Re: Digest 1D. Re: THE RIGHT TO HEALTHY INDOOR AIR

[Guest guest]

1. You stated: "WHO actually set limits for residential levels of toxicants while theUS government merely concentrated upon work environments and levels of releases from industry in communities (now undisclosed)."It's easy to

say what you want to when you are not paying for the "fix" you suggest or even your own research. ---------------I'm paying with my life, Tony. And the entire country is paying with their taxes, losses in productivity from needless illnesses and birth defects. More than half the mortgage defaults were from medical bills. I doubt your costs come anywhere near those prices. You can always diversify your work efforts when particular practices are shown to be too costly in real terms, just as all professions must do in the long run. I do not consider your definition of 'cost' to be relevant

in scientific terms. Yes, in industrial terms but I am here to learn about building sciences and not industry. I am

very familiar with industry, thank you.It is not negativism to point out the facts of life which are non-negotiable. Certain chemicals have certain biochemical effects upon all persons. The extent to which the damage is recognized for what it is, is what you call 'acceptable risk. I do not consider MS or Alzheimers to be acceptable outcomes simply because these are not factored in among the other casualties of industry, recognized only when it is possible to say they became 'sensitized' to toxic substances (shame on them for reacting poorly to materials which are incompatible with biochemistry). Microbial illnesses are beginning to be understood as going beyond sensitization issues. Formaldehyde is a carcinogen and neurotoxic agent according to the ATSDR, not just a sensitizer and respiratory irritant. Since it has been largely eliminated in other countries as part of construction, there is no reason why

industry here should not diversify around it. No industry can survive without diversifying - it is called progress. Stagnation is not a principle of science, only of

industry. Unless, of course, we are speaking of the industry of science - which is a conflict of interest by definition.So, my concept of risk assessment is based upon biochemistry, not prevalence of proveable injury for courtrooms. Most injuries go undiagnosed and even fewer of those are reported. We can predict the incidence however, by acknowledging the effects of certain chemicals upon human cells and systems. We then try to create materials which minimize such effects and determine how best to introduce them into confined spaces - how much time to cure, shielding materials etc. or even those not suitable for certain purposes such as schools and nurseries. Once risk is disclosed, consumers can make informed decisions, which returns the industry to honest terms with its customers.It isn't about body counts. We don't have to be that primitive or mercenary about science. There is no more important industry

than that which creates homes and business centers. I won't disrespect it by assuming it intends harm to the masses. But I will point out

that harm because not enough people are doing so and the public remains at considerable risk from that purposeful omission. I will now go back to lurking and learning more about the science and practice which is periodically discussed here.Barb Rubin