RE: Health Canada Annex on Mould

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Kudos to Canada! That is HUGE a step in the right direction. It is now recognized under the law that mold within a damp indoor environment causes illness.

While I agree and understand the logic for the following sentence:

"Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

I wish there was a footnote somewhere explaining why indoor air testing is of much value in some situations.

I can tell you that within my own nightmare over this issue, that were it not for indoor air testing, we would have lost everything we own. We would not have been able to prove that the airborne mold spore count was twice as high throughout the entire home after the "remediation", then it was before they even started.

Sometimes, it not just about proving a health threat thru the usage of air testing. It's about proving cross-contamination, when the unregulated remediator has no clue as to what he is doing.

For some reason, that "cellophane and scotch tape" just didn't seem to work too well in protecting the inhabitability of my home. Before and after air samples were the only proof we had of this. And thank God we had it.

Sharon Kramer

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

This is why I push for pre and post air

sampling. If anything, it will determine if ever required the competence of the

remediation contractor. Did the remediation practices increase the counts in

the surrounding (uncontained locations) or did the process cross contaminate

the uncontaminated areas? Hey it may not happen but if it does and the

contractor does not have supportive documentation as to the pre-remediation benchmark,

he/she will be hard pressed to defend their practices.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007

8:29 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Health

Canada Annex on Mould

Jim,

Kudos to Canada! That is HUGE a

step in the right direction. It is now recognized under the law that mold

within a damp indoor environment causes illness.

While I agree and understand the logic

for the following sentence:

" Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for

the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of

building occupants. "

I wish there was a footnote somewhere

explaining why indoor air testing is of much value in some situations.

I can tell you that within my own

nightmare over this issue, that were it not for indoor air testing, we would

have lost everything we own. We would not have been able to prove that

the airborne mold spore count was twice as high throughout the entire home

after the " remediation " , then it was before they even

started.

Sometimes, it not just about proving a

health threat thru the usage of air testing. It's about proving

cross-contamination, when the unregulated remediator has no clue as to

what he is doing.

For some reason, that " cellophane

and scotch tape " just didn't seem to work too well in protecting the

inhabitability of my home. Before and after air samples were the only

proof we had of this. And thank God we had it.

Sharon Kramer

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Yes. And the flip side to that is, if a remediator has done his job properly, pre and post testing can help protect him from liability. While I understand that air testing is not a good way to determine human illness from the matter because of all the variables involved - and so I think the Canadian document is technically correct - I wish it was clear that air testing does have value as a piece of the puzzle.

This issue is not just about health being determined by air testing. It's about factors such as workers comp, home owners insurance, assuring a job is done properly, protecting people - contractors - insurers - school boards, etc from wrongful financial burdens. Pre and post testing is key part in helping to determine this. I just think the more information one has, the better for all concerned.

Sharon

Sharon,

This is why I push for pre and post air sampling. If anything, it will determine if ever required the competence of the remediation contractor. Did the remediation practices increase the counts in the surrounding (uncontained locations) or did the process cross contaminate the uncontaminated areas? Hey it may not happen but if it does and the contractor does not have supportive documentation as to the pre-remediation benchmark, he/she will be hard pressed to defend their practices.

EnviroBob

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

I may be jumping out of the pan and into the fire here but fungal air samples are not at all about assessing human health consequences! They are about documenting conditions within a very specific moment in time (a snapshot in time if you will).

Anyone using (snapshot type) fungal air sample to make definitive determinations about human health consequences is just barking up the wrong tree (in my opinion). The questions here are just too complex to be answered by even a "thousand word" photo much less a small fungal air sampling by someone who is (hopefully) qualified to:

Create an "appropriate" sampling methodology (science).

Accurately read the results gathered under that defined methodology. While at the same time understanding the inherent limitations of the above (more science).

Accurately interpret the collected results as presented in raw numeric form while at the same time understanding the inherent limitations of all of the above (even more science)!

NOT misrepresent one’s ability to do any of the above to the public. Oops…we are now moving away from "science" here an into the realm of "marketing". This is where I have to stop due and "jump ship" do to "self imposed" ethical limits.

I confess that am not a big fan of the PT Barnum/Dale Carnegie/Nick Gromeko/Troy /or Fry’s teachings as much as I am of that of Hippocratis/Darwin/Edison/Einstein (not to mention DeVinci, Jung, and the brothers..."et all" [in regard to human flight]).

This is not to say that fungal air samples are not without utility because such sampling does do have utility in my experience. Just don’t tell me that you can accurately predict individual occupant/worker health outcomes based on the results you have gained while taking that "snapshot" in time.

Stojanik

RE: Health Canada Annex on Mould

Sharon,

This is why I push for pre and post air sampling. If anything, it will determine if ever required the competence of the remediation contractor. Did the remediation practices increase the counts in the surrounding (uncontained locations) or did the process cross contaminate the uncontaminated areas? Hey it may not happen but if it does and the contractor does not have supportive documentation as to the pre-remediation benchmark, he/she will be hard pressed to defend their practices.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955aolSent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 8:29 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

Jim,

Kudos to Canada! That is HUGE a step in the right direction. It is now recognized under the law that mold within a damp indoor environment causes illness.

While I agree and understand the logic for the following sentence:

"Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

I wish there was a footnote somewhere explaining why indoor air testing is of much value in some situations.

I can tell you that within my own nightmare over this issue, that were it not for indoor air testing, we would have lost everything we own. We would not have been able to prove that the airborne mold spore count was twice as high throughout the entire home after the "remediation", then it was before they even started.

Sometimes, it not just about proving a health threat thru the usage of air testing. It's about proving cross-contamination, when the unregulated remediator has no clue as to what he is doing.

For some reason, that "cellophane and scotch tape" just didn't seem to work too well in protecting the inhabitability of my home. Before and after air samples were the only proof we had of this. And thank God we had it.

Sharon Kramer

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Sharon

Yes, of course testing has its limits, but until we can do way better testing than we do now we cannot get good correlations between any of the measured mold test results and actual health results. It is not that there is not a signal but that it is too small for the illness that is there and worst in houses that we know to be in mold trouble: ergo the tests are at fault not the health problems.

It would cost a very lot to do good research that would close the gap, but as you saw in the veteran's hospital, any government agency seems to duck; they own many moldy buildings and the mold is often there because of bad/deferred maintenance.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

Jim,

Kudos to Canada! That is HUGE a step in the right direction. It is now recognized under the law that mold within a damp indoor environment causes illness.

While I agree and understand the logic for the following sentence:

"Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

I wish there was a footnote somewhere explaining why indoor air testing is of much value in some situations.

I can tell you that within my own nightmare over this issue, that were it not for indoor air testing, we would have lost everything we own. We would not have been able to prove that the airborne mold spore count was twice as high throughout the entire home after the "remediation", then it was before they even started.

Sometimes, it not just about proving a health threat thru the usage of air testing. It's about proving cross-contamination, when the unregulated remediator has no clue as to what he is doing.

For some reason, that "cellophane and scotch tape" just didn't seem to work too well in protecting the inhabitability of my home. Before and after air samples were the only proof we had of this. And thank God we had it.

Sharon Kramer

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

Am I being naive here? Although it appears to be believed that the sampling may not link health illness I can not preclude the potential reactions which may be related to the allergenic properties associated to the same particulate (within the air stream or settled upon the surfaces).

That is not how I read it. It doesn't say to test or not test. The way I read it is that air testing is not conclusive by itself to say what symptoms occur in people. So don't count on them too heavily as proof someone will be well or someone will be sick. This could go both ways, low air tests do not mean people will be well and there is no mold. High tests do not mean everyone will get sick from the mold. That is how I understand it, anyway.

Therefore I will continue to sample to confirm or rule out allergenic possibilities (whatever it may be).

Yes.

Secondly, if the immune system reacts due to the allergenic nature of the particulate until it is taxed beyond its abilities to defend against other diseases; can we really say absolutely that mold and its spores are not related to illness?

No. We can't.

Just because it is not proven does not mean it is not possible. Consider HIV, one doesn’t die from HIV, but the patient will die of another disease due to the impact and taxation upon the immune system thus no longer allowing the system to defend against other viruses etc. Yet we accept that HIV is a health issue right?

Yes. And I think this Health Canada document does too. I think it is just saying there are limitations in the info provided by air testing in understanding human health from the matter.

Just because we sample for a certain mold (or whatever) and the sample come back negative does not mean there is no mold (or whatever) it just means it was not detected. So we are not able to speak in absolutes. Likewise, just because we don’t understand the link does not mean there is no link, just that one has not been detected or understood.

I think we are saying bascially the same thing, aren't we?

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Hi Bob,

Am I being naive here? Although it appears to be believed that the sampling may not link health illness I can not preclude the potential reactions which may be related to the allergenic properties associated to the same particulate (within the air stream or settled upon the surfaces).

That is not how I read it. It doesn't say to test or not test. The way I read it is that air testing is not conclusive by itself to say what symptoms occur in people. So don't count on them too heavily as proof someone will be well or someone will be sick. This could go both ways, low air tests do not mean people will be well and there is no mold. High tests do not mean everyone will get sick from the mold. That is how I understand it, anyway.

Therefore I will continue to sample to confirm or rule out allergenic possibilities (whatever it may be).

Yes.

Secondly, if the immune system reacts due to the allergenic nature of the particulate until it is taxed beyond its abilities to defend against other diseases; can we really say absolutely that mold and its spores are not related to illness?

No. We can't.

Just because it is not proven does not mean it is not possible. Consider HIV, one doesn’t die from HIV, but the patient will die of another disease due to the impact and taxation upon the immune system thus no longer allowing the system to defend against other viruses etc. Yet we accept that HIV is a health issue right?

Yes. And I think this Health Canada document does too. I think it is just saying there are limitations in the info provided by air testing in understanding human health from the matter.

Just because we sample for a certain mold (or whatever) and the sample come back negative does not mean there is no mold (or whatever) it just means it was not detected. So we are not able to speak in absolutes. Likewise, just because we don’t understand the link does not mean there is no link, just that one has not been detected or understood.

I think we are saying bascially the same thing, aren't we?

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

One thing to think about with the Canadian law. Yes, at the beginning, there will be costs associated with eliminating long-tolerated mold infestations that in all probability have been making people sick. Some buildings might be difficult to clean, but as the law is specifying that visible mold is to be eliinated, even inside of walls, but not with mycotoxins, its actually not a very stringent standard to meet compared to what it could have been. And it won't eliminate all problems, just the obvious, visible ones.

Think about that.But after some time of the law being in effect, the long term effect on costs will be minor because the goal will simply be maintenance of a steady state of maintenance. I.E. keeping buildings dry, and well insulated.

[Guest guest]

One thing to think about with the Canadian law. Yes, at the beginning, there will be costs associated with eliminating long-tolerated mold infestations that in all probability have been making people sick. Some buildings might be difficult to clean, but as the law is specifying that visible mold is to be eliinated, even inside of walls, but not with mycotoxins, its actually not a very stringent standard to meet compared to what it could have been. And it won't eliminate all problems, just the obvious, visible ones.

Think about that.But after some time of the law being in effect, the long term effect on costs will be minor because the goal will simply be maintenance of a steady state of maintenance. I.E. keeping buildings dry, and well insulated.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Am I being naive here? Although it appears

to be believed that the sampling may not link health illness I can not preclude

the potential reactions which may be related to the allergenic properties associated

to the same particulate (within the air stream or settled upon the surfaces).  Therefore

I will continue to sample to confirm or rule out allergenic possibilities

(whatever it may be).

Secondly, if the immune system reacts due

to the allergenic nature of the particulate until it is taxed beyond its abilities

to defend against other diseases; can we really say absolutely that mold and

its spores are not related to illness? Just because it is not proven does not

mean it is not possible. Consider HIV, one doesn’t die from HIV, but the

patient will die of another disease due to the impact and taxation upon the

immune system thus no longer allowing the system to defend against other viruses

etc.   Yet we accept that HIV is a health issue right?

Just because we sample for a certain mold

(or whatever) and the sample come back negative does not mean there is no mold

(or whatever) it just means it was not detected. So we are not able to speak in

absolutes. Likewise, just because we don’t understand the link does not

mean there is no link, just that one has not been detected or understood.

See Bioaerosols Asses & Cont: Thus, even if testing was conducted

specifically for thermophilic actino-mycetes (a common cause for HP) and

samples were collected appropriately, a laboratory cannot say that these

bacteria were not detected, unless the samples were grown on appropriate

culture medium and incubated at 50 " to 55°C.

Though the lab can say what was detected,

it may not always say what was not detected due to the necessary requirements

to properly detect the bacteria. Here is how I see it: if I don’t understand

what is required to detect the link how am I to rule out any link?  And

therefore likewise I can not say with any certainty that a link does not exist

but only that was not detected.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:55

AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Health

Canada Annex on Mould

Bob,

Yes. And the flip side to that is, if a

remediator has done his job properly, pre and post testing can help protect him

from liability. While I understand that air testing is not a good way to

determine human illness from the matter because of all the variables involved -

and so I think the Canadian document is technically correct - I wish

it was clear that air testing does have value as a piece of the puzzle.

This issue is not just about health being

determined by air testing. It's about factors such as workers comp, home

owners insurance, assuring a job is done properly, protecting people -

contractors - insurers - school boards, etc from wrongful financial

burdens. Pre and post testing is key part in helping to determine this. I

just think the more information one has, the better for all concerned.

Sharon

Sharon,

This is why I push for pre and post air sampling. If

anything, it will determine if ever required the competence of the remediation

contractor. Did the remediation practices increase the counts in the surrounding

(uncontained locations) or did the process cross contaminate the uncontaminated

areas? Hey it may not happen but if it does and the contractor does not have

supportive documentation as to the pre-remediation benchmark, he/she will be

hard pressed to defend their practices.

EnviroBob

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble

of posting it myself.

It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an

increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will tell!

For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most interesting

part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of exposure

limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be

used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This topic

has been a subject of discussion on the various group message boards

for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says it

best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to

evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an initial

building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building evaluation

tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily visible. Then

destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden' mould.

But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of health

risks.

All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no matter

what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the

health risks to the building occupants or the remediation firm's

employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air

samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling collected,

are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for health

risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the RC, the

use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation. Any

microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied by

caveat as to its limitations.

Don

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble

of posting it myself.

It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an

increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will tell!

For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most interesting

part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of exposure

limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be

used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This topic

has been a subject of discussion on the various group message boards

for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says it

best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to

evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an initial

building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building evaluation

tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily visible. Then

destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden' mould.

But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of health

risks.

All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no matter

what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the

health risks to the building occupants or the remediation firm's

employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air

samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling collected,

are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for health

risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the RC, the

use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation. Any

microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied by

caveat as to its limitations.

Don

[Guest guest]

Don,

I have no doubt that if someone does not know what they are doing "tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants."

However if you know what you are doing this is no doubt wrong.

Many times I get calls from people whose doctor has said they are sick from mold exposure. I am asked to determine if there is elevated levels of water damage indicators in the home or office that could correlate with the diagnosis. I do this ALL THE TIME.

It takes a combination of air sampling and DNA analysis of carpet dust (like Steve Vesper is doing at the EPA). It is very easy to get a very good indication if the location is sick by such testing.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the troubleof posting it myself. :)It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in anincrease in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will tell!For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most interesting part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This topic has been a subject of discussion on the various group message boards for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says it best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an initial building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building evaluation tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily visible. Thendestructive sampling

may be necessary to get at the 'hidden' mould.But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of healthrisks.All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no matter what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the health risks to the building occupants or the remediation firm's employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling collected, are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for health risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the RC, the use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation. Any microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied by caveat as to its limitations.Don

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

Thank you, I feel better that someone gets

it. I keep hearing that there is no link to health affects. What we should be

saying is the link has not been discovered (if there is one). The lack of

understanding (or discovery) does not mean that no link exists.

A negative sample result does not mean

that there is no contaminant. It can only be determined that no contaminant was

detected within the sample i.e. the negative sample can not be interpreted that

no mold is in the sampled location although can only be interpreted that no

mold was detected in the sample (the sample may not be representative of the

true overall condition due to its limitations).

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:26

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Health

Canada Annex on Mould

Hi Bob,

Am I being naive here? Although it appears to be believed that the

sampling may not link health illness I can not preclude the potential reactions

which may be related to the allergenic properties associated to the same

particulate (within the air stream or settled upon the surfaces).

That is not how I read it. It doesn't say

to test or not test. The way I read it is that air testing is not

conclusive by itself to say what symptoms occur in people. So don't count on

them too heavily as proof someone will be well or someone will be sick.

This could go both ways, low air tests do not mean people will be well and

there is no mold. High tests do not mean everyone will get sick from the

mold. That is how I understand it, anyway.

Therefore I will continue to sample to confirm or rule out

allergenic possibilities (whatever it may be).

Yes.

Secondly, if the immune system reacts due to the

allergenic nature of the particulate until it is taxed beyond its abilities to

defend against other diseases; can we really say absolutely that mold and its

spores are not related to illness?

No. We can't.

Just because it is not proven does not mean it is not possible.

Consider HIV, one doesn’t die from HIV, but the patient will die of

another disease due to the impact and taxation upon the immune system thus no

longer allowing the system to defend against other viruses etc. Yet

we accept that HIV is a health issue right?

Yes. And I think this Health Canada document does

too. I think it is just saying there are limitations in the info provided

by air testing in understanding human health from the matter.

Just because we sample for a certain mold (or

whatever) and the sample come back negative does not mean there is no mold (or

whatever) it just means it was not detected. So we are not able to speak in

absolutes. Likewise, just because we don’t understand the link does not

mean there is no link, just that one has not been detected or understood.

I think we are saying bascially the same thing, aren't we?

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

:

I have no doubt that you take air samples to assess the risks to the

health of building occupants ALL THE TIME. I will state again what

is in the Health Canada Annex on Mould: 'Further, in the absence of

exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.'

This is not myself stating this, . This is the Government of

Canada, through its leading health agency, Health Canada.

Please also read the ACGIH TLV booklet in the section

entitled, 'Introduction to Biologically Derived Airborne

Contaminants': 'There are no TLV's for interpreting environmental

measurements of a) total culturable or countable bioaerosols (e.g.,

total bacteria or fungi); specific culturable or countable

bioaerosols (e.g., Aspergillus fumigatis); c) infectious agents

(Legionella pneumophilia or Mycobacterium tuberculosis); or d)

assayable biological contaminants (e.g., endotoxin, mycotoxin,

antigens, or microbial volatile organic compounds'. The AGCIH then

goes on for two pages giving the reasons why there are no TLV's for

these contaminants.

With no accepted exposure limits for these contaminants, there is no

accepted method to evaluate the health risk to occupants to these

contaminants. To collect air samples of these contaminants and to

use the results to 'correlate with the diagnosis' of a physician is

to misuse the data, and possibly mislead the physician and the

building occupant. As ACGIH also states in this section: 'Therefore,

environmental sampling for bioaerosols should be conducted only

following careful formulation of testable hypotheses about potential

bioaerosol sources and mechanisms by which workers may be exposed

from these sources. Even when investigators work from testable

hypotheses and well-formulated sampling plans, results from

environmental bioaerosol monitoring may be inconclusive and

occasionally misleading'.

I am not one to dispute both the Government of Canada and ACGIH.

Weekes

>

> Don,

>

> I have no doubt that if someone does not know what they are

doing " tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to

assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

>

> However if you know what you are doing this is no doubt wrong.

>

> Many times I get calls from people whose doctor has said they are

sick from mold exposure. I am asked to determine if there is elevated

levels of water damage indicators in the home or office that could

correlate with the diagnosis. I do this ALL THE TIME.

>

> It takes a combination of air sampling and DNA analysis of carpet

dust (like Steve Vesper is doing at the EPA). It is very easy to get

a very good indication if the location is sick by such testing.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

>

> Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble

> of posting it myself.

>

> It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an

> increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will tell!

>

> For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most interesting

> part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of

exposure

> limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot

be

> used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This

topic

> has been a subject of discussion on the various group message

boards

> for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says it

> best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to

> evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an

initial

> building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building

evaluation

> tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily visible.

Then

> destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden' mould.

> But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of health

> risks.

>

> All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no

matter

> what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the

> health risks to the building occupants or the remediation firm's

> employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air

> samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling collected,

> are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for health

> risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the RC,

the

> use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation. Any

> microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied by

> caveat as to its limitations.

>

> Don

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Bored stiff? Loosen up...

> Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

> http://games.yahoo.com/games/front

>

[Guest guest]

Sure people get sick in moldy buildings, but while a good IAQ Investigator can predict fairly well when that will be so, none of the mold measurements are very good at doing that job. In the Wallaceburg study we tried many measurements and they were not very good predictors.

Jim H. white SSC

Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould> > Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble> of posting it myself. > > It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an> increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will tell!> > For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most interesting > part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of exposure > limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be > used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This topic > has been a subject of discussion on the various group message boards > for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says it > best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to > evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an initial > building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building evaluation > tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily visible. Then> destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden' mould.> But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of health> risks.> > All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no matter > what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the > health risks to the building occupants or the remediation firm's > employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air > samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling collected, > are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for health > risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the RC, the > use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation. Any > microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied by > caveat as to its limitations.> > Don> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _____________ __> Bored stiff? Loosen up... > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.> http://games. yahoo.com/ games/front>

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

[Guest guest]

:

The reason that the lack of TLV's are important to this discussion is

that, without them, the air sampling data collected cannot be

compared to established criteria as a lower threshold for adverse

health effects. How does one know if there is 'elevated' mold levels

if there is no established criteria to indicate what is 'elevated?'

To quote the USEPA: 'Standards or Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) for

airborne concentrations of mold, or mold spores, have not been set.

Currently, there are no EPA regulations or standards for airborne

mold contaminants.' Because there are no standards for airborne mold

contaminants, there is no way to know if a certain airborne

concentration of a specific mold spore in the air can cause adverse

health effects. It just cannot be done.

To quote the USEPA: 'Is sampling for mold needed? Usually, if the

mold can be seen, sampling is unnecessary. After finding mold, the

goal is to clean it up and fix the underlying water problem. Unless

the results would or could make a change in your plans, you don't

need to sample. Under certain circumstances, such as when litigation

is involved, the source of the mold is unclear, or health concerns

are a problem, you may consider sampling as part of your site

evaluation. However, routine sampling for mold is not recommended.

Keep in mind that the goal of mold remediation is to find the source

of the water problem, fix it, and clean up the mold.'

To quote the Institute of Medicine: 'The lack of knowledge regarding

the role of microorganisms in the development and exacerbation of

diseases found in occupants of damp indoor environments is due

largely to the lack of valid quantitative exposure-assessment methods

and knowledge of which specific microbial agents may primarily

account for the presumed health effects'.

I could go on and on, quoting USEPA, IOM, ISIAQ, AIHA, ACGIH, and any

other credible source you could name. The bottom line is the same as

stated by Health Canada: 'Further, in the absence of exposure limits,

results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to

assess risks to the health of building occupants.'

Weekes

> >

> > Don,

> >

> > I have no doubt that if someone does not know what they are

> doing " tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to

> assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

> >

> > However if you know what you are doing this is no doubt wrong.

> >

> > Many times I get calls from people whose doctor has said they are

> sick from mold exposure. I am asked to determine if there is

elevated

> levels of water damage indicators in the home or office that could

> correlate with the diagnosis. I do this ALL THE TIME.

> >

> > It takes a combination of air sampling and DNA analysis of carpet

> dust (like Steve Vesper is doing at the EPA). It is very easy to

get

> a very good indication if the location is sick by such testing.

> >

> > Rosen, Ph.D.

> > www.Mold-Books. com

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

> >

> > Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble

> > of posting it myself.

> >

> > It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an

> > increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will tell!

> >

> > For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most

interesting

> > part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of

> exposure

> > limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

cannot

> be

> > used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This

> topic

> > has been a subject of discussion on the various group message

> boards

> > for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says it

> > best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to

> > evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an

> initial

> > building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building

> evaluation

> > tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily visible.

> Then

> > destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden'

mould.

> > But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of

health

> > risks.

> >

> > All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no

> matter

> > what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the

> > health risks to the building occupants or the remediation firm's

> > employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air

> > samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling

collected,

> > are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for health

> > risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the RC,

> the

> > use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation. Any

> > microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied by

> > caveat as to its limitations.

> >

> > Don

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> ____________ __

> > Bored stiff? Loosen up...

> > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

> > http://games. yahoo.com/ games/front

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

>

[Guest guest]

Live Simply (without a name)

When you remove mold (the Annex includes hidden mold) you remove most of the mycotoxins. Remember that the mycotoxins have very low vapour pressures at room temperature and their primary exposure route for us is (ab-or adsorbed) on particles, even if they are not mold particles. If surfaces that were moldy (and surrounding ones) are very well cleaned then the vast majority of mycotoxins are gone from the source. Here is an instance that strongly supports the idea of 'glove clean' as supported by several on this list. If the transport mechanism for the mycotoxins is gone then there is no exposure, even if it is absorbed into materials still in place. I like to see well air-sealed cavities to reduce the number of fine particles that can land on contaminated surfaces and pick up some of the ab- or adsorbed mycotoxin in the hidden surfaces so that they cannot become a 'rebound' source.

For exposure and dose to occur the following must ALL exist:

1 a source of the pollutant in question;

2 a transport mechanism to the occupant;

3 an occupant, of course;

4 sufficient time for a dose that makes a difference to accumulate; and,

5 a sensitivity to that pollutant.

When you look at those necessary factors you can see why we do not have enough knowledge on what levels of molds (and mycotoxins) will make people sick:

1 we do not know enough about what size a sources is ( has talked a lot about fine mold debris as being important and I have been saying that to others in the research community for close to two decades);

2 we do not know enough about transport mechanisms from sources (especially those not seen but connected by air paths that sometimes deliver pollutant and sometimes absorb it);

3 occupants can be many places and have many different sensitivities, to both allergic and toxic materials, even infectious ones;

4 long exposure to low concentrations can accumulate a dose if the person cannot detoxify or otherwise clear out the pollutant, while some pollutants may trigger a threshold response at low doses, if the instantaneous concentration is high enough); and the real kicker5 occupants can have very widely varying sensitivities because of age, pregnancy, pre-existing disease or simultaneous exposure to other pollutants that, in combination, are much worse in those combinations.

I personally know that a toxic response to some molds is important because I am often unable to work for days after doing IAQ Investigations in some moldy houses. I cannot think clearly (see Jarvis et al about people's response to some mycotoxins) and I am so tired that I have trouble sitting up at the keyboard. Some deny this because it has not been proven well enough to them and that is not all that unreasonable. I do not have that option because of how strongly I react and honesty will not let me deny my reactions, nor others who react as I do.

Jim H. White System Science Consulting

Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

One thing to think about with the Canadian law. Yes, at the beginning, there will be costs associated with eliminating long-tolerated mold infestations that in all probability have been making people sick. Some buildings might be difficult to clean, but as the law is specifying that visible mold is to be eliinated, even inside of walls, but not with mycotoxins, its actually not a very stringent standard to meet compared to what it could have been. And it won't eliminate all problems, just the obvious, visible ones. Think about that.But after some time of the law being in effect, the long term effect on costs will be minor because the goal will simply be maintenance of a steady state of maintenance. I.E. keeping buildings dry, and well insulated.

[Guest guest]

Don,

The US EPA has done extensive work developing the Relative Moldiness Index. High RMI correlates with illness. This is all based on the latest DNA profiling techniques developed by Steve Vesper's group at the US EPA.

I understand that Canada does not have this tecnology. It was developed for the US EPA and is relatively new.

I would strongly recommend that you review the latest technological break throughs on PCR and not go back to the same old stuff written before Steve Vesper's work.

P.S. I do know that Canada is very sophisticated and in some respects more so than the US on healthy housing and many other issues. But that doesn't mean you can't learn a few things from the US from time to time.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould> > > > Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble> > of posting it myself. > > > > It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an> > increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will tell!> > > > For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most

interesting > > part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of > exposure > > limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot > be > > used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This > topic > > has been a subject of discussion on the various group message > boards > > for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says it > > best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to > > evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an > initial > > building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building > evaluation > > tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily visible. > Then> > destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden' mould.> > But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of

health> > risks.> > > > All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no > matter > > what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the > > health risks to the building occupants or the remediation firm's > > employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air > > samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling collected, > > are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for health > > risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the RC, > the > > use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation. Any > > microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied by > > caveat as to its limitations.> > > > Don> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________

_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _> ____________ __> > Bored stiff? Loosen up... > > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.> > http://games. yahoo.com/ games/front> >> > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _____________ __> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.> http://tv.yahoo. com/collections/ 265>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

[Guest guest]

For exposure and dose to occur the following must ALL

exist:

1 a source of the pollutant in question;

2 a transport mechanism to the occupant;

3 an occupant, of course;

4 sufficient time for a dose that makes a difference to

accumulate; and,

5 a sensitivity to that pollutant.

And a plausible path from the source to the person being exposed, as well

as sufficient concentration of the agent to cause a reaction (also

related to dose).

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

K. Klein, PE ME, MBA

Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Inc.

2523 SR 133

Bethel, OH 45106-0007

VOICE:

FAX: (with notice)

E-mail: mkklein68@...

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

When I was younger, I had all of the answers.

As I get older, I have discovered the questions.?

[Guest guest]

The US EPA has done extensive work developing the Relative Moldiness Index. High RMI correlates with illness. This is all based on the latest DNA profiling techniques developed by Steve Vesper's group at the US EPA.

,

My understanding is that the RMI correlates with water damage.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

:

I am familar with Steve Vesper's work at EPA. For those interested

in this discussion, here is Vesper's abstract:

'In a just-completed, five-year study in Cleveland-area, water-

damaged homes of asthmatics, EPA Office of Research and Development

(ORD) researchers, in collaboration with Case Western Reserve

University Medical School, established that specific molds were

statistically more common in water-damaged homes. When the molds were

removed from these homes, the children had a significant decrease in

asthma symptoms and symptom days. The result was a statistically

significant tenfold reduction in the use of medical interventions

(i.e., emergency room visits or hospital admissions) for children

living in these homes. In a just-completed study in Cincinnati, the

relationship between mold concentrations and the development of

wheeze and/or rhinitis in infants was tested. To measure exposure

risk, EPA scientists developed the EPA relative moldiness index© or

ERMI© based on the measurement of the concentration of 36 species of

molds in floor dust samples by using EPA's patented " Mold

Technology. " The ERMI© values were used to accurately predict the

risk for infants developing respiratory illness. By applying these

findings and techniques, we should be able to reduce the asthma

burden in the US, reduce the use of medical care, and save lives.'

The ERMI is based on floor dust samples collected in water damaged

homes with asthmatic children. There is a long way to go from that

type of study to saying that a specific airborne level of mold spores

can be considered 'elevated', and that these levels can be related to

adult respiratory diseases caused by the mold spores.

There have been a number of labs advertising the airborne collection

of mold dust on a 3-piece PCR air-dust sampling cassette or ViaCells

from Zefon. The samples are analyzed by Mold Specific Quantitative

Polymerase Chain Reaction (MSQPCR) for a specific number of mould

species, either 36 in a full ERMI (for atypical, water damaged

homes), or 13 in an ARMI (American Relative Moldiness Index) for

commonly found mould species in homes. Labs all over North America

(and that includes Canada ) have been advertising this methodology

since last fall. Some of these labs have been performing PCR for

over five years for mold samples. Having spent 30 of my 32 years in

this business in the US working on mould issues, I have been familar

with PCR technology for some time. In addition, the 2001 AIHA Mold

Task Force Report talks about the measurement of dust on surfaces as

an indication of cleanliness following mould remediation. There is

literally nothing new under the sun.

Please note that Vesper et al have developed the ERMI specifically

the prediction of asthma symptoms for infants and young children in

water damaged homes. There is nothing in the publications I have

seen, including the JOEM article from Vesper, that indicates that the

ERMI will be useful for the prediction of any other types of

illnesses in either infants or adults that may, or may not, be

related to mould spores or mycotoxins. In the second study listed

above, the ERMI was used to predict the risk of children developing

respiratory diseases. Again, there is nothing about relating these

air sampling results to other types of illnesses.

So, once again, I repeat what the USEPA, ACGIH, Health Canada, AIHA,

and others have been saying, and continue to say, about mould air

sampling and health effects: 'Further, in the absence of exposure

limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be

used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' It is as

true today as it has been in the past.

Weekes

>

> Don,

>

> The US EPA has done extensive work developing the Relative

Moldiness Index. High RMI correlates with illness. This is all based

on the latest DNA profiling techniques developed by Steve Vesper's

group at the US EPA.

>

> I understand that Canada does not have this tecnology. It was

developed for the US EPA and is relatively new.

>

> I would strongly recommend that you review the latest technological

break throughs on PCR and not go back to the same old stuff written

before Steve Vesper's work.

>

> P.S. I do know that Canada is very sophisticated and in some

respects more so than the US on healthy housing and many other

issues. But that doesn't mean you can't learn a few things from the

US from time to time.

>

>

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

[Guest guest]

and et al:

One more recent citation:

-Environmental Health Perspectives

Current State of the Science: Health Effects

and Indoor Environmental Quality

Clifford S. , Junfeng (Jim) Zhang,

Sigsgaard, Matti Jantunen, J. Lioy, Samson

and Meryl H. Karol

doi:10.1289/ehp.8987 (available at http://dx.doi.org/)

Online 25 January 2007

Exposure assessment for biological agents is even more challenging

than for particulate and chemical exposures. New and more accurate

identification methods to identify molds are under development.

Currently, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods are used in which

the target DNA from building material is used as a template.

In quantitative PCR (qPCR), quantitative data on the presence of

viable and dead molds can be obtained, information not possible with

the present culture methods (Stetzenbach 2004; Meklin et al. 2004).

These new methods are not yet complete and need to be evaluated

(Keswani et al. 2005; McDevitt et al. 2004; Vesper et al. 2004).

Even if fungal and mold species can be identified more accurately in

the environment, there are as yet no reliable markers of human

exposure or dose for these and other biological agents; some efforts

are underway to assess exposure using chemical markers

or immunologic markers. (Schmechel 2006; Sebastian et al. 2005).

Weekes

-- In iequality , gary rosen

wrote:

>

> Don,

>

> The US EPA has done extensive work developing the Relative

Moldiness Index. High RMI correlates with illness. This is all based

on the latest DNA profiling techniques developed by Steve Vesper's

group at the US EPA.

>

> I understand that Canada does not have this tecnology. It was

developed for the US EPA and is relatively new.

>

> I would strongly recommend that you review the latest technological

break throughs on PCR and not go back to the same old stuff written

before Steve Vesper's work.

>

> P.S. I do know that Canada is very sophisticated and in some

respects more so than the US on healthy housing and many other

issues. But that doesn't mean you can't learn a few things from the

US from time to time.

>

>

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

>

>

> Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

> > >

> > > Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble

> > > of posting it myself.

> > >

> > > It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an

> > > increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will

tell!

> > >

> > > For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most

> interesting

> > > part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of

> > exposure

> > > limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

> cannot

> > be

> > > used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This

> > topic

> > > has been a subject of discussion on the various group message

> > boards

> > > for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says

it

> > > best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to

> > > evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an

> > initial

> > > building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building

> > evaluation

> > > tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily

visible.

> > Then

> > > destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden'

> mould.

> > > But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of

> health

> > > risks.

> > >

> > > All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no

> > matter

> > > what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the

> > > health risks to the building occupants or the remediation

firm's

> > > employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air

> > > samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling

> collected,

> > > are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for

health

> > > risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the

RC,

> > the

> > > use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation.

Any

> > > microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied

by

> > > caveat as to its limitations.

> > >

> > > Don

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> > ____________ __

> > > Bored stiff? Loosen up...

> > > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

> > > http://games. yahoo.com/ games/front

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> ____________ __

> > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

> > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

> > http://tv.yahoo. com/collections/ 265

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q & A.

> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list & sid=396545367

>

[Guest guest]

and et al:

One more recent citation:

-Environmental Health Perspectives

Current State of the Science: Health Effects

and Indoor Environmental Quality

Clifford S. , Junfeng (Jim) Zhang,

Sigsgaard, Matti Jantunen, J. Lioy, Samson

and Meryl H. Karol

doi:10.1289/ehp.8987 (available at http://dx.doi.org/)

Online 25 January 2007

Exposure assessment for biological agents is even more challenging

than for particulate and chemical exposures. New and more accurate

identification methods to identify molds are under development.

Currently, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods are used in which

the target DNA from building material is used as a template.

In quantitative PCR (qPCR), quantitative data on the presence of

viable and dead molds can be obtained, information not possible with

the present culture methods (Stetzenbach 2004; Meklin et al. 2004).

These new methods are not yet complete and need to be evaluated

(Keswani et al. 2005; McDevitt et al. 2004; Vesper et al. 2004).

Even if fungal and mold species can be identified more accurately in

the environment, there are as yet no reliable markers of human

exposure or dose for these and other biological agents; some efforts

are underway to assess exposure using chemical markers

or immunologic markers. (Schmechel 2006; Sebastian et al. 2005).

Weekes

-- In iequality , gary rosen

wrote:

>

> Don,

>

> The US EPA has done extensive work developing the Relative

Moldiness Index. High RMI correlates with illness. This is all based

on the latest DNA profiling techniques developed by Steve Vesper's

group at the US EPA.

>

> I understand that Canada does not have this tecnology. It was

developed for the US EPA and is relatively new.

>

> I would strongly recommend that you review the latest technological

break throughs on PCR and not go back to the same old stuff written

before Steve Vesper's work.

>

> P.S. I do know that Canada is very sophisticated and in some

respects more so than the US on healthy housing and many other

issues. But that doesn't mean you can't learn a few things from the

US from time to time.

>

>

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

>

>

> Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

> > >

> > > Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble

> > > of posting it myself.

> > >

> > > It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an

> > > increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will

tell!

> > >

> > > For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most

> interesting

> > > part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of

> > exposure

> > > limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

> cannot

> > be

> > > used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This

> > topic

> > > has been a subject of discussion on the various group message

> > boards

> > > for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says

it

> > > best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to

> > > evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an

> > initial

> > > building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building

> > evaluation

> > > tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily

visible.

> > Then

> > > destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden'

> mould.

> > > But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of

> health

> > > risks.

> > >

> > > All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no

> > matter

> > > what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the

> > > health risks to the building occupants or the remediation

firm's

> > > employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air

> > > samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling

> collected,

> > > are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for

health

> > > risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the

RC,

> > the

> > > use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation.

Any

> > > microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied

by

> > > caveat as to its limitations.

> > >

> > > Don

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> > ____________ __

> > > Bored stiff? Loosen up...

> > > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

> > > http://games. yahoo.com/ games/front

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> ____________ __

> > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

> > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

> > http://tv.yahoo. com/collections/ 265

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q & A.

> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list & sid=396545367

>

[Guest guest]

and et al:

One more recent citation:

-Environmental Health Perspectives

Current State of the Science: Health Effects

and Indoor Environmental Quality

Clifford S. , Junfeng (Jim) Zhang,

Sigsgaard, Matti Jantunen, J. Lioy, Samson

and Meryl H. Karol

doi:10.1289/ehp.8987 (available at http://dx.doi.org/)

Online 25 January 2007

Exposure assessment for biological agents is even more challenging

than for particulate and chemical exposures. New and more accurate

identification methods to identify molds are under development.

Currently, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods are used in which

the target DNA from building material is used as a template.

In quantitative PCR (qPCR), quantitative data on the presence of

viable and dead molds can be obtained, information not possible with

the present culture methods (Stetzenbach 2004; Meklin et al. 2004).

These new methods are not yet complete and need to be evaluated

(Keswani et al. 2005; McDevitt et al. 2004; Vesper et al. 2004).

Even if fungal and mold species can be identified more accurately in

the environment, there are as yet no reliable markers of human

exposure or dose for these and other biological agents; some efforts

are underway to assess exposure using chemical markers

or immunologic markers. (Schmechel 2006; Sebastian et al. 2005).

Weekes

-- In iequality , gary rosen

wrote:

>

> Don,

>

> The US EPA has done extensive work developing the Relative

Moldiness Index. High RMI correlates with illness. This is all based

on the latest DNA profiling techniques developed by Steve Vesper's

group at the US EPA.

>

> I understand that Canada does not have this tecnology. It was

developed for the US EPA and is relatively new.

>

> I would strongly recommend that you review the latest technological

break throughs on PCR and not go back to the same old stuff written

before Steve Vesper's work.

>

> P.S. I do know that Canada is very sophisticated and in some

respects more so than the US on healthy housing and many other

issues. But that doesn't mean you can't learn a few things from the

US from time to time.

>

>

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

>

>

> Re: Health Canada Annex on Mould

> > >

> > > Thank you, Jim, for posting this notice. It saves me the trouble

> > > of posting it myself.

> > >

> > > It remains to be seen whether or not this notice results in an

> > > increase in enquiries for mould home inspections. Time will

tell!

> > >

> > > For the group, as noted in today's discussion, the most

> interesting

> > > part will be the last sentence: 'Further, in the absence of

> > exposure

> > > limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

> cannot

> > be

> > > used to assess risks to the health of building occupants.' This

> > topic

> > > has been a subject of discussion on the various group message

> > boards

> > > for a while. I think that this straight-forward statement says

it

> > > best: microbial air sampling of any type is not recommended to

> > > evaluate individual health risks. If it is used at all in an

> > initial

> > > building evaluation, it is intended strictly as a building

> > evaluation

> > > tool, to see if there may be 'hidden' mould not readily

visible.

> > Then

> > > destructive sampling may be necessary to get at the 'hidden'

> mould.

> > > But the results of any air sampling are not an indication of

> health

> > > risks.

> > >

> > > All air sampling, no matter when or where it is collected, no

> > matter

> > > what media or instrumentation used, is not an indication of the

> > > health risks to the building occupants or the remediation

firm's

> > > employees. Period. Further,because the mere collection of air

> > > samples, and the laboratory results of the air sampling

> collected,

> > > are often misinterpreted as a possible diagnostic tool for

health

> > > risks by the building occupants, as well as by the EC and the

RC,

> > the

> > > use of air sampling should be limited to building evaluation.

Any

> > > microbial air sampling results presented should be accompanied

by

> > > caveat as to its limitations.

> > >

> > > Don

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> > ____________ __

> > > Bored stiff? Loosen up...

> > > Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

> > > http://games. yahoo.com/ games/front

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> ____________ __

> > We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

> > (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

> > http://tv.yahoo. com/collections/ 265

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate

> in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q & A.

> http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list & sid=396545367

>