Re: Mold tests might not be worth the time or money

[Guest guest]

,

I wish I had your 'sense' for when trouble is

around but I do think you are more sensitive to

mold and toxins than most people, or you have

trained yourself to detect it. This is your

method and may work for others too, but I think

if I feel sick, toxins are present but I feel the

need to test because many other things can make

you feel sick and weak, carbon monoxide for

example but many others. One time I had a

natural gas leak, so...?

That's why I do testing, basically to see what

the 'numbers' are, how much mold is present.

--- erikmoldwarrior

<erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote:

>

> It does feel like this group is overly

> argumentative toward me a lot

> of the time when some point that is intensely

> important to my well

> being gets " glossed over " as if it were never

> said.

[Guest guest]

bbw <barb1283@...> wrote:

>

> ,

> I wish I had your 'sense' for when trouble is

> around but I do think you are more sensitive to

> mold and toxins than most people, or you have

> trained yourself to detect it. This is your

> method and may work for others too, but I think

> if I feel sick, toxins are present but I feel the

> need to test because many other things can make

> you feel sick and weak, carbon monoxide for

> example but many others. One time I had a

> natural gas leak, so...?

> That's why I do testing, basically to see what

> the 'numbers' are, how much mold is present.

>

I made no arguments against testing for these irritants you cite.

I said that relying on " mold tests " gives you an inaccurate

indication of exposure and cannot be relied upon as a guide to

action.

An irate customer confronted me on the training hill one day,

angrily saying that I had sold him a Hang Glider that didn't fly.

He said " I can run faster than you, but the damned thing still

doesn't take off. Hang Gliders develope lift from speed, so my

ability to run faster means that if I can't launch it, then no one

can, so there must be something wrong with the glider. " He then

demonstrated that the glider refused to take off, by running at top

speed down the training hill. Sure enough, the glider showed no

signs of trying to lift him into the air.

When he got back up the hill, I replied that although he could

outrun us all, these gliders are capable of flying up to sixty miles

an hour, and if the control inputs for fast flying are fed into the

control bar while trying to launch, it is more than capable of

diving down the hill far faster than anyone can run and will just

stay on the ground regardless of velocity.

I said that my experience was that the glider flew just fine and

would launch just as easily as any training glider, a claim that was

instantly rejected as " If you can launch it, then you are just

managing to overcome the deficiencies of the glider somehow by using

the wind " .

Well, a lot of people tend to blame the system, phantom gusts of

wind or just about anything they can invent rather than admit they

might be doing something wrong. And when an instructor says that

these other factors aren't really to blame, we are often told that

we are just being arrogant and " That's your experience "

I hooked into his glider and put my feet in the same prints he

left, and demonstrated the proper technique in exactly the same

conditions. Within eight steps the glider was up an flying with

enough airspeed that I pushed out into a climb and flew up so high

that the people back at launch were looking up at me.

At this point, personality issues leave the equation. It doesn't

matter if I'm arrogant or not. Nor can proposal of a technique be

dismissed as a " One size fits all " or " cookie cutter " approach that

doesn't apply to others.

The bottom line is that, under these conditions, the glider can fly

exactly as it is supposed to, and will fly equally well for anyone

who understands what makes a glider do what it does.

When I assert that " Mold tests might not be worth the time and

money " because these tests cannot be relied upon, this isn't

something that " Just applies to " . It is a statement regarding

the inherent flaws of the measuring technique which apply to anyone

who is relying upon the system.

Hasn't it occurred to people how very strange it is that the very

mold which is most often implicated in the most serious cases of

mold illness, Stachybotrys, is often at such low levels that it

isn't even discovered in plates, tape lifts or airborne sampling?

If the most problematic exposure is not to be found in this manner,

then what exactly is it that people think they are measuring?

-

[Guest guest]

and group,

Aside from personalities and feelings between different concepts of

causes and solutions, I agree wholeheartedly with what says

about the problems with mold testing.

Mold testing, even by the experts, is inaccurate.

http://www.ieconnections.com/archive/apr_05/apr_05.htm#article2

Data from mold testing can be useful ADDITIONAL information,

especially in legal cases and medical situations, but it cannot be

definitive on its own. It must have a context.

Some of you are doing testing on your own from lousy labs but it

looks like it has some value. Because you don't do just one test and

declare a " problem. " You take a series of tests over time and COMPARE

the results to something else (your experience). There may be nothing

accurate or valid but the " indications " and ADDITIONAL data might

track with your experience. This means you found something that

COMPARES and leads to an improvement of what you experience. Although

it proves nothing, once you have that baseline you can expand from

there - but keep a watchful eye for when it doesn't work.

We desperately WANT mold testing to be definitive and I wish it were.

We want it to be so we can prove to ourselves and others that our

experience is real. But mold testing by itself cannot do that. It

isn't like 's hang gliders that have repeatable results from

repeatable actions with precision equipment and validated procedures.

Mold testing is more like trying to solve a problem by flying on a

broom at times other than Halloween.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> bbw <barb1283@...> wrote:

> >

> > ,

> > I wish I had your 'sense' for when trouble is

> > around but I do think you are more sensitive to

> > mold and toxins than most people, or you have

> > trained yourself to detect it. This is your

> > method and may work for others too, but I think

> > if I feel sick, toxins are present but I feel the

> > need to test because many other things can make

> > you feel sick and weak, carbon monoxide for

> > example but many others. One time I had a

> > natural gas leak, so...?

> > That's why I do testing, basically to see what

> > the 'numbers' are, how much mold is present.

> >

>

> I made no arguments against testing for these irritants you cite. I

> said that relying on " mold tests " gives you an inaccurate indication

> of exposure and cannot be relied upon as a guide to action.

>

> An irate customer confronted me on the training hill one day,

> angrily saying that I had sold him a Hang Glider that didn't fly.

> He said " I can run faster than you, but the damned thing still

> doesn't take off. Hang Gliders develope lift from speed, so my

> ability to run faster means that if I can't launch it, then no one

> can, so there must be something wrong with the glider. " He then

> demonstrated that the glider refused to take off, by running at top

> speed down the training hill. Sure enough, the glider showed no signs

> of trying to lift him into the air.

> When he got back up the hill, I replied that although he could

> outrun us all, these gliders are capable of flying up to sixty miles

> an hour, and if the control inputs for fast flying are fed into the

> control bar while trying to launch, it is more than capable of diving

> down the hill far faster than anyone can run and will just stay on the

> ground regardless of velocity.

> I said that my experience was that the glider flew just fine and

> would launch just as easily as any training glider, a claim that was

> instantly rejected as " If you can launch it, then you are just

> managing to overcome the deficiencies of the glider somehow by using

> the wind " .

> Well, a lot of people tend to blame the system, phantom gusts of wind

> or just about anything they can invent rather than admit they might be

> doing something wrong. And when an instructor says that these other

> factors aren't really to blame, we are often told that we are just

> being arrogant and " That's your experience "

> I hooked into his glider and put my feet in the same prints he

> left, and demonstrated the proper technique in exactly the same

> conditions. Within eight steps the glider was up an flying with

> enough airspeed that I pushed out into a climb and flew up so high

> that the people back at launch were looking up at me.

> At this point, personality issues leave the equation. It doesn't

> matter if I'm arrogant or not. Nor can proposal of a technique be

> dismissed as a " One size fits all " or " cookie cutter " approach that

> doesn't apply to others. The bottom line is that, under these

> conditions, the glider can fly exactly as it is supposed to, and will

> fly equally well for anyone who understands what makes a glider do

> what it does.

>

> When I assert that " Mold tests might not be worth the time and

> money " because these tests cannot be relied upon, this isn't

> something that " Just applies to " . It is a statement regarding the

> inherent flaws of the measuring technique which apply to anyone who is

> relying upon the system.

>

> Hasn't it occurred to people how very strange it is that the very

> mold which is most often implicated in the most serious cases of mold

> illness, Stachybotrys, is often at such low levels that it isn't even

> discovered in plates, tape lifts or airborne sampling?

>

> If the most problematic exposure is not to be found in this manner,

> then what exactly is it that people think they are measuring? -

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

What I am measuring with mold tests is this:

If conditions are such that " a lot " of mold is

growing, then there is water leak or too much

moisture in house, things are conducive to mold

growth that I want to eliminate. If it grows a

lot of aspergillus and cladosporum, whatever, I

need to clean up, dry out, make changes. If

conditions are ripe for mold growth that is high,

then conditions are right for all kinds of mold,

including stachybotras and fusariums.

My attitude is: I don't care WHAT their names

are, if conditions are moldy, they are unhealthy,

regardless of type of mold, and mold doctors have

said this, if there is alot of mold, doesn't

matter what the type, it is unhealthy conditions

to live in. It's not as if I'm using tests and

then when NOT finding the fusariums or

stachybotras, I take attitude that everything is

FINE. The reverse is true. I ASSUME these

nastier molds are most likely to be around too,

or feel it is SAFE TO ASSUME they can be.

If I can't catch ANY spores in a plate or only a

few, don't smell anything, don't see a water leak

anywhere, moisture levels in house are

reasonable, no moldy smell or mildew smell, and

place seems in otherwise good condition, I can't

move to another place just by sensing it is here

by any means that isn't more concrete since I

have a job and need the money I earn or my life

would not or rip out walls looking for something

there is no sign of. If a person has 'your

sense' of detecting mycotoxins and knows when

they sense it like you do, then they have a huge

advantage. I don't have that.

My best friend has a nose like a dog. I swear

she smells things I don't. I also had a woman

working around the house that smelled gas one

day. I didn't smell it. Neither did her husband

who was with her. However I called and arranged

for the utility company to come out and check the

gas lines and there was a leak. I didn't smell

it. Just because you can detect mycotoxins

without evidence of mold, doesn't mean anyone who

applies themselves can do it too.

I think people tend to respond to posts that they

can relate to. You've trained yourself to detect

something that made you feel ill. It seems to be

working well for you since you are definately the

healthiest person in the group. So just be glad

of that. I've posted plenty of things that get

no response.

--- erikmoldwarrior

<erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote:

Hasn't it occurred to people how very strange

> it is that the very

> mold which is most often implicated in the most

> serious cases of

> mold illness, Stachybotrys, is often at such

> low levels that it

> isn't even discovered in plates, tape lifts or

> airborne sampling?

>

> If the most problematic exposure is not to be

> found in this manner,

> then what exactly is it that people think they

> are measuring?

> -

[Guest guest]

" Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote:

> We desperately WANT mold testing to be definitive and I wish it

were. We want it to be so we can prove to ourselves and others that

our experience is real. But mold testing by itself cannot do that.

It isn't like 's hang gliders that have repeatable results from

repeatable actions with precision equipment and validated

procedures.

Mold testing is more like trying to solve a problem by flying on a

broom at times other than Halloween.

> Carl Grimes

Thanks Carl.

Mold testing is so infuriatingly full of flaws that it almost seems

at times to prove that the problem couldn't possibly be mold.

I know it sounds like mold illness and Hang Gliding couldn't possib

[Guest guest]

" Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote:

> We desperately WANT mold testing to be definitive and I wish it

were. We want it to be so we can prove to ourselves and others that

our experience is real. But mold testing by itself cannot do that.

It isn't like 's hang gliders that have repeatable results from

repeatable actions with precision equipment and validated

procedures.

Mold testing is more like trying to solve a problem by flying on a

broom at times other than Halloween.

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

Thanks Carl.

Mold testing has such weird contradictions that at times it almost

seems to prove that the problem couldn't possibly be from mold.

I know it seems incredible that Hang Gliding would have anything to

do with mold illness, but the knowledge of micrometeorology

necessary to safely practice the sport has been invaluable.

We all look at things from our own conceptual framework, and when

the presence of mold didn't seem to make sense, I looked at it in

the same way a pilot gets indicators of windspeed and direction by

looking at various visible clues, like smoke and flags - and the

correlation to spore plumes was just as amazing " there " as when you

spot dust devils and chase them to a wispy developing Cumulus cloud

and find the thermal that keeps you aloft.

-