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

[Guest guest]

Barb,

I have to disagree somewhat with this point: " Unless, of course,

we are speaking of the industry of science - which is a conflict

of interest by definition. "

I think a more accurate description is " the industry of science "

is an oxymoron, like military intelligence.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

On Tue Dec 30 09:33:57 CST 2008, " B.R. "

wrote:

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Barb

1. You apparently equated my use of the phrase

" It's easy to say what you want to when you are not paying for the " fix " you

suggest or even your own research. "

To equate " you " with " Barb " . Not so. I meant " you " = " WHO " , for they do

not pay for the " fixes " they suggest, nor the brunt of the research.

2. You said (surprisingly something for change):

" More than half the mortgage defaults were from medical bills. "

Response:

Do not equate medical bills causing default with chemical usage unless you

have a lot more substance to support it. Which I haven't seen at all.

What is clear in the body of literature is that the US (western) culture has

created its own health problems with obesity, diabetes, alcoholism, smoking,

and so on. I heard an interesting piece on NPR the other day on India

having soaring diabetes rates as they adopt western " wealthy " habits.

Perhaps our poison is much like the Romanesque illness two-thousand years

ago and will suffer the same fate.

3. You stated:

" 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... Once risk is disclosed, consumers can make informed decisions,

which returns the industry to honest terms with its customers "

Response:

a. Exposure limit are not based on the " proveable " in court but rather

the possible using scientific protocols (which later have to be proved in

court).

b. " Most injuries go undiagnosed and even fewer of those are reported. "

Meaning what?

This is perhaps (not your intent with the statement but my use) the most

important piece in 2 ways.

One it says that doctors are poor at their Practices.

Two, it should first be applied to the occupational realm where higher doses

(exposures) are expected to be efficient. This is perhaps the greatest

failing of OSHA in the US. We do not, and currently cannot track the types

of diseases and illness and the corresponding exposures with the current

surveillance systems. They are dismal. Period.

Example: I went to NIOSH and OSHA to find incidences of certain dermal

injury in a certain SIC code. They said it cannot be done (NIOSH and OSHA)

and that the primary data is not available to consultants or industry

(OSHA). I wanted data on a particular agent and it's use over all

industries. They couldn't provide it. You cannot fix what you cannot

measure or do not measure.

c. The " We can predict the incidence however, by acknowledging the

effects of certain chemicals upon human cells and systems " is not at a

level of good use yet. Perhaps in 15-30 years, but not yet. We cannot even

scale up on various cellular mutagenicity tests at this point, we have to do

animal tests.

d. Risk is never disclosed fully because of attorneys. To make a

lasting impact, you'd have to redo the tort and workers comp systems first.

One way around this " failure " to inform is to create an anonymous database.

This was actually proposed by a Congressional Committee headed by Al Gore

(as a lawmaker not as VP) for engineering failures after the Kansas City

skyway collapse, but never came to fruition.

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.