RE: Re: Another new technology

[Guest guest]

,That study was conducted in a (new) building especially built to be tight (for the study).Real wooden buildings 'settle' and sometimes they settle a lot. Especially if they are on hills. Which means that they develop MUCH larger holes. Older buildings might easily be compared to swiss cheeses. Do you know what I mean?

[Guest guest]

,That study was conducted in a (new) building especially built to be tight (for the study).Real wooden buildings 'settle' and sometimes they settle a lot. Especially if they are on hills. Which means that they develop MUCH larger holes. Older buildings might easily be compared to swiss cheeses. Do you know what I mean?

[Guest guest]

Quack:

1 – The study was not performed on a complete, full-scale building, but portions of a reduced-size building assembly.

2 – It was a laboratory study that needs field verification (but I already said this before).

3 – The study showed that most particles above 4-microns did not move through the building assemblies, but through holes made into the building assemblies.

4 – Most mold spores are larger than 4-microns in size (but I already said this before).

5 – Your comment that “real wooden buildings” (versus un-real wooden buildings???) settle and settle a lot, especially if they are on hills, suggests to me that you have no REAL experience with construction, and, IMHO, it is more un-real, if anything.

,

That study was conducted in a (new) building especially built to be tight (for the study).

Real wooden buildings 'settle' and sometimes they settle a lot. Especially if they are on hills. Which means that they develop MUCH larger holes. Older buildings might easily be compared to swiss cheeses.

Do you know what I mean?

[Guest guest]

,

I'm not an expert. But can you really claim to be one considering the

way you ignore what you don't want to hear? I am speaking from real

world experience. Reservoirs of mold inside of building walls create

hellish situations for the people who spend time in those buildings,

and you are living in a dream world if you are avoiding see that.

> Quack:

>

> 1 – The study was not performed on a complete, full-scale building, but

portions of a reduced-size building assembly.

Scientists are doing the right thing to try to design experiments so

that the situations looked at are as simple as possible. Also, in a

real world building, I think its quite probable that the leakage would

be more, NOT less.

>

> 2 – It was a laboratory study that needs field verification (but I already

said this before).

In the case of a business with employees, or a school, the people who

have been hypersensitized are often their own employees, who were

hypersensitized in that building. So then 'consultants' come in, DON'T

clean up all the mold, (perhaps relying on 'expert' advice like yours

that it is not necessary?!) Then they give the 'ALL CLEAR' and those

people return, to become even sicker.. Does that make you proud of

yourself and your profession?

When you get exposed to mold, you reach a certain point where your

body is telling you in no uncertain terms that you have to GET OUT.

But that not the way pensions work.. its all or nothing..

So, older employees usually, (with years of mold exposure having mad

ethem sick) end up having to quit their jobs and they lose their

pensions. They don't get any compensation for the damage to their

health which often means they can't work in many office situations

that they would have been able to tolerate with no problem had it not

been for that massive exposure. They have problems finding places to

live. They have a host of health problems. Is this the desired

outcome? Should it even be legal? Because that is how this argument

you keep making plays out in the real world.

> 3 – The study showed that most particles above 4-microns did not move through

the building assemblies, but through holes made into the building assemblies.

That is NOT what I read. I read that they were unable to make a wood

building that did not have the small particles infiltrating through

tiny holes.. Read it again.

Also, you always ignore all of the stuides on fungal fragments. Why?

AS YOU KNOW, a number of other studies have conclusively shown that a

substantial fungal load is carried on those tiny d very numerous

particles 'smaller than conidia' (which are often simply listed as

'debris' in spore tests, since they cannot be identified

microscopically.

I don't know why but I remember also reading in several studies that

the smaller a particle is, the more toxic effect it is likely to have.

There have been a number of studies that have examined aspects of this

which i don't have the energy to look up but I posted a long list of

them the other day which i wont post again because I don't want to

spam the list.

One important thing that seems as if it would be highly important is

that the lungs have tiny sacs which block the entry of larger

particles to the blood/air interface.. So the smaller particles I

remember reading many times are much more likey it is to penetrate

into the part of the lungs where air makes contact with blood and can

enter the bloodstream.

> 4 – Most mold spores are larger than 4-microns in size (but I already said

this before).

Most fungal spores? Of all species? What does that have to do with the

danger of a situation? What would seem to matter to me was stopping

what made people sick.

There is paper on stachybotrys mycotoxins on particles smaller than

spores here.. Its pretty technical but even I can see that your

statement was inaccurate as it might apply to stachybotrys.. (That is

unless I am getting my units wrong which would mean I would have to be

off by a factor of 10 or more.. Am I? I don't think I am because Ive

seen this discussed in this very forum. Asp/pen spores can be much

smaller than that and they also bounce off of spore traps in high

numbers. So the danger of undercounting and/or false negatives is very

real.)

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/1/114?view=long

Also, spores are spores. Nothing more. Health effects are not just

spore based. what is the connection? Spores are spores. Toxins are

toxins. Glucans are glucans. Allergens are allergens. VOCs are VOCs.

Bacteria are bacteria. They all make people sick.

Illness does not come from just spores. Spores are just how one kind

of test identified mold. There are other methods, too.

> 5 – Your comment that " real wooden buildings " (versus un-real wooden

buildings???) settle and settle a lot, especially if they are on hills, suggests

to me that you have no REAL experience with construction, and, IMHO, it is more

un-real, if anything.

>

Real building settle. Buildings have holes in them. Older buildings

often have settled a lot, and its not unusual that they have a lot of

holes in them.

And what does construction experience have to do with the answer to

that question other than it might imply that the speaker might have a

bias to favor an answer that got construction industry people or

building owners off the hook responsibility wise on a health problem

of importance?

Why don't they spend that money that they spend on spin control and

consultants instead on maintaining their buildings well in the first

place?

[Guest guest]

Carl,

What you have posted as a response more

strongly supports the reason for sampling. If 4.0 microns and larger do not

move through the building systems unless there are really large pathways (holes)

and the samples confirm the spores detected are 4.0 and greater than the spores

did not come from outside. There must be an inside reservoir.

Furthermore the larger the spore the less

likely the spore will stay aerosolized. The smaller the spore i.e. Asp the more

likely being aerosolized over longer periods of time, thus more likely to come

into contact with a receptor. Seeing that Ass/Pen are commonly detected within

samples and are under 4.0 microns it becomes another reason to test.

What you have demonstrated in principle are

some potential problems with wall or cavity sampling. One must consider that

the pressure changes will not be radically different within a short period in

time. Thus if the spores are infiltrated due to high outside pressure and exfiltration

due to low outside pressure than what we have is spore migration in and out of

the systems and/or cavities. Under the worst conditions some spores will settle

out and required greater pressures to re-aerosolize them one direction and/or

the other.  

As far as spores 0.6 to greater than 4.0 moving

through the building lets keep in mind that a mold spore going through a crack

is like a piper cub plane going through the Gran Canyon.

Any aerosolized particle can travel or migrate from one location to another

location as long as there is an opening greater then the particle. Please show

me a home with no opening greater than the size of a spore and I will show you

a sealed container and dead people in it.

That said, all the opening required for

spores to migrate is an opening that is greater than the spore size. Due to

building materials and variable material shrinkage I do not believe it is very

hard to find such openings. Warped framing materials are the most common as

well the same framing materials after reduction of moisture content has

occurred will also produce such openings, etc, etc.  

EnviroBob

 

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Carl E. Grimes

Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007

1:11 AM

To: iequality

Cc: Geyer

Subject: Re: Another

new technology

,

I don't recall your position on comparing inside to outside mold

levels but you just convinced me against such a comparision. Which

way is the air flow? What pressure differential? What size particles

can move through this particular structure? How long does the

transfer take so the inside sample can be taken at the appropriate

interval after the outside sample. Among other variables.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Quack:

>

> Thanks for posting this abstract. Yes....I believe that this is the

> article that was being referenced by EnviroBob. (And I have seen

> this study before, about 6 months ago, now that I have read it again.)

>

> What I find very interesting are the contradictions in the study, and

> the unfounded conclusion:

> * " ... particles with diameter of 4.0 µm did not penetrate through

the

> structure at all even at a higher-pressure difference of 20

Pa. "

> * " Determined penetration factors were highly dependent on pressure

> difference. "

> * " Results have important consequences for practical design showing

> that penetration of fungal spores is difficult to control by

sealing

> the building envelope. "

>

> I don´t disagree that pressure differentials are a determining

> factor.....assuming a pathway is present. All buildings have

> pathways to air leakage, some small, some large, however, not all

> pathways have a higher pressure outdoors and a lower pressure

> indoors; sometimes the reverse is true and sometimes there is a

> negligible pressure differential across the pathway. Flow is not

> always outdoors to indoors! Moreover, it should be noted that the

> VAST MAJORITY of fungal spores are larger then 4-microns. With the

> most notable exception being Aspergillus sp; which is maybe why

> Aspergillus can colonize in the lungs???? Therefore, if the vast

> majority of fungal spores are larger than 4 microns, and study data

> shows particles greater than 4-microns DID NOT penetrated through the

> structure at pressures exceeding 20-Pa, how the hell can they

> conclude that these results show penetration of fungal spores is

> difficult to control? Am I missing something? I think not!

>

> If one reads the entire study and looks at the building assemblies

> that were constructed in the lab, there were holes and openings in

> the assemblies that were made to " represent " large flow

pathways.

> Guess what, if you create a big hole, big things will flow through

> it. Duh! When these big holes were sealed, the data shows leakage

> of particle sizes in the range of 0.6 to 2.5-microns.....as long as

> there was a pressure gradient. I can accept this. What I cannot

> accept is the conclusion " fungal spores penetrated throughout the

> structure " .......not without allowing them to move through the

BIG

> holes!

>

> Maybe that is why I did not commit this study to memory.....I felt it

> was bogus; with respect to mold spore transport. Lets also not

> forget that this is a lab experiment and it needs field verifications

> studies to have any real merit in the real world.

>

> For what it is worth......

>

>