Re: Industry Views: The Best and Worst of IAQ in 2006

[Guest guest]

KC,

Thanks for posting this and I'm quite flattered that you selected my

comments as newsworthy. What I would encourage this group to do,

however, is to read the whole article at the link:

http://www.ieconnections.com/archive/dec_06/dec_06.htm#article1

Why? I want everyone to know that we are not alone. Here are some of

the brightest and most caring people in the industry voicing their

concerns about the sad state of affairs and offering ways to better

the industry and help people. Look at how many issues expressed on

this group are expressed by them as well. They don't include them all

with some conspicuous by their absence, but they are headed in the

right direction for us.

If I were to offer a New Year's hope (actually I will, and this is

it), I could think of few better expressions than the other comments

in this article by leaders in the industry.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Industry Views: The Best and Worst of IAQ in 2006

> Dec 2006.

>

> Carl Grimes, President, Healthy Habitats, Denver, Colo.

>

> http://www.ieconnections.com/archive/dec_06/dec_06.htm#article1

>

>

> BEST – Sometimes, we can't see the forest for the trees and overlook

> the obvious. On the other hand, my selection for the Best of 2006

> could be seen as an obvious conflict of interest. With that said, my

> candidate for the best of 2006 is this paper, Indoor Environment

> Connections. Think back over the past year with the comprehensive

> coverage of a multitude of areas about the indoor environment. Then

> consider the breaking news and the investigative stories. Where else

> would you get this reporting? And I don't believe they missed

> anything.

>

> WORST – My list for the worst is a tie between two candidates. First

> is the continuing lack of response from public health on any indoor

> environmental issues except those that kill, as if those that sicken

> aren't of consequence. One example is the ongoing controversy about

> the health effects of mold exposure. Because public health takes the

> stance that any mold can be a problem for any individual who is

> sensitized to it, don't you think they should provide guidance or a

> definition to identify such an individual? Without that, their

> statement is little more than an excuse to continue ignoring those

> victims.

>

> Which leads directly to the second on my Worst list. No, it's not

> the ACOEM and their position statement as reported in the Sharon

> Kramer interview last month. Rather, it's the silence of all those

> in the know. And there seems to be a lot of them. I've had

> conversations with " a number " of people since I wrote that interview

> who essentially confirm the disingenuousness of that paper. Some

> even add additional evidence and further wrongdoing. Yet not a one,

> not a single one, is willing to go public with their information.

> When I ask them why I can't use their name, or why they don't write

> a rebuttal, they all offer essentially the same answer: the fear of

> retribution.

[Guest guest]

Carl,

You are exactly right. There are many, who are working to help those who

are being devastated by the " toxic mold " issue.

I have pulled out some key statements from the IE Connection " Best and Worst

of 2006 " so the members of Sickbuildings may better understand there are

many, who are working very hard and help is on the way from our friends on the

building science side. The last frontier we need to conquer is the medical

community. I predict 2007 will be the year of great of change on that front.

Benda, Senior Principal, Chairman and CEO, Chelsea Group Ltd.,

Maunaloa, Hawaii

BEST – ...As a result, the great, international work of Shaughnessy

on IAQ impacts on student learning patterns in schools is now part of the

IAQA research program.

Larry on, Technical Director, Indoor Environmental Consulting Inc.,

Jewett, Texas

BEST – I was beginning to wonder if anything “really good†was going to

emerge for IAQ in 2006 until September/October. In my opinion, IAQ and

specifically the impact of mold-related events, has been stagnated in an

extremely

conservative position for the last year to year and a half. Born from the

renderings of overreaction and extremism in 2000 through 2004, the pendulum of

public opinion about the potential seriousness of mold-related issues has swung

to the extreme right.

G. Baker, CEO, BBJ Environmental Solutions Inc., Tampa, Fla. /

President, Indoor Air Quality Association, Rockville, Md.

BEST – ... At the same time, the visibility of and confusion caused by “

fringe†organizations that exist either for profit or have suspect objectives

has diminished as those in the industry and the public at large have learned to

separate credible groups from those providing questionable value to the

public.

Charlie Wiles, Executive Director, American Indoor Air Quality Council,

Phoenix, Ariz.

It is rewarding to see increasing cooperation in the industry through

memorandums of understanding – MOUs – among many organizations closely

related

with the IAQ industry.

G. Pete Consigli, Principal, G. Pete Consigli Group, Sun City Center, Fla.

WORST – The worst isn’t really an individual “worst†as much as the

escalation of the industry’s politicking, positioning, lack of enforcement of

conflict-of-interest policies, and rhetoric that paints those who speak out

against the establishment as being a lunatic or heretic (or both)! This kind of

accepted activity and unchecked culture is insidious in our industry’s

non-profit arena and, in my opinion, an impediment to the growth and prosperity

of the

spirit of volunteerism that our industry non-profit organizations were

founded on.

Carl Grimes, President, Healthy Habitats, Denver, Colo.

BEST – ....With that said, my candidate for the best of 2006 is this paper,

Indoor Environment Connections. Think back over the past year with the

comprehensive coverage of a multitude of areas about the indoor environment.

Then

consider the breaking news and the investigative stories. Where else would you

get this reporting? And I don’t believe they missed anything.

Glenn Fellman, President and Publisher, Indoor Environment Communications,

Rockville, Md.

BEST – The successful implementation of a unification agreement between the

Indoor Air Quality Association, the American IAQ Council and the Indoor

Environmental Standards Organization: What previously were three competing

organizations with duplicative programs in 2006 emerged as three united

organizations with distinct yet complementary purposes. In the year since the

agreement

was signed, IAQA has grown to more than 5,500 members; IESO has become an

ANSI-accredited standards-making body; and the IAQ Council has seen two of its

certification programs CESB-accredited. When challenged by their respective

memberships to “raise the bar†in terms of industry professionalism, ethics

and

standards, the leaders of IAQA, IESO and the IAQ Council surpassed

expectations.

Sharon

Why? I want everyone to know that we are not alone. Here are some of

the brightest and most caring people in the industry voicing their

concerns about the sad state of affairs and offering ways to better

the industry and help people.

[Guest guest]

As soon as the money interest shifts the other way, everyone will be

diagnosed with fungal illness! Just watch. As soon as the pharmacy

industry developes some good antifungals (they have some now I know

but more on the way) that have new patents and you need to take

forever; as soon as the insurance industry has all policyholders

safely in contracts which exclude mold, etc, etc...then everyone will

have the illness. I've seen it in other things.

>

> Carl,

>

> You are exactly right. There are many, who are working to help

those who

> are being devastated by the " toxic mold " issue.

>

[Guest guest]

....OR, if they are exposed, like the tobacco industry, then everyone

who was denying it, will be singing the opposite song all of a sudden

since the tide cannot be held back, they will be converts.

>

> Carl,

>

> You are exactly right. There are many, who are working to help

those who

> are being devastated by the " toxic mold " issue.

>

[Guest guest]

Hey Quackdillian,

Do you think that that scenario is fairly realistic?

No, I don't think that is realistic on broad scale. It's not like someone

is going to yell the truth from a bell tower and everyone in the land will

hear the message at once. It will be a gradual change, I think. And of course,

with any change comes a transition period. So there will be some contention

and confusion. I don't see this happening on a grand scale. But, there will

be a change.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Okay, maybe this following scenario is wrong. maybe this won't happen, I

don't know.. But here is my worst case scenario..

I think this change is inevitable.. obviously, the cover up can't be

continued for much longer.. I think the other side realizes this..

But the revelation of the mold toxicity situation could be a nightmare for

poor people if it is not prepared for realistically..

Otherwise it could be terrible for the unprepared communities as a lot of

building owners will probably decide that given the 'new' (ha!) health

information - their buildings are in such bad repair that they need to be

torn down, immediately, all at the same time.

Not fixed, torn down. " Taken off the housing market " .

Some will try to get taxpayers money to do the maintenance they have long

deferred,

from the cities and governments. That is what has always happened in the

past, but the difference is that housing is so much more expensive now.

So the amount they will say is necessary will be so much that all but the

VERY best connected won't get it. And whetever they do get won't go far.

(The ones who will get it will be the owners of the worst government

subsidized Section 8 buildings, the owners of the often very badly

maintained leased homes for the poorest people..the same corporations who

often have been collecting rent for years and often not doing requested

repairs - will cash in..)

Others - they often will decide that they need to tear the older buildings

down - or tart them up - and replace them - or turn them into -

'affordable' $300,000 condos, which they will then sell off to over-extended

financially people who will buy them out of desperation at not being able to

find affordable rentals that are healthy too. (Of course, then sometimes the

new homeowners associations of these buildings will 'discover' additional

work that needs to be done.. so suddenly, big assessments..)

So, a crisis may quite possibly develop because so many millions of mostly

poor people, those many people who can't afford condos - will become

homeless, or close to it, or be forced to move to rural areas, driving up

rents there, and the number of rentals that are affordable to blue collar

working people in urban areas especially will plummet.

A similar thing will happen with schools, many schools will end up being

consolidated into huge school districts because the

older school buildings are so moldy that the individual towns wont be able

to repair them and the tax districts that have seen a lot of

middle-class flight and disinvestment (the older suburbs) won't be able to

build new because of their pension obligations.

Do you think that that scenario is fairly realistic?

On 12/23/06, barb1283 <barb1283@...> wrote:

>

> As soon as the money interest shifts the other way, everyone will be

> diagnosed with fungal illness! Just watch. As soon as the pharmacy

> industry developes some good antifungals (they have some now I know

> but more on the way) that have new patents and you need to take

> forever; as soon as the insurance industry has all policyholders

> safely in contracts which exclude mold, etc, etc...then everyone will

> have the illness. I've seen it in other things.

>

>

> >

> > Carl,

> >

> > You are exactly right. There are many, who are working to help

> those who

> > are being devastated by the " toxic mold " issue.

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I just fear that with any change, normal, non-elite people almost never

'win'.

Normal people just have so little clout in public policy these days. They

don't even sit at the table.

For example, I read today that the percentage of mens salaries for equal

work and with equal qualifications women make

has actually fallen over the last decade..

In other words, we are going backwards on many measures of quality of life

and human rights.. the mold situation is not that different, so far. For

every well publicized victory there are thousands and thousands of defeats..

none of which are publicized.

That creates the illusion of justice when in fact, very little such justice

actually exists..

Thats why I think we need to concentrate on lawmaking and physical standards

on old.. rather than relying on people to sue like we do now. Because even

if that one in a hundred who did sue got an amount of money that adequately

compensated for them for what they had lost, there would still be a huge

financial incentive to the moldpoisoners to ignore the cost of the things

they need to do to prevent mold.. because the law of averages says that even

if each of them was sued once in ten years and lost, the amount they would

save by ruining lives would still make it profitable..

On 12/24/06, snk1955@... <snk1955@...> wrote:

>

> Hey Quackdillian,

>

> Do you think that that scenario is fairly realistic?

> No, I don't think that is realistic on broad scale. It's not like someone

> is going to yell the truth from a bell tower and everyone in the land will

>

> hear the message at once. It will be a gradual change, I think. And of

> course,

> with any change comes a transition period. So there will be some

> contention

> and confusion. I don't see this happening on a grand scale. But, there

> will

> be a change.

>

> Sharon

>

>