Re: Irritating verses toxic effects

[Guest guest]

Comments on Irritation

- It is a Reversible effect (temporary alteration like minor changes in enzymes)

- Different target organs but generally trigeminal nerve is consider key - thus it is not immunologic. [see extensive work by Alare at U of Pitt] This is different from allergens and sensitizers. Alergens will immunologically reaction and then the body’s defense will cause a buildup of various resisting biological components (ie., cytokines) and then an inflamation results. In the case of sensitizers, a memory cell must be exposed first and then a later response occurs. Different mechanisms - don’t confuse the two. [Note: I’ve simplified this a lot to express the point]

- It is a generally a Nuisance effect - see reversible

- Can it adversely affect human performance to the point of significant increase in safety risk (ex. retching from H2S, rotten egg breath from DMSO) [key factor in DMSO exposure limit is this effect]

- It does appear to increase cell replication and thus may potentially affecting cancer risk on a stochastic basis. Example of concern - Formaldehyde. [This effect is considered in other irritant exposure limits, e.g., propionaldehyde]

- Irritation is a precursor to target organ damage for some sensitive species like mice (nasal damage [lesions for instance] is preceded at certain ratios below irritation [for example at a Respiratory Decline rate of 50% caused by irritation]

- Irritation can stimulate an asthmatic response in a sensitized individual even if it was not the agent of sensitization causation (example, acidic chemical causing asthma reaction in glutaraldehyde sensitized person)

- Irritation associated with cough reflex, this includes reflex from saline water aerosolized.

- There is physiological support for weak acid and weak bases causing irritation (see Dennis Paustenbach and Hon Wing Lueng) [Their findings are used to set exposure limits]

Perhaps I'll get permission from Dennis to refute your Chromium concerns at a later date - much was done in that lawsuit in the way of research that Paustenbach and others were not permitted to publish but only provide to the judges for their review. I do have a nice picture of Dennis in a hot tub of chromium in water as part of the exposure and tox work the Judges wanted.

........................................................................... "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%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 1:02 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Irritating verses toxic effects

Hi All,

It's an interesting discussion regarding irritants vs toxic effects. Irritant appears to be a new word brought into the distinction of various illness caused by molds/mold toxins.

I personally would not like to see any new words brought into the scenario. It is already confusing enough with all the various acronyms assigned to mold induced illnesses.

It is accepted current scientific evidence that illness may be caused by molds and/or the toxins they produce. And that these illnesses are not the same. Mycoses and mycotoxicoses.

As I understand it, the illnesses caused by molds themselves are understood to be immunological responses to an antigen that cause varying types of antibodies to respond and cause Types I, II, IV and V hypersenstivity reactions.

The illness caused by the toxin are understood to be illness brought on by a poisoning. Dr. Dydek, I am not a medical person. Do I have that right?

I would prefer to keep it as simple as possible and work toward a solution within the already established terminology of illnesses caused by molds/mold toxins. If the word "irritant" was replaced with the word "antigen", I think it would make for a much clearer discussion of the matter.

Sharon Kramer

Dear List:One (rather broad) definition of "toxic effect" is a deleterious or undesired response in a biological system. Under this definition, irritation would be a toxic effect. Even using more narrow definitions of toxicity, I think most toxicologists would classify irritation effects as toxic effects. As noted by others who have contributed to this thread, some individuals will be more susceptible than others to irritation type effects. I think most people would say that irritation is "undesired", even if it is mild.There is usually a distinction made between toxic and "adaptive" effects. Thus any change in a biological parameter does not necessarily reflect a toxic response. For example, exposure to chemicals can cause nominal increases or decreases in liver enzyme levels, hemoglobin levels in the blood, or immune system component levels. These changes are part of the body's chemical defense mechanisms and are not usually termed a toxic response even though the exposure did produce a change from "normal" biological levels of the relevant component.Happy holidays and Happy New Year to All, Dydek Dr. M. Dydek, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., P.E.

Chemical Toxicologist and Engineer

Dydek Toxicology Consulting

6013 Cervinus Run

Austin, Texas 78735

Web Site: www.tox-expert.com

Office Phone:

Office FAX:

Mobile Phone:

Now Celebrating 10 Years in BusinessAirwaysEnv@... wrote:

Some would argue that the line should be drawn between toxic effects and irritation since irritation does not necessarily lead to toxic effects. Others would argue that individuals should not have to suffer irritation regardless of the absence of a link to later toxic effects.Mark,In my opinion and experience, irritant effects leading to mucous membrane inflammation and nasal sinus congestion promote bacterial and viral infections of the upper respiratory system due to poor sinus drainage. I therefore consider that debilitating URIs, colds and flu can be caused, indirectly, by environmental irritants. These may not be toxic effects, but they can be illnesses with very serious consequences.If you were to elaborate on just what these irritant effects might be, I think it would be self-evident that the quality-of-life issues surrounding chronic discomfort (irritation) would be significant and untenable to the sufferer. The medications that might help to relieve the irritant effects can also have long-term consequences.Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Group,

The definition below from Dr. Dydek covers it well. When training or educating, I try to keep it simply:

Irritation can be caused by a physical particle, like sand in your bathing suit, or dust in your eye or throat.

For toxin, or toxic, is something that damages or interferes with the function of the cells or organs of the body. It can kill cells or change or stop the process of cells or organs. It is another word for poison. If you think of a poison, it is toxic.

Often irritation is termed a 'nuisance' effect, such as from some inert dusts. (However, breathing dusts may cause more serious 'toxic' effects or trigger physical response in the lung, even if the true toxicological nature is not understood or known.) These minor nuisances and irritants may leave the skin slightly but not seriously injured, scratches, blisters, etc. It is physically annoying. It is generally not an 'illness' the way the public thinks of illness, i.e., colds and flus, etc. Irritation of this nature is also usually temporary and fleeting.

But, irritation can also be caused by the damaging effects of a 'toxic' chemical. Many solvents are toxic and irritating, such as formaldehyde, ammonia, and chlorine. The irritant effects may be stinging, itching, burning, tearing, cough, nasal inflammation, or a little more serious like a minor burn or rash. Even more serious irritation effects from this toxic chemical may become debilitating, like dermatitis from chronic exposures.

Sharon, irritant is not a synonym for 'antigen'. Completely different action. If a chemical causes an allergic reaction, it is due to sensitization to a chemical, such as isocyanates or interestingly, even poison ivy.

ArmourArmour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

In a message dated 12/30/2005 10:03:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, iequality writes:

Under this definition, irritation would be a toxic effect. Even using more narrow definitions of toxicity, I think most toxicologists would classify irritation effects as toxic effects. As noted by others who have contributed to this thread, some individuals will be more susceptible than others to irritation type effects. I think most people would say that irritation is "undesired", even if it is mild.

[Guest guest]

Sharon, irritant is not a synonym for 'antigen'. Completely different action. If a chemical causes an allergic reaction, it is due to sensitization to a chemical, such as isocyanates or interestingly, even poison ivy.

Yes, that's what I thought. The two are not synonymous. But I am not aware of reactions to molds or mold toxins being thought of as an "irritant". They are typically thought of as a wide range of hypersentivity reactions to an antigen or a poisoning from a toxin.

To me, an example of an irritant would be a chemical burn causing a reaction at the point of contact. But with mold, the reaction is not always at the point of contact, but in an area of the body that the mold may colonize, such as the damp sinuses or lungs. Or skin rashes that may appear, not at the point of contact, but through a systemic route.

I don't understand why the term "irritant" applies to a discussion of mold/mold toxin induced illnesses. Does that make sense? What am I missing?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Paustenbach and others were not permitted to publish but only provide to the judges for their review. I do have a nice picture of Dennis in a hot tub of chromium in water as part of the exposure and tox work the Judges wanted.

........................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell

Why weren't they allowed to publish it? Is it now public information?

[Guest guest]

I don't mean to be an irritant, but I want to add to my last post.

I understand how the term applies when one is discussing chemical exposure. But I don't understand how it applies to mold/mold toxin exposure.

Are there bacterial irritants or viral irritants? Maybe I am just not understanding the true definition of the word.

Sharon

Sharon, irritant is not a synonym for 'antigen'. Completely different action. If a chemical causes an allergic reaction, it is due to sensitization to a chemical, such as isocyanates or interestingly, even poison ivy.

Yes, that's what I thought. The two are not synonymous. But I am not aware of reactions to molds or mold toxins being thought of as an "irritant". They are typically thought of as a wide range of hypersentivity reactions to an antigen or a poisoning from a toxin.

To me, an example of an irritant would be a chemical burn causing a reaction at the point of contact. But with mold, the reaction is not always at the point of contact, but in an area of the body that the mold may colonize, such as the damp sinuses or lungs. Or skin rashes that may appear, not at the point of contact, but through a systemic route.

I don't understand why the term "irritant" applies to a discussion of mold/mold toxin induced illnesses. Does that make sense? What am I missing?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

I don't understand why the term "irritant" applies to a discussion of mold/mold toxin induced illnesses. Does that make sense? What am I missing?

Two major things you are missing:

1. The microbial volatile organic compounds (MVOCs) can be chemical irritants and sensitizers and triggers in sensitized individuals -- these would not necessarily be toxins nor "true" antigens (usually thought of as proteins to which immunoglobulin antibodies are produced, or over-produced, in a sensitized person).

2. The fact that spores are particles and can be irritating to sensitive mucous membranes due to physical stimulation of sensory nerves -- also not an allergic or toxic reaction.

These are very important aspects to consider with regard to mold health issues, apart from the ones you are focusing on.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Regarding your comment:

I

personally would not like to see any new words brought into the scenario.

It is already confusing enough with all the various acronyms assigned to mold

induced illnesses.

I think it is

already too late.  This is not a new

concept and these words were not used to confuse, but to more adequately define

exactly what conditions we are encountering. 

Although it would be nice if this issue was simple and fit nicely into

Koch’s postulates, but unfortunately, it does not.  Because it does not, many feel that this

field is in left field, if you will.  I

think it is our job to educate the public to these complicated issues and to

try to reach common ground.

If you look at

the history of medicine, you will notice that we attacked the obvious issues

first, namely bacterial infections.  It

was only after we took care of the obvious that we started to see other things

going on in the population.  I think we

are on the edge of a horizon event that may well lead to a new type of biological

science.  The example that I would use is

physics.  When we want to look at the big

picture we are forced to use relativity to understand things, but at the very

small level, relativity breaks down and does not explain what is occurring.  Why? 

No one knows, but it is a fact.  We

must use quantum physics to try to understand the small events.  I think a very similar thing is

happening.  If we look at epidemiological

studies, we can apply this to the broad or big picture.  When we try applying this information to an

individual, the process begins to break down. 

Our dilemma is similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal.  The question being, will this organism harm

this individual and to what degree.  It

is impractical to protect every individual from every spore or spore product,

even though many acknowledge that all spores or spore products are potentially

allergenic and or toxic. So, where do we draw the line?  I do not believe there is a single truth to

this question.   Not only that, but if looked at logically, the

solution would probably not be a tautology, and would therefore be illogical (at

least in some cases).  I think we need to

know way more about complexity and self-organization to begin to unravel the

mystery.   Sorry, this stuff is just not that easy!

A bit ago you

asked my opinion about Dr. Burge’s comments about mold clean-up.  My response would be that, it is a shame that

someone with her experience would make such a wide sweeping statement.  I believe there are situations where her advice

may be warranted, but just as likely there will be cases when that would be disastrous.

 The answer truly lies with the building

materials, construction techniques, ventilation rates, building location,

nature of the occupants, duration of stay, and a whole host of other mitigating

factors that we probably haven’t uncovered.  There might be a one-size-fits-all response

to something like Ebola: probably not for Aspergillus.  I would caution people to avoid practicing

based on what other people say because it is unlikely that that other person

will be on the stand testifying on your behalf.  At this point we are still practicing an art.  One should know exactly why they took the

steps that they did and be able to defend their position regardless of what

others say.  

Thanks for

your thoughts.  Hope this helps.

Mark Doughty

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

The regulatory definition for an Irritant can be found in 16 CFR

1500.41.

It is mainly a skin irritation test with the value established by the

degree of erythema and edema (skin redness and swelling produced) as a

result of skin contact with chemical patch for a 24 hour period.

Further, within the haz com standard, the point about irritants is that

their exposure should not lead to permanent damage to the skin or eye

after exposure. They may produce a really painful burning sensation

(real world experience) but the long term result is no injury.

So what is the relevance to mold? Is irritation a chemical response

by the body or an immunity response? Certainly, edema reflects fluid

retention. However, erythema is more likely an immunity response.

Typically in an IAQ situation 4-5% of the exposed population will have

skin redness and rashes. It is believed that this is more

immunological rather than physical irritation of the skin by an

irritating particulate. However, I have seen cases of both chemical

and physical irritation. (In fact, constant physical irritation of the

skin can produce some really bad problems-but that is another story.)

So the really question comes down to " can mold spores produce physical

irritation, rather than a similar immunological response? "

Years ago, a number of allergists believed that physical irritation of

mucous membranes produced allergic symptoms. A interesting hypothesis

given the physical appears of pollen spores under the microscope

(really jagged projections). Today, most recognized it is a biological

response rather than an irritation response.

Mold spores on the other hand have a rather smooth and round

appearance, though some are more rough. It would therefore not be

likely that these would cause physical irritation by impaction during

breathing.

Consequently, it would be more logical to assume that mold produces a

biological or allergic response, than an irritant erythema.

However, visibly, one cannot distinguish an irritation of the mucosal

lining from a physical irritant of the same. Hence, it is easy to

confuse an irritation effect from and allergic affect.

More muddy water.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Since I started this discussion, maybe I can answer your question. Asked the question because I see the word irritant used to mean many things in this industry, depending on who is using the word and their understanding of it.

Mark,

Yes. That's exactly what concerns me.

As you can see from the discussion, many people have different ideas as to the definition and some have argued that the word doesn’t belong in our discussion. I totally disagree. It is a term that is abundant in the literature and if we do not know what the term is, how can we possibly understand what is being said?

Yes. There are many terms like this within this issue: MVOC microbial volatile organic compound or chemical? I have seen this word use as chemical by a medical defensor with the obvious sole intent of taking the focus off of the fungal aspect.

Like Steve and Tony, my understanding of an irritant is that the symptoms go away after exposure ceases, if they didn’t, it would be a toxic effect and not an irritant. What I think is lacking is an understanding of when an irritation becomes a toxic effect and how do we detect the moment in an individual.

Why do you have to do this? On what basis is it within the realm of your profession to need to make that determination?

Some individuals can afford to take action based on irritation alone. Many others do not have those resources and rely on deeper pockets (insurance companies, litigation, etc.) to help. Hypothetically speaking, Madonna didn’t have to worry that her insurance company wouldn’t cover her for irritation; she could afford a greater level of protection on her own. In cases where outside financing is sought, where does the line get drawn between irritating effects and toxic ones? You may know where you draw the line, and I may know where I draw the line, but is there a way to correlate our criteria?

This is probably a stupid question, but "He who asks a dumb question remains ignorant for only 5 minutes. He who does not ask a dumb question remains ignorant forever". (I got a book of proverbs for Christmas!)

So here it is:

Why couldn't you all compile an IEQ dictionary of terms that are frequently used within this industry and give a concise definition to be used as the industry standard? I think that would help stop some of the half truths that get told over the matter. Because "half truths are lies". (I love my new book!)

Until we can adequately define what we are talking about it is probably safer to use caution and treat irritation as a potentially harmful especially if it becomes chronic. Does that mean that the courts or insurance companies will follow your lead: probably not; so what else is new? However you approach irritation, from a liability perspective, it is best to be consistent across the board in your practice. I also believe that a conservative approach will lessen your liability as a consultant while providing the best outcome for your client.

Yes. "A wise man errs on the side of caution. It is cheaper in the long run". (I wrote this proverb)

Sharon

Mark Doughty

[Guest guest]

Mark,

Then my suggestion would be to educate yourself as to how to debunk the issue; not to put you head in the sand. That’s what I am doing by asking others their opinions.

Yes, I understand this. I think this is a really good thing.

BTW, let’s keep the discussion limited to irritants, not MVOCs and other issues that will cloud this discussion.

Not meaning to cloud your discussion of irritant. It's just that I see what you are very effectively pointing out about the word "irritant" is actually indicative of a greater problem. There are many words that appear to have multiple uses in this issue, depending on who is using them. This is what often clouds the primary issue.

Again, the word irritant is already I the lexicon all the wishful thinking in the world will not change that. Rather than blasting those that have provided useful information, I would suggest that you absorb the gist of the discussion and use it to your advantage.

I wasn't blasting you. Sorry if you thought I was.

Like Steve and Tony, my understanding of an irritant is that the symptoms go away after exposure ceases, if they didn’t, it would be a toxic effect and not an irritant. What I think is lacking is an understanding of when an irritation becomes a toxic effect and how do we detect the moment in an individual.

Why do you have to do this? On what basis is it within the realm of your profession to need to make that determination?

I don’t understand your question.

My question is why is it important for those within the IAQ industry to have to make a determination of when an irritant becomes a toxin? I don't understand in what context you all would need to make that determination. Doesn't that fall more under a medical situation? I know you guys get caught in grey area alot of when is it appropriate or not appropriate for you to provide warnings of potential ill health to occupants. Is that what you are talking about?

Why couldn't you all compile an IEQ dictionary of terms that are frequently used within this industry and give a concise definition to be used as the industry standard?

Are you asking me that directly? This seems to be the typical American complaint about “why doesn’t somebody do something?†FYI, I am involved in an attempt to do just that. The problem that one runs into is that not everyone agrees on the definitions. Look at the trouble that we are having just discussing one term, “irritation.â€

Yes. The problem with just that one word, illuminates the need for clarification of many. I guess I am asking you directly. But not just you, those in the industry. I would be willing to work on it. But I don't know how much weight my words would carry. I don't work in the industry. But I would do whatever I could to help.

That is a word that has been defined for years and yet there are those that argue that the definition is wrong or that we shouldn’t even use the word because they become confused. What to do?

Reiterate the standard definition and proper usage of the word.

To my knowledge, most dictionaries define words by common usage. For instance, the podium used to be something that a speaker stood on while at the lectern. Unfortunately many students did not learn this in school and mistakenly call the lectern a podium. Now, through common usage the podium and lectern are one in the same. The same thing is happening to the words in the environmental industry. If you don’t believe me, define the word encapsulant for the list.

Absolutely true: Kleenex for tissue. Xerox for copy. Jacuzzi for hot tub. Hardwood floors for any type of wood floors. Find something -Google it.

I don't know what the industry standard definition of "encapsulant" is. What is it?

Here is the dictionary form:

en·cap·su·lant (n-kps-lnt)n. A material used for encapsulating.

en·cap·su·late (n-kps-lt) v. To encase in or as if in a capsule

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

See below: 

Re:

Irritating verses toxic effects

In a

message dated 1/4/2006 8:34:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, deha@...

writes:

Sharon,

Since I started this discussion, maybe I

can answer your question.   Asked the

question because I see the word irritant used to mean many things in this industry,

depending on who is using the word and their understanding of it.

Mark,

 

 Yes. 

That's exactly what concerns me.

As you can see from the discussion, many

people have different ideas as to the definition and some have argued that the

word doesn’t belong in our discussion. 

I totally disagree.  It is a term

that is abundant in the literature and if we do not know what the term is, how can we possibly understand what is being said?

Yes. There are many terms

like this within this issue: MVOC microbial volatile organic compound or

chemical?  I have seen this word use as

chemical by a medical defensor with the obvious sole intent of taking the focus

off of the fungal aspect.

Then my suggestion would be to educate

yourself as to how to debunk the issue; not to put you head in the sand.  That’s what I am doing by asking others

their opinions.  BTW, let’s keep

the discussion limited to irritants, not MVOCs and

other issues that will cloud this discussion. 

Again, the word irritant is already I the lexicon all the wishful

thinking in the world will not change that. 

Rather than blasting those that have provided useful information, I

would suggest that you absorb the gist of the discussion and use it to your

advantage.  

Like Steve and Tony, my understanding of

an irritant is that the symptoms go away after exposure ceases, if they

didn’t, it would be a toxic effect and not an irritant.  What I think is lacking is an understanding

of when an irritation becomes a toxic effect and how do we detect the moment in

an individual.

Why do you have to do this?

On what basis is it within the realm of your profession to need to make that

determination?

I don’t understand your question. 

Some individuals can afford to take action

based on irritation alone.  Many others

do not have those resources and rely on deeper pockets (insurance companies,

litigation, etc.) to help. 

Hypothetically speaking, Madonna didn’t have to worry that her

insurance company wouldn’t cover her for irritation; she could afford a

greater level of protection on her own. 

In cases where outside financing is sought, where does the line get

drawn between irritating effects and toxic ones?  You may know where you draw the line, and I

may know where I draw the line, but is there a way to correlate our criteria?  

This is probably a stupid

question, but " He who asks a dumb question remains ignorant for only 5

minutes.  He who does not ask a dumb

question remains ignorant forever " . (I got a book of proverbs for

Christmas!) 

 

So here it is:

 

Why

couldn't you all compile an IEQ dictionary of terms that are frequently used

within this industry and give a concise definition to be used as the industry

standard?  I think that would help stop some of the half

truths that get told over the matter. 

Because " half truths are lies " .  (I love my new book!)

Are you asking me that directly?  This seems to be the typical American

complaint about “why doesn’t somebody do something?”  FYI, I am involved in an attempt to do just

that.  The problem that one runs into is

that not everyone agrees on the definitions.  Look at the trouble that we are having just

discussing one term, “irritation.” 

That is a word that has been defined for years and yet there are those

that argue that the definition is wrong or that we shouldn’t even use the

word because they become confused.  What

to do?  Do we drop the quality of the

discussion to the least common denominator?

To my knowledge, most dictionaries define

words by common usage.  For instance, the

podium used to be something that a speaker stood on while at the lectern. Unfortunately

many students did not learn this in school and mistakenly call the lectern a

podium.  Now, through common usage the

podium and lectern are one in the same.  The

same thing is happening to the words in the environmental industry.   If you don’t believe me, define the

word encapsulant for the list.

Finally, in the immortal words of Jerry ,

“I’m done with it; do with it as you wish!”

Mark

Until we can adequately define what we are

talking about it is probably safer to use caution and treat irritation as a

potentially harmful especially if it becomes chronic.  Does that mean that the courts or insurance

companies will follow your lead: probably not; so what else is new?  However you approach irritation, from a

liability perspective, it is best to be consistent across the board in your

practice.  I also believe that a

conservative approach will lessen your liability as a consultant while

providing the best outcome for your client. 

Yes. " A wise man

errs on the side of caution.  It is

cheaper in the long run " . (I wrote this proverb)

 

Sharon

Mark Doughty

[Guest guest]

My question is why is it important for those within the IAQ

industry to have to make a determination of when an irritant becomes a

toxin?  I don't understand in what

context you all would need to make that determination.  Doesn't that fall more under a medical

situation?  I know you guys get caught in

grey area alot of when is it appropriate or not appropriate for you to provide

warnings of potential ill health to occupants. 

Is that what you are talking about?

As anyone that has worked on these issues

can tell you, they are very complex.  In

my opinion there are many on this list that have more practical experience than

many of the health professionals.  I

often work closely with physicians so that they can understand what is

happening.  As you have stated, many

professional health organization have put out suspect information to their

membership.  Although it is the physician

that is legally the health expert, sometimes they need help with their

expertise.  

That is a word that has been defined for

years and yet there are those that argue that the definition is wrong or that

we shouldn’t even use the word because they become confused.  What to do? 

Reiterate

the standard definition and proper usage of the word.

Which is exactly what Tony did and you

didn’t like his answer.

To my knowledge, most dictionaries define

words by common usage.  For instance, the

podium used to be something that a speaker stood on while at the lectern.

Unfortunately many students did not learn this in school and mistakenly call

the lectern a podium.  Now, through

common usage the podium and lectern are one in the same.  The same thing is happening to the words in

the environmental industry.   If you

don’t believe me, define the word encapsulant

for the list.

Absolutely

true: Kleenex for tissue. Xerox for copy. Jacuzzi for hot

tub. Hardwood floors for any type of wood floors. Find something

-Google it.

I

don't know what the industry standard definition of " encapsulant "

is. What is it?

Here is the dictionary form:

en·cap·su·lant (n-kps-lnt)n. A material

used for encapsulating.

en·cap·su·late (n-kps-lt) v. To encase in or

as if in a capsule

The encapsulant

part was truly rhetorical, thanks for taking a stab at it anyway.  I’ll leave defining encapsulants

to those with more time and energy than me.

Your questions are always stimulating, Sharon; you’re a trooper.  Thanks

for your input and asking the questions that many others should be asking, but

right now I’ve got to go and cut some fresh tracks on the hill before

somebody beets me to it.

md

Sharon