Re: EPA statements -- Havic's Definition

[Guest guest]

1. Did you read the supporting document?

I'm sorry, I have not. I would like to when I have time.

2. Most of the data we have on air exposure limits is derived from ingestion, not inhalation.

I know that much of what is inhaled gets swallowed and ingestion and absorption through the gut rather than the lung may be the cause of death in establishing the LC50. Your definition says "inhalation concentration". I was pointing out that experimental design for purifying/quantifying and aerosolizing (non-volatile) mycotoxins seems problematic. How would one practically go about establishing an LC50 for mycotoxins?

Steve Temes

Tony

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

"Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%?

Re: Re: EPA statements -- Havic's Definition

“Toxic Moldâ€

Havics' Definition: â€A fungus or fungal component that contains or produces a metabolite, exudate, or other substance that has an acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) of <100 mg/kg for rodents or humans, or as an aerosol it has an acute inhalation median lethal concentration (LC50) of <20,000 mg/m3 for rodents or humans, or an acute dermal median LD50 of <1,000 mg/kg for rats or rabbits or humans by skin

absorptionâ€. Just because it is classified as toxic does not mean that it is a

significant risk. Classifications are used to group and manage risk on a rank basis.

Tony,

I don't have a problem with this definition. It is likely to define toxic mold out of existence for anything but ingestion. I do foresee a problem with doing aerosol testing of mycotoxins on rodents because it would likely be cost-prohibitive and otherwise not feasible for a number of practical QC reasons.

I'd rather see funds spent on finding out how mold causes real health effects in real people instead of looking for ways to discount mold as a cause of health effects.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]



Steve

Two cents worth; we are way off the mark (this is being promoted by some to make us look silly) when we talk about exposure to mycotoxins as such. We are exposed when we breath fine particulate that gets deep into our lungs and the dwell time is long compared to the time it takes the fluids in the lungs to dissolve (or otherwise absorb) the mycotoxin from the particles.

To repeat, the exposure route is not directly to the mycotoxins but to mycotoxin-contaminated fine particles (like spores or debris from mycelia, etc.).

Jim H. White SSAL

Re: Re: EPA statements -- Havic's Definition

1. Did you read the supporting document?I'm sorry, I have not. I would like to when I have time.

2. Most of the data we have on air exposure limits is derived from ingestion, not inhalation.I know that much of what is inhaled gets swallowed and ingestion and absorption through the gut rather than the lung may be the cause of death in establishing the LC50. Your definition says "inhalation concentration". I was pointing out that experimental design for purifying/quantifying and aerosolizing (non-volatile) mycotoxins seems problematic. How would one practically go about establishing an LC50 for mycotoxins?Steve Temes

Tony.......................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%?

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@...Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:00 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: EPA statements -- Havic's Definition

“Toxic Moldâ€Havics' Definition: â€A fungus or fungal component that contains or produces a metabolite, exudate, or other substance that has an acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) of <100 mg/kg for rodents or humans, or as an aerosol it has an acute inhalation median lethal concentration (LC50) of <20,000 mg/m3 for rodents or humans, or an acute dermal median LD50 of <1,000 mg/kg for rats or rabbits or humans by skinabsorptionâ€. Just because it is classified as toxic does not mean that it is asignificant risk. Classifications are used to group and manage risk on a rank basis.Tony,I don't have a problem with this definition. It is likely to define toxic mold out of existence for anything but ingestion. I do foresee a problem with doing aerosol testing of mycotoxins on rodents because it would likely be cost-prohibitive and otherwise not feasible for a number of practical QC reasons.I'd rather see funds spent on finding out how mold causes real health effects in real people instead of looking for ways to discount mold as a cause of health effects.Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Steve

Two cents worth; we are way off the mark (this is being promoted by some to make us look silly) when we talk about exposure to mycotoxins as such. We are exposed when we breath fine particulate that gets deep into our lungs and the dwell time is long compared to the time it takes the fluids in the lungs to dissolve (or otherwise absorb) the mycotoxin from the particles.

To repeat, the exposure route is not directly to the mycotoxins but to mycotoxin-contaminated fine particles (like spores or debris from mycelia, etc.).

Jim H. White SSAL

That is why I suggested that funds be spent to research real health effects in real people instead of inhalation exposure LC50s which tell us about nothing but acute effects. If we are not looking at long-term effects and individual sensitivities, we are not studying the real health issues associated with microbial contamination in buildings.

Exposure to not only mycotoxins but other metabolites and exudates of fungi in the fine particles is occurring as well. Let's not focus only on mycotoxins. Just my .02.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

I think this issue of mold implacation in

our daily lifes and part of our breathing space is understated.

On average, We eat about 1 kg of food

everyday, drink about 2 kg of water and breath about 10 kg of air. If we make

sure that food and water should be clean or have proper hygiene in place, why

not the air we breath in.???

Satish

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@...

Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005

12:28 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: EPA

statements -- Havic's Definition

In a message dated

10/20/2005 4:32:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, ph2@... writes:

1. Did you read the supporting document?

I'm sorry, I have not. I would like to when

I have time.

2. Most of the data we have on air exposure

limits is derived from ingestion, not inhalation.

I know that much of what is inhaled gets

swallowed and ingestion and absorption through the gut rather than the lung may

be the cause of death in establishing the LC50. Your definition says

" inhalation concentration " . I was pointing out that

experimental design for purifying/quantifying and aerosolizing (non-volatile)

mycotoxins seems problematic. How would one practically go about establishing

an LC50 for mycotoxins?

Steve Temes

Tony

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

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any

consultant can give you the other 10%?

Re: Re: EPA

statements -- Havic's Definition

In a message dated 10/20/2005 11:00:42 AM Eastern

Standard Time, ph2@... writes:

“Toxic Mold”

Havics' Definition: ”A fungus or fungal component that contains or produces a

metabolite, exudate, or other substance that has an acute oral median lethal

dose (LD50) of <100 mg/kg for rodents or humans, or as an aerosol it has an

acute inhalation median lethal concentration (LC50) of <20,000 mg/m3 for

rodents or humans, or an acute dermal median LD50 of <1,000 mg/kg for rats

or rabbits or humans by skin

absorption”. Just because it is classified as toxic does not mean that it is a

significant risk. Classifications are used to group and manage risk on a rank basis.

Tony,

I don't have a problem with this definition. It is likely to define toxic

mold out of existence for anything but ingestion. I do foresee a problem

with doing aerosol testing of mycotoxins on rodents because it would likely be

cost-prohibitive and otherwise not feasible for a number of practical QC

reasons.

I'd rather see funds spent on finding out how mold causes real health effects

in real people instead of looking for ways to discount mold as a cause of

health effects.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Good grief Steve, you wouldn't be saying that people are complex organisms in a complex environment and looking at bits and pieces might give simplistic answers; simple but wrong?

Jim H. White SSAL

'Helping you find the right question'

Re: Re: EPA statements -- Havic's Definition

SteveTwo cents worth; we are way off the mark (this is being promoted by some to make us look silly) when we talk about exposure to mycotoxins as such. We are exposed when we breath fine particulate that gets deep into our lungs and the dwell time is long compared to the time it takes the fluids in the lungs to dissolve (or otherwise absorb) the mycotoxin from the particles. To repeat, the exposure route is not directly to the mycotoxins but to mycotoxin-contaminated fine particles (like spores or debris from mycelia, etc.). Jim H. White SSAL That is why I suggested that funds be spent to research real health effects in real people instead of inhalation exposure LC50s which tell us about nothing but acute effects. If we are not looking at long-term effects and individual sensitivities, we are not studying the real health issues associated with microbial contamination in buildings.Exposure to not only mycotoxins but other metabolites and exudates of fungi in the fine particles is occurring as well. Let's not focus only on mycotoxins. Just my .02.Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Good grief Steve, you wouldn't be saying that people are complex organisms in a complex environment and looking at bits and pieces might give simplistic answers; simple but wrong?

Jim H. White SSAL

'Helping you find the right question'

Re: Re: EPA statements -- Havic's Definition

SteveTwo cents worth; we are way off the mark (this is being promoted by some to make us look silly) when we talk about exposure to mycotoxins as such. We are exposed when we breath fine particulate that gets deep into our lungs and the dwell time is long compared to the time it takes the fluids in the lungs to dissolve (or otherwise absorb) the mycotoxin from the particles. To repeat, the exposure route is not directly to the mycotoxins but to mycotoxin-contaminated fine particles (like spores or debris from mycelia, etc.). Jim H. White SSAL That is why I suggested that funds be spent to research real health effects in real people instead of inhalation exposure LC50s which tell us about nothing but acute effects. If we are not looking at long-term effects and individual sensitivities, we are not studying the real health issues associated with microbial contamination in buildings.Exposure to not only mycotoxins but other metabolites and exudates of fungi in the fine particles is occurring as well. Let's not focus only on mycotoxins. Just my .02.Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Steve,

Actually it would not be that expensive. Every EPA registed

pesticide has to have an inhalation LD50 study under FIFRA. The

average

droplet size inhaled is between 2 and 3 microns, I think. The LD50

for almost any toxin with an EPA registration is almost always

wayyyyy lower than the ingestion LD50. Many of these compounds are

neurotoxic just like mycotoxins. It would not be hard to get someone

in your New Jersey backyard like Product Safety Labs to do the study

for a few 5,000 bucks or less. They already have the site and the

equipment.

I hope Mr. Havics will not give us a bad example like some form of

bacteria that grows or colonizes in the body to compare LD50 levels

to toxin producing mold that does not grow or colonize in the body.

That would be very bad science. He did that in response to a post

from Larkins a year ago or so and I was to busy to respond.

However, Dr. Harriet Burge is such an accomplished " toxicologist " I

may go to her for the meaning of life. Those ACOEM guys (Kelman and

Hardin) are some really strange toxicologists who can obviously

explain the fermentation process with yeast and sugar. They may have

self tested themselves in excess for chronic exposure, I think.

Next they will show physicists how to disprove gravity.

Dr. Steve Vespers has done some really great research in this area

and done nothing to bring shame and ridicule on his house.

Regards,

Greg Weatherman

aerobioLogical Solutions Inc.

Arlington VA 22202

gw@...

*******************************************

>

> 1. Did you read the supporting document?

> 2. Most of the data we have on air exposure limits is derived

from ingestion, not inhalation.

>

> Tony

>

> ...................................................................

........

> " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

> pH2, LLC

> PO Box 34140

> Indianapolis, IN 46234

>

> cell

>

> 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal

point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ 

>

>

>

> Re: Re: EPA statements -- Havic's Definition

>

>

> In a message dated 10/20/2005 11:00:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ph2@s... writes:

>

>

> “Toxic Moldâ€

>

> Havics' Definition: â€A fungus or fungal component that contains

or produces a metabolite, exudate, or other substance that has an

acute oral median lethal dose (LD50) of <100 mg/kg for rodents or

humans, or as an aerosol it has an acute inhalation median lethal

concentration (LC50) of <20,000 mg/m3 for rodents or humans, or an

acute dermal median LD50 of <1,000 mg/kg for rats or rabbits or

humans by skin

> absorptionâ€. Just because it is classified as toxic does not

mean that it is a

> significant risk. Classifications are used to group and manage

risk on a rank basis.

>

>

>

> Tony,

>

> I don't have a problem with this definition. It is likely to

define toxic mold out of existence for anything but ingestion. I do

foresee a problem with doing aerosol testing of mycotoxins on

rodents because it would likely be cost-prohibitive and otherwise

not feasible for a number of practical QC reasons.

>

> I'd rather see funds spent on finding out how mold causes real

health effects in real people instead of looking for ways to

discount mold as a cause of health effects.

>

> Steve Temes

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

>