Why Some People Fight New Ideas-Re: mold is not a health hazard

[Guest guest]

Good question, Will. But I don't think we will ever be able to answer it with a " level " or a " number " or by counting " bodies. " There are too many variables.

To narrow down the variables to something manageable requires such a limited study that the results will only apply to a small subset of the population. Change the variables which you put a boundary around and you get different answers - because you are studying a different population with different issues.

If enough of the subgroups are studied then perhaps some patterns would emerge which would help with a description of what's occurring.

Sorry to be so general and abstract but it appears we can't achieve useable selectivity and sensitivity at the same time. Too much variablility in all that is real.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Carl:

Excellent point. Those outside the IEQ industry have a vested interest in protecting against frivolous claims thus we tend to side on the " safe until proven harmful " school. Those in the IEQ industry have a vested interest in promoting the " harmful until proven safe " school. I suppose it all comes down to the mighty dollar as the deciding basis for your beliefs.

I am certainly not going to tell someone that water damage and mold growth is perfectly harmless any more than you would tell someone that water damage and mold growth is going to make them sick and/or kill them. I agree that precautionary language is certainly warranted, however, I adamantly disagree with the " mold is plutonium " prophets.

With data supporting both sides of the argument, how can anyone, anywhere make definitive statements regarding the dangers or safety associated with mold exposure?

The question is - What is the proper level of precaution and guidance without sounding totally dismissive or sounding like a profiteering loon?

Will

> >

> > People are biased against creative ideas, studies find

> >

> > August 26, 2011 By Catt

> > The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes people squirm.

> >

> > " How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often reject it? " said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of organizational behavior and co-author of research to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science. The paper reports on two 2010 experiments at the University of Pennsylvania involving more than 200 people.

> >

> > The studies' findings include:

> >

> > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.

> >

> > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.

> >

> > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.

> >

> > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.

> > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe equipped with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool the foot and reduce blisters.

> > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people may not want to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while people explicitly claimed to desire creative ideas, they actually associated creative ideas with negative words such as " vomit, " " poison " and " agony. "

> >

> > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new products that were novel and high quality.

> >

> > " Our findings imply a deep irony, " wrote the authors, who also included Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul Melwani of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

> >

> > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas, but " uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most, " the researchers wrote. " Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. ... The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity. "

> >

> > The study, " The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas, " might validate the frustrations of creative people, Goncalo said.

> >

> > Provided by Cornell University (news : web)

> >

>

>

>

>

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

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We

> are making such material available in our efforts to advance

> understanding of environmental, political, human rights,

> economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted

> material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on

> this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed

> a prior interest in receiving the included information for research

> and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to

> use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own

> that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

> copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

" safe until proven harmful " " harmful until proven safe " Moving into the Schrödinger’s cat box.RB From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of midsouthbuildersSent: Monday, August 29, 2011 12:28 PMTo: iequality Subject: Why Some People Fight New Ideas-Re: mold is not a health hazard Carl:Excellent point. Those outside the IEQ industry have a vested interest in protecting against frivolous claims thus we tend to side on the " safe until proven harmful " school. Those in the IEQ industry have a vested interest in promoting the " harmful until proven safe " school. I suppose it all comes down to the mighty dollar as the deciding basis for your beliefs. I am certainly not going to tell someone that water damage and mold growth is perfectly harmless any more than you would tell someone that water damage and mold growth is going to make them sick and/or kill them. I agree that precautionary language is certainly warranted, however, I adamantly disagree with the " mold is plutonium " prophets. With data supporting both sides of the argument, how can anyone, anywhere make definitive statements regarding the dangers or safety associated with mold exposure? The question is - What is the proper level of precaution and guidance without sounding totally dismissive or sounding like a profiteering loon?Will> >> > People are biased against creative ideas, studies find> > > > August 26, 2011 By Catt> > The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes people squirm.> > > > " How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often reject it? " said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of organizational behavior and co-author of research to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science. The paper reports on two 2010 experiments at the University of Pennsylvania involving more than 200 people.> > > > The studies' findings include: > > > > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.> > > > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.> > > > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.> > > > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.> > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe equipped with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool the foot and reduce blisters.> > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people may not want to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while people explicitly claimed to desire creative ideas, they actually associated creative ideas with negative words such as " vomit, " " poison " and " agony. " > > > > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new products that were novel and high quality.> > > > " Our findings imply a deep irony, " wrote the authors, who also included Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul Melwani of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.> > > > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas, but " uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most, " the researchers wrote. " Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. ... The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity. " > > > > The study, " The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas, " might validate the frustrations of creative people, Goncalo said.> > > > Provided by Cornell University (news : web)> >> > > > > ------------------------------------> > FAIR USE NOTICE:> > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We > are making such material available in our efforts to advance > understanding of environmental, political, human rights, > economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. > We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted > material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on > this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed > a prior interest in receiving the included information for research > and educational purposes. For more information go to: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to > use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own > that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the > copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

Perhaps those methods of probability are more appropriate descriptions rather than striving for absolute numbers. Except courts and defense attorneys only want numbers. Whether they exist or not. Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC(fm my Blackberry)Sender: iequality Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 15:39:08 -0600To: <iequality >ReplyTo: iequality Subject: RE: Why Some People Fight New Ideas-Re: mold is not a health hazard " safe until proven harmful " " harmful until proven safe " Moving into the Schrödinger’s cat box.RB From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of midsouthbuildersSent: Monday, August 29, 2011 12:28 PMTo: iequality Subject: Why Some People Fight New Ideas-Re: mold is not a health hazard Carl:Excellent point. Those outside the IEQ industry have a vested interest in protecting against frivolous claims thus we tend to side on the " safe until proven harmful " school. Those in the IEQ industry have a vested interest in promoting the " harmful until proven safe " school. I suppose it all comes down to the mighty dollar as the deciding basis for your beliefs. I am certainly not going to tell someone that water damage and mold growth is perfectly harmless any more than you would tell someone that water damage and mold growth is going to make them sick and/or kill them. I agree that precautionary language is certainly warranted, however, I adamantly disagree with the " mold is plutonium " prophets. With data supporting both sides of the argument, how can anyone, anywhere make definitive statements regarding the dangers or safety associated with mold exposure? The question is - What is the proper level of precaution and guidance without sounding totally dismissive or sounding like a profiteering loon?Will> >> > People are biased against creative ideas, studies find> > > > August 26, 2011 By Catt> > The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes people squirm.> > > > " How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often reject it? " said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of organizational behavior and co-author of research to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science. The paper reports on two 2010 experiments at the University of Pennsylvania involving more than 200 people.> > > > The studies' findings include: > > > > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.> > > > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.> > > > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.> > > > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.> > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe equipped with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool the foot and reduce blisters.> > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people may not want to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while people explicitly claimed to desire creative ideas, they actually associated creative ideas with negative words such as " vomit, " " poison " and " agony. " > > > > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new products that were novel and high quality.> > > > " Our findings imply a deep irony, " wrote the authors, who also included Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul Melwani of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.> > > > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas, but " uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most, " the researchers wrote. " Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. ... The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity. " > > > > The study, " The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas, " might validate the frustrations of creative people, Goncalo said.> > > > Provided by Cornell University (news : web)> >> > > > > ------------------------------------> > FAIR USE NOTICE:> > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We > are making such material available in our efforts to advance > understanding of environmental, political, human rights, > economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. > We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted > material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on > this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed > a prior interest in receiving the included information for research > and educational purposes. For more information go to: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to > use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own > that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the > copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

If enough of the subgroups are studied then perhaps some patterns would emerge which would help with a description of what's occurring.

I agree that this would be a very good starting point. Patterns will become clear when you start with actual individuals and families who have been affected by indoor environmental contaminants. You can ask them about where and how they were exposed and study that particular real environment. You can ask them what health effects they now suffer with when re-exposed. You can help them to become unmasked if they are still "in it".

Patterns of individual immunologic/neurologic reactions do not become clear when you rely on epidemiology studies that use occupant questionnaires asking about physician diagnosed asthma, and then use air sampling or other testing in the building to look for contaminants that correlate with the answers on the questionnaire based upon assumed dose-response toxicology. It took the IOM something like 10 years to finally conclude an association between damp buildings and respiratory symptoms. Nice work. Duh.

All someone had to do was identify the people who reported the building-related illnesses and work closely with them to figure out what they are reacting to that all the other people in the building aren't reacting to. Then try to figure out how that happened medically.

Steve Temes

Re: Why Some People Fight New Ideas-Re: mold is not a health hazard

Good question, Will. But I don't think we will ever be able to answer it with a "level" or a "number" or by counting "bodies." There are too many variables.

To narrow down the variables to something manageable requires such a limited study that the results will only apply to a small subset of the population. Change the variables which you put a boundary around and you get different answers - because you are studying a different population with different issues.

If enough of the subgroups are studied then perhaps some patterns would emerge which would help with a description of what's occurring.

Sorry to be so general and abstract but it appears we can't achieve useable selectivity and sensitivity at the same time. Too much variablility in all that is real.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Carl:

Excellent point. Those outside the IEQ industry have a vested interest in protecting against frivolous claims thus we tend to side on the "safe until proven harmful" school. Those in the IEQ industry have a vested interest in promoting the "harmful until proven safe" school. I suppose it all comes down to the mighty dollar as the deciding basis for your beliefs.

I am certainly not going to tell someone that water damage and mold growth is perfectly harmless any more than you would tell someone that water damage and mold growth is going to make them sick and/or kill them. I agree that precautionary language is certainly warranted, however, I adamantly disagree with the "mold is plutonium" prophets.

With data supporting both sides of the argument, how can anyone, anywhere make definitive statements regarding the dangers or safety associated with mold exposure?

The question is - What is the proper level of precaution and guidance without sounding totally dismissive or sounding like a profiteering loon?

Will

> >

> > People are biased against creative ideas, studies find

> >

> > August 26, 2011 By Catt

> > The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes people squirm.

> >

> > "How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often reject it?" said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of organizational behavior and co-author of research to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science. The paper reports on two 2010 experiments at the University of Pennsylvania involving more than 200 people.

> >

> > The studies' findings include:

> >

> > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.

> >

> > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.

> >

> > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.

> >

> > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.

> > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe equipped with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool the foot and reduce blisters.

> > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people may not want to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while people explicitly claimed to desire creative ideas, they actually associated creative ideas with negative words such as "vomit," "poison" and "agony."

> >

> > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new products that were novel and high quality.

> >

> > "Our findings imply a deep irony," wrote the authors, who also included Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul Melwani of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

> >

> > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas, but "uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most," the researchers wrote. "Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. ... The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity."

> >

> > The study, "The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas," might validate the frustrations of creative people, Goncalo said.

> >

> > Provided by Cornell University (news : web)

> >

>

>

>

>

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

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We

> are making such material available in our efforts to advance

> understanding of environmental, political, human rights,

> economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted

> material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on

> this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed

> a prior interest in receiving the included information for research

> and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to

> use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own

> that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

> copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

So Carl, if you are contracted to perform an investigation by a property manager

and you find 50 - 100 sq/ft of mold contamination on sheetrock in a storage

area, the presence of active water damage, and high spore counts in spore traps

on each floor (let's say 2-6 times the outdoor count for Pen/Ap), what would be

your advice for building occupants?

Would you characterize the building as hazardous for building occupants?

Would you notify the building occupants that hazardous conditions exist?

At what point would you sound the " mold is plutonium " alarm bell?

Will

> > >

> > > People are biased against creative ideas, studies find

> > >

> > > August 26, 2011 By Catt

> > > The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you

might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know

what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change

agent, actually makes people squirm.

> > >

> > > " How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often

reject it? " said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of organizational

behavior and co-author of research to be published in an upcoming issue of the

journal Psychological Science. The paper reports on two 2010 experiments at the

University of Pennsylvania involving more than 200 people.

> > >

> > > The studies' findings include:

> > >

> > > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings

of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.

> > >

> > > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical

-- tried and true.

> > >

> > > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not

motivate people to accept it.

> > >

> > > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can

interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.

> > > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe equipped

with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool the foot and reduce

blisters.

> > > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle

technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people may not want

to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while people explicitly claimed

to desire creative ideas, they actually associated creative ideas with negative

words such as " vomit, " " poison " and " agony. "

> > >

> > > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new products

that were novel and high quality.

> > >

> > > " Our findings imply a deep irony, " wrote the authors, who also included

Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul Melwani of the

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

> > >

> > > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas, but

" uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we

need it most, " the researchers wrote. " Revealing the existence and nature of a

bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas

and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the

contrary. ... The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from

identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help

innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity. "

> > >

> > > The study, " The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject

Creative Ideas, " might validate the frustrations of creative people, Goncalo

said.

> > >

> > > Provided by Cornell University (news : web)

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> >

> > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> > always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We

> > are making such material available in our efforts to advance

> > understanding of environmental, political, human rights,

> > economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> > We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted

> > material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

> > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on

> > this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed

> > a prior interest in receiving the included information for research

> > and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to

> > use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own

> > that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

> > copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

This issue has been allowed to become a mountain when it should just be a mold hill. The key lays with educating the physicians to the potential adverse health effects from WDB.

If they saw a patient who was exhibiting symptoms that could be possibly caused by WDB and knew to direct the patient to look to IAQ as a possible cause, then people would know to investigate and correct the possible cause. (remove the poor IAQ from the affected person, or remove the affected person from the poor IAQ)

When caught early and corrected before symptoms become severe, the exposure is typically not debilitating even among the most vulnerable of subpopulations. Teach the doctors. Solve the problem.

Sharon

If enough of the subgroups are studied then perhaps some patterns would emerge which would help with a description of what's occurring.

I agree that this would be a very good starting point. Patterns will become clear when you start with actual individuals and families who have been affected by indoor environmental contaminants. You can ask them about where and how they were exposed and study that particular real environment. You can ask them what health effects they now suffer with when re-exposed. You can help them to become unmasked if they are still "in it".Patterns of individual immunologic/neurologic reactions do not become clear when you rely on epidemiology studies that use occupant questionnaires asking about physician diagnosed asthma, and then use air sampling or other testing in the building to look for contaminants that correlate with the answers on the questionnaire based upon assumed dose-response toxicology. It took the IOM something like 10 years to finally conclude an association between damp buildings and respiratory symptoms. Nice work. Duh.All someone had to do was identify the people who reported the building-related illnesses and work closely with them to figure out what they are reacting to that all the other people in the building aren't reacting to. Then try to figure out how that happened medically.Steve Temes

Re: Why Some People Fight New Ideas-Re: mold is not a health hazard

Good question, Will. But I don't think we will ever be able to answer it with a "level" or a "number" or by counting "bodies." There are too many variables.

To narrow down the variables to something manageable requires such a limited study that the results will only apply to a small subset of the population. Change the variables which you put a boundary around and you get different answers - because you are studying a different population with different issues.

If enough of the subgroups are studied then perhaps some patterns would emerge which would help with a description of what's occurring.

Sorry to be so general and abstract but it appears we can't achieve useable selectivity and sensitivity at the same time. Too much variablility in all that is real.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Carl:

Excellent point. Those outside the IEQ industry have a vested interest in protecting against frivolous claims thus we tend to side on the "safe until proven harmful" school. Those in the IEQ industry have a vested interest in promoting the "harmful until proven safe" school. I suppose it all comes down to the mighty dollar as the deciding basis for your beliefs.

I am certainly not going to tell someone that water damage and mold growth is perfectly harmless any more than you would tell someone that water damage and mold growth is going to make them sick and/or kill them. I agree that precautionary language is certainly warranted, however, I adamantly disagree with the "mold is plutonium" prophets.

With data supporting both sides of the argument, how can anyone, anywhere make definitive statements regarding the dangers or safety associated with mold exposure?

The question is - What is the proper level of precaution and guidance without sounding totally dismissive or sounding like a profiteering loon?

Will

> >

> > People are biased against creative ideas, studies find

> >

> > August 26, 2011 By Catt

> > The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes people squirm.

> >

> > "How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often reject it?" said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of organizational behavior and co-author of research to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science. The paper reports on two 2010 experiments at the University of Pennsylvania involving more than 200 people.

> >

> > The studies' findings include:

> >

> > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.

> >

> > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.

> >

> > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.

> >

> > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.

> > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe equipped with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool the foot and reduce blisters.

> > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people may not want to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while people explicitly claimed to desire creative ideas, they actually associated creative ideas with negative words such as "vomit," "poison" and "agony."

> >

> > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new products that were novel and high quality.

> >

> > "Our findings imply a deep irony," wrote the authors, who also included Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul Melwani of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

> >

> > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas, but "uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most," the researchers wrote. "Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. ... The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity."

> >

> > The study, "The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas," might validate the frustrations of creative people, Goncalo said.

> >

> > Provided by Cornell University (news : web)

> >

>

>

>

>

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

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We

> are making such material available in our efforts to advance

> understanding of environmental, political, human rights,

> economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.

> We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted

> material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on

> this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed

> a prior interest in receiving the included information for research

> and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to

> use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own

> that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

> copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

Hello Will,What type of mold was growing in the storage room? Was it A/P or something else? Are there other leaks in the building? Is there an HVAC return in the storage area? How old is the water release? What time of year? What were the actual spore counts; 10 as compared to 60 or 600 compared to 3600 or 3600 to 21,600? Again, you don’t have much info to say much about. What type of building? What type of occupants? Are there complaints? A poor assessment if that is all the info you have. Maybe you should fix the water source and properly remediate the microbial impacted materials and properly clean any secondary contamination. It’s not that complex. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Bradley Harr MS, CHMM, CMC, HHS, RPIH Sr. Environmental ScientistBoise, Idahohttp://summitenviroinc.com From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of midsouthbuildersSent: Monday, August 29, 2011 6:05 PMTo: iequality Subject: Why Some People Fight New Ideas-Re: mold is not a health hazard So Carl, if you are contracted to perform an investigation by a property manager and you find 50 - 100 sq/ft of mold contamination on sheetrock in a storage area, the presence of active water damage, and high spore counts in spore traps on each floor (let's say 2-6 times the outdoor count for Pen/Ap), what would be your advice for building occupants? Would you characterize the building as hazardous for building occupants?Would you notify the building occupants that hazardous conditions exist?At what point would you sound the " mold is plutonium " alarm bell?Will> > >> > > People are biased against creative ideas, studies find> > > > > > August 26, 2011 By Catt> > > The next time your great idea at work elicits silence or eye rolls, you might just pity those co-workers. Fresh research indicates they don't even know what a creative idea looks like and that creativity, hailed as a positive change agent, actually makes people squirm.> > > > > > " How is it that people say they want creativity but in reality often reject it? " said Jack Goncalo, ILR School assistant professor of organizational behavior and co-author of research to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science. The paper reports on two 2010 experiments at the University of Pennsylvania involving more than 200 people.> > > > > > The studies' findings include: > > > > > > Creative ideas are by definition novel, and novelty can trigger feelings of uncertainty that make most people uncomfortable.> > > > > > People dismiss creative ideas in favor of ideas that are purely practical -- tried and true.> > > > > > Objective evidence shoring up the validity of a creative proposal does not motivate people to accept it.> > > > > > Anti-creativity bias is so subtle that people are unaware of it, which can interfere with their ability to recognize a creative idea.> > > For example, subjects had a negative reaction to a running shoe equipped with nanotechnology that adjusted fabric thickness to cool the foot and reduce blisters.> > > To uncover bias against creativity, the researchers used a subtle technique to measure unconscious bias -- the kind to which people may not want to admit, such as racism. Results revealed that while people explicitly claimed to desire creative ideas, they actually associated creative ideas with negative words such as " vomit, " " poison " and " agony. " > > > > > > Goncalo said this bias caused subjects to reject ideas for new products that were novel and high quality.> > > > > > " Our findings imply a deep irony, " wrote the authors, who also included Mueller of the University of Pennsylvania and Shimul Melwani of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.> > > > > > Uncertainty drives the search for and generation of creative ideas, but " uncertainty also makes us less able to recognize creativity, perhaps when we need it most, " the researchers wrote. " Revealing the existence and nature of a bias against creativity can help explain why people might reject creative ideas and stifle scientific advancements, even in the face of strong intentions to the contrary. ... The field of creativity may need to shift its current focus from identifying how to generate more creative ideas to identify how to help innovative institutions recognize and accept creativity. " > > > > > > The study, " The Bias Against Creativity: Why People Desire But Reject Creative Ideas, " might validate the frustrations of creative people, Goncalo said.> > > > > > Provided by Cornell University (news : web)> > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------> > > > FAIR USE NOTICE:> > > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > > always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We > > are making such material available in our efforts to advance > > understanding of environmental, political, human rights, > > economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. > > We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted > > material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. > > In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on > > this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed > > a prior interest in receiving the included information for research > > and educational purposes. For more information go to: > > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to > > use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own > > that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the > > copyright owner.