Re: Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's

[Guest guest]

Tony,

Diagnoses are not made on the basis of air sampling. The tox and epi data are incomplete and do not apply to individuals.

No matter how much you would like to believe (or have others believe) that you can demonstrate or rule out causation of illness by air sampling, it isn't proper health or medical science. All you can demonstrate with environmental sampling is estimated exposure or exposure potential.

It is a common misconception (belief) among some safety professionals, who know how to take air samples and want to sell a health consulting service, that you can determine with air sampling whether an environment has not been, or will not be, the cause of symptoms or illness in actual occupants. Isn't that pretty much what ACGIH, itself, cautions about the use of its own TLVs with regard to determining causation of illness? And wouldn't improper use of TLVs by a CIH be a violation of the ABIH Code of Ethics?

Steve Temes

Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's

Steve:

Regarding:

"But neither the exposure limit, nor the underlying tox and epi data, can be

used to determine or rule out causation of symptoms in an individual,

especially when the health effect is immunologic or neurologic."

Response:

Says who? Dr. Temes?

How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi data?

And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible (otherwise we

wouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals).

[And yes there can be immuno-based data available]

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.

[Guest guest]

Would have to agree with Dr. Temes. A real problem in this issue seems to be that too much weight gets put on what can be concluded from one piece of evidence. Its always a puzzle and various forms of evidence must be used together to form a reasonable conclusion.

As a result of testing, exposure limits, etc, that were put into policy to protect the public, being misused to conclude facts that are beyond the true ability of the testing, -- science ends up getting bastardized (kind of like my English in this sentence) and used against the public. TLVs are a prime example of a method of risk assessment being held out as able to conclude far more than they were ever intended to do.

Sharon

Tony,Diagnoses are not made on the basis of air sampling. The tox and epi data are incomplete and do not apply to individuals.No matter how much you would like to believe (or have others believe) that you can demonstrate or rule out causation of illness by air sampling, it isn't proper health or medical science. All you can demonstrate with environmental sampling is estimated exposure or exposure potential.It is a common misconception (belief) among some safety professionals, who know how to take air samples and want to sell a health consulting service, that you can determine with air sampling whether an environment has not been, or will not be, the cause of symptoms or illness in actual occupants. Isn't that pretty much what ACGIH, itself, cautions about the use of its own TLVs with regard to determining causation of illness? And wouldn't improper use of TLVs by a CIH be a violation of the ABIH Code of Ethics?Steve Temes

Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's

Steve:Regarding:"But neither the exposure limit, nor the underlying tox and epi data, can beused to determine or rule out causation of symptoms in an individual, especially when the health effect is immunologic or neurologic."Response:Says who? Dr. Temes?How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi data?And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible (otherwise wewouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals).[And yes there can be immuno-based data available]

[Guest guest]

Our docs never use tlv’s to make a diagnosisAlice Freund,Industrial Hygienist Mt. Sinai Irving J. Selikoff Center forOccupational and Environmental Medicine From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Steve TemesSent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 12:33 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's Tony,Diagnoses are not made on the basis of air sampling. The tox and epi data are incomplete and do not apply to individuals.No matter how much you would like to believe (or have others believe) that you can demonstrate or rule out causation of illness by air sampling, it isn't proper health or medical science. All you can demonstrate with environmental sampling is estimated exposureor exposure potential.It is a common misconception (belief) among some safety professionals, who know how to take air samples and want to sell a health consulting service, that you can determine with air sampling whether an environment has not been, or will not be, the cause ofsymptoms or illness in actual occupants. Isn't that pretty much what ACGIH, itself, cautions about the use of its own TLVs with regard to determining causation of illness? And wouldn't improper use of TLVs by a CIH be a violation of the ABIH Code of Ethics?Steve Temes Digest 1a. Re: question about TLV's Steve:Regarding: " But neither the exposure limit, nor the underlying tox and epi data, can beused to determine or rule out causation of symptoms in an individual, especially when the health effect is immunologic or neurologic. " Response:Says who? Dr. Temes?How do think diagnoses are made if not based on tox and epi data?And they are developed on a statistical basis when possible (otherwise wewouldn't see p<0.05 in the journals).[And yes there can be immuno-based data available]Tony...................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 AvonIN 46123 www.ph2llc.com(317) 718-7020 off fax cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...anyconsultant can give you the other 10%(SM)This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may containlegally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only forthe individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are notthe addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, youare not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and anyattachments, 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 personother than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waiveconfidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only ofthe sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied ordistributed without this statement.

[Guest guest]

Hi Folks,The old saying goes " Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence " . All the investigator can do is sample for (and the lab analyze for) likely measurable concentrations of things that might contribute to the problem. If they (we) find something that lines up with a symptom or set of symptoms, then we are validating the investigator's original hypothesis. But if we find nothing, that is all we have found - nothing. It isn't the same as something, though we can sort of generally refocus the investigation based on a negative result. We cannot say, based on one test, that there is no problem - clearly, if an investigator has been called out to a property, the odds are very high that there is one.

Also, generally, TLVs, which deal with occupational exposures, are generally inadequate to evaluate residential or non-occupational (office / commercial environment) exposures because the exposure conditions, and the exposed population are entirely different.  In these cases, alternate levels such as ATSDR MRLs, EPA Region III RBCs, or, failing that, some reasonable fraction (10%, 1%) of a TLV or PEL. Knowing what typical levels of a given compound are in indoor air is helpful, as is having some knowledge of the kinds of things that people can become sensitized to.

 

   Vince Daliessio, CIH  | Project Manager

   EMSL Analytical, Inc. | 200 Route 130 North | Cinnaminson, NJ 08077

   Phone: | Fax:   | Toll Free:

[Guest guest]

Vince, You stated:alternate levels such as ATSDR MRLs, EPA Region III RBCs, or, failing that, some reasonable fraction (10%, 1%) of a TLVAll of these standards and IAQ standards from other countries can be found in "International Indoor Air Quality Standards for Over 2,000 Chemicals and Biological Substances"Bob

Hi Folks,The old saying goes "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". All the investigator can do is sample for (and the lab analyze for) likely measurable concentrations of things that might contribute to the problem. If they (we) find something that lines up with a symptom or set of symptoms, then we are validating the investigator's original hypothesis. But if we find nothing, that is all we have found - nothing. It isn't the same as something, though we can sort of generally refocus the investigation based on a negative result. We cannot say, based on one test, that there is no problem - clearly, if an investigator has been called out to a property, the odds are very high that there is one.

Also, generally, TLVs, which deal with occupational exposures, are generally inadequate to evaluate residential or non-occupational (office / commercial environment) exposures because the exposure conditions, and the exposed population are entirely different. In these cases, alternate levels such as ATSDR MRLs, EPA Region III RBCs, or, failing that, some reasonable fraction (10%, 1%) of a TLV or PEL. Knowing what typical levels of a given compound are in indoor air is helpful, as is having some knowledge of the kinds of things that people can become sensitized to.

Vince Daliessio, CIH | Project Manager EMSL Analytical, Inc. | 200 Route 130 North | Cinnaminson, NJ 08077 Phone: | Fax: | Toll Free:

[Guest guest]

"Standards" seems to be a confusing word. It has different meanings depending on how and where it is being applied. Sometimes, it is a real number that should cause one to take action if too high -- other times it is just a guideline of what is thought to be safe. Its not erred TLVs themselves so much (sometimes it is) as it is how it gets misapplied as a real number, when it should just be a guideline.

Real number, if it is over x amount there is probably a problem

Guideline number, if it is under x amount that does not mean there is no causation of illness.

Sharon

"International Indoor Air Quality Standards for Over 2,000 Chemicals and Biological Substances"