Re: Too Much Stachy?

[Guest guest]

Do not forget to sample all particulates from <1 micron and up. Also, how are you going to deal with the fine particulates and their ability to bind to fabrics and other materials. I am willing to put my two cents in regarding testing parameters. Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologistwww.drthrasher.orgtoxicologist1@... Cell: Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADCTrauma Specialistsandracrawley@... - Cell "The ultimate success of a truth depends not on the many but on the perseverance and earnestness of the few".Emma Goldman 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. Too Much Stachy? I have a major mold remediation project where the mold contamination of just stachy EXCEEDS 7,000,000 spores/gram in the water damaged materials. This is going to generate huge air borne levels and potential skin exposure levels during remediation.Yep, this number is correct. This is a huge building that is going to take days/weeks to deal with. This is well above the mycotoxin dose level by anyone's calculation. This would be a great research project to check/document mycotoxin exposure levels during remediation. Any organization (IAQA?) willing to fund this unique and rare mycotoxin exposure research? Since I am semi retired, I can't afford to personally fund the numerous research projects I have done in the past. Some past personally funded research projects include:Development of a database of all chemical occupational exposure limits from all regulating countries in the world. Multi laboratory spore trap variability study. Bacteria levels in Cat 1 , 2, 3 water.Development of a database of all Indoor Air Quality standards from all regulating countries in the world. PHEAF device testing of over 100 different pieces of equipment using laser particle counting. Comparison In-Field PHEAF equipment effectiveness using light microscopy, laser particle counting and condensation particle counting. Video documentary of mutant mold and bacteria on Apollo, MIR and the International Space Station. Video documentaries of Electric Vehicles from the 1980s. Bob

[Guest guest]

In our experience, one of the hallmarks of the " toxic mould charlatans " is what

we call " playing the numbers game. "

In one of my lectures, I teach the participants how toxic mould con-artists play

games with sample results and use the data to frighten a recipient with the

intent to separate them form their money during a " remediation. "

So, when we look at a " result " of " 7,000,000 spores per gram, " the first

observation is that the units, regardless of the value, is not germane in

determining whether a structure has a problem and the result cannot be used to

speak to the degree or the significance of a possible problem.

For example, a seven story office building could be entirely devoid of a water

problem, or a mould problem, and yet could have a single dime-sized colony of

Stachybotrys in the basement on a single sheet of drywall. The colony could

have been on the dry when it was installed.

A " certified mould inspector " could then sample the single colony and announce

to their client that this is an ENORMOUS number! OMG! The building has mould

and everyone is going to die! (Which of course is completely and objectively

true, but again, it does not speak to the issue of whether or not the building

has a mould problem, and does not speak to the issue of whether remediation is

necessary.)

So now we see single dime-sized colony with a legitimate laboratory report of

7,000,000 spores per gram. The colony weighs in at a whomping 0.1 grams.

Therefore, there are 700,000 spores for dispersal. The seven story office block

has an internal volume of 8,000 m3. Therefore, if the spores hit the HVAC

system, and are evenly dispersed throughout the building, this amounts to an

initial human exposure of 87 spores per cubic meter of air. Let's say just 20%

of those spores are precipitated in the HVAC system before dispersal – that

leaves 70 spores/m3.

Many spores, will settle onto various surfaces (filtering through carpets, etc),

so let's say another 5% is thus removed from the exposure chain, leaving

approximately 66 spores/m3.

Now, considering that the property is under positive pressure with an industrial

HVAC, we know the structure has a good mixing factor (the " k " value), and will

be about 0.7; but let's be conservative and say it's only 0.3 The HVAC system

for the structure ensures 4 ACH, but let's say the re-circ is running at 100%

capacity and therefore, there is actually only 2 ACH. We know the contaminant

will exhibit an exponential decay with time (see for example, Wadden, R.A.;

Scheff, P.A., INDOOR AIR POLLUTION: Characterization, Prediction, and Control

Wiley-Interscience Publications, 1983), and as such, by the 8th minute, the

exposure is less than one Stachy spore per cubic meter.

So, the reality is that although 7,000,000 spores per gram may impress the

uneducated punter, in fact, it's hardly worth a yawn, and not something that a

rational person is likely to throw a lot of money after.

Now for those of you who think the above scenario is unreasonable, I can say

that in my experience, we encounter this kind of situation on at least a monthly

basis (in fact, I just got a new legal case in Delaware a few months ago where

this is the situation).

But let's say for fun, an entire 8X4 piece of wallboard is involved, and the

workmen careless, and recklessly smash it to pieces and release ALL the spores

and the initial concentration in the structure is 133,000 Stachy spores/m3. We

see that after 21 minutes, the exposure is once again less than one spore per

m3. OK.. TEN pieces of contaminated wallboard are smashed to smithereens…

wallboard since it is an exponential decay, we hit our one spore/m3 after 25

minutes.

All of this notwithstanding, let's look at the actual anticipated exposure

toxicologically. If we consider the LOAEL for trichothecenes reported the by

the European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, and we

plug in the mycotoxin concentrations actually measured by Brasel, et al

(Applied And Environmental Microbiology, Nov. 2005, p. 7376–7388), we see that

we see that we can equate 8.1E-11 mg trichothecene per spore, and let's just say

the HVAC system crashed immediately after if has distributed the spores released

from 100 pieces of smashed up 8X4 wallboards all at once and NONE of the spores

get removed by exfiltration, that leaves us with approximately 13,000,000

spores/m3 of human exposure – even at THAT levels, the human exposure is 28

times LOWER than the lowest concentration known to create an health hazard.

And this, folks, is what happens to the " run-around-with-your-hair-on-fire "

toxic mould hype, when viewed by a scientist. So…. 7,000,000 spores/grams?

Yawn. I would recommend that the building owner hire a consultant who actually

knows something about mould and remediation, they may also like to read the

following discussion:

http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/remediation.html

Cheers!

Caoimhín P. Connell

Forensic Industrial Hygienist

www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not

necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency,

peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and

does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the

professional advice of others.)

AMDG

[Guest guest]

con,

Unfortunately, your discussion has nothing to do with the situation I am dealing

with. This is a whole building covered with mold, water, bacteria, asbestos,

and other debris. It has been abandon for years. The roof is falling in. And

this list goes on.

Someone is going to have to clean this up. This is going to significantly

disturb all of these potentially hazardous materials.

The unfunded research project I am proposing, would look at measuring worker

exposure to mycotoxins, while removing TONS of grossly contaminated drywall,

exterior gypsum, rotten wood, and on and on.

This would be very important information for the remediation industry.

I was involved in a similar abandon structure years ago. A number of people

developed permanent lung lesions and other respiratory because

your " yawn " comment was believed and followed.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob

As you well know it is the reality of such effects that the Canadian federal government agency, Health Canada, issued their documents suggesting care in handling cleanup and in continued domestic exposure. The proper research has not yet been done, well-enough; what you want to do would be of great use, I should imagine, but bureaucrats the world over would shudder at the possible liability involved; we can send soldiers off to war, knowing some will be killed, but we cannot do the work needed to counter what those with money and power have been let happen to the populace so that they can maximize profits.

Peace to you and yours, plus all who go outside the box!

Jim H. White

Re: Too Much Stachy?

con, Unfortunately, your discussion has nothing to do with the situation I am dealing with. This is a whole building covered with mold, water, bacteria, asbestos, and other debris. It has been abandon for years. The roof is falling in. And this list goes on. Someone is going to have to clean this up. This is going to significantly disturb all of these potentially hazardous materials. The unfunded research project I am proposing, would look at measuring worker exposure to mycotoxins, while removing TONS of grossly contaminated drywall, exterior gypsum, rotten wood, and on and on. This would be very important information for the remediation industry. I was involved in a similar abandon structure years ago. A number of people developed permanent lung lesions and other respiratory because your "yawn" comment was believed and followed. Bob

[Guest guest]

You sure got a lot of hypothetical numbers in that picture you paint when forming the concrete conclusion that Stachy in a seven story building is scientifically proven to be no health risk.

What is the health risk for someone who has a 6 x 6 basement cubicle with no windows and where the spore count by legitimate laboratory report is 7,000,000 spores per gram, including Stachy in the count, and with 2 ft of mold growing up one wall of the cubicle? Do your hypothetical numbers still support that Stachy, other molds and their toxins are proven to not a health risk to this person?

Are you able to form a concrete conclusion for safety of all individuals based solely on your hypothetical numbers? Who are you teaching this to in what classroom setting?

What do you think about the NIEHS and their studies of endocrine disrupters from low dose exposures to chemicals?

Sharon

In our experience, one of the hallmarks of the "toxic mould charlatans" is what we call "playing the numbers game."In one of my lectures, I teach the participants how toxic mould con-artists play games with sample results and use the data to frighten a recipient with the intent to separate them form their money during a "remediation."So, when we look at a "result" of "7,000,000 spores per gram," the first observation is that the units, regardless of the value, is not germane in determining whether a structure has a problem and the result cannot be used to speak to the degree or the significance of a possible problem.For example, a seven story office building could be entirely devoid of a water problem, or a mould problem, and yet could have a single dime-sized colony of Stachybotrys in the basement on a single sheet of drywall. The colony could have been on the dry when it was installed. A "certified mould inspector" could then sample the single colony and announce to their client that this is an ENORMOUS number! OMG! The building has mould and everyone is going to die! (Which of course is completely and objectively true, but again, it does not speak to the issue of whether or not the building has a mould problem, and does not speak to the issue of whether remediation is necessary.)So now we see single dime-sized colony with a legitimate laboratory report of 7,000,000 spores per gram. The colony weighs in at a whomping 0.1 grams. Therefore, there are 700,000 spores for dispersal. The seven story office block has an internal volume of 8,000 m3. Therefore, if the spores hit the HVAC system, and are evenly dispersed throughout the building, this amounts to an initial human exposure of 87 spores per cubic meter of air. Let's say just 20% of those spores are precipitated in the HVAC system before dispersal – that leaves 70 spores/m3.Many spores, will settle onto various surfaces (filtering through carpets, etc), so let's say another 5% is thus removed from the exposure chain, leaving approximately 66 spores/m3. Now, considering that the property is under positive pressure with an industrial HVAC, we know the structure has a good mixing factor (the "k" value), and will be about 0.7; but let's be conservative and say it's only 0.3 The HVAC system for the structure ensures 4 ACH, but let's say the re-circ is running at 100% capacity and therefore, there is actually only 2 ACH. We know the contaminant will exhibit an exponential decay with time (see for example, Wadden, R.A.; Scheff, P.A., INDOOR AIR POLLUTION: Characterization, Prediction, and Control Wiley-Interscience Publications, 1983), and as such, by the 8th minute, the exposure is less than one Stachy spore per cubic meter.So, the reality is that although 7,000,000 spores per gram may impress the uneducated punter, in fact, it's hardly worth a yawn, and not something that a rational person is likely to throw a lot of money after.Now for those of you who think the above scenario is unreasonable, I can say that in my experience, we encounter this kind of situation on at least a monthly basis (in fact, I just got a new legal case in Delaware a few months ago where this is the situation).But let's say for fun, an entire 8X4 piece of wallboard is involved, and the workmen careless, and recklessly smash it to pieces and release ALL the spores and the initial concentration in the structure is 133,000 Stachy spores/m3. We see that after 21 minutes, the exposure is once again less than one spore per m3. OK.. TEN pieces of contaminated wallboard are smashed to smithereens… wallboard since it is an exponential decay, we hit our one spore/m3 after 25 minutes.All of this notwithstanding, let's look at the actual anticipated exposure toxicologically. If we consider the LOAEL for trichothecenes reported the by the European Commission Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General, and we plug in the mycotoxin concentrations actually measured by Brasel, et al (Applied And Environmental Microbiology, Nov. 2005, p. 7376–7388), we see that we see that we can equate 8.1E-11 mg trichothecene per spore, and let's just say the HVAC system crashed immediately after if has distributed the spores released from 100 pieces of smashed up 8X4 wallboards all at once and NONE of the spores get removed by exfiltration, that leaves us with approximately 13,000,000 spores/m3 of human exposure – even at THAT levels, the human exposure is 28 times LOWER than the lowest concentration known to create an health hazard. And this, folks, is what happens to the "run-around-with-your-hair-on-fire" toxic mould hype, when viewed by a scientist. So…. 7,000,000 spores/grams? Yawn. I would recommend that the building owner hire a consultant who actually knows something about mould and remediation, they may also like to read the following discussion:http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/remediation.htmlCheers!Caoimhín P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist www.forensic-applications.com(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.) AMDG

[Guest guest]

Caoimhín,

As I understand what you have long advocated, there are so many variables and

inherent

errors in sampling for mold (or for most anything for that matter) that care

must be taken

in order to obtain information that is representative and can be interpreted

with any sort

of credibility and defensibility. I agree. I also agree that these requirements

are rarely,

if ever, met.

However, what is being missed here, including in the previous responses to you,

is

" exposure. " Bob 's responded that the building has been vacant for an

extended

period so there are no occupants to be exposed. However, he is concerned about

worker

exposure. Which would reasonably be expected to increase beyond typical occupant

exposure

in that situation due to the disturbance of remediation. There is no way workers

can both

disturb the mold and not enter the building until the mold has distributed to

the levels

you detailed. Unless they can function in a quantum manner to be in two places

at once. I

think a more relevant question for Bob's situation may be what level of APF

rating for the

respirator is best for that situation?

As for your response to the initial information as presented, I think there is

another

point about exposure worth discussing. You have described potential exposure

AFTER the

small spot (or sheet of drywall, or whatever) has uniformly distributed

throughout the

entire building. With your premise and under those conditions I agree with your

conclusions.

However, not very much in the real world is uniform. Most is " lumpy, " meaning

there is an

unevenness of concentration throughout areas of distribution. So the more

relevant question

may be, What is the concentration of the Stachy (or whatever) in the location of

the person

and are circumstances such that the person is actually exposed? Presence is not

the same as

exposure, as is clearly demonstrated with any bottle of poison tightly capped

and in a

locked cupboard. The poison is present but there is no exposure. Same for loaded

guns,

since you are also in law enforcement. If locked in a safe location no one can

get hurt

from exposure to the bullet. Presence does not equal exposure.

If an individual were to put their nose to the small spot of Stachy (or

whatever) in the

original scenario and snort it like for cocaine then the exposure would be

dramatically

different than when that same small spot is aggressively disturbed but allowed

first to

distribute. Or if left alone. Or, if a surface sample were collected then most

if not all

of the small spot would be removed by the sample.

So I'd be most interested in your - and other's - contribution to a discussion

about

presence vs exposure and how to better determine what that exposure might have

been for a

particular individual in a particular location for an measured period of time

with an

accurate description of occupant activity.

Until at least that minimum data set is established then the measured exposure

(and

ultimately the impact on a person) could be either exactly as you described,

orders of

magnitude greater, or orders of magnitude less.

So what say yea?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

Re: Too Much Stachy?

In our experience, one of the hallmarks of the " toxic mould charlatans " is what

we call

" playing the numbers game. "

In one of my lectures, I teach the participants how toxic mould con-artists play

games with

sample results and use the data to frighten a recipient with the intent to

separate them

form their money during a " remediation. "

So, when we look at a " result " of " 7,000,000 spores per gram, " the first

observation is

that the units, regardless of the value, is not germane in determining whether a

structure

has a problem and the result cannot be used to speak to the degree or the

significance of

a possible problem.

For example, a seven story office building could be entirely devoid of a water

problem, or

a mould problem, and yet could have a single dime-sized colony of Stachybotrys

in the

basement on a single sheet of drywall. The colony could have been on the dry

when it was

installed.

A " certified mould inspector " could then sample the single colony and announce

to their

client that this is an ENORMOUS number! OMG! The building has mould and

everyone is going

to die! (Which of course is completely and objectively true, but again, it does

not speak

to the issue of whether or not the building has a mould problem, and does not

speak to the

issue of whether remediation is necessary.)

So now we see single dime-sized colony with a legitimate laboratory report of

7,000,000

spores per gram. The colony weighs in at a whomping 0.1 grams. Therefore,

there are

700,000 spores for dispersal. The seven story office block has an internal

volume of 8,000

m3. Therefore, if the spores hit the HVAC system, and are evenly dispersed

throughout the

building, this amounts to an initial human exposure of 87 spores per cubic meter

of air.

Let's say just 20% of those spores are precipitated in the HVAC system before

dispersal –

that leaves 70 spores/m3.

Many spores, will settle onto various surfaces (filtering through carpets, etc),

so let's

say another 5% is thus removed from the exposure chain, leaving approximately 66

spores/m3.

Now, considering that the property is under positive pressure with an industrial

HVAC, we

know the structure has a good mixing factor (the " k " value), and will be about

0.7; but

let's be conservative and say it's only 0.3 The HVAC system for the structure

ensures 4

ACH, but let's say the re-circ is running at 100% capacity and therefore, there

is actually

only 2 ACH. We know the contaminant will exhibit an exponential decay with time

(see for

example, Wadden, R.A.; Scheff, P.A., INDOOR AIR POLLUTION: Characterization,

Prediction,

and Control Wiley-Interscience Publications, 1983), and as such, by the 8th

minute, the

exposure is less than one Stachy spore per cubic meter.

So, the reality is that although 7,000,000 spores per gram may impress the

uneducated

punter, in fact, it's hardly worth a yawn, and not something that a rational

person is

likely to throw a lot of money after.

Now for those of you who think the above scenario is unreasonable, I can say

that in my

experience, we encounter this kind of situation on at least a monthly basis (in

fact, I

just got a new legal case in Delaware a few months ago where this is the

situation).

But let's say for fun, an entire 8X4 piece of wallboard is involved, and the

workmen

careless, and recklessly smash it to pieces and release ALL the spores and the

initial

concentration in the structure is 133,000 Stachy spores/m3. We see that after

21 minutes,

the exposure is once again less than one spore per m3. OK.. TEN pieces of

contaminated

wallboard are smashed to smithereens… wallboard since it is an exponential

decay, we hit

our one spore/m3 after 25 minutes.

All of this notwithstanding, let's look at the actual anticipated exposure

toxicologically.

If we consider the LOAEL for trichothecenes reported the by the European

Commission Health

& Consumer Protection Directorate-General, and we plug in the mycotoxin

concentrations

actually measured by Brasel, et al (Applied And Environmental

Microbiology, Nov.

2005, p. 7376–7388), we see that we see that we can equate 8.1E-11 mg

trichothecene per

spore, and let's just say the HVAC system crashed immediately after if has

distributed the

spores released from 100 pieces of smashed up 8X4 wallboards all at once and

NONE of the

spores get removed by exfiltration, that leaves us with approximately 13,000,000

spores/m3

of human exposure – even at THAT levels, the human exposure is 28 times LOWER

than the

lowest concentration known to create an health hazard.

And this, folks, is what happens to the " run-around-with-your-hair-on-fire "

toxic mould

hype, when viewed by a scientist. So…. 7,000,000 spores/grams? Yawn. I would

recommend

that the building owner hire a consultant who actually knows something about

mould and

remediation, they may also like to read the following discussion:

http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/remediation.html

Cheers!

Caoimhín P. Connell

Forensic Industrial Hygienist

www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not

necessarily

reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or

professional

affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect

professional advice

and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

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

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been

specifically

authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our

efforts to

advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,

democracy,

scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair

use' of any

such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In

accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is

distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included

information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted

material

from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must

obtain

permission from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Thanks,

Bob

[Guest guest]

Carl, Jack,

Thanks for commenting on this very interesting potential study. As you have

experienced, when you deal with the actual people who have been affected by

mold, reviewed their medical records, seen doctor after doctor sat " I don't

know what it is - but take this steriod pill. " (to mask your symptoms.)

You listen to your friend hacking and coughing for over 15 years now, after

their exposure to high levels of mold and know of the other workers who were

involved, one of which died mysteriously 2 years after their exposure, and

as a trained health professional, you certainly can recognize a health effect

" cluster " .

The biggest problem with mold exposure health effects is that they are not well

researched, and their is virtually no money to research them.

This is a unique opportunity to see what happens to the levels of mold spores

during a major remediation and interior demolition project.

As you know, there are numerous articles in the medical literature of this type

of working being done in hospitals and the resulting infections and deaths.

BUT- where is the exposure data? Where, as Jack says, is the data on the <1

micron fragments?

Until we have some of this information, we will have to deal with " con "

charlatans, who play with numbers and falsely claim that those calculations can

model actual exposure.

For those of us experts, who have conducted numerous actual " modeling " studies

and actual personnel exposure monitoring for years, us experts know how totally

inaccurate models can be. This is especially true without air flow data and

air flow direction, location and movement of workers, etc. In fact, the IH

community of real experts, gave up attempts at modeling years ago. Control

banding is now the accepted method of controlling or reducing worker exposure.

This is especially critical in the pharmaceutical industry, where, if you model

was wrong, you could killed somebody. Fortunately, real experts learned this a

long time ago.

con's model is meaningless, disinformation and wrong.

However, until someone comes up with the money to fund this mold and mycotoxin

exposure research, we will have to deal with this misleading disinformation.

Carl, as you know, I have personally funded a number of mold research projects

over the years. I can no longer afford to do so.

Many times I submitted research funding projects to XXXX and they were totally

ignored. Here is another great opportunity, that is again being ignored. It

just makes you wonder why.

[Guest guest]

Bob: You are welcome. There is a lot going on in these indoor environments that needs further investigation. For example, I had a case in Seattle area where a young man with a history of moderate mental illness lived in a one bedroom older mobile home. The home was in disrepair. I was asked to investigate. Water was coming through the ceiling onto the floor and was caught by pans. The ceiling tile had bee removed and revealed a solid mass of mold growth in the ceiling insulation of the kitchen/dining area, laundry room, bathroom, bedroom and closet.Mod was also on the mattress, pillow and clothing in the closet.Mycotoxin testing revealed trichothecenes, aflatoxins and ochratoxin. Because he developed a sever psychosis we also tested or ergot alkaloids, which turned out to present in the insulation of the kitchen, closet, bedroom, pillow and mattress. He was arrested for felonies, urine tested for illicit drugs (negative) but had high concentrations of ochratoxin. The urine was negative for trichothecenes and aflatoxins. Penicillium corylophilum (ergot alkaloid producer) was detected in all samples tested. I am writing the paper up for publication. Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologistwww.drthrasher.orgtoxicologist1@... Cell: Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADCTrauma Specialistsandracrawley@... - Cell "The ultimate success of a truth depends not on the many but on the perseverance and earnestness of the few".Emma Goldman 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. Re: Too Much Stachy? Carl, Jack, Thanks for commenting on this very interesting potential study. As you have experienced, when you deal with the actual people who have been affected by mold, reviewed their medical records, seen doctor after doctor sat "I don't know what it is - but take this steriod pill." (to mask your symptoms.)You listen to your friend hacking and coughing for over 15 years now, after their exposure to high levels of mold and know of the other workers who were involved, one of which died mysteriously 2 years after their exposure, andas a trained health professional, you certainly can recognize a health effect "cluster". The biggest problem with mold exposure health effects is that they are not well researched, and their is virtually no money to research them. This is a unique opportunity to see what happens to the levels of mold spores during a major remediation and interior demolition project. As you know, there are numerous articles in the medical literature of this type of working being done in hospitals and the resulting infections and deaths. BUT- where is the exposure data? Where, as Jack says, is the data on the <1 micron fragments? Until we have some of this information, we will have to deal with "con" charlatans, who play with numbers and falsely claim that those calculations can model actual exposure. For those of us experts, who have conducted numerous actual "modeling" studies and actual personnel exposure monitoring for years, us experts know how totally inaccurate models can be. This is especially true without air flow data and air flow direction, location and movement of workers, etc. In fact, the IH community of real experts, gave up attempts at modeling years ago. Control banding is now the accepted method of controlling or reducing worker exposure. This is especially critical in the pharmaceutical industry, where, if you model was wrong, you could killed somebody. Fortunately, real experts learned this a long time ago. con's model is meaningless, disinformation and wrong. However, until someone comes up with the money to fund this mold and mycotoxin exposure research, we will have to deal with this misleading disinformation.Carl, as you know, I have personally funded a number of mold research projects over the years. I can no longer afford to do so. Many times I submitted research funding projects to XXXX and they were totally ignored. Here is another great opportunity, that is again being ignored. It just makes you wonder why.

[Guest guest]

Bob, I missed some of the middle discussion (I saw Con's first post, then yours

about the potential research, then the one below, didn't see Carl's or Jack's)

That said, I am in agreement with your comments about exposure. I prefer not to

include Con's comments as I believe they are outside this discussion (although

they do carry weight if used in correct context).

My experience suggests that if you are looking at demo work, find a way to also

add a focus on the exit process. I did a project years ago, the 'breach' samples

in a clean hallway were revealing. While the process had a double chamber

decon/exit/entry, and workers followed clean/decon protocols, they had to use

the clean hallway as the exit path.

The halls of this building were relatively pristine. The containment area

covered 2000 ft2 of floor space, but the mold covered 3 layers of flooring -

about 5000 ft2 of contamination. The mold was concealed and trapped between

layers and in cavities, and did not enter the work space. However when demo

began, the counts inside during the work were ridiculous of course.

The halls remained 'clean' unless a worker had recently passed by. Days of data

had spikes where after 4-5 days I realized they were the times closely following

worker movement out of the containment zone (usually moving material/debris).

I describe it as being like the Charlie Brown/Peanuts character " PigPen " who is

depicted as walking around with a mini-tornado of dirt around him. I believe so

did the workers, even though they followed classic decon procedures.

Just my two cents, thanx for listening.

>

> Carl, Jack,

>

> Thanks for commenting on this very interesting potential study. As you

have experienced, when you deal with the actual people who have been affected by

mold, reviewed their medical records, seen doctor after doctor sat " I don't

know what it is - but take this steriod pill. " (to mask your symptoms.)

>

> You listen to your friend hacking and coughing for over 15 years now, after

their exposure to high levels of mold and know of the other workers who were

involved, one of which died mysteriously 2 years after their exposure, and

>

> as a trained health professional, you certainly can recognize a health effect

" cluster " .

>

> The biggest problem with mold exposure health effects is that they are not

well researched, and their is virtually no money to research them.

>

> This is a unique opportunity to see what happens to the levels of mold spores

during a major remediation and interior demolition project.

>

> As you know, there are numerous articles in the medical literature of this

type of working being done in hospitals and the resulting infections and deaths.

BUT- where is the exposure data? Where, as Jack says, is the data on the <1

micron fragments?

>

> Until we have some of this information, we will have to deal with " con "

charlatans, who play with numbers and falsely claim that those calculations can

model actual exposure.

>

> For those of us experts, who have conducted numerous actual " modeling " studies

and actual personnel exposure monitoring for years, us experts know how totally

inaccurate models can be. This is especially true without air flow data and

air flow direction, location and movement of workers, etc. In fact, the IH

community of real experts, gave up attempts at modeling years ago. Control

banding is now the accepted method of controlling or reducing worker exposure.

>

> This is especially critical in the pharmaceutical industry, where, if you

model was wrong, you could killed somebody. Fortunately, real experts learned

this a long time ago.

>

> con's model is meaningless, disinformation and wrong.

>

> However, until someone comes up with the money to fund this mold and mycotoxin

exposure research, we will have to deal with this misleading disinformation.

>

> Carl, as you know, I have personally funded a number of mold research projects

over the years. I can no longer afford to do so.

>

> Many times I submitted research funding projects to XXXX and they were totally

ignored. Here is another great opportunity, that is again being ignored. It

just makes you wonder why.

>

[Guest guest]

,

You bring up a very important point of what remediation workers " drag out " with

them and potentially spread contamination.

This is a known problem in carcinogen handling facilities and nuclear material

handling facilities. It sometimes a problem in potential drug manufacturing.

Did you do air sampling as the workers were exiting the containment?

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob & ,Workers who cross-contaminate surrounding environments while exiting the work zone (debris removal or otherwise) 1. either have not had a competent specification to rely upon, i.e. 

    i. outlining proper decontamination practices, worker collaboration during decontamination events, i.e. HEPA vacuum one another), etc.; or,   ii. proper cleaning and or handling of bagged contaminated materials within or without the work zone; or 

2. techs are not following the specification.Good to hear you were monitoring both environments; others may have missed this important impact upon environments outside the work zone.

~ E-Bob

 

,

You bring up a very important point of what remediation workers " drag out " with them and potentially spread contamination.

This is a known problem in carcinogen handling facilities and nuclear material handling facilities. It sometimes a problem in potential drug manufacturing.

Did you do air sampling as the workers were exiting the containment?

Bob

-- Respectfully submitted,Bob Hawley, CEICC, CIEC, CMC, CMCA, CSDS, CMRS, CETC, CSL (MA), ADI-II-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental AirTechsIAQ Consulting/Investigations Dept. Southwick Massachusetts 01077email: Bob@...