Another Reason to be Skeptical of Lab Testing - Study

[Guest guest]

KC and group,

Here's another reason to be skeptical of lab testing. Consider the

following study from Sandia Labs:

www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/elect-semi-

sensors/sampling.html

But first, understanding what they did and how to interpret the

findings is important.

Sandia was asked to evaluate several methods for collecting samples

from surfaces to see if they had actually been cleaned. First they

had to verify the collection and testing methods. They used anthrax

because that was the organism of concern and is easily identified.

The tolerance for leaving anthrax behind is most likely lethal. So it

is important to know if sampling will find ALL the anthrax. If it

can't then the testing will say " zero " but the surface still has

anthrax. See the connection to mold testing?

Anthrax is not mold, but it should be easier to remove from surfaces

because it doesn't grow on the surface with " roots " sometimes

penetrating into the biofilm or surface irregularities. If the

anthrax sampling has problems, you can bet mold sampling has even

more. I've talked a lot about the errors of sampling, expecially

" false negatives. " Look at what they found about false negatives:

" The swab system collected 40 percent of the spores, leaving 60

percent behind. The wipes collected 28 percent, leaving 72 percent on

the coupons. "

" The biggest surprise was that the vacuum method collected only 20

percent of the spores, leaving 80 percent on the surface. "

Even if mold was as easy to sample and identify as anthrax, these are

outrageously poor numbers. How could anyone have any confidence in

them?

More 1: " The study also showed that each collection method has its

own detection limit. Through the swabbing technique, 125 spores must

be present on the surface to obtain a positive culture. Five hundred

spores must exist before a positive culture is observed in both the

wiping and vacuuming methods. The current EPA clean-up criterion is

no positive cultures from environmental samples — meaning a site may

be cleared because no samples were positive, but viable spores may

still remain. "

More 2: " Before this study, the vacuum method was the most highly

recommended sampling method by the CDC,” Brown says. “As the result

of our study CDC no longer recommends that method.”

In my opinion, this MIGHT be one of several reasons so many people

continue to react even when honest professionals using the best

techniques and sampling plans find no more mold. They didn't find

what was still there because the best collection techniques are

incapable of doing so.

Why not use this as authoritative evidence to support your contention

that testing showing " nothing is wrong " is most likely itself wrong?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Parents Skeptical Of Mold Cleanup At Northern Ky. High School

>

> http://www.channelcincinnati.com/news/5368265/detail.html

[Guest guest]

If this is the case (and it's some pretty amazing stuff), then I would think

Sandia should also be contracted to " test the tests " used for those spores and

mycotoxins classed as bioweapons, such as tricothecenes.

From Sandia's website:

Beyond offering exceptional expertise in science and technology, we bring our

tradition of applying a systems approach to creating robust solutions to complex

problems. Sandia is thus uniquely positioned to help the United States overcome

a range of Homeland Security challenges.

Learn more about our comprehensive program to:

Identify and understand potential threats

Prevent threats from turning into attacks through heightened detection and

protection strategies

Mitigate the effects of an attack — should one occur — through careful

preparation and response

Recover quickly from an attack and identify the perpetrators

Serena

There is no such thing as an anomaly. Recheck your original premise.

...Ayn Rand,

paraphrased

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

FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.