ACSH says Mold Growth in Flooded Homes No Cause for Alarm

[Guest guest]

(javascript:printVersion()) (javascript:emailVersion()) July 3, 2006

Mold Growth in Flooded Homes No Cause for Alarm

By nne Chickering

In these hot and humid months of summer, drying out the recently flooded

homes in the northeast states will be no easy task. Along with repairing

structural and cosmetic damage, people may find themselves in a battle with

mold.

Increasingly, homeowner's insurance policies are not covering the costs of

mold damage and removal, so as people are working to clean the growth out of

their homes and offices themselves, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention is providing information on the _health implications of mold growth_

(http://www.cdc.gov/mold/dampness_facts.htm) .

The CDC asserts that exposure to mold is only a minimal health threat for

healthy individuals. People with mold sensitivity may develop a stuffy nose,

irritated eyes, a minor cough, or a mild skin reaction, while those

individuals with asthma or mold allergies may develop shortness of breath from

exposure. People with a suppressed immune system or with chronic lung disease

need

to take more precaution in mold-infested areas to guard against pulmonary

infection. It is important to note, however, that many people have no

physiological reaction to mold.

Alarm over the black mold dubbed " toxic mold " made news for allegedly

causing serious illness, but the CDC states that " there are very few reports

that

toxic molds (those containing certain mycotoxins) found inside homes can cause

unique or rare health conditions such as pulmonary hemorrhage or memory

loss. These case reports are rare, and a causal link between the presence of

the

toxic mold and these conditions has not been proven. "

Mold is ubiquitous in the environment, and while the health danger caused by

mold is minimal for many people, mold should not be permitted to grow

excessively in homes and businesses. " A common-sense approach should be used

for

any mold contamination existing inside buildings and homes, " according to the

CDC. The best way to handle mold is to stop it before it starts. The CDC

suggests removing all items from the home that cannot be thoroughly dried

within forty-eight hours. These items include porous, non-cleanable items such

as

carpeting and carpet padding, upholstery, wallpaper, drywall, floor and

ceiling tiles, insulation material, some clothing, leather, paper, wood, and

food. Mold can be cleaned off of hard surfaces with either soap and water or a

bleach and water solution (not to exceed one cup bleach per gallon of water).

In the case of cleaning large amounts of mold, a particulate-filter

respirator is recommended by the CDC as the appropriate respiratory protection.

Even though the health hazard posed by mold is small at most, with quick

action, mold growth in flooded homes and businesses of the northeast can be

prevented. People need to take into consideration their health history and

look

for symptoms of mold allergies when cleaning their homes, but bleach and a

sponge are a better way to confront a mold problem than panic and fear.

nne Chickering is a research intern at the American Council on Science

and Health (_ACSH.org_ (http://acsh.org/) , _HealthFactsAndFears.com_

(http://healthfactsandfears.com/) ).

A footnote to the above " scientific article " by the American Council on

Science and Health.

Three of their " Scientific " Advisors for ACSH:

E. Gots, M.D., Ph.D.

International Center for Toxicology and Medicine

Barrett, M.D.

town, PA

W. Brecher, Ph.D., C.Chem., DABT

GlobalTox International Consultants, Inc

Now lets see, Ron Gots and Nealley of ICTM and at that time, Brecher's co-

principals of GlobalTox wrote the following paper in 2000 based SOLELY on

extrapolations from rodent studies to deduce human illness is not plausible

from

mycotoxin inhalation indoors:

Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical review. Appl Occup

Environ

Hyg.2000;15:773-84. Robbins CA, Swenson, L.J., Nealley, M.L., Kelman, B.J.

and Gots, R.E

So in 2002, Kelman and Hardin, two principals of GlobalTox authored the

ACOEM mold statement claiming not plausible based SOLELY on the paper above.

In 2003, The Manhattan Institute paid Globaltox principals $40K to write a

" lay translation " paper and based on the ACOEM and now claiming its all junk

science. From SOLELY the math of the GlobalTox principals and Gots. So in

2003, the Manhattan Institute's Center for Science and Legal Policy, thought

one could make these sweeping conclusion based on rodent studies.

But....in 2005, The Manhattan Institute teamed up with ACSH for a breakfast

presentation of the War on Carcinogens. Guess what the war was? That

scientists cannot prove human illness of carcinogen exposure based SOLELY on

rodent

studies and extrapolated math. They called it " Ratty Rationale " .

So now I am really confused. Ron Gots and GlobalTox write a paper based on

rodents that claims they can determine all human illness.

The Manhanttan Institute pays GlobalTox $40k to make the statement even

stronger..junk science.

But then the ACSH teams up with the Manhattan Institute that you can't use

just rodents to prove human illness. It's ratty rationale.

Which is it, Manhattan Institute?

And who is advising at ACSH? Gots and GlobalTox? Because they think one

can use rodents to deduce human illness. Or are they advising ove this? They

should be about the biggest experts ACSH has, cuz they have generated a ton

of income over the mold issue claiming to be mold experts.

Which is it Gots and GlobalTox? When you advised ACOEM, extrapolated rodent

studies were the end all be all. Now that you are advising ACSH, they are

nothing?

The reality of the matter is, much can be learned and indicative from rodent

studies in understanding human illness. But to take it to the extreme of

one rodent study can deduce all or one rodent study can deduce nothing, are

only two extreme concept promoted for the benefit of limiting stakeholder

liability.

And to try to promote both ends of the spectrum and the same time, (all

human illness can be determined from a rodent study...and no human illness can

be

determined by a rodent study), is really stupid at this point in time. The

courts are already watching.

I would like to know how old that CDC mold paper is they quote, too.

I will agree with one thing though, there is definitely some " ratty

rationale " going on here.

Sharon