RE: The Purpose of Testing

[Guest guest]

Hello Carl,

When the right testing is done correctly and reviewed by a qualified person, benefits can be realized. As with most things, unsupported garbage in equals garbage out. A detailed visual building assessment is needed prior to sampling, just like the medical exam.

I would not compare a $2000 MRI with a $35 to $200 fungal sample analysis to evaluate the level of fungal material in a given location at the time of sample collection. Now a $100 to $200 urine and blood screen has a great benefit / cost ratio, IMHO. Had to put my $0.02 in.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental ScientistSummit Environmental, Inc.***********************************************************INTERNET CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICEThis communication and any accompanying documents are confidential information intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the named recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the named recipient, please notify us immediately that you have received this message in error. Then delete this message and any accompanying documents without copying or reading them. You are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, dissemination, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Carl E. GrimesSent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 6:41 PMTo: iequality Subject: The Purpose of Testing

I found this article in the NY Times about the role of MRI testing uncannily familiar. I've pasted the concluding paragraphs because the discussion about the reliance on medical testing sounds very similar to our reliance on environmental testing.

The discussion of purpose is also interesting to me in the context of the push away from testing to determine existence of harm (or not) and more toward other public health criteria - as with the AIHA Green Book - on what we want our involvement to achieve.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

The Scan That Didn’t Scan

By GINA KOLATA

Published: October 13, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/health/14scan.html?

....the point of an M.R.I., or any imaging study, is to help make a diagnosis that will improve your health. Often imaging is unnecessary: a good exam will reveal what’s wrong, and the treatment will be the same with or without the scan.

Just as big a problem as the erratic quality of scans is the tendency of doctors and patients to rely on them too much.

“There’s been a shift in medicine toward relying on imaging instead of a history and examination,” Dr. Jarvik said.

And I suspect that that was one reason Jim and I were so misled.

“Pain is a way for Mother Nature to talk to us,” Dr. Thrall told me. “And when our invented process for understanding is at odds with what Mother Nature is telling us, we had better listen to Mother Nature.”

-----end----