Fwd: [] AIHA Publications on Mold

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/7/2005 10:49:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,

snk1955@... writes:

In a message dated 10/6/2005 8:50:25 AM Pacific Standard Time,

donweek@... writes:

http://www.aiha.org/SplashPages/html/topic-mold.htm

Dear Mr. Weekes,

There is much good information from AIHA. However, I do not support the

fact that you organization references the American College of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine's current understanding of mycotic disease. (ACOEM Mold

Statement) while performing mold assessments. The final sentence in this

paper states:

Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that human

health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in home, school, or

office environments.

Acknowledgments

This ACOEM statement was prepared by D. Hardin, PhD, Bruce J. Kelman,

PhD, DABT, and Saxon, MD, under the auspices of the ACOEM Council on

Scientific Affairs. It was peer-reviewed by the Council and its committees,

and was approved by the ACOEM Board of Directors on October 27, 2002. Dr.

Hardin is the former Deputy Director of NIOSH, Assistant Surgeon General

(Retired), and Senior Consultant to Global Tox, Inc, where Dr. Kelman is a

Principal.

Dr. Saxon is Professor of Medicine at the School of Medicine, University of

California at Los Angeles.

The ACOEM paper is constantly used in the courtroom against those who have

been made ill after an excessive exposure to molds/toxins within an indoor

environment. This statement is based on the expert defense witness authors'

mathematical extrapolations of ONE high dose acute exposure study of rats to be

projected as it is not plausible that humans may become ill from mold and

mycotoxin exposure within an indoor environment. It is grossly irrelevant

data,

yet accepted courtroom information. The IOM Damp Indoor Spaces and Health

report does not find this type of research to be conclusive in determining

" current scientific evidence. " indicative of human illness or lack there of.

Chapeter 4, IOM Report:

" Except for a few stidies on cancer, toxicologic studies of mycotoxins are

acute or short-term studies that use high exposure concentrations to reveal

immediate effects in small populations of animals. Chronic studies that use

lower exposure concentrations and approximate human exposure more closely have

not been done except for a small number of cancer studies "

The document was then commissioned by the Manhattan Institute, for the

amount of $40,000 payment to GlobalTox, to be turned into a " lay translation " .

The

MI is a conservative political think tank. It was then shared through the

cooperation of the US Chamber of Commerce, to stakeholder industries. On the

NAR website, this " lay translation " ends with the phrase " Thus the notion that

'toxic mold' is an insidious secret 'killer', as so many media reports and

trial lawyers would claim, is 'Junk Science' unsupported by actual scientific

study. " (Well let's just call a spade a spade in " translating " the ACOEM

Mold Statement!)

Many members of the AIHA reference this document during their environmental

assessments to give to parents, teachers, etc, to state that based on the

ACOEM mold statement it is not plausible people could become as ill as they are

saying they are. The Mold Statement of the ACOEM is a self admitted defense

argument. This fine piece of work is directly responsible for fueling much

of the confusion and contention over the mold issue.

The following is a copy of a supenoed email from athan Borak, Chair of

the Scientific Committee of the ACOEM, dated Sept 8, 2002.

" From: Borak, (his email address follows)

Friday, September 8, 2002 2:45 pm

Dean Grove

CC: J Bernacki MD, Barry Eisenberg, Tim Key, MD

Subject: Mold

Dean et al:

I am having quite a chllenge in finding an acceptable path for the proposed

position paper on mold. Even though a great deal of work has gone in. It

seems difficult to satisfy a sufficient spectrum of the College, or at least

those concerned enough to voice their views.

I have received several sets of comments that find the current version, much

revised, to still be a defense argument. On the other hand, Hardin

and his colleagues are not willing to further dilute the paper. They have done

a lot and I am concerned that we will soon have to eith endorse or let go.

I do not want this to go to the BOD and then be rejected. That would be an

important violation of ----I have assured him that if we do not use it,

he can freely make whatever other use he might want to make. If we

" officially " reject it then we turn his efforst into garbage.

As this was an effort that you, Dean, asked me to initiate I thought that

you might have a good idea about what might be done.

The problem is the same as when this began. Mold is a litigation mine

field. Everybody involved in the topic has a strong view and there is little

middle ground. If we have a statement that deals only with science, we will be

accused of ignoring the " Public Health " issues. If we embrace the Public

Health, then we will be regarded as not scientific.

I have not previously been involoved in an ACOEM issue that raised provoked

emotions among member peer reviewers. My own feeling is that it may not be

worth the disruptive effects that might result from forcing the issue. Also,

I think that the authors are not willing to let this just sit for awhile.

They have done a lot of work and want to see it in print.

For your interests, I have attached the latest versions.

. "

Dose response theory is out the courtroom window!!!!

Sharon Kramer