Re: RE: HVAC & personnel statistics

October 31, 2005

Sorry if I misread, Gil. I had the same problems of being treated as a

hypochondriac and a liar. Only I didn't complain about the mold like you did.

First I got sick. Or rather, I got sick first - about a week before everyone

else did. Then they had the guys in the hazmat suits come in while I was sick

and didn't bother to tell me. Industrial hygienists, air samplers, the whole

deal. The whole oh-fishul, NIOSH-recommended dog and pony show. After that, they

insisted that I couldn't possibly be sick from that building. They did exactly

what I said to someone else, too. Sent her out of the building for a couple of

weeks, and when she failed to get better, they claimed it proved the mold wasn't

the problem. They put her right back in there. And she wasn't the only one. One

big clue beforehand (though I never saw it coming, of course) was people talking

about having to get on or change antidepressants and pain medications that had

mysteriously stopped working. And I can assure you

they'll never take responsibility for the suicide that occurred. They don't

want to talk about the 2 other guys who died. But I sure will!

I'm better than I was, too - but not nearly as good as I'm gonna be. I remember

every single day that I could just as easily have been one of the people that

didn't make it.

Serena

(Drywall Casserole with Gummint Cheese. It's what's for dinner!)

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

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

November 2, 2005

Loni,

Proving a building is poisonous means that a test has provided

results that the exposure level of a substance that is regulated is

higher than the regulation allows.

If found, It is assumed that the exposure level is accurate. It is

assumed that a level that applies to most people also applies to all

people. The purpose of a regulation is primarily to provide guidance

on whether or not legal action is likely to prevail, not whether a

building is " safe. "

But back to your statement that if testing is no good then there is

nothing we can do. This is an very important point.

It is true that what I wrote about testing doesn't help you prove

something in the building is making you ill. But if what I say about

the fallacies of testing is true for us, isn't it also true for

them? So why blindly accept their testing?

Testing produces many negative results that are false. But our

opponents don't care about the accuracy, they just point to the

negative results. They have power because we don't fight back. We

don't fight back because of our misplaced faith in testing.

Our power is to dispute their testing by showing that negative

results means " we don't know " rather than " there is nothing there. "

So, without testing, what is left? Personal experience.

The ASHRAE and AIHA guideline of 20% or greater complaints - which is

way too many! - can still be powerful used the right way. Especially

when action results in a reduction of complaints. That is something

that testing alone rarely accomplishes. Healthy people don't need to

be satisfied - or bamboozled.

It takes time for this to develop but my sense is that broad testing

in the indoor environment is becoming less and less authoritative.

The main reason is because individuals react differently and the

differences are beginning to be seen and accepted.

Here's a recent example from a pharmaceutical site:

COPD differs in men and women

Oct 27, 2005 - Researchers have found significant differences between

the clinical characteristics of men and women with chronic

obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have similar FEV1

measurements.

<<http://195.242.32.217/ETR.asp?ID=6A61B457-262C-42D2-8EC3-

24E02C6E0977>>

Just because testing doesn't give answers, Loni, doesn't mean we are

powerless. Many of the suggestions provided by this group are not

based on testing.

The movement is beginning and will take time. But we can't wait for

that and have to act now. Which gets back to what you need - right

now. Just don't rely on testing for the answers or accept their

testing. It is often a false prophet that weakens us.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Thanks for responding Carl but it doesn't give me any answers. It's

> saying there is nothing I can do. Has anyone ever been successful with

> proving that their building is poisonous? Loni

>

> " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote:

> Loni,

>

> They will probably conduct the test itself correctly - but they may

> not choose the correct test. Or correctly determine what to test for.

> Or use a method that will detect the real culprit. Or use one

> sensitive enough to detect the level that the more sensitive people

> are reacting to - who are the ones with the complaints, obviously.

>

> OSHA is an enforcement agency which means they will test to see if a

> regulation is violated. If the suspect exposure is not regulated, they

> probably won't even test it.

>

> Then there is the matter of interpreting the results.

> - " Below regulatory levels " is not the same as " safe. "

> -Public health standards are not the same as individual needs.

> - " None detected " is not the same as " nothing there " or " no

> problem. " - " We did the best that is scientifically possible at

> this time " is not the same as " no problem, therefore you are

> crazy. "

>

> Testing, even for regulated substances by the most honest people, is

> fraught with error and innuendo. Testing for unregulated substances,

> as is most often the case for indoor complaints, is even more so.

> Without a regulation with which to determine the results, the only

> comparison is to the individual and heaven forbid that were to ever

> happen! The consitutional rights of the individual stops at the door

> of the statistical calculation of large groups. Which is the basis for

> all regulations. We are on our own.

>

> There is an undue emphasis on testing because that is what the

> plaintifs are most likely to fail at. Not because they are wrong or

> committing fraud, but for all the reasons above and then some.

>

> Although the ASHRAE and AIHA guideline of the 20% complaint level that

> Gil cited was justifiably critized, at least that is a criteria

> separate from the non-repeatable results of testing.

>

> The real issue is what most of you have been saying with increasing

> frequency - they just don't want to own up to their mistakes and when

> push comes to shove, they insist it is our own fault.

>

> Now, before we get all pesimestic and lose hope, please read my other

> post on " positive attitude. "

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

November 2, 2005

I can attest to the inaccuracy of mold testing. The school where I taught was

closed down 3 years ago because parents had complained that their children were

getting sick while in that school. Teachers had complained for years to no

avail. When they did testing they found Stachybotrys in the ceiling tiles of 9

rooms that were tested. One had low airborne levels. Only 2 of the rooms had

evelvated levels of Aspergillus/ Penicilllium at that time. We were closed down

for 6 weeks and a supposed remediation was done. My room wasn't one of the ones

that was tested at all (at least I never saw any results, but one of the guys

who did the testing told me that he had tested some spots on my back wall). I

hadn't noticed them, but when I looked there were these huge pink spots on the

wall over my HVAC unit with soil tiles above. My testing and then later testing

by the county showed Fusarium, Penicillium, and other molds were in the unit.

Later bulk testing from the wall showed over

100,000 spores/gram of Penicillium in that same area that had been cleaned with

clorax several times.

After I did my testing on the black debris that fell and covered my computers in

the back of the room (while they were still putting on the roof and we were in

school). that showed 43,000 spores/swab of Fusarium, the county did airborne

testing that didn't show much of anything. I found out later that they did

their own testing. After I continually complained about visible mold being

everywhere in the science workroom, contacted OSHA and other powers that be,

they did testing again a month later by another firm. Moderately high levels of

airborne Penicillium/Asprgillus were found at that time in my room, but noone

told me. I had to request the results. They then put in 2 air purifiers and I

had to buy a dehumidifier myself and still testing about a month later by even

another firm showed Aspergillus/Penicillium still elevated and also low levels

of airborne Fusarium. It was around that time I had gotten so sick I was

couging up sticky, clear mucus and had it coming out of my

head and had to quit work, and its been a battle ever since just to survive.

Later I found out that they tested some dust on top of a tall cabinet in my room

that showed over 1 million spores/gram of total mold spores. They were

speciated and two types were very toxic penicillium species. Who's to say those

weren't the ones that were airborne in the room before. Then I found out that

the room next to mine just last year had close to 5,000 spores/m3 of Apergillus,

several species of which were toxic, and there wasn't much at all in her room

when the other testing was done. So, just one test doesn't show anything.

They tried to use the results that didn't show anything to prove the school is

safe. So, unless you are very viligent, you aren't going to find out much even

if it's there and they've done testing. And most people aren't going to be able

to get this amount of testing done anyway.

Rosser <rossercustomhomes@...> wrote:

Thanks for responding Carl but it doesn't give me any answers. It's saying there

is nothing I can do. Has anyone ever been successful with proving that their

building is poisonous? Loni

"

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

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

November 2, 2005

,

Very well said, and with fewer words than I used!

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> It used to be that a regulation had something to do with health, but

> now it has degenerated to legal wrangleing by lawyers for one side or

> another.

>

> The ture purpose of any test is to provide clues as to what is going

> on in a particular situation. Scientists come up with tests when they

> are bothered by a problem and want to know what is going on- whether

> that is physics, geology, or medicine. Sometimes the tests give

> results that are meaningful, and if not, they might come up with

> another one. A negative result is meaningful. It may mean that the

> test is not looking for the right thing. It might mean that it is not

> sensitive enough to find what is causing the problem. A true scientist

> knows that a negative result can mean many things, not just that

> " there is nothing there " .

>

> My problem with all this is when drs say nothing is wrong, when they

> truly just plain DON " T KNOW. A true scientist has no problem saying " I

> don't know " . Most doctors are not true scientists, and I say this for

> several reasons in addition to this one.

>

> It is heartening to find that personal experience and reactivity are

> beginning to be heard more and written about more. My old docs used to

> say " I don't know " quite often, and were very scientific (back in the

> 50's-70's). This new generation has not been trained very well, in my

> opinion.

>

> The docs that have consistently listened to the patients have been

> lumped into the broad term " environmental doctors " , simply because

> they believe the environment has an effect on patients, which was a

> given previously for all the allergist I saw in my whole life. Oh,

> well, things change, that's for sure, and they are changing again,

> let's hope for the better.

>

> > > Loni, > > >

> > They will probably conduct the test itself correctly - but they may

> > > not choose the correct test. Or correctly determine what to test

> for. > > Or use a method that will detect the real culprit. Or use one

> > > sensitive enough to detect the level that the more sensitive

> people > > are reacting to - who are the ones with the complaints,

> obviously. > > > > OSHA is an enforcement agency which means they will

> test to see if a > > regulation is violated. If the suspect exposure

> is not regulated, they > > probably won't even test it. > > > > Then

> there is the matter of interpreting the results. > > - " Below

> regulatory levels " is not the same as " safe. " > > -Public health

> standards are not the same as individual needs. > > - " None

> detected " is not the same as " nothing there " or " no > > problem. "

> - " We did the best that is scientifically possible at > > this

> time " is not the same as " no problem, therefore you are > >

> crazy. " > > > > Testing, even for regulated substances by the most

> honest people, is > > fraught with error and innuendo. Testing for

> unregulated substances, > > as is most often the case for indoor

> complaints, is even more so. > > Without a regulation with which to

> determine the results, the only > > comparison is to the individual

> and heaven forbid that were to ever > > happen! The consitutional

> rights of the individual stops at the door > > of the statistical

> calculation of large groups. Which is the basis for > > all

> regulations. We are on our own. > > > > There is an undue emphasis on

> testing because that is what the > > plaintifs are most likely to fail

> at. Not because they are wrong or > > committing fraud, but for all

> the reasons above and then some. > > > > Although the ASHRAE and AIHA

> guideline of the 20% complaint level that > > Gil cited was

> justifiably critized, at least that is a criteria > > separate from

> the non-repeatable results of testing. > > > > The real issue is what

> most of you have been saying with increasing > > frequency - they just

> don't want to own up to their mistakes and when > > push comes to

> shove, they insist it is our own fault. > > > > Now, before we get all

> pesimestic and lose hope, please read my other > > post on " positive

> attitude. " > > > > Carl Grimes > > Healthy Habitats LLC >

>

November 2, 2005

Thanks Kathy for responding. Well, it sounds like they closed the school. That's

good & they did find lots of reasons why. Who tested it, was it OSHA? Who was

they that used the tests to show the school was safe? Loni

Kathy <kathywnb@...> wrote:I can attest to the inaccuracy of mold

testing. The school where I taught was closed down 3 years ago because parents

had complained that their children were getting sick while in that school.

Teachers had complained for years to no avail. When they did testing they

found Stachybotrys in the ceiling tiles of 9 rooms that were tested. One had

low airborne levels. Only 2 of the rooms had evelvated levels of Aspergillus/

Penicilllium at that time. We were closed down for 6 weeks and a supposed

remediation was done. My room wasn't one of the ones that was tested at all (at

least I never saw any results, but one of the guys who did the testing told me

that he had tested some spots on my back wall). I hadn't noticed them, but when

I looked there were these huge pink spots on the wall over my HVAC unit with

soil tiles above. My testing and then later testing by the county showed

Fusarium, Penicillium, and other molds were in the unit.