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

[Guest guest]

Tony wrote:

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]

The following is taken from the AIHA webpage on mold:

'The key role of AIHA members in our society is protecting

individuals from exposure to hazardous substances, (i.e., lead,

asbestos, noise, radiation, biological chemicals) including exposure

to fungi and other potentially hazardous microorganisms, commonly

referred to as " mold " . Molds are ubiquitous in the environment, and

can be found almost anywhere samples are taken. It is not known,

however, what quantity of mold is acceptable in indoor environments

with respect to health. For these reasons, and because individuals

have different sensitivities to molds, setting standards and

guidelines for indoor mold exposure levels is difficult and may not

be practical.'

All of the AIHA publications, including the Green Book, support this

position. These publications are approved by the AIHA Board of

Directors. In effect, they become AIHA's policy statement on mold,

since there is no 'formal' AIHA position statement on mold.

Hope this clears this up!

Don

>

> 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.

>