Answers to LiveSimply

[Guest guest]

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