RE : Studies Confirm Large Public Health and Economic Impact of Dampness and Mold

[Guest guest]

Thank you for posting this. It is important, and a learned skill to approach

" scientific " reports

with skeptism and great caution until one knows WHO did the research, WHO

PAID for the research, IF the researcher had " Alphabet Soup " after his/her name.

By " Alphabet Soup " - I mean a PhD in Microbiology or a Board Certified

Environmental/Occupational Physician, whose experience crosses the borders of

the United States.

It is the " outside " of the U.S. experience, for me, personally which sets a

doctor or researcher apart. It is more likely that medicine and science take on

an " agrarian " or farm context, where the diagnosis and treatment is more settled

and accepted. There is more likely to be fewer overtones of bias, from the

construction industry, the government, or lobbyists who cultivate the favor of

pubic officials to enact laws and statutes which protect industry to the

detriment of the " people. "

My first research on aspergillus fumigatus led me to United Kingdom and

Canadian and other European websites which did not send me in circles as did

those of the U.S. The Canadian

sites gave good descriptive information about the 'level of protection' I

should have - GOING into a CLASSROOM - the purported safe haven for children.

It did not pass the " smell " test for me.

Those in charge of 'environMENTAL' issues dragged their feet, then,

" defensively " told me there were " NO STANDARDS " first, then that I would NEVER

prove, that mold in my classroom had made me an my schoolkids sick. These

'officials' could point to propaganda, using what I call ENVIRO-speak - to try

to escape their duty to provide a safe learning environment for those kids and

the one teaching them.

This is a sad consequence of the " commercialization " of scientific research.

We naively followed like sheep, for years the 'good' word of scientists. Only

as a result of injury, and frustration attempting to get substantial evidentiary

support for our injuries have people stumbled on the fact that there is neither

scientific purity, nor a lack of bias in much of the research that has become

part of the admistrative branch of the government.

Learning the tricks of devious officials was a real lesson for me, the

teacher. They would come in and throw terms around like 'ambient' air, CO2, [

which I call THEIR " hot air " coming out of their mouths to confound me] organic

dust, volatile organic compounds, etc., to someone with headaches, diminshing

voice, diminshing hearing, hair loss, continuous fever, etc., still trying to do

the job.

All they had to do was move me and the kids to a sunny, south facing

classroom. Did they do it? No. Instead, the kids, many of whom developed

Asthma, headaches, pneumonia, and were falling asleep, thirsty all the time were

at their mercy. What I knew was that if this was happening to me, it was also

happening to other less vocal, less feisty teachers. I had a feeling that if

the 'environmental specialists' were yammering about C02 - and not mold, there

was a 'diversionary tactic' in place - and, I was not the first to experience

it. And, there was a less than honest position they were defending, and there

was a use of some 'scientific' testing which was not 'above board.'

One problem that remains is the MSDS listing which remains non 'user' friendly

and written in ENVIROspeak. I attended an environmental seminar at a law school

in the Northeast, several years ago, and boldly asked why this was so. The room

which was full of lawyers, legislators and international environmental people

fell silent. An argument was posed that it was 'necessary' to describe the

toxins in chemical language. I countered that if the Canadian Government could

take aspergillus fumigatus and describe it in 'lay' terms, with levels of

precautionary protection - types masks, gloves, gowns, etc., then so could the

United States.

Following the seminar, I had several people approach me and say they agreed

with me, as well as some others who defended the practice of the chemical

compound language.

If signage is posted in a non-understood language, why post it? Is it there

to confuse people and make those who understand it and make people feel inferior

to those who don't understand?

I would not allow it. By looking OUTSIDE the United States, I was able to

better educate myself, and therefore others, by writing and public testimony,

which shines a light on the problem. Of course the people who don't want the

real truth about the danger of toxic mold and mycotoxins exposed, because

keeping it quiet, has made many people rich. People have profitted from others'

misery. Many teachers and staff where I once taught have cancer. Breast

Cancer. Several years ago I read a publication written by a Dr. Constantini,

who worked for the WHO - the World Health Organization about the relationship

between mycotoxins and cancer,

specifically Breast Cancer. It seemed to make sense to me. And, this doctor

had letters, like ALPHABET SOUP, following his name.

Happy Thanksgiving.

tigerpaw2c <tigerpaw2c@...> a écrit :

The article below written by co-author Fisk out of Berkeley

has been involved with the indoor environment for 25 years. I spoke

to him in the very early stages about my wife's condition, he seemed

to be very nice but also seemed to be afraid to eleborate the

effects of a contaminated building on ones health. Like he was

afraid to cross the line.

He also was interviewed for our story in Reader's Digest in

Novemeber of 04. This was their expert and the reason for not

mentioning in the article the serious human health affects of mold

exposure. I can not find anywhere, where he has the credentials of

MD or Ph.D. But I did find that he had worked for the Tobacco Task

Force. hmmmm, another conflict of interest.

I don't think professionals of his stature should comment on such a

broad scale to the general public and in the long run very

misleading. This just adds to the confusion for those that are not

educated concerning this condition within the general public.

I am tired of these so-called " experts " having their word taken

as " gospel " when they haven't spoken to the " general public " or even

the physicians who are treating this condition.

KC

......

Studies Confirm Large Public Health and Economic Impact of Dampness

and Mold

http://eetdnews.lbl.gov/nl26/eetd-nl26-2.html

EETD scientists estimate that number of asthma cases attributable to

exposure in home is 4.6 million, at $3.5 billion annual cost

Scientific studies show that mold in the walls and ceiling of homes

substantially raises the risk of a asthma and other respiratory

problems and adds $3.5 billion to the annual national health bill.

Photo credit: Mike McNickle.

A pair of studies published in the journal Indoor Air have

quantified the considerable public health risks and economic

consequences in the United States from building dampness and mold.

One paper by J. Fisk, Quanhong Lei-Gomez and Mark J.

Mendell, all with the Environmental Energy Technologies Division of

the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), concludes

that building dampness and mold raised the risk of a variety of

respiratory and asthma-related health outcomes by 30 to 50 percent.

" Our analysis does not prove that dampness and mold cause these

health effects, " says Fisk. " However, the consistent and relatively

strong associations of dampness with adverse health effects strongly

suggest causation by dampness-related [pollutant] exposures. "

The second paper, by Mudarri of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) and Fisk uses results of the first paper

plus additional data on dampness prevalence to estimate that 21

percent of current asthma cases in the U.S. are attributable to

dampness and mold exposure.

" Of the 21.8 million people reported to have asthma in the U.S.,

approximately 4.6 million cases are estimated to be attributable to

dampness and mold exposure in the home, " says the study. In

addition, this paper estimates that " the national annual cost of

asthma that is attributable to dampness and mold exposure in the

home is $3.5 billion. " The paper also summarizes the considerable

evidence of adverse health effects from dampness and mold in offices

and schools, and suggests that exposure to dampness and mold in

those venues appear to have similar health impacts on those exposed.

Mudarri and Fisk suggest that " a significant community response " is

warranted given the size of the population affected and the large

economic costs. Preventative and corrective actions include:

better moisture control during the building's design;

moisture control practices during construction;

improved preventive maintenance of existing buildings to include a

comprehensive moisture control program including control of water

intrusions from outside, plumbing leaks, condensation and humidity

control, and other causes of moisture accumulation or mold growth.

J. Fisk, Acting Division Director of Berkeley Lab's

Environmental Energy Technologies Division, was head of EETD's

Indoor Environment Department when this study was conducted.

The Berkeley Lab paper provides quantitative estimates of the

increased risks of having current asthma, being diagnosed with

asthma, and having related health effects when people live in homes

with visible dampness or mold problems. These estimates are based on

a statistical analyses of a large number of previously published

studies, none of which by themselves are a suitable basis for

overall risk quantification.

The EPA paper's results are based on the analyses of studies of this

health issue cited in a 2004 report released by the Institute of

Medicine (IOM) of the National Academy of Sciences and more recently

published studies. The IOM report, which is considered the current

consensus of the U.S. scientific community, concluded that excessive

indoor dampness is a public health problem but did not offer any

overall quantitative assessment.

Fisk is Acting Division Director of Berkeley Lab's Environmental

Energy Technologies Division. When writing these papers he was head

of the division's Indoor Environment Department. Mudarri was a

senior economist and research program manager in the Indoor

Environments Division at the U.S. EPA and has recently retired.

These studies are part of the Indoor Air Quality Scientific Findings

Resource Bank project, funded by the Indoor Environments Division,

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the EPA. The project is a

cooperative venture between EPA and Berkeley Lab to quantify the

health and productivity impacts of indoor air exposures and make

those data publicly accessible.

The papers are available from the web site of the Indoor Air Journal.

— Allan Chen

For more information, contact:

Bill Fisk

(510) 486-5910; Fax (510) 486-6658

WJFisk@...

For more about the research of Bill Fisk.

This research is supported by the Indoor Environments Division,

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency.

---------------------------------

Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers