Re: FEMA, Illinois “Mold will grow and it will almost certainly ...

[Guest guest]

Chuck,

Good points. So how would you write a one liner that would be consistent with other, more detailed, descriptions? Sometimes detail is required. Sometimes not. But regardless, they should at least be compatible and consistent.

Is this better? Where can it be improved?

"Exposure to atypical amounts of mold, sometimes found in water damaged buildings, may cause a variety of symptoms in some people" = if one is sick, consider mold as a possible cause, but don't rule out every other possible cause without more information.

What is a good middle ground one liner description somewhere between

"Mold will grow and it will almost certainly make you sick"

and

"Mold never harms anyone". ?

Sharon

Sharon,re:"An exposure to an excessive amount of mold may cause a variety of symptoms of ill health in some people" = if one is sick, consider mold as a possible cause, but don't rule out every other possible cause without more information.-----------------I believe the above statement utilizes reasonably accurate language. However, I would amend it further to eliminate the first word "An", as that implies a single event, and it's implication potentially ignores long-term exposure to lower "excessive" levels.The word "excessive" is vague. What is excessive to one person may not be to another, so it leaves a lot of room for individual interpretation, and thus leaves the door open for possible over-reaction by some who have been emotionally "overly sensitized" by the media hype scare and senationalization messages caused by over use of the terms "toxic (black) mold".Conversely, due to the subjectivity of interpretation of the word "excessive" it may also cause some to disregard levels that may be problematic for some people.Semantics? Yes. But along with hysteria, isn't that part of the problem? The lack of sufficient definitive research, the existence of conflicting statements and interpretation of existing research, etc., combined with the ever-present individual variances in susceptibility (and emotional reactiveness) unfortunately makes the whole set of issues a matter of semantics in many ways.Any general statement regarding possible health effects of microbial (don't forget bacteria) exposures is like trying to fit an elephant into a shoebox, in my opinion. It just doesn't seem practical to be able to issue a "one size fits all" statement.Cheers,Chuck Reaney

Sharon Noonan KramerBUY Indiana and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on DVD today!

[Guest guest]

"An exposure to an excessive amount of mold may cause a variety of symptoms of ill health in some people" = if one is sick, consider mold as a possible cause, but don't rule out every other possible cause without more information.

Does that seem right to you all?

No. It puts too much emphasis on the word "excessive". Once someone becomes sensitized, or if someone has a pre-existing sensitivity, "excessive" may not be a helpful marker for diagnostic or remediation purposes.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Is this better? Where can it be improved?

"Exposure to atypical amounts of mold, sometimes found in water damaged buildings, may cause a variety of symptoms in some people" = if one is sick, consider mold as a possible cause, but don't rule out every other possible cause without more information.

Exposure to contaminants resulting from water damage in buildings may cause....

This permits the inclusion of fungi, bacteria, MVOCs, chemical outgassing from wet materials, etc. and takes the focus off of mold, per se. It is in better keeping with the conclusions in the IOM report and implies that water damage in buildings is atypical (= not normal or acceptable).

How do you fit an elephant into a shoebox? Start with a really, really big shoebox.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Also, pre-existing exposure toa host of toxicants that

cause issues like extreme levels of oxidative stress, cell or DNA

damage of various kinds,

endocrine disruption, immune system modulation, etc. may be additive.

If you push someone over the edge into an unmanageable situation when

before they were well enough, and then they become too sick to work,

its really a situation of you broke it, you pay for it.

Our society is in denial, for example, here in the US we tolerate

levels of lead and mercury and numerous other toxins that clearly

effect in some way almost ALL of us.

Its a mistake to think they are just " normal " . The poor get especially

sick because they are often exposed to more toxics than the rich and

have fewer options for medical care, even in crisis situations.

Also, age is important. The very young are obviously vulnerable, but

all other things being equal, isn't it also obvious that people become

far more subject to damage from toxicants as they age?

Should we attack the toxic poison, or attack the messenger who has

been made ill?

> Chuck,

>

> Good points. So how would you write a one liner that would be consistent

> with other, more detailed, descriptions? Sometimes detail is required.

> Sometimes not. But regardless, they should at least be compatible and

> consistent.

>

> Is this better? Where can it be improved?

>

> " Exposure to atypical amounts of mold, sometimes found in water damaged

> buildings, may cause a variety of symptoms in some people " = if one is sick,

> consider mold as a possible cause, but don't rule out every other possible

> cause without more information.

>

> What is a good middle ground one liner description somewhere between

>

> " Mold will grow and it will almost certainly make you sick "

>

> and

>

> " Mold never harms anyone " . ?

>

> Sharon

>

> In a message dated 10/19/2008 10:00:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> C.Reaney@... writes:

>

> Sharon,

>

> re:

>

> " An exposure to an excessive amount of mold may cause a variety of symptoms

> of ill health in some people " = if one is sick, consider mold as a possible

> cause, but don't rule out every other possible cause without more

> information.

>

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

> I believe the above statement utilizes reasonably accurate language.

> However, I would amend it further to eliminate the first word " An " , as that

> implies a single event, and it's implication potentially ignores long-term

> exposure to lower " excessive " levels.

>

> The word " excessive " is vague. What is excessive to one person may not be

> to another, so it leaves a lot of room for individual interpretation, and

> thus leaves the door open for possible over-reaction by some who have been

> emotionally " overly sensitized " by the media hype scare and

> senationalization messages caused by over use of the terms " toxic (black)

> mold " .

>

> Conversely, due to the subjectivity of interpretation of the word

> " excessive " it may also cause some to disregard levels that may be

> problematic for some people.

>

> Semantics? Yes. But along with hysteria, isn't that part of the problem?

> The lack of sufficient definitive research, the existence of conflicting

> statements and interpretation of existing research, etc., combined with the

> ever-present individual variances in susceptibility (and emotional

> reactiveness) unfortunately makes the whole set of issues a matter of

> semantics in many ways.

>

> Any general statement regarding possible health effects of microbial (don't

> forget bacteria) exposures is like trying to fit an elephant into a shoebox,

> in my opinion. It just doesn't seem practical to be able to issue a " one

> size fits all " statement.

>

> Cheers,

>

> Chuck Reaney

>

>

> Sharon Noonan Kramer

>

>

> ________________________________

> BUY Indiana and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on DVD today!

>

[Guest guest]

"Exposure to contaminants resulting from water damage in buildings may cause a variety of symptoms in some people"

Like that? Is that good? Should it maybe be "microbial contaminants"?

Remember, this is a middle ground statement between

Mold will grow and it will almost certainly make you sick

and

Mold doesn't harm anyone.

BUY Indiana and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on DVD today!

[Guest guest]

"Exposure to contaminants resulting from water damage in buildings may cause a variety of symptoms in some people"

Like that? Is that good? Should it maybe be "microbial contaminants"?

Remember, this is a middle ground statement between

Mold will grow and it will almost certainly make you sick

and

Mold doesn't harm anyone.

Sharon,

No. Not mold and not even microbial contaminants. We do not know how many people are sensitized to and/or otherwise affected by VOCs or MVOCs released from bacterial growth or wet building materials (formaldehyde). Someone could argue that volatile chemicals are "not mold" or "not microbial". The IOM study concluded that DAMP BUILDINGS were most highly correlated with negative health effects. It's about indoor exposure to contaminants generated when surfaces that shouldn't be getting wet are. Emphasis should always be on the underlying water issue, not just the contaminant or the illness. In order to prevent it or remediate it, you have to understand and correct the moisture problem.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Yes, and then, the focus goes back to where it needs to be,

effectively stopping irresponsible,

dangerous behaviors by building managers..

If they had not been exposed to the unremediated or improperly

remediated water damaged situation, the people would not have gotten sick..

Its not until that is hammered into people, and the financial

incentive to ignore

maintenance is turned into a disincentive of suffcient magnitude to work, that

we can really start allowing ourselves the luxury of science.

The focus should be on the function, stopping the poisoning of people,

and getting them

medical care that works for as long as they need it, and preventing

their permanent

impoverishment by getting them back on their feet health wise without

their having to go through a court ordeal that is designed to

humiliate them. People should recognize that people who bring these

issues up are doing us all a public service and there should be

realization that for every person who does sue, there are tens or

perhaps even hundreds who don't.

The ones who sue are often the ones who don't really need the money,

and the ones who don't are often the ones who do. (need the money the

most, because they are falling off the edge of survival..)

We also need to change THAT, somehow..

> In a message dated 10/19/2008 2:43:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> snk1955@... writes:

>

> Is this better? Where can it be improved?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

I suggest you use " contaminant " only and not specify which ones. This is if you rely on the IOM which includes amplification of rodents and insects plus chemical releases from water damaged buildings. HUD Healthy Homes course includes these plus secondary events (increased deterioration or flaking of lead based paint for example). The Green Book expands it to " filth caused by moisture. " The longer the time the more complex the filth.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> " Exposure to contaminants resulting from water damage in buildings may cause a

> variety of symptoms in some people "

> Like that? Is that good? Should it maybe be " microbial contaminants " ?

>

>

> Remember, this is a middle ground statement between

>

> Mold will grow and it will almost certainly make you sick

>

> and

>

> Mold doesn't harm anyone.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> BUY Indiana and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull on DVD today!

>

[Guest guest]

Sort of like a rain forest.. more biodiversity.

The opposite is a desert. Less water = less life.

> Sharon,

> I suggest you use " contaminant " only and not specify which ones. This is if

> you rely on the IOM which includes amplification of rodents and insects plus

> chemical releases from water damaged buildings. HUD Healthy Homes course

> includes these plus secondary events (increased deterioration or flaking of

> lead based paint for example). The Green Book expands it to " filth caused by

> moisture. " The longer the time the more complex the filth.

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

> -