What concentrations of toxins in air can give health effects ?

[Guest guest]

2. As for your statement:

"Is a level of aprox. 0,7 ng/m3 of "xxxx" in air a concentration that,

in other settings, is considered by toxicologists or others to be

able to cause health effects ?"

The lowest well-recognized limit for a solid aerosol would be subtilisins

(enzymes derived from Bacillus subtilis) at 60 ng/m3. The end point

protected against is respiratory sensitization. It is empirically derived

from human data primarily in the detergent industry. It has been followed

up with murine (mouse) models.

Ole Carlson asked a question about the lowest concentration of an airborne contaminant capable of causing health effects. Sensitization is not a health effect, per se. It is an acquired immune system hyper-reactivity (more of a chemical injury, really). A responsive answer to Ole's question would have referred to the level of a contaminant capable of eliciting a reaction. What would be the lowest level of exposure capable of causing a sensitized person to react? The triggering concentration that causes the health effect is not derived empirically. It is often denied emphatically.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Ole Carlson

Regarding:

" Found this study:

Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-damaged

building.

by: C Gottschalk, J Bauer, K Meyer

Mycopathologia, Vol. 166, No. 2. (August 2008), pp. 103-107. "

Response:

1. Thanks for actually looking for the literature.

2. As for your statement:

" Is a level of aprox. 0,7 ng/m3 of " xxxx " in air a concentration that,

in other settings, is considered by toxicologists or others to be

able to cause health effects ? "

The lowest well-recognized limit for a solid aerosol would be subtilisins

(enzymes derived from Bacillus subtilis) at 60 ng/m3. The end point

protected against is respiratory sensitization. It is empirically derived

from human data primarily in the detergent industry. It has been followed

up with murine (mouse) models.

Please do not presume that because a substance is present and an effect is

observed that the two are related directly or indirectly. I read your piece

as believing this to be so.

3. Apparently history repeats itself around here. See my response to

this article from 07-16-2008:

From: Tony Havics [aahavics@...]

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:26 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a

water-damaged

Quack:

Regarding:

Mycopathologia. 2008 Aug;166(2):103-7. Epub 2008 Apr 29.

Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-damaged building.

1. Let's see:

0.25 ng/m3

+

0.43 ng/m3

= 0.68 ng/m3

2. Then let's assume 20m3/day for a 55 kg woman (more conservative than

a man).

ng/m3 m3 ng kg mg/kg

0.68 20 13.6 55 0.0000010

So dose is 0.000001 mg/kg.

3. The smallest LOAEL I could find for a mycotoxin is:

LOAEL is DON = 0.03 mg/kg (28-day study)

4. So the safety factor is:

30,000

5. Try again.

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

" 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]

AirwaysEnv@... wrote:

The triggering concentration that causes the health effect is not

derived empirically. It is often denied emphatically.

Steve Temes

>

When I found that my " emotional responses " corresponded to specific

locations, I decided that the " psychologizers " had it all wrong, and

that this so called " depression " was Natures own way of inducing an

animal to alter its circumstances.

If an uneasy mental state is a consistent response to a location,

any " dumb animal " would eventually decide to be elsewhere.

Humans have decided they are much too intelligent to be fooled by

these sensations, and ignore them.

I was in a sick building, and watched a girl came into the office and

almost collapse, panicky and breathless, wondering what was

happening. The people in the office went into " counseling mode " and

started seeking out and inventing mental explanations for her

discomfort:

" Anxiety from an unfamiliar environment " " Hyperventilation as a

response to altitude, since you just came up to the mountains from a

lower level " " a combination of unknown factors and accumulated

stress " . " Fluky panic attack " , and the advice was to sit with her

head down and BREATH.

I walked over and said " Ridiculous! This is a sick building, you are

a mold responder, and you just got a good whiff of the spore plume

down at the entrance "

I described where the plume was, and how I rely on my perceptions to

detect such places, and learned to hold my breath when passing

through that area. I had the girl taken outside to the fresh air,

holding her breath through the " bad zone " and she quickly recovered

outside.

Amazed, she put the concept to the test and learned that she can

safely pass in and out of the building as long as she holds her

breath while in the plumed zone.

Once her immune system was upregulated, the breathing exercise that

others had counseled her to do in that bad building was

counterproductive and only made her more anxious and scared.

Had she responded as an animal might, sensing the association between

the disomfort and the place, she might have been guided to hold her

breath and get the heck out of there as quickly as possible.

It was the " All In Your Head " rationalizations that intellectually

overpowered what is basically a natural response to toxic perception.

Amazingly enough, I put " Depression: The Sixth Sense " in the bmj

rapid responses.... and got not one single response to this concept.

How do the " All In Your Head " blamers manage to sustain their notions

when this simple explanation is so straightforward and demonstrable

that when people finally experience it, they always respond:

" Why, Of Course! It's just COMMON SENSE "

-MW

[Guest guest]

Steve,

Perhaps the illustration developed by Ashford and in Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes would be informative. In fact, now that I think about it, I believe it illustrates the discussion we are having.

They first show the Bell curve for toxicity. Then they overlay the curve for atopy. The third curve is sensitivity.

All are based on a type of physiological reaction, not all of which are toxic. The atopy curve begins prior to the toxicity curve, is not as high, and ends after toxicity begins (overlap). Sensitivity begins near zero, has a very low slope showing that not many react, but it also over laps toxicity. All three curves overlap at some point, thus making differentiation between sensitivity, atopy and toxicity impossible at those exposure levels.

Without the context of all three together, " common sense " and scientific measurements tell us there is nothing but toxicity, therefore there can be nothing before the first occurance (of toxicity).

Choose your starting point and then debate. Without agreement on that we can all be correct but none are sufficient.

Then, as so eloquently describes (paraphrase) if we paid at least as much attention to our direct experience as we do to illustrations and laws of statistical calculations we'd know when to stay and when to leave a particular location. If we didn't have this natural capability and pay attention to when we didn't feel well and got " unhappy " (depressed), man would never have evolved beyond the caves. We would not have evolved because we would have been killed because we didn't flee.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> In a message dated 2/9/2009 9:07:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, aahavics@...

> writes:

> 2. As for your statement:

>

> " Is a level of aprox. 0,7 ng/m3 of " xxxx " in air a concentration that,

> in other settings, is considered by toxicologists or others to be

> able to cause health effects ? "

>

> The lowest well-recognized limit for a solid aerosol would be subtilisins

> (enzymes derived from Bacillus subtilis) at 60 ng/m3. The end point

> protected against is respiratory sensitization. It is empirically derived

> from human data primarily in the detergent industry. It has been followed

> up with murine (mouse) models.

>

>

> Ole Carlson asked a question about the lowest concentration of an airborne

> contaminant capable of causing health effects.Sensitization is not a health effect, per se. It

> is an acquired immune system hyper-reactivity (more of a chemical injury, really). A

> responsive answer to Ole's question would have referred to the level of a contaminant

> capable of eliciting a reaction. What would be the lowest level of exposure capable of

> causing a sensitized person to react? The triggering concentration that causes the health

> effect is not derived empirically. It is often denied emphatically.

>

> Steve Temes

>

>

[Guest guest]

Great observations; we are so smart that we are stupid. Even offensive odours that are intended to get us to do a search and clean or avoid are now covered up with air fresheners (that are often 100% toxic materials -toxic to some degree anyway Tony).

Jim H. White SSC

Re: What concentrations of toxins in air can give health effects ?

AirwaysEnv@... wrote:The triggering concentration that causes the health effect is not derived empirically. It is often denied emphatically.Steve Temes>When I found that my "emotional responses" corresponded to specific locations, I decided that the "psychologizers" had it all wrong, and that this so called "depression" was Natures own way of inducing an animal to alter its circumstances. If an uneasy mental state is a consistent response to a location, any "dumb animal" would eventually decide to be elsewhere.Humans have decided they are much too intelligent to be fooled by these sensations, and ignore them. I was in a sick building, and watched a girl came into the office and almost collapse, panicky and breathless, wondering what was happening. The people in the office went into "counseling mode" and started seeking out and inventing mental explanations for her discomfort: "Anxiety from an unfamiliar environment" "Hyperventilation as a response to altitude, since you just came up to the mountains from a lower level" "a combination of unknown factors and accumulated stress". "Fluky panic attack", and the advice was to sit with her head down and BREATH.I walked over and said "Ridiculous! This is a sick building, you are a mold responder, and you just got a good whiff of the spore plume down at the entrance"I described where the plume was, and how I rely on my perceptions to detect such places, and learned to hold my breath when passing through that area. I had the girl taken outside to the fresh air, holding her breath through the "bad zone" and she quickly recovered outside.Amazed, she put the concept to the test and learned that she can safely pass in and out of the building as long as she holds her breath while in the plumed zone.Once her immune system was upregulated, the breathing exercise that others had counseled her to do in that bad building was counterproductive and only made her more anxious and scared.Had she responded as an animal might, sensing the association between the disomfort and the place, she might have been guided to hold her breath and get the heck out of there as quickly as possible.It was the "All In Your Head" rationalizations that intellectually overpowered what is basically a natural response to toxic perception.Amazingly enough, I put "Depression: The Sixth Sense" in the bmj rapid responses.... and got not one single response to this concept.How do the "All In Your Head" blamers manage to sustain their notions when this simple explanation is so straightforward and demonstrable that when people finally experience it, they always respond:"Why, Of Course! It's just COMMON SENSE"-MW

[Guest guest]

Stuart,

I interpret 's post a little differently. I don't necessarily see him saying anecdotal trumps science, more like he can't wait for science to catch up to his experience before he acts to protect himself. And he shouldn't be diminished just because he's learned how to help others who are sensitive but in denial, or in a state of ignorance.

My addition to that is if we want to make a claim against someone vs take care of ourself, then a different level and type of knowledge is required. If that claim becomes medical, then an even different level and type of evidence is required. Same for when it moves to the legal realm or the regulatory.

Which ball game are we playing? American football? Canadian football? Or Soccer? We have to keep the rules straight and I don't think we are doing a good job of that in this discussion.

Which raises the question of which method (rules) of knowledge and verification is the " truth? " Does the most difficult method mean it has more truthyness? Does that mean individuals have an obligation to sit quietly and wait? Or do they have an obligation to yell " Fire! " in a crowded theater when they detect smoke but no flames? Or do they wait for the fire department to arrive before they leave? Whistleblowers have never been appreciated but that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong. Doesn't make them right either. How do we tell the difference?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or

> random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:

> anecdotal evidence.

>

> So its individual observations that presume 'blame' of causation. Its

> not science.

> If we agree that it isnt science thenwhy do you expect

> science/medicine to accept your theories. Even if science decides to

> investigate your theories using its own techniques and mechanisms you

> will have to wait and see if it agrees with them.

> Thats the process. Whether you like/accept it or not.

> Feel free to get your own PhD and work from within.

> But Im sure its much easier to sit on the sidelines of science and

> claim 'knowledge'.

>

> Stuart

>

>

> > >

> > > ,

> > >

> > > Thats the big difference between a scientist and non-scientist.

> You

> > > are starting from an effect and presuming to know the cause. A

> > > scientist starts from an effect and presumes he doesnt know the

> > > cause...

> > >

> > > A scientist bases their 'knowledge' on what is 'known'. If

> something

> > > isnt 'known' then it cant be presumed. When dealing with the

> unknown

> > > one must assume all variables may be a factor. But before one can

> > > isolate the specific variable one has to know what all the

> variables

> > > are.

> > >

> > > Stuart

> >

> >

> > Stuart, you have described precisely where " scientists " lost their

> way.

> > They based their presumptions on what is " known " ...in their

> literature,

> > and they are completely helpless in the face of new paradigms.

> >

> > Their mindset allows their " presumption of knowledge " to over-rule

> she

> > observations of thousands of " anecdotal " stories.

> >

> > While " mold responders " may not know all the variables, they do

> know

> > that when they are in the presence of mold - they get sick.

> >

> > This isn't rocket science here.

> > Perhaps that's why rocket scientists can't understand it.

> > -MoldWarrior

> >

>

>

>

>

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

>

> 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]

" Stuart " wrote:

>

> anecdotal - based on personal observation, case study reports, or

> random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation:

> anecdotal evidence.

>

> So its individual observations that presume 'blame' of causation.

Its

> not science.

> If we agree that it isnt science thenwhy do you expect

> science/medicine to accept your theories. Even if science decides

to

> investigate your theories using its own techniques and mechanisms

you

> will have to wait and see if it agrees with them.

> Thats the process. Whether you like/accept it or not.

> Feel free to get your own PhD and work from within.

> But Im sure its much easier to sit on the sidelines of science and

> claim 'knowledge'.

>

> Stuart

Stuart, I can't recall having any " theories " .

This is just a simple observation.

People are crawling out of their houses, claiming " My House Is

Kiling Me " and have narrowed the culprit down to mold.

Quite a few books have been written about this subject.

Have you not observed this phenomenon yet?

Trust me, you will.

Judging by the strange belief of PhD's that if a mold survivor

cannot proved irrefutable peer reviewed literature to back up his

claims, that the phenonenon cannot exist and is not worth

investigating, it appears that doctoral " indoctrination " creates a

close-minded conceptual hindrance to anything that hasn't been

already been proven - as we saw with the whole H Pylori debacle.

If by chance, you happen to browse through " Mold Warriors " by Dr

Ritchie Shoemaker, you may be pleasantly surprised to discover that

we have an amazing amount of very compelling science that confirms

our anecdotal experience.

-MoldWarrior

[Guest guest]

Fair enough Carl.

I was playing with language to make a point.

But I think the communication problem we have is almost religous in

nature. Maybe not faithful vs aethiest. But certainly at the level of

catholic vs protestant.

On one hand we have a group who is convinced they 'know' the cause

and seems to want Science to accept their Knowledge as Truth. Then

they get all upset when Science rebuffs them.

Isnt this the same situation as exists with autism? The one

difference being that science is actively engaged in autism research.

But the vaccine lobby isnt satisfied because Science is not

considering their Truth that its the vaccines to blame. It doesnt

matter that the problem of autism is getting attention.

I think we have the same situation here and one group is never going

to be satisfied unless their Truth is validated.

Well science doesnt work that way and thats just the way it is.

Sure we all agree that doctors should be trained to recognise a

potential environmental component/contributor of a disease state. But

thats a significant difference from saying doctors should be trained

to recognise mold illness.

Sharon et al should continue with their advocacy and helping

individuals deal with their specific situations. But they also need

to realise that unless they changed their message presentation they

will not get much traction in Science. Its not wrong or right. Its

just the way it is.

I really hope I can get to Orlando for that meeting...

Stuart

> > > >

> > > > ,

> > > >

> > > > Thats the big difference between a scientist and non-

scientist.

> > You

> > > > are starting from an effect and presuming to know the cause.

A

> > > > scientist starts from an effect and presumes he doesnt know

the

> > > > cause...

> > > >

> > > > A scientist bases their 'knowledge' on what is 'known'. If

> > something

> > > > isnt 'known' then it cant be presumed. When dealing with the

> > unknown

> > > > one must assume all variables may be a factor. But before one

can

> > > > isolate the specific variable one has to know what all the

> > variables

> > > > are.

> > > >

> > > > Stuart

> > >

> > >

> > > Stuart, you have described precisely where " scientists " lost

their

> > way.

> > > They based their presumptions on what is " known " ...in their

> > literature,

> > > and they are completely helpless in the face of new paradigms.

> > >

> > > Their mindset allows their " presumption of knowledge " to over-

rule

> > she

> > > observations of thousands of " anecdotal " stories.

> > >

> > > While " mold responders " may not know all the variables, they

do

> > know

> > > that when they are in the presence of mold - they get sick.

> > >

> > > This isn't rocket science here.

> > > Perhaps that's why rocket scientists can't understand it.

> > > -MoldWarrior

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> > 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]

Tony,Regarding:> Mycopathologia. 2008 Aug;166(2):103-7. Epub 2008 Apr 29.> Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-damaged building.> > > 1. Let's see:> > 0.25 ng/m3 > +> 0.43 ng/m3 > > = 0.68 ng/m3 > > 2. Then let's assume 20m3/day for a 55 kg woman (more conservative than> a man).> > ng/m3 m3 ng kg mg/kg> 0.68 20 13.6 55 0.0000010> > So dose is 0.000001 mg/kg.> > 3. The smallest LOAEL I could find for a mycotoxin is:> > LOAEL is DON = 0.03 mg/kg (28-day study)Response:A couple of points -1) DON is one of the weakest trichtothecenes. T-2 toxin is considered to be 421 times more toxic than DON (1*). Satratoxin is considered to be 5 times more toxic than T-2 toxin (2*).2) The LOAEL you gave is not the lowest LOAEL for trichothecenes. E.g.:ROBERT W. WANNEMACHER, JR., PH.D.

*; AND STANLEY L. WIENER, M.D.

Chapter 34TRICHOTHECENE MYCOTOXINS http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/chemBio/Ch34.pdf---------------------------------------------------------When delivered at low doses, trichothecene mycotoxins cause skin, eye, and gastrointestinal problems. In nanogram amounts, 4,25 they (T-2 toxin, in particular) cause severe skin irritation (erythema,edema, and necrosis). 4,6 Skin vesication has been observed in a number of humans exposed to yellow rain attacks. 4,14,15 T-2 toxin is about 400-fold more potent (50 ng vs 20 µg) than mustard in producing skin injury.26---------------------------------------------------------And this is when one doesn't even take a possible hypersensitivity to these toxins into account.3) Trichothecenes are more toxic via inhalation route, as opposed to oral, dermal and intravenous route. (3*)

(1*) http://books.google.com/books?id=MSaiFyXFDpAC & pg=PA180

(2*) http://www.cbwinfo.com/Biological/Toxins/Satra.html

(3*) http://www.cbwinfo.com/Biological/Toxins/T2.html> 4. So the safety factor is:> > 30,000Most definitely not.-Branislav

[Guest guest]

Hi, all:

I have (I think with good reason) stayed away from this discussion,

because it touches all the 'hot buttons' that have been a part of

indoor air quality investigations, including mold growth inspections,

since the beginning of this field in the late 1970's and early

1980's. Industrial hygiene practice, at that time, was focussed on

industrial exposures in factories, manufacturing facilities, and

mines. When some of us started to look at possible occupational

illnesses in offices, the rest of the industrial hygiene profession

thought that we were 'crazy' to conduct air monitoring in these

environments.

The 'science', at the time, told us that these were mininal

exposures, that people in offices were not likely to become ill due

to chemical exposures because the airborne concentrations were well

below the Threshold Limit Values (TLV's), sometimes ten times lower

than the TLV for a given chemical. Why would anyone become ill at

those concentrations? We were called 'environmental terrorists', and

were considered to be on a wild goose chase. I have very good

colleagues who still have trouble wrapping their minds around the

idea that extremely low levels of chemicals, for hypersensitive

individuals, can produce adverse health effects.

Gradually, over a long time, this possibility was accepted by the

profession. However, there was always the undertone, in some

circles, that this was really industrial hygiene, but some side show

that did not really belong as part of the profession. Real IH's

didn't perform IAQ sampling. Certainly they didn't conduct asbestos,

lead paint or radon sampling, especially if it required that they get

a state accreditation or license!

So, for most of my professional career, I have been an 'outlaw', in

the view of many of my colleagues. It has been become a comfortable

position to be in, at least lately.

For mold: I do not know what will be the final outcome of the

medical research and scientific research as to what is causing the

illnesses that so many have been affected with, when they have

subject to wet/moldy buildings. I hope that I will be alive when it

is finally determined as to what is the cause of these illnesses. I

do believe that they are 'real', as real as any other illness we as

humans experience.

For my work, it really doesn't matter. I take it to be a public

health issue and use the precautionary principle. Mold, to me, is

filth, that no one should have to live with. So, we take the

necessary precautions to remove it, and clean the area. My role, as

a consultant, to make sure that the remediation is adequate to make

sure that the mold is gone, and that it will not return. I require

that the mold remediation be completed inside of a containment, and

that negative air ventilation is utilized, to reduce the mold spores

entering into non-contained areas. I require that the mold

remediators wear N-95 respirators.

For that, I am told that I am using 'asbestos methods' to remediate

mold, and I am chastised for using these methods. I am overdoing it,

and treating mold as if it was a hazardous material. I am back to

being an 'environmental terrorist', and demeaning the profession.

On the other hand, the individuals who have been made sick by the

mold think that I am not doing enough. I should be working

diligently to get the government to make mold remediation required

for all buildings where mold has been found. The sampling I am

conducting is not sensitive enough, and it does not detect lower

enough concentrations. Any levels of airborne mold spores must

necessiate a mold remediation.

So, it is constantly a balancing act, between the 'science' of

industrial hygiene, and the 'art' of risk communication to those

affected, or not affected, by mold. I think that most of the

consultants on this list are attempting to keep that balance,

although it can be quite difficult at times. Perhaps we need, as a

group, to remember that there is a common ground regarding this

area.

1)Namely, no one should live with 'filth'.

2)No building should be consistently 'wet'.

3)All 'filth' should be adequately and completely cleaned up.

With those common ground principles, I think we can agree on much,

and set aside our disagreements until more data is available.

Don

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Thats the big difference between a scientist and non-

> > scientist.

> > > > You

> > > > > > are starting from an effect and presuming to know the

cause.

> > A

> > > > > > scientist starts from an effect and presumes he doesnt

know

> > the

> > > > > > cause...

> > > > > >

> > > > > > A scientist bases their 'knowledge' on what is 'known'.

If

> > > > something

> > > > > > isnt 'known' then it cant be presumed. When dealing with

the

> > > > unknown

> > > > > > one must assume all variables may be a factor. But before

one

> > can

> > > > > > isolate the specific variable one has to know what all

the

> > > > variables

> > > > > > are.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Stuart

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Stuart, you have described precisely where " scientists "

lost

> > their

> > > > way.

> > > > > They based their presumptions on what is " known " ...in their

> > > > literature,

> > > > > and they are completely helpless in the face of new

paradigms.

> > > > >

> > > > > Their mindset allows their " presumption of knowledge " to

over-

> > rule

> > > > she

> > > > > observations of thousands of " anecdotal " stories.

> > > > >

> > > > > While " mold responders " may not know all the variables,

they

> > do

> > > > know

> > > > > that when they are in the presence of mold - they get sick.

> > > > >

> > > > > This isn't rocket science here.

> > > > > Perhaps that's why rocket scientists can't understand it.

> > > > > -MoldWarrior

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

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

> > > >

> > > > 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]

Don

Amen I say unto you, Amen!

Jim

Re: What concentrations of toxins in air can give health effects ?

Hi, all:I have (I think with good reason) stayed away from this discussion, because it touches all the 'hot buttons' that have been a part of indoor air quality investigations, including mold growth inspections, since the beginning of this field in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Industrial hygiene practice, at that time, was focussed on industrial exposures in factories, manufacturing facilities, and mines. When some of us started to look at possible occupational illnesses in offices, the rest of the industrial hygiene profession thought that we were 'crazy' to conduct air monitoring in these environments.The 'science', at the time, told us that these were mininal exposures, that people in offices were not likely to become ill due to chemical exposures because the airborne concentrations were well below the Threshold Limit Values (TLV's), sometimes ten times lower than the TLV for a given chemical. Why would anyone become ill at those concentrations? We were called 'environmental terrorists', and were considered to be on a wild goose chase. I have very good colleagues who still have trouble wrapping their minds around the idea that extremely low levels of chemicals, for hypersensitive individuals, can produce adverse health effects.Gradually, over a long time, this possibility was accepted by the profession. However, there was always the undertone, in some circles, that this was really industrial hygiene, but some side show that did not really belong as part of the profession. Real IH's didn't perform IAQ sampling. Certainly they didn't conduct asbestos, lead paint or radon sampling, especially if it required that they get a state accreditation or license!So, for most of my professional career, I have been an 'outlaw', in the view of many of my colleagues. It has been become a comfortable position to be in, at least lately. :)For mold: I do not know what will be the final outcome of the medical research and scientific research as to what is causing the illnesses that so many have been affected with, when they have subject to wet/moldy buildings. I hope that I will be alive when it is finally determined as to what is the cause of these illnesses. I do believe that they are 'real', as real as any other illness we as humans experience.For my work, it really doesn't matter. I take it to be a public health issue and use the precautionary principle. Mold, to me, is filth, that no one should have to live with. So, we take the necessary precautions to remove it, and clean the area. My role, as a consultant, to make sure that the remediation is adequate to make sure that the mold is gone, and that it will not return. I require that the mold remediation be completed inside of a containment, and that negative air ventilation is utilized, to reduce the mold spores entering into non-contained areas. I require that the mold remediators wear N-95 respirators.For that, I am told that I am using 'asbestos methods' to remediate mold, and I am chastised for using these methods. I am overdoing it, and treating mold as if it was a hazardous material. I am back to being an 'environmental terrorist', and demeaning the profession.On the other hand, the individuals who have been made sick by the mold think that I am not doing enough. I should be working diligently to get the government to make mold remediation required for all buildings where mold has been found. The sampling I am conducting is not sensitive enough, and it does not detect lower enough concentrations. Any levels of airborne mold spores must necessiate a mold remediation.So, it is constantly a balancing act, between the 'science' of industrial hygiene, and the 'art' of risk communication to those affected, or not affected, by mold. I think that most of the consultants on this list are attempting to keep that balance, although it can be quite difficult at times. Perhaps we need, as a group, to remember that there is a common ground regarding this area. 1)Namely, no one should live with 'filth'. 2)No building should be consistently 'wet'. 3)All 'filth' should be adequately and completely cleaned up.With those common ground principles, I think we can agree on much, and set aside our disagreements until more data is available.Don> > > > > >> > > > > > ,> > > > > > > > > > > > Thats the big difference between a scientist and non-> > scientist. > > > > You > > > > > > are starting from an effect and presuming to know the cause. > > A > > > > > > scientist starts from an effect and presumes he doesnt know > > the > > > > > > cause...> > > > > > > > > > > > A scientist bases their 'knowledge' on what is 'known'. If > > > > something > > > > > > isnt 'known' then it cant be presumed. When dealing with the > > > > unknown > > > > > > one must assume all variables may be a factor. But before one > > can > > > > > > isolate the specific variable one has to know what all the > > > > variables > > > > > > are.> > > > > > > > > > > > Stuart> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stuart, you have described precisely where "scientists" lost > > their > > > > way.> > > > > They based their presumptions on what is "known"...in their > > > > literature, > > > > > and they are completely helpless in the face of new paradigms.> > > > > > > > > > Their mindset allows their "presumption of knowledge" to over-> > rule > > > > she > > > > > observations of thousands of "anecdotal" stories.> > > > > > > > > > While "mold responders" may not know all the variables, they > > do > > > > know > > > > > that when they are in the presence of mold - they get sick.> > > > > > > > > > This isn't rocket science here.> > > > > Perhaps that's why rocket scientists can't understand it.> > > > > -MoldWarrior> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------> > > > > > > > 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.