Re: Sick Buildings in Europe

[Guest guest]

The most powerful mold toxins I encountered in Europe were just

outside the Forward HQ built for the proposed invasion of Britain

during WW2. That was the only one I remember strong enough to

absolutely stop me in my tracks. The possessions I had when I was

stationed in that bunker were still incredibly strong a year later.

But I've also encountered strong plumes near the SchwimBad in

Giessen, the Patton Hotel in Garmisch Partenkirchen, and King

Ludwigs " Linderhof " castle, just outside the Wagnerian Grotto.

But none of these had nearly the effect on me that you describe from

the Turkish cross contamination.

-

[Guest guest]

<erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote:

>

> The most powerful mold toxins I encountered in Europe were just

> outside the Forward HQ built for the proposed invasion of Britain

> during WW2. That was the only one I remember strong enough to

> absolutely stop me in my tracks. The possessions I had when I was

> stationed in that bunker were still incredibly strong a year later.

> But I've also encountered strong plumes near the SchwimBad in

> Giessen, the Patton Hotel in Garmisch Partenkirchen, and King

> Ludwigs " Linderhof " castle, just outside the Wagnerian Grotto.

>

> But none of these had nearly the effect on me that you describe from

> the Turkish cross contamination.

> -

I didn't travel much to other countries. I travelled to Italy, Germany

and France (and of course to all former Yugoslav republics). I didn't

experience any significant mold hits in any of these places.

However, I remember having bad experiences with one English soap, and

with one Italian toothbrush. It was qualitatively very different from

Turkish products. It caused only moderate skin itching and very mild

nausea. There was no diarrhea and major weakness. But these products

apparently did cause some temporary hormonal changes, since I noticed

a marked lowering of libido for a certain period of time. They did

'behave' like mold though, there's no doubt about it, so I don't think

it was anything else but mold. The typical antifungal substances were

able to remove most of the contamination. This is not surprising at

all since some mycotoxins are known as endocrine disruptors. They can

mimic estrogen.

But none of these can compare with the products from Turkey.

Here's an interesting posting from a person who went to a turkish

" hotel " this year:

http://travel.ciao.co.uk/Majesty_Adakule_Kusadasi__Review_5602827/SortOrder/1

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

Don't touch ADAKULE HOTEL

A review by cabbie65 on Majesty Adakule, Kusadasi

September 5th, 2006

Author's product rating:

Advantages: none

Disadvantages: Were do i start, the hotel was a nightmare

Recommend to potential buyers: no

Full review

It's a dump please read this and AVOID at all cost, the hotel is run

down.... Air Con did not work & leaked, It smelt Damp Bathrooms

mouldy. Corridors filthy & smelt. No way 5 Star...And we was in for a

bigger shock after being back home for 10 day. my Daughter became ill,

she's coughing up blood & had shadowing of her chest. We've been told

she contracted Legionairre's disease: .

my grandson who is 5 became ill at this hotel with sickness & diarrhea

& coughing up a large amount of mucous & had a chill, we put him on

antibiotic whilst he stayed in Turkey at Adakule Hotel & thank god we

did, he is still not 100% better.

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

I'm no experet but somebody ought to tell this person that the

symptoms of coughing up blood and shadowing of the chest are not very

likely to be caused by Legionnaires' disease. It looks much more like

severe poisoning by Stachy or Fusarium to me.

-Branislav

[Guest guest]

" Branislav " <arealis@...> wrote:

> ---------------------------------------------------

>

> I'm no experet but somebody ought to tell this person that the

> symptoms of coughing up blood and shadowing of the chest are not very

> likely to be caused by Legionnaires' disease. It looks much more like

> severe poisoning by Stachy or Fusarium to me.

> -Branislav

>

Agreed.

Since the beginning of the CFS epidemic at Truckee High school, I've

seen people fall apart from transient " minor " infections in sick

buildings. The infection that the doctors identify always gets the

blame, even if it lacks the pathogenesis to create the level of

illness that is observed.

Doctors see each case as individual, and tend to disregard the clue

that a number of people fell apart in a specific location, as in

the " Truckee Teachers lounge " described in the book " Osler's Web " .

If they don't see an infective cause, and the toxin doesn't keep

creating the same effect, the relevance of the environmental exposure

is regarded as incidental or inconsequential.

It is only when one understands that these toxins literally shut off

immune response does it become clear that the " apparent " infetive

cause of these illnesses manifest their unexpected intensity as a

result of an opportunity created by the combination of toxin induced

immune paralysis and otherwise minor or " benign " organisms that may be

passing through.

In the hotel you cite, I would speculate that the HLA DR opened up

susceptibility to Legionella infection.

And perhaps people who were better detoxifiers were able to evade

toxic sequellae, AND long term infection.

Long after Truckee, I saw a repeat of the same scenario at North

Tahoe HS and requested NIH CFS researchers to factor the " specificity "

of Stachy exposure into the equation.

They declined to do so.

-

[Guest guest]

Sorry I haven't answered before - I am traveling to the northern part of my

country and don't have steady internet connection.

But here

In Iceland we have a lot of sick buildings and I have been in many sick

buildings in Europe -, Spain, French, England, and Cyprus.

The last few years we have more and more sick buildings here in Iceland due

to more traveling overseas - I guess.

The spore count here outside in Iceland is very low - but you only need few

spores to make a building sick.

If there is water intrusion, leaking, flooding, and ,,food " - you get mold.

Of course the chance is less that a mold spore will sporulate in the

dampness - but it happens a lot.

We have really good houses here in Iceland - but when we have leaking we

don't seem to bother - we don't use dryers that went outside, hardly ever

cooking hoods that ventilate outside.

Because of the cold outside some people hardly ever open their windows.

I think because until now people here in Iceland didn't have to worry about

damp in houses - people don't care and don't know about the danger.

But it is all changing - my first article and radio interview was in

December last year - and since then the knowledge is spreading.

The last 5-10 years we have had dramatic increasing in disabled people here

in Iceland, people with mental diseases, Firbomialgya, asthma, psoriasis,

and unrecognizable pain, arthritis and much more.

We are only 300 thousand people living here but I get a call 3-7 times a

week from people that think they have mold problems /(or bad IAQ).

Here in Iceland our buildings are really warm and insulated - nearly never

A/C systems mostly windows. But due to lack of ventilation and high humidity

inside there are excellent conditions for the fungi to thrive.

Here we also have the problem with air condensation - when the warm air hits

the cold walls (I don't know what you call it in English)

There are black spots in so many homes in the corners facing north - there

is no water leaking - only condensation.

In 80 -95% - Icelandic washing machines are with molds - and even

stachybotrys - I have samples from that

I have taken samples from clothes - that have the ,,smell " as I call it -

and there where stachy spores.

And I have been to homes - where people are coming home with their furniture

after living abroad - and the furniture are contaminated.

So I guess 20 - 30 years ago when an average Icelandic person didn't have

money to travel - we didn't have so many .

But it is changing fast.

I am helping out in a lawcase in Denmark where there are many attached

houses infected -

So if there any more questions - please ask and I will answer when I have

time

But the air outside here is brilliant for moldies - you just have to put on

a lot of warm and moldfree clothes :-).

Greetings Sylgja

_____

From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf Of Branislav

Sent: 17. september 2006 19:31

Subject: {Spam?} [] Sick Buildings in Europe

Here's an interesting text about SBS in Italy. It's quite old, I think

it dates back to 1992. It seems they still don't have a clue about the

toxic mold, but perhaps it wasn't the main toxic ingredient in this

particular building anyway. It doesn't seem to have suffered flooding

or moisture problem; the stagnant air is suspected to be the main problem.

They claim there are no real Sick Buildings in Italy (which I'd say

is true), and that this syndrome largely occurs in North America and

Northern Europe. Obviously at the time they were not aware of the SBS

problem in the near east countries, such as Turkey. I can personally

vouch that sick buildings from Turkey with their incredibly potent

mycotoxins will put to shame every other sick building in Europe and

probably in north America as well. It is a huge problem that poses

great risks for sensitive individuals because of cross-contamination.

Time will show I was right.

SBS problem in north America is usually explained by bad building

protocols and especially bad artificial air conditioners (A/C, HVACs).

But, what is the main cause of SBS in north European countries? If I

remember well, Denmark, Finland and Iceland have reported cases of

SBS, while other countries are mostly spared. There is a huge risk of

cross-contamination with imported mass products and people travelling

to contaminated areas, but toxic mold usually will not thrive in most

buildings in Europe because they don't have artificial ventilation.

Nearly all residential buildings have only old-fashioned windows.

Sylgja, do you have any idea what is the reason sick buildings exist

in Iceland? Bad building protocols, floodings or something else?

Iceland probably has very small spore count during winter months

because of low temperatures but I think it's safe to say that the

outdoor air is usually mold-free througout most of Europe.

http://www.findarti

<http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0907/is_n1_v47/ai_12009472/print

> cles.com/p/articles/mi_m0907/is_n1_v47/ai_12009472/print

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

High prevalence of sick building syndrome in a new air-conditioned

building in Italy - A Selection of Papers from Indoor Air '90

Concerning Health Effects Associated with Indoor Air Contaminants

Giuseppe Abbritti

RECENTLY, the attention of researchers has been focused on indoor air

pollution in nonindustrial environments; many reports of symptoms or

specific diseases that occur mainly in air-conditioned and

mechanically ventilated buildings have been published. [1,2] Office

workers are especially subject to indoor air pollution. The office

environment has changed radically during the past decades; different

models of work organization have ben established, and modern

technology has modified most functions. Furthermore, the very

structure of office buildings has been transformed, new building

materials have been used, and air-conditioning systems have become

widespread.

Among the health problems identified in occupants of new buildings is

the sick building syndrome (SBS), which refers to a complex of

irritative and general symptoms that occur more often than expected

[3-7] in a particular building. Symptoms of SBS include irritation of

the eyes, nose, and throat; headache; dizziness; sensory discomfort

from odors; fatigue, lethargy; wheezing; sinus congestion; skin rash

and irritation; and nausea. These symptoms, which are usually mild,

sometimes occur in combination. Synptoms are usually temporarily work

related, i.e., they begin a short period of time after entering a

building and disappear within a few hours after leaving it and/or

during a holiday period.

The etiology of the syndrome is still uncertain. Several factors--such

as chemical polluntants, physical and biological agents, inadequate

ventilation that results in poor indoor air quality--have been blamed

[1], [2]. The possible influence of personal and psychosocial factors

has also been suggested. [8]

Most survey that describe SBS in office buildings have been performed

in Northern Europe and in the United States. [3-6], [9] There have

been no observed cases of SBS in Italy. Our report outlines the result

of an investigation in which we studied employees who occupied a

recently built, air-conditioned office block. Many of these workers

had been transferred from naturally ventilated offices, and they

complained of symptoms that were closely correlated with their work.

We studied clinical symptoms, their prevalence, how they related to

the environment, and possible etiological factors. Office workers who

were employed in naturally ventilated buildings served as controls.

During the clinical study, an environmental inspection of all the

buildings and evaluation of several environmental parameters in the

air-conditioned building were completed. The results of the

environmental investigation are published separately. [10]

Subjects and methods

This 10-wk study was completed during the spring. The study involved

806 employees of the same Public Administration who worked in four

office blocks located in Perugia, central Italy. Three

traditional-style office blocks, designated as controls, were

naturally ventilated and heated centrally. Because these three

buildings had so many features in common, they were considered as a

single building (i.e., building A). The fourth block (building had

been constructed recently and was completely air conditioned. There

was no recirculation of return air, and all rooms were provided with

fan coil units that handled re-heating and cooling of the air.

An environmental inspection that evaluated the characteristics of the

office was conducted in buildings A and B, and the air-conditioning

plant was examined in building B. Building B was observed 8 wk after

it was fully occupied. Building service management and maintenance

personnel were asked how and how often they intervened; particular

reference was made to the air-conditioning system.

All of the working population--335 employees in building A and 620

employees in bulding B--were invited to participate in the study. They

were asked to answer a specific questionnaire once, which was based on

the recommendations of the WHO Regional Office for Europe Report.[11]

A part of the questionnaire, which was self-administered, dealt with

the subject's professional qualifications, eductional standard, job

category, and subjective assessment of their workplace. The subject

were also asked if they knew how to use the local fan coil units.

The second part of the questionnaire, which was administered by a

specialist in occupational medicine, investigated living habits,

previous illnesses, and regular medication taken by the subjects. Also

contained in the questinnaire were questions that required a " yes " or

" no " answer to a series of different symptoms. [3], [5] Particular

attention was focused on specific (i.e., eye, nose respiratory, and

skin) and general symptoms. For each symptom. the onset, frequency,

time of onset after beginning work, duration, and changes after

leaving work were investigated. Symptoms were classified as

work-related if they (a) appeared or were exacerbated after starting

work in the building and (b)improved or disappeared at the end of the

work day and/or during weekend or holiday period. [3-5] Our study

refers only to work-related symptoms, which were classified as

follows: ocular (burning and/or redness, lacrimination); upper airway

(rhinorrea, blocked nose, itchy nose, prolonged sneezing, nosebleeds,

dry throat, sore throat, hoarseness, thrist); respiratory (chest

tightness, shortness of breath, wheeziness, dry cough); cutaneous

(erythema, papules, wheals, blisters, dryness, general itchiness,

itchy exposed parts); and general (headache, lethargy and/or

drowsiness, lack of concentration, irritability, nausea, dizziness).

The chi-square and Student's t tests were used for statistical

analysis of the result. All statistics were performed by the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program. [12]

Results

The environmental inspection fo building B revealed that offices were

of different dimensions, had white walls, and were newly furnished.

Unlike building A, ceilings in building B were lined with metal sheets

backed with ultrafine fiberglass felt for heat and sound insulation.

The metal sheets were not juxtapose; therefore, some fibers could

enter the office environment. Again, in contrast to building A, the

exterior wall in most rooms was mainly plate glass, only some sections

of which could be opened. Furthermore, artificial illumination was

provided by pairs of fluorescent tubes that were located in the

ceilings; the light intensity level could not be regulated by the

individual worker. Direct observation and inquiries among maintenance

personnel revealed that maintenance of the air-conditioned plant was

insufficient. None of the employees had been provided with an

instruction booklet for the fan coil units, and most individuals were

not sufficiently informed about their correct use and maintenance.

Employees who agreed to participate in th investigation numbered 281

(of 335 [83.9%]) in buiding A and 525 (of 620 [84.7%]) in building B

(Table 1). Of those who did not participate, 6% and 9.7% in buildings

A and B, respectively, refused. The others were absent for various

reasons, e.g., maternity leave, holiday leave, transfered temporarily

to another location.

The most common work-related complaints are listed in Table 2.

Fifty-nine percent of the employees in building B considered their

work environment uncomfortable, compared with 19% in the control

group. Employees in building B mainly reported dry air, stron

lighting, high temperature, stuffiness, and dusty air, compared with

controls who complained of cigarette smoke and stuffy and dry air.

Statistically significant differences in the type of complaints

emerged for the total

Table 1. Study Population in Building A and Building B

Males Females Total

n % n % n %

Building A 153 54.5 128 45.5 281 100

(naturally ventilated)

Building B 321 61.1 204 38.9 525 100

(air conditioned)

populations and between men and women in the two buildings (when

compared separately).

In building b, 69% of the employees reported work-related symptoms,

compared with 27% in building A. The main groups of work-related

symptoms reported by employees in both buildings are presented in

Table 3. In the air-conditioned building, general symptoms were

significantly more prevalent in women than in men, whereas in the

control building, women experienced a higher pevalence of ocular

symptoms. When the employees were considered as a whole, ocular,

uppr-airway, cutaneous, and general symptoms were very prevalent in

building B; a lower prevalence was observed for respiratory symptoms.

The significant differences persisted when men and women in the two

buildings were compared separately. The prevalences of individual

symptoms that were most frequently reported by employees in both

buildings are presented in Table 4. Dry throat, thirst, burning and/or

reddening of the eyes were reported by almost one-half of the workers

in building B. Less common were blocked and

[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]

[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]

itchy nose, cutaneous dryness, itchy exposed parts, headache,

drowsiness, or lack of concentration.

In building B, the direction the windows faced (i.e., office aspect)

significantly influenced the percentage of employees who complained of

strong light, high temperature, and stuffy air (Table 5). These

complaints were more prevalent among workers whose offices faced south

and east. Office aspect did not significantly influence any particular

group of symptoms.

In building B, the same numerous compaints (Table 6) and symptoms

(Table 7) were reported by the employees, independent of their job

category. However, a higher percentage of directors was satisfied with

the general comfort of their workplace and complained less often about

dry air than did employees in the other job categories (Table 6).

Prevalence of ocular symptoms was significantly lower among directors,

compared with all other groups (Table 7). Upper-airway and cutaneous

symptoms were also reported less often.

The results of the environmental survey (Table 8) in building B, which

was conducted by others, [10] were used to support this clinical study.

Table 4.--Most Frequent Work-Related Symptoms in the

Naturally ventilated and Air-Conditioned Buildings

Building A Building B

(Naturally ventillated)(Air conditioned)

(n = 281) (n = 525)

% %

Burning and/or 14.6 54.3

redness of the eyes

Blocked nose 1.1 13.3

Itchy nose 1.4 12.2

Dry throat 9.3 55.4

Thirst 9.3 48.9

Cutaneous dryness 2.5 12.0

Itchy, exposed parts 1.4 26.1

Headache 8.5 25.7

Drowsiness 5.0 16.8

Lack of concentration 3.6 12.4

Note: The prevalence of symptoms was always significantly

different (p < .001).

[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]

Discussion

In Italy, a mild climate and a long tradition of classical

architecture have limited modern building conceptions within the

construction industry, and the use of synthetic building materials has

been confined to a few special types of construction. This may

explain, at least in part, the lack of reports on building-related

illnesses in our country as most of the health problems in other

countries have been described to occur in air-conditioned, sealed

buildings. [3-6, 9] However,--even in Italy--energy saving, an attempt

to obtain the most comfortable indoor environment, and the need to

centralize public and private administrative services have led to the

recent construction of sealed-type buildings

After an outbreak of apparently work related symptoms, we studied the

work population of a new air-conditioned office block and compared it

with workers

[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]

who occupied traditional buildings. Both groups were employed by the

same public administration. The prevalence of symptoms was much higher

in the occupants of the air-conditioned buildings; however, males and

directors expressed complaints and symptoms less frequently, which

accords with the results in other studies. [8, 9] The types of symtoms

most often reported (i.e., irritation of the skin, eyes, nasal mucous

membranes, and upper-respiratory tract, etc.), their high prevalence,

their improvement or rapid resolution at the end of the work day, and

the difficulties in identifying a specific etiological agent

incriminate the sick or tight building syndrome. [3-6, 13] This is the

first time this syndrome has been reported in Italy.

With respect to the etiology of symptoms, it is noteworthy that the

symptoms began after the employees were transferred to the new office

block. The move may have created some discontent, which could have

influenced the prevalence of symptoms, but it is unlikely that it was

the major cause of them. [3] Knowledge of the clinical picture of SBS

was not widespread among the emplyees or their family doctors because

no cases had been reported previously in Italy. Despite this, the

majority of workers in building B expressed a uniform pattern of

symptoms that was similar to those reported in different countries in

air-conditioned or artificially ventillated office blocks. [3-6, 13]

Moreover, the onset and resolution of symptoms, how they were

transmitted, and the overll clinical picture were of a nature that

made mass hysteria [1, 4, 14] unlikely. Another factor that appeared

irrelevant was the possibility, as some authors have suggested, [9]

that symptoms are more linked to public-sector buildings that to

private-sector buildings. Both groups studied were emloyed by the same

public administration, and they worked in buildings that were used and

maintained by their employers, one of which provoked more symptoms and

complaints than the other. Despite extensive research, the cause(s) of

SBS remain unclear. Attention has been focused on many possibilities,

e.g., cigarette smoke, formaldehyde, volatile organic compounds, lack

of negative ions, and inadequate ventillation. [2, 3] Reports from the

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (USA) and the

Department of Health and Welfare (Canada) [15] identify " inadequate

ventillation " as the most frequent factor common to buildings that are

considered a health hazard. In the Canadian report, the term

inadequate ventillation includes a reduced air circulation, pollution

of air outside, and nonoptimal levels of temperature and humidity.

In our study, the main complaints in the air-conditioned building were

dry air and strong light (possibly causing dazzlement), particularly

in offices that faced south and east, i.e., offices more exposed to

direct sunlight. Subjective judgments accorded with the results of

investigations into working environment. [10] Relative humidity was

less than 40% in two-thirds of the readings and less than 30% in the

remaining one-third. Even with shaded windows, 31% of light readings

exceeded 1 000 lux--the highest level recommended by the American IES

Lighting Handbook for offices and drawing boards. [16] Moreover,

employees could not adapt the level of artificial lighting in their

rooms to suit their own requirements.

Formaldehyde levels, dust, and microbial burden in the air were

similar to those reported by others, [5, 6] for buildings in which

health problems did not exist. No fiberglass was found in the air, but

a small amount from the felt in ceiling was present in the dust on

floors and furniture. Although modest in quantity, the fiberglass

could have contributed to the onset of eye [17] and skin, [18, 19]

complaints.

In our view, too strong lighting, low humidity, and glass fibers could

have played a role in the etiology of the reported symptoms. The most

frequent complaints and the results of environmental analysis in

building B support this hypothesis. However, the data published

elsewhere regarding the influence of these factors in the etiology of

SBS are conflicting. A contribution from other agents, [20-22] such as

volatile organic compounds ad photochemical smog, cannot be excluded.

Indeed, even though individually below the recommended threshold

level, different elements may be responsible for the syndrome via an

additive or synergistic mechanism. [1, 7]

A lack of environmental control has been proposed to be a cause of

symptoms in artificially ventillated buildings. [23] Air-conditioned

buildings and the air-conditioning plants particularly need adequate

maintenance. In our study, the standard of maintenance in the

air-conditioning plant in building B was insufficient, and the

employees were not informed of how to regulate their local fan coil

units. Both factors could have played a relevant role in the

alteration of environmental parameters.

We proposed removing the fiberglass insulation, adjusting lighting to

recommended levels, individually regulating artificial lighting,

shading the windows better, properly maintaining and checking the

air-conditioning system more frequently, and informing the employees

about the self-regulation of their room temperature. Repeating the

study after these changes have been implemented will help us better

understand the etiology of the syndrome. Should the symptoms persist,

a more extensive environmental investigation will be necessary.

References

[1] Finnegan MJ, Pickering CAC. Building-related illness. Clin Allergy

1986; 16:389-405.

[2] Samet JM, Marbury MC, Spengler JD. Health effects and sources of

indoor air pollution. II. Am Rev Respir Dis 1988; 137:221-42.

[3] Finnegan MJ, Pickering CAC, Burge PS. Sick building syndrome:

prevalence studies. Br Med J 1984; 289:1573-75.

[4] on AS, Burge PS, Hedge A, et al. Comparison of health

problems related to work and environmental measurements in two office

buildings with different ventillation systems. Br Med J 1985; 291:373-76.

[5] Skov P, Valbj[phi]rn O, Danish Indoor Climate Study Group. The

" sick " building syndrome in the office environment: the Danish town

hall study. Environ Intern 1987; 13:339-49.

[6] Turiel I, Hollowell CD, Miksch RR, Rudy JV, Young RA, Coye MJ. The

effects of reduced ventillation on indoor air quality in an office

building. Atmos Environ 1983; 17:51-64.

[7] World Health Organization. Indoor air pollutants; exposure and

health effects. Report on a WHO meeting, EURO Reports and Studies No.

78. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1983.

[8] Skov P, Valbj[phi]rn O, Pedersen BV, Danish Indoor Climate Study

Group. Influence of personal characteristics, job-related factors, and

physiosocial factors on the sick building syndrome. Scand J Work

Environ Health 1989; 15:286-95.

[9] Burge S, Hedge A, S, Bass JH, on A. Sick building

syndrome: a study of 4373 office workers. Ann Occup Hyg 1987; 31:493-504.

[10] Bauleo FA, Castellani M, Gigli M, Mencrelli F, Pmpei M, Baldelli

G. Indagine ambientale in un edificio con aria condizionata e con

elevata prevalenza di " sick " building syndrome. Atti del 52[degrees]

Congresso della Societa Italiana de Medicina del Lavoro e Igiene

Industriale. Palermo, 28 Settembre-1 Ottobre 1989; vol. 2b, pp. 1145-52.

[11] World Health Organization. Indoor air quality research. Report on

a WHO meeting. Euro Reports and Studies No. 103. Copenhagen, Denmark.

WHO Regional Office for Europe, 1986.

[12] Nie NH, Hull CH, JG, Steinbrenner K, Bent DH. SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences. New York; McGraw-Hill, 1975.

[13] Whorton MD, Larson SR, Gordon NJ, RW. Investigation and

work-up of tight building syndrome. J Occup Med 1987; 29: 142-47.

[14] Guidotti TL, RW, Fedoruk MJ. Epidimiologic features

that may distinguish between bulding-associated illness outbreaks due

to chemical exposure or psychogenic origin. J Occup Med 1987; 29:148-50.

[15] Sterling TD, Collett CW, Sterling EM, Barch BA. Environmental

tobacco smoke and indoor quality in modern office work environments. J

Occup Med 1987; 29:57-62.

[16] Cantoni S, Canciani N. L'illuminazione. La novicita negli uffici.

Ed. Lavoro. Roma, 1985; pp. 19-26.

[17] C. Eye symptoms and signs in buildings with indoor climate

problems ( " office eye syndrome " ). Acta Ophthal 1986; 64: 306-11.

[18] Kreiss K, Hodgson MJ. Building-associated epidemics. In: Walsh

PJ, Dudney CS, Copenhaver ED, Eds. Indoor air quality. Boca Raton,

Florida: CRC Press, Inc., 1984; pp. 87-106.

[19] Lob M, Guillelmin M, Madelaine P, Boillat MA. Collective

dermatitis in a modern office. In: Grandjean E, Ed. Ergonomics and

health in modern offices. London: & Francis Press, 1984; pp. 52-58.

[20] Fanger PO, Lauridsen J, Bluyssen P, Clausen G. Air pollution

sources in offices and assembly halls, quantified by the olf unit.

Energy and Buildings 1988; 12:7-19.

[21] Molhave L, Bach B, Pedersen OF. Human reactions to low

concentrations of volatile organic compounds. Environ Intern 1986;

12:167-76.

[22] Sterling E, Sterling T. The impact of different ventillation

levels and fluorescent lighting types on building illness: an

experimental study. Can J Public Health 1983; 74:385-92.

[23] Burge SP, P, on AS. Sick building syndrome.

Proceedings of the 5th International conference on Indoor Air Quality

and Climate. Toronto, 29 July-3 August 1990; vol. 1, pp. 479-83.

COPYRIGHT 1992 Heldref Publications

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group

[Guest guest]

" sylgja " <sylgja@...> wrote:

> Here we also have the problem with air condensation - when the warm

air hits

> the cold walls (I don't know what you call it in English)

> There are black spots in so many homes in the corners facing north -

there is no water leaking - only condensation.

> And I have been to homes - where people are coming home with their

furniture after living abroad - and the furniture are contaminated.

>

> Greetings Sylgja

Sylgja,

I refer to that critical condensation zone as " The Condensation

Interface " .

-

/message/28703

[Guest guest]

> But here

>

> In Iceland we have a lot of sick buildings and I have been in many

>sick buildings in Europe -, Spain, French, England, and Cyprus.

That's definitely not good news. But hopefully the problem is mostly

due to cross-contamination and not so much due to inherent problems in

the buildings themselves. Therefore the problem should be treated as

contagion. Unfortunately nobody wants to treat it that way now.

All experts claim that " mold is not contagious, exposure is needed " .

Hey, just because it deosn't spread by sneezing or coughing doesn't

make it less contagious. Even the plague bacteria is a child's play

when compared to the durability of toxic mold spores. Bacteria and

viruses might want to learn a lot from molds on how to survive for

millenia in all kinds of places.

>The last few years we have more and more sick buildings here in

>Iceland due to more traveling overseas - I guess.

>The spore count here outside in Iceland is very low - but you only

>need few spores to make a building sick.

> Here we also have the problem with air condensation - when the warm

>air hits the cold walls (I don't know what you call it in English)

But some 30 years ago, when people didn't travel so much, do you think

that the same toxic molds that appear now (after water intrusion or

condenstation) appeared then? If memory serves me well, I don't

remember it being so.

About 30 years ago, even after floodings or condensation you would

usually get some benign mold growth that was not very toxic. And

that's maybe part of the answer why so many people are not worried

now, despite the fact that the situation has changed completely.

> In 80 -95% - Icelandic washing machines are with molds - and even

> stachybotrys - I have samples from that

>

> I have taken samples from clothes - that have the ,,smell " as I call

>it - and there where stachy spores.

If a washing machine isn't terribly infested with mold, try

decontamination with lots of sea salt (one or two kilograms per

loading; wash without laundry). It has to be high quality sea salt

though, cheaper varieties seem to lack the ability to kill mold. .

> Here in Iceland our buildings are really warm and insulated - nearly

>never A/C systems mostly windows. But due to lack of ventilation and

>high humidity inside there are excellent conditions for the fungi to

>thrive.

> And I have been to homes - where people are coming home with their

>furniture after living abroad - and the furniture are contaminated.

> So I guess 20 - 30 years ago when an average Icelandic person didn't

>have money to travel - we didn't have so many .

> But it is changing fast.

Thank you Sylgja. Your post is very insightful. And I'd say your

observations support my theory that cross-contamination by people's

clothes and belongings is the main way in which toxic molds are

spreading throughout Europe now.

Our building protocols haven't changed much, if at all. So it must be

cross-contamination. Unfortunately I don't know of a way to prevent

this from happening, and it seems it will get worse each yaar.

-Branislav