Guest guest Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 Don: I generally agree with what you stated, except for: “ So the only environment can be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores.” Practically speaking Don, just where does one find an environment where there are no mold spores? Bob and : What Health Canada is saying is that the absence of exposure limits for mold precludes the possibility that one can 'know' that a certain level of mold spores triggers a certain adverse health reaction in the population. It does not mean that mold spores may be the cause of the illnesses experienced by the occupants. It just means that no one currently knows exactly what levels of airborne mold spores cause illness, much less a specific disease. This has not been proven scientifically to date. So air sampling results, without a threshold, cannot be used to 'prove' that the mold spores cause this specific illness in an individual in this environment. In effect, Health Canada is agreeing with the USEPA, in that there is no current scientifically-based threshold known that will prevent adverse health effects from mold spores. So the only environment can be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores. Hope this clarifies this. Don > > Right you are Bob, > > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential to cause health problems to some segment of the population. Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and that is anything above zero. > > Rosen, Ph.D. > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores > > Sharon, et al; > > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to access ∑ . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to assess the risk to health of building occupants without first eliminating other causes/sources ∑ " or " Can not be solely relied upon to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without eliminating other causes/sources ∑ " I could find myself agreeing with these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse health affect and/or illness. > > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > > EnviroBob > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2007 Report Share Posted April 14, 2007 No mold spores from indoor mold growth. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> > Sharon, et al;> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to access ô ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to assess the risk to health of building occupants without first eliminating other causes/sources ô" or" Can not be solely relied upon to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without eliminating other causes/sources ô" I could find myself agreeing with these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse health affect and/or illness. > > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> > EnviroBob> > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2007 Report Share Posted April 14, 2007 No mold spores from indoor mold growth. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> > Sharon, et al;> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to access ô ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to assess the risk to health of building occupants without first eliminating other causes/sources ô" or" Can not be solely relied upon to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without eliminating other causes/sources ô" I could find myself agreeing with these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse health affect and/or illness. > > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> > EnviroBob> > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 "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." Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Hi, :I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. )Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment(that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low.This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure.Don > >> >> >> > Right you are Bob,> >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada.> > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential> > to cause health problems to some segment of the population.> > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and> > that is anything above zero.> >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D.> >> > www.Mold-Books.com> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 "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." Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Hi, :I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. )Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment(that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low.This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure.Don > >> >> >> > Right you are Bob,> >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada.> > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential> > to cause health problems to some segment of the population.> > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and> > that is anything above zero.> >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D.> >> > www.Mold-Books.com> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 "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." Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Hi, :I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. )Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment(that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low.This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure.Don > >> >> >> > Right you are Bob,> >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada.> > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential> > to cause health problems to some segment of the population.> > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and> > that is anything above zero.> >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D.> >> > www.Mold-Books.com> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > >> > > >> > Right you are Bob, > >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. > > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential > > to cause health problems to some segment of the population. > > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and > > that is anything above zero. > >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D. > >> > www.Mold-Books.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores > >> > > >> > Sharon, et al; > >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The > > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to > > access … . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to > > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first > > eliminating other causes/sources … " or " Can not be solely relied upon > > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without > > eliminating other causes/sources … " I could find myself agreeing with > > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe > > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to > > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse > > health affect and/or illness. > >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting > > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no > > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of > > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside > > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they > > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or > > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health > > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from > > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship > > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now > > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity > > of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have > > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised > > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been > > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This > > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve > > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > >> > > >> > EnviroBob > >> > > >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > >> > > >> > Right you are Bob, > >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. > > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential > > to cause health problems to some segment of the population. > > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and > > that is anything above zero. > >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D. > >> > www.Mold-Books.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores > >> > > >> > Sharon, et al; > >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The > > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to > > access … . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to > > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first > > eliminating other causes/sources … " or " Can not be solely relied upon > > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without > > eliminating other causes/sources … " I could find myself agreeing with > > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe > > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to > > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse > > health affect and/or illness. > >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting > > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no > > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of > > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside > > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they > > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or > > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health > > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from > > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship > > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now > > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity > > of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have > > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised > > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been > > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This > > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve > > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > >> > > >> > EnviroBob > >> > > >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > >> > > >> > Right you are Bob, > >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. > > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential > > to cause health problems to some segment of the population. > > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and > > that is anything above zero. > >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D. > >> > www.Mold-Books.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores > >> > > >> > Sharon, et al; > >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The > > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to > > access … . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to > > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first > > eliminating other causes/sources … " or " Can not be solely relied upon > > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without > > eliminating other causes/sources … " I could find myself agreeing with > > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe > > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to > > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse > > health affect and/or illness. > >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting > > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no > > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of > > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside > > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they > > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or > > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health > > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from > > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship > > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now > > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity > > of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have > > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised > > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been > > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This > > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve > > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > >> > > >> > EnviroBob > >> > > >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Don said ... >>This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. The EPA does NOT say that. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Green-Buildings.org RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Don said ... >>This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. The EPA does NOT say that. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Green-Buildings.org RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Don said ... >>This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. The EPA does NOT say that. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Green-Buildings.org RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Don: Yes....All very well stated. Thanks. Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > > > > > > > > > > > Bob and : > > > > What Health Canada is saying is that the absence of exposure limits > > for mold precludes the possibility that one can 'know' that a certain > > level of mold spores triggers a certain adverse health reaction in > > the population. It does not mean that mold spores may be the cause > > of the illnesses experienced by the occupants. It just means that no > > one currently knows exactly what levels of airborne mold spores cause > > illness, much less a specific disease. This has not been proven > > scientifically to date. So air sampling results, without a > > threshold, cannot be used to 'prove' that the mold spores cause this > > specific illness in an individual in this environment. > > > > In effect, Health Canada is agreeing with the USEPA, in that there is > > no current scientifically-based threshold known that will prevent > > adverse health effects from mold spores. So the only environment can > > be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no > > mold spores. > > > > Hope this clarifies this. > > > > Don > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Don: Yes....All very well stated. Thanks. Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > > > > > > > > > > > Bob and : > > > > What Health Canada is saying is that the absence of exposure limits > > for mold precludes the possibility that one can 'know' that a certain > > level of mold spores triggers a certain adverse health reaction in > > the population. It does not mean that mold spores may be the cause > > of the illnesses experienced by the occupants. It just means that no > > one currently knows exactly what levels of airborne mold spores cause > > illness, much less a specific disease. This has not been proven > > scientifically to date. So air sampling results, without a > > threshold, cannot be used to 'prove' that the mold spores cause this > > specific illness in an individual in this environment. > > > > In effect, Health Canada is agreeing with the USEPA, in that there is > > no current scientifically-based threshold known that will prevent > > adverse health effects from mold spores. So the only environment can > > be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no > > mold spores. > > > > Hope this clarifies this. > > > > Don > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2007 Report Share Posted April 16, 2007 Don: Yes....All very well stated. Thanks. Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > > > > > > > > > > > Bob and : > > > > What Health Canada is saying is that the absence of exposure limits > > for mold precludes the possibility that one can 'know' that a certain > > level of mold spores triggers a certain adverse health reaction in > > the population. It does not mean that mold spores may be the cause > > of the illnesses experienced by the occupants. It just means that no > > one currently knows exactly what levels of airborne mold spores cause > > illness, much less a specific disease. This has not been proven > > scientifically to date. So air sampling results, without a > > threshold, cannot be used to 'prove' that the mold spores cause this > > specific illness in an individual in this environment. > > > > In effect, Health Canada is agreeing with the USEPA, in that there is > > no current scientifically-based threshold known that will prevent > > adverse health effects from mold spores. So the only environment can > > be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no > > mold spores. > > > > Hope this clarifies this. > > > > Don > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007  Sampling can be used to help in an IAQ investigation but it is the investigation, not the sampling that should be used to help identify those houses (all sorts, including rental) that should be identified as likely leading to health problems in the occupants. The sampling methods that are used at the moment cannot yet be used to predict that occupants will be sick, and may never be that good unless a lot of good research and sampling method development is done (only governments can afford this, on our behalf). A good investigation, done by a qualified IAQ Investigator, will identify those houses that are causing health problems for the occupants. Sampling, especially short-term grab sampling, will not! We who know that moldy houses make people sick wish it were different, but it isn't; yet. Jim H. White System Science consulting RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007  Sampling can be used to help in an IAQ investigation but it is the investigation, not the sampling that should be used to help identify those houses (all sorts, including rental) that should be identified as likely leading to health problems in the occupants. The sampling methods that are used at the moment cannot yet be used to predict that occupants will be sick, and may never be that good unless a lot of good research and sampling method development is done (only governments can afford this, on our behalf). A good investigation, done by a qualified IAQ Investigator, will identify those houses that are causing health problems for the occupants. Sampling, especially short-term grab sampling, will not! We who know that moldy houses make people sick wish it were different, but it isn't; yet. Jim H. White System Science consulting RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007  Sampling can be used to help in an IAQ investigation but it is the investigation, not the sampling that should be used to help identify those houses (all sorts, including rental) that should be identified as likely leading to health problems in the occupants. The sampling methods that are used at the moment cannot yet be used to predict that occupants will be sick, and may never be that good unless a lot of good research and sampling method development is done (only governments can afford this, on our behalf). A good investigation, done by a qualified IAQ Investigator, will identify those houses that are causing health problems for the occupants. Sampling, especially short-term grab sampling, will not! We who know that moldy houses make people sick wish it were different, but it isn't; yet. Jim H. White System Science consulting RE: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores> >> > > >> > Sharon, et al;> >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The> > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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."> >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term "can not be use to> > access … ." If the term were stated "May not "exclusively" be used to> > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first> > eliminating other causes/sources …" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources …" I could find myself agreeing with> > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe> > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.> >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to> > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse> > health affect and/or illness.> >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting> > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no> > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of> > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside> > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they> > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or> > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health> > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from> > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship> > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now> > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity> > of "assessing" risk to the health of building occupants when we have> > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised> > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been> > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I> >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This> > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve> > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.> >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome.> >> > > >> > EnviroBob> >> > > >> >> See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 , I respectfully disagree with your response to Don. As you know, I am a strong advocate for the occupants who have difficulty indoors, whether from mold or any other exposure. This in not just from professional experience but from personal experience that victimized me several years ago. If sampling were accurate, representative and useful for measuring exposure I'd be the first to jump on it. I've been waiting for over 20 years for this to happen but am still disappointed. Here are some reason why I disagree with the position that a non-reliance on mold sampling for health effects is " throwing the baby out with the bath water. " It is more like confusing the bath water AND the baby for mold. 1. The bath water is not always mold. In my experience at least 1/3 of the mold issues have nothing to do with mold and about a third that do have additional exposure sources. Mold sampling results too often disguise or confuse the real issues leaving the victim invalidated and with no means for help. 2. If you do use mold sampling, which sampling method would you choose and why? Which analytical method would you request from the lab and why? Who interprets the results? How are the results interpreted when there is no baseline comparison such as a PEL? Because each variable above (and combinations) will more than likely give you different results, which do you rely on? How is there any meaning to the effort? 3. False negatives - which are the 2nd most prevelant error - cause the greatest harm to the victims who most need help. Negative results are used by the authorities, courts and those responsible to dispute the claims of victims. Because they believe in numbers, how does one combat the numbers that say " no problem " ? Better to not sample and risk introducing this red herring. 4. Mis-identification by labs. Terry Brennan has previously discussed his experiment where the same slide was sent to 8 different labs - with 8 greatly different results. Others have reported similar experiences. How does this help the victim? 5. Minimum level of detection. The efficiency of sampling is greatly lacking along with mininum detection levels (Sandia Labs from 2 years ago). In the field, most of the sensitive and hyper-sensitive individuals continue to react after achieving near zero results on any method of sampling I've tried. Yet... continued cleaning results in continued improvement and eventual success. That tells me mold sampling may help in gross conditions (yes, there's a lot of mold!), but not when nearing the end point. 6. Results that are not representative of the occupants experience - which are more common than false negatives and number one in my book. In my 20 years of working with allergic, hyper-allergic, sensitive and intolerant people I can truly say I have RARELY seen mold results that were representative of occupant experience, especially in achieving the solution to the original problem. I have found that a combination of building science, building history, building use, occupant reports (guided with cross checking rather than simple reporting according to their own best interpretation), event history, the biology of mold and other micro-organisms, and the ecology of buildings is more representative and a more accurate predictor than mold sampling. Further, sampling usually adds confusion and opens the door to sp;in interpretations according to the beliefs and preferances of the interpretor. Sampling to answer specific diagnostic questions for testing a hypothesis by comparing suspected contamination to suspected non-contamination can be very useful but not for determing overall health exposure and certainly not for answering the question " Is there a problem or not a problem? " Or, " is the problem now solved? " This non-numerical process is not preferred by most because it cannot quickly lead to a profit stream after a 3 day course, a certificate and some compelling marketing. It requires training, education and a lot of experience with people (not regulations) rather than simply collecting samples. Anything less is more akin to numerology than to anything I'd rely on. Certainly not even approaching science. It is also my position that this creates much more of a disservice to victims and intensifies their harm. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----------- " 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. " Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/16/2007 9:58:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, donweek@... writes: Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don --------- This message sent using Spam Arrest Confirmed Delivery!Visit http://www.spamarrest.com/ and Take Control of Your Inbox® Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 , I respectfully disagree with your response to Don. As you know, I am a strong advocate for the occupants who have difficulty indoors, whether from mold or any other exposure. This in not just from professional experience but from personal experience that victimized me several years ago. If sampling were accurate, representative and useful for measuring exposure I'd be the first to jump on it. I've been waiting for over 20 years for this to happen but am still disappointed. Here are some reason why I disagree with the position that a non-reliance on mold sampling for health effects is " throwing the baby out with the bath water. " It is more like confusing the bath water AND the baby for mold. 1. The bath water is not always mold. In my experience at least 1/3 of the mold issues have nothing to do with mold and about a third that do have additional exposure sources. Mold sampling results too often disguise or confuse the real issues leaving the victim invalidated and with no means for help. 2. If you do use mold sampling, which sampling method would you choose and why? Which analytical method would you request from the lab and why? Who interprets the results? How are the results interpreted when there is no baseline comparison such as a PEL? Because each variable above (and combinations) will more than likely give you different results, which do you rely on? How is there any meaning to the effort? 3. False negatives - which are the 2nd most prevelant error - cause the greatest harm to the victims who most need help. Negative results are used by the authorities, courts and those responsible to dispute the claims of victims. Because they believe in numbers, how does one combat the numbers that say " no problem " ? Better to not sample and risk introducing this red herring. 4. Mis-identification by labs. Terry Brennan has previously discussed his experiment where the same slide was sent to 8 different labs - with 8 greatly different results. Others have reported similar experiences. How does this help the victim? 5. Minimum level of detection. The efficiency of sampling is greatly lacking along with mininum detection levels (Sandia Labs from 2 years ago). In the field, most of the sensitive and hyper-sensitive individuals continue to react after achieving near zero results on any method of sampling I've tried. Yet... continued cleaning results in continued improvement and eventual success. That tells me mold sampling may help in gross conditions (yes, there's a lot of mold!), but not when nearing the end point. 6. Results that are not representative of the occupants experience - which are more common than false negatives and number one in my book. In my 20 years of working with allergic, hyper-allergic, sensitive and intolerant people I can truly say I have RARELY seen mold results that were representative of occupant experience, especially in achieving the solution to the original problem. I have found that a combination of building science, building history, building use, occupant reports (guided with cross checking rather than simple reporting according to their own best interpretation), event history, the biology of mold and other micro-organisms, and the ecology of buildings is more representative and a more accurate predictor than mold sampling. Further, sampling usually adds confusion and opens the door to sp;in interpretations according to the beliefs and preferances of the interpretor. Sampling to answer specific diagnostic questions for testing a hypothesis by comparing suspected contamination to suspected non-contamination can be very useful but not for determing overall health exposure and certainly not for answering the question " Is there a problem or not a problem? " Or, " is the problem now solved? " This non-numerical process is not preferred by most because it cannot quickly lead to a profit stream after a 3 day course, a certificate and some compelling marketing. It requires training, education and a lot of experience with people (not regulations) rather than simply collecting samples. Anything less is more akin to numerology than to anything I'd rely on. Certainly not even approaching science. It is also my position that this creates much more of a disservice to victims and intensifies their harm. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----------- " 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. " Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/16/2007 9:58:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, donweek@... writes: Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don --------- This message sent using Spam Arrest Confirmed Delivery!Visit http://www.spamarrest.com/ and Take Control of Your Inbox® Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 , I respectfully disagree with your response to Don. As you know, I am a strong advocate for the occupants who have difficulty indoors, whether from mold or any other exposure. This in not just from professional experience but from personal experience that victimized me several years ago. If sampling were accurate, representative and useful for measuring exposure I'd be the first to jump on it. I've been waiting for over 20 years for this to happen but am still disappointed. Here are some reason why I disagree with the position that a non-reliance on mold sampling for health effects is " throwing the baby out with the bath water. " It is more like confusing the bath water AND the baby for mold. 1. The bath water is not always mold. In my experience at least 1/3 of the mold issues have nothing to do with mold and about a third that do have additional exposure sources. Mold sampling results too often disguise or confuse the real issues leaving the victim invalidated and with no means for help. 2. If you do use mold sampling, which sampling method would you choose and why? Which analytical method would you request from the lab and why? Who interprets the results? How are the results interpreted when there is no baseline comparison such as a PEL? Because each variable above (and combinations) will more than likely give you different results, which do you rely on? How is there any meaning to the effort? 3. False negatives - which are the 2nd most prevelant error - cause the greatest harm to the victims who most need help. Negative results are used by the authorities, courts and those responsible to dispute the claims of victims. Because they believe in numbers, how does one combat the numbers that say " no problem " ? Better to not sample and risk introducing this red herring. 4. Mis-identification by labs. Terry Brennan has previously discussed his experiment where the same slide was sent to 8 different labs - with 8 greatly different results. Others have reported similar experiences. How does this help the victim? 5. Minimum level of detection. The efficiency of sampling is greatly lacking along with mininum detection levels (Sandia Labs from 2 years ago). In the field, most of the sensitive and hyper-sensitive individuals continue to react after achieving near zero results on any method of sampling I've tried. Yet... continued cleaning results in continued improvement and eventual success. That tells me mold sampling may help in gross conditions (yes, there's a lot of mold!), but not when nearing the end point. 6. Results that are not representative of the occupants experience - which are more common than false negatives and number one in my book. In my 20 years of working with allergic, hyper-allergic, sensitive and intolerant people I can truly say I have RARELY seen mold results that were representative of occupant experience, especially in achieving the solution to the original problem. I have found that a combination of building science, building history, building use, occupant reports (guided with cross checking rather than simple reporting according to their own best interpretation), event history, the biology of mold and other micro-organisms, and the ecology of buildings is more representative and a more accurate predictor than mold sampling. Further, sampling usually adds confusion and opens the door to sp;in interpretations according to the beliefs and preferances of the interpretor. Sampling to answer specific diagnostic questions for testing a hypothesis by comparing suspected contamination to suspected non-contamination can be very useful but not for determing overall health exposure and certainly not for answering the question " Is there a problem or not a problem? " Or, " is the problem now solved? " This non-numerical process is not preferred by most because it cannot quickly lead to a profit stream after a 3 day course, a certificate and some compelling marketing. It requires training, education and a lot of experience with people (not regulations) rather than simply collecting samples. Anything less is more akin to numerology than to anything I'd rely on. Certainly not even approaching science. It is also my position that this creates much more of a disservice to victims and intensifies their harm. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----------- " 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. " Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/16/2007 9:58:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, donweek@... writes: Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don --------- This message sent using Spam Arrest Confirmed Delivery!Visit http://www.spamarrest.com/ and Take Control of Your Inbox® Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 , et al, Though I respect those on this list and Don presents good understanding of the various issues, although I do not find myself agreeing with the position as stated in my earlier response. Don, this is NOT about you nor against you. It is against the Health Canada statement: ' " 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. " Don, I understand that only a clean condition is respected at this juncture although I disagree with the fact that sampling is not valid to assess “Risk” of health to building occupants (see below) nor can it be used. The statement is a definitive statement and does not allow for various circumstances or conditions i.e. known pathogens. Although the link associated with mold and it toxins to disease have not been determined it has been confirmed to have an association with adverse health affects, i.e. minimally those already immunocompromised (asthma, the elderly, young children, those who have had recent surgeries, those with allergies, etc.). To make the statement that ' " 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. " still amazes me unless one has an agenda. The unknown does not mean it does not exist. If samples are being taken to minimally determine the limit and/or extent of dissemination and building are being raised, what purpose are these valuable building coming down if it has not already been determined that the mold contamination is a BIG issue as relating to illness. Has anyone ever undertaken the time to consider the value of these buildings? I assure you the building are not being demolished just to get a new one. Take a look at the school that was in the news recently. The school was almost completed and now has to be destroyed and not one child has entered a classroom to enjoy the newly built facility. Are any of us so foolish to think we just have all of this money to build and rebuild the same building for the purpose of learning to build? It took the contractor almost three years to build the school and now it has to come down further delaying the occupancy of the children and loss of revenue to the contractor. Fire departments, schools, libraries, police departments and other buildings are being demolished for no reason. If there were no actual causation these building would still be up and running. All said, I do understand the link has not been discovered although it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the building suffered a water and/or moisture problem. The buildings mold problems did not exist prior to the water damage. The occupants are getting adverse health affect when they enter the building and conditions subside when they exit the dwelling for extended periods of time (say over night). Now that brings us to the difference between SBS and BRI. Paraphrased: Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) are when one suffers from (short term) illness related to (or during) building occupancy, when they leave the building environment the symptoms begin to diminish; whereas, Building Related Illness (BRI) is an illness (long term) one suffered due to the occupancy of the building; symptoms do not diminish after exiting the building environment. Minimally we can agree that there may be reasonable conditions that can or are more likely than not associated with SBS. Would I sample for this purpose, surely I would as a competent IEP attempting to prove my hypothesis. Will I use the results to aid in my assessments, surely I would. I will use all information gathered. Will I have disclaimers attached to the report, yes I will (like … it is more likely than not…). But to say I can not use the samples to assess the “RISK” to health of building occupants is unsupported and unscientific in my opinion. Minimally the samples could rule out conditions or chemicals. Keep in mind, I am not diagnosing the occupant for illness, I am diagnosing the environment of “potential” or known associated risk to the health of the presenting occupant(s) (mold or otherwise). Now, did I say I will tell them to leave the building (it depends). What did the samples produce? Lets say the samples produced 1,000,000 CFU/m3 of stacky or aspergillus species such as A. flavus, A. versicolor, or A. fumigatus. Are we saying by our silence that we agree with the above statement ' " 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. " knowing what we do know about various species and the impact upon human health? Keep in mind everything is subjective and relative therefore all information including sampling is relative in our evaluations and may offer vital information to assess impact upon building occupant health risk, i.e. stay in the building and your health risk increases, leave and the risk to health is reduced. I do not believe the former statement is scientifically based nor can such a linier statement be made in a non linier world (everything is relative). Again, the fact that science has not proven what may be the link does not mean the link does not exist (only that a link is not known). Consider the Bioaerosols Assessment and Controls, in chapter 14.2.5 - Begins here (for those who can’t see color): Failure to find a biological agent or related environmental conditions is not absolute assurance of their absence nor of the absence of exposure and risk… and … Investigators can never definitively conclude or prove that an environment is " safe " and presents no risk of exposure to biological agents. (ends here). What we can prove by sampling is the more likely-than-not scenario or the less likely than scenario. To relate this concept to my earlier statements one can not prove scientifically that absence of understanding means no link. What it may conclude is more understands is require and that means more money is needed. Now consider that if Canada is similar to the US it also has in its profile numerous homes that are mold contaminated. Now the statement that ' " 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” makes sense. It’s all about the (clean-up) money. Much like the potential ACOEM situation that Ms. Champion is confronting. This may be another head off the pass statement attempting to gain ground. Today we can fly (the brothers were scoffed at), years before the world was though to be flat (Columbus was scoffed at). It only takes money but no money will be likely spent if the purse that is supplying the dough is the one the results will come back and bite. The insurance industry is not likely and our government is also not likely until they get some conditions fixed (they cover their backsides first) before it spends the money to further seek out the link. It’s when someone challenges the status quo is when discoveries begin to move forward. As we begin to understand, so our understanding begins. Like Chuck, I am not one to take everything hook line and sinker especially when my common sense confronts the offered (or purposed) conflicting concept or opinion. Today we believe differently on many levels due to someone taking the though or challenge of understandings a bit beyond where we presently find ourselves. Let’s not shoot the messenger(s), let’s take the time and think it out before we shoot. There is one thing that baffles me, how is it one study produces this result, and a similar study supported by a different purse finds conclusions more beneficial to their interest? Who do we believe anymore? I do know one thing; common sense can play a part if we don’t put our heads in the sand. Yah know, I think maybe that is why my clients request my services, because something in them doesn’t believe everything spoken or offered to them and they want another opinion. I am sure they also understand I do not believe everything presented to me as fact. I am not saying the info is wrong, but let’s see if the offered statement or position is able to stand on its own merits scientifically (when all of the benefits to each side has been removed). Truth is truth and it will always stand on its own merits. It doesn’t attempt to benefit one or another, it only sustains itself. EnviroBob “As we begin to understand, so our understanding begins” (EnviroBob) “Truth sustains itself” (EnviroBob) From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of bobbinsbiomed@... Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:00 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores " 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. " Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/16/2007 9:58:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, donweek@....com writes: Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > >> > > >> > Right you are Bob, > >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. > > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential > > to cause health problems to some segment of the population. > > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and > > that is anything above zero. > >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D. > >> > www.Mold-Books.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores > >> > > >> > Sharon, et al; > >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The > > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to > > access … . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to > > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first > > eliminating other causes/sources … " or " Can not be solely relied upon > > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without > > eliminating other causes/sources … " I could find myself agreeing with > > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe > > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to > > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse > > health affect and/or illness. > >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting > > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no > > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of > > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside > > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they > > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or > > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health > > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from > > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship > > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now > > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity > > of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have > > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised > > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been > > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This > > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve > > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > >> > > >> > EnviroBob > >> > > >> > > See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 , et al, Though I respect those on this list and Don presents good understanding of the various issues, although I do not find myself agreeing with the position as stated in my earlier response. Don, this is NOT about you nor against you. It is against the Health Canada statement: ' " 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. " Don, I understand that only a clean condition is respected at this juncture although I disagree with the fact that sampling is not valid to assess “Risk” of health to building occupants (see below) nor can it be used. The statement is a definitive statement and does not allow for various circumstances or conditions i.e. known pathogens. Although the link associated with mold and it toxins to disease have not been determined it has been confirmed to have an association with adverse health affects, i.e. minimally those already immunocompromised (asthma, the elderly, young children, those who have had recent surgeries, those with allergies, etc.). To make the statement that ' " 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. " still amazes me unless one has an agenda. The unknown does not mean it does not exist. If samples are being taken to minimally determine the limit and/or extent of dissemination and building are being raised, what purpose are these valuable building coming down if it has not already been determined that the mold contamination is a BIG issue as relating to illness. Has anyone ever undertaken the time to consider the value of these buildings? I assure you the building are not being demolished just to get a new one. Take a look at the school that was in the news recently. The school was almost completed and now has to be destroyed and not one child has entered a classroom to enjoy the newly built facility. Are any of us so foolish to think we just have all of this money to build and rebuild the same building for the purpose of learning to build? It took the contractor almost three years to build the school and now it has to come down further delaying the occupancy of the children and loss of revenue to the contractor. Fire departments, schools, libraries, police departments and other buildings are being demolished for no reason. If there were no actual causation these building would still be up and running. All said, I do understand the link has not been discovered although it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the building suffered a water and/or moisture problem. The buildings mold problems did not exist prior to the water damage. The occupants are getting adverse health affect when they enter the building and conditions subside when they exit the dwelling for extended periods of time (say over night). Now that brings us to the difference between SBS and BRI. Paraphrased: Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) are when one suffers from (short term) illness related to (or during) building occupancy, when they leave the building environment the symptoms begin to diminish; whereas, Building Related Illness (BRI) is an illness (long term) one suffered due to the occupancy of the building; symptoms do not diminish after exiting the building environment. Minimally we can agree that there may be reasonable conditions that can or are more likely than not associated with SBS. Would I sample for this purpose, surely I would as a competent IEP attempting to prove my hypothesis. Will I use the results to aid in my assessments, surely I would. I will use all information gathered. Will I have disclaimers attached to the report, yes I will (like … it is more likely than not…). But to say I can not use the samples to assess the “RISK” to health of building occupants is unsupported and unscientific in my opinion. Minimally the samples could rule out conditions or chemicals. Keep in mind, I am not diagnosing the occupant for illness, I am diagnosing the environment of “potential” or known associated risk to the health of the presenting occupant(s) (mold or otherwise). Now, did I say I will tell them to leave the building (it depends). What did the samples produce? Lets say the samples produced 1,000,000 CFU/m3 of stacky or aspergillus species such as A. flavus, A. versicolor, or A. fumigatus. Are we saying by our silence that we agree with the above statement ' " 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. " knowing what we do know about various species and the impact upon human health? Keep in mind everything is subjective and relative therefore all information including sampling is relative in our evaluations and may offer vital information to assess impact upon building occupant health risk, i.e. stay in the building and your health risk increases, leave and the risk to health is reduced. I do not believe the former statement is scientifically based nor can such a linier statement be made in a non linier world (everything is relative). Again, the fact that science has not proven what may be the link does not mean the link does not exist (only that a link is not known). Consider the Bioaerosols Assessment and Controls, in chapter 14.2.5 - Begins here (for those who can’t see color): Failure to find a biological agent or related environmental conditions is not absolute assurance of their absence nor of the absence of exposure and risk… and … Investigators can never definitively conclude or prove that an environment is " safe " and presents no risk of exposure to biological agents. (ends here). What we can prove by sampling is the more likely-than-not scenario or the less likely than scenario. To relate this concept to my earlier statements one can not prove scientifically that absence of understanding means no link. What it may conclude is more understands is require and that means more money is needed. Now consider that if Canada is similar to the US it also has in its profile numerous homes that are mold contaminated. Now the statement that ' " 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” makes sense. It’s all about the (clean-up) money. Much like the potential ACOEM situation that Ms. Champion is confronting. This may be another head off the pass statement attempting to gain ground. Today we can fly (the brothers were scoffed at), years before the world was though to be flat (Columbus was scoffed at). It only takes money but no money will be likely spent if the purse that is supplying the dough is the one the results will come back and bite. The insurance industry is not likely and our government is also not likely until they get some conditions fixed (they cover their backsides first) before it spends the money to further seek out the link. It’s when someone challenges the status quo is when discoveries begin to move forward. As we begin to understand, so our understanding begins. Like Chuck, I am not one to take everything hook line and sinker especially when my common sense confronts the offered (or purposed) conflicting concept or opinion. Today we believe differently on many levels due to someone taking the though or challenge of understandings a bit beyond where we presently find ourselves. Let’s not shoot the messenger(s), let’s take the time and think it out before we shoot. There is one thing that baffles me, how is it one study produces this result, and a similar study supported by a different purse finds conclusions more beneficial to their interest? Who do we believe anymore? I do know one thing; common sense can play a part if we don’t put our heads in the sand. Yah know, I think maybe that is why my clients request my services, because something in them doesn’t believe everything spoken or offered to them and they want another opinion. I am sure they also understand I do not believe everything presented to me as fact. I am not saying the info is wrong, but let’s see if the offered statement or position is able to stand on its own merits scientifically (when all of the benefits to each side has been removed). Truth is truth and it will always stand on its own merits. It doesn’t attempt to benefit one or another, it only sustains itself. EnviroBob “As we begin to understand, so our understanding begins” (EnviroBob) “Truth sustains itself” (EnviroBob) From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of bobbinsbiomed@... Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:00 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores " 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. " Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/16/2007 9:58:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, donweek@....com writes: Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > >> > > >> > Right you are Bob, > >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. > > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential > > to cause health problems to some segment of the population. > > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and > > that is anything above zero. > >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D. > >> > www.Mold-Books.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores > >> > > >> > Sharon, et al; > >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The > > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to > > access … . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to > > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first > > eliminating other causes/sources … " or " Can not be solely relied upon > > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without > > eliminating other causes/sources … " I could find myself agreeing with > > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe > > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to > > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse > > health affect and/or illness. > >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting > > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no > > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of > > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside > > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they > > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or > > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health > > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from > > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship > > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now > > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity > > of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have > > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised > > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been > > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This > > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve > > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > >> > > >> > EnviroBob > >> > > >> > > See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 , et al, Though I respect those on this list and Don presents good understanding of the various issues, although I do not find myself agreeing with the position as stated in my earlier response. Don, this is NOT about you nor against you. It is against the Health Canada statement: ' " 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. " Don, I understand that only a clean condition is respected at this juncture although I disagree with the fact that sampling is not valid to assess “Risk” of health to building occupants (see below) nor can it be used. The statement is a definitive statement and does not allow for various circumstances or conditions i.e. known pathogens. Although the link associated with mold and it toxins to disease have not been determined it has been confirmed to have an association with adverse health affects, i.e. minimally those already immunocompromised (asthma, the elderly, young children, those who have had recent surgeries, those with allergies, etc.). To make the statement that ' " 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. " still amazes me unless one has an agenda. The unknown does not mean it does not exist. If samples are being taken to minimally determine the limit and/or extent of dissemination and building are being raised, what purpose are these valuable building coming down if it has not already been determined that the mold contamination is a BIG issue as relating to illness. Has anyone ever undertaken the time to consider the value of these buildings? I assure you the building are not being demolished just to get a new one. Take a look at the school that was in the news recently. The school was almost completed and now has to be destroyed and not one child has entered a classroom to enjoy the newly built facility. Are any of us so foolish to think we just have all of this money to build and rebuild the same building for the purpose of learning to build? It took the contractor almost three years to build the school and now it has to come down further delaying the occupancy of the children and loss of revenue to the contractor. Fire departments, schools, libraries, police departments and other buildings are being demolished for no reason. If there were no actual causation these building would still be up and running. All said, I do understand the link has not been discovered although it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that the building suffered a water and/or moisture problem. The buildings mold problems did not exist prior to the water damage. The occupants are getting adverse health affect when they enter the building and conditions subside when they exit the dwelling for extended periods of time (say over night). Now that brings us to the difference between SBS and BRI. Paraphrased: Sick Building Syndrome (SBS) are when one suffers from (short term) illness related to (or during) building occupancy, when they leave the building environment the symptoms begin to diminish; whereas, Building Related Illness (BRI) is an illness (long term) one suffered due to the occupancy of the building; symptoms do not diminish after exiting the building environment. Minimally we can agree that there may be reasonable conditions that can or are more likely than not associated with SBS. Would I sample for this purpose, surely I would as a competent IEP attempting to prove my hypothesis. Will I use the results to aid in my assessments, surely I would. I will use all information gathered. Will I have disclaimers attached to the report, yes I will (like … it is more likely than not…). But to say I can not use the samples to assess the “RISK” to health of building occupants is unsupported and unscientific in my opinion. Minimally the samples could rule out conditions or chemicals. Keep in mind, I am not diagnosing the occupant for illness, I am diagnosing the environment of “potential” or known associated risk to the health of the presenting occupant(s) (mold or otherwise). Now, did I say I will tell them to leave the building (it depends). What did the samples produce? Lets say the samples produced 1,000,000 CFU/m3 of stacky or aspergillus species such as A. flavus, A. versicolor, or A. fumigatus. Are we saying by our silence that we agree with the above statement ' " 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. " knowing what we do know about various species and the impact upon human health? Keep in mind everything is subjective and relative therefore all information including sampling is relative in our evaluations and may offer vital information to assess impact upon building occupant health risk, i.e. stay in the building and your health risk increases, leave and the risk to health is reduced. I do not believe the former statement is scientifically based nor can such a linier statement be made in a non linier world (everything is relative). Again, the fact that science has not proven what may be the link does not mean the link does not exist (only that a link is not known). Consider the Bioaerosols Assessment and Controls, in chapter 14.2.5 - Begins here (for those who can’t see color): Failure to find a biological agent or related environmental conditions is not absolute assurance of their absence nor of the absence of exposure and risk… and … Investigators can never definitively conclude or prove that an environment is " safe " and presents no risk of exposure to biological agents. (ends here). What we can prove by sampling is the more likely-than-not scenario or the less likely than scenario. To relate this concept to my earlier statements one can not prove scientifically that absence of understanding means no link. What it may conclude is more understands is require and that means more money is needed. Now consider that if Canada is similar to the US it also has in its profile numerous homes that are mold contaminated. Now the statement that ' " 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” makes sense. It’s all about the (clean-up) money. Much like the potential ACOEM situation that Ms. Champion is confronting. This may be another head off the pass statement attempting to gain ground. Today we can fly (the brothers were scoffed at), years before the world was though to be flat (Columbus was scoffed at). It only takes money but no money will be likely spent if the purse that is supplying the dough is the one the results will come back and bite. The insurance industry is not likely and our government is also not likely until they get some conditions fixed (they cover their backsides first) before it spends the money to further seek out the link. It’s when someone challenges the status quo is when discoveries begin to move forward. As we begin to understand, so our understanding begins. Like Chuck, I am not one to take everything hook line and sinker especially when my common sense confronts the offered (or purposed) conflicting concept or opinion. Today we believe differently on many levels due to someone taking the though or challenge of understandings a bit beyond where we presently find ourselves. Let’s not shoot the messenger(s), let’s take the time and think it out before we shoot. There is one thing that baffles me, how is it one study produces this result, and a similar study supported by a different purse finds conclusions more beneficial to their interest? Who do we believe anymore? I do know one thing; common sense can play a part if we don’t put our heads in the sand. Yah know, I think maybe that is why my clients request my services, because something in them doesn’t believe everything spoken or offered to them and they want another opinion. I am sure they also understand I do not believe everything presented to me as fact. I am not saying the info is wrong, but let’s see if the offered statement or position is able to stand on its own merits scientifically (when all of the benefits to each side has been removed). Truth is truth and it will always stand on its own merits. It doesn’t attempt to benefit one or another, it only sustains itself. EnviroBob “As we begin to understand, so our understanding begins” (EnviroBob) “Truth sustains itself” (EnviroBob) From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of bobbinsbiomed@... Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 3:00 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores " 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. " Don, Your interpretation of this Health Canada statement to mean that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure is misleading. You have stated before as well that without exposure limits, sampling for mold should only be used for purposes of a scope of work when remediation becomes necessary, and not health related issues. You are simply encouraging this industry to throw out the baby with the bath water, leaving the sick occupant even more vulnerable. It is not surprising then that this has only been challenged by a few here on this list. How sad that those usually active here are not speaking up either way regarding this most important issue. There is a need to differentiate between the use of microbial sampling for mold to assess whether occupants will become ill from a [sick] building, versus the use of sampling to help determine [present condition] a causal relationship to an occupants ill health and an indoor environment, versus the use of microbial sampling for mold as part of an evaluation process in understanding the relationship to the health of a building and the health of the occupants. To simply state that air sampling for mold should not be used in relationship to health issues of occupants, is a disservice to those whose health, safety and finances may be dependent upon the results of such testing in seeking out further help and or leaving that environment and or litigation of the matter. So where are all the voices of these environmental consultants here? Silence is not golden to those whose lives have been or may become permanently altered through indoor exposure to mycotoxins. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/16/2007 9:58:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, donweek@....com writes: Hi, : I agree with you that, practically speaking, there are no environments (with the possible exception of the South Pole) where there are no mold spores. And, even at the South Pole in the interior environments, a friend of mine, Ed Light, found 'elevated' mold spore levels (in comparison to levels back in the States - no 'outdoor' comparison samples could be collected at the South Pole for obvious reasons. ) Anyway, the reason I phrase this statement - 'So the only environment (that) can considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores' - was to emphasize again that there is no threshold level for airborne mold spores. Individuals can react at virtually any level of mold, and sensitized individuals in particular will react at extremely 'low' levels. So, in any given environment, you will find individuals that are having adverse health effects, even if the mold spore counts are extremely low. This again reinforces the current EPA and Health Canada statements that air sampling results cannot be utilized to perform health assessments for mold exposure. Don > >> > > >> > Right you are Bob, > >> > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. > > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential > > to cause health problems to some segment of the population. > > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and > > that is anything above zero. > >> > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D. > >> > www.Mold-Books.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores > >> > > >> > Sharon, et al; > >> > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The > > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > >> > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to > > access … . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to > > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first > > eliminating other causes/sources … " or " Can not be solely relied upon > > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without > > eliminating other causes/sources … " I could find myself agreeing with > > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe > > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > >> > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to > > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse > > health affect and/or illness. > >> > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting > > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no > > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of > > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside > > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they > > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or > > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health > > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from > > these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship > > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now > > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity > > of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have > > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised > > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been > > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This > > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve > > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > >> > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > >> > > >> > EnviroBob > >> > > >> > > See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2007 Report Share Posted April 17, 2007 and : Long post from the USEPA website regarding air sampling for mold. Bottom line: The USEPA agrees with Health Canada that, because there are no threshold values for airborne mold spores, microbial air sampling should be used for health risk assessment. Don USEPA: Is sampling for mold needed? In most cases, if visible mold growth is present, sampling is unnecessary. In specific instances, such as cases where litigation is involved, the source(s) of the mold contamination is unclear, or health concerns are a problem, you may consider sampling as part of your site evaluation. Surface sampling may also be useful in order to determine if an area has been adequately cleaned or remediated. Sampling should be done only after developing a sampling plan that includes a confirmable theory regarding suspected mold sources and routes of exposure. Figure out what you think is happening and how to prove or disprove it before you sample! If you do not have extensive experience and/or are in doubt about sampling, consult an experienced professional. This individual can help you decide if sampling for mold is useful and/or needed, and will be able to carry out any necessary sampling. It is important to remember that the results of sampling may have limited use or application. Sampling may help locate the source of mold contamination, identify some of the mold species present, and differentiate between mold and soot or dirt. Pre- and post- remediation sampling may also be useful in determining whether remediation efforts have been effective. After remediation, the types and concentrations of mold in indoor air samples should be similar to what is found in the local outdoor air. Since no EPA or other Federal threshold limits have been set for mold or mold spores, sampling cannot be used to check a building's compliance with Federal mold standards. Sampling for mold should be conducted by professionals with specific experience in designing mold sampling protocols, sampling methods, and interpretation of results. Sample analysis should follow analytical methods recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), or other professional guidelines (see Resources List). Types of samples include air samples, surface samples, bulk samples (chunks of carpet, insulation, wall board, etc.), and water samples from condensate drain pans or cooling towers. A number of pitfalls may be encountered when inexperienced personnel conduct sampling. They may take an inadequate number of samples, there may be inconsistency in sampling protocols, the samples may become contaminated, outdoor control samples may be omitted, and you may incur costs for unneeded or inappropriate samples. Budget constraints will often be a consideration when sampling; professional advice may be necessary to determine if it is possible to take sufficient samples to characterize a problem on a given budget. If it is not possible to sample properly, with a sufficient number of samples to answer the question(s) posed, it would be preferable not to sample. Inadequate sample plans may generate misleading, confusing, and useless results. Keep in mind that air sampling for mold provides information only for the moment in time in which the sampling occurred, much like a snapshot. Air sampling will reveal, when properly done, what was in the air at the moment when the sample was taken. For someone without experience, sampling results will be difficult to interpret. Experience in interpretation of results is essential. > > >> > > > >> > Right you are Bob, > > >> > > > >> > The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health > Canada. > > > The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the > potential > > > to cause health problems to some segment of the population. > > > Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold > and > > > that is anything above zero. > > >> > > > >> > Rosen, Ph.D. > > >> > www.Mold-Books. com > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould > Spores > > >> > > > >> > Sharon, et al; > > >> > > > >> > May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? > The > > > term running through this thread stated as follows: From 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. " > > >> > > > >> > I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to > > > access … . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be > used to > > > assess the risk to health of building occupants without first > > > eliminating other causes/sources … " or " Can not be solely relied > upon > > > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without > > > eliminating other causes/sources … " I could find myself agreeing > with > > > these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to > believe > > > that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant. > > >> > > > >> > All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to > > > acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse > > > health affect and/or illness. > > >> > > > >> > I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are > exhibiting > > > adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no > > > other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations > of > > > mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside > > > conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are > they > > > saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP > and/or > > > occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health > > > affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from > > > these conditions. If the document were even stating its > relationship > > > to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; > now > > > that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity > > > of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we > have > > > been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised > > > (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has > been > > > impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I > > >> > just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. > This > > > is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they > deserve > > > and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues. > > >> > > > >> > Your thoughts on this are welcome. > > >> > > > >> > EnviroBob > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.