Important question - mycotoxin testing

[Guest guest]

Does anybody know - what is the minimum amount of trichothecene

mycotoxins that can be detected by today's modern equipment?

I mean, can it be detected in swabs taken from e.g. cross-contaminated

objects such as clothes or bathroom tiles that were exposed to

second-hand contamination (not direct mold growth)?

-Branislav

[Guest guest]

May I ask why you are testing it? Wei Tang QLabBranislav wrote: Does anybody know - what is the minimum amount of trichothecenemycotoxins that can be detected by today's modern equipment?I mean, can it be detected in swabs taken from e.g. cross-contaminatedobjects such as clothes or bathroom tiles that were exposed tosecond-hand contamination (not direct mold growth)?-Branislav Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: Toll Free: 888-QLab-Wei ()www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

>

> May I ask why you are testing it?

If it could be proven that it is a trichothecene mycotoxin, the people

I live with (and depend on) would be more willing to trash those

objects and decontaminate the whole flat.

However, if I read Dr. Neville's email correctly, in order to detect

any mycotoxins, there has to be visible fungal growth in a swab

sample. And since these are cross-contaminated objects that is not

possible. Unfortunately.

Actually I thought today's modern equipment was capable of detecting

much smaller amounts of mycotoxins in a sample...

[Guest guest]

Bratislav,

Something that seems to never be considered in these debates is the fact

that in today's irresponsible society, many people's idea of managing their risk

is to do the minimum that they think they can do and not be sued. (i.e

maximize their profits)

One might interpret your question to be 'what is that amount'?

The truth is, (and I know this from personal experience) even if you have

a verified test result from a reputable lab and its toxicity is

thousands of times

higher than the limits of detection, that result is basically a

non-entity as far as

it being able to buy you peace of mind or resolution on any level.

At least here in the US. although I lived in one of (i was repeatedly

told) the most tenant-friendly

environmentally conscious jurisdictions in the US, but I was so sick

that I was unable to

effectively navigate the system at all. The system is not set up to

deal with issues like this

and I was in no position to change that. I suspect that if I WAS able

to navigate the system

I would have been told I was not sick enough.. (I was told that anyway)

Do you get my point? Someday, this will be different, but now.. basically, its

extremely frustrating. You can know that something extremely dangerous is in

your environment and that knowledge DOES NOT TRIGGER ANYTHING.

Another important issue is the fact that humans make incredibly

effective bioaerosol

samplers and we are 'on' 24/7.

For the entire time that we are in the moldy environment we are

sampling. Mycotoxins, by their nature

can penetrate between the cells of the body. They build up in living

tissue over time.

To take a sample in a spore trap or sampling pump, or to take a bulk

sample, is going to

take a far smaller sample. Even if the sensitvity of the test is

comprable to that of the human body,

it can't work as well unless it is also left on 24/7 and its ability

to thrive is compared to a control.

That is the only way for that test to be meaningfully understood.

The knowledge that a very high percentage of those placed in these

really toxic environments

get sick SHOULD tell us something. But we also have to choose to

LISTEN. We are choosing, it seems

to NOT listen.

One of the ways that LABS test for trichothecenes (since you brought them up)

is by a yeast protein inhibition assay in which the ability of

the environmental toxin to prevent the growth of living cells and kill

living cells is analyzed.

Well, the same thing happens in a home or workplace. But is THAT ever analyzed?

No.

In fact, the state in which I lived, which has a law prohibiting the

exposure to certain toxins 'known to cause harm' apparently makes an

exception for these 'naturally produced' toxins, even in cases where

they are produced by an act of gross negligence.

So, the system grinds on. People are used up, then replaced when they

no longer deliver whatever is wanted of them..

the cause of their sickness is seen as increasingly irrelevant as

society becomes ever dehumanized.

They are damaged goods.

>

>>

>> May I ask why you are testing it?

>

> If it could be proven that it is a trichothecene mycotoxin, the people

> I live with (and depend on) would be more willing to trash those

> objects and decontaminate the whole flat.

>

> However, if I read Dr. Neville's email correctly, in order to detect

> any mycotoxins, there has to be visible fungal growth in a swab

> sample. And since these are cross-contaminated objects that is not

> possible. Unfortunately.

>

> Actually I thought today's modern equipment was capable of detecting

> much smaller amounts of mycotoxins in a sample...

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you are reacting to them, clean them or trash them. There is no need to test. You can be reacting to many different things, not just certain mycotoxins. Wei Tang QLabBranislav wrote: >> May I ask why you are testing it?If it could be proven that it is a trichothecene mycotoxin, the peopleI live with (and depend

on) would be more willing to trash thoseobjects and decontaminate the whole flat.However, if I read Dr. Neville's email correctly, in order to detectany mycotoxins, there has to be visible fungal growth in a swabsample. And since these are cross-contaminated objects that is notpossible. Unfortunately. Actually I thought today's modern equipment was capable of detectingmuch smaller amounts of mycotoxins in a sample... Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: Toll Free: 888-QLab-Wei ()www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

>

> Bratislav,

Quack,

You almost always misspell my name. It's BraNislav, not BraTislav.

Please try to write it correctly next time

> One might interpret your question to be 'what is that amount'?

>

> The truth is, (and I know this from personal experience) even if you

have

> a verified test result from a reputable lab and its toxicity is

> thousands of times

> higher than the limits of detection, that result is basically a

> non-entity as far as

> it being able to buy you peace of mind or resolution on any level.

The thing is, doctors and people close to me believe that NO amount of

trichothecenes can be found on any object in our house. If I could

prove that at least some (no matter how small) amount of these toxins

does exist in our flat, that would change things considerably.

> In fact, the state in which I lived, which has a law prohibiting the

> exposure to certain toxins 'known to cause harm' apparently makes an

> exception for these 'naturally produced' toxins, even in cases where

> they are produced by an act of gross negligence.

>

> So, the system grinds on. People are used up, then replaced when they

> no longer deliver whatever is wanted of them..

> the cause of their sickness is seen as increasingly irrelevant as

> society becomes ever dehumanized.

>

> They are damaged goods.

I think it's not so much about doctors and the system not wanting to

help us. If we had a well defined illness - such as pneumonia or a

stomach ulcer - we would be helped, no questions asked.

I think with mold illnesses caused by toxins the main problem is that

at the present moment there is no reliable medical test which can show

that certain parameters in one's body are changed by the exposure to

mycotoxins or MVOCs. In other words, the illness officially doesn't

exist because it cannot be diagnosed (that is btw. the stance of many

doctors with whom I spoke).

The modern medicine has adopted the approach that man and his

environment are two separate and divided things. Illness is diagnosed

only if it can be proven that certain parameters inside the body are

not in their normal range. Or if an infection of some sort exists in

the body. It doesn't matter if one's environment is toxic, as long as

that person is healthy.

But how do you prove that mycotoxins or MVOCs make you miserable?

Until some reliable (and easily and cheaply measured!) medical marker

is found for this, other people will continue to regard us as nutcases.

MSH, VEGF, HLA etc. testing - it doesn't cut it. Sorry, but most

doctors just don't believe it and won't even want to read about it. A

much simpler, and reliable marker has to be found.

[Guest guest]

AirwaysEnv@... wrote:

>

> Branislav,

>

> In my opinion, you are most likely reacting to a volatile compound

as a result of becoming sensitized. Others sharing in your

environment are not at risk, IMO again, because this is not the

environment you became sensitized in. You have said that items

brought into the environment are what now contaminates it. It seems

like you feel that you need to scare your family into believing

that the contamination might be harmful to them, as well, to persuade

them to " decontaminate " . I don't think this is valid or even being

fair to your family, etc.

> Steve Temes

This is another interesting conundrum.

People in " bad zones " which a sensitized person tries to warn them

about, almost always reply that they are immune - and they have no

reason to be concerned, as they do not share your weakness.

They very much resent your " hysterical " warnings and wish that you

had not tried to project your " phobia " upon them.

But then a significant number of these people who believed that the

warnings were inappropriate eventually become ill themselves and are

forced to take action anyway.

This happened with my sister - and she tried to conceal from me the

fact that she had to have her house remediated of the Stachy I warned

her about.

A sensitized person has no choice about demanding that others in his

presence must decontaminate.

There is nothing fair about this illness.

Steve, you might want to read about Dr Klein being forced to have

his son decontaminate before entering his " Safe Zone " to get an idea

of what we are dealing with.

http://www.stachy.5u.com/

(Most people wouldn't be willing to shave their heads)

-MW

[Guest guest]

I think Steve is trying to point out that people becoming sensitive to

MVOCs is a big part of their mold illness.. and perhaps the most

immediate effect people feel. (because of the trigeminal nerve.)

thats true. Its why the NTP's testing of dried out mold is going to be

different than the real world effects of mold in water damaged

buildings..

dry mold = no mvocs..

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:57 PM, erikmoldwarrior

wrote:

> AirwaysEnv@... wrote:

>>

>> Branislav,

>>

>> In my opinion, you are most likely reacting to a volatile compound

> as a result of becoming sensitized. Others sharing in your

> environment are not at risk, IMO again, because this is not the

> environment you became sensitized in. You have said that items

> brought into the environment are what now contaminates it. It seems

> like you feel that you need to scare your family into believing

> that the contamination might be harmful to them, as well, to persuade

> them to " decontaminate " . I don't think this is valid or even being

> fair to your family, etc.

>

>> Steve Temes

>

> This is another interesting conundrum.

> People in " bad zones " which a sensitized person tries to warn them

> about, almost always reply that they are immune - and they have no

> reason to be concerned, as they do not share your weakness.

> They very much resent your " hysterical " warnings and wish that you

> had not tried to project your " phobia " upon them.

> But then a significant number of these people who believed that the

> warnings were inappropriate eventually become ill themselves and are

> forced to take action anyway.

>

> This happened with my sister - and she tried to conceal from me the

> fact that she had to have her house remediated of the Stachy I warned

> her about.

>

> A sensitized person has no choice about demanding that others in his

> presence must decontaminate.

> There is nothing fair about this illness.

> Steve, you might want to read about Dr Klein being forced to have

> his son decontaminate before entering his " Safe Zone " to get an idea

> of what we are dealing with.

>

> http://www.stachy.5u.com/

>

> (Most people wouldn't be willing to shave their heads)

> -MW

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

You said:

" I think you will find that trichothecene mycotoxin considered a MVOC

also has the ability to attach its self to particulate matter as

found on (Detection of Airborne Stachybotrys chartarum Macrocyclic

Trichothecene Mycotoxins on Particulates Smaller

than Conidia)

T. L. Brasel, D. R. , S. C. , and D. C. Straus "

RESPONSE

1. Not MVOCs.

2. Fragments yes, and in certain locations - see , Localization

of Satratoxin-G in Stachybotrys c Spores and Spore-Impacted Mouse Lung Using

Immunocytochemistry, Toxicol Pathol, 32, 1, 26-34, 2004.

And they wouldn't stay in the Electron Microscope under vacuum if they were

VOCs.

3. Anything of biological nature that gets airborne is a bioaerosol by

definition.

4. They don't really attach themselves to particulate matter, they are

already attached to biomatter and then those particles will do as any other

aerosol.

5. Fractions of fragments and aerodynamic sizes have been assessed (and

more than 1/2 the fragments go in the lungs and are exhaled again) [see Cho,

Aerodynamic characteristics and respiratory deposition of fungal fragments,

Atmos Environ, 39, 5454-5465, 2005] This presumes they are there in

significant amount to carry enough mycotoxins - which real data says they

aren't.

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

" 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]

Tony,

> :

>

> You said:

>

> " I think you will find that trichothecene mycotoxin considered a MVOC

> also has the ability to attach its self to particulate matter as

> found on (Detection of Airborne Stachybotrys chartarum Macrocyclic

> Trichothecene Mycotoxins on Particulates Smaller

> than Conidia)

> T. L. Brasel, D. R. , S. C. , and D. C. Straus "

>

> RESPONSE

>

> 1. Not MVOCs.

>

As I understand it, a " polysaccharide matrix " is the original home of

the mycotoxins in stachybotrys.

Would that be some kind of sugar?

> 2. Fragments yes, and in certain locations - see , Localization

> of Satratoxin-G in Stachybotrys c Spores and Spore-Impacted Mouse Lung Using

> Immunocytochemistry, Toxicol Pathol, 32, 1, 26-34, 2004.

> And they wouldn't stay in the Electron Microscope under vacuum if they were

> VOCs.

>

No, of course not. They also wouldn't persist as they would diffuse

like any gas would.

But they do, as we know.

> 5. Fractions of fragments and aerodynamic sizes have been assessed (and

> more than 1/2 the fragments go in the lungs and are exhaled again) [see Cho,

> Aerodynamic characteristics and respiratory deposition of fungal fragments,

> Atmos Environ, 39, 5454-5465, 2005] This presumes they are there in

> significant amount to carry enough mycotoxins - which real data says they

> aren't.

>

With all due respect, what assumptions re: exposure time, amount of mold,

age of building, length of time it has been moldy, etc., are you relying on to

say this?

If its not mycotoxins, what is causing the effects? My own experience was

extremely unpleasant and damaged by health pretty seriously. Something did

that. Mycotoxins were found to exist at a high level in the environment.

I've gone for a zillion tests for other things in the hope that there

was some other

(perhaps easy to treat) alternative explanation. (My goal is getting

better, not winning

lawsuits.)

None have panned out. However,

the symptoms I have experienced are fairly consistent with the

mycotoxin explanation.

So, if it wasn't mycotoxins, what WAS it?

Look, I have a question for you. Straus has showed that the toxins

dont stay with the spores.

He's also showed that they stick around a LONG time. It seems to me that

all other things remaining the same, ie. given a leaky unmaintained

building and

a relatively stable or growing quantity of stachybotrys,

which regrew every wet season, for example, and the long persistence

of the toxins in the

environment, they would build up over time - continuing to become

stronger until they and the source

are REMOVED.

That is, unless the molds themselves performed some form of

bioremediation by eating

and detoxifying other mold toxins.

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

> consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

>

What if it turns out you are mistaken? Who is accountable? Nobody?

[Guest guest]

Quack:

1. Your

Statement:

" With all due

respect, what assumptions re: exposure time, amount of mold,

age of building, length

of time it has been moldy, etc., are you relying on to

say this? "

Response:

I'm relying on 4

published studies plus one Doctoral thesis of actual visibly moldy buildings (17+)

with actual air sampling indicating very little mycotoxins (and they used

testing to account for groups of mycotoxins). The estimates of exposures

periods and parameters can be drawn from EPA RAGS.

And then I've looked at

fractional extracts of various spores and estimated maximum amounts as well.

2. Statement:

" Mycotoxins were found to exist at a high level in the

environment. "

Questions for You:

What is a high level?

Did you measure?

Do you actually know?

Which mycotoxins?

What are you relying on?

3. Statement:

" If its not mycotoxins, what is causing the effects? "

Response:

Lots of possibilities. Do your own research. And you still

haven’t considered hand to mouth on the mycotoxins.

4. Statement:

" Look, I have a question for you. Straus has showed that the

toxins

dont stay with the spores. "

Response:

a. Please cite where this

is published (not that I disagree).

b. Still have to have

enough dose, now.

5. Statement:

" He's also showed that they stick around a LONG time. It seems to

me that

all other things remaining the same, ie. given a leaky unmaintained

building and a relatively stable or growing quantity of stachybotrys,

which regrew every wet season, for example, and the long persistence

of the toxins in the environment, they would build up over time -

continuing to become

stronger until they and the source are REMOVED. "

Response:

See response to #1 above.

Also, have you measured these toxins?

Can you tell me what they are?

How much exposure, by what route?

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]

Lol! That's pretty funny the lengths people will go to to avoid saying the simple words " I'm sorry I was wrong " I'm not holding my breath to hear this from any of my family members or friends either.

><quote>

This happened with my sister - and she tried to conceal from me the

fact that she had to have her house remediated of the Stachy I warned

her about.<quote>

[Guest guest]

" robert christ " wrote:

>

> Lol! That's pretty funny the lengths people will go to to avoid

saying the simple words " I'm sorry I was wrong "

>

> I'm not holding my breath to hear this from any of my family members

or friends either.

>

What is really funny is to find that doctors who formerly charged you

for their advice that " mold is harmless " , are now charging for

their " expertise " in dealing with harmful mold.

If their former viewpoint is listed in your medical records, do you

think there is the slightest chance you might get an apology...

or a refund?

-MW