Re: Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-da...

[Guest guest]

Tony,

Seems you left a few key elements out of your equation:

What is the minimum dose of exposure to these airborne toxins before human illness occurs when:

a. there are other microbial contaminants that could cause a synergistic effect with these airborne toxins that are found in water damaged buildings.

b. each individual's immune system is different, causing different doses to elicit symptoms.

c. people are exposed via all routes of exposure simultaneously, so to only calculate out the numbers for the two airborne toxins and conclude anything one way or the other, does not tell the true story.

d. people are exposed for varying amounts of time to these toxins in water damaged buildings

e. one cannot determine the absence or existence of the dose of airborne mycotoxins in a water damaged building to cause human illness - based on toxicological extrapolations alone. It ain't science.

Add the above variables into the equation, come up with a legt dose before human illness occurs from the scenario and maybe you have got something. But otherwise - in the words of a friend - it is a "red herring" to use the calculations you just did to conclude implausibility of resultant human illness from exposure of the airborne toxins in the study as they relate to HUMAN exposure in water damaged buildings.

But... that is some pretty math. Too bad it doesn't mean anything of relevance in the big picture.

Sharon

Quack:Regarding:Mycopathologia. 2008 Aug;166(2):103-7. Epub 2008 Apr 29.Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-damaged building.1. Let's see:0.25 ng/m3 +0.43 ng/m3 = 0.68 ng/m3 2. Then let's assume 20m3/day for a 55 kg woman (more conservative thana man).ng/m3 m3 ng kg mg/kg0.68 20 13.6 55 0.0000010So dose is 0.000001 mg/kg.3. The smallest LOAEL I could find for a mycotoxin is:LOAEL is DON = 0.03 mg/kg (28-day study)4. So the safety factor is:30,0005. Try again....................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLC5250 E US 36, Suite 830Avon, IN 46123www.ph2llc.com off fax cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...anyconsultant can give you the other 10%(SM)This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may containlegally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only forthe individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are notthe addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, youare not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and anyattachments, 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 personother than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waiveconfidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only ofthe sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied ordistributed without this statement.

Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!

[Guest guest]

I don't understand Tony's math but I'm assuming the numbers are very very very small. Sharron's argument is:

"Well they may be very small but Tony hasn't factored in the synergistic effect of all the other mycotoxins found in WDB." (please correct me if I am wrong)

I'm assuming people are exposed to way higher concentrations of gas fumes, exhaust from cars and trucks, ozone, mercury in the foods we eat, food preservatives, chlorine/ fluoride/arsenic in water, lead in paint, pesticides from: the foods we eat, pesticide wind drift from agriculture, pesticide residues in our homes and offices. Exposures to chemicals, paints, household cleaners, cosmetics, perfumes, aftershaves, cologne's, formaldehydes, plastics, etc. etc. etc. PCB'S, Dioxin and other types of environmental pollution. If synergy's magnify the effects of mycotoxins "exponentially" to the degree Sharron is alluding to, why wouldn't all these other exposures do the same to us but much much quicker?

Re: Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-da...

Tony,

Seems you left a few key elements out of your equation:

What is the minimum dose of exposure to these airborne toxins before human illness occurs when:

a. there are other microbial contaminants that could cause a synergistic effect with these airborne toxins that are found in water damaged buildings.

b. each individual's immune system is different, causing different doses to elicit symptoms.

c. people are exposed via all routes of exposure simultaneously, so to only calculate out the numbers for the two airborne toxins and conclude anything one way or the other, does not tell the true story.

d. people are exposed for varying amounts of time to these toxins in water damaged buildings

e. one cannot determine the absence or existence of the dose of airborne mycotoxins in a water damaged building to cause human illness - based on toxicological extrapolations alone. It ain't science.

Add the above variables into the equation, come up with a legt dose before human illness occurs from the scenario and maybe you have got something. But otherwise - in the words of a friend - it is a "red herring" to use the calculations you just did to conclude implausibility of resultant human illness from exposure of the airborne toxins in the study as they relate to HUMAN exposure in water damaged buildings.

But... that is some pretty math. Too bad it doesn't mean anything of relevance in the big picture.

Sharon

In a message dated 7/16/2008 7:31:50 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, aahavicsph2llc writes:

Quack:Regarding:Mycopathologia. 2008 Aug;166(2):103-7. Epub 2008 Apr 29.Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-damaged building.1. Let's see:0.25 ng/m3 +0.43 ng/m3 = 0.68 ng/m3 2. Then let's assume 20m3/day for a 55 kg woman (more conservative thana man).ng/m3 m3 ng kg mg/kg0.68 20 13.6 55 0.0000010So dose is 0.000001 mg/kg.3. The smallest LOAEL I could find for a mycotoxin is:LOAEL is DON = 0.03 mg/kg (28-day study)4. So the safety factor is:30,0005. Try again....................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLC5250 E US 36, Suite 830Avon, IN 46123www.ph2llc.com off fax cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...anyconsultant can give you the other 10%(SM)This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may containlegally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only forthe individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are notthe addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, youare not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and anyattachments, 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 personother than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waiveconfidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only ofthe sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied ordistributed without this statement.

Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!

[Guest guest]

Wei,

With all due respect, I do not think you are correct with your evaluation that it has been established there is only a small possibility the mycotoxins themselves in WDB's can "poison".

For four reasons I think this:

1. We have no data to determine what long term exposures to these little buggers cause in humans.

2. We don't know what happens when they are part of the toxic soup in WDB's. What impact does that have on their potency and effect on the human body.

3. There are many people who complain of symptoms indicative of poisoning after exposure to them. Things like blurred vision, ringing in the ears, numbness in limbs, cognitive impairment, bleeding, etc. Just like the symptoms of chemical poisoning.

4. Anecdotally speaking, almost without exception the people who get the above symptoms are exposed to Stachy. So the endotoxins, beta-glucans, etc that are also present don't explain it because they could be there even if Stachy is not. Stachy seems to be the one constant in the equation. But that is anecdotal info.

So just like I can't say that there is a strong possibility that the mycotoxins alone themselves poison - because I don't have enough info. You can't say there is only a small possibility of this because you don't have enough information.

But, maybe the NTP will figure this out thru their studies of stachy. They are going to try and simulate a moldy environment for their mechanistic research.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/December_BSC_minutes052508_MW2bs3_508.pdf

Sharon

(1) There is a very very small possibility that the amount of mycotoxin from indoor mold growth can "poison" people, which doesn't mean there is no other health effects can be caused by them.

(2) There is a possibility that some sensitive sub-population can have serve reactions to mycotoxin, which doesn't mean that people are "poisoned" by them.

(3) Fungal biomass and its by-products can cause health effects on human.

(4) Indoor contaminants (biological or chemical) can cause health effects on human.

Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

Lila,

Yes I understand that. So tell me, what is the minimum amount of satratoxin g and h a human must inhale while simultaneously touching it, ingesting it and simultaneously being exposed to other microbial toxins for varying periods of time and in varying mixtures before human illness occurs?

And if you cannot answer the above question of minimum dose regarding satratoxin g and h, then what relevance is the math calculations you presented when determining whether it is plausible satratoxin g and h, when present in water damaged buildings, are a cause of human illness?

It's fine and dandy to do threshold calculations and dose response calculations. But not if you are not including all the necessary variables in the equation to form the conclusion you are professing to conclude. ie: satratoxin g and h cannot be a source of human illness in water damaged buildings. You do not have enough information to form that conclusion.

Sharon

Sharon,

If you will notice - the volume of air breathed in a day in my answer is less than the total volume Tony presented. It would make the exposure even smaller than the number calculated in Tony's example. A number that is still less than the Lowest Observed Effect Level by orders of magnitude.

Lila C. Albin, PhDSenior Industrial HygienistDept. REMPurdue University550 Stadium Mall Drive, Room B173West Lafayette In 47907-2051

Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

Hi Wei,

I don't just focus on mycotoxins and symptoms of poisoning. But that was the component being discussed. Inhaled satratoxin h and g.

And, people DO experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from WDB's...along with sometimes allergy or hp, etc.

You asked,

"Why do we call people sicken by indoor contaminants "poisoned" by mycotoxins?"

We don't call all people that. Only those who are experiencing symptoms more indicative of a chemical poisoning rather than an allergy. And...it's not just myco...toxins present that can cause poisoning. you have endo..toxins, etc too.

so, if we are just talking about mycotoxins, then you would discuss them as poisoning (in some cases)

because that is the definition of the word:

Myco= mold

toxin=poison

Does that make sense?

SharonGet fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

Wei Tang wrote:

>

> The problem is that many people in the general public

blame " mycotoxins " for all mold-related illness or all illness caused

by indoor contaminants (biological or chemical).

>

> (1) There is a very very small possibility that the amount of

mycotoxin from indoor mold growth can " poison " people, which doesn't

mean there is no other health effects can be caused by them.

> (2) There is a possibility that some sensitive sub-population can

have serve reactions to mycotoxin, which doesn't mean that people

are " poisoned " by them.

> (3) Fungal biomass and its by-products can cause health effects

on human.

> (4) Indoor contaminants (biological or chemical) can cause health

effects on human.

>

> " Mycotoxins and MVOCS are two kinds of ways that fungi compete to

kill off other living things.. "

> BTW, this is rather a human's way of relating to nature's way,

definitely not scientific facts.

>

> Wei Tang

> QLab

Seems to me the real problem is that a great many people are being

made ill in the presence of mold, point at specific species which are

known producers of " mycotoxins " , ask for help in finding out why this

horrible thing is happening, and instead of receiving assistance, are

being told " You aren't saying it right " .

-MW

[Guest guest]

Sharon, I said "(1) There is a very very small possibility that the amount of mycotoxin from indoor mold growth can "poison" people, which doesn't mean there is no other health effects can be caused by them." "Health effects caused" by indoor microbial cells and/or byproducts (including mycotoxins), Yes. "Poisoned" by indoor mycotoxins only, not proven. Symptoms similar to being poisoned is not a conclusive finding. My points are: (1) Don't just focus on mycotoxins, target all indoor contaminants. (2) Don't just focus on "being poisoned", target all health effects. We don't call people who are allergic to peanut and ingest it accidentally "poisoned" by peanuts. We don't call people who are sicken by Legionella "poisoned" by the

bacteria. Why do we call people sicken by indoor contaminants "poisoned" by mycotoxins? Wei Tang QLabsnk1955@... wrote: Wei, With all due respect, I do not think you are correct with your evaluation that it has been established there is only a small possibility the mycotoxins themselves in WDB's can "poison". For four reasons I think

this: 1. We have no data to determine what long term exposures to these little buggers cause in humans. 2. We don't know what happens when they are part of the toxic soup in WDB's. What impact does that have on their potency and effect on the human body. 3. There are many people who complain of symptoms indicative of poisoning after exposure to them. Things like blurred vision, ringing in the ears, numbness in limbs, cognitive impairment, bleeding, etc. Just like the symptoms of chemical poisoning. 4. Anecdotally speaking, almost without exception the people who get the above symptoms are exposed to Stachy. So the endotoxins, beta-glucans, etc that are also present don't explain it because they could be there even if Stachy is not. Stachy seems to be the one constant in the equation. But that is anecdotal info. So just like I can't say that there

is a strong possibility that the mycotoxins alone themselves poison - because I don't have enough info. You can't say there is only a small possibility of this because you don't have enough information. But, maybe the NTP will figure this out thru their studies of stachy. They are going to try and simulate a moldy environment for their mechanistic research. http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/December_BSC_minutes052508_MW2bs3_508.pdf Sharon In a message dated 7/19/2008 7:27:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wtangQLABusa writes: (1) There is a very very small possibility that the amount of mycotoxin from indoor mold growth can "poison" people, which doesn't mean there is no other health effects can be caused by them. (2) There is a possibility that some sensitive sub-population can have serve reactions to mycotoxin, which doesn't mean that people are "poisoned" by them. (3) Fungal biomass and its by-products can cause health effects on human. (4) Indoor contaminants (biological or chemical) can cause health effects on human. Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football

today. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: Toll Free: 888-QLab-Wei ()www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

n a message dated 7/19/2008 8:40:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, snk1955@... writes:

You asked,

"Why do we call people sicken by indoor contaminants "poisoned" by mycotoxins?"

We don't call all people that. Only those who are experiencing symptoms more indicative of a chemical poisoning rather than an allergy. And...it's not just myco...toxins present that can cause poisoning. you have endo..toxins, etc too.

so, if we are just talking about mycotoxins, then you would discuss them as poisoning (in some cases)

because that is the definition of the word:

Myco= mold

toxin=poison

Does that make sense?

It wouldn't make sense to an allergist or immunologist or toxicologist.

BTW, do you know HOW endotoxins "poison" people? Know what the H in HP stands for?

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this clarification, Dr. Tang. These issues have long

been acknowledged by NIOSH (more medically oriented than OSHA) as a

problem with dose-response studies explaining or predicting

environmental contributions to illness in a diverse population.

Environmental contributions to, or outright causation of, illness

has been traced to many diagnoses of various types. The type of

illness provoked by the environment likely is based upon genetic

diversity (not deficiency) in the population, gender, age, early

exposures which altered gene expression/detoxification abilities,

immunological variables and then the complete picture of exposure

types, combinations, amounts and duration for toxicants and

sensitizers.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-106/2005-106b.html

The complexities are great and are not being addressed meaningful in

our litigation-oriented society. It has already been noted by

others here, that judges, attorneys and juries have become

substitutes for unbiased scientific researchers in determining the

prevalence of contaminants in our communities. I do not

mean `unbiased' in terms of qualified individuals forming educated

opinions of issues! I mean in terms of their conclusions affecting

their incomes and research financing.

In fact, peer reviewed studies of exposure related illness do not

replicate the manner in which exposure actually occurs nor does it

match subjects for histories - only by presentation or report. If

you are looking for numbers based only upon your own presentation of

post exposure illness, it will not appear all that impressive, most

likely because the nature of the exposure was poorly (or not at all)

documented and others in your shoes may have developed other forms

of problems.

What matters is that instead of concentrating upon how to create the

most contaminant free environments, people concentrate on how much

contamination can be 'sold' or ignored at a profit prior to

being 'caught' and assuming liability costs.

I will continue to read this list and note the valuable teachings

that refer to the former principles.

Regards,

Barb Rubin

=============================================

> My points are:

> (1) Don't just focus on mycotoxins, target all indoor

contaminants.

> (2) Don't just focus on " being poisoned " , target all health

effects.

>

> We don't call people who are allergic to peanut and ingest it

accidentally " poisoned " by peanuts. We don't call people who are

sicken by Legionella " poisoned " by the bacteria. Why do we call

people sicken by indoor contaminants " poisoned " by mycotoxins?

[Guest guest]

Lila,

What is the definition of " Lowest Observed Effect Level " and who and

what determines it, how?

I can't help but wonder if, if I could not speak, how others might

determine I was sick?

Its been hard enough when I could speak.

Ive had the experience of going to doctors and repeatedly being given

the same kinds of tests, " Comp Metabolic Panel " etc.. which typically

says 'everything is fine' - when I have been very sick..

I assume that these experiments are conducted on animals, but not

animals in the natural environment, where they would be subject to

predation if they were sick.. or starve, instead, they are in cages,

where they are fed..

Even if they are sick, they are still fed..

Even if they are sick, they are not eaten..

Is this correct?

[Guest guest]

>

> > My points are:

> > (1) Don't just focus on mycotoxins, target all indoor

> contaminants.

> > (2) Don't just focus on " being poisoned " , target all health

> effects.

> >

> > We don't call people who are allergic to peanut and ingest it

> accidentally " poisoned " by peanuts. We don't call people who are

> sicken by Legionella " poisoned " by the bacteria. Why do we call

> people sicken by indoor contaminants " poisoned " by mycotoxins?

>

" If something is not good for you, it's probably bad for you. "

That is a phrase used in many topics, and can be used here.

There are very few items between the two sides.

[Guest guest]

MW, It's not just "not saying it right." Language is people's ways to communicate to the world through their perception. Their perception of the reality is twisted by media's "Toxin Mold" stories. What happy if you don't say it right when you go see the doctors? What happy if you don't say it right when you go to court? What happy if you don't say it right when you order drive through? You don't get the outcome you want. That's why people didn't get the help they need. I didn't see people asking for answers to help them. I saw people want to believe what they believe and just look for someone to agree with them. Ask a question for help, and I will be the first one to jump in as usual (may not always be the first one and probably only when I have time to read the posts). I certainly

don't have all the answers. I can offer you my opinions and I won't get angry and insult you if you don't agree. However, I would expect you to defend your position with scientific facts. That's why we are here. Wei Tang QLab erikmoldwarrior wrote: Wei Tang wrote:>> The problem is that many people in the general public blame "mycotoxins" for all mold-related illness or all illness caused by

indoor contaminants (biological or chemical). > > (1) There is a very very small possibility that the amount of mycotoxin from indoor mold growth can "poison" people, which doesn't mean there is no other health effects can be caused by them. > (2) There is a possibility that some sensitive sub-population can have serve reactions to mycotoxin, which doesn't mean that people are "poisoned" by them. > (3) Fungal biomass and its by-products can cause health effects on human. > (4) Indoor contaminants (biological or chemical) can cause health effects on human. > > "Mycotoxins and MVOCS are two kinds of ways that fungi compete to kill off other living things.." > BTW, this is rather a human's way of relating to nature's way, definitely not scientific facts. > > Wei Tang> QLabSeems to me the real problem is that a great many people are being made ill in the

presence of mold, point at specific species which are known producers of "mycotoxins", ask for help in finding out why this horrible thing is happening, and instead of receiving assistance, are being told "You aren't saying it right".-MW Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: Toll Free: 888-QLab-Wei ()www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

Sharon, Exactly my point. There is really no need (not you) to jump up and down just because of this finding (low airborne satratoxin h and g). Let's include other things. There are many other contaminants and exposure routes. There are too many unknown about low dose environmental exposure. It hasn't been proven yet, so it's much weaker case. I would stick to what's commonly agree and not easily challenged. Sorry, if I am not really answering your questions, it's late. Wei Tangsnk1955@... wrote: Hi Wei, I don't just focus on mycotoxins and symptoms of poisoning. But that was the component being discussed. Inhaled satratoxin h and g. And, people DO experience symptoms indicative of poisoning from WDB's...along with sometimes allergy or hp, etc. You asked, "Why do we call people sicken by indoor contaminants "poisoned" by mycotoxins?" We don't call all people that. Only those who are experiencing symptoms more indicative of a chemical poisoning rather than an allergy. And...it's not just myco...toxins present that can cause poisoning. you have endo..toxins, etc

too. so, if we are just talking about mycotoxins, then you would discuss them as poisoning (in some cases) because that is the definition of the word: Myco= mold toxin=poison Does that make sense? Sharon Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: Toll Free: 888-QLab-Wei ()www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

,

Not only are they criticized but they are being denied care because the aren't " saying it right. " Instead of educating them so they can " say it right " they are frequently ridiculed or referred to a psychiatrist. " Not saying it right " is not equivalent to " not being negatively affected. " If it isn't mycotoxins or beta-glucans or voodoo, what is it?

Why can't they simply say, " we don't know why you are so sick when in water damaged buildings, but we are trying to find out. In the meantime, here are some actions you can try to reduce the suffering. Let me know what works and what doesn't so I can assist others. "

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Seems to me the real problem is that a great many people are being

> made ill in the presence of mold, point at specific species which are

> known producers of " mycotoxins " , ask for help in finding out why this

> horrible thing is happening, and instead of receiving assistance, are

> being told " You aren't saying it right " .

> -MW

>

>

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

>

> 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]

Quackadillian,

Sorry for jumping in here, but these calculations that Lila and Tony are referring to, were NEVER meant to be used to say it is impossible for your individual illness to occur from exposure to these mycotoxins found in a water damaged building. All they are, are numbers that are suppose to be used in assessing risk within the general population from exposure to one inhaled mycotoxin exposure at one time.

To use these numbers to deny illness in individuals, such as yourself, from mycotoxins present in water damaged buildings is a scientific fraud. They are nothing more than estimates based on extrapolations from rodent studies that are SUPPOSE to be used to help protect the public, not harm them.

Sharon

Lila,What is the definition of "Lowest Observed Effect Level" and who andwhat determines it, how?I can't help but wonder if, if I could not speak, how others mightdetermine I was sick?Its been hard enough when I could speak.Ive had the experience of going to doctors and repeatedly being giventhe same kinds of tests, "Comp Metabolic Panel" etc.. which typicallysays 'everything is fine' - when I have been very sick..I assume that these experiments are conducted on animals, but notanimals in the natural environment, where they would be subject topredation if they were sick.. or starve, instead, they are in cages,where they are fed..Even if they are sick, they are still fed..Even if they are sick, they are not eaten..Is this correct?

Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

If you ask me, the issue should be focused on changing our behavior so

that people are not made sick by wtar damaged buildings, whatever it

takes.

The way I see this word game that some people seem to be playing is

that its a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues involved.

To me it makes no difference whether toxin a or toxin b or toxin c

causes someone to get ill, or whether its a solid, liquid or gas..

They get sick nonetheless - very sick.. and they would not have gotten

sick if they had not been put in that situation.

To me, beta-glucan or MVOCs or endotoxins ARE mycotoxins in the sense

that they are created by the NIGHTMARISH conditions caused by ignoring

common sense maintainance practices like repairing roofs, walls and

plumbing..

Poor people live and work in those buildings, and its as if their

lives are not worth the tiny amount of money it would cost to fix

them.

The cost to society is ASTRONOMICAL..

[Guest guest]

Wei and Sharon,

The new AIHA book " Recognition, Evaluation and Control of Indoor Mold " addresses throughout the issue of the complexity and lack of singularity of mold exposure. Perhaps best summarized in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.5, page 13:

Indoor exposures are a complex mixture of molds, bacteria, fragments of both types of ogranisms; their multiple toxic products; and biologically derived small particles, gases and other air pollutants. Effects, depending on the susceptibility of the exposed occupants and their degree of exposure, can be combinations of allergic response, inflammation and its consequences, and other toxic responses. This complex exposure and effect picture is not addressed by risk assessment focused on spores or individual toxins.

If it cannot be ignored how should it be addressed? That's what the rest of the book is about.

Which means the book cannot be ignored. Agree or disagree, whether with snippets or the totality, this has the markings of the new baseline for our industry and professions.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> Sharon,

>

> Exactly my point. There is really no need (not you) to jump up and down just because of this

> finding (low airborne satratoxin h and g). Let's include other things. There are many other

> contaminants and exposure routes. There are too many unknown about low dose environmental

> exposure.

>

> It hasn't been proven yet, so it's much weaker case. I would stick to what's commonly agree and

> not easily challenged. Sorry, if I am not really answering your questions, it's late.

>

> Wei Tang

>

> snk1955@... wrote:

>

>

>

> Hi Wei,

>

> I don't just focus on mycotoxins and symptoms of poisoning. But that was the component being

> discussed. Inh too.

>

> so, if we are just talking about mycotoxins, then you would discuss them as poisoning (in some

> cases)

> because that is the definition of the word:

> Myco= mold

> toxin=poison

>

> Does that make sense?

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

> Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Wei Tang, Ph.D.

> Lab Director

> QLab

> 5 Drive

> Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

> Tel/Fax:

> Toll Free: 888-QLab-Wei ()

> www.QLabUSA.com

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

See attached.

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]

"To me, beta-glucan or MVOCs or endotoxins ARE mycotoxins..." When you talk to "yourself", you are more than welcome to use whatever language you prefer. When you talk to doctors, lawyers, judges, people in this group, please use terms in its meaning that is defined and accepted by others. Wei Tang LiveSimply wrote: If you ask me, the issue should be focused on changing our behavior sothat people are not made sick by wtar damaged buildings,

whatever ittakes.The way I see this word game that some people seem to be playing isthat its a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues involved.To me it makes no difference whether toxin a or toxin b or toxin ccauses someone to get ill, or whether its a solid, liquid or gas..They get sick nonetheless - very sick.. and they would not have gottensick if they had not been put in that situation.To me, beta-glucan or MVOCs or endotoxins ARE mycotoxins in the sensethat they are created by the NIGHTMARISH conditions caused by ignoringcommon sense maintainance practices like repairing roofs, walls andplumbing..Poor people live and work in those buildings, and its as if theirlives are not worth the tiny amount of money it would cost to fixthem.The cost to society is ASTRONOMICAL.. Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003Tel/Fax: Toll Free: 888-QLab-Wei ()www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

Wei,

Everything you say is true, but I don't think you understand what Quackadillian is trying to tell you. Yes, of course it is easier to prove multiple microbial contaminants make people sick. But that is a different discussion. This discussion is not about what is easiest to prove. Its about what is science.

All Quack is saying is that it is not science to take these extrapolations from inhalation rodent study of one, isolated mycotoxin and make the conclusion that this mycotoxin is not what is causing his HUMAN illness from his exposure in a water damaged building. There are far too many variables missing from the equation to jump to that conclusion.

Right, Quackadillian?

Sharon

Quackadillian,

Perhaps, emailing misses the tonality and body language that usually express the majority of what we are trying to say. And, sometimes, misunderstanding does happen because of that. I do hope that my writing doesn't fall victims of that.

Many things you said are true. We do need to learn more and have an open mind. However, how you use your words and the ways of describing something makes a lot of difference. And, I say this with great respect, you still need to be more open-minded to other's opinions and scientific facts.

For example, many of us takes reduced dose of posion everyday that we call medicines. If you take 100 pills a day when you only should take one, you will probably die. And, yet, no one is being poisioned when only taking 1% of that does, and everyone accept that. Tony showed that indoor mycotoxins concentrations is 0.00333% of what would be toxic. And, some of you just can't accept that while you are taking reduced dose of poison everyday.

What some other people fail to recognize is that while most people taking medicines are fine. There are some people will have severe reactions to them. However, it doesn't make the medicine "toxic" in the dose prescribed, and yet those people need to stop the medicine ASAP because they can get sicken by the medicine. Everyone seems to also get this. It's the same with indoor bio-contaminants. In the low doses that it's not yet toxic, people can have reactions to them. It's all new and we need tons of more research.

But, before we are there, don't bet all your money on it, YET. If you have to bet on two tables. One is "indoor contaminants made you sick", which is commonly accepted and with tons of proof. One is "mycotoxins poisioned me in my house", which is nearly impossible to prove and not enough scientific research has been done on that. Which one would you go for it?

Wei Tang

Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

If they are TOXIC, they ARE TOXINS-

They kill people...

> " To me, beta-glucan or MVOCs or endotoxins ARE mycotoxins... "

> When you talk to " yourself " , you are more than welcome to use whatever

> language you prefer. When you talk to doctors, lawyers, judges, people in

> this group, please use terms in its meaning that is defined and accepted by

> others.

>

> Wei Tang

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Thank you for posting that. I think it is exactly what both Wei and I are saying...although saying differently.

This is the point within the writing that I have been trying to get across for a long time: "This complex exposure and effect picture is not addressed by risk assessment focused on spores or individual toxins."

In other words, "you can't take a rat study, add some math and conclude people are not getting sick from water damaged buildings"

Sharon

Wei and Sharon,

The new AIHA book "Recognition, Evaluation and Control of Indoor Mold" addresses throughout the issue of the complexity and lack of singularity of mold exposure. Perhaps best summarized in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.5, page 13:

Indoor exposures are a complex mixture of molds, bacteria, fragments of both types of ogranisms; their multiple toxic products; and biologically derived small particles, gases and other air pollutants. Effects, depending on the susceptibility of the exposed occupants and their degree of exposure, can be combinations of allergic response, inflammation and its consequences, and other toxic responses. This complex exposure and effect picture is not addressed by risk assessment focused on spores or individual toxins.

If it cannot be ignored how should it be addressed? That's what the rest of the book is about.

Which means the book cannot be ignored. Agree or disagree, whether with snippets or the totality, this has the markings of the new baseline for our industry and professions.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

[Guest guest]

BTW, do you know HOW endotoxins "poison" people? Know what the H in HP stands for?

Steve Temes

No.I don't a lot about the human health effects of endotoxins. Are you saying it is because they cause the immune system to go into hyper-overdrive?

Yes, the immune system reacts to endotoxins. I have personally experienced acute symptoms (flu-like fever, chills, etc.) consistent with endotoxin exposure. More commonly, however, a hypersensitivity condition develops upon re-exposure (i.e., hypersensitivity pneumonitis).

When one looks at an individual endotoxin in rodent studies, do they cause the same health effects as what is seen when one looks at an individual mycotoxin at a time in rodents?

No. For example:

Mechanisms of endotoxin shock and endotoxin hypersensitivity.

Galanos C, Freudenberg MA.

Max-Planck-Institut für Immunbiologie, Freiburg, Germany. Endotoxins (lipopolysaccharide, LPS) are biologically active substances present in Gram-negative bacteria. Injection of purified LPS into experimental animals leads to the development of many biological activities that can lead to shock with lethal outcome. The biological activities of LPS are not direct effects of the LPS molecule since LPS usually expresses no direct cytotoxic activity. The toxic and other biological properties of LPS are caused indirectly through the action of endogenous mediators that are formed following interaction of LPS with cellular targets, macrophages occupying a key position in the development of endotoxin shock. The interaction of LPS with macrophages may proceed directly leading to activation of these cells, with subsequent synthesis and secretion of a number of endogenous mediators which initiate the different biological activities of LPS. Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), a macrophage derived cytokine, is a primary mediator of the lethal action of endotoxin. Sensitivity to LPS is genetically determined, varying considerably among different species. The sensitivity of normal animals (mice) to endotoxin may be enhanced considerably under different experimental conditions that include treatment with live (infection) or killed Gram-negative and -positive bacteria. Sensitization to endotoxin proceeds in all LPS-responder strains investigated and in the LPS-resistant mice of the strain C3H/HeJ. It does not proceed in a second LPS-resistant strain, C57BL/10ScCr. The absence of sensitization in the latter mice was found to be due to an impaired IFN-gamma production. IFN-gamma could be identified as the mediator of endotoxin hypersensitivity induced by bacteria. PMID: 8330903 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

Sharon

BTW, "Mr. Terms"

tox·i·col·o·gy –noun the science dealing with the effects, antidotes, detection, etc., of poisons.

And what have toxicologists consistently said about levels of inhaled mycotoxins with respect to a toxic dose? They are not considered by toxicologists to be poisonous at these levels. They are considered to be poisonous by people who use their own definitions of "poison".

As Wei said, this does not mean they are not capable of making people sick. It just means the term "poison", as used by the professionals who best know how to use the term, does not apply.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]



Live Simply

You cannot talk in your own language and expect people to understand what you mean, especially if you misuse words that have a very specific meaning. The fault, then, if one is needed, would then not be with others but with yourself.

Those who are right when everyone else is wrong cannot learn and will not be taken seriously; except by themselves. So, are you writing to us to make yourself right, or are you trying to understand as well as explain/teach? Remember that all effective teaching is done in the language of the student, not of the teacher. To explain things to us and teach us you must learn our language and use that; anything else is ineffective and a waste of our time and of yours.

Jim H. White (who had a school teacher as a mother and another as a sister)

Re: Detection of satratoxin g and h in indoor air from a water-da...

If they are TOXIC, they ARE TOXINS-They kill people...On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Wei Tang <wtangqlabusa> wrote:> "To me, beta-glucan or MVOCs or endotoxins ARE mycotoxins..."> When you talk to "yourself", you are more than welcome to use whatever> language you prefer. When you talk to doctors, lawyers, judges, people in> this group, please use terms in its meaning that is defined and accepted by> others.>> Wei Tang>>

[Guest guest]

A few thoughts..

The " lowest level of observed effects " when applied to animals, who

are voiceless, describes levels at which immediate biophysical effects

can be ascertained.

However, for a human, " lowest level of observed effect " might more

appropriately be looked at as the level at which some activity of life

was seriously impacted, like the ability to work or the ability to

enjoy ones life and thrive.. or recover from an illlness instead of

merely survive..

(Inhibition of protein synthesis, also triggering the body's DNA

repair mechanisms.. apoptopsis triggers repair mechanisms that are

inherently limited - cellular stress AGES people.. It literally steals

years from their DNA.. their telomeres..making them physiologically

older..)

But I am etting off my pint.. From what I have seen of " mold testing "

(which usually means spore testing) it also seems to intentionally

ignore a number of issues that are inconvenient but very relevant..

the dynamic nature of mold exposure.. Mold exposure may be far higher

during say, a windstorm, than on a calm morning.. Thousands of times

higher..

However, sampling is rarely (never?) done during storms..

We know that trichothecenes persist for decades.. Do they build up, or

are they eaten by other molds, or do they trickle away..? Where do

they go, where do they concentrate, and when?

What are the synergistic effects with other substances? We know that

trichothecenes are made at least ten times more powerful when they

occur with LPS endotoxins.. (Thats a situation that is probably not so

unusual)

" LPS priming potentiates and prolongs proinflammatory cytokine response " etc..

Obviously, there are many other synergistic effects too? Ones that

might add even more to EXPLAIN the illnesses people REPORT-

None of these questions have been answered.. WHY?