Re: Carl--mold between slab and hardwoods

December 4, 2006

Jane,

Yes, it is possible. But that doesn't always mean that it is or that

you should assume so. It depends on moisture, primarily, plus a

combination of other factors. Such as, how much mold growth there is

and under how much of the flooring; and how the spores, fragments and

other components get from beneath the hardwood into the room where

you are.

Presence is not the same as exposure.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Is it possible for mold to grow between hardwood floors and slab

> foundations?

>

> " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote: Exactly!

>

> " who " wrote:

> everyone should have this knowledge and the right to choose if they

> want to risk thier health.--

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> ---

> > what is it going to take? some kind of mass class action lawsuit to

> > get this all on the table and proven beyond dought. were is our

> > lawfirm rideing in on great white horses? anyone with knowledge of

> > the justice system knows that not one single mold case would ever

> > had been won, or settled out of court if there was no proof that

> > mold/mycotoxins cause illnesses and even death. this is bs and is

> > going way beyond the time limit of aceptance. theres to many power

> > forces behind this trying to keep this from being reconized. a damn

> > horse gets better treatment than we do. and its going to drag on for

> > another ten years if something major is not done. winning a case

> > here and there is not enough. designing websites,makeing patitions,

> > is not enough. theres 100's a groups spread out, each based on

> > different parts of this illness that need to come together.because

> > this illness has not ever been reconized as what it is, incompasing

> > a wide range of diseases, we are basically spread out everywhere.

> > you got the mcs groups, the cfs groups, the fibmyalgia groups, the

> > arthritis groups, the ms, autisum, immune disfuction and on and on.

> > how many are sick from mold exposure, how any have been misdiagnosed

> > and dont even know it? it's pretty sad. why is this happening?

> > theres not one dought in my mind that those fighting so hard to keep

> > this quite know just exactually how ill mycotoxin exposure can make

> > you and that it effects 2 things that add to thier favor. the brain

> > and energy. they also know that the experts out there are not all

> > together on this and that hurts us. this is something i dont really

> > understand. from what i see if all the experts got together it would

> > be a pretty complete package of everything going on with us.

> > genetics, dna mutation,tilt,mcs,autoimunity,nos,allergies,ect. a

> > multiple organ syndrome with hypersensatives.i dont think theres one

> > single part of our body that is left untouched. some not to this

> > point yet, some way beyond this point, close to death, many die with

> > cansers. we are not the few, we are just the few known. we are in a

> > war against very powerful cooperations that risk going broke if this

> > illness is reconized.there well have to be major changes to save us

> > and our planet. many of these large cooperations and thier products

> > are actually causeing fungus to mutate and become more toxic, it

> > does what it has to do to servive. maybe bush thinks he can take all

> > the rich people to live on mars or maybe irac. these cooperaations

> > are getting richer at our expence and they know it. so whats thier

> > plan? i bet some of them have family members sick from mold. do they

> > care? ok, lets say stem cell research comes up with something to

> > help us, how much longer will that drag this out,and how much more

> > will fungus mutate to overcome it, are we bound to become freaks of

> > nature because we went against nature for the sake of money? what

> > are my grandchildren going to have to suffer through? i know theres

> > a lot of people worried and fed up. what does it take for change.

> > theres a old saying that knowledge=change. we have knowledge but its

> > scattered,how can we get everyone to come together? theres got to be

> > something we can do and people that care. we need people with energy

> > that are well to take interest in our fight.we are so close,

> > something big to get us the attention we need to force this issue to

> > be dealy with. even if we didn't get far with a class action it

> > would get attention. it would say to the world that we are mad and

> > we want something to be done. we need the world to know how unsafe

> > it is to live and work around moldy environments. we need renters to

> > know that they are getting exposed to molds in these rental

> > apartments, people buying homes need to know that they could buy a

> > home that could kill them and workers need to know that thier job

> > could make them very ill and everyone should have this knowledge and

> > the right to choose if they want to risk thier health.--

> >

> > -- In , snk1955@... wrote:

> > >

> > > Prof Brinkman's quote from the WSJ article, False Witness:

> > >

> > > 1. " according to the American College of Occupational and

> > Environmental

> > > Medicine, current scientific evidence does not support the

> > proposition that

> > > molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds, whether inhaled in

> > home, school, or

> > > office environments, adversely affect human health. "

> > >

> > > 2. Direct quotes from ACOEM mold statement:

> > > " Levels of exposure in the indoor environment, dose-response data

> > in

> > > animals, and dose-rate considerations suggest that delivery by the

> > >

> > inhalation route

> > > of a toxic dose of mycotoxins in the indoor environment is highly

> > unlikely

> > > at best, even for the hypothetically most vulnerable

> > subpopulations. "

> > >

> > > " Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that

> > >

> > human

> > > health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home,

> > school, or

> > > office environments. "

> > >

> > > 3. The WSJ article, November 29, 2006:

> > >

> > > False Witness

> > > By LESTER BRICKMAN

> > > December 2, 2006; Page A9

> > >

> > > Last year, in a shot heard round the mass tort world, U.S.

> > District Court

> > > Judge Janis Jack, presiding over 10,000 claims of silicosis -- a

> > lung disease

> > > caused by exposure to silica (sand) dusts, issued a report

> > documenting

> > > widespread, fraudulent medical diagnoses. The fraud was discovered

> > >

> > when Judge Jack

> > > permitted the defendants to extensively question the doctors who

> > had diagnosed

> > > the alleged injuries. While this sounds like standard operating

> > procedure,

> > > most judges would not have permitted such discovery. Indeed, the

> > fraud would

> > > never have come to light but for a courageous judge willing to, in

> > >

> > effect,

> > > put the tort system on trial.

> > > Judge Jack largely corroborated my own published findings of

> > fraudulent

> > > production of medical evidence in asbestos litigation.......

> > > Substantially the same fraudulent practices have been used in

> > other mass

> > > tort litigations. " Fen-phen " is one example. Several law firms and

> > >

> > about 10

> > > echocardiogram companies which started screening businesses spent

> > millions of

> > > dollars to set up makeshift " echo mills " in hotel rooms and

> > elsewhere to

> > > administer echocardiograms to users of these diet drugs.

> > Approximately a few

> > > thousand users suffered heart valve injuries, but tens of

> > thousands responded to

> > > advertisements to find out whether they qualified for

> > compensation........

> > > Silicone is another example. Screenings by lawyers in silicone

> > breast

> > > implant litigation ginned up tens of thousands of claims of

> > connective tissue and

> > > rheumatoid diseases that were supported by the specious diagnoses

> > of a few

> > > dozen doctors who were mostly referred by the lawyers. Cursory

> > examinations --

> > > sometimes in lawyers' offices doubling as examining rooms -- were

> > done on an

> > > assembly line basis by cardiologists charging as much as $6,000

> > per

> > > examination and diagnosing more than 90% of the women with

> > symptoms that would make

> > > them eligible for compensation.

> > > However, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine

> > concluded

> > > that " there is no evidence that silicone breast implants

> > contribute to an

> > > increase in autoimmune (connective tissue) diseases . . . and

> > [there is] no link

> > > between implants and connective disease or rheumatic conditions. "

> > > Nonetheless, approximately $4 billion to $5 billion has been paid

> > by the manufacturers

> > > for connective tissue and autoimmune disease claims.

> > > Mold litigation is still another example of a mass tort infected

> > by

> > > fraudulent medical and scientific evidence. Mold is a ubiquitous

> > fungus to which

> > > everyone is exposed; according to the American College of

> > Occupational and

> > > Environmental Medicine, current scientific evidence does not

> > support the

> > > proposition that molds or the mycotoxins produced by molds,

> > whether inhaled in home,

> > > school, or office environments, adversely affect human health. The

> > >

> > scientific

> > > evidence notwithstanding, mold litigation, a multibillion dollar

> > industry,

> > > proceeds because a small number of experts paid fees of as much as

> > >

> > $10,000 a

> > > day have regularly testified that mold causes a terrifying array

> > of diseases

> > > from lung cancer to cirrhosis of the liver.

> > > While there are ongoing federal investigations of silica and

> > asbestos

> > > litigation in New York and of fen-phen litigation in Philadelphia,

> > >

> > federal

> > > prosecutors have not indicted the doctors and scientific experts.

> > To prove fraud in

> > > those cases will require the testimony of other doctors and

> > scientific

> > > experts; and it may be that prosecutors are concerned

> > that " reasonable doubt " is

> > > virtually inherent in a process that relies on a " battle of the

> > experts " for

> > > evidence of fraud. Meanwhile, doctors and scientific experts are

> > obviously well

> > > aware of their effective immunity from prosecution. They do not

> > need a " get

> > > out of jail free " card because they already have a " never go to

> > jail " card.

> > > Part of the solution is for judges to approach mass tort

> > litigation with a

> > > healthy skepticism when mass claims have been generated by the

> > type of

> > > litigation screenings used in asbestos, silica, fen-phen and

> > breast implant

> > > litigations. Integral to these litigation screenings are mass-

> > produced medical

> > > services which are manufactured for money -- practices which

> > flourish when courts

> > > insulate them from the extensive discovery presided over by Judge

> > Jack.

> > > But more is necessary to curb fraud. State and federal legislation

> > >

> > is needed

> > > to empower prosecutors to pierce doctors' and scientific experts'

> > effective

> > > immunity from criminal prosecution. Drafting legislation to

> > distinguish

> > > between legitimately disputed diagnoses or theories of causation

> > and manufacturing

> > > medical or scientific evidence for money is a daunting task. But

> > it is one

> > > that we must undertake to preserve the integrity of the civil

> > justice system.

> > > Mr. Brickman is professor of law at the Cardozo School of Law of

> > Yeshiva

> > > University.

> > > 4. From the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library regarding Prof Brichman,

> > RJReynolds

> > > Documents

> > > _http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?

> > tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results_

> > > (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?

> > tid=mcl46a00 & fmt=pdf & ref=results)

> > >

> > > " FYI - The Manhattan Institute had a call from 60 Minutes.....the

> > producer

> > > might want to call an academic, and he provided Lester Brichman's

> > name. "

> > >

> > > " In response to Dan's question I said " no " neither we nor the

> > litigation

> > > project (which technically doesn't exist!) should not reach out to

> > >

> > 60 Minutes or

> > > we'd wind up in the story or kill it. I'm not even going to tell

> > the cos.

> > > for fear PM [sic ] will try to do something

> > > " clever " .

> > >

> > > " Former Helms staffer will be joining the Institute in July as sr.

> > >

> > vp of

> > > federal grant

> > >

> > > From the Manhattan Institute website:

> > > _http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf_

> > >

> > (http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2005/pdf/faculty_briefs.pdf)

> > > > " President Bush with Prof. Lester Brickman (at left) for âEURœA

> > Conversation on > Asbestos Litigation Reform.âEUR > " Lester

> > Brickman received the 2004 Legal Reform Research Award from the US >

> > Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. " > > From the

> > PointofLaw website: > > PointofLaw.com > is a website sponsored by

> > the Center for Legal Policy at the _Manhattan > Institute_

> > (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/) and _Liability Project_ >

> > (http://www.aei.org/research/projectID.23/project.asp) at the

> > American Enterprise > Institute. Focusing on America's civil justice

> > system, the site includes > original discussions featuring some of

> > the nation's top legal scholars, an ongoing > forum on liability

> > issues, a bibliography of important books and articles, > and links

> > to topical legal news stories. Contributors:Lester Brickman is a >

> > professor of law at the N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva

> >

> > > University. His areas of expertise include administrative

> > alternatives to mass tort > litigation, asbestos litigation, and

> > contingency fee reform. Professor Brickman > has written extensively

> > on these and other topics, he has testified at > congressional

> > hearings, and he is widely quoted in the press. > >

> > (http://www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf) > The lay translation of

> > the ACOEM Mold Statement was shared by the Manhattan > Institute

> > with the US Chamber and affiliates in July of 2003. It ends with >

> > the sentence, âEURœThus the notion that âEUR˜toxic moldâEUR™ is an

> > insidious secret âEUR˜ > killerâEUR™ as so many media reports and

> > trial lawyers would claim is âEUR˜Junk ScienceâEUR™ > unsupported by

> > actual scientific study.âEUR > > > > Just one example of thousands

> > regarding ill health and mold. It's a CDC doc. >

> > _www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf_ >

> > (http://www.otispregnancy.org/pdf/mold.pdf) > > > Sharon Kramer > >

> > >

> > > >

December 4, 2006

thanks carl. I appreciate your help. I seem to be worse since I left my house.

" Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote: Jane,