Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 The dose makes the poison, to over state the obvious. Stevan -----Original Message-----From: rowmath Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:34 AMTo: iequality Subject: toxic vs. toxigenicDear Group,I have been having a discussion with a colleague on the phrase "toxic mold". We both agree that the statement in not entirely accurate. There are two reputable sources as to why it is not accurate:http://www.aiha.org/GovernmentAffairs-PR/html/mold-glossary.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/mold/stachy.htm#Q1Yet the definition of the word toxic seems to imply that the phrase may still be acceptable:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=toxic definition 1While I know that many of you may HATE the term toxic mold because of the media hype surrounding it, I am still curious about the group's analysis of its accuracy.It is one thing to say a mold is toxic, it is another to say it produces toxinsRobFAIR 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 October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 Some say potentially toxic may be a more appropriate term however, many things are considered potentially toxic to one degree or another so why call one toxic and not the other? How about "toxic" drinking water or "toxic" oxygen. Since both can contain varying levels of toxins, lets start referring to everything as "toxic" if we are going to refer to "toxic" mold as well. I think the CDC link sums it up pretty well "The term "toxic mold" is not accurate. While certain molds are toxigenic, meaning they can produce toxins (specifically mycotoxins), the molds themselves are not toxic, or poisonous. Hazards presented by molds that may produce mycotoxins should be considered the same as other common molds which can grow in your house." RE: toxic vs. toxigenic The dose makes the poison, to over state the obvious. Stevan -----Original Message-----From: rowmath Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:34 AMTo: iequality Subject: toxic vs. toxigenicDear Group,I have been having a discussion with a colleague on the phrase "toxic mold". We both agree that the statement in not entirely accurate. There are two reputable sources as to why it is not accurate:http://www.aiha.org/GovernmentAffairs-PR/html/mold-glossary.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/mold/stachy.htm#Q1Yet the definition of the word toxic seems to imply that the phrase may still be acceptable:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=toxic definition 1While I know that many of you may HATE the term toxic mold because of the media hype surrounding it, I am still curious about the group's analysis of its accuracy.It is one thing to say a mold is toxic, it is another to say it produces toxinsRobFAIR 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 October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 I try not to use the word "toxic" and "mold" in combination any more than I have to because I don’t want to feed the public’s collective toxiphobia concerning mold. I am more prone to use "toxigenic mold" or even "potentially toxigenic mold". I suppose its all ultimately semantics and word games but saying something is "toxigenic" does not necessarily imply that it is currently a toxic threat to otherwise healthy humans. Whenever I see the phrase "toxic mold" in use, it always seems to be implying that the mold in question is currently capable of delivering a problematic dose of toxins to humans who may just so much as come into approximate contact with the mold in question. This thoughtless usage (typically by the press) is what causes the moniker "toxic mold" to have an alarmist reputation in my mind. As far as I am concerned the phrase "toxic mold" (as currently used) falls right along side some of the other euphemisms that the popular press has created to describe indoor mold such as "killer mold" and "black death". "Toxic mold" may well be a legitimate phrase from a strict sense of its constituent word definitions, but its current popular usage has been bastardized by the popular press and the term now rings of illegitimacy as a result. In my opinion of course, Phil S. RE: toxic vs. toxigenic The dose makes the poison, to over state the obvious. Stevan -----Original Message-----From: rowmath Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:34 AMTo: iequality Subject: toxic vs. toxigenicDear Group,I have been having a discussion with a colleague on the phrase "toxic mold". We both agree that the statement in not entirely accurate. There are two reputable sources as to why it is not accurate:http://www.aiha.org/GovernmentAffairs-PR/html/mold-glossary.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/mold/stachy.htm#Q1Yet the definition of the word toxic seems to imply that the phrase may still be acceptable:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=toxic definition 1While I know that many of you may HATE the term toxic mold because of the media hype surrounding it, I am still curious about the group's analysis of its accuracy.It is one thing to say a mold is toxic, it is another to say it produces toxinsRobFAIR 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 October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 Shane, You brought up a VERY interesting point. How many people are killed (or maimed) every year around the world by dihydrogen monoxide? Could the frequency of problematic exposure to this substances simply be related to the shear volume of people who are daily exposed to the ubiquitous stuff or is perhaps something more sinister going on? Here's an MSDS for dihydrogen monoxide for anyone who is not yet bored. http://www.dhmo.org/msdsdhmo.html Some people just seem to have a particular problem with dihydrogen monoxide while, ironically, others can't seem to live without it. Similarly, some people seem to have a particular problem with some mold species (Stachybotrys Chartarum for example) while others (with life threatening infections) can't seem to live without the benefit some mold species (Penicillium Notatum for example). I think it rather ironic (and perhaps even conspiratorial) that mold itself requires dihydrogen monoxide in order to grow and survive. It has been well established that if we deny mold access to its dihydrogen monoxide supply, we can limit its growth and development. Don’t get me wrong, I am not at all trying to belittle anyone’s personal tragedy (be it dihydrogen monoxide or mold related), The fact is, omnipresent substances such as dihydrogen monoxide and mold will do damage to some segment of the worldwide population who are being exposed to these substances in an undesirable manner. For some, the dose need not even be particularly large. As little as a few drops of dihydrogen monoxide for example can be enough to make someone’s foot break the friction bond between its bottom and a smooth hard walking surface. The resulting sudden alteration of vertical mass alignment could be devastating (especially to the elderly among us who are the most susceptible). Accidents involving the unintentional inhalation of dihydrogen monoxide in its liquid form can cause anything from momentary choking to a tragic loss of life. Dihydrogen monoxide it seems has the ability to turn just about any situation into a more dangerous one. How many motor vehicles loose control each year because of dihydrogen monoxide spills on the roadways? Its also interesting to consider how much attention is given to dihydrogen monoxide in the building codes. The effect of this attention literally adds billions of dollars to the cost of construction around the world each and every year. There are entire code chapters about the subject; everything from preventing dihydrogen monoxide incursion to safely transporting it into and then subsequently eliminating it from the structure. Even the National Electric Code is replete with special considerations that must be taken when electrical devices and equipment are to be located in close proximity to dihydrogen monoxide. What really gets me is that some (otherwise intelligent) people actually pay thousands of dollars to have huge open vats of dihydrogen oxide built in their back yards. If the government would finally just bane dihydrogen monoxide across the board once and for all, perhaps we could eliminate the DHMO threat and could finally get a handle on all our mold problems as an added bonus! Yeah…I know what your saying out there; "Phil, you’re just dreaming. Dihydrogen monoxide is too big a part of our national economy for the government to ever dare touch it." You may be right and I know all to well that the umbrella and bathing suit lobbies are out there to make sure that any proposed ban never sees the light of day. I’ll continue to support the effort nonetheless. If you are of like mind, visit the link below for more information. http://www.dhmo.org/NCCA.html Phil S. RE: toxic vs. toxigenic The dose makes the poison, to over state the obvious. Stevan -----Original Message-----From: rowmath Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:34 AMTo: iequality Subject: toxic vs. toxigenicDear Group,I have been having a discussion with a colleague on the phrase "toxic mold". We both agree that the statement in not entirely accurate. There are two reputable sources as to why it is not accurate:http://www.aiha.org/GovernmentAffairs-PR/html/mold-glossary.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/mold/stachy.htm#Q1Yet the definition of the word toxic seems to imply that the phrase may still be acceptable:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=toxic definition 1While I know that many of you may HATE the term toxic mold because of the media hype surrounding it, I am still curious about the group's analysis of its accuracy.It is one thing to say a mold is toxic, it is another to say it produces toxinsRob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2004 Report Share Posted October 12, 2004 > The dose makes the poison, to over state the obvious. > Stevan The " obvious " has been overstated so many times that people dogmatically believe it, despite the contradiction of variable response determined by individual genetic susceptibility. The lessons we have learned from endocrine receptor disruptors should be a caution that the dose doesn't always correlate to the response. - the Stachysterian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 Phil S., Even old jokes can still be humorous. Thanks for the laugh. Curtis R. -----Original Message-----From: talk2ps@... Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:02 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: toxic vs. toxigenic Shane, You brought up a VERY interesting point. How many people are killed (or maimed) every year around the world by dihydrogen monoxide? Could the frequency of problematic exposure to this substances simply be related to the shear volume of people who are daily exposed to the ubiquitous stuff or is perhaps something more sinister going on? Here's an MSDS for dihydrogen monoxide for anyone who is not yet bored. http://www.dhmo.org/msdsdhmo.html Some people just seem to have a particular problem with dihydrogen monoxide while, ironically, others can't seem to live without it. Similarly, some people seem to have a particular problem with some mold species (Stachybotrys Chartarum for example) while others (with life threatening infections) can't seem to live without the benefit some mold species (Penicillium Notatum for example). I think it rather ironic (and perhaps even conspiratorial) that mold itself requires dihydrogen monoxide in order to grow and survive. It has been well established that if we deny mold access to its dihydrogen monoxide supply, we can limit its growth and development. Don't get me wrong, I am not at all trying to belittle anyone's personal tragedy (be it dihydrogen monoxide or mold related), The fact is, omnipresent substances such as dihydrogen monoxide and mold will do damage to some segment of the worldwide population who are being exposed to these substances in an undesirable manner. For some, the dose need not even be particularly large. As little as a few drops of dihydrogen monoxide for example can be enough to make someone's foot break the friction bond between its bottom and a smooth hard walking surface. The resulting sudden alteration of vertical mass alignment could be devastating (especially to the elderly among us who are the most susceptible). Accidents involving the unintentional inhalation of dihydrogen monoxide in its liquid form can cause anything from momentary choking to a tragic loss of life. Dihydrogen monoxide it seems has the ability to turn just about any situation into a more dangerous one. How many motor vehicles loose control each year because of dihydrogen monoxide spills on the roadways? Its also interesting to consider how much attention is given to dihydrogen monoxide in the building codes. The effect of this attention literally adds billions of dollars to the cost of construction around the world each and every year. There are entire code chapters about the subject; everything from preventing dihydrogen monoxide incursion to safely transporting it into and then subsequently eliminating it from the structure. Even the National Electric Code is replete with special considerations that must be taken when electrical devices and equipment are to be located in close proximity to dihydrogen monoxide. What really gets me is that some (otherwise intelligent) people actually pay thousands of dollars to have huge open vats of dihydrogen oxide built in their back yards. If the government would finally just bane dihydrogen monoxide across the board once and for all, perhaps we could eliminate the DHMO threat and could finally get a handle on all our mold problems as an added bonus! Yeah...I know what your saying out there; "Phil, you're just dreaming. Dihydrogen monoxide is too big a part of our national economy for the government to ever dare touch it." You may be right and I know all to well that the umbrella and bathing suit lobbies are out there to make sure that any proposed ban never sees the light of day. I'll continue to support the effort nonetheless. If you are of like mind, visit the link below for more information. http://www.dhmo.org/NCCA.html Phil S. RE: toxic vs. toxigenic The dose makes the poison, to over state the obvious. Stevan -----Original Message-----From: rowmath Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 10:34 AMTo: iequality Subject: toxic vs. toxigenicDear Group,I have been having a discussion with a colleague on the phrase "toxic mold". We both agree that the statement in not entirely accurate. There are two reputable sources as to why it is not accurate:http://www.aiha.org/GovernmentAffairs-PR/html/mold-glossary.htmhttp://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/mold/stachy.htm#Q1Yet the definition of the word toxic seems to imply that the phrase may still be acceptable:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=toxic definition 1While I know that many of you may HATE the term toxic mold because of the media hype surrounding it, I am still curious about the group's analysis of its accuracy.It is one thing to say a mold is toxic, it is another to say it produces toxinsRobFAIR 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 October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 I also believe the sun will rise in the east. The day that doesn't happen I will reevaluate my Dose/Response beliefs. Dose = Time * Concentration. - without an exposure period (time) there will be no dosage and therefore no response - no matter what other variables you bring into the equation. The DMHO information does bring to light the consideration that the lack of exposure to various concentrations of certain chemicals will also generate a dose/response curve. again - " no big deal here.... " just my $0.02 n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 > Dose = Time * Concentration. - without an exposure period (time) there will be no dosage and therefore no response - no matter what other variables you bring into the equation. The DMHO information does bring to light the consideration that the lack of exposure to various concentrations of certain chemicals will also generate a dose/response curve. > again - " no big deal here.... " just my $0.02 > n Well, if the discussion is " Toxic vs. Toxigenic " then it's kind of important to understand that toxins which encode/program an immunological inflammatory response create their damage by the strength of the immune systems response instead of correlating to the dose. People with MCS live this reality every day. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 et al What you cannot easily do on such an e-mail forum is to present illustrations, in this case distribution diagrams of response rate. That is too bad. From my experience in starting healthy housing research in 1981, and dealing with sensitive people from that time on, it would appear that the dose required for some reactions in the truly sensitive is much more than two decimal orders of magnitude below what affects the common/average person. Medical safety factors tend to be one or two binary orders of magnitude (2:1 to 4:1). In fact I have clients that can tell me when there is contamination that may be a thousand to one lower than what affects me, and I have quite a number of sensitivities, having been (unprotected) through so many sick buildings. If you do not understand the range of sensitivities out there (or more likely refuse to acknowledge them, as is the case with most health officials in governments) then you have no hope of understanding what you are looking at in the field, with real, but sensitive, people. It is a matter of looking but not seeing, primarily because you have filtered out the 'screens' needed to see what you chose not to believe. When we who have chosen to believe have to deal with those who have chosen not to, we must understand this mechanism. Those who chose not to believe really cannot see what we do. They have their reasons, but we may never be able to help them see what we are both looking at. Jim H. White SSAL Re: toxic vs. toxigenic > > > > > > Dose = Time * Concentration. - without an exposure period > (time) there will be no dosage and therefore no response - no matter > what other variables you bring into the equation. The DMHO > information does bring to light the consideration that the lack of > exposure to various concentrations of certain chemicals will also > generate a dose/response curve. > > again - " no big deal here.... " just my $0.02 > > n > > Well, if the discussion is " Toxic vs. Toxigenic " then it's kind of > important to understand that toxins which encode/program an > immunological inflammatory response create their damage by the > strength of the immune systems response instead of correlating to the > dose. > People with MCS live this reality every day. > - > > > > > > > > > > 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 October 14, 2004 Report Share Posted October 14, 2004 > et al > What you cannot easily do on such an e-mail forum is to present > illustrations, in this case distribution diagrams of response rate. > Jim H. White What I CAN do is illustrate my point by detecting mold in unusual places and having it verified, as I did in Dr Marinkovich's reception room when I identified an area that gave me " mold hits " that had been water damaged but already professionally remediated. Dr Marinkovich told me that he had never seen anyone so finely attuned to detecting mold. He had seen others who were equally sensitized but who didn't know what was causing them pain. This is the situation remediologists are faced with, an increasing number of people who have sensitivities that are so far beyond " normal " that a standard that is applied to the average response one might have to mold means nothing to us. Failure to understand this means a failure of measures to adequately address the needs of abnormally reactive people. - 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.