RE: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

[Guest guest]

,

Sorry to hear you are ill and in the hospital. You asked,

"Can you and others in the group fill in the answer for me?"

I believe I can. The answer is, if you are still so cognizant to be thinking more clearly than most, even in your given situation to write, "These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does not†adequately protect workers during mold remediation."...then, I think the solution is that you need to call the nurse and tell her to increase your morphine. Stress of understanding how many are being harmed from the misinfo disseminated over the matter, could impede your rehabilitation!

If I give you my address, could the nurse send me some, too?

Hope you feel better soon

WR

Sharon

[Guest guest]

, You should get some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in tropical islands. Wei Moffett wrote: Wei and Group: As I lay in the hospital bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream about work. The story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a worker’s compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of mold growth in constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent T-2 mold compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does not” adequately protect workers during mold remediation. I do not remember what my response was but I do remember the question. Can you and others in the group fill in the answer for me? Moffett Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

Pat,

Good to see you writing so prolifically

already. I have a question, when you went to the hospital you said it took 5

hours before they let you into the emergency room. Was this because they

thought you had a communicable/infectious disease or just busy?

With regard to the N95 ,

they have no protection against chemicals anyway but the biggest flaw with the

N95 is that it is only expected to provide 95% protection and that is in a

laboratory test not on someone working and moving.

Kind Regards & Happy new Year

Jeff Charlton

London

-----Original

Message-----

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On Behalf

Of Moffett

Sent: 29 December 2006 01:28

To: iequality

Subject: FW:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You know as well as I do that airborne

mold toxins are not entirely stopped because the employee is wearing an N-95

mask. Yes, I realize fine-micro particulates and cell structures are greatly

reduced, but how efficient is the N-95 mask to begin with let alone measuring

gas-phase efficiency?

May be we should revisit several of the

studies completed. See attachments.

From: gary rosen

[mailto:garyrosen72652]

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006

8:02 AM

To: pmoffettemeiaq

Subject: Re:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say that mold remediation contractors are getting

sick? Just because they are wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge

mask? An N-95 mask filters 95% down to .3 mircron. It should be

more than adequate for filtering Stachybotrys spores that contain tricothecene

toxin if the work is done carefully.. Stachy spores are large at about 10

micron.

More important than the face mask is the type of mold remediation

work? Did they use blasting \ sanding type of remediation or wet

remediation? Did they have good air circulation or did the mold

remediators remain in a heavily toxic environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in

tropical islands.

Wei

Moffett

<pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As I lay in the hospital

bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream about work. The

story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a

worker’s compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of

mold growth in constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent

T-2 mold compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other

mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled,

ingested and absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though

they are wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as

compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does

not” adequately protect workers during mold remediation.

I do not remember what my

response was but I do remember the question. Can you and others in the

group fill in the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA. com

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

In the US, most

emergency hospitals are very busy where you have to be evaluated

(diagnosed/triaged) of your illness or injuries over a matter of hours; unless

you arrived by ambulance and are ready to die, they don’t look to you as

a life-threatening emergency. (Sad fact.)

My dislike for N-95

masks, are several: I believe they are not true respirators, so supervisors and

remediation wearers do not wear them properly (constant problem); they have

limited protection factors against gases and toxins; recent studies show they

are overrated. As a paper mask, I prefer N-99 and N-100, with a minor increase

in cost, and the mask often fits better.

Finally, thank you for

your kind concerns about me. I take 500 mg of Vicodin several times throughout

the day just to control the pain and generally several times a night to sleep.

I can eat most food but I am carefully watching my diet. I will have a glass of

champagne or two New Years Eve, and my wife and I will be talking about you and

your family, our friends in England.

To a better 2007!

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of J Charlton

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006

11:33 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Pat,

Good to see you writing so prolifically already. I have a question,

when you went to the hospital you said it took 5 hours before they let you into

the emergency room. Was this because they thought you had a communicable/infectious

disease or just busy?

With regard to the N95 , they have no

protection against chemicals anyway but the biggest flaw with the N95 is that

it is only expected to provide 95% protection and that is in a laboratory test

not on someone working and moving.

Kind Regards & Happy new Year

Jeff Charlton

London

-----Original

Message-----

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Moffett

Sent: 29 December 2006 01:28

To: iequality

Subject: FW:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You know as well as I do that airborne mold toxins are not entirely

stopped because the employee is wearing an N-95 mask. Yes, I realize fine-micro

particulates and cell structures are greatly reduced, but how efficient is the

N-95 mask to begin with let alone measuring gas-phase efficiency?

May be we should revisit several of the studies completed. See

attachments.

From: gary rosen [mailto:garyrosen72652]

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006

8:02 AM

To: pmoffettemeiaq

Subject: Re:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say

that mold remediation contractors are getting sick? Just because they are

wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge mask? An N-95 mask filters 95% down

to .3 mircron. It should be more than adequate for filtering Stachybotrys

spores that contain tricothecene toxin if the work is done carefully.. Stachy

spores are large at about 10 micron.

More important

than the face mask is the type of mold remediation work? Did they use

blasting \ sanding type of remediation or wet remediation? Did they have

good air circulation or did the mold remediators remain in a heavily toxic

environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

----- Original

Message ----

From: Wei Tang <wtangQLABusa>

To: iequality

Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:46:28 PM

Subject: Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get

some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in tropical islands.

Wei

Moffett

<pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As I lay in the hospital bed this past

week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream about work. The story goes: I

was being asked as an expert in a worker’s

compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of mold growth in

constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent T-2 mold

compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other

mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled,

ingested and absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though

they are wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as

compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does

not” adequately protect workers during mold remediation.

I do not remember what my response was but

I do remember the question. Can you and others in the group fill in

the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang,

Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill,

NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA. com

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Penetration

of Biological Agents through Respirators, I (RPE7, PF3)

Agent

Filter Alone

Mask Fitted with Care

Poorly Fitted Mask

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

B.

Subtilis var, globigii

6.8

0.02

9.1

0.07

3.3

77.8

Micrococcus

luteus

8.3

0.1

7.6

67.5

2.1

67.1

Bacteriophage

11.1

10.7

11.0

0.07

0.18

<0.01

9.4

25.6

3.8

60.5

Source withheld (restricted).

The data are not pretty for good filters,

let alone lesser.

You forgot to mention that wearers of

masks tend to adjust them subconsciously breaking the seal.

See attached for more data.

When one hooks up an N-95 to a Portacount with

the N95 adaptor (we have one), it is easy to see the points of potential

failure.

Tony

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

" Tony " Havics,

CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US

36, Suite 830

Avon, IN

46123

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to

place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

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.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of J Charlton

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006

2:33 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Pat,

Good to see you writing

so prolifically already. I have a question, when you went to the hospital you

said it took 5 hours before they let you into the emergency room. Was this

because they thought you had a communicable/infectious disease or just busy?

With regard to the N95 ,

they have no protection against chemicals anyway but the biggest flaw with the

N95 is that it is only expected to provide 95% protection and that is in a

laboratory test not on someone working and moving.

Kind Regards & Happy

new Year

Jeff Charlton

London

Re:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say that mold remediation contractors are

getting sick? Just because they are wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge

mask? An N-95 mask filters 95% down to .3 mircron. It should be

more than adequate for filtering Stachybotrys spores that contain tricothecene

toxin if the work is done carefully.. Stachy spores are large at about 10

micron.

More important than the face mask is the type of mold

remediation work? Did they use blasting \ sanding type of remediation or

wet remediation? Did they have good air circulation or did the mold

remediators remain in a heavily toxic environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get some rest while dreaming of being on

vacation in tropical islands.

Wei

Moffett <pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As I lay in

the hospital bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream

about work. The story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a worker’s

compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of mold growth in

constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent T-2 mold

compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other

mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed

into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an

N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a HEPA/Organic

filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does not” adequately

protect workers during mold remediation.

I do not

remember what my response was but I do remember the question. Can you and

others in the group fill in the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill,

NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA. com

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Jeff:

I feel you are in error when you state: “With regard to the N95 , they have no protection against chemicals anyway...” Are you sating that the N95 provides no protection to lead dust, or berylllium fragments, or silica, or asbestos, or mold spores, or other particulate-solid chemicals or agents? If so, you are wrong. I feel that you need to be a bit more careful with your choice of terms. Granted, the N95 media provides no protection from chemical VAPORS and GASES, and the N95 media may provide only moderate protection from chemical condensates and fumes....more so with water-soluble chemicals and less so with hydrocarbon-soluble chemicals depending upon the media. But lets not throw the baby out with the bath water! The N95 media is effective for most solid aerosols. While I agree with you that tests on the media were in a lab (they need to be), and that tests may not have been conducted on someone working and moving (albeit, they were), the N95 media IS effective; albeit not 100% effective. It is better than nothing! I take exception to the purists out there that criticize because something is not 100% effective, e.g., N95 media does not stop small aspergillus spores. Correct....but it will stop some of them. Moreover, it should be plenty effective against larger spores, e.g., stachybotris, not to mention spores with length:width aspect ratios exceeding 10? If you desire 100% protection, wear a SCBA! For those folks that recognize that moderate to almost 100% protection against particulate-solid chemicals is sufficient, then there are methods of respiratory protection other than a SCBA, and the N95 media fits a niche. Granted, it has limitations. Everything does. However, to claim that the N95 provides no protection against chemicals, just goes too far in the direction of misinformation.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

Pat,

Good to see you writing so prolifically already. I have a question, when you went to the hospital you said it took 5 hours before they let you into the emergency room. Was this because they thought you had a communicable/infectious disease or just busy?

With regard to the N95 , they have no protection against chemicals anyway but the biggest flaw with the N95 is that it is only expected to provide 95% protection and that is in a laboratory test not on someone working and moving.

Kind Regards & Happy new Year

Jeff Charlton

London

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say that mold remediation contractors are getting sick? Just because they are wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge mask? An N-95 mask filters 95% down to .3 mircron. It should be more than adequate for filtering Stachybotrys spores that contain tricothecene toxin if the work is done carefully.. Stachy spores are large at about 10 micron.

More important than the face mask is the type of mold remediation work? Did they use blasting \ sanding type of remediation or wet remediation? Did they have good air circulation or did the mold remediators remain in a heavily toxic environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in tropical islands.

Wei

Moffett <pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As I lay in the hospital bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream about work. The story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a worker’s compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of mold growth in constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent T-2 mold compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does not” adequately protect workers during mold remediation.

I do not remember what my response was but I do remember the question. Can you and others in the group fill in the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA. com <http://www.qlabusa.com/>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Tony,

Good information to a

point I want to know more. I noticed your e-mail chart “Penetration of

Biological Agents through Respirators” appears to be cut-off from the

entire chart. And, it is different from your attachment Mask Protection??

Could

you please provide me with more detail? This is an area of extreme interest to

me as a Hazmat supervisor, etc.

Moffett

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Tony Havics

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006

10:24 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Penetration

of Biological Agents through Respirators, I (RPE7, PF3)

Agent

Filter Alone

Mask Fitted with Care

Poorly Fitted Mask

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

B. Subtilis var, globigii

6.8

0.02

9.1

0.07

3.3

77.8

Micrococcus luteus

8.3

0.1

7.6

67.5

2.1

67.1

Bacteriophage

11.1

10.7

11.0

0.07

0.18

<0.01

9.4

25.6

3.8

60.5

Source withheld (restricted).

The data are not pretty for good filters, let alone lesser.

You forgot to mention that wearers of masks tend to adjust them

subconsciously breaking the seal.

See attached for more data.

When one hooks up an N-95 to a Portacount with the N95 adaptor (we

have one), it is easy to see the points of potential failure.

Tony

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

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US 36, Suite 830

Avon, IN 46123

off

fax

cell

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

point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

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.

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of J Charlton

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006

2:33 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Pat,

Good to see you writing

so prolifically already. I have a question, when you went to the hospital you

said it took 5 hours before they let you into the emergency room. Was this

because they thought you had a communicable/infectious disease or just

busy?

With regard to the N95 ,

they have no protection against chemicals anyway but the biggest flaw with the

N95 is that it is only expected to provide 95% protection and that is in a

laboratory test not on someone working and moving.

Kind Regards & Happy

new Year

Jeff Charlton

London

-----Original

Message-----

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Moffett

Sent: 29 December 2006 01:28

To: iequality

Subject: FW:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You know as well as I do

that airborne mold toxins are not entirely stopped because the employee is

wearing an N-95 mask. Yes, I realize fine-micro particulates and cell structures

are greatly reduced, but how efficient is the N-95 mask to begin with let alone

measuring gas-phase efficiency?

May be we should revisit

several of the studies completed. See attachments.

From: gary rosen [mailto:garyrosen72652]

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006

8:02 AM

To: pmoffettemeiaq

Subject: Re:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say that mold remediation contractors are

getting sick? Just because they are wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge

mask? An N-95 mask filters 95% down to .3 mircron. It should be

more than adequate for filtering Stachybotrys spores that contain tricothecene

toxin if the work is done carefully.. Stachy spores are large at about 10

micron.

More important than the face mask is the type of mold

remediation work? Did they use blasting \ sanding type of remediation or

wet remediation? Did they have good air circulation or did the mold

remediators remain in a heavily toxic environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get some rest while dreaming of being on

vacation in tropical islands.

Wei

Moffett

<pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As

I lay in the hospital bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a

dream about work. The story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a

worker’s compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of

mold growth in constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent

T-2 mold compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other mycotoxigenicity

agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the system of

mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an N-95 facemask.

Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge

mask, the N-95 mask “does not” adequately protect workers during

mold remediation.

I

do not remember what my response was but I do remember the question. Can you

and others in the group fill in the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill,

NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA. com

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

,

Take your time and recover well. We look

forward to seeing you up and around in 2007. Be blessed and its good to see

your doing well.

See you in 2007,

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Moffett

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006

8:59 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Jeff,

In the US,

most emergency hospitals are very busy where you have to be evaluated

(diagnosed/triaged) of your illness or injuries over a matter of hours; unless

you arrived by ambulance and are ready to die, they don’t look to you as a

life-threatening emergency. (Sad fact.)

My dislike for N-95 masks, are several: I believe they are not true

respirators, so supervisors and remediation wearers do not wear them properly

(constant problem); they have limited protection factors against gases and

toxins; recent studies show they are overrated. As a paper mask, I prefer N-99

and N-100, with a minor increase in cost, and the mask often fits better.

Finally, thank you for your kind concerns about me. I take 500 mg

of Vicodin several times throughout the day just to control the pain and

generally several times a night to sleep. I can eat most food but I am

carefully watching my diet. I will have a glass of champagne or two New Years

Eve, and my wife and I will be talking about you and your family, our friends

in England.

To a better 2007!

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of J Charlton

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006

11:33 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: RE:Mycotoxins

and Employee Exposure

Pat,

Good to see you writing so prolifically already. I have a question,

when you went to the hospital you said it took 5 hours before they let you into

the emergency room. Was this because they thought you had a communicable/infectious

disease or just busy?

With regard to the N95 , they have no

protection against chemicals anyway but the biggest flaw with the N95 is that

it is only expected to provide 95% protection and that is in a laboratory test

not on someone working and moving.

Kind Regards & Happy new Year

Jeff Charlton

London

-----Original

Message-----

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of Moffett

Sent: 29 December 2006 01:28

To: iequality

Subject: FW:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You know as well as I do that airborne mold toxins are not entirely

stopped because the employee is wearing an N-95 mask. Yes, I realize fine-micro

particulates and cell structures are greatly reduced, but how efficient is the

N-95 mask to begin with let alone measuring gas-phase efficiency?

May be we should revisit several of the studies completed. See

attachments.

From: gary rosen

[mailto:garyrosen72652]

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006

8:02 AM

To: pmoffettemeiaq

Subject: Re:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say

that mold remediation contractors are getting sick? Just because they are

wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge mask? An N-95 mask filters 95% down

to .3 mircron. It should be more than adequate for filtering Stachybotrys

spores that contain tricothecene toxin if the work is done carefully.. Stachy

spores are large at about 10 micron.

More important

than the face mask is the type of mold remediation work? Did they use

blasting \ sanding type of remediation or wet remediation? Did they have

good air circulation or did the mold remediators remain in a heavily toxic

environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

----- Original

Message ----

From: Wei Tang <wtangQLABusa>

To: iequality

Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 8:46:28 PM

Subject: Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get

some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in tropical islands.

Wei

Moffett

<pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As I lay in the hospital bed this past

week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream about work. The story goes: I

was being asked as an expert in a worker’s

compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of mold growth in

constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent T-2 mold

compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other mycotoxigenicity

agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed

into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an

N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a

HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does not”

adequately protect workers during mold remediation.

I do not remember what my response was but

I do remember the question. Can you and others in the group fill in

the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang,

Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill,

NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA. com

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Jeff,

is on the money. In our firm we use full face respirators on day one to get the heavy cleaning done. We use wet techniques including soap and water and pressure spraying strong bleach that do not make microparticles. If you use blasting or sandin,g N95 will not be effective. We then use N95 along with good air circulation once the hots spots are taken care of. The N95 is not very good for viruses, bacteria or microparticles but especially works well on Stachybotrys and other large spores. We find that N95 is more effective than the half face masks because they are cooler and stay dryer and people wear them. We only use the 3M 8511 that have the little exhuast flap as this makes breathing easier and keeps the moisture level in the mask down. Each worker goes thru 3-4 N95 per day.

When we vacuum we use a long extension and keep the vacuum outside.

We use ventillation (exhuast outside) to get rid of fumes.

Rosen, Ph.D.

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure,You should get some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in tropical islands. Wei Moffett <pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:As I lay in the hospital bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream about work. The story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a worker’s compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of mold growth in constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent T-2 mold compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does not” adequately

protect workers during mold remediation.I do not remember what my response was but I do remember the question. Can you and others in the group fill in the answer for me? Moffett Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab DirectorQLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA. com <http://www.qlabusa. com/> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

[Guest guest]

N95's, and for that matter, all filtering facepiece respirators, can not be seal checked effectively. This is the check you do each time you don the respirator. (not to be confused with annual fit testing)The user of a respirator is supposed to conduct a positive or negative seal check each time the respirator is worn to make sure there are no leaks. For elastomeric respirators (those with N95 cartridges and a rubber like facepeiece, for example) this seal check is very easy, very reassuring, and very instructional. It is almost impossible to perform with a filtering facepiece or " paper " mask such as a N95, 99 or 100. NIOSH is currently conducting a study of this issue (whether filtering facepiece respirators can be properly seal checked). I have spoken to researchers there who personally do not recommend them for deadly microbes (such as pandemic flu) for this very reason. If you are insistant on using a filtering facepeiece respirator, at least employees should know of this limitation and I believe they should not be assigned a filtering facepiece respirator if it does not pass a fit test on the first round, because this would indicate that it does not alsways fit properly.

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say that mold remediation contractors are getting sick? Just

because they are wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge mask? An N-95 mask

filters 95% down to .3 mircron. It should be more than adequate for

filtering Stachybotrys spores that contain tricothecene toxin if the work is

done carefully.. Stachy spores are large at about 10 micron.

More important than the face mask is the type of mold remediation work? Did

they use blasting \ sanding type of remediation or wet remediation? Did

they have good air circulation or did the mold remediators remain in a

heavily toxic environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in tropical

islands.

Wei

Moffett <pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As I lay in the hospital bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I

had a dream about work. The story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a

worker's compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of

mold growth in constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing

virulent T-2 mold compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene

and other mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and

absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are

wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a

HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask " does not " adequately

protect workers during mold remediation.

I do not remember what my response was but I do remember the question. Can

you and others in the group fill in the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA. com <http://www.qlabusa.com/>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Tony,

Great table and attachment. Can you give us the details on the actual mask types? Does the test flow rate make a big difference? What about a hard work breathing rate? I think I read something about many responders, who are working hard, exceeding all the mask test rates? Are the penetration tests then worthless?

Bradley Harr MS, CMC, CHMM, RPIHSr. Environmental ScientistSummit Environmental, Inc.bdharr@...

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Tony HavicsSent: Friday, December 29, 2006 11:24 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Penetration of Biological Agents through Respirators, I (RPE7, PF3)

Agent

Filter Alone

Mask Fitted with Care

Poorly Fitted Mask

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

Pressure Drop (Pa)

% Penetration

B. Subtilis var, globigii

6.8

0.02

9.1

0.07

3.3

77.8

Micrococcus luteus

8.3

0.1

7.6

67.5

2.1

67.1

Bacteriophage

11.1

10.7

11.0

0.07

0.18

<0.01

9.4

25.6

3.8

60.5

Source withheld (restricted).

The data are not pretty for good filters, let alone lesser.

You forgot to mention that wearers of masks tend to adjust them subconsciously breaking the seal.

See attached for more data.

When one hooks up an N-95 to a Portacount with the N95 adaptor (we have one), it is easy to see the points of potential failure.

Tony

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

"Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US 36, Suite 830

Avon, IN 46123

off

fax

cell

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

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.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of J CharltonSent: Friday, December 29, 2006 2:33 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Pat,

Good to see you writing so prolifically already. I have a question, when you went to the hospital you said it took 5 hours before they let you into the emergency room. Was this because they thought you had a communicable/infectious disease or just busy?

With regard to the N95 , they have no protection against chemicals anyway but the biggest flaw with the N95 is that it is only expected to provide 95% protection and that is in a laboratory test not on someone working and moving.

Kind Regards & Happy new Year

Jeff CharltonLondon

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of MoffettSent: 29 December 2006 01:28To: iequality Subject: FW: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You know as well as I do that airborne mold toxins are not entirely stopped because the employee is wearing an N-95 mask. Yes, I realize fine-micro particulates and cell structures are greatly reduced, but how efficient is the N-95 mask to begin with let alone measuring gas-phase efficiency?

May be we should revisit several of the studies completed. See attachments.

From: gary rosen [mailto:garyrosen72652] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 8:02 AMTo: pmoffettemeiaqSubject: Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

Why do you say that mold remediation contractors are getting sick? Just because they are wearing an N95 instead of a cartridge mask? An N-95 mask filters 95% down to .3 mircron. It should be more than adequate for filtering Stachybotrys spores that contain tricothecene toxin if the work is done carefully.. Stachy spores are large at about 10 micron.

More important than the face mask is the type of mold remediation work? Did they use blasting \ sanding type of remediation or wet remediation? Did they have good air circulation or did the mold remediators remain in a heavily toxic environment durnig the remediation?

Rosen

Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

,

You should get some rest while dreaming of being on vacation in tropical islands.

Wei

Moffett <pmoffettemeiaq (DOT) com> wrote:

Wei and Group:

As I lay in the hospital bed this past week under heavy morpheme sedation, I had a dream about work. The story goes: I was being asked as an expert in a worker’s compensation case to support the hypothesis that generations of mold growth in constantly wet drywall walls are capable of producing virulent T-2 mold compounds and antigens including cytotoxin, trichothecene and other mycotoxigenicity agents. These agents can be inhaled, ingested and absorbed into the system of mold remediation employees even though they are wearing an N-95 facemask. Meaning, a paper-base facemask as compared to a HEPA/Organic filtered cartridge mask, the N-95 mask “does not” adequately protect workers during mold remediation.

I do not remember what my response was but I do remember the question. Can you and others in the group fill in the answer for me?

Moffett

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA. com

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Wei and Others:

Please allow me to chime in on this thread regarding PPE and worker exposure.

Many folks on this list do not routinely wear PPE. does, I do, and I believe there may be others too. To state: “... how well does it fit on workers' face is an issue.” Well of course it is! How well PPE fits has ALWAYS been an issue; whether it be respiratory protection, gloves, body-suits, safety glasses, shoes, hardhats, etc. Moreover, the fit will always be an issue. Tis the nature of PPE. Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; much greater risk than workers at a facility with ionizing radiation?, much greater risk than at a site erecting structural steel?, much greater risk solely because they are in the remediation industry?, much greater risk than???? Please note that the leading cause of occupational fatalities is driving accidents, therefore, the greatest risk, based on the stats, is driving; not remediation work. I don’t say this to demean the intent of what you state...YES, remediation workers face some significant risks and compelling issues that warrant PPE. However, let’s keep everything in perspective please. Wei, you also state: “Someone else has to answer on how much protection the workers need.” That is correct! And it is the Competent Person on the job site; typically the supervisor or foreman. Some are better at it than others, and some employers are better at it than others. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly; and I am not the only one that can attest to this.

Bottom line.....All PPE has its benefits, value, AND limitations. More often than not, the training, skill and diligence of the user will ultimately determine how effective the PPE is. (I just completed four days of benzene monitoring at a refinery assessing 9 workers using SCBAs and APRs, the difference in PPE use and effectiveness between workers was notable, whereas the training and equipment were identical.) And this assumes that the workers are provided with the training, skills, and proper equipment to provide a sufficient level of protection necessary to complete their work. PPE is often worn during some very grueling tasks, and not all of it performs to the level we would like it to. Moreover, even some of the best PPE fails. When this occurs, we would all hope that those in charge would evaluate the situation and change the methods and manner in which the work is performed; recognizing that the remediation worker’s health and safety are of utmost importance, AND because there are others at the workers home that are expecting that person to return home safe and healthy.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

>

> ,

>

> Hope you are feeling better already.

>

> I agree. The filter material of N95 face masks may filter

partcles very well, but how well does it fit on workers' face is a

issue. Airborne mycotoxins are generally contained in particles (not

as pure chemical floating in the air). Those particles (cell

fragments or substrate debris) can be in sub-microns ranges though.

More research are still needed on the exposure of airborne mycotoxins

to people. Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk, and

that's why those PPE are there. Someone else has to answer on how

much protection the workers need. I would think that it depends on

the remediation method used (blasting or not).

>

> Wei Tang

> QLab

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Wei Tang, Ph.D.

> Lab Director

> QLab

> 5 Drive

> Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

>

> www.QLabUSA.com

There is much that is not known about airborne mycotoxins. Organic

compounds greater than 5 carbons in compositions are generally not

volitile. However in a conversation I had with Dr. Strauss at

Texas Tech University, it appears that detachment of heavy mycotoxins

in Stachybotrys occurs while airborne. After detachment it is not

clear what happens and if these compounds behave as gasses. As for

other species, more research needs to be done and same for estimating

realistic airborne concentrations.

Contact Texas Tech Indoor Air Quality program for more info.

Jeff Deuitch

Microbiologist

Administrator, the IAQ Forum

www.iaqforum.net

[Guest guest]

Hi , "Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; " Yes, I meant that the home owners, consultants, inspectors, etc. have much lower exposure to fungal (mold) biomass. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei and Others:Please allow me to chime in on this thread regarding PPE and worker exposure.Many folks on this list do not routinely wear PPE. does, I do, and I believe there may be others too. To state: “... how well does it fit on workers' face is an issue.” Well of course it is! How well PPE fits has ALWAYS been an issue; whether it be respiratory protection, gloves, body-suits, safety glasses, shoes, hardhats, etc. Moreover, the fit will always be an issue. Tis the nature of PPE. Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; much greater risk than workers at a facility with ionizing radiation?, much greater risk than at a site erecting structural steel?, much greater risk solely because they are in

the remediation industry?, much greater risk than???? Please note that the leading cause of occupational fatalities is driving accidents, therefore, the greatest risk, based on the stats, is driving; not remediation work. I don’t say this to demean the intent of what you state...YES, remediation workers face some significant risks and compelling issues that warrant PPE. However, let’s keep everything in perspective please. Wei, you also state: “Someone else has to answer on how much protection the workers need.” That is correct! And it is the Competent Person on the job site; typically the supervisor or foreman. Some are better at it than others, and some employers are better at it than others. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly; and I am not the only one that can attest to this.Bottom line.....All PPE has its benefits, value, AND limitations. More often than not, the training, skill and diligence of

the user will ultimately determine how effective the PPE is. (I just completed four days of benzene monitoring at a refinery assessing 9 workers using SCBAs and APRs, the difference in PPE use and effectiveness between workers was notable, whereas the training and equipment were identical.) And this assumes that the workers are provided with the training, skills, and proper equipment to provide a sufficient level of protection necessary to complete their work. PPE is often worn during some very grueling tasks, and not all of it performs to the level we would like it to. Moreover, even some of the best PPE fails. When this occurs, we would all hope that those in charge would evaluate the situation and change the methods and manner in which the work is performed; recognizing that the remediation worker’s health and safety are of utmost importance, AND because there are others at the workers home that are expecting that person to return home safe

and healthy.For what it is worth....-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 1/4/07 8:26 PM, "iaqforum" <moldgroupaol> wrote: >> , > > Hope you are feeling better already.> > I agree. The filter material of N95 face masks may filter partcles very well, but how well does it fit on workers' face is a issue. Airborne mycotoxins are generally contained in particles (not as pure chemical floating in the air). Those particles (cell

fragments or substrate debris) can be in sub-microns ranges though. More research are still needed on the exposure of airborne mycotoxins to people. Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk, and that's why those PPE are there. Someone else has to answer on how much protection the workers need. I would think that it depends on the remediation method used (blasting or not). > > Wei Tang> QLab> > > > > > > Wei Tang, Ph.D.> Lab Director> QLab> 5 Drive> Cherry Hill, NJ 08003> > www.QLabUSA.comThere is much that is not known about airborne mycotoxins. Organic compounds greater than 5 carbons in compositions are generally not volitile. However

in a conversation I had with Dr. Strauss at Texas Tech University, it appears that detachment of heavy mycotoxins in Stachybotrys occurs while airborne. After detachment it is not clear what happens and if these compounds behave as gasses. As for other species, more research needs to be done and same for estimating realistic airborne concentrations.Contact Texas Tech Indoor Air Quality program for more info.Jeff DeuitchMicrobiologistAdministrator, the IAQ Forumwww.iaqforum.net Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

Hi , "Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; " Yes, I meant that the home owners, consultants, inspectors, etc. have much lower exposure to fungal (mold) biomass. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei and Others:Please allow me to chime in on this thread regarding PPE and worker exposure.Many folks on this list do not routinely wear PPE. does, I do, and I believe there may be others too. To state: “... how well does it fit on workers' face is an issue.” Well of course it is! How well PPE fits has ALWAYS been an issue; whether it be respiratory protection, gloves, body-suits, safety glasses, shoes, hardhats, etc. Moreover, the fit will always be an issue. Tis the nature of PPE. Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; much greater risk than workers at a facility with ionizing radiation?, much greater risk than at a site erecting structural steel?, much greater risk solely because they are in

the remediation industry?, much greater risk than???? Please note that the leading cause of occupational fatalities is driving accidents, therefore, the greatest risk, based on the stats, is driving; not remediation work. I don’t say this to demean the intent of what you state...YES, remediation workers face some significant risks and compelling issues that warrant PPE. However, let’s keep everything in perspective please. Wei, you also state: “Someone else has to answer on how much protection the workers need.” That is correct! And it is the Competent Person on the job site; typically the supervisor or foreman. Some are better at it than others, and some employers are better at it than others. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly; and I am not the only one that can attest to this.Bottom line.....All PPE has its benefits, value, AND limitations. More often than not, the training, skill and diligence of

the user will ultimately determine how effective the PPE is. (I just completed four days of benzene monitoring at a refinery assessing 9 workers using SCBAs and APRs, the difference in PPE use and effectiveness between workers was notable, whereas the training and equipment were identical.) And this assumes that the workers are provided with the training, skills, and proper equipment to provide a sufficient level of protection necessary to complete their work. PPE is often worn during some very grueling tasks, and not all of it performs to the level we would like it to. Moreover, even some of the best PPE fails. When this occurs, we would all hope that those in charge would evaluate the situation and change the methods and manner in which the work is performed; recognizing that the remediation worker’s health and safety are of utmost importance, AND because there are others at the workers home that are expecting that person to return home safe

and healthy.For what it is worth....-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 1/4/07 8:26 PM, "iaqforum" <moldgroupaol> wrote: >> , > > Hope you are feeling better already.> > I agree. The filter material of N95 face masks may filter partcles very well, but how well does it fit on workers' face is a issue. Airborne mycotoxins are generally contained in particles (not as pure chemical floating in the air). Those particles (cell

fragments or substrate debris) can be in sub-microns ranges though. More research are still needed on the exposure of airborne mycotoxins to people. Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk, and that's why those PPE are there. Someone else has to answer on how much protection the workers need. I would think that it depends on the remediation method used (blasting or not). > > Wei Tang> QLab> > > > > > > Wei Tang, Ph.D.> Lab Director> QLab> 5 Drive> Cherry Hill, NJ 08003> > www.QLabUSA.comThere is much that is not known about airborne mycotoxins. Organic compounds greater than 5 carbons in compositions are generally not volitile. However

in a conversation I had with Dr. Strauss at Texas Tech University, it appears that detachment of heavy mycotoxins in Stachybotrys occurs while airborne. After detachment it is not clear what happens and if these compounds behave as gasses. As for other species, more research needs to be done and same for estimating realistic airborne concentrations.Contact Texas Tech Indoor Air Quality program for more info.Jeff DeuitchMicrobiologistAdministrator, the IAQ Forumwww.iaqforum.net Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

Wei:

May I respectfully disagree. Remediation workers, if they are doing their job correctly, are performing their tasks using PPE and engineering controls (e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing). Albeit, remediation workers are causing a significant disturbance of a contaminated space and creating a potential for exposure. However, if they are using their PPE appropriately AND the space is properly managed with appropriate engineering controls, exposure to the remediation worker should be quite low, maybe insignificant; and so is the risk. In contrast, home owners, consultants and inspectors are occupying a space that has no engineering controls (e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing), and often consultants and inspectors are performing their work with little to no PPE (I resemble this last remark). Moreover, home owners live in the space without PPE or ongoing engineering controls, and they are there 24/7/365; therefore, duration of exposure is significant. Granted, the risk of exposure to the remediation worker can be significant and neither home owners, consultants, or inspectors are disturbing the contamination like the remediation worker. However, remediation workers, by training and experience, should have little to no exposure; assuming that they do their job correctly. YES, this is a big assumption. But most remediation firms I work with do a damn good job; albeit, there are some that give the industry a bad name. A few bad apples are representative in all aspects of our society. I will attest, and so will many others, that if the remediation worker does not do their job with the appropriate PPE and controls available to them, their exposure is huge and their long-term health will be significantly impacted; but it does not have to be that way. They have a choice...the home owner typically does not. The consultants and inspectors also have a choice, but it is often difficult to convince smart folks of anything. Familiarity breeds contempt....is a saying I use all too often, because I see it all too often.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

Hi ,

" Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; "

Yes, I meant that the home owners, consultants, inspectors, etc. have much lower exposure to fungal (mold) biomass.

Wei Tang

QLab

Geyer wrote:

Wei and Others:

Please allow me to chime in on this thread regarding PPE and worker exposure.

Many folks on this list do not routinely wear PPE. does, I do, and I believe there may be others too. To state: “... how well does it fit on workers' face is an issue.” Well of course it is! How well PPE fits has ALWAYS been an issue; whether it be respiratory protection, gloves, body-suits, safety glasses, shoes, hardhats, etc. Moreover, the fit will always be an issue. Tis the nature of PPE. Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; much greater risk than workers at a facility with ionizing radiation?, much greater risk than at a site erecting structural steel?, much greater risk solely because they are in the remediation industry?, much greater risk than???? Please note that the leading cause of occupational fatalities is driving accidents, therefore, the greatest risk, based on the stats, is driving; not remediation work. I don’t say this to demean the intent of what you state...YES, remediation workers face some significant risks and compelling issues that warrant PPE. However, let’s keep everything in perspective please. Wei, you also state: “Someone else has to answer on how much protection the workers need.” That is correct! And it is the Competent Person on the job site; typically the supervisor or foreman. Some are better at it than others, and some employers are better at it than others. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly; and I am not the only one that can attest to this.

Bottom line.....All PPE has its benefits, value, AND limitations. More often than not, the training, skill and diligence of the user will ultimately determine how effective the PPE is. (I just completed four days of benzene monitoring at a refinery assessing 9 workers using SCBAs and APRs, the difference in PPE use and effectiveness between workers was notable, whereas the training and equipment were identical.) And this assumes that the workers are provided with the training, skills, and proper equipment to provide a sufficient level of protection necessary to complete their work. PPE is often worn during some very grueling tasks, and not all of it performs to the level we would like it to. Moreover, even some of the best PPE fails. When this occurs, we would all hope that those in charge would evaluate the situation and change the methods and manner in which the work is performed; recognizing that the remediation worker’s health and safety are of utmost importance, AND because there are others at the workers home that are expecting that person to return home safe and healthy.

For what it is worth....

[Guest guest]

,

Good point.

Curtis Redington

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of GeyerSent: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:10 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Wei:May I respectfully disagree. Remediation workers, if they are doing their job correctly, are performing their tasks using PPE and engineering controls (e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing). Albeit, remediation workers are causing a significant disturbance of a contaminated space and creating a potential for exposure. However, if they are using their PPE appropriately AND the space is properly managed with appropriate engineering controls, exposure to the remediation worker should be quite low, maybe insignificant; and so is the risk. In contrast, home owners, consultants and inspectors are occupying a space that has no engineering controls (e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing), and often consultants and inspectors are performing their work with little to no PPE (I resemble this last remark). Moreover, home owners live in the space without PPE or ongoing engineering controls, and they are there 24/7/365; therefore, duration of exposure is significant. Granted, the risk of exposure to the remediation worker can be significant and neither home owners, consultants, or inspectors are disturbing the contamination like the remediation worker. However, remediation workers, by training and experience, should have little to no exposure; assuming that they do their job correctly. YES, this is a big assumption. But most remediation firms I work with do a damn good job; albeit, there are some that give the industry a bad name. A few bad apples are representative in all aspects of our society. I will attest, and so will many others, that if the remediation worker does not do their job with the appropriate PPE and controls available to them, their exposure is huge and their long-term health will be significantly impacted; but it does not have to be that way. They have a choice...the home owner typically does not. The consultants and inspect ors also have a choice, but it is often difficult to convince smart folks of anything. Familiarity breeds contempt....is a saying I use all too often, because I see it all too often.For what it is worth....-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 1/8/07 6:54 AM, "Wei Tang" <wtangQLABusa> wrote:

Hi , "Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; " Yes, I meant that the home owners, consultants, inspectors, etc. have much lower exposure to fungal (mold) biomass. Wei Tang QLab Geyer <mgeyeratg1> wrote:

Wei and Others:Please allow me to chime in on this thread regarding PPE and worker exposure.Many folks on this list do not routinely wear PPE. does, I do, and I believe there may be others too. To state: “... how well does it fit on workers' face is an issue.” Well of course it is! How well PPE fits has ALWAYS been an issue; whether it be respiratory protection, gloves, body-suits, safety glasses, shoes, hardhats, etc. Moreover, the fit will always be an issue. Tis the nature of PPE. Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; much greater risk than workers at a facility with ionizing radiation?, much greater risk than at a site erecting structural steel?, much greater risk solely because they are in the remediation industry?, much greater risk than???? Please note that the leading cause of occupational fatalities is driving accidents, therefor e, the greatest risk, based on the stats, is driving; not remediation work. I don’t say this to demean the intent of what you state...YES, remediation workers face some significant risks and compelling issues that warrant PPE. However, let’s keep everything in perspective please. Wei, you also state: “Someone else has to answer on how much protection the workers need.” That is correct! And it is the Competent Person on the job site; typically the supervisor or foreman. Some are better at it than others, and some employers are better at it than others. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly; and I am not the only one that can attest to this.Bottom line.....All PPE has its benefits, value, AND limitations. More often than not, the training, skill and diligence of the user will ultimately determine how effective the PPE is. (I just completed four days of benzene monitoring at a refinery assessing 9 workers using SCBAs and APRs, the difference in PPE use and effectiveness between workers was notable, whereas the training and equipment were identical.) And this assumes that the workers are provided with the training, skills, and proper equipment to provide a sufficient level of protection necessary to complete their work. PPE is often worn during some very grueling tasks, and not all of it performs to the level we would like it to. Moreover, even some of the best PPE fails. When this occurs, we would all hope that those in charge would evaluate the situation and change the methods and manner in which the work is performed; recognizing that the remediation worker’s health and safety are of utmost importance, AND because there are others at the workers home that are expecting that person to return home safe and healthy.For what it is worth....

[Guest guest]

, Thanks. I forgot to say "potential" and "per unit of time". The remediation workers have higher "potential" exposure than other people "per unit of time", especially for blasting methods. Like you explained, proper PPE and engineering control make a whole lot of differences, and that's why they are important. You also mentioned a good point that occupants are there 24/7. Long term exposure of a lower exposure could be even worse because you don't feel the effects in the beginning and you don't do anything until it becomes a serious health problem. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei:May I respectfully disagree. Remediation workers, if they are doing their job correctly, are performing their tasks using PPE and engineering controls (e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing). Albeit, remediation workers are causing a significant disturbance of a contaminated space and creating a potential for exposure. However, if they are using their PPE appropriately AND the space is properly managed with appropriate engineering controls, exposure to the remediation worker should be quite low, maybe insignificant; and so is the risk. In contrast, home owners, consultants and inspectors are occupying a

space that has no engineering controls (e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing), and often consultants and inspectors are performing their work with little to no PPE (I resemble this last remark). Moreover, home owners live in the space without PPE or ongoing engineering controls, and they are there 24/7/365; therefore, duration of exposure is significant. Granted, the risk of exposure to the remediation worker can be significant and neither home owners, consultants, or inspectors are disturbing the contamination like the remediation worker. However, remediation workers, by training and experience, should have little to no exposure; assuming that they do their job correctly. YES, this is a big assumption. But most remediation firms I work with do a damn good job; albeit, there are some that give the industry a bad name. A few bad apples are representative in all aspects of our society. I will attest, and so

will many others, that if the remediation worker does not do their job with the appropriate PPE and controls available to them, their exposure is huge and their long-term health will be significantly impacted; but it does not have to be that way. They have a choice...the home owner typically does not. The consultants and inspectors also have a choice, but it is often difficult to convince smart folks of anything. Familiarity breeds contempt....is a saying I use all too often, because I see it all too often.For what it is worth....-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 1/8/07 6:54 AM, "Wei Tang" <wtangQLABusa> wrote: Hi , "Wei...What do you mean when you say:

“Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; " Yes, I meant that the home owners, consultants, inspectors, etc. have much lower exposure to fungal (mold) biomass. Wei Tang QLab Geyer <mgeyeratg1> wrote: Wei and Others:Please allow me to chime in on this thread regarding PPE and worker exposure.Many folks on this list do not routinely wear PPE. does, I do, and I believe there may be others too. To state: “... how well does it fit on workers' face is an issue.” Well of course it is! How well PPE fits has ALWAYS been an issue; whether it be respiratory protection, gloves,

body-suits, safety glasses, shoes, hardhats, etc. Moreover, the fit will always be an issue. Tis the nature of PPE. Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; much greater risk than workers at a facility with ionizing radiation?, much greater risk than at a site erecting structural steel?, much greater risk solely because they are in the remediation industry?, much greater risk than???? Please note that the leading cause of occupational fatalities is driving accidents, therefore, the greatest risk, based on the stats, is driving; not remediation work. I don’t say this to demean the intent of what you state...YES, remediation workers face some significant risks and compelling issues that warrant PPE. However, let’s keep everything in perspective please. Wei, you also state: “Someone else

has to answer on how much protection the workers need.” That is correct! And it is the Competent Person on the job site; typically the supervisor or foreman. Some are better at it than others, and some employers are better at it than others. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly; and I am not the only one that can attest to this.Bottom line.....All PPE has its benefits, value, AND limitations. More often than not, the training, skill and diligence of the user will ultimately determine how effective the PPE is. (I just completed four days of benzene monitoring at a refinery assessing 9 workers using SCBAs and APRs, the difference in PPE use and effectiveness between workers was notable, whereas the training and equipment were identical.) And this assumes that the workers are provided with the training, skills, and proper equipment to provide a sufficient level of protection necessary to complete their work. PPE

is often worn during some very grueling tasks, and not all of it performs to the level we would like it to. Moreover, even some of the best PPE fails. When this occurs, we would all hope that those in charge would evaluate the situation and change the methods and manner in which the work is performed; recognizing that the remediation worker’s health and safety are of utmost importance, AND because there are others at the workers home that are expecting that person to return home safe and healthy.For what it is worth.... Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

,

I have to agree with Wei.

 I think his statement was made based on

real world conditions and your opinion is based on assumptions of

possibilities.  Even if wearing proper

PPE (which we haven’t really defined in this conversation), I think the

potential exposure to the worker is still greater than the occupants.  Please do not construe this as downplaying

occupant exposures. 

Look at almost any photos available from

NOLA and it doesn’t take one long to realize that these workers are

inadequately protected.  Most contractors

do not use the technologies that we all agree would make their exposures a lot

less.  Unfortunately it is wishful

thinking: much like preaching abstinence as a way to reduce STD.  Obviously it would work if everyone did it,

but we know that’s a pipe dream and not truly representative of the work

as it is currently being accomplished.  I

think we have to look at this as we would the third wave of asbestos related diseases.

I’m glad to hear that most of the

contractors that you work with are good at what they do.  That is encouraging.  I think most of us that have been doing this

for any length of time, and you seem to fit into this category, have figured out

how to prequalify the contractors that we use and we generally

have positive outcomes.  I do not believe

that this is the case on most mold remediation projects.  I would hazard a guess that most mold

projects do not have professional oversight so, as professionals, we do not see

the outcomes from most projects (until we get involved in litigating the case).

Mark Doughty

Re:

RE:Mycotoxins and Employee Exposure

Wei:

May I respectfully disagree. Remediation workers, if they are doing their

job correctly, are performing their tasks using PPE and engineering controls

(e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing). Albeit,

remediation workers are causing a significant disturbance of a contaminated

space and creating a potential for exposure. However, if they are using their

PPE appropriately AND the space is properly managed with appropriate

engineering controls, exposure to the remediation worker should be quite low,

maybe insignificant; and so is the risk. In contrast, home owners,

consultants and inspectors are occupying a space that has no engineering

controls (e.g., containment, ventilation, and HEPA air scrubbing), and often

consultants and inspectors are performing their work with little to no PPE (I

resemble this last remark). Moreover, home owners live in the space

without PPE or ongoing engineering controls, and they are there 24/7/365;

therefore, duration of exposure is significant. Granted, the risk of

exposure to the remediation worker can be significant and neither home owners,

consultants, or inspectors are disturbing the contamination like the

remediation worker. However, remediation workers, by training and

experience, should have little to no exposure; assuming that they do their job

correctly. YES, this is a big assumption. But most remediation

firms I work with do a damn good job; albeit, there are some that give the

industry a bad name. A few bad apples are representative in all aspects

of our society. I will attest, and so will many others, that if the

remediation worker does not do their job with the appropriate PPE and controls

available to them, their exposure is huge and their long-term health will be

significantly impacted; but it does not have to be that way. They have

a choice...the home owner typically does not. The consultants and

inspectors also have a choice, but it is often difficult to convince smart

folks of anything. Familiarity breeds contempt....is a saying I use

all too often, because I see it all too often.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

On 1/8/07 6:54 AM, " Wei Tang " <wtangQLABusa> wrote:

Hi ,

" Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a

much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation

workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; "

Yes, I meant that the home owners, consultants, inspectors, etc. have much

lower exposure to fungal (mold) biomass.

Wei Tang

QLab

Geyer

<mgeyeratg1> wrote:

Wei and Others:

Please allow me to chime in on this thread regarding PPE and worker exposure.

Many folks on this list do not routinely wear PPE. does, I do,

and I believe there may be others too. To state: “... how well does

it fit on workers' face is an issue.” Well of course it is!

How well PPE fits has ALWAYS been an issue; whether it be respiratory

protection, gloves, body-suits, safety glasses, shoes, hardhats, etc.

Moreover, the fit will always be an issue. Tis the nature of PPE.

Wei...What do you mean when you say: “Remediation worker are in a

much much greater risk.” Risk of what? Are remediation

workers at a much greater risk than the general public?; much greater risk than

workers at a facility with ionizing radiation?, much greater risk than at a

site erecting structural steel?, much greater risk solely because they are in

the remediation industry?, much greater risk than???? Please note that

the leading cause of occupational fatalities is driving accidents, therefore,

the greatest risk, based on the stats, is driving; not remediation work.

I don’t say this to demean the intent of what you state...YES,

remediation workers face some significant risks and compelling issues that

warrant PPE. However, let’s keep everything in perspective please.

Wei, you also state: “Someone else has to answer on how much

protection the workers need.” That is correct! And it is the

Competent Person on the job site; typically the supervisor or foreman.

Some are better at it than others, and some employers are better at it

than others. I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly; and I am not

the only one that can attest to this.

Bottom line.....All PPE has its benefits, value, AND limitations. More

often than not, the training, skill and diligence of the user will ultimately

determine how effective the PPE is. (I just completed four days of

benzene monitoring at a refinery assessing 9 workers using SCBAs and APRs, the

difference in PPE use and effectiveness between workers was notable, whereas

the training and equipment were identical.) And this assumes that the

workers are provided with the training, skills, and proper equipment to provide

a sufficient level of protection necessary to complete their work. PPE is

often worn during some very grueling tasks, and not all of it performs to the

level we would like it to. Moreover, even some of the best PPE fails.

When this occurs, we would all hope that those in charge would evaluate

the situation and change the methods and manner in which the work is performed;

recognizing that the remediation worker’s health and safety are of utmost

importance, AND because there are others at the workers home that are expecting

that person to return home safe and healthy.

For what it is worth....