be better to use your references to make the statements > rather than remember what they say. There is enough confusion as > there is without having to go back and make corrections. > > > > > >The hormone emulators are usually associated with pesticides, fire > > >retardants and some of the persistant organic pthalates (POPS). Do > > > you have a source for mycotoxins? > > >Ref on the ergot alkaloids in aspergillus below- > >Ergot and its history is a whole book.. or actually several books.. > >It was endemic during the Middle Ages when it caused mass hysteria > >and (many say) witch burnings.. Several popular books have been > >written, I'm pretty sure, exploring its rich history.. > > *****Again, be sure first, rather than guess. Assuming is risky but > guessing is dangerous! > > > > >Let me use this analogy.. whenever you have, say, 10,000 chemicals > > >in bottles in a room, and then something breaks all of the > > >bottles.. *some* of them are going to cause problems for the > > >fragile human ecosystem inside a home.. *many* of the chemicals > > >produced by molds are biologically active.. > > >Even if they are not 'toxins' it is not reasonable to say that > > >they are 'safe'. > > *****You are describing synergism and interactions. You are right > that this is real world but most of the testing and safety > determinations are only for single chemicals in isolation. To make it > worse, the estimates of chemicals in active use range from 70,000 to > 100,000. > > > > > >When I was a little kid I saw a anti-drug movie in health class > > >that had a party scene in which a bunch of teenagers collected > > >miscellaneous pills from their parents medicine cabinets and > > >dumped them all in a big glass.. then, each of the teenagers > > >grabbed a handful, at random, and ate them, then awaited the > > >results.. > > *****I like this analogy. Take Carson's contaminated wildlife > and extend it to contaminated people. We are living in an environment > not unlike your teenagers with their pills, except the " pills " are > forced on us without our knowledge or choice. Recent news is full of > info on how chemical contaminants are pervasive in the environment > and in people that have been tested. Just today, Grist Magazine > reported on an LA Times story on chemicals in baby toys and bottle > nipples: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 11 Jan 2006 > <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=6250> > > > > > >But I don't know any more than many of you and much less than > > >some.. I'm just trying to express the (to some unsettling, but to > > >me, somewhat .. well..) concept that the more we know, the more we > > > realize we don't know.. > > >Thise people who say we do know things like this I don't trust > > >them, because its clear to me that they are either lying or > > >dangerously stupid.. > > *****I understand your intent. But we must be careful with the > impressions we create. For example, we really must stop getting our > primary information only from Web sites and sales people. Not that > they are all dishonest, the honest ones actually believe what they > promote. And they have a vested interest in convincing us. Medical > research sites are excellent but the application of their research to > the real world isn't always straight forward or common sense. Those > that attempt it usually promote their own beliefs and usually aren't > educated, trained and experienced in the authoritative (as opposed to > the regulatory!) published consensus documents that do apply the > academic knowledge. The guidelines and consensus standards and > references include the NYC Guidelines (the weakest of all), the ACGIH > for scientific basis, the NADCA ACR2005 for ducts, the EPA documents > that are free at www.epa.gov/iaq/molds and the IICRC S500 and S520 > national consensus standards for professionals in water damage and > mold remediation. > > *****I realize that as victims, we are all justifiably skeptical of > any authority and I agree that most of these documents apply more to > the " general public " than to you and me as individuals. However, they > are excellent starting places whose fundamentals should not be > ignored. And if they work then that's all you need. But if they don't > work for you it doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means they are > incomplete. It means that you and I need an individual protocol IN > ADDITION TO, not necessrily instead of, the general. > > *****Congratualtions to any of you who actually read through this > whole, complicated mess! > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Carl, also, from me, *Thank you* for doing this work and for taking the time to explain it all to us. I am going to be taking your new guidelines, when they are released and bringing them to local officials who right now, basically are telling me that to a great extent their hands are tied by what they describe as 'lack of standards' Perhaps we could get California to adopt these new standards in its law, rather than endlessly delaying its application, as they have been doing, apparently, for years.(this inaction seems criminal, when looking at the result it is creating, a legal loophole big enough to drive a house - or in my case, apartment building, through) I am sorry if any of my posts seemed ill considered or hasty. I think Serena is right in that, like all of us, I am admittedly and obviously affected by this stuff in my home. Indeed, it is what could only be described as a witches brew of fungal curses and magic possibilities for serious creative chaos as well.. (Kind of like the state of mind the Dadaists tried to create in their surrealist parlor games and 'cutup' poetry) I'm just trying to work with that. *It's all I've got.* BTW, a few months ago, I saw two abstracts on medline mentioning that some substances had been isolated from stachybotrys that caused new neural growth in the brain, and, I think, afforded neuroprotection in some small area from other toxins.. (imagine that) This was while I was doing a search for neuroprotection from stachybotrys.. But now I can't find them.. (I had a disk crash a few months ago and lost a lot of stuff) But its something to think about that while the fungi take away some things, they may also give other things.. Life is like that too.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 Quack, You're welcome. When officials say there are no standards, they really mean there are no laws or regulations that they can enforce. The S520 is already released (www.iicrc.org), the update is what isn't quite done. California knows about S520 as they monitored its development. But they haven't made it law (and never will). They will write their own, maybe, like Texas - very bad! - and Louisiana have and Florida is trying. (www.moldupdate.com/legislation.htm). EPA documents are already there, go download them. But they aren't law. In fact, the law says EPA cannot regulate the indoor environment. They can only provide guidance. Just like OSHA cannot regulate but can only enforce what is already a regulation. NIOSH develops the basis for regulation but cannot enforce. And both are strictly limited to worker protection. Most regulations concern hazards and mold is not categorized as a hazard. For a public health agency to declare a hazard requires evidence that will withstand a challenge in court from those with the most to lose. Even those that provide the scientific basis for exposure levels sometimes are challenged in court. ACGIH experienced this about 4 years ago. Checks and balances. Documents developed by a broad base of national consensus (S520) carry more weight than those developed by a person or by one organization. But the ultimate influence is created by the consensus of users. That takes a long time and there is no weight of the law behind it. Even with a law, not everyone automatically obeys. That's one reason we have the courts. Even when they lose in court, they don't always pay. Just as there is no magic bullet for a mold remedy, there is no magic bullet for justice. We have to find ways to make it happen. That's what more and more people, like some of those on this group, are doing. It doesn't stop current suffering, but as you say, it's all we've got. Which is quite a bit, actually. We have the opportunity. Most countries take that away from it's citizens. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Carl, also, from me, *Thank you* for doing this work and for taking > the time to explain it all to us. I am going to be taking your new > guidelines, when they are released and bringing them to local > officials who right now, basically are telling me that to a great > extent their hands are tied by what they describe as 'lack of > standards' Perhaps we could get California to adopt these new > standards in its law, rather than endlessly delaying its application, > as they have been doing, apparently, for years.(this inaction seems > criminal, when looking at the result it is creating, a legal loophole > big enough to drive a house - or in my case, apartment building, > through) > > I am sorry if any of my posts seemed ill considered or hasty. I think > Serena is right in that, like all of us, I am admittedly and obviously > affected by this stuff in my home. Indeed, it is what could only be > described as a witches brew of fungal curses and magic possibilities > for serious creative chaos as well.. (Kind of like the state of mind > the Dadaists tried to create in their surrealist parlor games and > 'cutup' poetry) > > I'm just trying to work with that. *It's all I've got.* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.