Guest guest Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Ken, Nice examples. The snake and spider are usually called, even by experts in the profession, poisonous snakes or poisonous spider. Poison ivy is always "poison ivy", never "the ivy with 3 green leaves that sometimes produces a toxigenic substance to which some humans are, in differing degrees, sensitive". Yep, the cow with toxic e. coli is never a "poisonous cow"; however, is e. coli referred to as toxic bacteria? or toxin producing bacteria? Is the fungi from the cheese being made in the cheese factory toxic mold or benign mold? Depends on the perspective. The consumer believes the mold is benign. However, ask the worker in the factory if he needs respiratory protection because he can suffer from "cheese workers lung" from the spores and fragments of the same mold. So, is CDC right or wrong (see also AIHA) when they say that the 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic'. (paraphrase, not direct quote). S Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 To Carl, my head is spinning just from scrolling down your response, and I didn't even read it all yet. But look forward to it. By they way, congrats on the IESO gig... To All, there is a really good reason I am driving this discussion about toxic toxins vs. toxic mold. And I really do want to beg you for some more responses. So far, so good. Next week I will let you in on the 'why' of this discussion. It really is the first time in I have actually considered this a problem. Thank You in advance for all the help. Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Hi , I would be glad to enlighten you. At this point in time, the question on the table is not: 1 whether there has been a courtroom standard burden of proof as to the dose of toxic or toxigenic mold before human illness occurs, or. 2. if one is "making claims that have no basis of fact", or 3. about "sampling methods and procedures for determining mold toxicity in an environment; and based on laboratory analysis, what are safe and unsafe levels for an occupied space.", or 4. about making claims that illness indicative of poisoning do not occur because of the inability to establish dose response or samples correctly, or 5. about whether it has been scientifically concluded such illnesses are not plausible to occur, based on nothing more than toxicological studies examining animal and molecular models. NOPE. The original question on the table is simply, "What is the definition of the term 'toxic mold"?. Here is my definition: Toxic Mold: A microbial substance that when the topic of a discussion; causes many tangential issues and heated debates, often times based more in political opinions and biases rather than in the language science of determining the definition of a term! WR, Sharon Group, When making comments about mold’s “toxic terminology†that could “potentially†show some molds are toxic or toxigenic under certain conditions, we need to test the environment and materials for toxicity, otherwise we are making claims that have no basis of fact. I’m not aware of sampling methods and procedures for determining mold toxicity in an environment; and based on laboratory analysis, what are safe and unsafe levels for an occupied space. Anyone care to enlighten me? Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955aolSent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:01 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: toxic terminology Carl, That was an excellent overview of the matter! I find the below phrase of yours to be right on the mark as to a key area I am well aware of, that has put us on the other side of the looking glass. "Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality." As an example, I offer the upcoming UCLA/UC Irvine, Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinic (AOEC), Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) co-hosted seminar meant to educate physicians of mold induced illness while providing them CME credits for their new "education". The Government Funded clinics of AOEC/PEHSU are involved in "educating" these physicians, complete with a mock mold trial, used to teach these physicians how to determine what is a courtroom standard burden of proof before they treat. Two of the "environmental educators" for this Government Funded educational endeavor, were peer reviewers of the ACOEM mold statement. At least one, does IME's of mold patients on behalf of school districts and employers regarding symptoms indicative of toxicity, has been known to serve as an expert defense witness - while citing ACOEM for the "not plausible" stance, and also moonlights for an environmental risk management company, Exponent Inc. THESE are the medical educators we have put in charge and are Government Funding to advance the understanding of environmental illness in our children thru the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units and Occupational Clinics? http://www.ph.ucla.edu/erc/mold-symposium-2-08.htm Dr. Harber and Dr. Fedoruk, are FACOEM members, who were among the 101 permitted to peer review. Session C—The Toxicology of Mold – Review of the Literature - M. ph Fedoruk, MDSession D—Mold-induced Occupational Lung Diseases – Philip Harber, MD, MPH WHY ARE WE GOVERNMENT FUNDING PHYSICIAN "EDUCATIONAL" MOLD SEMINARS PROVIDED BY EXPERT WITNESSES WHO WERE PEER REVIEWERS OF THE ACOEM MOLD STATEMENT -THAT DENIES THE PLAUSIBILITY OF POISONING BASED ON FALSE SCIENCE - AND THESE EDUCATORS/ACOEM PEER REVIEWERS HAVE USED THE ACOEM STATEMENT IN LITIGATION, TO DENY THE EXACT SAME ILLNESSES WE ARE GOVERNMENT FUNDING (SUPPOSEDLY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING MOLD INDUCED ILLNESS IN OUR CHILDREN???????? Sharon In a message dated 2/22/2008 10:22:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, mgeyeratg1 writes: and group, WARNING: Chaotic mixed metaphor rant (hopefully not madness, but I'll let you decide that) is directly ahead! Re: Your response to Kenny G below:Their use of the "logic" that 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic' is not unlike the argument that guns don't kill people, bullets do.How important is it, really, to distinguish between the specific substance that causes (I mean, "strongly associated with") the resulting damages, the delivery system or what activates the system? The mold that produces the toxins or the toxins themselves? Which, in the chain of causation, is THE a priori "cause" that must be stopped?"Causation" is another word as fraught with difficulty as "toxic mold."Or, is it the environment which allows and supports the fungal growth (because someone is negligent or ignorant) which produces the toxins which are "associated with" the sequential damage to the ankle-bone, then the knee-bone and eventually the ham-bone for the want of a nail for the horseshoe leading to the destruction of a nation-at-war whose alert level is orange instead green except before an election when it is fire engine red ... no offense to firemen intended.Confused? Of course. But isn't this cross-contamination of Mobius strip metaphors how we all get lost while pretending we actually understand?Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality. A dissociation which necessarily creates a surrogate because we long ago lost the original. Direct experience is dismissed as "psychogenic," individuality is merely anecdotal, leaving physical measurements under the feudal priesthood of divine emperors to determine for us - after the fact - what "really" occurred. Cognitive dissonance must be denied especially at the expense of truth! Long live revisionist history!Where are the bread crumbs to mark our Hansel and Gretel return trail when we most need them? Oh, right, the legal-eagle defensors have snatched them up, destroying our pathway and theirs, and no amount of sophisticated statistical regeneration from the resulting scat can ever retrace the original path of associated influences back to the original flap of the butterfly wing. (or was it a moth? It does makes a difference, you know).Whew! Even I'm confused now and I swear I haven't been smoking anything "funny" tonight or any night. But we must plod on:So instead of unscrambling the spaghetti we create scapegoats. Industry blames suit-happy consumers and we blame the lawyers while politicians demand tort reform; all the while the ankle-bone falls off leaving the leg-bone dangling. But the mold, whether toxic or toxigenic (it makes no difference, you know) tenderizes the ham-bone, oblivious to the nattering nabobs of statisticalisms and detectional errors while people - remember them? - continue to be harmed.Proofreading this has made me dizzy so I must now lie down to commune with my mentor, Colbert (or Spiro Agnew) as he begins another night of reruns. (Can you tell the difference?)And you thought only Alice had a Wonderland. She is not alone and neither are we because we have all retreated as companions to be with her.Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Carl, Most important is the point you make, that instead of dealing with a mold issue that resulted in an occupant's illness, every attempt is made to deny this illness took place and or even exists. > > and group, > > WARNING: Chaotic mixed metaphor rant (hopefully not > madness, but I'll let you decide that) is directly ahead! > > Re: Your response to Kenny G below: > > Their use of the " logic " that 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic' > is not unlike the argument that guns don't kill people, bullets do. > > How important is it, really, to distinguish between the specific > substance that causes (I mean, " strongly associated with " ) the > resulting damages, the delivery system or what activates the > system? The mold that produces the toxins or the toxins > themselves? Which, in the chain of causation, is THE a priori > " cause " that must be stopped? > > " Causation " is another word as fraught with difficulty as > " toxic mold. " > > Or, is it the environment which allows and supports the fungal > growth (because someone is negligent or ignorant) which > produces the toxins which are " associated with " the sequential > damage to the ankle-bone, then the knee-bone and eventually > the ham-bone for the want of a nail for the horseshoe leading to > the destruction of a nation-at-war whose alert level is orange > instead green except before an election when it is fire engine red > ... no offense to firemen intended. > > Confused? Of course. But isn't this cross-contamination > of Mobius strip metaphors how we all get lost while > pretending we actually understand? > > Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of > determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where > does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because > it forces a dissociation from reality. > > A dissociation which necessarily creates a surrogate because we > long ago lost the original. Direct experience is dismissed as > " psychogenic, " individuality is merely anecdotal, leaving physical > measurements under the feudal priesthood of divine emperors to > determine for us - after the fact - what " really " occurred. Cognitive > dissonance must be denied especially at the expense of truth! > Long live revisionist history! > > Where are the bread crumbs to mark our Hansel and Gretel > return trail when we most need them? Oh, right, the legal-eagle > defensors have snatched them up, destroying our pathway and > theirs, and no amount of sophisticated statistical regeneration > from the resulting scat can ever retrace the original path of > associated influences back to the original flap of the butterfly > wing. (or was it a moth? It does makes a difference, you know). > > Whew! Even I'm confused now and I swear I haven't > been smoking anything " funny " tonight or any night. But > we must plod on: > > So instead of unscrambling the spaghetti we create scapegoats. > Industry blames suit-happy consumers and we blame the lawyers > while politicians demand tort reform; all the while the ankle-bone > falls off leaving the leg-bone dangling. But the mold, whether > toxic or toxigenic (it makes no difference, you know) tenderizes > the ham-bone, oblivious to the nattering nabobs of statisticalisms > and detectional errors while people - remember them? - continue > to be harmed. > > Proofreading this has made me dizzy so I must now lie down to > commune with my mentor, Colbert (or Spiro Agnew) as > he begins another night of reruns. (Can you tell the difference?) > > And you thought only Alice had a Wonderland. She is not alone > and neither are we because we have all retreated as companions > to be with her. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----- > > > > Ken, > > Nice examples. > > The snake and spider are usually called, even by experts in the profession, poisonous snakes or > > poisonous spider. Poison ivy is always " poison ivy " , never " the ivy with 3 green leaves that > > sometimes produces a toxigenic substance to which some humans are, in differing degrees, > > sensitive " . > > Yep, the cow with toxic e. coli is never a " poisonous cow " ; however, is e. coli referred to as toxic > > bacteria? or toxin producing bacteria? > > > > Is the fungi from the cheese being made in the cheese factory toxic mold or benign mold? > > Depends on the perspective. The consumer believes the mold is benign. > > However, ask the worker in the factory ifhe needs respiratory protection becausehe can suffer > > from " cheese workers lung " from thespores and fragments of the same mold. > > > > So, is CDC right or wrong (see also AIHA) when they say that the 'mold is not toxic, the toxins > > are toxic'. (paraphrase, not direct quote). > > > > S > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Henry, I suggest "carcinogenic radon" and "neurotoxic lead"! Wei Tang QLabslack.henry@... wrote: -"Toxic mold" is not as much a technical term as a media term.I invite you to join in a rebranding. The new term to use is "toxicradon" in hopes of generating some of the same "buzz"Henry Slack, whose words represent his opinion and not his employer's Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 , I think they are trying to un-sacre the public of the term "toxic mold". It has not much to do with scientific definitions and reasoning. After all, "toxic mold" is not a scientific term. It's toxigenic fungi (or potentially-toxigenic fungi). Wei Tang QLab healthyhouse@... wrote: Ken, Nice examples. The snake and spider are usually called, even by experts in the profession, poisonous snakes or poisonous spider. Poison ivy is always "poison ivy", never "the ivy with 3 green leaves that sometimes produces a toxigenic substance to which some humans are, in differing degrees, sensitive". Yep, the cow with toxic e. coli is never a "poisonous cow"; however, is e. coli referred to as toxic bacteria? or toxin producing bacteria? Is the fungi from the cheese being made in the cheese factory toxic mold or benign mold? Depends on the perspective. The consumer believes the mold is benign. However, ask the worker in the factory if he needs respiratory protection because he can suffer from "cheese workers lung" from the spores and fragments of the same mold. So, is CDC right or wrong (see also AIHA) when they say that the 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic'. (paraphrase, not direct quote). S Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 , I think they are trying to un-sacre the public of the term "toxic mold". It has not much to do with scientific definitions and reasoning. After all, "toxic mold" is not a scientific term. It's toxigenic fungi (or potentially-toxigenic fungi). Wei Tang QLab healthyhouse@... wrote: Ken, Nice examples. The snake and spider are usually called, even by experts in the profession, poisonous snakes or poisonous spider. Poison ivy is always "poison ivy", never "the ivy with 3 green leaves that sometimes produces a toxigenic substance to which some humans are, in differing degrees, sensitive". Yep, the cow with toxic e. coli is never a "poisonous cow"; however, is e. coli referred to as toxic bacteria? or toxin producing bacteria? Is the fungi from the cheese being made in the cheese factory toxic mold or benign mold? Depends on the perspective. The consumer believes the mold is benign. However, ask the worker in the factory if he needs respiratory protection because he can suffer from "cheese workers lung" from the spores and fragments of the same mold. So, is CDC right or wrong (see also AIHA) when they say that the 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic'. (paraphrase, not direct quote). S Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 I said "potentially" to stress the point that the fungi may or may not produce mycotoxins in that particular growth conditions even it is capable of. Without actually testing for mycotoxins, it's not an accurate statement to call it "toxic" or "toxigenic" because it may not be. You don't know that. Wei Tang QLab Wei Tang wrote: , I think they are trying to un-sacre the public of the term "toxic mold". It has not much to do with scientific definitions and reasoning. After all, "toxic mold" is not a scientific term. It's toxigenic fungi (or potentially-toxigenic fungi). Wei Tang QLab healthyhouse@... wrote: Ken, Nice examples. The snake and spider are usually called, even by experts in the profession, poisonous snakes or poisonous spider. Poison ivy is always "poison ivy", never "the ivy with 3 green leaves that sometimes produces a toxigenic substance to which some humans are, in differing degrees, sensitive". Yep, the cow with toxic e. coli is never a "poisonous cow"; however, is e. coli referred to as toxic bacteria? or toxin producing bacteria? Is the fungi from the cheese being made in the cheese factory toxic mold or benign mold? Depends on the perspective. The consumer believes the mold is benign. However, ask the worker in the factory if he needs respiratory protection because he can suffer from "cheese workers lung" from the spores and fragments of the same mold. So, is CDC right or wrong (see also AIHA) when they say that the 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic'. (paraphrase, not direct quote). S Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Pat, I just posted the same thing about the "potential" there. The sampling is easy. You cut the bulk material. The analysis is expensive, $2,000 for about 27 mycotoxins. The safe guideline? non-existing. I would focus on "mold", and not fixate on "mycotoxins" alone, when it comes to exposure. I wouldn't bother taking air samples unless you are prepared to take a lot of air and willing to accept that the concentraitons are likely to be very low. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Group, When making comments about mold’s “toxic terminology†that could “potentially†show some molds are toxic or toxigenic under certain conditions, we need to test the environment and materials for toxicity, otherwise we are making claims that have no basis of fact. I’m not aware of sampling methods and procedures for determining mold toxicity in an environment; and based on laboratory analysis, what are safe and unsafe levels for an occupied space. Anyone care to enlighten me? Moffett      From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955aolSent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:01 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: toxic terminology Carl, That was an excellent overview of the matter! I find the below phrase of yours to be right on the mark as to a key area I am well aware of, that has put us on the other side of the looking glass. "Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality." As an example, I offer the upcoming UCLA/UC Irvine, Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinic (AOEC), Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) co-hosted seminar meant to educate physicians of mold induced illness while providing them CME credits for their new "education". The Government Funded clinics of AOEC/PEHSU are involved in "educating" these physicians, complete with a mock mold trial, used to teach these physicians how to determine what is a courtroom standard burden of proof before they treat. Two of the "environmental educators" for this Government Funded educational endeavor, were peer reviewers of the ACOEM mold statement. At least one, does IME's of mold patients on behalf of school districts and employers regarding symptoms indicative of toxicity, has been known to serve as an expert defense witness - while citing ACOEM for the "not plausible" stance, and also moonlights for an environmental risk management company, Exponent Inc. THESE are the medical educators we have put in charge and are Government Funding to advance the understanding of environmental illness in our children thru the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units and Occupational Clinics? http://www.ph.ucla.edu/erc/mold-symposium-2-08.htm Dr. Harber and Dr. Fedoruk, are FACOEM members, who were among the 101 permitted to peer review. Session C—The Toxicology of Mold – Review of the Literature - M. ph Fedoruk, MDSession D—Mold-induced Occupational Lung Diseases – Philip Harber, MD, MPH WHY ARE WE GOVERNMENT FUNDING PHYSICIAN "EDUCATIONAL" MOLD SEMINARS PROVIDED BY EXPERT WITNESSES WHO WERE PEER REVIEWERS OF THE ACOEM MOLD STATEMENT -THAT DENIES THE PLAUSIBILITY OF POISONING BASED ON FALSE SCIENCE - AND THESE EDUCATORS/ACOEM PEER REVIEWERS HAVE USED THE ACOEM STATEMENT IN LITIGATION, TO DENY THE EXACT SAME ILLNESSES WE ARE GOVERNMENT FUNDING (SUPPOSEDLY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING MOLD INDUCED ILLNESS IN OUR CHILDREN???????? Sharon In a message dated 2/22/2008 10:22:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, mgeyeratg1 writes: and group, WARNING: Chaotic mixed metaphor rant (hopefully not madness, but I'll let you decide that) is directly ahead! Re: Your response to Kenny G below:Their use of the "logic" that 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic' is not unlike the argument that guns don't kill people, bullets do.How important is it, really, to distinguish between the specific substance that causes (I mean, "strongly associated with") the resulting damages, the delivery system or what activates the system? The mold that produces the toxins or the toxins themselves? Which, in the chain of causation, is THE a priori "cause" that must be stopped?"Causation" is another word as fraught with difficulty as "toxic mold."Or, is it the environment which allows and supports the fungal growth (because someone is negligent or ignorant) which produces the toxins which are "associated with" the sequential damage to the ankle-bone, then the knee-bone and eventually the ham-bone for the want of a nail for the horseshoe leading to the destruction of a nation-at-war whose alert level is orange instead green except before an election when it is fire engine red ... no offense to firemen intended.Confused? Of course. But isn't this cross-contamination of Mobius strip metaphors how we all get lost while pretending we actually understand?Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality. A dissociation which necessarily creates a surrogate because we long ago lost the original. Direct experience is dismissed as "psychogenic," individuality is merely anecdotal, leaving physical measurements under the feudal priesthood of divine emperors to determine for us - after the fact - what "really" occurred. Cognitive dissonance must be denied especially at the expense of truth! Long live revisionist history!Where are the bread crumbs to mark our Hansel and Gretel return trail when we most need them? Oh, right, the legal-eagle defensors have snatched them up, destroying our pathway and theirs, and no amount of sophisticated statistical regeneration from the resulting scat can ever retrace the original path of associated influences back to the original flap of the butterfly wing. (or was it a moth? It does makes a difference, you know).Whew! Even I'm confused now and I swear I haven't been smoking anything "funny" tonight or any night. But we must plod on:So instead of unscrambling the spaghetti we create scapegoats. Industry blames suit-happy consumers and we blame the lawyers while politicians demand tort reform; all the while the ankle-bone falls off leaving the leg-bone dangling. But the mold, whether toxic or toxigenic (it makes no difference, you know) tenderizes the ham-bone, oblivious to the nattering nabobs of statisticalisms and detectional errors while people - remember them? - continue to be harmed.Proofreading this has made me dizzy so I must now lie down to commune with my mentor, Colbert (or Spiro Agnew) as he begins another night of reruns. (Can you tell the difference?)And you thought only Alice had a Wonderland. She is not alone and neither are we because we have all retreated as companions to be with her.Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 , I will share some more without knowing your "why". Mycotoxins are toxic. Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic because mycotoxins are in the biomass and also the substrate that it's growing on. Wei Tang QLabhealthyhouse@... wrote: To Carl, my head is spinning just from scrolling down your response, and I didn't even read it all yet. But look forward to it. By they way, congrats on the IESO gig... To All, there is a really good reason I am driving this discussion about toxic toxins vs. toxic mold. And I really do want to beg you for some more responses. So far, so good. Next week I will let you in on the 'why' of this discussion. It really is the first time in I have actually considered this a problem. Thank You in advance for all the help. Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 I think much of the point about the term "toxic mold" is being missed. People don't really mean to say that mycotoxins are causing their illness. They don't know what the hell mycotoxins are. They are trying to convey that the mold made them sick. When they are challenged about the cause of their illness because "the levels of mold weren't high" and "mold is everywhere" they seek to find what it is about that mold that was different. If not all mold is a problem, but the mold in my house is a problem, that mold must be toxic. Some molds have the potential to produce mycotoxins per a pseudoscientific definition of "mycotoxin" (secondary metabolite, kills rats at low dosage, etc.). They can be called toxigenic fungi. People make the assumption that what is toxic must be a mycotoxin. If medical science and the media knew more about allergic/chemical sensitization and hypersensitivity reactions, they might be calling it "sensitizing mold" instead of toxic mold. The attention given to the term toxic mold is misplaced because the people who use it either don't know what it means or have a strict definition that is nothing like what others think it means. The focus should be on how mold makes people sick without making it all about exposure doses of mycotoxins produced by toxigenic fungi. One may have nothing to do with the other. It is the courtroom science and sensationalist media that has gotten us into this mycotoxin vs. toxic mold situation. Steve Temes Pat, I just posted the same thing about the "potential" there. The sampling is easy. You cut the bulk material. The analysis is expensive, $2,000 for about 27 mycotoxins. The safe guideline? non-existing. I would focus on "mold", and not fixate on "mycotoxins" alone, when it comes to exposure. I wouldn't bother taking air samples unless you are prepared to take a lot of air and willing to accept that the concentraitons are likely to be very low. Wei Tang QLab Pat Moffett wrote: Group, When making comments about mold’s “toxic terminology†that could “potentially†show some molds are toxic or toxigenic under certain conditions, we need to test the environment and materials for toxicity, otherwise we are making claims that have no basis of fact. I’m not aware of sampling methods and procedures for determining mold toxicity in an environment; and based on laboratory analysis, what are safe and unsafe levels for an occupied space. Anyone care to enlighten me? Moffett      From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@... Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:01 AM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: toxic terminology Carl, That was an excellent overview of the matter! I find the below phrase of yours to be right on the mark as to a key area I am well aware of, that has put us on the other side of the looking glass. "Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality." As an example, I offer the upcoming UCLA/UC Irvine, Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinic (AOEC), Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) co-hosted seminar meant to educate physicians of mold induced illness while providing them CME credits for their new "education". The Government Funded clinics of AOEC/PEHSU are involved in "educating" these physicians, complete with a mock mold trial, used to teach these physicians how to determine what is a courtroom standard burden of proof before they treat. Two of the "environmental educators" for this Government Funded educational endeavor, were peer reviewers of the ACOEM mold statement. At least one, does IME's of mold patients on behalf of school districts and employers regarding symptoms indicative of toxicity, has been known to serve as an expert defense witness - while citing ACOEM for the "not plausible" stance, and also moonlights for an environmental risk management company, Exponent Inc. THESE are the medical educators we have put in charge and are Government Funding to advance the understanding of environmental illness in our children thru the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units and Occupational Clinics? http://www.ph.ucla.edu/erc/mold-symposium-2-08.htm Dr. Harber and Dr. Fedoruk, are FACOEM members, who were among the 101 permitted to peer review. Session Câ€â€The Toxicology of Mold – Review of the Literature - M. ph Fedoruk, MD Session Dâ€â€Mold-induced Occupational Lung Diseases – Philip Harber, MD, MPH WHY ARE WE GOVERNMENT FUNDING PHYSICIAN "EDUCATIONAL" MOLD SEMINARS PROVIDED BY EXPERT WITNESSES WHO WERE PEER REVIEWERS OF THE ACOEM MOLD STATEMENT -THAT DENIES THE PLAUSIBILITY OF POISONING BASED ON FALSE SCIENCE - AND THESE EDUCATORS/ACOEM PEER REVIEWERS HAVE USED THE ACOEM STATEMENT IN LITIGATION, TO DENY THE EXACT SAME ILLNESSES WE ARE GOVERNMENT FUNDING (SUPPOSEDLY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING MOLD INDUCED ILLNESS IN OUR CHILDREN???????? Sharon and group, WARNING: Chaotic mixed metaphor rant (hopefully not madness, but I'll let you decide that) is directly ahead! Re: Your response to Kenny G below: Their use of the "logic" that 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic' is not unlike the argument that guns don't kill people, bullets do. How important is it, really, to distinguish between the specific substance that causes (I mean, "strongly associated with") the resulting damages, the delivery system or what activates the system? The mold that produces the toxins or the toxins themselves? Which, in the chain of causation, is THE a priori "cause" that must be stopped? "Causation" is another word as fraught with difficulty as "toxic mold." Or, is it the environment which allows and supports the fungal growth (because someone is negligent or ignorant) which produces the toxins which are "associated with" the sequential damage to the ankle-bone, then the knee-bone and eventually the ham-bone for the want of a nail for the horseshoe leading to the destruction of a nation-at-war whose alert level is orange instead green except before an election when it is fire engine red ... no offense to firemen intended. Confused? Of course. But isn't this cross-contamination of Mobius strip metaphors how we all get lost while pretending we actually understand? Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality. A dissociation which necessarily creates a surrogate because we long ago lost the original. Direct experience is dismissed as "psychogenic," individuality is merely anecdotal, leaving physical measurements under the feudal priesthood of divine emperors to determine for us - after the fact - what "really" occurred. Cognitive dissonance must be denied especially at the expense of truth! Long live revisionist history! Where are the bread crumbs to mark our Hansel and Gretel return trail when we most need them? Oh, right, the legal-eagle defensors have snatched them up, destroying our pathway and theirs, and no amount of sophisticated statistical regeneration from the resulting scat can ever retrace the original path of associated influences back to the original flap of the butterfly wing. (or was it a moth? It does makes a difference, you know). Whew! Even I'm confused now and I swear I haven't been smoking anything "funny" tonight or any night. But we must plod on: So instead of unscrambling the spaghetti we create scapegoats. Industry blames suit-happy consumers and we blame the lawyers while politicians demand tort reform; all the while the ankle-bone falls off leaving the leg-bone dangling. But the mold, whether toxic or toxigenic (it makes no difference, you know) tenderizes the ham-bone, oblivious to the nattering nabobs of statisticalisms and detectional errors while people - remember them? - continue to be harmed. Proofreading this has made me dizzy so I must now lie down to commune with my mentor, Colbert (or Spiro Agnew) as he begins another night of reruns. (Can you tell the difference?) And you thought only Alice had a Wonderland. She is not alone and neither are we because we have all retreated as companions to be with her. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Well said, Chuck. There are different categories of science. You have, in essence, highlighted the distinction between the biological and the physical sciences. Biological and immunological systems are much more varied and complex in the way they react to environmental agents because of genetics and a whole host of other things, including all prior exposures, as you noted. Stochastic chemistry will not explain the cause of individual immunogenic and neurogenic reactions. I'd like to see some research on mold health effects performed by immunologists and neurologists instead of by toxicologists, for a change. Steve I can offer no scientific "proof", but my observations and experience indicate that it's possible that numerous and varied factors may contribute to the individual sensitivity reactions in some people. These reactions may include synergistic reactions with multiple agents, as well as previous exposure(s) to sensitizing agents, and maybe even exposure to agents in some chronological order, some many years previously, all of which come together in some unexplainable way at some point in time that appear to "trigger" a perceptible set of reactions that seem sudden. The trigger may in fact be just the addition of the final element or elements to the "recipe" that had been lurking in them awaiting a catalyst for quite some time. We therefore may be dealing with a substantially more complex set of issues than most of us realize that generally can be termed "potentially toxic environment", making it essentially impossible to use any courtroom science or any science at all for that matter to "prove" much of anything due to the almost infinite set of combinations of possibilities and individual reactions to combinations of exposures. Not very scientific, but while I DO very much recognize the value of science, I think that trying to prove some things in a scientific manner equates to trying to grab ahold of clouds. Just my somewhat convoluted opinions, but they make as much sense to me as anything else I've seen or can scientifically explain. Again, I want to be clear that I'm NOT stomping on the value of science, just opining that it's possible that there may be too many interactive complex issues and considerations to be scientifically proven in every case. Chuck Reaney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Wei: While I agree, in concept, with your recent post, it suffers from a fallacy of association without considering concentration. For example: Arsenic and lead are toxic substances. Soil at my home contains arsenic and lead. Therefore, the soil is toxic. NOT!! Because the missing factor is concentration (while ignoring dose and route of exposure). Thus......Mycotoxins are toxic substances (more or less), and the mold and biomass may, or may not be toxic depending upon the concentration of mycotoxins present and the dilution that the biomass provides given a specific quantity of material, thus concentration. (Again, ignoring dose and route of exposure.) Another relevant example is asbestos in drywall taping mud. The asbestos-containing mud typically contains 2% to 4% chrysotile asbestos added for crack control. The mud, by and of itself, meets the definition of an asbestos-containing building material. However, put the mud on sheetrock and take a sample the wall as a composite system, as allowed by the EPA, and the wall system does not meet the definition of an ACBM; which is one reason why OSHA needed to deviate from the EPA’s methods, because workers don’t sand sheetrock, they sand drywall mud. Enuff about asbestos. Bottom line, while pure extracts of mycotoxins may indeed be toxic, the biomass may not be; it depends upon the concentration. And the next wrinkle in the fabric of this thought is individual susceptibility, where I believe it is possible that some folks could be inured by several molecules of a mycotoxin, whereas, others could be immersed in it and function quite fine. , I will share some more without knowing your " why " . Mycotoxins are toxic. Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic because mycotoxins are in the biomass and also the substrate that it's growing on. Wei Tang QLab healthyhouse@... wrote: To Carl, my head is spinning just from scrolling down your response, and I didn't even read it all yet. But look forward to it. By they way, congrats on the IESO gig... To All, there is a really good reason I am driving this discussion about toxic toxins vs. toxic mold. And I really do want to beg you for some more responses. So far, so good. Next week I will let you in on the 'why' of this discussion. It really is the first time in I have actually considered this a problem. Thank You in advance for all the help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Great post Steve, and excellent points. Related to the " toxic " properties of microbials, mold in particular, I recall some information that indicated that not only were mycotoxins likely involved, but that the glucans in the cell walls were also " toxic " culprits. This makes a lot of sense to me, and is in line with Dr. Tang's observations, in his post earlier today, 'However, it's much harder to prove that it is caused by mycotoxins alone. In reality, it may be the combination of many fungal cell components/byproducts'. I can offer no scientific " proof " , but my observations and experience indicate that it's possible that numerous and varied factors may contribute to the individual sensitivity reactions in some people. These reactions may include synergistic reactions with multiple agents, as well as previous exposure(s) to sensitizing agents, and maybe even exposure to agents in some chronological order, some many years previously, all of which come together in some unexplainable way at some point in time that appear to " trigger " a perceptible set of reactions that seem sudden. The trigger may in fact be just the addition of the final element or elements to the " recipe " that had been lurking in them awaiting a catalyst for quite some time. We therefore may be dealing with a substantially more complex set of issues than most of us realize that generally can be termed " potentially toxic environment " , making it essentially impossible to use any courtroom science or any science at all for that matter to " prove " much of anything due to the almost infinite set of combinations of possibilities and individual reactions to combinations of exposures. Not very scientific, but while I DO very much recognize the value of science, I think that trying to prove some things in a scientific manner equates to trying to grab ahold of clouds. Just my somewhat convoluted opinions, but they make as much sense to me as anything else I've seen or can scientifically explain. Again, I want to be clear that I'm NOT stomping on the value of science, just opining that it's possible that there may be too many interactive complex issues and considerations to be scientifically proven in every case. Chuck Reaney Re: Re: toxic terminology I think much of the point about the term " toxic mold " is being missed. People don't really mean to say that mycotoxins are causing their illness. They don't know what the hell mycotoxins are. They are trying to convey that the mold made them sick. When they are challenged about the cause of their illness because " the levels of mold weren't high " and " mold is everywhere " they seek to find what it is about that mold that was different. If not all mold is a problem, but the mold in my house is a problem, that mold must be toxic. Some molds have the potential to produce mycotoxins per a pseudoscientific definition of " mycotoxin " (secondary metabolite, kills rats at low dosage, etc.). They can be called toxigenic fungi. People make the assumption that what is toxic must be a mycotoxin. If medical science and the media knew more about allergic/chemical sensitization and hypersensitivity reactions, they might be calling it " sensitizing mold " instead of toxic mold. The attention given to the term toxic mold is misplaced because the people who use it either don't know what it means or have a strict definition that is nothing like what others think it means. The focus should be on how mold makes people sick without making it all about exposure doses of mycotoxins produced by toxigenic fungi. One may have nothing to do with the other. It is the courtroom science and sensationalist media that has gotten us into this mycotoxin vs. toxic mold situation. Steve Temes In a message dated 2/23/2008 9:41:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, wtang@... writes: > Pat, > > I just posted the same thing about the " potential " there. > > The sampling is easy. You cut the bulk material. The analysis is > expensive, > $2,000 for about 27 mycotoxins. The safe guideline? non-existing. I would > focus on " mold " , and not fixate on " mycotoxins " alone, when it comes to > exposure. > > I wouldn't bother taking air samples unless you are prepared to take a > lot > of air and willing to accept that the concentraitons are likely to be very > low. > > Wei Tang > QLab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/22/zonolite-inquiry.html Manitoba woman calls for inquiry into Zonolite insulation Last Updated: Friday, February 22, 2008 | 11:34 AM ET CBC News A Manitoba woman is calling for a public inquiry to probe the safety of Zonolite, an insulation that has been used in homes for decades in Canada and that can contain asbestos. Raven Thundersky, who has been dubbed the province's Brockovich, said she believes the insulation, used in her northern Manitoba home on the Poplar River reserve, might have triggered serious health problems in her family. Five members of her family have died from cancer and she has asbestosis herself, she said, while the federal government has ignored her calls for help. What is vermiculite? Vermiculite is a natural mineral that expands when it is heated and has the unusual property of expanding into worm-like or accordion- like pieces. In its pure form, it is safe, but a major deposit in Montana, which at its peak was the source of up to 80 per cent of the world's vermiculite, was found to be contaminated by asbestos. " How is it that they allowed five family members, five Canadians, to die alone, abandoned? " she said. " The Canadian government turned its back on us from the beginning. " Health Canada says there is no scientific evidence linking health risks to Zonolite — which is estimated to be in about 300,000 homes across the country — if it is left undisturbed and enclosed. Zonolite is the brand name for insulation made from the mineral vermiculite by U.S.-based W.R. Grace and Co. But the federal agency notes that vermiculite ore drawn from W.R. Grace's Libby mine in Montana from the 1920s to the 1990s is at least partly tainted by asbestos. When inhaled, asbestos can lead to asbestosis, mesothelioma and lung cancer. A spokesman with the federal agency declined to comment on the case when contacted by CBC News as it is currently before the courts. In 2005, Thundersky filed a lawsuit against the federal government and W.R. Grace. But an Ontario court has ruled she can't sue the American company in Canada. In the United States, W.R. Grace is protected under bankruptcy laws. Pat , the NDP MP representing the riding of Winnipeg Centre, echoed Thundersky's calls for action. A former asbestos miner himself, has long been fighting for a ban on products containing asbestos. " The federal government has their head in the sand about Zonolite, " he said. " They actively promoted the use of Zonolite, they even subsidized the use of Zonolite, all through the late '70s and '80s. " From 1977 to the mid-1980s, homeowners who installed products including Zonolite in their home were eligible for grants under the federal government's Canadian Home Insulation Program. Insulation made from vermiculite ore from the Libby mine has not been sold in Canada for over a decade, according to Health Canada > > > >> > >> > >> > >> To Carl, my head is spinning just from scrolling down your response, and I > >> didn't even read it all yet. > >> > >> But look forward to it. > >> > >> By they way, congrats on the IESO gig... > >> > >> > >> > >> To All, there is a really good reason I am driving this discussion about > >> toxic toxins vs. toxic mold. And I really do want to beg you for some more > >> responses. So far, so good. > >> > >> > >> > >> Next week I will let you in on the 'why' of this discussion. It really is the > >> first time in I have actually considered this a problem. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank You in advance for all the help. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Mike, That's right. I didn't go into discussing concentrations (and also exposure route). I agree with Steve that this whole "toxic mold" is a term used by the public to describe "mold that makes them sick". It has not much to do with what is toxic or how much is toxic. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei:While I agree, in concept, with your recent post, it suffers from a fallacy of association without considering concentration. For example:Arsenic and lead are toxic substances.Soil at my home contains arsenic and lead.Therefore, the soil is toxic.NOT!! Because the missing factor is concentration (while ignoring dose and route of exposure).Thus......Mycotoxins are toxic substances (more or less), and the mold and biomass may, or may not be toxic depending upon the concentration of mycotoxins present and the dilution that the biomass provides given a specific quantity of material, thus concentration. (Again, ignoring dose and route of exposure.) Another relevant example is asbestos in drywall taping mud. The asbestos-containing mud typically contains 2% to 4% chrysotile asbestos added for crack control. The mud, by and of itself, meets the definition of an asbestos-containing building material. However, put the mud on sheetrock and take a sample the wall as a composite system, as allowed by the EPA, and the wall system does not meet the definition of an ACBM; which is one reason why OSHA needed to deviate from the EPA’s methods, because workers don’t sand sheetrock, they sand drywall mud. Enuff about asbestos.Bottom line, while pure extracts of mycotoxins may indeed be toxic, the biomass may not be; it depends upon the concentration.And the next wrinkle in the fabric of this thought is individual susceptibility, where I believe it is possible that some folks could be inured by several molecules of a mycotoxin, whereas, others could be immersed in it and function quite fine.On 2/22/08 10:24 PM, "Wei Tang" <wtangQLABusa> wrote: , I will share some more without knowing your "why". Mycotoxins are toxic. Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic because mycotoxins are in the biomass and also the substrate that it's growing on. Wei Tang QLabhealthyhouseaol wrote: To Carl, my head is spinning just from scrolling down your response, and I didn't even read it all yet. But look forward to it. By they way, congrats on the IESO gig... To All, there is a really good reason I am driving this discussion about toxic toxins vs. toxic mold. And I really do want to beg you for some more responses. So far, so good. Next week I will let you in on the 'why' of this discussion. It really is the first time in I have actually considered this a problem. Thank You in advance for all the help. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 In the courtroom or anywhere else, it's difficult to prove the causation of long-term illness by environmental biological or chemical agents because of the following factors. (1) The exposure route is not easily identified. (2) The concentration was not measured during the history of exposure. (3) The causative agents are difficult to identify. (4) The time of exposure (usually long term) is not easily proven since there was no measurement. On the other hand, it's much easily to prove the cause of food or medicine allergy (or toxic reaction) to sensitized people. (1) The exposure route is clear (oral, dermal, injection, etc.). (2) The amount being exposed is usually known. (3) The agents are easily identified. (4) The time of exposure (usually single event) can be clearly identified. Wei Tang QLab Chuck Reaney wrote: Great post Steve, and excellent points.Related to the "toxic" properties of microbials, mold in particular, I recall some information that indicated that not only were mycotoxins likely involved, but that the glucans in the cell walls were also "toxic" culprits.This makes a lot of sense to me, and is in line with Dr. Tang's observations, in his post earlier today, 'However, it's much harder to prove that it is caused by mycotoxins alone. In reality, it may be the combination of many fungal cell components/byproducts'.I can offer no scientific "proof", but my observations and experience indicate that it's possible that numerous and varied factors may contribute to the individual sensitivity reactions in some people. These reactions may include synergistic reactions with multiple agents, as well as previous exposure(s) to sensitizing agents, and maybe even exposure to agents in some chronological order, some many years previously, all of which come together in some unexplainable way at some point in time that appear to "trigger" a perceptible set of reactions that seem sudden. The trigger may in fact be just the addition of the final element or elements to the "recipe" that had been lurking in them awaiting a catalyst for quite some time.We therefore may be dealing with a substantially more complex set of issues than most of us realize that generally can be termed "potentially toxic environment", making it essentially impossible to use any courtroom science or any science at all for that matter to "prove" much of anything due to the almost infinite set of combinations of possibilities and individual reactions to combinations of exposures.Not very scientific, but while I DO very much recognize the value of science, I think that trying to prove some things in a scientific manner equates to trying to grab ahold of clouds.Just my somewhat convoluted opinions, but they make as much sense to me as anything else I've seen or can scientifically explain.Again, I want to be clear that I'm NOT stomping on the value of science, just opining that it's possible that there may be too many interactive complex issues and considerations to be scientifically proven in every case.Chuck Reaney----- Original Message ----- From: <AirwaysEnvcs>To: <iequality >Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 11:27 AMSubject: Re: Re: toxic terminologyI think much of the point about the term "toxic mold" is being missed.People don't really mean to say that mycotoxins are causing their illness. Theydon't know what the hell mycotoxins are. They are trying to convey that themold made them sick. When they are challenged about the cause of their illnessbecause "the levels of mold weren't high" and "mold is everywhere" they seek tofind what it is about that mold that was different. If not all mold is aproblem, but the mold in my house is a problem, that mold must be toxic.Some molds have the potential to produce mycotoxins per a pseudoscientificdefinition of "mycotoxin" (secondary metabolite, kills rats at low dosage,etc.). They can be called toxigenic fungi. People make the assumption that whatis toxic must be a mycotoxin. If medical science and the media knew more aboutallergic/chemical sensitization and hypersensitivity reactions, they might becalling it "sensitizing mold" instead of toxic mold.The attention given to the term toxic mold is misplaced because the peoplewho use it either don't know what it means or have a strict definition that isnothing like what others think it means. The focus should be on how mold makespeople sick without making it all about exposure doses of mycotoxins producedby toxigenic fungi. One may have nothing to do with the other.It is the courtroom science and sensationalist media that has gotten us intothis mycotoxin vs. toxic mold situation.Steve TemesIn a message dated 2/23/2008 9:41:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,wtangQLABusa writes:> Pat,>> I just posted the same thing about the "potential" there.>> The sampling is easy. You cut the bulk material. The analysis is > expensive,> $2,000 for about 27 mycotoxins. The safe guideline? non-existing. I would> focus on "mold", and not fixate on "mycotoxins" alone, when it comes to> exposure.>> I wouldn't bother taking air samples unless you are prepared to take a > lot> of air and willing to accept that the concentraitons are likely to be very> low.>> Wei Tang> QLab Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2008 Report Share Posted February 23, 2008 Group, (1) Revised Mycotoxins are toxic (by definition).Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic if the toxin concentrations in biomass exceed defined level for target populations in the matrix (air, bulk, dust, etc.) referred. (2) Sensitized individuals vs general populations I believe those two "populations" need to be addressed seperately for those position statements. Yes, the concentrations of airborne mycotoxins detect in some indoor environments do not seem to pose a health risk to the general population. However, some of them forgot to also mention that it is possible for sensitized individuals to be affected by fungal cell components/byproducts in low level. Most people wouldn't die from eating peanuts. However, no one would call whoever is allergic to peanuts "crazy", right? Why is this happening to mold illness, then? (a) It is much more difficult to prove it than eating peanuts by the reasons that I posted earlier. ( People don't want people to get sued by eveybody who "think" they were sicken by mold. As we all know it, many of them are not. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei:While I agree, in concept, with your recent post, it suffers from a fallacy of association without considering concentration. For example:Arsenic and lead are toxic substances.Soil at my home contains arsenic and lead.Therefore, the soil is toxic.NOT!! Because the missing factor is concentration (while ignoring dose and route of exposure).Thus......Mycotoxins are toxic substances (more or less), and the mold and biomass may, or may not be toxic depending upon the concentration of mycotoxins present and the dilution that the biomass provides given a specific quantity of material, thus concentration. (Again, ignoring dose and route of exposure.) Another relevant example is asbestos in drywall taping mud. The asbestos-containing mud typically contains 2% to 4% chrysotile asbestos added for crack control. The mud, by and of itself, meets the definition of an asbestos-containing building material. However, put the mud on sheetrock and take a sample the wall as a composite system, as allowed by the EPA, and the wall system does not meet the definition of an ACBM; which is one reason why OSHA needed to deviate from the EPA’s methods, because workers don’t sand sheetrock, they sand drywall mud. Enuff about asbestos.Bottom line, while pure extracts of mycotoxins may indeed be toxic, the biomass may not be; it depends upon the concentration.And the next wrinkle in the fabric of this thought is individual susceptibility, where I believe it is possible that some folks could be inured by several molecules of a mycotoxin, whereas, others could be immersed in it and function quite fine.On 2/22/08 10:24 PM, "Wei Tang" <wtangQLABusa> wrote: , I will share some more without knowing your "why". Mycotoxins are toxic. Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic because mycotoxins are in the biomass and also the substrate that it's growing on. Wei Tang QLabhealthyhouseaol wrote: To Carl, my head is spinning just from scrolling down your response, and I didn't even read it all yet. But look forward to it. By they way, congrats on the IESO gig... To All, there is a really good reason I am driving this discussion about toxic toxins vs. toxic mold. And I really do want to beg you for some more responses. So far, so good. Next week I will let you in on the 'why' of this discussion. It really is the first time in I have actually considered this a problem. Thank You in advance for all the help. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003 Faxwww.QLabUSA.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Sharon, I don’t disagree with you. I am taking this mold toxin issue to the next step which is: How can one make mold toxin claims if they cannot agree on toxigenic sampling and analysis procedures? A few spores or a few hundred spores of Stachybotrys in air samples is an indicator that exploratory investigation may identify a mold reservoir. It doesn’t mean we have a toxigenic mold exposure issue affecting building occupants because that would be a leap of faith to hypothesize.     From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@... Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 5:04 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: toxic terminology Hi , I would be glad to enlighten you. At this point in time, the question on the table is not: 1 whether there has been a courtroom standard burden of proof as to the dose of toxic or toxigenic mold before human illness occurs, or. 2. if one is " making claims that have no basis of fact " , or 3. about " sampling methods and procedures for determining mold toxicity in an environment; and based on laboratory analysis, what are safe and unsafe levels for an occupied space. " , or 4. about making claims that illness indicative of poisoning do not occur because of the inability to establish dose response or samples correctly, or 5. about whether it has been scientifically concluded such illnesses are not plausible to occur, based on nothing more than toxicological studies examining animal and molecular models. NOPE. The original question on the table is simply, " What is the definition of the term 'toxic mold " ?. Here is my definition: Toxic Mold: A microbial substance that when the topic of a discussion; causes many tangential issues and heated debates, often times based more in political opinions and biases rather than in the language science of determining the definition of a term! WR, Sharon In a message dated 2/22/2008 4:24:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, patmoffett@... writes: Group, When making comments about mold’s “toxic terminology†that could “potentially†show some molds are toxic or toxigenic under certain conditions, we need to test the environment and materials for toxicity, otherwise we are making claims that have no basis of fact. I’m not aware of sampling methods and procedures for determining mold toxicity in an environment; and based on laboratory analysis, what are safe and unsafe levels for an occupied space. Anyone care to enlighten me? Moffett From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@... Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 11:01 AM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: toxic terminology Carl, That was an excellent overview of the matter! I find the below phrase of yours to be right on the mark as to a key area I am well aware of, that has put us on the other side of the looking glass. " Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality. " As an example, I offer the upcoming UCLA/UC Irvine, Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinic (AOEC), Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (PEHSU) co-hosted seminar meant to educate physicians of mold induced illness while providing them CME credits for their new " education " . The Government Funded clinics of AOEC/PEHSU are involved in " educating " these physicians, complete with a mock mold trial, used to teach these physicians how to determine what is a courtroom standard burden of proof before they treat. Two of the " environmental educators " for this Government Funded educational endeavor, were peer reviewers of the ACOEM mold statement. At least one, does IME's of mold patients on behalf of school districts and employers regarding symptoms indicative of toxicity, has been known to serve as an expert defense witness - while citing ACOEM for the " not plausible " stance, and also moonlights for an environmental risk management company, Exponent Inc. THESE are the medical educators we have put in charge and are Government Funding to advance the understanding of environmental illness in our children thru the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units and Occupational Clinics? http://www.ph.ucla.edu/erc/mold-symposium-2-08.htm Dr. Harber and Dr. Fedoruk, are FACOEM members, who were among the 101 permitted to peer review. Session C—The Toxicology of Mold – Review of the Literature - M. ph Fedoruk, MD Session D—Mold-induced Occupational Lung Diseases – Philip Harber, MD, MPH WHY ARE WE GOVERNMENT FUNDING PHYSICIAN " EDUCATIONAL " MOLD SEMINARS PROVIDED BY EXPERT WITNESSES WHO WERE PEER REVIEWERS OF THE ACOEM MOLD STATEMENT -THAT DENIES THE PLAUSIBILITY OF POISONING BASED ON FALSE SCIENCE - AND THESE EDUCATORS/ACOEM PEER REVIEWERS HAVE USED THE ACOEM STATEMENT IN LITIGATION, TO DENY THE EXACT SAME ILLNESSES WE ARE GOVERNMENT FUNDING (SUPPOSEDLY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING MOLD INDUCED ILLNESS IN OUR CHILDREN???????? Sharon In a message dated 2/22/2008 10:22:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, mgeyer@... writes: and group, WARNING: Chaotic mixed metaphor rant (hopefully not madness, but I'll let you decide that) is directly ahead! Re: Your response to Kenny G below: Their use of the " logic " that 'mold is not toxic, the toxins are toxic' is not unlike the argument that guns don't kill people, bullets do. How important is it, really, to distinguish between the specific substance that causes (I mean, " strongly associated with " ) the resulting damages, the delivery system or what activates the system? The mold that produces the toxins or the toxins themselves? Which, in the chain of causation, is THE a priori " cause " that must be stopped? " Causation " is another word as fraught with difficulty as " toxic mold. " Or, is it the environment which allows and supports the fungal growth (because someone is negligent or ignorant) which produces the toxins which are " associated with " the sequential damage to the ankle-bone, then the knee-bone and eventually the ham-bone for the want of a nail for the horseshoe leading to the destruction of a nation-at-war whose alert level is orange instead green except before an election when it is fire engine red ... no offense to firemen intended. Confused? Of course. But isn't this cross-contamination of Mobius strip metaphors how we all get lost while pretending we actually understand? Extreme reductionism codified as law for the purpose of determining when a legal claim may or may not prevail (where does that leave the health concern?) is the real problem because it forces a dissociation from reality. A dissociation which necessarily creates a surrogate because we long ago lost the original. Direct experience is dismissed as " psychogenic, " individuality is merely anecdotal, leaving physical measurements under the feudal priesthood of divine emperors to determine for us - after the fact - what " really " occurred. Cognitive dissonance must be denied especially at the expense of truth! Long live revisionist history! Where are the bread crumbs to mark our Hansel and Gretel return trail when we most need them? Oh, right, the legal-eagle defensors have snatched them up, destroying our pathway and theirs, and no amount of sophisticated statistical regeneration from the resulting scat can ever retrace the original path of associated influences back to the original flap of the butterfly wing. (or was it a moth? It does makes a difference, you know). Whew! Even I'm confused now and I swear I haven't been smoking anything " funny " tonight or any night. But we must plod on: So instead of unscrambling the spaghetti we create scapegoats. Industry blames suit-happy consumers and we blame the lawyers while politicians demand tort reform; all the while the ankle-bone falls off leaving the leg-bone dangling. But the mold, whether toxic or toxigenic (it makes no difference, you know) tenderizes the ham-bone, oblivious to the nattering nabobs of statisticalisms and detectional errors while people - remember them? - continue to be harmed. Proofreading this has made me dizzy so I must now lie down to commune with my mentor, Colbert (or Spiro Agnew) as he begins another night of reruns. (Can you tell the difference?) And you thought only Alice had a Wonderland. She is not alone and neither are we because we have all retreated as companions to be with her. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Hi , In furthering the evidence that the mere use of the term "toxic mold" causes debate, I have some questions regarding your prior response before I can fully reply. First of all, what is it you are wanting to accomplish or understand from this discussion? Because that makes a difference as to the necessary level of proof of microbial indoor toxins causing symptoms of poisoning. It frames the whole discussion. So, are we addressing the goal of establishing a courtroom standard burden of proof in this discussion, or are we establishing the possibility of causation of illness that physicians should investigate when trying to diagnose and treat the ill? In other words, are we talking about the courtroom or the physicians' offices? Because these are (or should be anyway) two different subjects. I agree with your statement of, "A few spores or a few hundred spores of Stachybotrys in air samples is an indicator that exploratory investigation may identify a mold reservoir. It doesn’t mean we have a toxigenic mold exposure issue affecting building occupants..." I do not agree with this part of your statement: ....because that would be a leap of faith to hypothesize." It would not be a leap of faith to hypothesize this when there are a few hundred spores of Stachy in air samples. But it would be a leap to concretely conclude this, based solely on Stachy spores in air samples. So what are we discussing? Courtroom or physician office? Sharon Sharon, I don’t disagree with you. I am taking this mold toxin issue to the next step which is: How can one make mold toxin claims if they cannot agree on toxigenic sampling and analysis procedures? A few spores or a few hundred spores of Stachybotrys in air samples is an indicator that exploratory investigation may identify a mold reservoir. It doesn’t mean we have a toxigenic mold exposure issue affecting building occupants because that would be a leap of faith to hypothesize. Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Wei, Good points about the "smoking gun" aspects of proof of causation. I have brought up the topic of work-related asthma as being at the frontier of medical science's acceptance of the concept of chemical/biological sensitization causing an inflammatory response. It is still a very small window on the bigger picture. It is precisely because sensitization in the occupational setting can easily be traced to a known exposure for a known time period that it has gained acceptance. In other words, no one (employers, IMEs, insurance carriers, defense attorneys, etc.) could BS their way out of accepting liability because the circumstantial evidence surrounding the cause of injury was overwhelming. When exposure is difficult or impossible to document, or unknown to the person who becomes sensitized, there can be no responsible parties because there is no smoking gun. Take a look at this list of asthmagens. They are known sensitizers that can cause inflammatory reactions in those who have become sensitized. http://www.nj.gov/health/eoh/survweb/wra/agents.shtml Above all, note that toxicity is not useful terminology in the context of acquired sensitization and the resulting inflammatory response, just like toxicity (in the scientific, dose-response sense of the word) is not useful in proving the cause of mold illness from exposure via the inhalation route in indoor environments. Steve Temes In the courtroom or anywhere else, it's difficult to prove the causation of long-term illness by environmental biological or chemical agents because of the following factors. (1) The exposure route is not easily identified. (2) The concentration was not measured during the history of exposure. (3) The causative agents are difficult to identify. (4) The time of exposure (usually long term) is not easily proven since there was no measurement. On the other hand, it's much easily to prove the cause of food or medicine allergy (or toxic reaction) to sensitized people. (1) The exposure route is clear (oral, dermal, injection, etc.). (2) The amount being exposed is usually known. (3) The agents are easily identified. (4) The time of exposure (usually single event) can be clearly identified. Wei Tang QLab Chuck Reaney wrote: Great post Steve, and excellent points. Related to the "toxic" properties of microbials, mold in particular, I recall some information that indicated that not only were mycotoxins likely involved, but that the glucans in the cell walls were also "toxic" culprits. This makes a lot of sense to me, and is in line with Dr. Tang's observations, in his post earlier today, 'However, it's much harder to prove that it is caused by mycotoxins alone. In reality, it may be the combination of many fungal cell components/byproducts'. I can offer no scientific "proof", but my observations and experience indicate that it's possible that numerous and varied factors may contribute to the individual sensitivity reactions in some people. These reactions may include synergistic reactions with multiple agents, as well as previous exposure(s) to sensitizing agents, and maybe even exposure to agents in some chronological order, some many years previously, all of which come together in some unexplainable way at some point in time that appear to "trigger" a perceptible set of reactions that seem sudden. The trigger may in fact be just the addition of the final element or elements to the "recipe" that had been lurking in them awaiting a catalyst for quite some time. We therefore may be dealing with a substantially more complex set of issues than most of us realize that generally can be termed "potentially toxic environment", making it essentially impossible to use any courtroom science or any science at all for that matter to "prove" much of anything due to the almost infinite set of combinations of possibilities and individual reactions to combinations of exposures. Not very scientific, but while I DO very much recognize the value of science, I think that trying to prove some things in a scientific manner equates to trying to grab ahold of clouds. Just my somewhat convoluted opinions, but they make as much sense to me as anything else I've seen or can scientifically explain. Again, I want to be clear that I'm NOT stomping on the value of science, just opining that it's possible that there may be too many interactive complex issues and considerations to be scientifically proven in every case. Chuck Reaney Re: Re: toxic terminology I think much of the point about the term "toxic mold" is being missed. People don't really mean to say that mycotoxins are causing their illness. They don't know what the hell mycotoxins are. They are trying to convey that the mold made them sick. When they are challenged about the cause of their illness because "the levels of mold weren't high" and "mold is everywhere" they seek to find what it is about that mold that was different. If not all mold is a problem, but the mold in my house is a problem, that mold must be toxic. Some molds have the potential to produce mycotoxins per a pseudoscientific definition of "mycotoxin" (secondary metabolite, kills rats at low dosage, etc.). They can be called toxigenic fungi. People make the assumption that what is toxic must be a mycotoxin. If medical science and the media knew more about allergic/chemical sensitization and hypersensitivity reactions, they might be calling it "sensitizing mold" instead of toxic mold. The attention given to the term toxic mold is misplaced because the people who use it either don't know what it means or have a strict definition that is nothing like what others think it means. The focus should be on how mold makes people sick without making it all about exposure doses of mycotoxins produced by toxigenic fungi. One may have nothing to do with the other. It is the courtroom science and sensationalist media that has gotten us into this mycotoxin vs. toxic mold situation. Steve Temes In a message dated 2/23/2008 9:41:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, wtang@... writes: >Pat, > >I just posted the same thing about the "potential" there. > >The sampling is easy. You cut the bulk material. The analysis is >expensive, >$2,000 for about 27 mycotoxins. The safe guideline? non-existing. I would >focus on "mold", and not fixate on "mycotoxins" alone, when it comes to >exposure. > >I wouldn't bother taking air samples unless you are prepared to take a >lot >of air and willing to accept that the concentraitons are likely to be very >low. > >Wei Tang >QLab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Wei, That is some good writing! And I think you are absolutely right about people being sickened from Microbial Indoor Contaminant Exposure (will call this MICE) found in water damaged buildings (WDB's) and wrongfully assigning whatever symptom responses - be it allergic, irritant, infectious or poisoning - to the term "toxic mold". When in reality, "toxic" or even "mold" may not be the MICE causing their illness at all. So, another bad rap for the term "toxic mold". It's misuse helps to confuse and retard the understand of the whole issue. I take issue with this statement you wrote, though:" People don't want people to get sued by everybody who "think" they were sicken by mold. As we all know it, many of them are not." I have been doing this a long time now. I have spoken to hundreds, if not thousands of people claiming illness after MICE in WDBs. I can, almost without exception, tell you that it is an extreme rarity for people to falsely attribute the onset or advancement of these symptoms after MICE to MICE. And I can also tell you, that in my travels, I have never met a single person who has sued when intentionally and falsely claiming illness from MICE. (They may not be able to describe it correctly, but they are not liars because of that.) I am sure there are some out there who would love to use this issue to sue based on nothing, if they could. But to sue based on nothing over the mold issue is pretty near an impossibility. The reason being is that this is complex litigation. Plaintiff attorneys work on contingency, with a lot of costs up front. They can't afford to take these cases unless there is strong evidence of possible cause and liability for the illnesses. And even when they have that, these cases are tough for the reasons you noted prior regarding proof of causation. Not to mention there have been some goofy cases when it comes to assigning who is liable. The real situation is more in reverse of what you write. Some, who are really sick, can't get attorneys because of the complexity and costs involved in litigation. So the concept that there are mass amounts of people out here, causing mass amount of frivolous litigation while falsely claiming illness from MICE needs to go!!!!!! In reality, that doesn't happen. In fact, this is darn near an impossibility. Sharon Group, (1) Revised Mycotoxins are toxic (by definition).Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic if the toxin concentrations in biomass exceed defined level for target populations in the matrix (air, bulk, dust, etc.) referred. (2) Sensitized individuals vs general populations I believe those two "populations" need to be addressed seperately for those position statements. Yes, the concentrations of airborne mycotoxins detect in some indoor environments do not seem to pose a health risk to the general population. However, some of them forgot to also mention that it is possible for sensitized individuals to be affected by fungal cell components/byproducts in low level. Most people wouldn't die from eating peanuts. However, no one would call whoever is allergic to peanuts "crazy", right? Why is this happening to mold illness, then? (a) It is much more difficult to prove it than eating peanuts by the reasons that I posted earlier. ( People don't want people to get sued by eveybody who "think" they were sicken by mold. As we all know it, many of them are not. Wei Tang QLab Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Wei Tang wrote: > > Group, > Most people wouldn't die from eating peanuts. However, no one would call whoever is allergic to peanuts " crazy " , right? > > Why is this happening to mold illness, then? > > Wei Tang > QLab This is the very question that I asked Dr Cheney and Dr at the initiation of the CFS phenomenon, as told in Dr Shoemakers book " Mold Warriors " . As I described in Chapt 23: " Mold at Ground Zero for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome " , it was only by acting accordance with this perspective that I was able to exert any control over my illness. For twenty years, I was called crazy for asking this question. -MW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 , Okay, your last answer gives me your point of reference. That would put you more in the Tony Havics category as to the required need for proof of causation before action is taken, I think. Also, I think you are discussing more of individual cases and a courtroom standard burden of proof. Don't mean to interpret your words for you. Could be wrong with my understanding. That is just how I am receiving your info. That isn't really the area I am interested in with regard to toxigenic moulds. (if I am going to try to describe accurately, might as well spell it accurately). I am more interested in the standard of proof before symptoms indicative of poisoning from (microbial indoor contaminant exposure) MICE in WDB are considered by physicians as a possible cause of illness. And then are either treated or ruled out. You wrote, "....do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are investigating..." which I assume means has there been a 100% proof of their existence in the specific WDB. This is where the difference is from my perspective and my area of interest. I think there is enough information that even without 100% absolute proof the toxins in WDB's are present within an individual, specific building; poisoning from exposure should at least be considered by the medical community when diagnosing and treating ill patients if they have been spending time in a WDB and are exhibiting symptoms known to be indicative of poisoning. We all know that toxins are sometimes present in WDB. We all know that toxins poison. We all know many people are complaining of symptoms of poisoning after a MICE in a WDB. Merely one paper that discusses this: Characterization of Airborne Molds, Endotoxins, and Glucans in Homes in New Orleans after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Carol Y. Rao,1* Margaret A. Riggs,1 Ginger L. Chew,2 L. Muilenberg,3 S. Thorne,4 Van Sickle,1 H. Dunn,5 and Clive Brown5 http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/5/1630 So, why is the burden of proof so high for these illnesses before people are able to obtain medical care? No one checks my biomarkers before prescribing antibiotics if the most logical cause of my illness is bacterial. Why aren't microbial toxins even considered by physicians when they are the most logical cause of the symptoms in a given situation? BTW, this is a point that drives me nuts over the "toxic mold" issue. We are wasting so much money and so many lives because the courtroom standard burden of proof is being misapplied in the doctors' offices of America. Besides the obvious of increased financial liability for building stakeholders when these illnesses indicative of poisoning go unaddressed and are therefore allowed to become severe, we are wasting tons on useless medical tests such as MRIs, CTs, HIV tests, autoimmune testing, etc. And no one is even being asked by the doctors if they have experienced a MICE. Worse yet, even if the poisoned patient tells the doctor of a MICE, the doctors still don't consider it as the cause of poisoning. But if the physicians were trained and these illnesses were caught early, the treatment would most likely consist merely of the advice of "Get Out Now". Simple and dirt cheap in most cases. Does that make sense? WR, Sharon Sharon, I guess you haven’t been reading the American Bar Association’s “Toxic Mold Litigation†book by King, MD., JD. It is a fun read as a half inch thick paperback. The issue for this thread is an attempt to describe what is toxic mold and other terms that may apply to toxic mold, if any. The implications for describing mold is only one part of the story. Once you come up with an answer to what is toxic mold, how then do we quantify it scientifically? I enjoy Wei’s comments including those of , Steve and . They are informative and cause me to rethink “what is the toxic mold issue?†Let me share with you a case I’m involved with: As an environmental professional I’m often asked about the presence of certain mold and whether or not they are toxic? I too don’t like the term toxic mold for describing building mold problems without having supportive science. As you know people respond faster to buzz words rather than scientific evidence. In a recent case, the toxic mold syndrome raised its ugly head putting us as environmental professionals and remediation contractors in an awkward position. For instance, while the some of the laboratory data in a case suggests: there are bio-markers (marker fungi) present such as Stachybotrys on surfaces and in air (which the mold remediation contractor is being accused for allowing after remediation), I am not willing take the side of the coin and state: there are toxic or toxigenic mold condition present. I don’t believe testing and laboratory science is there yet for me to quantitatively document the presence or absence of “toxic mold; and now that is there, determine levels of toxicity that can or is affecting building occupantsâ€. The opposing counsel asked in this case: · “Mr. Moffett, the laboratory identified mold spores and growth that under certain conditions can be toxic?†I replied Yes. · “Did you have those samples or other samples analyzed to determine their toxicity and health effects on the building, its environment and the occupants? My answer was no. · “Based on the laboratory data there are molds present that are known to be toxin producers?†I said, yes. · “Ok then, aren’t you telling me we still have a mold toxin problem in the recently remediation area?†I replied, I believe we have a condition where further exploratory investigation may identify a hidden reservoir of mold growth or that further cleaning may be helpful to reduce existing spore counts. · “So, are you saying the remediation contractor failed to achieve clearance because they left behind toxic mold.†I said, I don’t believe I agreed with you, the mold that was present before, during and after remediation were toxigenic including the current spores analyzed by the laboratory. Sharon, to answer you, I too would like to have a better scientific explanation about the terminology describing - [environmental caused] mold toxins? Once we come up with an agreeable answer, the next step I believe is supporting the hypothesis, do mold toxins actually exist in the case you are investigating? Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch the video on AOL Living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2008 Report Share Posted February 24, 2008 Wei: Let me add that my post ignored a lot of unknowns regarding the exposure to biologicals and other stuff (lots of other stuff!) in water damaged buildings and other unreasonably wet environments. And like Steve mentioned, the stuff that causes people to react may, for the most part, be unknown at this time. Moreover, reactions to what folks like Steve are experiencing, may not fit the classic toxilogical model that us old farts were schooled in. I, for one, am trying to keep my eyes open to the unexplained....be it mycotoxons, mold parts, other mold products, comingled biomass, piss-poor IAQ, hypersensitive whiner-baby (in jest!), a combination of any of the above and/or stuff that we can’t see, can’t measure, or don’t know. Hell.....If we just accept that there are folks out there that make damn good canaries, why are we not listening to them? Do you think the coal miners stuck-around after the canary died, just because their explosimeter said that there was no methane? I think not. There must be something going on that we have yet to codify in black and white. Then again, it may be allusive and morphing and changing with time; which makes codifying it, akin to nailing Jell-O to a wall. Mike, That's right. I didn't go into discussing concentrations (and also exposure route). I agree with Steve that this whole " toxic mold " is a term used by the public to describe " mold that makes them sick " . It has not much to do with what is toxic or how much is toxic. Wei Tang QLab Geyer wrote: Wei: While I agree, in concept, with your recent post, it suffers from a fallacy of association without considering concentration. For example: Arsenic and lead are toxic substances. Soil at my home contains arsenic and lead. Therefore, the soil is toxic. NOT!! Because the missing factor is concentration (while ignoring dose and route of exposure). Thus......Mycotoxins are toxic substances (more or less), and the mold and biomass may, or may not be toxic depending upon the concentration of mycotoxins present and the dilution that the biomass provides given a specific quantity of material, thus concentration. (Again, ignoring dose and route of exposure.) Another relevant example is asbestos in drywall taping mud. The asbestos-containing mud typically contains 2% to 4% chrysotile asbestos added for crack control. The mud, by and of itself, meets the definition of an asbestos-containing building material. However, put the mud on sheetrock and take a sample the wall as a composite system, as allowed by the EPA, and the wall system does not meet the definition of an ACBM; which is one reason why OSHA needed to deviate from the EPA’s methods, because workers don’t sand sheetrock, they sand drywall mud. Enuff about asbestos. Bottom line, while pure extracts of mycotoxins may indeed be toxic, the biomass may not be; it depends upon the concentration. And the next wrinkle in the fabric of this thought is individual susceptibility, where I believe it is possible that some folks could be inured by several molecules of a mycotoxin, whereas, others could be immersed in it and function quite fine. , I will share some more without knowing your " why " . Mycotoxins are toxic. Mold may or may not be toxic. Mold producing mycotoxins is toxic because mycotoxins are in the biomass and also the substrate that it's growing on. Wei Tang QLab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.