Re: Question for the experts

November 5, 2005

Hey KC,

My sister is looking for a new air purifier. But I thought ozone was not a

good thing to use. Is it, or is it not?

Sharon

November 5, 2005

Sharon,

My opinion, it's not. NO. Especially in an occupied dwelling. The

only time I would consider using it, is after a fire, a remediation

(if you would like to call it that) in a car (again unoccupied & aired

out properly and wiped down) I can't think of any other situations.

But definately not in an occupied home. I would tend to use something

like this for chemicals, VOC's, NOT for mold or bacteria.

KC

>

> Hey KC,

>

> My sister is looking for a new air purifier. But I thought ozone

was not a

> good thing to use. Is it, or is it not?

>

> Sharon

>

November 10, 2005

KC, hi.

The other term for Photocatalytic Oxidation is Photohydroionization or

" PHI " . PHI technology was invented by RGF, and is used in a wide

variety of commercial restaurant and food processing equipment for

purification of water and air:

http://www.rgf.com/

One of the products that RGF built using PHI, the " AirSource " was sold

to Shaklee who is now the distributor. There are now a bunch of

companies that are building AirSource like purifiers around the PHI

technology. They each use slightly different terminology, some of

them even avoiding the PHI label I think as a marketing ploy to

distinguish them from the original AirSource.

http://www.shaklee.com/product/55102

This article explains the technology:

http://www.rgf.com/documents/PHI_article.pdf

Although these units generate low levels of ozone, RGF claims that the

amount is below .01 PPM. (I think the Federal limit is .04 ppm.)

Instead the PHI process achieves most of it's chemical

oxydizer-purification effect from the other forms of oxygen / ions

that are generated, such as ozonide ions, hydro-peroxides, super

oxides ions, and hydroxide ions. Conventional ozone generators use

corona discharge and can generate too much ozone in a sensistive

environment. And they generate primarily ozone, not these other

species of oxygen. PHI is not targeted as an ozone generator, but

rather these other exotic forms of oxygen that can neutralize

chemicals / bacteria (mold?). [but certainly NOT mycotoxins.]

The PHI uses a quad metalic catalyst in contact with the UV light to

generate the various hyper oxygen species. This is the process that

RGF has patented. Other companies, such as Lynntech / Calutech are

only using one of the metal oxides, titanium in a similar idea, and

they label their process photocatalytic oxidation. Very similar to

PHI, just differing in the catalyst used and perhaps efficiency of

generation. Other catalysts combine platinum and titanium.

http://www.lynntech.com/licensing/oxidation/index.shtml

http://www.colorado.edu/che/faculty/falconer/mywebs/catalysisresearch.htm

http://www.ntu.edu.sg/cwp/pco/

http://www.calutech.com/photocatalytic-oxidation.htm

In terms of use with mold environments, my impression is that this

technology is only applicable if you have a relatively " clean "

environment already and just want to keep it that way or make it

better. It's NOT going to remediate someplace that has been hit hard

or that has mycotoxins. It probably WILL knock out any new spores

that come into your space via air currents, but WON'T reach into wall

/ floor / ceiling spaces if you have water intrusion and spores there.

It's also unclear whether the super-oxide ions can penetrate into

porous items such as clothing or paper. In short it's a great

purifier technology but don't expect to remediate with it.

Or to echo sentiments of Shoemaker and others on this board, don't

expect to remediate with ANYTHING -- remediation is IMPOSSIBLE. You

pretty much have to LEAVE the contaminated space, the mycotoxins are

just too tricky to deal with.

--Bill Croft

--- In , " tigerpaw2c " <tigerpaw2c@y...>

wrote:

>

> Since the general public is mislead quite frequently, there is a new

> product that is becoming available that I don't quite understand the

> technology. I figure it may be the same thing as ozone or ionizers,(I

> may be wrong) but now they are using a different terminology.

>

> Photocatalytic Oxidation

>

> If anyone can explain this for the rest of us. I surely would

> appreciate it. Let's call it what it is so the rest of us can

> understand clearly if this is healthy.

>

> Thank you in advance,

>

> KC

>

November 10, 2005

Bill,

Thanks.That answered my question. " Although these units generate low

levels of ozone RGF (claims) that the amount is below .01 PPM

Thanks

KC

> >

> > Since the general public is mislead quite frequently, there is a

new

> > product that is becoming available that I don't quite understand

the

> > technology. I figure it may be the same thing as ozone or

ionizers,(I

> > may be wrong) but now they are using a different terminology.

> >

> > Photocatalytic Oxidation

> >

> > If anyone can explain this for the rest of us. I surely would

> > appreciate it. Let's call it what it is so the rest of us can

> > understand clearly if this is healthy.

> >

> > Thank you in advance,

> >

> > KC

> >

>

November 10, 2005

> Or to echo sentiments of Shoemaker and others on this board, don't

expect to remediate with ANYTHING -- remediation is IMPOSSIBLE. You

pretty much have to LEAVE the contaminated space, the mycotoxins are

just too tricky to deal with.

> --Bill Croft

I'm not trying to talk anybody out of remediation, where appropriate,

but as I keep saying about " Your neighbors Spore Plume " , If the source

isn't in your space - it's good to know about it before you burn your

house to the ground - rebuild, and find it didn't make any difference.

I'll echo that sentiment:

These darn mycotoxins are just too tricky to deal with!

-

November 10, 2005

Bill,

Thanks for your comprehensive and expert response. It appears there

are important differences between some of the technologies,

especially concerning the " ozone question. "

I'd like us all to keep in mind that just because .01 ppm is

significantly lower than the federal limit of .04 ppm doesn't mean

the ozone is low enough to not be reactive to some of us. E.g. the

Airsource mentioned does produce enough ozone to bother me and to be

intolerable for many of my clients.

Just because the devices rely on phenomena other than ozone doesn't

mean the ozone won't be a factor; or that another component won't be

a problem. Always check it out for yourself and always buy from a

source that allows a money-back return for any reason.

The reason the outdoor federal limit is used for indoor devices is

because Alpine protested the FTC efforts to shut them down. Alpine

asked them what law or regulation they were violating. There were

none at the time except for outdoors. So the gov't applied that. But

as we all now know outdoor exposures can be much different than

indoor exposures. As far as I know there has not been a scientific or

legal test of the applicability of 0.04 ppm ozone indoors.

I also agree with your comment that their use is for helping,

perhaps, to keep a clean environment clean. They should not be relied

on to keep you safe in a " dirty " environment or to the perform the

clean-up itself.

As for a remediation, it is critical to remove the source of the mold

growth and stop the moisture source. Whether or not it is totally

successful, mycotoxins or otherwise, it must still be done first to

reduce the exposure as much as possible and stop the continuation.

Most people will find this sufficient. But the 23% or so that Dr

Shoemaker works with probably won't. Finally, 's statement about

" Your neighbors Spore Plume " is also critical.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> KC, hi.

>

> The other term for Photocatalytic Oxidation is Photohydroionization or

> " PHI " . PHI technology was invented by RGF, and is used in a wide

> variety of commercial restaurant and food processing equipment for

> purification of water and air:

>

> http://www.rgf.com/

>

> One of the products that RGF built using PHI, the " AirSource " was sold

> to Shaklee who is now the distributor. There are now a bunch of

> companies that are building AirSource like purifiers around the PHI

> technology. They each use slightly different terminology, some of

> them even avoiding the PHI label I think as a marketing ploy to

> distinguish them from the original AirSource.

>

> http://www.shaklee.com/product/55102

>

> This article explains the technology:

>

> http://www.rgf.com/documents/PHI_article.pdf

>

> Although these units generate low levels of ozone, RGF claims that the

> amount is below .01 PPM. (I think the Federal limit is .04 ppm.)

> Instead the PHI process achieves most of it's chemical

> oxydizer-purification effect from the other forms of oxygen / ions

> that are generated, such as ozonide ions, hydro-peroxides, super

> oxides ions, and hydroxide ions. Conventional ozone generators use

> corona discharge and can generate too much ozone in a sensistive

> environment. And they generate primarily ozone, not these other

> species of oxygen. PHI is not targeted as an ozone generator, but

> rather these other exotic forms of oxygen that can neutralize

> chemicals / bacteria (mold?). [but certainly NOT mycotoxins.]

>

> The PHI uses a quad metalic catalyst in contact with the UV light to

> generate the various hyper oxygen species. This is the process that

> RGF has patented. Other companies, such as Lynntech / Calutech are

> only using one of the metal oxides, titanium in a similar idea, and

> they label their process photocatalytic oxidation. Very similar to

> PHI, just differing in the catalyst used and perhaps efficiency of

> generation. Other catalysts combine platinum and titanium.

>

> http://www.lynntech.com/licensing/oxidation/index.shtml

> http://www.colorado.edu/che/faculty/falconer/mywebs/catalysisresearch.

> htm http://www.ntu.edu.sg/cwp/pco/

> http://www.calutech.com/photocatalytic-oxidation.htm

>

> In terms of use with mold environments, my impression is that this

> technology is only applicable if you have a relatively " clean "

> environment already and just want to keep it that way or make it

> better. It's NOT going to remediate someplace that has been hit hard

> or that has mycotoxins. It probably WILL knock out any new spores

> that come into your space via air currents, but WON'T reach into wall

> / floor / ceiling spaces if you have water intrusion and spores there.

> It's also unclear whether the super-oxide ions can penetrate into

> porous items such as clothing or paper. In short it's a great

> purifier technology but don't expect to remediate with it.

>

> Or to echo sentiments of Shoemaker and others on this board, don't

> expect to remediate with ANYTHING -- remediation is IMPOSSIBLE. You

> pretty much have to LEAVE the contaminated space, the mycotoxins are

> just too tricky to deal with.

>

> --Bill Croft

>

> > > Since the general public is mislead quite frequently, there

> is a new > product that is becoming available that I don't quite

> understand the > technology. I figure it may be the same thing as

> ozone or ionizers,(I > may be wrong) but now they are using a

> different terminology. > > Photocatalytic Oxidation > > If anyone can

> explain this for the rest of us. I surely would > appreciate it. Let's

> call it what it is so the rest of us can > understand clearly if this

> is healthy. > > Thank you in advance, > > KC >

>

November 10, 2005

--- In , " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@h...>

wrote:

> Thanks for your comprehensive and expert response. It appears there

> are important differences between some of the technologies,

> especially concerning the " ozone question. "

>

> I'd like us all to keep in mind that just because .01 ppm is

> significantly lower than the federal limit of .04 ppm doesn't mean

> the ozone is low enough to not be reactive to some of us. E.g. the

> Airsource mentioned does produce enough ozone to bother me and to be

> intolerable for many of my clients.

>

> Just because the devices rely on phenomena other than ozone doesn't

> mean the ozone won't be a factor; or that another component won't be

> a problem. Always check it out for yourself and always buy from a

> source that allows a money-back return for any reason.

> ...

> > http://www.calutech.com/photocatalytic-oxidation.htm

Carl, hi again.

I just got off the phone with an engineer at Calutech (708-671-1538).

They are producing the " SnapCat " titanium dioxide addon for their UV

based air purifiers. The SnapCat is an example of a unit using

photocatalytic oxidation, or " PCO " . I asked him if the PCO process

generated ANY ozone whatsoever. And he claimed NO, i.e. zero PPM.

According to this guy PCO only generates the highly oxidizing hydroxyl

radicals.

The PHI (photohydroionization) process used by RGF and the AirSource

DOES generate a small amount of ozone (claim < .01 ppm) in addition to

what they call " other " forms of oxygen/oxidizers: " ozonide ions,

super-oxide ions, hydro-peroxides and hydroxide ions. " I asked the

Calutech engineer about these " other species " of oxygen; is perhaps

the PHI process more efficient or better than PCO because it generates

more kinds of oxygen?

He was unfamiliar with PHI, but said that the term super-oxide is just

another name for ozone. Didnt know about ozonide (but likely a form

of ozone), and both " hydro-peroxide and hydroxide " are just other

names for the hydroxyl radical (by his knowledge). I didnt talk with

an engineer at RGF (the PHI inventor company), but it seems to me that

RGF came up with the quad metal catalyst for SOME good reason,

probably finding in tests that it caused better or faster purification

than hydroxyl alone.

At any rate it seems like the PCO technology COULD be an advantage

over PHI in terms of NO OZONE generation. But the hydroxyl generation

that is common to both PHI and PCO is one of the strongest oxidizers

known in chemistry. RGF shows this table in their PHI_article.pdf

document:

OXIDIZERS (in order of strength):

1. Fluorine

2. Hydroxyl Radical* **

3. Ozone*

4. Hydrogen Peroxide*

5. Permanganate

6. Chlorine

7. Bromine

8. Iodine

9. Oxygen*

* = elements of the RGF PHI process

** = only element of the PCO process

In other words this table shows hydroxyl to be even MORE reactive than

ozone in terms of oxidation potential. So although there are no

Federal standards on legal hydroxyl concentrations in air, it could be

just as much of a hot button as ozone concentration.

If someone on this list DOES try out a Calutech PCO unit (SnapCat

addon), please let us know your impressions about how " irritating " or

not you find it to be.

Regards,

--Bill Croft

November 10, 2005

Bill,

Interesting stuff. I wonder if the " other " forms of oxygen/oxidizers,

" ozonide " etc are the names now given to O4, O5, O6, O7 etc that the

ozone promoters talk about. Technically they aren't O3 (ozone) but

I've never seen an informed, independant discusion of their physical

and chemical properties. (If anyone does respond to this, please do

so directly to me off-list so as to not aggravate the others).

Like you, I'd be interested in any personal experience with the

Calutech PCO unit (SnapCat> addon), or equivalent. But I ask that any

responses NOT be from salesmen, manufacturers or other promoters of

the equipment. I want real-life information by those that found

relief without side effects.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

----

> > http://www.calutech.com/photocatalytic-oxidation.htm

>

> Carl, hi again.

>

> I just got off the phone with an engineer at Calutech (708-671-1538).

> They are producing the " SnapCat " titanium dioxide addon for their UV

> based air purifiers. The SnapCat is an example of a unit using

> photocatalytic oxidation, or " PCO " . I asked him if the PCO process

> generated ANY ozone whatsoever. And he claimed NO, i.e. zero PPM.

> According to this guy PCO only generates the highly oxidizing hydroxyl

> radicals.

>

> The PHI (photohydroionization) process used by RGF and the AirSource

> DOES generate a small amount of ozone (claim < .01 ppm) in addition to

> what they call " other " forms of oxygen/oxidizers: " ozonide ions,

> super-oxide ions, hydro-peroxides and hydroxide ions. " I asked the

> Calutech engineer about these " other species " of oxygen; is perhaps

> the PHI process more efficient or better than PCO because it generates

> more kinds of oxygen?

>

> He was unfamiliar with PHI, but said that the term super-oxide is just

> another name for ozone. Didnt know about ozonide (but likely a form

> of ozone), and both " hydro-peroxide and hydroxide " are just other

> names for the hydroxyl radical (by his knowledge). I didnt talk with

> an engineer at RGF (the PHI inventor company), but it seems to me that

> RGF came up with the quad metal catalyst for SOME good reason,

> probably finding in tests that it caused better or faster purification

> than hydroxyl alone.

>

> At any rate it seems like the PCO technology COULD be an advantage

> over PHI in terms of NO OZONE generation. But the hydroxyl generation

> that is common to both PHI and PCO is one of the strongest oxidizers

> known in chemistry. RGF shows this table in their PHI_article.pdf

> document:

>

> OXIDIZERS (in order of strength):

> 1. Fluorine

> 2. Hydroxyl Radical* **

> 3. Ozone*

> 4. Hydrogen Peroxide*

> 5. Permanganate

> 6. Chlorine

> 7. Bromine

> 8. Iodine

> 9. Oxygen*

> * = elements of the RGF PHI process

> ** = only element of the PCO process

>

> In other words this table shows hydroxyl to be even MORE reactive than

> ozone in terms of oxidation potential. So although there are no

> Federal standards on legal hydroxyl concentrations in air, it could be

> just as much of a hot button as ozone concentration.

>

> If someone on this list DOES try out a Calutech PCO unit (SnapCat

> addon), please let us know your impressions about how " irritating " or

> not you find it to be.

>

> Regards,

>

> --Bill Croft

>

November 11, 2005

, thank you for the information..

If anyone asks the explanation of the chemical and physical

differences of the several advanced oxygen molecules are presented

in the scholarly paper explaining the products of photocatalytic

oxidation.

The title of the paper is: " How Long Can You Make an Oxygen Chain? "

The authors are: J. Mckay and S. and is a

contribution of the Department of Chemistry, Ottawa-Carleton

Chemistry Institute, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive,

Ottawa, Canada K1S 5B6

It was published in the " Journal of the American Chemical Society in

1998, 120, pages 1003-1013.

By the way it is the science of photocatalysis which includes the

subject of photocatalytic oxidation [PCO]. PCO refers to the

utilization of light to react with a catalyst such that ambient

oxygen is transformed to more active forms of oxygen. The common

catalyst is titanium dioxide.

The term of photohydroionization is as you noted the concept of the

RGF Corp. of Palm Beach, Florida using a particular formulation of

catalyst and a unique catalytic target providing greater quantities

of hydro peroxides thus having an efficient greater than a simple

TiO2 catalyst. Most PCO catalysts are simply TiO2 formulations while

the RGF catalyst uses four metals including rhodium.

By the way the PCO process is today being tested in schools using a

sprayed film applied to classroom walls whereby the fluorescent room

lighting will react with the catalytic wall coating to create the

activity to sterilize the air of the room.

It was several years ago the magazine " Scientific American " had a

feature article explaining all this stuff.

Gibala

> > Thanks for your comprehensive and expert response. It appears

there

> > are important differences between some of the technologies,

> > especially concerning the " ozone question. "

> >

> > I'd like us all to keep in mind that just because .01 ppm is

> > significantly lower than the federal limit of .04 ppm doesn't

mean

> > the ozone is low enough to not be reactive to some of us. E.g.

the

> > Airsource mentioned does produce enough ozone to bother me and

to be

> > intolerable for many of my clients.

> >

> > Just because the devices rely on phenomena other than ozone

doesn't

> > mean the ozone won't be a factor; or that another component

won't be

> > a problem. Always check it out for yourself and always buy from

a

> > source that allows a money-back return for any reason.

> > ...

> > > http://www.calutech.com/photocatalytic-oxidation.htm

>

> Carl, hi again.

>

> I just got off the phone with an engineer at Calutech (708-671-

1538).

> They are producing the " SnapCat " titanium dioxide addon for their

UV

> based air purifiers. The SnapCat is an example of a unit using

> photocatalytic oxidation, or " PCO " . I asked him if the PCO process

> generated ANY ozone whatsoever. And he claimed NO, i.e. zero PPM.

> According to this guy PCO only generates the highly oxidizing

hydroxyl

> radicals.

>

> The PHI (photohydroionization) process used by RGF and the

AirSource

> DOES generate a small amount of ozone (claim < .01 ppm) in

addition to

> what they call " other " forms of oxygen/oxidizers: " ozonide ions,

> super-oxide ions, hydro-peroxides and hydroxide ions. " I asked the

> Calutech engineer about these " other species " of oxygen; is perhaps

> the PHI process more efficient or better than PCO because it

generates

> more kinds of oxygen?

>

> He was unfamiliar with PHI, but said that the term super-oxide is

just

> another name for ozone. Didnt know about ozonide (but likely a

form

> of ozone), and both " hydro-peroxide and hydroxide " are just other

> names for the hydroxyl radical (by his knowledge). I didnt talk

with

> an engineer at RGF (the PHI inventor company), but it seems to me

that

> RGF came up with the quad metal catalyst for SOME good reason,

> probably finding in tests that it caused better or faster

purification

> than hydroxyl alone.

>

> At any rate it seems like the PCO technology COULD be an advantage

> over PHI in terms of NO OZONE generation. But the hydroxyl

generation

> that is common to both PHI and PCO is one of the strongest

oxidizers

> known in chemistry. RGF shows this table in their PHI_article.pdf

> document:

>

> OXIDIZERS (in order of strength):

> 1. Fluorine

> 2. Hydroxyl Radical* **

> 3. Ozone*

> 4. Hydrogen Peroxide*

> 5. Permanganate

> 6. Chlorine

> 7. Bromine

> 8. Iodine

> 9. Oxygen*

> * = elements of the RGF PHI process

> ** = only element of the PCO process

>

> In other words this table shows hydroxyl to be even MORE reactive

than

> ozone in terms of oxidation potential. So although there are no

> Federal standards on legal hydroxyl concentrations in air, it

could be

> just as much of a hot button as ozone concentration.

>

> If someone on this list DOES try out a Calutech PCO unit (SnapCat

> addon), please let us know your impressions about how " irritating "

or

> not you find it to be.

>

> Regards,

>

> --Bill Croft

>

December 18, 2008

Jeanine and Chris: Unfortunately you are now caring a label for a disease that

defense attorneys are well healed in denying via a history of a Daubert decision

and mutliple court cases in which MCS does not exist. You are much better off

with a diagnosis of Chemical Sensitvity and stay away from using MCS. Toxic

encenphalopathy occurs in people with chemical sensitivity. I suggest that you

request the party who gave you the diagnosis of MCS to change the diagnosis to

chemical sensitivity.

Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Off: 530--644-6035

Cell - 575-937-1150

L. Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

530-644-6035 - Off

775-309-3994 - Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message

(and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited

and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been

served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this

message in error, please reply immediately to advise the sender of the

miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed.

Thank you in advance for your compliance.

December 18, 2008

Wouldn't Hypereactivity syndrome or Chemical intolerence be better ?

" Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@...> wrote:

Jeanine and Chris: Unfortunately you are now caring a label for a disease that

defense attorneys are well healed in denying via a history of a Daubert decision

and mutliple court cases in which MCS does not exist. You are much better off

with a diagnosis of Chemical Sensitvity and stay away from using MCS.

December 18, 2008

It sounds better but I think that unless that is your only problem it is better

to focus on the others. Seems any time you bring this up people spread like,

well, mold..lol Its hard enough to convince your own family. I dont know if I

mean that literaly but, well either way were running up hill I guess right..

Chris...

Jeanine and Chris: Unfortunately you are now caring a label for a disease that

defense attorneys are well healed in denying via a history of a Daubert decision

and mutliple court cases in which MCS does not exist. You are much better off

with a diagnosis of Chemical Sensitvity and stay away from using MCS.

December 18, 2008

No. The accepted illness is chemical sensitivity. You are sensitive to a

variety of chemicals. This condition can be diagnosed with appropriate testing.

Included in this testing would be a neurobehavioral examination ala

Singer, Ph.D. The two terms you just cited have also been thrownh out of the

courts. Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D.

Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Off: 530--644-6035

Cell - 575-937-1150

L. Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

530-644-6035 - Off

775-309-3994 - Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message

(and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited

and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been

served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this

message in error, please reply immediately to advise the sender of the

miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed.

Thank you in advance for your compliance.

December 18, 2008

Dr. Thrasher, it's all the sa,e thing, why would it be thrown out of

court based on what it's called. my diagnoses of MCS was in 2004 by a

AAEM doctor with IgE and IgG testing at levels 1-4. just because they

dropped the name MCS doesn't mean mine went away.

>

> No. The accepted illness is chemical sensitivity. You are

sensitive to a variety of chemicals. This condition can be diagnosed

with appropriate testing. Included in this testing would be a

neurobehavioral examination ala Singer, Ph.D. The two terms

you just cited have also been thrownh out of the courts. Jack D.

Thrasher, Ph.D.

December 18, 2008

Hyperreactive airways is a diagnosis. why not hyperreactive syndrome?

who <jeaninem660@...> wrote: Dr. Thrasher,

it's all the sa,e thing, why would it be thrown out of

court based on what it's called. my diagnoses of MCS was in 2004 by a

AAEM doctor with IgE and IgG testing at levels 1-4. just because they

dropped the name MCS doesn't mean mine went away.

>

> No. The accepted illness is chemical sensitivity. You are

sensitive to a variety of chemicals. This condition can be diagnosed

with appropriate testing. Included in this testing would be a

neurobehavioral examination ala Singer, Ph.D. The two terms

you just cited have also been thrownh out of the courts. Jack D.

Thrasher, Ph.D.

December 19, 2008

Dr. Thrasher is correct. A diagnosis of MCS is a sure fire killer to

litigation because it, by name, is a diagnosis of idiopathic origin.

Idiopathic

means you can't prove causation. Can't prove causation, can't hold another

party responsible for what you cannot prove.

What a sad state of medical science. When one is diagnosed with an illness

requiring comprehensive medical treatment and avoidance of many environments,

the courts have determined that such a diagnosis cannot be tied to a

particular environment. " Multiple " is a killer word when in litigation.

Sharon K.

In a message dated 12/19/2008 7:40:12 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

toxicologist1@... writes:

If you do not trust what I have to say on this issue, then continue.

December 19, 2008

If you do not trust what I have to say on this issue, then continue. The courts

(workers comp, toxic torts, among others,have disallowed cases to go forward

because of an MCS diagnosis. By definition, bases ujpon Dr. Cullen's orginal

description and followed by the courts, it is a disease that is only diagnosed

by symptoms. There are no know diagnostic tests for MCS. If you have positive

IgE antibodies to a given antigen, then you have a probable IgE (allergy)

sensitization. If have positivie IgG antibodies then you have been exposed to a

given antigen. IgG only means exposure, not disease. I will not argue with

you. Continue your myopic outlook on this issue. Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D.

Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D.

Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist

www.drthrasher.org

toxicologist1@...

Off: 530--644-6035

Cell - 575-937-1150

L. Crawley, M.ED., LADC

Trauma Specialist

sandracrawley@...

530-644-6035 - Off

775-309-3994 - Cell

This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered

privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message

(and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited

and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been

served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this

message in error, please reply immediately to advise the sender of the

miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed.

Thank you in advance for your compliance.

December 19, 2008

Carl,

Agree with you about the new AIHA Green Book being a big help. Dr.

and Don Weekes were on IAQ Radio today. If you missed it, it is archived and

well worth the listen.

Also, I think you are right again about " mold " and litigation. If it is a

botched rememdiation, have heard the injury to be stated from " microbial

contaminants and construction dust " .

Still, so sad that one has to play these games for court, when all most

people really want is to get better. And the way to do that is to (in most

cases) be treated for mold or microbial toxins. People should be able to say

what

is making them sick without fearing the label will cause them to lose in

litigation.

Sharon

In a message dated 12/19/2008 1:07:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

grimes@... writes:

Sharon K,

Excellent point. The same sort of thinking should be applied to

" mold " injury.

December 19, 2008

I was just trying to understand. are you saying Dr. Ray no longer does these

kind of tests? that they would not even be useful to help prove exposure along

with a diagnises of T.E. ?? the last article I've read from Dr. Singer

was about MCS. so is the diagnoses of chemical sensitivity pretty much a given

now with the diagnoses of T.E.?

>

December 19, 2008

Sharon K,

Excellent point. The same sort of thinking should be applied to

" mold " injury. Mold has become a trigger word for encouraging

the defense to defeat plaintif's claims. It also misses the more

fundamental issue of water damage. In the past year none of the

cases I've been involved with are based on " mold. " The reason is

always the same: " mold claims kill law suits. "

I've had several caused by sewage backups and the defense

tries to discredit testimony based on the lack of accuracy and

integrity of mold. It takes repeated statements to get them off the

mold arguments and onto the much more serious health issues

of sewage.

That doesn't mean there is no harm or that we have no recourse.

But it does mean we have to be more careful - and more

accurately describe - the harm and the cause.

This is where the new AIHA publication " Recognition, Evaluation,

and Control of Indoor Mold " will (hopefully) play an important role.

It moves away from the easily dismissed evidence of spore

counting to " filth caused by moisture " within public health criteria

instead of industial hygiene compliance with no regulations to

comply with.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Dr. Thrasher is correct. A diagnosis of MCS is a sure fire killer to

> litigation because it, by name, is a diagnosis of idiopathic origin.

Idiopathic

> means you can't prove causation. Can't prove causation, can't hold another

> party responsible for what you cannot prove.

>

> What a sad state of medical science. When one is diagnosed with an illness

> requiring comprehensive medical treatment and avoidance of many environments,

> the courts have determined that such a diagnosis cannot be tied to a

> particular environment. " Multiple " is a killer word when in litigation.

>

> Sharon K.

>

December 19, 2008

Interesting topic and the answer really depends on the situation. If you

are a laboror working in a corn silo, it is perfectly acceptable to tell the

court that mold made you sick. However, if you are a teacher teaching in a

classroom you have to avoid the word mold..if your symptoms are beyond simple

allergy. And don't even think of using the word " mycotoxin " . It is the kiss

of death in court because it is so hotly debated.

I think possibly the way to get around it is to say " microbial contaminants

that are found in my water damaged building. " ...and then go to the doctor to

get some antifungals so you can get better. To Hell with litigation, its

about living.

In a message dated 12/19/2008 5:02:31 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

grimes@... writes:

Barb,

That's pretty close to what I mean. Some subtle differences not

worth debating right now.

The point I want to make here is that for legal action the process

is very technical according to the rules of evidence. Most

attorney's don't understand science and mold well enough to

correctly frame a " mold " case. Misuse of " mold " makes it very

easy to refute claims.

Legal evidence will follow a different set of " rules " than a medical

process of diagnosis and treatment. Which is also different from

what I need to take care of myself.

I think too often we get hung up on first proving to someone else

we are sick before we stop the exposure by either removing it or

removing ourself. (in the easy cases. Not all situations are

obvious).

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

The way I'd interpret what Carl has said is that 'mold' has become a

hot button word, but 'water damage' does not and encomposes mold even

if it is not said, so he avoids using word mold since it causes

everyone to get very defensive and because if there is 'water damage'

it is OBVIOUS and he doesn't feel the need to mention and avoids the

word mold. So even if there are mold allergies, mentioning even those

might cause defensive position by anti-mold forces, which seem to be

prevailing in courts these days and 'pre-court' actions, even talking

to your home insurance person, etc. Anyway, that's my

interpretation.

> >

> Mold has become a trigger word for encouraging

> > the defense to defeat plaintif's claims.

----------

The following section of this message contains a file attachment

prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

---- File information -----------

File: DEFAULT.BMP

Date: 15 Jan 2004, 22:04

Size: 358 bytes.

Type: Unknown

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sharon Noonan Kramer

**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

steps!

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215195222x1200993641/aol?redir=http://\

www.fr

eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=82%26bcd=DecemailfooterNO8\

2)

December 19, 2008

So the only reason to bring up mold would be if you developed

allergies to molds from your exposure ?

--- In , " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...>

wrote:

>

> Sharon K,

>

> Excellent point. The same sort of thinking should be applied to

> " mold " injury. Mold has become a trigger word for encouraging

> the defense to defeat plaintif's claims. It also misses the more

> fundamental issue of water damage. In the past year none of the

> cases I've been involved with are based on " mold. " The reason is

> always the same: " mold claims kill law suits. "

>

December 19, 2008