Re: A solution on Toxic Mold

[Guest guest]

Mr. Temes and others –

In short, there is far too much ambiguity that results from nonsense terms like “toxic molds†and Dr. Kung'u’s description lacked the kind of precision that leads to more confusion among the general population and “household mold experts.†For a start, Dr. Kung'u described a toxigenic mold not a “toxic mold.†Secondly, the concept of “the dose makes the poison†as correctly pointed out by Dr. Mullen can be extended to both ends of the dose/response spectrum wherein there is no compound (or substance) that is so innocuous that a large enough dose will not result in a toxic response and conversely there is no compound (substance) that is so “poisonous†that a small enough dose will not be innocuous. This is true for even “extremely toxic†and “non-toxic†materials such as water wherein a large enough consumption can result in death (and I’m not talking about drowning). Similarly, there are also toxic responses to water found in other tissues especially for distilled water.

This leads to the comments by Temes and Grimes. If we take your non-scientific notions and loose language and lack of understanding about toxicology and microbiology then we need also to be talking about “toxic peanuts,†“toxic milk,†“toxic celery,†and indeed begin putting the word “toxic†in front of virtually everything to which humans may be exposed (including oxygen). Eventually, as we have seen in some goofy “mold expert†reports and the uneducated news media, we get to a point were the premise upon which a public discussion takes place is so tiered, that an expert may say one thing, being precisely correct, but it will be completely misinterpreted by a “lay-expert†to mean something completely different (and incorrect). Happens all the time.

The reality is that science, like law, is sometimes a war of words and if you don’t understand the language and can differentiate terms like “toxic,†“toxin,†“poison,†“hazard,†“risk,†and â€exposure,†etc, you are going to spend a lot of time misinterpreting the information found in scientific journals and in communications between scientists.

We already have precise words, borne of understood concepts, to cover substances whose physiological responses are either non-linear or non-dose related or are complicated by individual sensitivities or complicating pathologies; it is best to learn the concepts that allow the correct use of those words. We don’t need ambiguities clouding the issue by misapplication of other words usually spewed out by 3-day wonder “mold experts†who in truth wouldn’t know a mycotoxin from a secondary metabolite if it walked up and introduced itself and/or who knows nought about toxicology.

There are participants on this page whom I have gone up against in legal cases who still haven’t got a grasp of the basic tenants involved. And indeed, who still fill peoples houses with ozone as a way to “cure†the house of “toxic moldsâ€! Ozone for goodness sakes… now THAT’s more toxic than the mold!

Excuse my ire... it probably stems more from my many years of teaching toxicology at university and college level than my position as Chairman of the Cranky Old Chemist Society. But then again… maybe not; its a good day to be cranky.

Cheers,

Caoimhín P. Connell

<SMALL>(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG</SMALL>

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Connell:

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I do not use the term "toxic mold" (except in quotes) and do not take exception to any of your scientific definitions and essentially agree with the facts you present. However, when it comes to mold and negative health effects, it is mostly about individual sensitivities. To talk about the dose making the poison in this context is not helpful to the many people with hypersensitivities. It was only this point that I intended to comment upon.

You write:

We already have precise words, borne of understood concepts, to cover substances whose physiological responses are either non-linear or non-dose related or are complicated by individual sensitivities or complicating pathologies; it is best to learn the concepts that allow the correct use of those words. We don’t need ambiguities clouding the issue by misapplication of other words usually spewed out by 3-day wonder “mold experts†who in truth wouldn’t know a mycotoxin from a secondary metabolite if it walked up and introduced itself and/or who knows nought about toxicology.

My response to this is that we should be talking much more about individual sensitivities and much less about "toxic mold". It is the application of the vague term "allergic effects" in the scientific literature that concerns me. These effects can be totally debilitating and prevent people from living or working in certain contaminated environments.

You seem to want to avoid honest discussions about how mold DOES affect human health. Correcting the popular media's hype of the "toxic" aspects of mold is one thing, not acknowledging mold as an indoor environmental health issue is quite another. I would appreciate a more balanced and sincere account of mold-related health issues on your part.

The "encrypted" scientific terms you use (...physiological responses are either non-linear or non-dose related or are complicated by individual sensitivities or complicating pathologies) tells me that you know very well how mold affects people. I will acknowledge that the term "poison" does not technically apply to indoor molds, but I would ask you to acknowledge that the negative health effects regarding indoor mold cannot always be evaluated by looking at the "dose" of exposure. In my view, the expression "The dose makes the poison" is deliberately used by some (and by you) to downplay the very real health effects associated with water-damaged buildings.

For many of those years you were working in laboratories and teaching college level toxicology, I was investigating the causes of building-related health effects. I was meeting and interviewing real people with health problems and inspecting their indoor environments and helping them resolve these problems. I would like to hear more from you about how you have helped people with your "hundreds of mold remediation projects". I can't imagine that you will say that all of those remediation jobs were unnecessary for health reasons and that you only did them for the money or for the psychological benefit -- but maybe I'm wrong.

Incidentally, although none have introduced themselves to me as such, I believe that mycotoxins ARE secondary metabolites.

Respectfully,

Steve Temes

Mr. Temes and others –

In short, there is far too much ambiguity that results from nonsense terms like “toxic molds†and Dr. Kung'u’s description lacked the kind of precision that leads to more confusion among the general population and “household mold experts.†For a start, Dr. Kung'u described a toxigenic mold not a “toxic mold.†Secondly, the concept of “the dose makes the poison†as correctly pointed out by Dr. Mullen can be extended to both ends of the dose/response spectrum wherein there is no compound (or substance) that is so innocuous that a large enough dose will not result in a toxic response and conversely there is no compound (substance) that is so “poisonous†that a small enough dose will not be innocuous. This is true for even “extremely toxic†and “non-toxic†materials such as water wherein a large enough consumption can result in death (and I’m not talking about drowning). Similarly, there are also toxic responses to water found in other tissues especially for distilled water.

This leads to the comments by Temes and Grimes. If we take your non-scientific notions and loose language and lack of understanding about toxicology and microbiology then we need also to be talking about “toxic peanuts,†“toxic milk,†“toxic celery,†and indeed begin putting the word “toxic†in front of virtually everything to which humans may be exposed (including oxygen). Eventually, as we have seen in some goofy “mold expert†reports and the uneducated news media, we get to a point were the premise upon which a public discussion takes place is so tiered, that an expert may say one thing, being precisely correct, but it will be completely misinterpreted by a “lay-expert†to mean something completely different (and incorrect). Happens all the time.

The reality is that science, like law, is sometimes a war of words and if you don’t understand the language and can differentiate terms like “toxic,†“toxin,†“poison,†“hazard,†“risk,†and â€exposure,†etc, you are going to spend a lot of time misinterpreting the information found in scientific journals and in communications between scientists.

We already have precise words, borne of understood concepts, to cover substances whose physiological responses are either non-linear or non-dose related or are complicated by individual sensitivities or complicating pathologies; it is best to learn the concepts that allow the correct use of those words. We don’t need ambiguities clouding the issue by misapplication of other words usually spewed out by 3-day wonder “mold experts†who in truth wouldn’t know a mycotoxin from a secondary metabolite if it walked up and introduced itself and/or who knows nought about toxicology.

There are participants on this page whom I have gone up against in legal cases who still haven’t got a grasp of the basic tenants involved. And indeed, who still fill peoples houses with ozone as a way to “cure†the house of “toxic moldsâ€! Ozone for goodness sakes… now THAT’s more toxic than the mold!

Excuse my ire... it probably stems more from my many years of teaching toxicology at university and college level than my position as Chairman of the Cranky Old Chemist Society. But then again… maybe not; its a good day to be cranky.

Cheers,

Caoimhín P. Connell

[Guest guest]

Hello Mr. Temes –

If I have mistaken you with someone else or attributed to you opinions you don

’t hold, I sincerely apologize for my error. However, your response

positively underscores my concerns.

We do NOT deny the adverse physiological effects of molds or of fungi, and we

never have. As early as about 1990, well before the infamous and now

discredited report on Stachybotrys that appeared in the MMWR, I worked on a

coccidiomycosis case wherein I prepared a very detailed presentation of this

fungal

invasion for court-room presentation. I have not been cloistered in an Ivory

Tower; while I have been teaching, I have also been investigating indoor

microbial exposures since about 1989. I have collected thousands of air samples

and

performed hundreds of interviews and solved scores upon scores of IAQ

problems.

Systemic invasions by a variety of fungal entities and even some molds such

as the Aspergilli are well documented and have been for YEARS. Events of the

last decade concerning indoor molds is no ancient mystery solved or brand new

discovery.

Those of us who deal in risk and the science behind illness and exposures are

accused of “downplaying†the “hazards†when in fact, we doing nothing

other

than sticking to the facts and putting the risks into perspective.

In your response you indicate that you believe the well defined concept

denoted by “allergic effects†is a “vague term†when in fact, there is

nothing

vague about it at all, rather, your understanding of it is unclear, and

therefore, you perceive “allergic effects†as vague and implying an

inconsequential

innocuous response. In truth, when used precisely by the experts, “allergic

effects†is very meaningful and indicate very well defined physiological

responses and a variety of possible pathologies. However, since your use of the

term

is a layman’s use, you think it “downplays†the physiological response

because you don’t understand what it means.

As proof, you try to argue that contrary to allergic effects, the effects of

molds “… can be totally debilitating and prevent people from living or

working in certain contaminated environments.†When in fact, a scientist who

uses

the phrase “allergic effects†may well be cautioning against anaphylactic

attack and death – just about as debilitating as you can get and hardly “

downplaying†the response. Look at toxic shock syndrome for goodness sake,

that is “

merely†an allergic effect – does that mean that when we define it as such

we are attempting to downplay the effect? Of course not, we are being precise.

You think “allergic response†exclusively mean a sniffley nose and when I

say a fungal or microbial entity produces an “allergic response†(or more

precisely an hypersensitivity response) YOU think I’m downplaying because YOU

think I mean a sniffly nose. But when I use the term, I may be running the

spectrum from an Arthus reaction, to a TDH to cytolytic anemia to T-cell beta

chain

binding. The confusion lies in your lack of understanding of what I am saying

– not some insidious attempt by me to downplay the effects.

We don’t use “encrypted†scientific terms, we use the language of the

science and they are only encrypted if you don’t have the foundational

understanding

to know what they mean. It isn’t a mystery, or a closed order or some

insidious conspiracy as some have proposed (Indeed, a few years ago it was

rumoured

that I earn 5 million dollars a year heading up an insurance misinformation

group.) We don’t downplay the hazards as much as the “chemophobes†and

“

fungiphobes†(to steal a phrase) hype the risks beyond comprehension (and

frequently beyond physiological possibility).

“Incidentally, although none have introduced themselves to me as such, I

believe that mycotoxins ARE secondary metabolites.†Thanks for making my

point.

My point is that the overwhelming vast majority of 3-day “mold experts†I

have encountered view mycotoxins as some kind of magic – they don’t

understand

growth phases, they don’t understand microbiological metabolism and they

don’t

understand what mycotoxins are, or how – when- or why they are produced.

[edit]

My intent is not to make disparaging remarks, but one gets tired of battling

the nonsense of self-proclaimed mold experts who primarily prey off the fears

and vulnerabilities of others and then peddle nonsensical cures at exorbitant

prices. Be sure, Mr. Temes, I am absolutely NOT suggesting that you are one

of those people- I don’t know you and have no idea what you do or don’t do

for

a living and based on your discussions I presume that you are not involved in

a professional manner in IAQ or microbiological issues– rather I am saying

that those people are out there and they peddle mold fear; and facts are their

worst enemy.

I hope that clears a few things up.

Cheers,

Caoimhín P. Connell

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not

necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, peers, or

professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not

reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional

advice of others.)

AMDG