Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 This is not news or new information. Mycotoxin levels in moldy homes was studied extensively in Finland a number of years ago. Their research showed: 1. Mycotoxin levels are no where near what would produce any health effects 2. Mycotoxin levels did not correlate to amount of mold growth 3. Testing for mycotoxins is not necessary in managing mold problems Of course, typical of the United States, if the research was not done in the US, we don't recognise it. And typical of today's grad students, if the research is not in a computer database, then it never happened. If we don't learn from history, we are destined to repeat it. BOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 One of the interesting findings from the research done at Texas Tech was that most of the testing done for mycotoxins used a low volume pump, thus the findings may not have been accurate. It's my understanding that the Finland study used a low volume pump. Also if you go to the research reported in the Textbook for Military Medicine, it shows that a mouse inhaling T-2 toxins only need be exposed to .24 mg, this is a relatively small amount compared with the 9.2 mg needed for ingestion. Most of the studies I have seen on mycotoxin in homes were around 2 mg, that's more than enough to cause adverse effects in mice. -----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:50 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Airborne mycotoxinsThis is not news or new information. Mycotoxin levels in moldy homes was studied extensively in Finland a number of years ago. Their research showed:1. Mycotoxin levels are no where near what would produce any health effects2. Mycotoxin levels did not correlate to amount of mold growth3. Testing for mycotoxins is not necessary in managing mold problemsOf course, typical of the United States, if the research was not done in the US, we don't recognise it. And typical of today's grad students, if the research is not in a computer database, then it never happened.If we don't learn from history, we are destined to repeat it.BOBFAIR 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 , I suspect you meant "high" vol. instead of "low" vol. with the Texas Tech study. Bob, thank you for the reference to the Finland studies. The article mentions using 450 l/min. sampling so I would guess they are using the SpinCon system. (http://www.sceptorindustries.com/media/spinconbrochure.pdf). Has anyone had experience with this technology? I wonder if the higher collection efficiency may shed new light on the role of mycotoxins in producing health effects. If the sampling methodology does not detect the hazard then it can't be studied. Regards, D. Althouse Environmental Health & Safety Coordinator Florida Dept. of Education 1054 Turlington Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 (SunCom) 205-9295 Fax: .Althouse@... -----Original Message-----From: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:11 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Airborne mycotoxins One of the interesting findings from the research done at Texas Tech was that most of the testing done for mycotoxins used a low volume pump, thus the findings may not have been accurate. It's my understanding that the Finland study used a low volume pump. Also if you go to the research reported in the Textbook for Military Medicine, it shows that a mouse inhaling T-2 toxins only need be exposed to .24 mg, this is a relatively small amount compared with the 9.2 mg needed for ingestion. Most of the studies I have seen on mycotoxin in homes were around 2 mg, that's more than enough to cause adverse effects in mice. -----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:50 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Airborne mycotoxinsThis is not news or new information. Mycotoxin levels in moldy homes was studied extensively in Finland a number of years ago. Their research showed:1. Mycotoxin levels are no where near what would produce any health effects2. Mycotoxin levels did not correlate to amount of mold growth3. Testing for mycotoxins is not necessary in managing mold problemsOf course, typical of the United States, if the research was not done in the US, we don't recognise it. And typical of today's grad students, if the research is not in a computer database, then it never happened.If we don't learn from history, we are destined to repeat it.BOBFAIR 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 What I meant to say was that in the Texas Tech study, they showed the CURRENT method of sampling was to use a low volume pump, vs.. the SpinCon, which was used in the Texas Tech study. The Finland study used a low volume pump, the same ones currently in use by the few consultants that are testing for mycotoxins. So how many folks in this group are even testing for mycotoxins? My guess is that the cost is the reason most people are not using it, although at $30,000 I think we should each buy 3 of them. LOL! RE: Airborne mycotoxins , I suspect you meant "high" vol. instead of "low" vol. with the Texas Tech study. Bob, thank you for the reference to the Finland studies. The article mentions using 450 l/min. sampling so I would guess they are using the SpinCon system. (http://www.sceptorindustries.com/media/spinconbrochure.pdf). Has anyone had experience with this technology? I wonder if the higher collection efficiency may shed new light on the role of mycotoxins in producing health effects. If the sampling methodology does not detect the hazard then it can't be studied. Regards, D. Althouse Environmental Health & Safety Coordinator Florida Dept. of Education 1054 Turlington Bldg. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 (SunCom) 205-9295 Fax: .Althouse@... -----Original Message-----From: Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 4:11 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Airborne mycotoxins One of the interesting findings from the research done at Texas Tech was that most of the testing done for mycotoxins used a low volume pump, thus the findings may not have been accurate. It's my understanding that the Finland study used a low volume pump. Also if you go to the research reported in the Textbook for Military Medicine, it shows that a mouse inhaling T-2 toxins only need be exposed to .24 mg, this is a relatively small amount compared with the 9.2 mg needed for ingestion. Most of the studies I have seen on mycotoxin in homes were around 2 mg, that's more than enough to cause adverse effects in mice. -----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:50 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Airborne mycotoxinsThis is not news or new information. Mycotoxin levels in moldy homes was studied extensively in Finland a number of years ago. Their research showed:1. Mycotoxin levels are no where near what would produce any health effects2. Mycotoxin levels did not correlate to amount of mold growth3. Testing for mycotoxins is not necessary in managing mold problemsOf course, typical of the United States, if the research was not done in the US, we don't recognise it. And typical of today's grad students, if the research is not in a computer database, then it never happened.If we don't learn from history, we are destined to repeat it.BOBFAIR 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. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 This illustrates what a complex area to study this is. It is very difficult to settle on a sampling method that produces consistent and accurate results. Then, we need to really understand what we have measured. Probably we are collecting a given MASS of a contaminate of interest and if we have been careful, we can figure out the probable CONCENTRATION of that during the time we collected the sample and in the location where the sample was collected. Naturally, if we increase the number locations where we sample and the sampling time, we can have more confidence in the accuracy of the result we have obtained. Of course, that can quickly get really, really expensive. Then, the nearly impossible part starts. That is figuring out what the exposure actually is and through what route (Inhalation-probably; dermal-likely; oral-less likely but possible). Then we can try to understand what impact that exposure might have on different individuals (the normal distribution that Carl talks about). We have so much to learn. Bob Baker BBJ Environmental Solutions The Standard of Care for Indoor Air Re: Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:42:53 -0500 Subject: RE: Airborne Mycotoxins What I meant to say was that in the Texas Tech study, they showed the CURRENT method of sampling was to use a low volume pump, vs.. the SpinCon, which was used in the Texas Tech study. The Finland study used a low volume pump, the same ones currently in use by the few consultants that are testing for Mycotoxins. So how many folks in this group are even testing for Mycotoxins? My guess is that the cost is the reason most people are not using it, although at $30,000 I think we should each buy 3 of them. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.