Re: gee, seems this handy little device would be very useful with WDB testing

[Guest guest]

I wondered something similar Jeanine. Why, instead of wearing those ill fitting

face masks, that catches your breath from your mouth, people don't wear

something in nasal opening, like pictured. I was thinking of something that

looked like a filter that is at end of cigarete, but same idea. No reason to

cover the mouth also, not as a way of testing but as a way of capturing

allergens and mold for all sorts of health reasons.

>

> MEASUREMENT OF PERSONAL EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR AEROMYCOTA

> IN NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA

> (grrrr, every invention idea I have, someone beats me to it.)

> http://www.aaem.pl/pdf/13225.pdf

>

[Guest guest]

sorry but what does WDB (in subject title) stand for?

sue

>MEASUREMENT OF PERSONAL EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR AEROMYCOTA

>IN NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA

>(grrrr, every invention idea I have, someone beats me to it.)

>http://www.aaem.pl/pdf/13225.pdf

>

>

[Guest guest]

yes, Barb, mine was not really thought of as for testing purposes,

but than it crossed my mind. usually inventions try to cover every aspect in

case someone modifies their idea slightly than they might have grounds to make

claims.

> >

> > MEASUREMENT OF PERSONAL EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR AEROMYCOTA

> > IN NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA

> > (grrrr, every invention idea I have, someone beats me to it.)

> > http://www.aaem.pl/pdf/13225.pdf

> >

>

[Guest guest]

water damaged buildings

>

> sorry but what does WDB (in subject title) stand for?

>

> sue

>

> >MEASUREMENT OF PERSONAL EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR AEROMYCOTA

> >IN NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA

> >(grrrr, every invention idea I have, someone beats me to it.)

> >http://www.aaem.pl/pdf/13225.pdf

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

If nothing else, read the conclusion because it highlights two of

the problems with mold testing:

1. The wide variation of results with the different methods,

" inhaled fungal exposure, in most people in the same location,

varied within a 2-fold range with 10-fold outliers. " With differences

in quantities of mold this great, how do we know what our

exposure is? How do we know what is really there? Are we

reacting to the ones detected in the samples?

2. The filters in the nose give a more accurate measure of what a

person inhales rather than what is in the air but which may or may

not be inhaled. In other words, the nasal device will give a more

accurate measure of exposure. Exposure is what is key in

determining whether or not we are reacting to mold and if it is

causing our health effects.

3. Also, people in the same location with the same sampling

devices showed exposure differences as much as ten times. So,

knowing the presence of mold in a room is not the same as

exposure because different people inhale different amounts.

Of course, there are still the other considerations such as building

history and types, occupants, etc, etc, plus no collection and

analysis finds all the mold (and bacteria) we are exposed to.

This isn't meant to discredit the very real effects of mold on us,

but to emphasize we can't rely on mold sampling alone.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

yes, Barb, mine was not really thought of as for testing purposes,

but than it crossed my mind. usually inventions try to cover every aspect in

case someone modifies their idea slightly than they might have grounds to make

claims.

> >

> > MEASUREMENT OF PERSONAL EXPOSURE TO OUTDOOR AEROMYCOTA

> > IN NORTHERN NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA

> > (grrrr, every invention idea I have, someone beats me to it.)

> > http://www.aaem.pl/pdf/13225. pdf

> >

>

----------

The following section of this message contains a file attachment

prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

---- File information -----------

File: DEFAULT.BMP

Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10

Size: 358 bytes.

Type: Unknown

[Guest guest]

Carl, yes, I see were alone this would have it's faults, but at the same time it

would be something ,maybe extra. I also see that it would let myco's and other

things through. my thought would be that it still might catch something inhaled

through the nose that may be in the air at that height that might be up higher

in the air, at a given time or like when theres moldy carpet and your

vacumming,

or maybe when a air duct on the floor blows out mold+ and differences in spore

size and weight might might be floating around at different heights . like with

some air test, the results might only show whats in the air at lower levels. I

relize most eventually settle but isnt it possable that some stay more airborn

than others and maybe some are almost airborn just from drafts,movement of

people in the home.

>

> If nothing else, read the conclusion because it highlights two of

> the problems with mold testing:

>

> 1. The wide variation of results with the different methods,

> " inhaled fungal exposure, in most people in the same location,

> varied within a 2-fold range with 10-fold outliers. " With differences

> in quantities of mold this great, how do we know what our

> exposure is? How do we know what is really there? Are we

> reacting to the ones detected in the samples?

>

> 2. The filters in the nose give a more accurate measure of what a

> person inhales rather than what is in the air but which may or may

> not be inhaled. In other words, the nasal device will give a more

> accurate measure of exposure. Exposure is what is key in

> determining whether or not we are reacting to mold and if it is

> causing our health effects.

>

> 3. Also, people in the same location with the same sampling

> devices showed exposure differences as much as ten times. So,

> knowing the presence of mold in a room is not the same as

> exposure because different people inhale different amounts.

>

> Of course, there are still the other considerations such as building

> history and types, occupants, etc, etc, plus no collection and

> analysis finds all the mold (and bacteria) we are exposed to.

>

> This isn't meant to discredit the very real effects of mold on us,

> but to emphasize we can't rely on mold sampling alone.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

>

[Guest guest]

You are correct, Jeanine. Which is why exposure measurements

are more " accurate " than mere presence, and why a nasal filter

will be a more accurate representation of actual exposure than air

samples.

I agree there is value to this method and don't wish to discount it.

My main point is that even though this may be a " better " method

of sampling it is not one which just by itself we can rely on to

make critical decisions or convince the defense. Additional

information and other measurements are needed for that.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Carl, yes, I see were alone this would have it's faults, but at the same time it

would be something ,maybe extra. I also see that it would let myco's and other

things through. my thought would be that it still might catch something inhaled

through the nose that may be in the air at that height that might be up higher

in the air, at a given time or like when theres moldy carpet and your vacumming,

or maybe when a air duct on the floor blows out mold+ and differences in spore

size and weight might might be floating around at different heights . like with

some air test, the results might only show whats in the air at lower levels. I

relize most eventually settle but isnt it possable that some stay more airborn

than others and maybe some are almost airborn just from drafts,movement of

people in the home.

>

> If nothing else, read the conclusion because it highlights two of

> the problems with mold testing:

>

> 1. The wide variation of results with the different methods,

> " inhaled fungal exposure, in most people in the same location,

> varied within a 2-fold range with 10-fold outliers. " With differences

> in quantities of mold this great, how do we know what our

> exposure is? How do we know what is really there? Are we

> reacting to the ones detected in the samples?

>

> 2. The filters in the nose give a more accurate measure of what a

> person inhales rather than what is in the air but which may or may

> not be inhaled. In other words, the nasal device will give a more

> accurate measure of exposure. Exposure is what is key in

> determining whether or not we are reacting to mold and if it is

> causing our health effects.

>

> 3. Also, people in the same location with the same sampling

> devices showed exposure differences as much as ten times. So,

> knowing the presence of mold in a room is not the same as

> exposure because different people inhale different amounts.

>

> Of course, there are still the other considerations such as building

> history and types, occupants, etc, etc, plus no collection and

> analysis finds all the mold (and bacteria) we are exposed to.

>

> This isn't meant to discredit the very real effects of mold on us,

> but to emphasize we can't rely on mold sampling alone.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

>

----------

The following section of this message contains a file attachment

prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

---- File information -----------

File: DEFAULT.BMP

Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10

Size: 358 bytes.

Type: Unknown

[Guest guest]

I wish I could get one. I'd wear one all the time, but this sounds like

research instead of common practice.

>

> You are correct, Jeanine. Which is why exposure measurements

> are more " accurate " than mere presence, and why a nasal filter

> will be a more accurate representation of actual exposure than air

> samples.

>

> I agree there is value to this method and don't wish to discount it.

> My main point is that even though this may be a " better " method

> of sampling it is not one which just by itself we can rely on to

> make critical decisions or convince the defense. Additional

> information and other measurements are needed for that.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

>

[Guest guest]

I see what you mean Carl, shouldn't inspecters, besides being educated about

where to look, how to look and how to enturpet what they are seeing also be

useing as many testing procedures as possable to get the best documentation

possable. like dust,swab,air testing and maybe also the use of this nasal

tester.

and is it enough to at least get several molds documented and the water sorce

causeing them, even if mycotoxin, bacterial, ect. testing didn't manage to get

done ? does the expertize of medical doctors and being diagnosed with illnesses

known to be caused by WDB in any way even out the field of showing cause and

injury with court cases?

I know, theres a lot of if's and's and butt's there, lol's woops, but's.

>

> You are correct, Jeanine. Which is why exposure measurements

> are more " accurate " than mere presence, and why a nasal filter

> will be a more accurate representation of actual exposure than air

> samples.

>

> I agree there is value to this method and don't wish to discount it.

> My main point is that even though this may be a " better " method

> of sampling it is not one which just by itself we can rely on to

> make critical decisions or convince the defense. Additional

> information and other measurements are needed for that.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'd be a liottle worried about what is used as adhesive.

but I know what your saying Barb.

> >

> > You are correct, Jeanine. Which is why exposure measurements

> > are more " accurate " than mere presence, and why a nasal filter

> > will be a more accurate representation of actual exposure than air

> > samples.

> >

> > I agree there is value to this method and don't wish to discount it.

> > My main point is that even though this may be a " better " method

> > of sampling it is not one which just by itself we can rely on to

> > make critical decisions or convince the defense. Additional

> > information and other measurements are needed for that.

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

> >

>