Re: Where are all the bodies

[Guest guest]

"I believe you missed the essence of Will’s post, i.e., where are all the bodies? And I concur with Will."

,

Short answer: Some are buried in confidential settlement agreements.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Hi :

The main difference between the 70's and now is the "energy efficiency buildings', that removed a structures ability to open windows to let in fresh air.

If you will notice, sick building syndrome only started coming into national prominence since these buildings came into 'vogue'.

Also, workers are restricted to being in the office for 8 hours, of course, except for lunch. College students spend more time outside of their dorms and also, have less accumulative exposure to indoor pollutants. Again, there are genetic predispositions to chemical/mold exposures and the body's ability to deal with detoxification.

Back in the 70's there wasn't such a preponderance of mold related exposures and therefore, there was less emphasis placed upon it in academic research. I was in college in the 70's and mold was barely covered in my biology class. When I returned to college decades later to finish my degree, there was a more diversified concentration in regards to mold. With research projects going on.

When you referenced the 'bodies', there can be a case made for the 'walking bodies', those who are 'physically here' but not functioning as the rest of the population due to numerous systemic health effects from mold, VOC's etc.

Angel

Where are all the bodies

Dr. Thrasher:

I believe you missed the essence of Will’s post, i.e., where are all the bodies?

And I concur with Will.

Like Will, I too am a licensed contractor. Like Will, I am in many more non-water damaged (WD) buildings than WD buildings, and I am in many more non-mold compromised buildings than mold-compromised buildings. This said, I see almost as many “sick†people in non (water and/or mold...pick your favorite) compromised buildings as obviously compromised buildings, and for many similar symptoms. Given what many folks on ieQuality post, one could be lead to believe that mold and/or water-compromised structures should have a trail of morbidity and mortality...I don’t see it, either.

Personally, my introduction into moldy WD buildings began in the late 70’s. I essentially paid my way through my undergraduate program ripping out and re-building (R & R) moldy bathrooms in off-campus student housing. Lots of them. My containment methods were appalling when compared to today’s standards. Did I wear PPE...Hell no...well maybe, if you consider the leather gloves I wore PPE. Some of the places I re-built were appalling – you could carve your initials in the black biomass present and not get all the way down to the substrate...what ever it was. Interestingly, I don’t recall any “sick†tenants in the places I worked, albeit, these were young adults – 20 somethings – so my population is age biased. I did my fair share of R & R in those days, re-built well over 200 bathrooms. In doing this I got really interested in the molds present, and ended-up spending a lot of wo

rk in the university’s plant pathology lab to ID the critters. Can’t recall anything about mycotoxins ever being discussed by the professors at that time...so I didn’t worry.

However, why is it that today we hear about so many being “sick†and debilitated from WD structures, but back then it was essentially unheard of? We certainly don’t have an over abundance of WD buildings today as compared to those in the 70’s and 80’s.

BTW...I do have my speculation on the ill’s of present, I believe that mold is not all that bad (and I have my reasons to believe this), and I do believe other biologicals (e.g., bacteria) contribute to the problems within our dwelling units. This said, if WD buildings are really, really bad.....where are all the bodies?

For what it is worth....

I understand your frustration. However, I do not know the toxicologist you

have spoken with. However, the literature is full of information regarding

upper and lower respiratory tract morbidity (not death and bodies), but

morbidity. There are also some individuals (not all) who have genetic

polymorphism that makes the more sensitive. For example, individuals with

GSTM1 null (no genes for this detox pathway) have a higher risk to the

cancer causing aflatoxin B1. There certain HLA phenotypes that lend to

greater risk for disease, not only by mold but also from bacteria.

In the years I have been in this business (since about 1984) I have see two

deaths of adults. However, a raised morbidity with respect to upper and

lower respiratory morbidity. Water-damage building and its toxins (VOCs,

MVOCS, fungi and their toxins, bacteria and their toxins, make for soup that

has a variety of different impacts.

Finally, I taught at one time at U. of Colorado and at UCLA school of

medicines. I can personally attest to the fact that environmental medicine

has always had a back seat to the standard medical curriculum. It is better

today, but still lacks. I have also spoken with many of the ill (morbidity

not bodies) in water damage homes, buildings, schools and hospitals. Not all

are ill, but a number do developed chronic morbidity with multiple symptoms.

A good example as I put on this forum was my experience with the EPA

building in D.C. 120 individuals were allowed to work at home because they

could not tolerate the building. Many of the others had upper and lower

respiratory symptoms that were not serious enough to keep them at home.

The other problem is public cost. Below are some papers on these subjects,

particularly morbidity. A sick worker is not as efficient as a healthy one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076249

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17542835

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18177298

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21196349

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com>

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@... <mailto:sandracrawley%40msn.com>

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

> >

> > Wane, others,

> > This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere

> > summary

> > of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society.

> > It concerns expertise and ability.

> > I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited.

> > How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the

> > realm

> > of

> > the "engineer". How is it that I can find and prove flaws in engineer's

> > reports or opinion?

> > I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the specifics,

> > and

> >

> > am intelligent.

> > As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue, the

> > medical doctor who solves an engineering problem.

> > It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a problem.

> > Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted with

> > someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing to

> > do

> > is simply prove them wrong.

> > The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of those

> > who

> >

> > merely claim to know what they are talking about!

> > Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones

> > confusing

> >

> > the public.

> > How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by schooling?

> > by

> > initials after a last name?

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Sincerely,

> Bob Hawley, CEICC, CIEC, CMC, CMCA, CSDS, CMRS, CETC, CSL (MA), ADI-II

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> Environmental AirTechs

> IAQ Consulting/Investigations Dept.

> Southwick Massachusetts 01077

> email: Bob@...

>

[Guest guest]

No. I did not misinterpret or miss the essence. The literature is full of

fairly current data on upper and lower respiratory tract infections, asthma,

etc causing morbidity associated with damp indoor spaces. I actually posted

some of the papers. WHO in 2009 (although they missed over 1500 peer

reviewed papers) came up with the same conclusion as the papers I posted.

Morbidity may be interpreted as bodies. Also, I taught in the Medical

Schools from the years 1966 through 1972. There was no emphasis on

Environmental Health during these early years. So we truly do not have an

answer as to what occurred in the earlier years. The other problem that

arose, which is difficult to assess, is the tightening of homes and

buildings beginning in the 1970s. Also constructing materials have changed.

I was raised in a home constructed in approximately 1942 in Long Beach

California. We had wood framing, lath and plaster, hardwood (oak) flooring)

and well ventilated crawl space, no air conditioning and all appliances

except for the refrigerator and stove were in the garage. These are just a

few of the difference. No composites were in the home as used construction

since the earlier years.

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

>>> > >

>>> > > Wane, others,

>>> > > This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere

>>> > > summary

>>> > > of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society.

>>> > > It concerns expertise and ability.

>>> > > I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited.

>>> > > How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the

>>> > > realm

>>> > > of

>>> > > the " engineer " . How is it that I can find and prove flaws in

>>> > > engineer's

>>> > > reports or opinion?

>>> > > I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the

>>> > > specifics,

>>> > > and

>>> > >

>>> > > am intelligent.

>>> > > As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue,

>>> > > the

>>> > > medical doctor who solves an engineering problem.

>>> > > It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a

>>> > > problem.

>>> > > Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted

>>> > > with

>>> > > someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing

>>> > > to

>>> > > do

>>> > > is simply prove them wrong.

>>> > > The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of

>>> > > those

>>> > > who

>>> > >

>>> > > merely claim to know what they are talking about!

>>> > > Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones

>>> > > confusing

>>> > >

>>> > > the public.

>>> > > How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by

>>> > > schooling?

>>> > > by

>>> > > initials after a last name?

>>> > >

>>> > >

>>> > >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > --

>> > Sincerely,

>> > Bob Hawley, CEICC, CIEC, CMC, CMCA, CSDS, CMRS, CETC, CSL (MA), ADI-II

>> > ----------------------------------------------------------

>> > Environmental AirTechs

>> > IAQ Consulting/Investigations Dept.

>> > Southwick Massachusetts 01077

>> > email: Bob@...

>> >

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dr. Thrasher:

Ahhhh yes! You touched on one of my pet peeves that is so sorely overlooked: air conditioning.

Now I ask...Why did tightening of the building envelope garner so much attention and study in the 1970’s?

My answer (and I hope Wane and Tony comment on this)...It was to reduce the tremendous spike in energy use/cost associated with keeping buildings cool. Unless you live in the great northern latitudes (e.g., Minot, North Dakota), it is much more difficult to keep a building cool than it is to keep it warm. Moreover, many highrise office buildings, even in northern latitudes, use very little energy to keep the building comfortably warm, but expend a great deal of resources trying to keep it “comfortably” cool. Thus, much of the tight envelope design/construction efforts are focused on cooling temperature controls, not heating controls.

And as Angel stated in a post: “If you will notice, sick building syndrome only started coming into national prominence since these [energy efficient] buildings came into 'vogue'.” Yep...energy efficiency tied to cooling! If one would only track the modern use and distribution of the air conditioner, one would see a great correlation between it and much of our IAQ complaints/ailments.

Ahhh Yes.....That sweet contraption that keeps people indoors (instead of outdoors) with their windows closed (no fresh air), sitting on their couch (no physical activity), watching their big screen TVs (instead of conversation) as they snack on processed foods (obesity) with limited nutritional value (detoxification overload), all while having their plug-in air “freshener” pump fragrance (anthropogenic VOC’s of unknown harm/risk) into the air...otherwise they would stink!

All contributions leading the human race down the path to respiratory and physical dysfunction, and all having one common thread: the AC unit.

And as I hear all too often during the dialog of IAQ ailments...It is the contractor’s fault, drywall is “mold food”, mold is the cause, it is water damaged buildings, it is the formaldehyde in plywood, it is engineered building materials, etc., etc. It makes me bristle with disgust at these misplaced comments. No!....It is the air conditioner’s fault.

For what it is worth....

No. I did not misinterpret or miss the essence. The literature is full of

fairly current data on upper and lower respiratory tract infections, asthma,

etc causing morbidity associated with damp indoor spaces. I actually posted

some of the papers. WHO in 2009 (although they missed over 1500 peer

reviewed papers) came up with the same conclusion as the papers I posted.

Morbidity may be interpreted as bodies. Also, I taught in the Medical

Schools from the years 1966 through 1972. There was no emphasis on

Environmental Health during these early years. So we truly do not have an

answer as to what occurred in the earlier years. The other problem that

arose, which is difficult to assess, is the tightening of homes and

buildings beginning in the 1970s. Also constructing materials have changed.

I was raised in a home constructed in approximately 1942 in Long Beach

California. We had wood framing, lath and plaster, hardwood (oak) flooring)

and well ventilated crawl space, no air conditioning and all appliances

except for the refrigerator and stove were in the garage. These are just a

few of the difference. No composites were in the home as used construction

since the earlier years.

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com>

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@... <mailto:sandracrawley%40msn.com>

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Where are all the bodies

Dr. Thrasher:

I believe you missed the essence of Will’s post, i.e., where are all the

bodies?

And I concur with Will.

Like Will, I too am a licensed contractor. Like Will, I am in many more

non-water damaged (WD) buildings than WD buildings, and I am in many more

non-mold compromised buildings than mold-compromised buildings. This said,

I see almost as many “sick” people in non (water and/or mold...pick your

favorite) compromised buildings as obviously compromised buildings, and for

many similar symptoms. Given what many folks on ieQuality post, one could

be lead to believe that mold and/or water-compromised structures should have

a trail of morbidity and mortality...I don’t see it, either.

Personally, my introduction into moldy WD buildings began in the late 70’s.

I essentially paid my way through my undergraduate program ripping out and

re-building (R & R) moldy bathrooms in off-campus student housing. Lots of

them. My containment methods were appalling when compared to today’s

standards. Did I wear PPE...Hell no...well maybe, if you consider the

leather gloves I wore PPE. Some of the places I re-built were appalling –

you could carve your initials in the black biomass present and not get all

the way down to the substrate...what ever it was. Interestingly, I don’t

recall any “sick” tenants in the places I worked, albeit, these were young

adults – 20 somethings – so my population is age biased. I did my fair

share of R & R in those days, re-built well over 200 bathrooms. In doing this

I got really interested in the molds present, and ended-up spending a lot of

work in the university’s plant pathology lab to ID the critters. Can’t

recall anything about mycotoxins ever being discussed by the professors at

that time...so I didn’t worry.

However, why is it that today we hear about so many being “sick” and

debilitated from WD structures, but back then it was essentially unheard of?

We certainly don’t have an over abundance of WD buildings today as compared

to those in the 70’s and 80’s.

BTW...I do have my speculation on the ill’s of present, I believe that mold

is not all that bad (and I have my reasons to believe this), and I do

believe other biologicals (e.g., bacteria) contribute to the problems within

our dwelling units. This said, if WD buildings are really, really

bad.....where are all the bodies?

For what it is worth....

On 8/11/11 5:31 PM, " Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com> >

wrote:

[Guest guest]

Angel:

My response to a couple of yours...

“The main difference between the 70's and now is the " energy efficiency buildings', that removed a structures ability to open windows to let in fresh air.” No....There are many more energy efficient buildings built today WITH windows that open than energy efficient building built with a system of sealed windows (curtain wall).

“Back in the 70's there wasn't such a preponderance of mold related exposures...” I disagree. Historically, mold compromised structures have always been an issue and a problem of the human race. Moldy buildings would not have been mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible (Leviticus) if it were not a problem, historically.

“There are genetic predispositions to chemical/mold exposures and the body's ability to deal with detoxification.” Yes...I agree to some degree. And why is this? More importantly, is this an issue that should be (or could be) addressed by building codes or changes to building designs? Can genetic predispositions be cured by altering the built environment? Have water damaged buildings contributed to genetic predispositions and limited detoxification? Would living in an environment free of mold products cure the genetic predispositions and improve the body’s ability to detoxify? (Given that fact that this last statement is totally impossible to achieve, i.e., living in an environment that is free of mold products.)

Hi :

The main difference between the 70's and now is the " energy efficiency buildings', that removed a structures ability to open windows to let in fresh air.

If you will notice, sick building syndrome only started coming into national prominence since these buildings came into 'vogue'.

Also, workers are restricted to being in the office for 8 hours, of course, except for lunch. College students spend more time outside of their dorms and also, have less accumulative exposure to indoor pollutants. Again, there are genetic predispositions to chemical/mold exposures and the body's ability to deal with detoxification.

Back in the 70's there wasn't such a preponderance of mold related exposures and therefore, there was less emphasis placed upon it in academic research. I was in college in the 70's and mold was barely covered in my biology class. When I returned to college decades later to finish my degree, there was a more diversified concentration in regards to mold. With research projects going on.

When you referenced the 'bodies', there can be a case made for the 'walking bodies', those who are 'physically here' but not functioning as the rest of the population due to numerous systemic health effects from mold, VOC's etc.

Angel

Where are all the bodies

[Guest guest]

: Has anybody ever studied the aerosol content of interior air when it is still as opposed to being circulated? It seems to me that before forced air systems became so popular, there was probably as much particulate matter in homes and buildings as there is now. The main difference is that the particles were more likely to be settled on horizontal surfaces rather being constantly swirling around resulting in dusty air. It stands to reason that the more aerosols one breathes, the more likely health problems are likely to be experienced. In my 75 years of existence, more unhealthful conditions have been encountered in rooms with fans or forced air systems than those with natural ventilation. Norm Gauss From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:29 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Where are all the bodies Dr. Thrasher:Ahhhh yes! You touched on one of my pet peeves that is so sorely overlooked: air conditioning.Now I ask...Why did tightening of the building envelope garner so much attention and study in the 1970’s?My answer (and I hope Wane and Tony comment on this)...It was to reduce the tremendous spike in energy use/cost associated with keeping buildings cool. Unless you live in the great northern latitudes (e.g., Minot, North Dakota), it is much more difficult to keep a building cool than it is to keep it warm. Moreover, many highrise office buildings, even in northern latitudes, use very little energy to keep the building comfortably warm, but expend a great deal of resources trying to keep it “comfortably” cool. Thus, much of the tight envelope design/construction efforts are focused on cooling temperature controls, not heating controls.And as Angel stated in a post: “If you will notice, sick building syndrome only started coming into national prominence since these [energy efficient] buildings came into 'vogue'.” Yep...energy efficiency tied to cooling! If one would only track the modern use and distribution of the air conditioner, one would see a great correlation between it and much of our IAQ complaints/ailments.Ahhh Yes.....That sweet contraption that keeps people indoors (instead of outdoors) with their windows closed (no fresh air), sitting on their couch (no physical activity), watching their big screen TVs (instead of conversation) as they snack on processed foods (obesity) with limited nutritional value (detoxification overload), all while having their plug-in air “freshener” pump fragrance (anthropogenic VOC’s of unknown harm/risk) into the air...otherwise they would stink!All contributions leading the human race down the path to respiratory and physical dysfunction, and all having one common thread: the AC unit.And as I hear all too often during the dialog of IAQ ailments...It is the contractor’s fault, drywall is “mold food”, mold is the cause, it is water damaged buildings, it is the formaldehyde in plywood, it is engineered building materials, etc., etc. It makes me bristle with disgust at these misplaced comments. No!....It is the air conditioner’s fault.For what it is worth.... No. I did not misinterpret or miss the essence. The literature is full of fairly current data on upper and lower respiratory tract infections, asthma, etc causing morbidity associated with damp indoor spaces. I actually posted some of the papers. WHO in 2009 (although they missed over 1500 peer reviewed papers) came up with the same conclusion as the papers I posted. Morbidity may be interpreted as bodies. Also, I taught in the Medical Schools from the years 1966 through 1972. There was no emphasis on Environmental Health during these early years. So we truly do not have an answer as to what occurred in the earlier years. The other problem that arose, which is difficult to assess, is the tightening of homes and buildings beginning in the 1970s. Also constructing materials have changed. I was raised in a home constructed in approximately 1942 in Long Beach California. We had wood framing, lath and plaster, hardwood (oak) flooring) and well ventilated crawl space, no air conditioning and all appliances except for the refrigerator and stove were in the garage. These are just a few of the difference. No composites were in the home as used construction since the earlier years.Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologistwww.drthrasher.orgtoxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com> Cell: Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADCTrauma Specialistsandracrawley@... <mailto:sandracrawley%40msn.com> - CellThis message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance. Where are all the bodiesDr. Thrasher:I believe you missed the essence of Will’s post, i.e., where are all thebodies?And I concur with Will.Like Will, I too am a licensed contractor. Like Will, I am in many morenon-water damaged (WD) buildings than WD buildings, and I am in many morenon-mold compromised buildings than mold-compromised buildings. This said,I see almost as many “sick” people in non (water and/or mold...pick yourfavorite) compromised buildings as obviously compromised buildings, and formany similar symptoms. Given what many folks on ieQuality post, one couldbe lead to believe that mold and/or water-compromised structures should havea trail of morbidity and mortality...I don’t see it, either.Personally, my introduction into moldy WD buildings began in the late 70’s.I essentially paid my way through my undergraduate program ripping out andre-building (R & R) moldy bathrooms in off-campus student housing. Lots ofthem. My containment methods were appalling when compared to today’sstandards. Did I wear PPE...Hell no...well maybe, if you consider theleather gloves I wore PPE. Some of the places I re-built were appalling –you could carve your initials in the black biomass present and not get allthe way down to the substrate...what ever it was. Interestingly, I don’trecall any “sick” tenants in the places I worked, albeit, these were youngadults – 20 somethings – so my population is age biased. I did my fairshare of R & R in those days, re-built well over 200 bathrooms. In doing thisI got really interested in the molds present, and ended-up spending a lot ofwork in the university’s plant pathology lab to ID the critters. Can’trecall anything about mycotoxins ever being discussed by the professors atthat time...so I didn’t worry.However, why is it that today we hear about so many being “sick” anddebilitated from WD structures, but back then it was essentially unheard of?We certainly don’t have an over abundance of WD buildings today as comparedto those in the 70’s and 80’s.BTW...I do have my speculation on the ill’s of present, I believe that moldis not all that bad (and I have my reasons to believe this), and I dobelieve other biologicals (e.g., bacteria) contribute to the problems withinour dwelling units. This said, if WD buildings are really, reallybad.....where are all the bodies?For what it is worth....On 8/11/11 5:31 PM, " Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com> >wrote:

[Guest guest]

: I agree about the A.C, and tighter envelops. However, we are just

beginning to unlock some of the causes of building related illness. You

touched upon formaldehyde, which takes me to mobile homes and the FEMA

trailers. I inspected some of the FEMA trailers. I found formaldehyde and

mold. They put the trailers on jacks apparently rupturing the seams. Thus,

water infiltration and microbial growth along with the formaldehyde.

I disagree from the point with regards to minimizing mold and bacteria. Both

mold and bacteria, which can be isolated from A.C. units, are contributors

to the indoor soup that is causing adverse health conditions in the exposed

occupants.

As an example, I was involved in a matter in Bermuda where the occupants of

a building were having health various complaints. The occupants were most

concerned about their ongoing watery and sometimes bloody diarrhea. We

isolated Bacillus cereus from the A.C. system and dust in the building. If

you are not aware, this organism causes diarrhea and intestinal conditions

similar to Salmonella.

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Where are all the bodies

>

> Dr. Thrasher:

>

> I believe you missed the essence of Will¹s post, i.e., where are all the

> bodies?

>

> And I concur with Will.

>

> Like Will, I too am a licensed contractor. Like Will, I am in many more

> non-water damaged (WD) buildings than WD buildings, and I am in many more

> non-mold compromised buildings than mold-compromised buildings. This

> said,

> I see almost as many ³sick² people in non (water and/or mold...pick your

> favorite) compromised buildings as obviously compromised buildings, and

> for

> many similar symptoms. Given what many folks on ieQuality post, one could

> be lead to believe that mold and/or water-compromised structures should

> have

> a trail of morbidity and mortality...I don¹t see it, either.

>

> Personally, my introduction into moldy WD buildings began in the late

> 70¹s.

> I essentially paid my way through my undergraduate program ripping out and

> re-building (R & R) moldy bathrooms in off-campus student housing. Lots of

> them. My containment methods were appalling when compared to today¹s

> standards. Did I wear PPE...Hell no...well maybe, if you consider the

> leather gloves I wore PPE. Some of the places I re-built were appalling ­

> you could carve your initials in the black biomass present and not get all

> the way down to the substrate...what ever it was. Interestingly, I don¹t

> recall any ³sick² tenants in the places I worked, albeit, these were young

> adults ­ 20 somethings ­ so my population is age biased. I did my fair

> share of R & R in those days, re-built well over 200 bathrooms. In doing

> this

> I got really interested in the molds present, and ended-up spending a lot

> of

> work in the university¹s plant pathology lab to ID the critters. Can¹t

> recall anything about mycotoxins ever being discussed by the professors at

> that time...so I didn¹t worry.

>

> However, why is it that today we hear about so many being ³sick² and

> debilitated from WD structures, but back then it was essentially unheard

> of?

> We certainly don¹t have an over abundance of WD buildings today as

> compared

> to those in the 70¹s and 80¹s.

>

> BTW...I do have my speculation on the ill¹s of present, I believe that

> mold

> is not all that bad (and I have my reasons to believe this), and I do

> believe other biologicals (e.g., bacteria) contribute to the problems

> within

> our dwelling units. This said, if WD buildings are really, really

> bad.....where are all the bodies?

>

> For what it is worth....

>

>

>

> On 8/11/11 5:31 PM, " Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@...

> <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com> >

> wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Have water damaged buildings contributed to genetic predispositions and limited detoxification?

No. They contribute the chemical burden in the body of the occupant which increases the probability of a genetically susceptible person becoming immunologically/neurologically sensitized and subsequently reactive at low concentrations.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

I cannot completely agree to this. I had a case where an infant (age <60

days) born into a home that was heavily contaminated with a variety of fungi

(Stachybotrys chartarum and Aspergillus flavus to mention two) and

Actinomycetes. The child infant died of a Reye's like syndrome. The treating

physician ordered mitochondrial DNA mutation studies. The results indicated

a mutation not detected in inborn errors of mitochondrial dysfunction. The

mitochondria showed decreased functions of membrane bound enzymes suggesting

either or membrane damage or a mutation. Aflatoxin B1 was identified in the

tissues as well as the mother's milk and urine. This mycotoxin is a known

mitochondrial poison.

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Re: Where are all the bodies

> In a message dated 8/12/2011 12:56:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> megeyer@... writes:

>> Have water damaged buildings contributed to genetic predispositions and

>> limited detoxification?

>

> No. They contribute the chemical burden in the body of the occupant which

> increases the probability of a genetically susceptible person becoming

> immunologically/neurologically sensitized and subsequently reactive at low

> concentrations.

>

> Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

,

I will intersperse with italics:

Where are all the bodies

[Guest guest]

Norm, We looked at this question in Section 8 housing that were hot water baseboard heating and one house that was electric radiant heating in the ceiling. These structures had particle counts that were slightly less than outdoors because they had no air filtration. On the other hand, homes with poor or no air filtration (who don't run the circulating fan all the time) had similar particle levels. Bob

: Has anybody ever studied the aerosol content of interior air when it is still as opposed to being circulated? It seems to me that before forced air systems became so popular, there was probably as much particulate matter in homes and buildings as there is now. The main difference is that the particles were more likely to be settled on horizontal surfaces rather being constantly swirling around resulting in dusty air. It stands to reason that the more aerosols one breathes, the more likely health problems are likely to be experienced. In my 75 years of existence, more unhealthful conditions have been encountered in rooms with fans or forced air systems than those with natural ventilation. Norm Gauss From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Friday, August 12, 2011 8:29 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Where are all the bodies Dr. Thrasher:Ahhhh yes! You touched on one of my pet peeves that is so sorely overlooked: air conditioning.Now I ask...Why did tightening of the building envelope garner so much attention and study in the 1970’s?My answer (and I hope Wane and Tony comment on this)...It was to reduce the tremendous spike in energy use/cost associated with keeping buildings cool. Unless you live in the great northern latitudes (e.g., Minot, North Dakota), it is much more difficult to keep a building cool than it is to keep it warm. Moreover, many highrise office buildings, even in northern latitudes, use very little energy to keep the building comfortably warm, but expend a great deal of resources trying to keep it “comfortably” cool. Thus, much of the tight envelope design/construction efforts are focused on cooling temperature controls, not heating controls.And as Angel stated i

n a post: “If you will notice, sick building syndrome only started coming into national prominence since these [energy efficient] buildings came into 'vogue'.” Yep...energy efficiency tied to cooling! If one would only track the modern use and distribution of the air conditioner, one would see a great correlation between it and much of our IAQ complaints/ailments.Ahhh Yes.....That sweet contraption that keeps people indoors (instead of outdoors) with their windows closed (no fresh air), sitting on their couch (no physical activity), watching their big screen TVs (instead of conversation) as they snack on processed foods (obesity) with limited nutritional value (detoxification overload), all while having their plug-in air “freshener” pump fragrance (anthropogenic VOC’s of unknown harm/risk) into the air...otherwise they would stink!All contributions leading the human race down the path to

respiratory and physical dysfunction, and all having one common thread: the AC unit.And as I hear all too often during the dialog of IAQ ailments...It is the contractor’s fault, drywall is “mold food”, mold is the cause, it is water damaged buildings, it is the formaldehyde in plywood, it is engineered building materials, etc., etc. It makes me bristle with disgust at these misplaced comments. No!....It is the air conditioner’s fault.For what it is worth.... No. I did not misinterpret or miss the essence. The literature is full of fairly current data on upper and lower respiratory tract infections, asthma, etc causing morbidity associated with damp indoor spaces. I actually posted some of the papers. WHO in 2009 (although they missed over 1500 peer reviewed papers) came up with the same conclusion as the papers I posted. Morbidity may be interpreted as bodies. Also, I taught in the Medical Schools from the years 1966 through 1972. There was no emphasis on Environmental Health during these early years. So we truly do not have an answer as to what occurred in the earlier years. The other problem that arose, which is difficult to assess, is the tightening of homes and buildings beginning in the 1970s. Also constructing materials have changed. I was raised in a home constructed in approximately 1942 in Long Beach California. We had wood framing, lath and plaster, hardwood (oak) flooring) and well ventilated crawl space, no air conditioning and all appliances except for the refrigerator and stove were in the garage. These are just a few of the difference. No composites were in the home as used construct

ion since the earlier years.Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologistwww.drthrasher.orgtoxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com> Cell: Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADCTrauma Specialistsandracrawley@... <mailto:sandracrawley%40msn.com> - CellThis message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this message in error, please reply imm

ediately to advise the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance. Where are all the bodiesDr. Thrasher:I believe you missed the essence of Will’s post, i.e., where are all thebodies?And I concur with Will.Like Will, I too am a licensed contractor. Like Will, I am in many morenon-water damaged (WD) buildings than WD buildings, and I am in many morenon-mold compromised buildings than mold-compromi

sed buildings. This said,I see almost as many “sick” people in non (water and/or mold...pick yourfavorite) compromised buildings as obviously compromised buildings, and formany similar symptoms. Given what many folks on ieQuality post, one couldbe lead to believe that mold and/or water-compromised structures should havea trail of morbidity and mortality...I don’t see it, either.Personally, my introduction into moldy WD buildings began in the late 70’s.I essentially paid my way through my undergraduate program ripping out andre-building (R & R) moldy bathrooms in off-campus student housing. Lots ofthem. My containment methods were appalling when compared to today’sstandards. Did I wear PPE...Hell no...well maybe, if you consider theleather gloves I wore PPE. Some of the places I re-built were appalling –you could carve your initials in the black biomass presen

t and not get allthe way down to the substrate...what ever it was. Interestingly, I don’trecall any “sick” tenants in the places I worked, albeit, these were youngadults – 20 somethings – so my population is age biased. I did my fairshare of R & R in those days, re-built well over 200 bathrooms. In doing thisI got really interested in the molds present, and ended-up spending a lot ofwork in the university’s plant pathology lab to ID the critters. Can’trecall anything about mycotoxins ever being discussed by the professors atthat time...so I didn’t worry.However, why is it that today we hear about so many being “sick” anddebilitated from WD structures, but back then it was essentially unheard of?We certainly don’t have an over abundance of WD buildings today as comparedto those in the 70’s and 80’s.BTW...I do have my specu

lation on the ill’s of present, I believe that moldis not all that bad (and I have my reasons to believe this), and I dobelieve other biologicals (e.g., bacteria) contribute to the problems withinour dwelling units. This said, if WD buildings are really, reallybad.....where are all the bodies?For what it is worth....On 8/11/11 5:31 PM, "Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D." <toxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com> >wrote:

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I was appreciative of the fact that you mentioned air fresheners in your post. But it implied that AF were only problematic in homes.

Have you walked into hotels or a preponderance of stores and suffered from AF chemical overload assault? Worst part most of these are from LEED certified buildings. Its 'funny' that LEED feigns IAQ yet, once they are 'finished' the IAQ portion goes out the window from the AF and they still keep their LEED rating/tax benes.

You neglected to mention in buildings especially offices, you have chemicals from the laser printers, carpet fresheners, cleaning products, pesticide applications, personal care items, people having potpourri/candles on their desks etc. These all have synergistic effects and create more susceptible people down the road.

IF things go according to 'plan' there could be a MAJOR change in IAQ regarding AF down the road. I am NOT at liberty to go into greater detail, but, there are issues going on in the background I am either involved in or privy to that could have major consequences. Which we BELIEVE will reduce some of the SBS issues currently being seen.

Angel

Re: Where are all the bodies

And as Angel stated in a post: ³If you will notice, sick building syndrome

only started coming into national prominence since these [energy efficient]

buildings came into 'vogue'.² Yep...energy efficiency tied to cooling! If

one would only track the modern use and distribution of the air conditioner,

one would see a great correlation between it and much of our IAQ

complaints/ailments.

Ahhh Yes.....That sweet contraption that keeps people indoors (instead of

outdoors) with their windows closed (no fresh air), sitting on their couch

(no physical activity), watching their big screen TVs (instead of

conversation) as they snack on processed foods (obesity) with limited

nutritional value (detoxification overload), all while having their plug-in

air ³freshener² pump fragrance (anthropogenic VOC¹s of unknown harm/risk)

into the air...otherwise they would stink!

All contributions leading the human race down the path to respiratory and

physical dysfunction, and all having one common thread: the AC unit.

[Guest guest]

Dr. Thrasher:

Allow me to ask the question this way - in the worst case WDB office building

you have ever instigated, what percentage died and what percentage were

hospitalized with an illness directly related to their exposure to microbial

critters in the building?

Are we talking about 2% dead and 15% ill or are the numbers statically

indistinguishable from deaths and illnesses associated with healthy buildings?

Will

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > I understand your frustration. However, I do not know the toxicologist you

> > have spoken with. However, the literature is full of information regarding

> > upper and lower respiratory tract morbidity (not death and bodies), but

> > morbidity. There are also some individuals (not all) who have genetic

> > polymorphism that makes the more sensitive. For example, individuals with

> > GSTM1 null (no genes for this detox pathway) have a higher risk to the

> > cancer causing aflatoxin B1. There certain HLA phenotypes that lend to

> > greater risk for disease, not only by mold but also from bacteria.

> >

> > In the years I have been in this business (since about 1984) I have see

> > two

> > deaths of adults. However, a raised morbidity with respect to upper and

> > lower respiratory morbidity. Water-damage building and its toxins (VOCs,

> > MVOCS, fungi and their toxins, bacteria and their toxins, make for soup

> > that

> > has a variety of different impacts.

> >

> > Finally, I taught at one time at U. of Colorado and at UCLA school of

> > medicines. I can personally attest to the fact that environmental medicine

> > has always had a back seat to the standard medical curriculum. It is

> > better

> > today, but still lacks. I have also spoken with many of the ill

> > (morbidity

> > not bodies) in water damage homes, buildings, schools and hospitals. Not

> > all

> > are ill, but a number do developed chronic morbidity with multiple

> > symptoms.

> > A good example as I put on this forum was my experience with the EPA

> > building in D.C. 120 individuals were allowed to work at home because they

> > could not tolerate the building. Many of the others had upper and lower

> > respiratory symptoms that were not serious enough to keep them at home.

> >

> > The other problem is public cost. Below are some papers on these subjects,

> > particularly morbidity. A sick worker is not as efficient as a healthy

> > one.

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076249

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17542835

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18177298

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21196349

> >

> > Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

> > Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

> > www.drthrasher.org

> > toxicologist1@... <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com>

> >

> > Cell:

> >

> > Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

> > Trauma Specialist

> > sandracrawley@... <mailto:sandracrawley%40msn.com>

> >

> > - Cell

> >

> > This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

> > privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

> > message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

> > prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

> > message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

> > you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to

> > advise

> > the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

> > copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

> >

> > Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

> >

> > Dr. Thrasher

> >

> > I am celebrating (bemoaning) my 40th year as a residential and commercial

> > builder and I am a past President of two separate NAHB chapters. I wish I

> > had a dollar for every mold presentation that I have endured and a nickle

> > for every time I hear an industry " expert " talk about toxigenic black

> > mold.

> > I think I could retire...

> >

> > Through the years, I have spoken with several noted toxicologists about

> > the

> > true dangers associated with mold damaged buildings. Most seem to downplay

> > the whole toxic/pathogenic discussion. However, you are the second

> > professional witness type that seems to exasperate the potential dangers.

> >

> > I have been through hundreds of HUD and Section 8 properties. I have yet

> > to

> > find too many that were not filthy and/or water and mold damaged. I have

> > been in hundreds of water and mold damaged office buildings. But what I do

> > not see a lot of are health complaints beyond eye, nose, and throat

> > irritation.

> >

> > My question is, if mold and bacteria exposure was so potentially

> > dangerous,

> > why are we not seeing more medical cases? Are really sick people who are

> > exposed to these conditions only kidding themselves that they are healthy?

> > Or are our doctors that ignorant not to be able to see someone is really

> > sick?

> >

> > There just does not seem to be much correlation between exposure and

> > medical

> > diagnosis. Or to be more blunt, where the are all the bodies?

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > Will

[Guest guest]

:

So true.

I have watched a few residential and commercial mold investigations over the

years and not one has ever opened, much less considered the HVAC system. Their

spore tests are excessively high with no indications of water damage, yet they

don't bother looking at the HVAC system.

I have opened quite a few systems to find a biologic caldron in the drip pan,

duct board with a quarter inch of Pen/Ap, coils thick with biogrowth, improper

or no condensate P-trap, and enough duct leaks to heat and cool half the

neighborhood.

And mold inspectors do not seem interested in HVAC systems.

Will

> >

>

[Guest guest]

We are still working on this case. 4 young men died of highly malignant lung

cancer and one has stage 4 kidney failure. We are still working on the

number of ill. The four cancer deaths were young men age 45 or less, never

smoked and worked out in a gym on a regular basis. This is the worst

situation I have seen. All others cases have not led to deaths except for

two infants. You are measuring illness by hospital entrance. The true crux

of the problem is morbidity not mortality.

Currently we are awaiting approval to get into a hospital where 8 nurses

have serious lung disease. They are in a hospital and still trying to work.

What bothers us about this situation is the mold is in ICU and another ward

that from our understanding contain sick patients.

I suggest that you look up the definition of morbidity. It usually requires

a physicians attention and not a hospital stay. If you will look at the

recent review by Fisk et al, Lawrence Livermore, Berkeley and Parks and

-Ganser you will see it is morbidity that is the problem. How are bodies

counted when they the only see their treating physician and do not get put

in the hospital, nor do the necessarily die.

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

> >

> > Dr. Thrasher

> >

> > I am celebrating (bemoaning) my 40th year as a residential and

> > commercial

> > builder and I am a past President of two separate NAHB chapters. I wish

> > I

> > had a dollar for every mold presentation that I have endured and a

> > nickle

> > for every time I hear an industry " expert " talk about toxigenic black

> > mold.

> > I think I could retire...

> >

> > Through the years, I have spoken with several noted toxicologists about

> > the

> > true dangers associated with mold damaged buildings. Most seem to

> > downplay

> > the whole toxic/pathogenic discussion. However, you are the second

> > professional witness type that seems to exasperate the potential

> > dangers.

> >

> > I have been through hundreds of HUD and Section 8 properties. I have yet

> > to

> > find too many that were not filthy and/or water and mold damaged. I have

> > been in hundreds of water and mold damaged office buildings. But what I

> > do

> > not see a lot of are health complaints beyond eye, nose, and throat

> > irritation.

> >

> > My question is, if mold and bacteria exposure was so potentially

> > dangerous,

> > why are we not seeing more medical cases? Are really sick people who are

> > exposed to these conditions only kidding themselves that they are

> > healthy?

> > Or are our doctors that ignorant not to be able to see someone is really

> > sick?

> >

> > There just does not seem to be much correlation between exposure and

> > medical

> > diagnosis. Or to be more blunt, where the are all the bodies?

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > Will

[Guest guest]

While that is really interesting, you are not answering the question. So I will

ask again - In your experience, what percentage of building occupants in a water

damaged building are getting sick and/or dying?

Not to obfuscate the original question, but:

If someone has developed " highly malignant lung cancer " , how do you identify and

isolate mold and bacteria found at the workplace as the cause from mold and

bacteria found at home and/or within the general environment?

I am no microbiologist, but are the bacteria and molds found in WDBs more deadly

than the same molds and bacteria found everywhere else?

Will

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I understand your frustration. However, I do not know the toxicologist

> > > you

> > > have spoken with. However, the literature is full of information

> > > regarding

> > > upper and lower respiratory tract morbidity (not death and bodies), but

> > > morbidity. There are also some individuals (not all) who have genetic

> > > polymorphism that makes the more sensitive. For example, individuals

> > > with

> > > GSTM1 null (no genes for this detox pathway) have a higher risk to the

> > > cancer causing aflatoxin B1. There certain HLA phenotypes that lend to

> > > greater risk for disease, not only by mold but also from bacteria.

> > >

> > > In the years I have been in this business (since about 1984) I have see

> > > two

> > > deaths of adults. However, a raised morbidity with respect to upper and

> > > lower respiratory morbidity. Water-damage building and its toxins (VOCs,

> > > MVOCS, fungi and their toxins, bacteria and their toxins, make for soup

> > > that

> > > has a variety of different impacts.

> > >

> > > Finally, I taught at one time at U. of Colorado and at UCLA school of

> > > medicines. I can personally attest to the fact that environmental

> > > medicine

> > > has always had a back seat to the standard medical curriculum. It is

> > > better

> > > today, but still lacks. I have also spoken with many of the ill

> > > (morbidity

> > > not bodies) in water damage homes, buildings, schools and hospitals. Not

> > > all

> > > are ill, but a number do developed chronic morbidity with multiple

> > > symptoms.

> > > A good example as I put on this forum was my experience with the EPA

> > > building in D.C. 120 individuals were allowed to work at home because

> > > they

> > > could not tolerate the building. Many of the others had upper and lower

> > > respiratory symptoms that were not serious enough to keep them at home.

> > >

> > > The other problem is public cost. Below are some papers on these

> > > subjects,

> > > particularly morbidity. A sick worker is not as efficient as a healthy

> > > one.

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076249

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17542835

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18177298

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21196349

> > >

> > > Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

> > > Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

> > > www.drthrasher.org

> > > toxicologist1@ <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com>

> > >

> > > Cell:

> > >

> > > Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

> > > Trauma Specialist

> > > sandracrawley@ <mailto:sandracrawley%40msn.com>

> > >

> > > - Cell

> > >

> > > This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

> > > privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

> > > message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is

> > > strictly

> > > prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of

> > > this

> > > message has been served, please destroy the original message contents.

> > > If

> > > you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to

> > > advise

> > > the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

> > > copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

> > >

> > > Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

> > >

> > > Dr. Thrasher

> > >

> > > I am celebrating (bemoaning) my 40th year as a residential and

> > > commercial

> > > builder and I am a past President of two separate NAHB chapters. I wish

> > > I

> > > had a dollar for every mold presentation that I have endured and a

> > > nickle

> > > for every time I hear an industry " expert " talk about toxigenic black

> > > mold.

> > > I think I could retire...

> > >

> > > Through the years, I have spoken with several noted toxicologists about

> > > the

> > > true dangers associated with mold damaged buildings. Most seem to

> > > downplay

> > > the whole toxic/pathogenic discussion. However, you are the second

> > > professional witness type that seems to exasperate the potential

> > > dangers.

> > >

> > > I have been through hundreds of HUD and Section 8 properties. I have yet

> > > to

> > > find too many that were not filthy and/or water and mold damaged. I have

> > > been in hundreds of water and mold damaged office buildings. But what I

> > > do

> > > not see a lot of are health complaints beyond eye, nose, and throat

> > > irritation.

> > >

> > > My question is, if mold and bacteria exposure was so potentially

> > > dangerous,

> > > why are we not seeing more medical cases? Are really sick people who are

> > > exposed to these conditions only kidding themselves that they are

> > > healthy?

> > > Or are our doctors that ignorant not to be able to see someone is really

> > > sick?

> > >

> > > There just does not seem to be much correlation between exposure and

> > > medical

> > > diagnosis. Or to be more blunt, where the are all the bodies?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > Will

>

[Guest guest]

I do not get involved in buildings. The data published in this area come

from Parks, -Ganser, Mueller, Fisk, Mudarri, Reponen and others doing

active research. I mentioned the condition of the cancers and said this is

still under investigation. You have mentioned only molds, however the indoor

air is highly complex, involving mold, bacteria, their by-products, VOCs,

MVOCs to mention a few. Identifying the cause of illness, as pointed out by

WHO in its 2009 review as well as by the before authors can only be pointed

towards the biocomplexity. I work almost exclusively with families and their

homes and their treating physicians. The difference between indoors and

outdoor molds is that indoors certain species are in abundance over

outdoors. Also, one must consider the interactions that are occurring in the

indoor environment that just fixating on molds and their toxins ignores.

As I said in my post, we are still investigating the situation with the four

cancer deaths. I will have no further comments on this until the

investigation is finished.

You also asked the question regarding cause and effect. The only way one can

determine direct cause and effect is by experimentation. Experimentation is

not allowed on humans, therefore, we must rely upon associations found in

epidemiology studies. The above have found the associations between water

damage, microbes and chronic upper and lower respiratory conditions. Others

have published data on neurological and serious chronic rhinosinusitis.

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

> > >

> > > Dr. Thrasher

> > >

> > > I am celebrating (bemoaning) my 40th year as a residential and

> > > commercial

> > > builder and I am a past President of two separate NAHB chapters. I

> > > wish

> > > I

> > > had a dollar for every mold presentation that I have endured and a

> > > nickle

> > > for every time I hear an industry " expert " talk about toxigenic black

> > > mold.

> > > I think I could retire...

> > >

> > > Through the years, I have spoken with several noted toxicologists

> > > about

> > > the

> > > true dangers associated with mold damaged buildings. Most seem to

> > > downplay

> > > the whole toxic/pathogenic discussion. However, you are the second

> > > professional witness type that seems to exasperate the potential

> > > dangers.

> > >

> > > I have been through hundreds of HUD and Section 8 properties. I have

> > > yet

> > > to

> > > find too many that were not filthy and/or water and mold damaged. I

> > > have

> > > been in hundreds of water and mold damaged office buildings. But what

> > > I

> > > do

> > > not see a lot of are health complaints beyond eye, nose, and throat

> > > irritation.

> > >

> > > My question is, if mold and bacteria exposure was so potentially

> > > dangerous,

> > > why are we not seeing more medical cases? Are really sick people who

> > > are

> > > exposed to these conditions only kidding themselves that they are

> > > healthy?

> > > Or are our doctors that ignorant not to be able to see someone is

> > > really

> > > sick?

> > >

> > > There just does not seem to be much correlation between exposure and

> > > medical

> > > diagnosis. Or to be more blunt, where the are all the bodies?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > Will

>

[Guest guest]

Will,

Correct me if I am wrong, please. It appears to me that you are asking a question that is impossible to answer while presenting the concept that this not able to be answered question concludes mold in WDB is not a serious concern or health threat in the vast majority of cases.

Let me ask you a similar question:

What percentage of over weight smokers with unknown genetic susceptibilities and who breathe in construction dust on the job die from breathing the construction dust on the job?

The is an unknown answer because the question has too many variables. In your book would that mean breathing in construction dust on the job is not a health threat in the vast majority of cases and never causes death?

Additionally,

We know that 1 in 2000 people are born with Cystic Fibrosis (CF). We know that CF is genetically fatal. Because the able to be established percentage of those with CF is small in the general population, does that mean research/protection of this minority is irrelevant or that CF is not fatal?

What is it you are trying to conclude from the unanswerable question you keep asking of Dr. Thrasher? What is your hypothesis?

Sharon

In a message dated 8/16/2011 9:58:01 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

While that is really interesting, you are not answering the question. So I will ask again - In your experience, what percentage of building occupants in a water damaged building are getting sick and/or dying? Not to obfuscate the original question, but:If someone has developed "highly malignant lung cancer", how do you identify and isolate mold and bacteria found at the workplace as the cause from mold and bacteria found at home and/or within the general environment?I am no microbiologist, but are the bacteria and molds found in WDBs more deadly than the same molds and bacteria found everywhere else? Will

Sharon Noonan Kramer

[Guest guest]

Dr. Thrasher thank you for indulging my questions. From your initial posts here,

you seemed to be intimating that the sky is falling and that WDBs are ground

zero for illness and death.

Too many in the industry and self-proclaimed experts seem intent on spreading

fear and misinformation for fun and profit. While not discounting the

complications associated with indoor mold and bacterial exposure, I find that

fear mongering is unwarranted and counter to the true nature and scope of the

issue.

Many builders and building managers have been targeted by personal injury

lawyers seeking a quick buck using the mold illness claim. Fortunately today,

most of that nonsense has ceased. Hopefully, for all involved, we are more

enlightened and honest about the true consequences associated with exposure

risks.

Thanks again for your responses.

Will

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > I understand your frustration. However, I do not know the toxicologist

> > > > you

> > > > have spoken with. However, the literature is full of information

> > > > regarding

> > > > upper and lower respiratory tract morbidity (not death and bodies),

> > > > but

> > > > morbidity. There are also some individuals (not all) who have genetic

> > > > polymorphism that makes the more sensitive. For example, individuals

> > > > with

> > > > GSTM1 null (no genes for this detox pathway) have a higher risk to the

> > > > cancer causing aflatoxin B1. There certain HLA phenotypes that lend to

> > > > greater risk for disease, not only by mold but also from bacteria.

> > > >

> > > > In the years I have been in this business (since about 1984) I have

> > > > see

> > > > two

> > > > deaths of adults. However, a raised morbidity with respect to upper

> > > > and

> > > > lower respiratory morbidity. Water-damage building and its toxins

> > > > (VOCs,

> > > > MVOCS, fungi and their toxins, bacteria and their toxins, make for

> > > > soup

> > > > that

> > > > has a variety of different impacts.

> > > >

> > > > Finally, I taught at one time at U. of Colorado and at UCLA school of

> > > > medicines. I can personally attest to the fact that environmental

> > > > medicine

> > > > has always had a back seat to the standard medical curriculum. It is

> > > > better

> > > > today, but still lacks. I have also spoken with many of the ill

> > > > (morbidity

> > > > not bodies) in water damage homes, buildings, schools and hospitals.

> > > > Not

> > > > all

> > > > are ill, but a number do developed chronic morbidity with multiple

> > > > symptoms.

> > > > A good example as I put on this forum was my experience with the EPA

> > > > building in D.C. 120 individuals were allowed to work at home because

> > > > they

> > > > could not tolerate the building. Many of the others had upper and

> > > > lower

> > > > respiratory symptoms that were not serious enough to keep them at

> > > > home.

> > > >

> > > > The other problem is public cost. Below are some papers on these

> > > > subjects,

> > > > particularly morbidity. A sick worker is not as efficient as a healthy

> > > > one.

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076249

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17542835

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15500636

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18177298

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21196349

> > > >

> > > > Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

> > > > Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

> > > > www.drthrasher.org

> > > > toxicologist1@ <mailto:toxicologist1%40msn.com>

> > > >

> > > > Cell:

> > > >

> > > > Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

> > > > Trauma Specialist

> > > > sandracrawley@ <mailto:sandracrawley%40msn.com>

> > > >

> > > > - Cell

> > > >

> > > > This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

> > > > privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

> > > > message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is

> > > > strictly

> > > > prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of

> > > > this

> > > > message has been served, please destroy the original message contents.

> > > > If

> > > > you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to

> > > > advise

> > > > the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

> > > > copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

> > > >

> > > > Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

> > > >

> > > > Dr. Thrasher

> > > >

> > > > I am celebrating (bemoaning) my 40th year as a residential and

> > > > commercial

> > > > builder and I am a past President of two separate NAHB chapters. I

> > > > wish

> > > > I

> > > > had a dollar for every mold presentation that I have endured and a

> > > > nickle

> > > > for every time I hear an industry " expert " talk about toxigenic black

> > > > mold.

> > > > I think I could retire...

> > > >

> > > > Through the years, I have spoken with several noted toxicologists

> > > > about

> > > > the

> > > > true dangers associated with mold damaged buildings. Most seem to

> > > > downplay

> > > > the whole toxic/pathogenic discussion. However, you are the second

> > > > professional witness type that seems to exasperate the potential

> > > > dangers.

> > > >

> > > > I have been through hundreds of HUD and Section 8 properties. I have

> > > > yet

> > > > to

> > > > find too many that were not filthy and/or water and mold damaged. I

> > > > have

> > > > been in hundreds of water and mold damaged office buildings. But what

> > > > I

> > > > do

> > > > not see a lot of are health complaints beyond eye, nose, and throat

> > > > irritation.

> > > >

> > > > My question is, if mold and bacteria exposure was so potentially

> > > > dangerous,

> > > > why are we not seeing more medical cases? Are really sick people who

> > > > are

> > > > exposed to these conditions only kidding themselves that they are

> > > > healthy?

> > > > Or are our doctors that ignorant not to be able to see someone is

> > > > really

> > > > sick?

> > > >

> > > > There just does not seem to be much correlation between exposure and

> > > > medical

> > > > diagnosis. Or to be more blunt, where the are all the bodies?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > Will

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You are welcome. I have been citing some of my worst case scenarios so that

individuals can learn to do more than just a cursory air test. We actually

need to do more detailed inspections to determine the true nature of the

problem(s). I agree with the earlier post that if rodents are present they

need to be taken care of. I did not agree with the use of pesticides.

Pesticides just create another problem. Rodent traps, if used properly are

affective.

We have to remember that some individuals do become more ill than others.

This was evident in my involvement in the EPA building in 1988. Out of the

several hundred in the building, 120 became chronically ill and were allowed

to work at home. Others had varying degrees of symptoms, however were able

to continue to work in the building.

Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Cell:

Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

- Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this

message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly

prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this

message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If

you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise

the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any

copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance.

Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics

> > > >

> > > > Dr. Thrasher

> > > >

> > > > I am celebrating (bemoaning) my 40th year as a residential and

> > > > commercial

> > > > builder and I am a past President of two separate NAHB chapters. I

> > > > wish

> > > > I

> > > > had a dollar for every mold presentation that I have endured and a

> > > > nickle

> > > > for every time I hear an industry " expert " talk about toxigenic

> > > > black

> > > > mold.

> > > > I think I could retire...

> > > >

> > > > Through the years, I have spoken with several noted toxicologists

> > > > about

> > > > the

> > > > true dangers associated with mold damaged buildings. Most seem to

> > > > downplay

> > > > the whole toxic/pathogenic discussion. However, you are the second

> > > > professional witness type that seems to exasperate the potential

> > > > dangers.

> > > >

> > > > I have been through hundreds of HUD and Section 8 properties. I have

> > > > yet

> > > > to

> > > > find too many that were not filthy and/or water and mold damaged. I

> > > > have

> > > > been in hundreds of water and mold damaged office buildings. But

> > > > what

> > > > I

> > > > do

> > > > not see a lot of are health complaints beyond eye, nose, and throat

> > > > irritation.

> > > >

> > > > My question is, if mold and bacteria exposure was so potentially

> > > > dangerous,

> > > > why are we not seeing more medical cases? Are really sick people who

> > > > are

> > > > exposed to these conditions only kidding themselves that they are

> > > > healthy?

> > > > Or are our doctors that ignorant not to be able to see someone is

> > > > really

> > > > sick?

> > > >

> > > > There just does not seem to be much correlation between exposure and

> > > > medical

> > > > diagnosis. Or to be more blunt, where the are all the bodies?

> > > >

> > > > Thanks,

> > > >

> > > > Will

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Will,

You write, "Hopefully, for all involved, we are more enlightened and honest about the true consequences associated with exposure risks."

And exactly what would that be? With all due respect, I still see you promoting hysteria within the building industry that those who are claiming illness from WDB are scammers to be feared by those with a financial stake in WDB.

It still comes thru in your words that you do not believe WDB have the capability to cause long term, serious illness. No? Am I wrong?

Sharon