Digest 4 - Re: Was Re: ASTM Conference on Mold - now Tony on GAO

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

Sorry for the delay, busy working.

1. A couple of questions:

Did you look up the definition of precautionary principal before or after

you used it in the original statement?

And would you really know how to apply this principal to science (not being

a scientist yourself)?

2. You appear to be delusional again:

Regarding:

" Regarding the NGO that they reviewed that used the " no evidence of inhaled

mycotoxins " as a supposed legitimate science for a position statement

denying causation of illness, they cut it off at the knees with its own

spinning words. AAAAI. Read it for yourself. I think it is reference 23

(?): "

Response:

a) So you are saying they (GAO) cut this statement [no mycotoxins] off

at the knees - where?

Please put the text in there that supposedly does so.

There is only one citation to ref 23 it and does nothing of the

sort; it summarizes what was said in ref 23.

c) FYI - This whole document is a Review, as in like a book review

(only worse). It has lots of pieces and commentary like a review, but:

i) It has a short Conclusion piece with the only health statements

being:

" However, some documents do not sufficiently advise the general public about

some potentially serious health effects "

" Regarding protective gear, some documents do not provide information about

how populations that are particularly vulnerable to adverse health effects

should protect themselves "

- Implies only applies to mold remediation.

" In fact, populations with certain immunosuppression conditions should avoid

exposure to mold but many guidance documents do not state this. As a result,

the public may not be sufficiently aware of the health risks they or their

family members may face, and they may also be confused about how to approach

cleaning up mold in their homes. "

- Immunosuppressed - DUHHHH, already known.

ii) It has Recommendations of:

154 Words for 2 recommendations.

" Help articulate and guide research priorities on indoor mold "

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

indoor mold "

iii) It is poorly organized, poorly reconstructed, and has a lot of

caveats in the back. Many of these make it effectively liquid jello.

d) I'm still not seeing this grand conclusion you are implying.

3. Regarding:

Your extracted statement:

' " Several factors influence the likelihood that individuals might experience

health effects following exposure to mold in indoor environments. These

include: the nature of the fungal material (e.g., allergenic,

toxic/irritant, or infectious); the degree of exposure (amount and duration)

[Tony: this would be dose]; and the susceptibility of exposed people.

Susceptibility varies with genetic predisposition, age, state of health,

concurrent exposures, and previous sensitization. For these reasons, as well

as because environmental measurements of exposure are not well-standardized

and biological markers that can assess the health risk from exposure to

fungi are largely unknown(17), it is not possible to determine " safe " or

" unsafe " levels of exposure for the general public. Those with known

vulnerabilities to unusual mold exposures include the very young and older

people; those with pre-existing allergies, asthma or certain respiratory

ailments; those whose immune systems are compromised by recent chemotherapy,

taking of certain drugs and illnesses such as cystic fibrosis; and people

living with HIV. " '

Response:

a. Might is a weak word. (individuals might experience

health effects)

b. " Susceptibility varies with genetic predisposition, age, state of

health, concurrent exposures, and previous sensitization "

So? We account for this in other limits or non-limits but controls, what

makes mold so special?

d. " environmental measurements of exposure are not well-standardized "

Really??

e. DOSE is it according to you I see. [degree of exposure (amount and

duration)]

c. I disagree with - " it is not possible to determine a " safe " or

" unsafe " levels of exposure for the general public "

We wouldn't have mycotoxin acceptable limits in foods if that were the case.

And I don't see this in the GAO or other groups listed [AIHA, NYDOH, IOM,

AAP, AAEM, and even AAAAI (somewhat)]

[Note: I haven't finished the new Green Book, so I'm basing this on other

AIHA documents and NO AIHA Policy statement to this effect that I know of,

and as far as I know the Green Book is not an approved policy document

either]

d. I disagree with the premise implied that biomarkers are always needed

- " biological markers that can assess the health risk from exposure to fungi

are largely unknown "

If one has exposure dose, biomarkers are not necessary, otherwise we

wouldn't have airborne limits for lots of things. You'll note there are

very little biological monitoring limits.

e. Where is this grand message in?

" AIHA, NYDOH, IOM, AAP, AAEM, and even AAAAI (somewhat) " [you stated they

are all now delivering consistent messaging]

I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you should write a paper pulling together all of

the citations and quotes to make your case.

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.