What is the definition of the word susceptible?

[Guest guest]

Will,

Changed the thread name, but you wrote: "In my opinion, herein lies the real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is susceptible."

That is a great comment. Very intuitive.

So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water damaged building remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during remediation. And the only information you have is what is available today, how would you make that determination? What is the current understanding of that word?

Sharon

Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.

[Guest guest]

Sharon and Will,

With regard to "defining who is susceptible", I don't even like the phrase, semantically. Identifying who is susceptible would be a better choice of words and more useful in a public health context than a medical or legal "definition" of who is susceptible.

Even if a limited percentage of the general population has a genetic potential to become immunologically or neurologically sensitized as a result of chronic low-level exposure, or acute high-level exposure, to indoor mold-related contaminants, we don't presently have any way to know in advance who those individuals are. So, it must be assumed that anyone might have the potential to become ill from mold until "proven" otherwise.

You can define "susceptible to mold illness" as the potential for one to become sensitized as a result of exposure to indoor mold-related contaminants, but we cannot yet define who is susceptible, or at what levels of exposure.

This scenario is one in which the Precautionary Principle can be applied. How about this question, "Who should have known that indoor mold-related contamination could have caused someone to become sick?" The answer might be, anyone who watches television news or reads the newspaper. Certainly someone in the building profession should have known. Isn't that why we are concerned about mold contamination in the first place?

Steve Temes

Will,

Changed the thread name, but you wrote: "In my opinion, herein lies the real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is susceptible."

That is a great comment. Very intuitive.

So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water damaged building remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during remediation. And the only information you have is what is available today, how would you make that determination? What is the current understanding of that word?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Will and Steve,

Good comments. Both logical. The IOM Report designated that there is "sufficient evidence of hypersensitivity pneumonitis in 'susceptible persons". But then they never defined the word.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11011 & page=10

What does that word mean in the real world?

Say a builder had a leak in a high rise he built and some mold grew. And it was determined thru testing that the mold levels were possibly problematic for occupants' safety in the upcoming remediation process.

How is the builder or the mold tester to know who is going to be "susceptible" to possibly becoming ill, so they may advise the occupant properly?

How would they define this word when explaining to occupants who should go and who should stay during the remediation process?

How would the mold tester explain to the builder the need for some of his occupants to be removed during remediation, because they are "susceptible"?

We all know it would be ridiculous to vacate an entire sky rise during remediation because there was some mold in the Penthouse. But at the same time, we all know it would be ridiculous to leave the occupants of the Penthouse in there during remediation if the entire floor to ceiling were covered with mold.

But what about situations in between the above two extremes? What is a reasonable guideline of when to evacuate and when not to. And are there some people (besides those who are bonified immunocompromised), that require more care because they are "susceptible". If so, who are they? Or does that word imply the "non-susceptible" require less care? And if so, who are the "non-susceptible"?...Or is maybe another word and definition required somewhere between susceptible and immunocompromised to describe some folks, like the very young, very old, recent surgery, etc?

In a message dated 6/29/2008 3:07:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Steve, more to the point - if we begin running from mold, when do we stop and what criterion do we use to define "safe"?Will "In my opinion, herein lies the > > real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is susceptible."> > > > That is a great comment. Very intuitive. > > > > So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water damaged building > > remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during remediation. > > And the only information you have is what is available today, how would you > > make that determination? What is the current understanding of that word? > > > > Sharon

Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.

[Guest guest]

Steve, more to the point - if we begin running from mold, when do we

stop and what criterion do we use to define " safe " ?

Will

" In my opinion, herein

lies the

> > real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is

susceptible. "

> >

> > That is a great comment. Very intuitive.

> >

> > So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water

damaged building

> > remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during

remediation.

> > And the only information you have is what is available today, how

would you

> > make that determination? What is the current understanding of

that word?

> >

> > Sharon

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Will,

Mold is not something we should run away from. It's something we should treat as an indication of a moisture problem that needs to be corrected and as indoor contamination that should be removed.

I know too much about the "sides" of the issue and I don't take sides. I apply professional judgment. I don't use the term "safe" with regard to mold, nor do I consider it unsafe. It is unhealthful and can cause illness and can even trigger a fatal asthma attack or anaphylaxis.

I'm not chicken little. I have just seen a lot of people who were experiencing symptoms in water-damaged buildings who don't have a diagnosis. Their stories are credible and similar. It isn't just coincidence that this pattern repeats itself so often. When acquired hypersensitivity reactions are considered, things fall into place.

I'm sure it is sometimes true that people imagine their illness, or they are just trying to get more repair work paid for by a builder or insurance carrier, or they are just plain nuts. I haven't met many of these people.

Steve Temes

In a message dated 6/29/2008 6:07:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

Steve, more to the point - if we begin running from mold, when do we

stop and what criterion do we use to define "safe"?

Will

"In my opinion, herein

lies the

>>real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is

susceptible."

>>

>>That is a great comment. Very intuitive.

>>

>>So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water

damaged building

>>remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during

remediation.

>>And the only information you have is what is available today, how

would you

>>make that determination? What is the current understanding of

that word?

>>

>>Sharon

[Guest guest]

Will,

The argument can be turned around to say, if we keep denying mold, when do start to deal with it and what criterion do we use to define safe?

Both statements illustrate a bias, not science. What we need is an objective approach along the lines of " how do we determine when mold should be removed and when it can be left alone? "

Followed by, " What parameters and/or measurments should be included in the determination? "

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Steve, more to the point - if we begin running from mold, when do we

> stop and what criterion do we use to define " safe " ?

>

> Will

>

> " In my opinion, herein

> lies the

> > > real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is

> susceptible. "

> > >

> > > That is a great comment. Very intuitive.

> > >

> > > So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water

> damaged building

> > > remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during

> remediation.

> > > And the only information you have is what is available today, how

> would you

> > > make that determination? What is the current understanding of

> that word?

> > >

> > > Sharon

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

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

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

[Guest guest]

Seems pretty clear:

If the environment will sensitize any of the people who are in it, the

environment has to be fixed. [The EPA building fiasco, or any of the

several hospital situations in which dozens of previously OK people

ended up sensitized to the point of disability, are clear examples.]

Making all environments safe for the most sensitized population is

economically absurd.

Asserting that your environment is safe for everyone, or otherwise

making assertions that lead to a moderately sensitized person becoming

disabled should come with unlimited liability (ie forbidden in all

circumstances). My son's 5th grade public school classroom comes to

mind here, as does the urban legend about the family who put in new

carpet, had their toddler suddenly start becoming ill, and actually

listened to " the problem can't possibly be the carpet " party line from

the vendor.

Make sense?

Steve Chalmers

stevec@...

> >

> > Sharon and Will,

> >

> > With regard to " defining who is susceptible " , I don't even like

the

> phrase,

> > semantically. Identifying who is susceptible would be a better

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Guys,

These are all great answers. So how do you differentiate between the precaution needed during a remediation process for say, someone who has mold allergies and someone who doesn't? Or do you not differentiate in the precaution used?

The problem is, you don't want to leave some in an environment who glaringly require extra care..like infants, because you did not differentiate them as more susceptible. But at the same time, you don't want to leave someone who has an undefined susceptibility in a potentially hazardous remediation environment because you did differentiate who is susceptible.

Does that make sense what I am trying to ask? We know there are segments of the population who require extra caution. But that doesn't mean the general population requires no caution.

So how do you write that if you would going to try and help a mold tester determine a scope for remediation and what to do with the people in the building during the remediation?

Mark's wife has a good idea with the waivers. But how would that work if the people were employees or tenants and not guests who are free to go?

Sharon

Seems pretty clear:If the environment will sensitize any of the people who are in it, the environment has to be fixed. [The EPA building fiasco, or any of the several hospital situations in which dozens of previously OK people ended up sensitized to the point of disability, are clear examples.]Making all environments safe for the most sensitized population is economically absurd.Asserting that your environment is safe for everyone, or otherwise making assertions that lead to a moderately sensitized person becoming disabled should come with unlimited liability (ie forbidden in all circumstances). My son's 5th grade public school classroom comes to mind here, as does the urban legend about the family who put in new carpet, had their toddler suddenly start becoming ill, and actually listened to "the problem can't possibly be the carpet" party line from the vendor.Make sense?Steve Chalmersstevecsurewest (DOT) net "In my opinion, herein

> > lies the

> > > > real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is

> > susceptible."

> > > >

> > > > That is a great comment. Very intuitive.

> > > >

> > > > So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water

> > damaged building

> > > > remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during

> > remediation.

> > > > And the only information you have is what is available today, how

> > would you

> > > > make that determination?What is the current understanding of

> > that word?

> > > >

> > > > Sharon Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.

[Guest guest]

I've talked about carrying a doctor out of a sick building back in

2000.

Basically, it was a client from which I perceived " mold hits " on her

clothing when she entered my office, which raised my suspicions that

she was working in a sick place.

Each time I saw her, she seemed to be getting progressively worse,

so I warned her that there " is no end to how ill you can become " .

My advice was that if the decline was progressive and is not halted

by whatever measures one chooses to undertake, i.e. supplements or

remediation, that the perception of inexorable decline in health

should be the guide to action.

I said that if a day comes when the skin turns red, blinding

headaches, crushing fatigue, skin perfusion seems to stop, and

depression feels overwhelming, that is the day to get out.

Ironically, the sense of paralysis will make this the LAST thing

anyone will want to do.

So I made a point of stopping by to see my friend.

One day, I found her on the floor, telling me she felt like she

couldn't move. She was bright red and had rashes on her ankles.

I couldn't stand watching this train wreck in motion, so I picked

her up and took her out to the woods for decontamination and fresh

air.

When she felt her symptoms begin to ease, the differential in

symptomology told her what she needed to know, and she decided to

never go back.

For this reason, I believe that a " Mobile Environemental Control

Unit " : a " refuge " should be made available during the course of any

suspected " sick building " incident or remediation, for quick removal

of inhabitants to a safe zone when necessary - to better enable them

to sense the shift of symptoms and shape their decisions accordingly.

Generally, nobody thinks they are susceptible until it is too late.

-MW

[Guest guest]

unfortunately for business owners and insurance company's their only option is to pull out all the stops for everyone because they never know when their going to be hit by that hammer.

This cost's everyone and that's why I keep harping the answer to this question is to get research money that focuses on those that are ill and how to prevent it, first we need a reliable means of diagnosing it though, what causes it, and how to treat it, than all these other questions will be much much easier to answer.

Re: Re: What is the definition of the word "susceptible"?

Guys,

These are all great answers. So how do you differentiate between the precaution needed during a remediation process for say, someone who has mold allergies and someone who doesn't? Or do you not differentiate in the precaution used?

The problem is, you don't want to leave some in an environment who glaringly require extra care..like infants, because you did not differentiate them as more susceptible. But at the same time, you don't want to leave someone who has an undefined susceptibility in a potentially hazardous remediation environment because you did differentiate who is susceptible.

Does that make sense what I am trying to ask? We know there are segments of the population who require extra caution. But that doesn't mean the general population requires no caution.

So how do you write that if you would going to try and help a mold tester determine a scope for remediation and what to do with the people in the building during the remediation?

Mark's wife has a good idea with the waivers. But how would that work if the people were employees or tenants and not guests who are free to go?

Sharon

In a message dated 6/30/2008 12:49:51 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, stevecsurewest (DOT) net writes:

Seems pretty clear:If the environment will sensitize any of the people who are in it, the environment has to be fixed. [The EPA building fiasco, or any of the several hospital situations in which dozens of previously OK people ended up sensitized to the point of disability, are clear examples.]Making all environments safe for the most sensitized population is economically absurd.Asserting that your environment is safe for everyone, or otherwise making assertions that lead to a moderately sensitized person becoming disabled should come with unlimited liability (ie forbidden in all circumstances). My son's 5th grade public school classroom comes to mind here, as does the urban legend about the family who put in new carpet, had their toddler suddenly start becoming ill, and actually listened to "the problem can't possibly be the carpet" party line from the vendor.Make sense?Steve Chalmersstevecsurewest (DOT) net "In my opinion, herein

> > lies the

> > > > real issue associated with mold exposure - defining who is

> > susceptible."

> > > >

> > > > That is a great comment. Very intuitive.

> > > >

> > > > So, if you had to define that word as it relates to water

> > damaged building

> > > > remediation. ie: who needs to get out and who doesn't during

> > remediation.

> > > > And the only information you have is what is available today, how

> > would you

> > > > make that determination?What is the current understanding of

> > that word?

> > > >

> > > > Sharon

Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars.

[Guest guest]

Very good point about a place for people to go, that is why I postulated in a prior post their should be shelters for people like us to go to. We have hurricane shelters, we have battered wife shelters, we need shelters for people who are sensitized to mold.

One thing a non sensitized person doesn't understand is it's not ever clear to us (at least for me it's not) where we are getting our exposures even after we have made the clear connection to mold and our illness which is another major hurdle and why we have people with CFS, MCS, GWS, fibromyalgea, and ME who tragically don't understand the connection between mold and their overwhelming illness. (an assumption that their is at least a percentage, possibly a very large one, that have this condition) A shelter they could go to is vital because it would help them make this connection.

Re: What is the definition of the word "susceptible"?

I've talked about carrying a doctor out of a sick building back in 2000.Basically, it was a client from which I perceived "mold hits" on her clothing when she entered my office, which raised my suspicions that she was working in a sick place.Each time I saw her, she seemed to be getting progressively worse, so I warned her that there "is no end to how ill you can become".My advice was that if the decline was progressive and is not halted by whatever measures one chooses to undertake, i.e. supplements or remediation, that the perception of inexorable decline in health should be the guide to action.I said that if a day comes when the skin turns red, blinding headaches, crushing fatigue, skin perfusion seems to stop, and depression feels overwhelming, that is the day to get out.Ironically, the sense of paralysis will make this the LAST thing anyone will want to do.So I made a point of stopping by to see my friend.One day, I found her on the floor, telling me she felt like she couldn't move. She was bright red and had rashes on her ankles.I couldn't stand watching this train wreck in motion, so I picked her up and took her out to the woods for decontamination and fresh air.When she felt her symptoms begin to ease, the differential in symptomology told her what she needed to know, and she decided to never go back.For this reason, I believe that a "Mobile Environemental Control Unit": a "refuge" should be made available during the course of any suspected "sick building" incident or remediation, for quick removal of inhabitants to a safe zone when necessary - to better enable them to sense the shift of symptoms and shape their decisions accordingly.Generally, nobody thinks they are susceptible until it is too late.-MW

[Guest guest]

>If the environment will sensitize any of the people who are in it, the >environment has to be fixed.

This is a big "if" we don't really know this yet. Seems to me before we go to this extreme we ought to though.

>[The EPA building fiasco, or any of the >several hospital situations in which dozens of previously OK people >ended up sensitized to the point of disability, are clear examples.]

Without a reliable way to indentify who is actually ill , and who's just making that claim, AND WHY THEY ARE ILL it's anything but clear.

>Making all environments safe for the most sensitized population is >economically absurd.

The crux of my argument against these law suits.

>Asserting that your environment is safe for everyone, or otherwise >making assertions that lead to a moderately sensitized person becoming >disabled should come with unlimited liability (i.e. forbidden in all >circumstances).

>Make sense?

No it doesn't make sense to me. I said it before I'll say it again people like Will are in a loose loose impossible situation, as you said it's economically absurd to make ALL environments safe for the most sensitive. But that's what people like Will are going to have to do if they want to cover their ass. Why is this burden laid upon him and not people in the health care industry to instead identify these individuals and give them the tools they need to avoid this situation. I don't think it's fair of us to foist this burden on people like Will, especially when as I have said before even the people who test these buildings are hopelessly ignorant to the dangers inside compared to we who are sensitized who are not. We are the best mold testers around.

We need to be able to identify these situations for ourselves and not become victims in the first place.

We need the tools to do this and that burden lies on people the health care industry and ourselves not people like Will.

We need clear standards and guidelines for people like Will to follow than he can figure it into his cost and know he's operating his business in a responsible manner. Other wise every single case ends up in a situation where the court decides weather people like Will were negligent or not.

What I find the most disparaging about the current situation is the business owners in the middle of the food chain undoubtedly get screwed the hardest because they can't buy their way out of these situations but they can't go belly up either without taking a huge loss.

Re: What is the definition of the word "susceptible"?

Seems pretty clear:If the environment will sensitize any of the people who are in it, the environment has to be fixed. [The EPA building fiasco, or any of the several hospital situations in which dozens of previously OK people ended up sensitized to the point of disability, are clear examples.]Making all environments safe for the most sensitized population is economically absurd.Asserting that your environment is safe for everyone, or otherwise making assertions that lead to a moderately sensitized person becoming disabled should come with unlimited liability (ie forbidden in all circumstances). My son's 5th grade public school classroom comes to mind here, as does the urban legend about the family who put in new carpet, had their toddler suddenly start becoming ill, and actually listened to "the problem can't possibly be the carpet" party line from the vendor.Make sense?Steve Chalmersstevecsurewest (DOT) net> >> > Sharon and Will,> > > > With regard to "defining who is susceptible", I don't even like the > phrase, > > semantically. Identifying who is susceptible would be a better [snip]

[Guest guest]

Carl:

" I agree with and heartily applaud your wife's chosen response and

procedures. Lacking definitive science doesn't mean we are justified in not

acting or proof that people are lying. It merely means another level or type

of rationale is called for. Science is not the ultimate answer and science

is certainly not the only answer. And science definitely cannot determine

when or how to apply itself (policy). "

The application is already partly in the law:

The building owner is effectively Innocent until proven Guilty.

Tony

.......................................................................

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US 36, Suite 830

Avon, IN 46123

www.ph2llc.com

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any

consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain

legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for

the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not

the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you

are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any

attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments

(including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at

. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person

other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive

confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of

the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or

distributed without this statement.

[Guest guest]

Carl concluded with: "....And science definitely cannot determine

when or how to apply itself (policy)."

Tony's response: "The application is already partly in the law:

The building owner is effectively Innocent until proven Guilty."

My comment: In civil litigation, the standard of proof of causation is "more likely than not" (i.e., 51% probability). Science is just a football that litigants run up and down the field with. The law has nothing to do with true science. In fact, the courts get to determine what constitutes scientific evidence suitable for admission. What could go wrong there? There is absolutely such a thing as "courtroom science" -- and it isn't Science.

Steve Temes

Carl:

"I agree with and heartily applaud your wife's chosen response and

procedures. Lacking definitive science doesn't mean we are justified in not

acting or proof that people are lying. It merely means another level or type

of rationale is called for. Science is not the ultimate answer and science

is certainly not the only answer. And science definitely cannot determine

when or how to apply itself (policy)."

The application is already partly in the law:

The building owner is effectively Innocent until proven Guilty.

Tony

.......................................................................

"Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

5250 E US 36, Suite 830

Avon, IN 46123

www.ph2llc.com

[Guest guest]

Steve,

You said: " There is absolutely such a thing as " courtroom science " -- and it isn't Science. "

A point I made in deposition recently, adding that lawyers should stop trying to force courtroom definitions onto scientific terms.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Carl concluded with: " ....And science definitely cannot determine

> when or how to apply itself (policy). "

>

> Tony's response: " The application is already partly in the law:

>

> The building owner is effectively Innocent until proven Guilty. "

>

> My comment: In civil litigation, the standard of proof of causation is " more likely than not "

> (i.e., 51% probability). Science is just a football that litigants run up and down the field with.

> The law has nothing to do with true science. In fact, the courts get to determine what

> constitutes scientific evidence suitable for admission.What could go wrong there? There is

> absolutely such a thing as " courtroom science " -- and it isn't Science.

>

> Steve Temes

>

>

>

> In a message dated 7/6/2008 10:10:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, aahavics@...

> writes:

> Carl:

>

> " I agree with and heartily applaud your wife's chosen response and

> procedures. Lacking definitive science doesn't mean we are justified in not

> acting or proof that people are lying. It merely means another level or type

> of rationale is called for. Science is not the ultimate answer and science

> is certainly not the only answer. And science definitely cannot determine

> when or how to apply itself (policy). "

>

> The application is already partly in the law:

>

> The building owner is effectively Innocent until proven Guilty.

>

> Tony

>

> ......................................................................

> " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

> pH2, LLC

> 5250 E US 36, Suite 830

> Avon, IN 46123

> www.ph2llc.com

>

[Guest guest]

Only atypical situations will result in toxin production in many molds..These papers (links below) show how this plays out with stachybotrys, at least..So I think its reasonable to state that if a building owner creates a dangerous situation through willful irresponsibility, and then does not correct it aggressively, they should be held accountable for the outcome.

They are not 'innocent'.Stachybotrys atra Growth and Toxin Production in Some Building Materials and Fodder under Different Relative Humiditieshttp://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/60/9/3421

Wall relative humidity: a simple and reliable index for predicting Stachybotrys chartarum infestation in dwellingshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119879

[Guest guest]

>>Wall relative humidity: a simple and reliable index for predicting >Stachybotrys chartarum infestation in dwellings>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119879

This just bolsters my argument that their is no pattern of illness assosiated with mold concentrations in dwellings or we would clearly see it in humid regions where people cannot afford air conditioning, and certainly cannot afford to re-mediate, central, south america, Caribbean, etc. And why I get angry because the hysteria could be undermining the real cause. Which ultimately means more victims (and scape goats) until we find out definitively what this cause is. In the mean time we are losing credibility with those that have the power to raise the money for the research that would answer these questions. Which means those that suffer now have no hope in sight.

Building owners should at the very least have clear and concise guidelines to follow, even than I am hesitant though because all the credible evidence I've looked at points to this illness being much more complicated than just simple mold exposure.

I don't know why people keep bringing up this inhaled mycotoxin and illness connection thing, the acmt paper clearly refutes this connection to illness, at least as far as the cause. If anyone has taken the time to read it, it clearly states that we receive higher doses of these substances by orders of magnitudes in the food we eat. Which means everyone should be sick from mycotoxins which clearly isn't the case.

http://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=showOn Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:37 PM, LiveSimply wrote:

Only atypical situations will result in toxin production in many molds..These papers (links below) show how this plays out with stachybotrys, at least..So I think its reasonable to state that if a building owner creates a dangerous situation through willful irresponsibility, and then does not correct it aggressively, they should be held accountable for the outcome.

They are not 'innocent'.Stachybotrys atra Growth and Toxin Production in Some Building Materials and Fodder under Different Relative Humiditieshttp://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/60/9/3421

Wall relative humidity: a simple and reliable index for predicting Stachybotrys chartarum infestation in dwellingshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119879

[Guest guest]

. You might consider reading " Mold Warriors " by Dr Ritchie

Shoemaker.

Dr Shoemaker believed that chapter twenty three was a good, simple

straightforward story that helped clarify the problem that people are

mistakenly conceiving of biotoxin illness as purely dose related,

rather than damaging by the duration of inflammatory response.

-MW

" robert christ " wrote:

>

> >

> >Wall relative humidity: a simple and reliable index for predicting

> >Stachybotrys chartarum infestation in dwellings

>

>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119879<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g

ov/pubmed/16119879>

>

> This just bolsters my argument that their is no pattern of illness

> assosiated with mold concentrations in dwellings or we would

clearly see it

> in humid regions where people cannot afford air conditioning, and

certainly

> cannot afford to re-mediate, central, south america, Caribbean,

etc. And

> why I get angry because the hysteria could be undermining the real

cause.

> Which ultimately means more victims (and scape goats) until we find

out

> definitively what this cause is. In the mean time we are losing

credibility

> with those that have the power to raise the money for the research

that

> would answer these questions. Which means those that suffer now

have no hope

> in sight.

>

> Building owners should at the very least have clear and concise

guidelines

> to follow, even than I am hesitant though because all the credible

evidence

> I've looked at points to this illness being much more complicated

than just

> simple mold exposure.

> I don't know why people keep bringing up this inhaled mycotoxin and

illness

> connection thing, the acmt paper clearly refutes this connection to

> illness, at least as far as the cause. If anyone has taken the time

to read

> it, it clearly states that we receive higher doses of these

substances by

> orders of magnitudes in the food we eat. Which means everyone

should be sick

> from mycotoxins which clearly isn't the case.

> http://www.acmt.net/cgi/page.cgi?aid=12 & _id=52 & zine=show

>

>

>

>

>

> On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 6:37 PM, LiveSimply

wrote:

>

> > Only atypical situations will result in toxin production in many

> > molds..These papers (links below) show how this plays out with

stachybotrys,

> > at least..

> >

> > So I think its reasonable to state that if a building owner

creates a

> > dangerous situation through willful irresponsibility, and then

does not

> > correct it aggressively, they should be held accountable for the

outcome.

> >

> > They are not 'innocent'.

> >

> >

> > *Stachybotrys atra* Growth and Toxin Production in Some Building

Materials

> > and Fodder under Different Relative Humidities

> > http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/60/9/3421

> >

> > Wall relative humidity: a simple and reliable index for predicting

> > Stachybotrys chartarum infestation in dwellings

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119879

> >

>

>

>

>

>

> > <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16119879>

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

,

Obviously, different laws of physics do not apply in other countries.

They also have mold problems.

Tropical countries also often use different building materials and

have a different approach to ventilation than Americans, one more

based on natural materials and natural ventilation. Next time you are

in one, look around.

Many tropical houses, in both humid and dry climates are built so that

the air flows right through them. They also eschew cellulose wrapped

gypsum wallboard and fake woods, and instead, use materials like real

wood, (i.e. logs and planks, also that incredible material, bamboo)

plaster, stone, and another incredible material, adobe...

Of course, more and more Western style buildings are being built in

the developing world, often of high quality.

However, they need to be well-engineered, just like they need to be here.

If they adopt our styles of building and ventilating buildings, and

make the same mistakes as we do.. (like letting half-built buildings

stand open to the rain!) they are also getting problems.

I have a friend who was recently looking for a fixer-upper house in a

(spectacularly beautiful and historic) rural area north of here. (He's

a contractor, who has the skills to deal with a lot of stuff.)

He said that incredibly, he kept getting shown houses with MAJOR mold

problems.. He said he would then tell his real estate agent.. and then

a few weeks later would see the same houses with big price

reductions..

No, he didn't buy any of them.. he knows the dangers..but he said that

he has seen maybe 30 (!) over roughly six months of looking at a few

houses a week.

I showed him that picture that we have all seen again and again (it

was on the TTUHSC web site and in a paper in EHP) of the house with

the hundreds of circular spots all over the walls.. he said that yes,

he had seen houses like that... wow..ouch..

Caveat emptor!

[Guest guest]

Live, You don't even need to go to third world countries to see that their isn't a clear pattern of mold related illness associated with moldy dwellings. I was just using an extreme example of why this thinking is fallacious and not backed by any reliable evidence. For arguments sake I'm guessing MRI statistics would be more like 50% here in the US rather than 4% if this were true. I'm also being generous with the 4% and adding mcs, cfs, gws, mi, fm, as a misdiagnoses and sbs being the true underlying factor. Which is deplorable when you divide that number by 300,000,000 it means that their are 12,000,000 people suffering needlessly from a very treatable disease. And why alternative health care and all the unproven quack remedies that go with it are such a big big business. More revenue than all of Hollywood combined.

,

Obviously, different laws of physics do not apply in other countries.

They also have mold problems.

Tropical countries also often use different building materials and

have a different approach to ventilation than Americans, one more

based on natural materials and natural ventilation. Next time you are

in one, look around.

Many tropical houses, in both humid and dry climates are built so that

the air flows right through them. They also eschew cellulose wrapped

gypsum wallboard and fake woods, and instead, use materials like real

wood, (i.e. logs and planks, also that incredible material, bamboo)

plaster, stone, and another incredible material, adobe...

Of course, more and more Western style buildings are being built in

the developing world, often of high quality.

However, they need to be well-engineered, just like they need to be here.

If they adopt our styles of building and ventilating buildings, and

make the same mistakes as we do.. (like letting half-built buildings

stand open to the rain!) they are also getting problems.

I have a friend who was recently looking for a fixer-upper house in a

(spectacularly beautiful and historic) rural area north of here. (He's

a contractor, who has the skills to deal with a lot of stuff.)

He said that incredibly, he kept getting shown houses with MAJOR mold

problems.. He said he would then tell his real estate agent.. and then

a few weeks later would see the same houses with big price

reductions..

No, he didn't buy any of them.. he knows the dangers..but he said that

he has seen maybe 30 (!) over roughly six months of looking at a few

houses a week.

I showed him that picture that we have all seen again and again (it

was on the TTUHSC web site and in a paper in EHP) of the house with

the hundreds of circular spots all over the walls.. he said that yes,

he had seen houses like that... wow..ouch..

Caveat emptor!

[Guest guest]



Opp's! I got my numbers wrong, I believe it's 4 million not 4% of 300 million.

Approximately 4 million people with CFS like syndromes according to the CDC last time I heard.

Re: Re: What is the definition of the word "susceptible"?

,Obviously, different laws of physics do not apply in other countries.They also have mold problems.Tropical countries also often use different building materials andhave a different approach to ventilation than Americans, one morebased on natural materials and natural ventilation. Next time you arein one, look around.Many tropical houses, in both humid and dry climates are built so thatthe air flows right through them. They also eschew cellulose wrappedgypsum wallboard and fake woods, and instead, use materials like realwood, (i.e. logs and planks, also that incredible material, bamboo)plaster, stone, and another incredible material, adobe...Of course, more and more Western style buildings are being built inthe developing world, often of high quality.However, they need to be well-engineered, just like they need to be here.If they adopt our styles of building and ventilating buildings, andmake the same mistakes as we do.. (like letting half-built buildingsstand open to the rain!) they are also getting problems.I have a friend who was recently looking for a fixer-upper house in a(spectacularly beautiful and historic) rural area north of here. (He'sa contractor, who has the skills to deal with a lot of stuff.)He said that incredibly, he kept getting shown houses with MAJOR moldproblems.. He said he would then tell his real estate agent.. and thena few weeks later would see the same houses with big pricereductions..No, he didn't buy any of them.. he knows the dangers..but he said thathe has seen maybe 30 (!) over roughly six months of looking at a fewhouses a week.I showed him that picture that we have all seen again and again (itwas on the TTUHSC web site and in a paper in EHP) of the house withthe hundreds of circular spots all over the walls.. he said that yes,he had seen houses like that... wow..ouch..Caveat emptor!

[Guest guest]



Opp's! I got my numbers wrong, I believe it's 4 million not 4% of 300 million.

Approximately 4 million people with CFS like syndromes according to the CDC last time I heard.

Re: Re: What is the definition of the word "susceptible"?

,Obviously, different laws of physics do not apply in other countries.They also have mold problems.Tropical countries also often use different building materials andhave a different approach to ventilation than Americans, one morebased on natural materials and natural ventilation. Next time you arein one, look around.Many tropical houses, in both humid and dry climates are built so thatthe air flows right through them. They also eschew cellulose wrappedgypsum wallboard and fake woods, and instead, use materials like realwood, (i.e. logs and planks, also that incredible material, bamboo)plaster, stone, and another incredible material, adobe...Of course, more and more Western style buildings are being built inthe developing world, often of high quality.However, they need to be well-engineered, just like they need to be here.If they adopt our styles of building and ventilating buildings, andmake the same mistakes as we do.. (like letting half-built buildingsstand open to the rain!) they are also getting problems.I have a friend who was recently looking for a fixer-upper house in a(spectacularly beautiful and historic) rural area north of here. (He'sa contractor, who has the skills to deal with a lot of stuff.)He said that incredibly, he kept getting shown houses with MAJOR moldproblems.. He said he would then tell his real estate agent.. and thena few weeks later would see the same houses with big pricereductions..No, he didn't buy any of them.. he knows the dangers..but he said thathe has seen maybe 30 (!) over roughly six months of looking at a fewhouses a week.I showed him that picture that we have all seen again and again (itwas on the TTUHSC web site and in a paper in EHP) of the house withthe hundreds of circular spots all over the walls.. he said that yes,he had seen houses like that... wow..ouch..Caveat emptor!

[Guest guest]

,

You are wasting your arguments on me, I know that there is from first

hand experience.

Experience is the best convincer.

> Live,

> You don't even need to go to third world countries to see that their isn't

> a clear pattern of mold related illness associated with moldy dwellings.

[Guest guest]



Live,

The fallacy in your line of thought is that you, or your experience is not representative of the population as a whole. I've been accused of projecting my experience onto others also but the truth is neither is mine.

How do you explain just 1% of the population or 4 million with cfs like syndromes, are you saying that the other 99% are not sick because they don't live in nor have they ever lived in similar if not worse conditions?

My position is that a small percentage, maybe as much as (1%) of the population is highly and abnormally sensitized to mold, the condition usually appears out of nowhere in middle aged women but we simply don't know why.

You could be right, I'm not denying this, just no evidence for it, but I am willing to change my position if any ever turns up, and encourage, implore, beg, those whose job it is to investigate this issue to do so rigorously. They have a moral and ethical responsibility to do so! This is the approach that will help those that suffer, not assuming something we have no evidence for and clamoring that the sky is falling.

Re: Re: What is the definition of the word "susceptible"?

..