Re: Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should we Care?

[Guest guest]

I think that the fact that litigation is happening in an area should

serve as a wake up call to society to examine the situation very

closely. Mold is a good example. I think that the 'precautionary

principle' should make the default be assuming that something that

millions of people have been made sick from is toxic until the

beureaucrats catch up.

The marshalling of the various vested interests (ACOEM, 'business'

groups, etc.) should serve as a warning call that

there is going to be a fight, not that they are right.

One only needs to look at the almost laughable way some of these

groups wave the terms (thought up by tobacco-funded thinks tanks) like

" sound science " around to know that something ugly is afoot.

That said, science should proceed as science has always done. But

efforts need to be made to strengthen the forces defending peoples

health and not the forces trying to weaken it, for financial reasons.

[Guest guest]

How could the laws of physics and biology become

somehow effected by geography?

That doesn't make ANY sense AT ALL.

>

> Danny

> The only reason that there are no US research results showing a definitive

> correlation between mold exposure and human health is that EPA and other

> agencies have been persuaded not to duplicate the Canadian research study

> that I helped design and manage that did show a strong correlation (and the

> mechanism was not an allergic one). It was done in a town just miles across

> the river from Detroit, but apparently that makes it (and other work in

> Europe) not applicable to the USA.

>

> Industry associations have been very successful in preventing definitive

> studies from being performed in this area, but the scientific evidence is

> slowly mounting. Sooner or later the courts are going to have to admit that

> there is a strong correlation, although all of the mechanisms are not yet

> well defined. Industry has been quite effective in delaying that

> recognition, but all they can really do is delay, not prevent.

>

> Jim H. White System Science Consulting

> (formerly with CMHC, the Canadian housing agency)

>

>

>

> Re: Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should we Care?

>

>

>

>

> Science and litigation have never had any links and never will.

> Remember the following examples.

> No link has ever been found between silicone implants and any medical

> disorders, yet an entire industry was put out of business as a result

> of the lawsuits.

> No link has ever been found between mold exposure and any medical

> condition. While it may rot your house, it won't hurt you. Yet

> millions of dollars is going to lawyers and parents are afraid to send

> their children to schools because of " Black Mold. "

> Until we get tort reform, this problem will never be resolved.

> Danny

>

>

[Guest guest]

Can you please post the reference for the Canadian study which showed the problem with mold affecting a medical condition. Thanks, Danny

[Guest guest]

Danny

Search for the Wallaceburg research reports on CMHC's web site at www.cmhc.ca.

Jim H. White SSC

Formerly Senior Advisor - Building Science at CMHC

Re: Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should we Care?

Can you please post the reference for the Canadian study which showed the problem with mold affecting a medical condition.

Thanks,

Danny

[Guest guest]

Danny et al:

I could not find on the web or the CMHC website the original

Wallaceburg study, but Jim White should be able to find it for you.

The follow-up study published in 2002 by CMHC is available for

download at:

https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?

language=en & shop=Z01EN & areaID=0000000038 & productID=0000000038000000001

9

I also have placed it in the Files section.

Don

>

> Can you please post the reference for the Canadian study which

showed the problem with mold affecting a medical condition.

> Thanks,

> Danny

>

[Guest guest]

Don

The link you sent gets broken upon transmission because of the "Recent Activity" block.

What is the report title that you are referring to so that we can go to www.cmhc.ca and do a search?

Jim

Re: Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should we Care?

Danny et al:I could not find on the web or the CMHC website the original Wallaceburg study, but Jim White should be able to find it for you. The follow-up study published in 2002 by CMHC is available for download at:https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/b2c/init.do?language=en & shop=Z01EN & areaID=0000000038 & productID=00000000380000000019I also have placed it in the Files section.Don>> Can you please post the reference for the Canadian study which showed the problem with mold affecting a medical condition.> Thanks,> Danny>

[Guest guest]

Jim:

The title of the report from 2002 is: Moldy Houses: Why They Are and

Why We Care & Additional Analysis of Wallaceburg Data: The

Wallaceburg Health and Housing Studies

I have posted this report under 'Files'. I was looking for the

original Wallaceburg report from 1995, that you and ,

referred to the second report as the 'Phase 1' report. If you can,

and it is in a pdf formay, can you post that report under 'Files'?

Thanks!

Don

> >

> > Can you please post the reference for the Canadian study which

> showed the problem with mold affecting a medical condition.

> > Thanks,

> > Danny

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I reviewed the summary of the article. There was not enough information to tell how accurate the results would be. They apparently did not do a power calculation nor did they even have the same population in the groups. Despite those limitations, I do not see how this study supports the premise that mold affects human health in any way. There was no correlation shown between mold and any medical disorder or even symptom. Unless there is another study out there, I believe my statement that mold litigation is not supported by any scientific evidence is still unchallenged and is absolutely true.Please post any scientific studies to the contrary.Danny

[Guest guest]

Danny,

FYI. This one is just on asthma.

May 24, 2007

news releases | receive our news releases by email | science@berkeley lab

Berkeley Lab, EPA Studies Confirm Large Public Health And Economic Impact of Dampness and Mold: They estimate that number of asthma cases attributable to exposure in home is 4.6 million, at $3.5 billion annual cost

Contact: Allan Chen, , a_chen@...

BERKELEY, CA — A pair of studies to be published in the journal Indoor Air have quantified the considerable public health risks and economic consequences in the United States from building dampness and mold.

J. Fisk, Acting Division Director of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division, was head of EETD’s Indoor Environment Department when this study was conducted.

One paper by J. Fisk, Quanhong Lei-Gomez and Mark J. Mendell, all from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), concludes that building dampness and mold raised the risk of a variety of respiratory and asthma-related health outcomes by 30 to 50 percent.

“Our analysis does not prove that dampness and mold cause these health effects,†says Fisk. “However, the consistent and relatively strong associations of dampness with adverse health effects strongly suggest causation by dampness-related [pollutant] exposures.â€

The second paper, by Mudarri of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Fisk uses results of the first paper plus additional data on dampness prevalence to estimate that 21 percent of current asthma cases in the U.S. are attributable to dampness and mold exposure.

“Of the 21.8 million people reported to have asthma in the U.S., approximately 4.6 million cases are estimated to be attributable to dampness and mold exposure in the home,†says the study. In addition, this paper estimates that “the national annual cost of asthma that is attributable to dampness and mold exposure in the home is $3.5 billion.†The paper also summarizes the considerable evidence of adverse health effects from dampness and mold in offices and schools, and suggests that exposure to dampness and mold in those venues appear to have similar health impacts on those exposed.

Mudarri and Fisk suggest that “a significant community response†is warranted given the size of the population affected and the large economic costs. Preventative and corrective actions include:

better moisture control during the building’s design; moisture control practices during construction; improved preventive maintenance of existing buildings to include a comprehensive moisture control program including control of water intrusions from outside, plumbing leaks, condensation and humidity control, and other causes of moisture accumulation or mold growth.

Scientific studies show that mold in the walls and ceiling of homes substantially raises the risk of a asthma and other respiratory problems and adds $3.5 billion to the annual national health bill. Photo credit: Mike McNickle.

The Berkeley Lab paper provides quantitative estimates of the increased risks of having current asthma, being diagnosed with asthma, and having related health effects when people live in homes with visible dampness or mold problems. These estimates are based on a statistical analyses of a large number of previously published studies, none of which by themselves are a suitable basis for overall risk quantification.

The EPA paper’s results are based on the analyses of studies of this health issue cited in a 2004 report released by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences and more recently published studies. The IOM report, which is considered the current consensus of the U.S. scientific community, concluded that excessive indoor dampness is a public health problem but did not offer any overall quantitative assessment.

Fisk is Acting Division Director of Berkeley Lab’s Environmental Energy Technologies Division. When writing these papers he was head of the division’s Indoor Environment Department. Mudarri was a senior economist and research program manager in the Indoor Environments Division at the U.S. EPA and has recently retired.

These studies are part of the Indoor Air Quality Scientific Findings Resource Bank project, funded by the Indoor Environments Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the EPA. The project is a cooperative venture between EPA and Berkeley Lab to quantify the health and productivity impacts of indoor air exposures and make those data publicly accessible.

The papers are available from the web site of the Indoor Air journal.

The Indoor Environments Division of EPA administers a variety of analytic, public information, and outreach programs to promote activities to protect public health through improved indoor air quality.

Berkeley Lab is a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory located in Berkeley, CA. It conducts unclassified scientific research and is managed by the University of California. Visit our website at http://www.lbl.gov.

Additional Information

For more about the research of Bill Fisk, visit the Website at:http://eetd.lbl.gov/staff/fisk-wj.html Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.

[Guest guest]

Danny,

Not sure what you are after. Do your own lit. search. There are hundreds of health related references in the 2004 IOM report and the 1999 Bioaerosols and the 2000 NAS report on asthma. There are also hundreds of references in the book by s on Worldwide Exposure Standards for Mold and Bacteria. There are also hundreds of reports and references related to construction defects resulting in mold growth, regardless of health claims, mold litigation is a diverse area.

Bradley HarrSr. Environmental Scientist

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of no spamSent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:28 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Litigation-Generated Science: Why Should we Care?

I reviewed the summary of the article. There was not enough information to tell how accurate the results would be. They apparently did not do a power calculation nor did they even have the same population in the groups. Despite those limitations, I do not see how this study supports the premise that mold affects human health in any way. There was no correlation shown between mold and any medical disorder or even symptom. Unless there is another study out there, I believe my statement that mold litigation is not supported by any scientific evidence is still unchallenged and is absolutely true.Please post any scientific studies to the contrary.Danny

[Guest guest]

So, Danny, you are I guess implying that since law suits are typically

based on health damage and that since you are saying that lawsuits are

'groundless' then you are also saying that no health damage temporary

or permanent occurs I suppose you are also saying that the entire mold

remediation industry is based on nothing at all and that the various

warnings to humanity about mold dating back over 4000 years to the Old

Testament of the Bible, all the way through modern times are all wrong

and that you are right?

Its no secret that the current political environment has been one of

attack on the global epidemiological discoveries of the last 50 years

or so that have tended to encourage caution with regard to toxics of

all kind, starting with the Silent Spring book and the discovery of

the interrelatedness in the science of ecology and environmental

toxicology, and the last seven or eight years, especially have seen an

attempt by persons such as yourself to roll back the clock and pretend

that the discoveries have not happened and that everything business

wants to do is 'OK' if thats what business wants. They are 'innocent'

until 'proven' guilty and if the victims are mute, all the better,

right, business as usual, right?

" Progress is our most important Product "

Is that correct?