1a. Re: Digest: 1b. Re: Formaldehyde, Sensitization responses for Steve - again

[Guest guest]

Those tiring of this discussion, Delete as necessary. Or post saying you're

done with this and I'll retire from responding.

Steve:

1. Please look up:

" Neurologic "

And

" Neurogenic "

Then decide if you should restate yourself as one is very broad and other

narrower.

2. I surmise you belong to the " one asbestos fiber will kill you " camp.

Q: Is this correct?

3. Regarding:

" Inquiring IH's want to know. "

Response:

Those IHs can call me personally and chat if they are so intent. I do not

consider you an IH, and I don't see where you market yourself as one.

4. Regarding:

'reconciling' my response with ACGIH TLV qualifier:

Response:

I said I would use the data, not the number. You can't seem to get this

into your head.

Q: How many TLV support documents have you read?

Q: How many WEEL or ERPG support documents or ATSDR Tox Profiles (with

MRLs) have you read?

Q: How many similar support documents have you prepared?

Q: How many exposure limits have you helped prepare? (occ or non-occ)

Q: How many risk assessments have you done?

Q: How many health assessments have you done?

Q: Do you know the difference between a health assessment and a risk

assessment?

Perhaps you should answer these before continuing with your line of opinion.

Note: ACGIH, AIHA, and others use qualifiers so that numbers aren't looked

at as i) absolute, and so a good IH might read the data used to support

the number.

5. Regarding;

" Why do you not agree with me that the only way to demonstrate that

something is not the cause of hypersensitivity symptoms is to see whether

the individual reacts when exposed to it or not? "

Response:

This is not the only way, it can be part of a confirmation process.

a) There are a number of cross-reactions, so it may not be test agent

A, but B which is like A. (resulting in a possible false positive)

The testing levels are generally high to elicit reaction. If the

level of exposure was not at an elicitation level, then the test agent i)

was not the likely source and ii) can provide a false positive. (hence air

testing; or surface/product testing)

If the testing is lower than an elicitation level, and the exposure levels

are greater than the elicitation level then one gets a false negative.

(hence air testing; or surface/product testing)

Having said this, testing an individual under controlled conditions is what

I have recommended. It is the gold standard for respiratory clinical

determination of disease (elicitation), but difficult to get a doctor to

agree to do and has limitations.

Note: Sensitized humans have been tested and have been found to have

thresholds of elicitation - go look it up in the literature, which you seem

wont to do.

6. Regarding:

" Do real people and their symptoms have to be ignored in your determination

of the cause of their health effects? "

Response:

Symptoms are symptoms. Causes are causes. The two do not always meet, but

can be useful for both investigators and doctors. You appear to presume

much as yes whereas I say no until I have enough good data to make that

statement. This philosophy of assuming yes is what has made bad medicine in

the past. You can go on hunches Steve, but when it comes to people, I

however like to be more sure.

Q: So which is more ethical in your opinion??

Q: So which is more ethical in the published literature?

7. I'm still waiting for:

Q: What certifications do you have that require you to follow a code of

ethics?

Q: Where are these posted?

Q: What are the certifying boards for this(ese) certification(s)?

Q: What enforcement (for the code of ethics) have they imposed and how

often?

Q: Do you know if there are any OELs set to prevent induction on the basis

that there is a level for induction?

And

Looking for references on pretty much anything at this point, because you

haven't stated much but opinion, on:

" Countries with national health care systems have much better records of

worker illness and a greater interest in saving health care costs borne by

taxpayers. "

Tony

.......................................................................

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US 36, Suite 830 Avon

IN 46123

www.ph2llc.com

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any

consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain

legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for

the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not

the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you

are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any

attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments

(including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at

. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person

other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive

confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of

the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or

distributed without this statement.