Industry Views: The Best and Worst of IAQ in 2006

December 23, 2006

Dec 2006.

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

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.

Recommended Posts