RE: HVAC & personnel statistics

[Guest guest]

Serena,

I guess I didn't explain myself as well as I should have. I didn't mean to

suggest to wait until 20-25% of the people in a workplace are getting sick

before anything is done. Unfortunately however, that is a generally accepted

number used by most IAQ professionals. I my case, our building had a few

HVAC units, and I was the only worker in a location with the moldiest one,

and I got sick. That's 100%. Getting management to believe their building

had a problem was extremely difficult. It took two years of complaining

before my workplace was finally examined. I was called a hypochondriac and

even a liar. That was after 27 years with an excellent work record,

including 7 years without a sick day, my first sick day being a year and a

half after beginning to ask for help. The point of my letter was to explain

how difficult it is to get any as yet unaffected management to take a

problem seriously. I have been retired 4 years now, and feel much better.

But I still ocasionally encounter a building with a similar problem, and

start coughing within minutes. You are right, never encourage anyone to go

back into a location they know is causing them illness.

Gil

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:21:34 -0800 (PST)

From: SERENA EDWARDS <pushcrash@...>

Subject: Re: FW: Digest Number 2662

Gil -

I would never presume to argue HVAC maintenance with you. But your recipe

for people makes no sense. If you wait until 20-25% of the people are ill,

you waited wayyyy too long. And the part about re-exposing people is not

only wrong, but dangerous. For one thing, those who have gone sufficiently

toxic will NOT get well simply by leaving the area, as many here can attest.

That particular piece of advice has been abused (I have personally seen this

happen) to re-expose vulnerable people to a sick building to their

detriment. " Oh! You didn't get well when you were out of here, therefore the

mold in the building couldn't possibly be the problem! " What NIOSH knows

about mycotoxicocis, you can put on the head of pin and still have plenty of

room for a few angels to dance. I wouldn't pass their advice to someone I

truly hated.

From another coalmine canary,

Serena

[Guest guest]

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

>