Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Tony, I am going to answer all three of your questions in one response. 1st one: You wrote: "If one only does marketing, how does one assess the validity of the sciencewithin this framework?TonyPs I'm going to get myself a set of galoshes." Tony, Because what is within this framework we are discussing is NOT valid science. It's the marketing of a concept not based on accepted scientific protocol to determine the implausibility of human illness. It is an abuse of quantitative risk assessment. And...I think you NEED your galoshes from the position you are attempting to support with this one. 2nd one: You wrote my question of: " In other words, is the ACOEM Mold Statement consistent with the IOMReport?"And responded with: "Does it have to? Since one is a scientific review and the other a POLICYpaper?"Tony, YES. IT DOES. Policy that impacts the health and finances of US Citizens should be founded upon science. No one has the right to make policy that is to the financial benefit of some at the expense of the lives and health of American citizens based on known unscientific methodology. Don't you think policy should be predicated by true scientific understanding? Or are you still out looking for the weapons of mass destruction that falsely established a policy we should go to war? BTW, that was just slick marketing, too. 3rd one: You quoted me as: "According to the IOM...and everyone else, this is not accepted scientific methodology to support the proposition that it is implausible people experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure to microbialcontaminants that are found in water damaged INDOOR environments. "And you responded: Could you cite these statements please (since you are holding a White Paper [not a scientific paper] to that standard)?Tony Sure, no problem. I could quote you several segments of the IOM report that says what ACOEM did ain't science. As a matter of fact, one would have to question, if the IOM Report, published in 2004, was a review of scientific papers, then why wasn't the ACOEM mold statement even cited by the IOM? Answer, cuz it ain't science. It's a marketing piece meant to limit financial liability. And at least you are admitting the ACOEM Mold Statement isn't science. But I don't understand how you can possibly and ethically defend that is okay for a non-scientific paper to be used to set national scientific protocol. Instead of rehashing all the areas in the IOM report that says what ACOEM did to establish the implausiblity of threshold levels that cause symptoms of human poisoning, let me just show you a minute sampling of what happens to innocent people when a White Paper - a policy paper - is not founded on science. http://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/category/1/1/46/ Surely, you are not condoning this as acceptable, are you? Sharon See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 Tony, I am going to answer all three of your questions in one response. 1st one: You wrote: "If one only does marketing, how does one assess the validity of the sciencewithin this framework?TonyPs I'm going to get myself a set of galoshes." Tony, Because what is within this framework we are discussing is NOT valid science. It's the marketing of a concept not based on accepted scientific protocol to determine the implausibility of human illness. It is an abuse of quantitative risk assessment. And...I think you NEED your galoshes from the position you are attempting to support with this one. 2nd one: You wrote my question of: " In other words, is the ACOEM Mold Statement consistent with the IOMReport?"And responded with: "Does it have to? Since one is a scientific review and the other a POLICYpaper?"Tony, YES. IT DOES. Policy that impacts the health and finances of US Citizens should be founded upon science. No one has the right to make policy that is to the financial benefit of some at the expense of the lives and health of American citizens based on known unscientific methodology. Don't you think policy should be predicated by true scientific understanding? Or are you still out looking for the weapons of mass destruction that falsely established a policy we should go to war? BTW, that was just slick marketing, too. 3rd one: You quoted me as: "According to the IOM...and everyone else, this is not accepted scientific methodology to support the proposition that it is implausible people experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure to microbialcontaminants that are found in water damaged INDOOR environments. "And you responded: Could you cite these statements please (since you are holding a White Paper [not a scientific paper] to that standard)?Tony Sure, no problem. I could quote you several segments of the IOM report that says what ACOEM did ain't science. As a matter of fact, one would have to question, if the IOM Report, published in 2004, was a review of scientific papers, then why wasn't the ACOEM mold statement even cited by the IOM? Answer, cuz it ain't science. It's a marketing piece meant to limit financial liability. And at least you are admitting the ACOEM Mold Statement isn't science. But I don't understand how you can possibly and ethically defend that is okay for a non-scientific paper to be used to set national scientific protocol. Instead of rehashing all the areas in the IOM report that says what ACOEM did to establish the implausiblity of threshold levels that cause symptoms of human poisoning, let me just show you a minute sampling of what happens to innocent people when a White Paper - a policy paper - is not founded on science. http://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/category/1/1/46/ Surely, you are not condoning this as acceptable, are you? Sharon See AOL's top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 18, 2007 Report Share Posted December 18, 2007 REGARDING: " Thanks, Bob. Staying within the marketing arena is all I ever do. " RESPONSE: As Fred Sanford said: " It's the big one. " If one only does marketing, how does one assess the validity of the science within this framework? Tony Ps I'm going to get myself a set of galoshes. ....................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 Avon, IN 46123 off fax cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM) This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 REGARDING: " You quoted me as: " According to the IOM...and everyone else, this is not accepted scientific methodology to support the proposition that it is implausible people experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure to microbial contaminants that are found in water damaged INDOOR environments. " And you responded: Could you cite these statements please (since you are holding a White Paper [not a scientific paper] to that standard)? Tony Sure, no problem. I could quote you several segments of the IOM report that says what ACOEM did ain't science. As a matter of fact, one would have to question, if the IOM Report, published in 2004, was a review of scientific papers, then why wasn't the ACOEM mold statement even cited by the IOM? Answer, cuz it ain't science. It's a marketing piece meant to limit financial liability. And at least you are admitting the ACOEM Mold Statement isn't science. But I don't understand how you can possibly and ethically defend that is okay for a non-scientific paper to be used to set national scientific protocol. Instead of rehashing all the areas in the IOM report that says what ACOEM did to establish the implausiblity of threshold levels that cause symptoms of human poisoning, let me just show you a minute sampling of what happens to innocent people when a White Paper - a policy paper - is not founded on science. http://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/category/1/1/46/ Surely, you are not condoning this as acceptable, are you? Sharon " RESPONSE: Specifically on - " I could quote you several segments of the IOM report that says what ACOEM did ain't science. " THEN DO IT and humor me (to support your specific statement): " According to the IOM...and everyone else, this is not accepted scientific methodology to support the proposition that it is implausible people experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure to microbial contaminants that are found in water damaged INDOOR environments. " Where's this or very similar statement? If you can't show it to me, then you've twisted the words to express YOUR opinion. Tony ....................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 Avon, IN 46123 www.ph2llc.com off fax cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM) This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 REGARDING: " You quoted me as: " According to the IOM...and everyone else, this is not accepted scientific methodology to support the proposition that it is implausible people experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure to microbial contaminants that are found in water damaged INDOOR environments. " And you responded: Could you cite these statements please (since you are holding a White Paper [not a scientific paper] to that standard)? Tony Sure, no problem. I could quote you several segments of the IOM report that says what ACOEM did ain't science. As a matter of fact, one would have to question, if the IOM Report, published in 2004, was a review of scientific papers, then why wasn't the ACOEM mold statement even cited by the IOM? Answer, cuz it ain't science. It's a marketing piece meant to limit financial liability. And at least you are admitting the ACOEM Mold Statement isn't science. But I don't understand how you can possibly and ethically defend that is okay for a non-scientific paper to be used to set national scientific protocol. Instead of rehashing all the areas in the IOM report that says what ACOEM did to establish the implausiblity of threshold levels that cause symptoms of human poisoning, let me just show you a minute sampling of what happens to innocent people when a White Paper - a policy paper - is not founded on science. http://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/category/1/1/46/ Surely, you are not condoning this as acceptable, are you? Sharon " RESPONSE: Specifically on - " I could quote you several segments of the IOM report that says what ACOEM did ain't science. " THEN DO IT and humor me (to support your specific statement): " According to the IOM...and everyone else, this is not accepted scientific methodology to support the proposition that it is implausible people experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from exposure to microbial contaminants that are found in water damaged INDOOR environments. " Where's this or very similar statement? If you can't show it to me, then you've twisted the words to express YOUR opinion. Tony ....................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 Avon, IN 46123 www.ph2llc.com off fax cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM) This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.