Re: Institute of Medicine report on mold issues released (Full Report)

[Guest guest]

I know a nationally recruited immunologist at a major medical

research facilty. He's never heard of the Institute of Medicine.

This thing is propaganda. Where is it coming from?

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2C@n...>

wrote:

> The full document is available on-line at

> http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

[Guest guest]

I know a nationally recruited immunologist at a major medical

research facilty. He's never heard of the Institute of Medicine.

This thing is propaganda. Where is it coming from?

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2C@n...>

wrote:

> The full document is available on-line at

> http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

[Guest guest]

The Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academies.

Committees are made up primarily of volunteer scientists and doctors.

The National Academies have been affecting policy decisions in the

US since its founding in the 1850's. (The Institute of Medicine was

itself founded by the National Academies in 1970)

I suggest going to www.iom.edu and clicking the " About " button for

more information.

Propaganda it may be, but unfounded it isn't.

> > The full document is available on-line at

> > http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

[Guest guest]

The Institute of Medicine is part of the National Academies.

Committees are made up primarily of volunteer scientists and doctors.

The National Academies have been affecting policy decisions in the

US since its founding in the 1850's. (The Institute of Medicine was

itself founded by the National Academies in 1970)

I suggest going to www.iom.edu and clicking the " About " button for

more information.

Propaganda it may be, but unfounded it isn't.

> > The full document is available on-line at

> > http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

[Guest guest]

,

You and your friend should check out the National Academy of Science

Web site at: www.nas.edu/

and the Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/

This follow-on info page will give additional information:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf

While I agree that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is

it hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift away

from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also

expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include

bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials. See

their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223

While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure victims,

I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The

report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in the

right direction by an influential group of experts.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

------

> I know a nationally recruited immunologist at a major medical

> research facilty. He's never heard of the Institute of Medicine.

>

> This thing is propaganda. Where is it coming from?

>

>

>

>

> > The full document is available on-line at >

> http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

You and your friend should check out the National Academy of Science

Web site at: www.nas.edu/

and the Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/

This follow-on info page will give additional information:

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf

While I agree that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is

it hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift away

from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also

expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include

bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials. See

their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223

While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure victims,

I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The

report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in the

right direction by an influential group of experts.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

------

> I know a nationally recruited immunologist at a major medical

> research facilty. He's never heard of the Institute of Medicine.

>

> This thing is propaganda. Where is it coming from?

>

>

>

>

> > The full document is available on-line at >

> http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl and Group --

I will have to retract my inference that the Instutute of Medicine

was an unknown entity. Please accept my apologies for jumping the gun

without more research.

However, the link you provided is to their direct website and PR

content for this study, which take a different position than the

general media coverage of this. What I objected to was the CNN and

news peices that summarized their position on mold exposure --

that mold can only cause allergic response or at worst upper

resperatory inflammation. This is unacceptable.

As a senior member of this, other groups, and the IAQ industry, I

have total respect for your position, Carl. But to interpret

incremental acknolwedgement on the part of the government as progress

seems sheepish. You may have more insight than I do into the

politial process of policy reform, and see this as a lessening of

intertia, but I will still have to stand by my initial outrage.

This weekend I met a woman whose four year old son's lungs were

filling up with fluid and nearly died last year from living with mold.

This is four victims in a town of 10,000,found just through the

grapevine. People need help, now -- not when there is a a negotiated

middle policy path years from now.

> The full document is available on-line at >

> > http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Carl and Group --

I will have to retract my inference that the Instutute of Medicine

was an unknown entity. Please accept my apologies for jumping the gun

without more research.

However, the link you provided is to their direct website and PR

content for this study, which take a different position than the

general media coverage of this. What I objected to was the CNN and

news peices that summarized their position on mold exposure --

that mold can only cause allergic response or at worst upper

resperatory inflammation. This is unacceptable.

As a senior member of this, other groups, and the IAQ industry, I

have total respect for your position, Carl. But to interpret

incremental acknolwedgement on the part of the government as progress

seems sheepish. You may have more insight than I do into the

politial process of policy reform, and see this as a lessening of

intertia, but I will still have to stand by my initial outrage.

This weekend I met a woman whose four year old son's lungs were

filling up with fluid and nearly died last year from living with mold.

This is four victims in a town of 10,000,found just through the

grapevine. People need help, now -- not when there is a a negotiated

middle policy path years from now.

> The full document is available on-line at >

> > http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091934/html/

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

Apology accepted. And thank you for your honesty and courtesy when

most others would just start a flame war instead of giving me a

chance to respond.

I agree with your concern about the IOM report not being enough to

help current and future victims, even with the caveat that it is not

a definitive scientific conclusion to the issue. It is a review of

current research only.

But they do insist that " there is a dearth " of current research and

they encourage additional research with specific guidelines on how to

conduct it.

I am especially distrubed by the popular media's " spin " on the

report. When I searched " mold " on Google News Search I found over 80

listings of news reports on the the study. All but about 3 of them

were wrong.

Some claimed that mold was exonerated -- esp the real estate

establishment. Most correctly said there was an association for some

respiratory conditions but then incorrectly claimed there was NO

EVIDENCE for other health effects.

What the IOM actually said was that there is not enough evidence to

conclude one way or the other because the studies haven't been

conducted yet. That is not the same as saying the studies are

complete, the evidence is in and there is no evidence. Big

difference!

So while I'm disturbed about how the media grossly misconstrued the

panel's report, I don't understand why you think the media is more

important than what the study actually says? I realize the influence

of the media on public perception, but in your own situation, CITE

THE STUDY! Unless I'm not understanding your point.

When I want the truth about what was said, I go to the source. The

source in this case is the IOM study, including the opening remarks

to the press conference by committee chair, Noreen , as quoted

from:

www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s0309091934?OpenDocument

" Because excessive dampness is prevalent in buildings and is

associated with a range of respiratory symptoms, it constitutes a

public health problem. The key to dealing with this problem is

improved design, construction, operation, and maintenance of

buildings. This means eliminating the conditions that lead to

excessive dampness, and promptly attending to breakdowns in moisture

control when they occur. When mold is discovered, it should be

removed through means that limit the exposure of building occupants

and the people who conduct the cleanup. "

She is not saying mold isn't a problem. She is saying it is a

problem. It is a public heatlh problem that requires prompt action.

But read the report carefully because this is where the media went

wrong. The report does not limit itself to just mold. It refers to

" damp indoor spaces. " The report itself lists the public health

concerns for " damp indoor spaces " as:

dust mite;

rodent;

cockroach;

mold;

bacteria; and,

chemical releases from water damaged building materials and

furnishings.

The problem isn't " just " mold, it is bigger than mold. That is why

the title is " Damp Indoor Spaces and Health " and not " Mold and

Health. "

CITE THE REPORT! Point out that the IOM specifically states that

" damp indoor spaces " is a " public health problem " that requires

prompt action. Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions, but

there is enough evidence to declare it a public health problem, to

continue searching for the answers and to act promptly to fix the

problem!

Now watch the researchers -- who don't act according to the attitude

and the spin of the media anyway -- cite the IOM report as they line

up for grant money to start new research. Watch the emphasis shift to

ALSO include bacteria (non-infectious! -- so don't get scared we're

going to start dying from bacterial infections), other pestilence AND

chemicals. What a revelation that is!

Even before this report, there were some key people very concerned

about mold and bacteria in damp buildings. Dr Eugene Cole of Brigham

Young University, for example, was the subcommittee chair for Chapter

2, " Health Effects, " of S520 (www.iicrc.org). At more than one

conference he has taken heat for breaking from the ranks by saying

there is sufficient evidence to act.

The S520 committee approved Dr Cole's comments and position and wrote

the following concluding paragraphs to the chapter (page 48):

" From a public health perspective, in the absence of explicit,

complete scientific understanding of a particular risk; conservative

measures are appropriate to ensure that risk to occupant health is

minimized. There is sufficient information at present to justify

remediating mold contamination, including not only mold growth at the

site of water intrusion or accumulation, but also mold contamination

(i.e. spores, fragments and other byproducts) that may result from

dissemination from the source to distant sites in the building,

including flooring, bedding materials, other furnishings, HVAC

systems, and other contents. In these locations, spore-related

contaminants may be difficult to remove short of complete

replacement. Temporary relocations of occupants and thorough

containment in partially impacted areas are appropriate meassures to

prevent further occupant exposure to contaminants during remediatrion

activities.

" There is no scientific evidence to support the assertion that *only*

susceptible individuals are at risk from mold exposure in residential

and workplance environments. In some cases ... temporary relocation

of all occupants during remediation ... is warranted from a public

health perspective. "

Dr Cole and others on the committee have said they plan to expand the

health effects information for both S520 and the pending revision of

S500 (the water damage standard) to include bacteria and sewage in

addition to just mold.

Also, new symposium will be held in November to address a

multiplicity of issues. (www.cese.utulsa.edu - click on Conferences)

I'm sure the IOM report will influence their agenda.

Thank you again, , for your thoughtful question and

challenge. I hope this has not been too lengthy a response and that

it helps to clarify why I think the IOM study, while not sufficient,

is a giant step in the right direction. Despite the media that can't

seem to accurately read simple declaritive sentences and then

correctly report them, I am very hopeful of the future. But at the

same time I realize no one can turn back the clock to un-do the

damage already done by mold and whatever else has been heretofore

" unseen " in damp indoor spaces -- and further compounded by the

ignorant and the uncaring.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

---------------

> Carl and Group --

>

> I will have to retract my inference that the Instutute of Medicine was

> an unknown entity. Please accept my apologies for jumping the gun

> without more research.

>

> However, the link you provided is to their direct website and PR

> content for this study, which take a different position than the

> general media coverage of this. What I objected to was the CNN and

> news peices that summarized their position on mold exposure --

> that mold can only cause allergic response or at worst upper

> resperatory inflammation. This is unacceptable.

>

> As a senior member of this, other groups, and the IAQ industry, I have

> total respect for your position, Carl. But to interpret incremental

> acknolwedgement on the part of the government as progress seems

> sheepish. You may have more insight than I do into the politial

> process of policy reform, and see this as a lessening of intertia, but

> I will still have to stand by my initial outrage.

>

> This weekend I met a woman whose four year old son's lungs were

> filling up with fluid and nearly died last year from living with mold.

> This is four victims in a town of 10,000,found just through the

> grapevine. People need help, now -- not when there is a a negotiated

> middle policy path years from now.

>

>

>

> > , > > You and your friend should check out the

> National Academy of Science > Web site at: www.nas.edu/ > > and the

> Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/ > > This follow-on info page

> will give additional information: >

> http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf > > While I agree

> that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is > it

> hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift away >

> from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also >

> expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include >

> bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials. See >

> their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223 > >

> While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure victims, >

> I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The >

> report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in the >

> right direction by an influential group of experts. > > Carl Grimes >

[Guest guest]

,

Apology accepted. And thank you for your honesty and courtesy when

most others would just start a flame war instead of giving me a

chance to respond.

I agree with your concern about the IOM report not being enough to

help current and future victims, even with the caveat that it is not

a definitive scientific conclusion to the issue. It is a review of

current research only.

But they do insist that " there is a dearth " of current research and

they encourage additional research with specific guidelines on how to

conduct it.

I am especially distrubed by the popular media's " spin " on the

report. When I searched " mold " on Google News Search I found over 80

listings of news reports on the the study. All but about 3 of them

were wrong.

Some claimed that mold was exonerated -- esp the real estate

establishment. Most correctly said there was an association for some

respiratory conditions but then incorrectly claimed there was NO

EVIDENCE for other health effects.

What the IOM actually said was that there is not enough evidence to

conclude one way or the other because the studies haven't been

conducted yet. That is not the same as saying the studies are

complete, the evidence is in and there is no evidence. Big

difference!

So while I'm disturbed about how the media grossly misconstrued the

panel's report, I don't understand why you think the media is more

important than what the study actually says? I realize the influence

of the media on public perception, but in your own situation, CITE

THE STUDY! Unless I'm not understanding your point.

When I want the truth about what was said, I go to the source. The

source in this case is the IOM study, including the opening remarks

to the press conference by committee chair, Noreen , as quoted

from:

www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s0309091934?OpenDocument

" Because excessive dampness is prevalent in buildings and is

associated with a range of respiratory symptoms, it constitutes a

public health problem. The key to dealing with this problem is

improved design, construction, operation, and maintenance of

buildings. This means eliminating the conditions that lead to

excessive dampness, and promptly attending to breakdowns in moisture

control when they occur. When mold is discovered, it should be

removed through means that limit the exposure of building occupants

and the people who conduct the cleanup. "

She is not saying mold isn't a problem. She is saying it is a

problem. It is a public heatlh problem that requires prompt action.

But read the report carefully because this is where the media went

wrong. The report does not limit itself to just mold. It refers to

" damp indoor spaces. " The report itself lists the public health

concerns for " damp indoor spaces " as:

dust mite;

rodent;

cockroach;

mold;

bacteria; and,

chemical releases from water damaged building materials and

furnishings.

The problem isn't " just " mold, it is bigger than mold. That is why

the title is " Damp Indoor Spaces and Health " and not " Mold and

Health. "

CITE THE REPORT! Point out that the IOM specifically states that

" damp indoor spaces " is a " public health problem " that requires

prompt action. Yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions, but

there is enough evidence to declare it a public health problem, to

continue searching for the answers and to act promptly to fix the

problem!

Now watch the researchers -- who don't act according to the attitude

and the spin of the media anyway -- cite the IOM report as they line

up for grant money to start new research. Watch the emphasis shift to

ALSO include bacteria (non-infectious! -- so don't get scared we're

going to start dying from bacterial infections), other pestilence AND

chemicals. What a revelation that is!

Even before this report, there were some key people very concerned

about mold and bacteria in damp buildings. Dr Eugene Cole of Brigham

Young University, for example, was the subcommittee chair for Chapter

2, " Health Effects, " of S520 (www.iicrc.org). At more than one

conference he has taken heat for breaking from the ranks by saying

there is sufficient evidence to act.

The S520 committee approved Dr Cole's comments and position and wrote

the following concluding paragraphs to the chapter (page 48):

" From a public health perspective, in the absence of explicit,

complete scientific understanding of a particular risk; conservative

measures are appropriate to ensure that risk to occupant health is

minimized. There is sufficient information at present to justify

remediating mold contamination, including not only mold growth at the

site of water intrusion or accumulation, but also mold contamination

(i.e. spores, fragments and other byproducts) that may result from

dissemination from the source to distant sites in the building,

including flooring, bedding materials, other furnishings, HVAC

systems, and other contents. In these locations, spore-related

contaminants may be difficult to remove short of complete

replacement. Temporary relocations of occupants and thorough

containment in partially impacted areas are appropriate meassures to

prevent further occupant exposure to contaminants during remediatrion

activities.

" There is no scientific evidence to support the assertion that *only*

susceptible individuals are at risk from mold exposure in residential

and workplance environments. In some cases ... temporary relocation

of all occupants during remediation ... is warranted from a public

health perspective. "

Dr Cole and others on the committee have said they plan to expand the

health effects information for both S520 and the pending revision of

S500 (the water damage standard) to include bacteria and sewage in

addition to just mold.

Also, new symposium will be held in November to address a

multiplicity of issues. (www.cese.utulsa.edu - click on Conferences)

I'm sure the IOM report will influence their agenda.

Thank you again, , for your thoughtful question and

challenge. I hope this has not been too lengthy a response and that

it helps to clarify why I think the IOM study, while not sufficient,

is a giant step in the right direction. Despite the media that can't

seem to accurately read simple declaritive sentences and then

correctly report them, I am very hopeful of the future. But at the

same time I realize no one can turn back the clock to un-do the

damage already done by mold and whatever else has been heretofore

" unseen " in damp indoor spaces -- and further compounded by the

ignorant and the uncaring.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

---------------

> Carl and Group --

>

> I will have to retract my inference that the Instutute of Medicine was

> an unknown entity. Please accept my apologies for jumping the gun

> without more research.

>

> However, the link you provided is to their direct website and PR

> content for this study, which take a different position than the

> general media coverage of this. What I objected to was the CNN and

> news peices that summarized their position on mold exposure --

> that mold can only cause allergic response or at worst upper

> resperatory inflammation. This is unacceptable.

>

> As a senior member of this, other groups, and the IAQ industry, I have

> total respect for your position, Carl. But to interpret incremental

> acknolwedgement on the part of the government as progress seems

> sheepish. You may have more insight than I do into the politial

> process of policy reform, and see this as a lessening of intertia, but

> I will still have to stand by my initial outrage.

>

> This weekend I met a woman whose four year old son's lungs were

> filling up with fluid and nearly died last year from living with mold.

> This is four victims in a town of 10,000,found just through the

> grapevine. People need help, now -- not when there is a a negotiated

> middle policy path years from now.

>

>

>

> > , > > You and your friend should check out the

> National Academy of Science > Web site at: www.nas.edu/ > > and the

> Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/ > > This follow-on info page

> will give additional information: >

> http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf > > While I agree

> that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is > it

> hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift away >

> from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also >

> expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include >

> bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials. See >

> their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223 > >

> While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure victims, >

> I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The >

> report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in the >

> right direction by an influential group of experts. > > Carl Grimes >

[Guest guest]

Thank you Carl.Very well put. I noticed this myself that they weren't

closing the doors completely and were leaving them well open for

further research. At least they are saying that they can not rule out

the possiblity of mold causing more severe illnesses or ailments.

Thank you.

KC

> , > > You and your friend should check out the

> > National Academy of Science > Web site at: www.nas.edu/ > > and

the

> > Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/ > > This follow-on info

page

> > will give additional information: >

> > http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf > > While I

agree

> > that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is > it

> > hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift

away >

> > from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also >

> > expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include >

> > bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials.

See >

> > their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223 > >

> > While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure

victims, >

> > I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The

>

> > report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in

the >

> > right direction by an influential group of experts. > > Carl

Grimes >

[Guest guest]

Thank you Carl.Very well put. I noticed this myself that they weren't

closing the doors completely and were leaving them well open for

further research. At least they are saying that they can not rule out

the possiblity of mold causing more severe illnesses or ailments.

Thank you.

KC

> , > > You and your friend should check out the

> > National Academy of Science > Web site at: www.nas.edu/ > > and

the

> > Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/ > > This follow-on info

page

> > will give additional information: >

> > http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf > > While I

agree

> > that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is > it

> > hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift

away >

> > from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also >

> > expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include >

> > bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials.

See >

> > their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223 > >

> > While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure

victims, >

> > I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The

>

> > report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in

the >

> > right direction by an influential group of experts. > > Carl

Grimes >

[Guest guest]

Carl --

Well thought out and complete response, as expected. We all

appreciate your depth here.

You're right, quoting the study is obviously the information that

will be used in litigation, grants, etc. And I did miss the original

materials, only seeing the general coverage and hitting the roof.

However, I'm most concerned as to how the gross media

misinterpretation actually happened -- I'm not so sure that there

wasn't a press officer for the IOM involved here. I used to work as

the media contact for an outdoor gear manufacturer -- magazines used

to call me up for whatever was fresh and new from the company. They

didn't want to wade through whatever promo materials we had put

together, they wanted a quick snapshot and it was up to me to provide

it. I quickly realized the power I had in steering the process.

Your points on referencing the original document are correct, of

course, but think of how these misquotes will be applied by partisan

politics in the future. Just watch Hannity on FOX to see the

power of misinformation.

When put in the context of the general media having to interpret a

fairly technical peice of information, I would think that a savvy

organization might want to serve this up as digestable portions, and

therein lies the issue. So the question for me is: Was this spun on

the front end by the IOM? If so, why?

> , > > You and your friend should check out the

> > National Academy of Science > Web site at: www.nas.edu/ > > and

the

> > Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/ > > This follow-on info

page

> > will give additional information: >

> > http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf > > While I

agree

> > that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is > it

> > hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift

away >

> > from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also >

> > expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include >

> > bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials.

See >

> > their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223 > >

> > While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure

victims, >

> > I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The

>

> > report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in

the >

> > right direction by an influential group of experts. > > Carl

Grimes >

[Guest guest]

Carl --

Well thought out and complete response, as expected. We all

appreciate your depth here.

You're right, quoting the study is obviously the information that

will be used in litigation, grants, etc. And I did miss the original

materials, only seeing the general coverage and hitting the roof.

However, I'm most concerned as to how the gross media

misinterpretation actually happened -- I'm not so sure that there

wasn't a press officer for the IOM involved here. I used to work as

the media contact for an outdoor gear manufacturer -- magazines used

to call me up for whatever was fresh and new from the company. They

didn't want to wade through whatever promo materials we had put

together, they wanted a quick snapshot and it was up to me to provide

it. I quickly realized the power I had in steering the process.

Your points on referencing the original document are correct, of

course, but think of how these misquotes will be applied by partisan

politics in the future. Just watch Hannity on FOX to see the

power of misinformation.

When put in the context of the general media having to interpret a

fairly technical peice of information, I would think that a savvy

organization might want to serve this up as digestable portions, and

therein lies the issue. So the question for me is: Was this spun on

the front end by the IOM? If so, why?

> , > > You and your friend should check out the

> > National Academy of Science > Web site at: www.nas.edu/ > > and

the

> > Inst of Medicine Web site: www.iom.edu/ > > This follow-on info

page

> > will give additional information: >

> > http://www4.nationalacademies.org/nas/nashome.nsf > > While I

agree

> > that their position is not yet sufficient -- neither is > it

> > hysterical -- it does represents a significant positive shift

away >

> > from the expected public health " propaganda " of denial. It also >

> > expands the areas of concerns about damp buildings to include >

> > bacteria and the chemical releases from water damaged materials.

See >

> > their press release at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=20223 > >

> > While I empathize with the disapointment of (us) exposure

victims, >

> > I'm not sure I completely understand their strong negativity. The

>

> > report will not make us " whole " but it is an important step in

the >

> > right direction by an influential group of experts. > > Carl

Grimes >