Re: Acceptable Levels of Mould Spores

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

>

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.

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.

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 â€¦ ." 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 â€¦" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources â€¦" 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.

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 â€¦ ." 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 â€¦" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources â€¦" 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.

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 â€¦ ." 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 â€¦" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources â€¦" 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.

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

> >> >

>

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

> >> >

>

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

> >> >

>

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.

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.

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.

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

> >

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

> >

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

> >

April 17, 2007

ï»¿

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 â€¦ ." 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 â€¦" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources â€¦" 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.

April 17, 2007

ï»¿

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 â€¦ ." 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 â€¦" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources â€¦" 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.

April 17, 2007

ï»¿

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 â€¦ ." 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 â€¦" or" Can not be solely relied upon> > to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without> > eliminating other causes/sources â€¦" 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.

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®

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®

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®

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.

April 17, 2007