Was Re: ASTM Conference on Mold - now SNK on GAO

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

You are delusional again (and spreading false-spin marketing, not

surprisingly) or you have a different version of the GAO report.

1. Regarding:

" After the two

year audit, the GAO's message is clear: "

~Among other

illnesses, toxicity from exposure to the biological contaminants in WDBs is

plausibly occurring in people. "

Response:

I missed that, where is that?

It would seem to me that to be clear, it

would be stated in the Conclusions.

It is not in the conclusions (pp 39-40) of

the document.

In fact the Conclusions section actually

states:

'Specifically, the Institute of Medicine

was unable to associate a number of adverse

health effects with exposure to mold because the available studies

were of “insufficient quality, consistency, or statistical power to

permit a conclusion regarding the presence of an association.”'

2. Regarding

“All Government

and NGO's should be delivering the same message, with the Center for Indoor Air

Quality being the gatekeeper of what that message is.”

Response:

Really? In My version it states:

“the

Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality—could provide an effective vehicle for enhancing the

coordination of research activities. “

This is not a “should”

or a “shall” but a “could” – pretty weak, and

certainly not a ‘clear’ vote.

In the Recommendations

it states (in its entirety for recommendations, this is it [this was going to

be another of my yet complete criticisms]):

“We

recommend that the Administrator, EPA, use the Federal Interagency Committee on

Indoor Air Quality to accomplish the following two actions.

•

Help articulate and guide research priorities on indoor mold across relevant

federal agencies, coordinate information sharing on ongoing and planned

research activities among agencies, and provide information to the public on

ongoing research activities to better ensure that federal research on the

health effects of exposure to indoor mold is effectively addressing research

needs and efficiently using scarce federal resources.

•

Help relevant agencies review their existing guidance to the public on indoor

mold—considering the audience and purpose of the guidance

documents—to better ensure that it sufficiently alerts the public,

especially vulnerable populations, about the potential adverse health effects

of exposure to indoor mold and educates them on how to minimize exposure in

homes. The reviews should take into account the best available information and

ensure that the guidance does not conflict among agencies. “

I don’t see

any gatekeeper in here, nor any broad sweepings recommendations.

3. Regarding:

“~It has been

determined by the GAO that " No evidence inhaled mycotoxins blah, blah,

blah " needs to GO from any policy papers as that is no longer current

accepted science to be used as a method of denying causation of illness. “

Response:

Where is this in the conclusions?

Nothing of this sort is even mentioned here

in my version and given the IOM statement above.

4. Regarding:

“As far as I can

tell, AIHA, GAO, NYDOH, IOM, AAP, AAEM, and even AAAAI (somewhat) are all

now delivering consistent messaging.”

Response:

So what is this “consistent messaging”

you claim to see?

5. I should also point out that this is a

review of others’ guidance documents not conclusions on the science

itself.

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]

Tony,

For such a smart guy, you sure write some stupid stuff. And for the umteenth time, will you PLEASE STOP accusing me of spinning just because YOU can't read (or is it YOU are the spinner?). From the GAO report:

Federal GAO Report "Indoor Mold: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts" http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-980

From the Summary Page:

Despite limitations of scientific evidence regarding a number of potential health effects of exposure to indoor mold, enough is known that federal agencies have issued guidance to the general public about health risks associated with exposure to indoor mold and how to minimize mold growth and mitigate exposure. For example, guidance issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, HHS, and HUD cites a variety of health effects of exposure to indoor mold but in some cases omits less common but serious effects. Moreover, while guidance on minimizing indoor mold growth is generally consistent, guidance on mitigating exposure to indoor mold is sometimes inconsistent about cleanup agents, protective clothing and equipment, and sensitive populations. "As a result, the public may not be sufficiently advised of indoor mold's potential health risks."

"Recommendation: The Administrator, EPA, should use the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality to help articulate and guide research priorities on indoor mold across relevant federal agencies, coordinate information sharing on ongoing and planned research activities among agencies, and provide information to the public on ongoing research activities to better ensure that federal research on the health effects of exposure to indoor mold is effectively addressing research needs and efficiently using scarce federal resources."

"The Institute of Medicine reported in 2004 that (1) exposure to mycotoxins can occur via inhalation, contact with the skin, and ingestion of contaminated food and (2) research on Stachybotrys chartarum (a species of indoor mold that can produce mycotoxins) suggests that effects in humans may be (drum roll, please).....

biologically plausible. "

Next time, try reading before you attack someone for spinning. And give it up, Tony. Quit spinning. As much as you hate it, the precautionary principle is here to stay over this issue.

Sharon

Sharon:

You are delusional again (and spreading false-spin marketing, not surprisingly) or you have a different version of the GAO report.

1. Regarding:

" After the two year audit, the GAO's message is clear:"

~Among other illnesses, toxicity from exposure to the biological contaminants in WDBs is plausibly occurring in people."

Response:

I missed that, where is that?

It would seem to me that to be clear, it would be stated in the Conclusions.

It is not in the conclusions (pp 39-40) of the document.

In fact the Conclusions section actually states:

'Specifically, the Institute of Medicine was unable to associate a number of adverse health effects with exposure to mold because the available studies were of “insufficient quality, consistency, or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence of an association.â€'

2. Regarding

“All Government and NGO's should be delivering the same message, with the Center for Indoor Air Quality being the gatekeeper of what that message is.â€

Response:

Really? In My version it states:

“the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality—could provide an effective vehicle for enhancing the coordination of research activities. “

This is not a “should†or a “shall†but a “could†– pretty weak, and certainly not a ‘clear’ vote.

In the Recommendations it states (in its entirety for recommendations, this is it [this was going to be another of my yet complete criticisms]):

“We recommend that the Administrator, EPA, use the Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality to accomplish the following two actions.

• Help articulate and guide research priorities on indoor mold across relevant federal agencies, coordinate information sharing on ongoing and planned research activities among agencies, and provide information to the public on ongoing research activities to better ensure that federal research on the health effects of exposure to indoor mold is effectively addressing research needs and efficiently using scarce federal resources.

• Help relevant agencies review their existing guidance to the public on indoor mold—considering the audience and purpose of the guidance documents—to better ensure that it sufficiently alerts the public, especially vulnerable populations, about the potential adverse health effects of exposure to indoor mold and educates them on how to minimize exposure in homes. The reviews should take into account the best available information and ensure that the guidance does not conflict among agencies. “

I don’t see any gatekeeper in here, nor any broad sweepings recommendations.

3. Regarding:

“~It has been determined by the GAO that "No evidence inhaled mycotoxins blah, blah, blah" needs to GO from any policy papers as that is no longer current accepted science to be used as a method of denying causation of illness. “

Response:

Where is this in the conclusions?

Nothing of this sort is even mentioned here in my version and given the IOM statement above.

4. Regarding:

“As far as I can tell, AIHA, GAO, NYDOH, IOM, AAP, AAEM, and even AAAAI (somewhat) are all now delivering consistent messaging.â€

Response:

So what is this “consistent messaging†you claim to see?

5. I should also point out that this is a review of others’ guidance documents not conclusions on the science itself.

Tony

Sharon Noonan KramerYou Rock! One month of free movies delivered by mail from blockbuster.com

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

1.    Regarding:

" YOU can't read "

I can.

It seems you didn't read my whole post:

I said (and was expecting your reply):

" It would seem to me that to be clear,

it would be stated in the Conclusions. "

(You did state that it was Clear)

a.    Placing differing text in two places

is not CLEAR in my book, perhaps it is in your spin book.

b.    The CONCLUSIONS should take precedence,

otherwise it is secondary.

c.    Apparently the GAO signers and you

only read Summary Statements and forget the details.

2.    Regarding:

“The Institute of Medicine

reported in 2004 that (1) exposure to mycotoxins can occur via inhalation,

contact with the skin, and ingestion of contaminated food and (2) research on

Stachybotrys chartarum (a species of indoor mold that can produce

mycotoxins) suggests that

effects in humans may be (drum roll, please).....â€

Response:

This

was the GAO’s Interpretation of the IOM, not the GAO’s Conclusion (they were

tasked to review others’ conclusions, albeit they did it poorly).  If it was a GAO

CONCLUSION, it would have been in the Conclusions Section, and it wasn’t.  Also,

there were 32 guidance docs and 20 review docs according to GAO, and GAO was

looking for only what Federal Agencies were doing in non-occupational setting (not

the validity itself), so where are the other documents

in agreement? They quoted 2 interpreting them “in favor†(one erroneously, and

the other overstating it, even though it wasn’t recent, because noting recent

has changed)

* “The objective of this review was to

assess federal agencies’ activities to minimize and mitigate the health effects

of exposure to indoor mold.â€

3.    Regarding:

“precautionary principleâ€

Response:

Can you define that?

4.    You didn’t answer my 4th

question –

4. Regarding:

“As far as I can tell, AIHA, GAO, NYDOH,

IOM, AAP, AAEM, and even AAAAI (somewhat) are all now delivering

consistent messaging.â€Â

Response:

So what is this “consistent messaging†you claim to see?

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.