Guest guest Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 Dr. Thrasher, I did not know that you did not have to do the outside count. I was told by a mycologist that people should do it for comparison if one is in litigation. Darlene " Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@...> wrote: Darlene and the Rest of the Group: One does not need outside tests for control. I am currently involved in a case in Santa Barbara, CA where we have looked at outside mold spore counts over the year. Even in the summer time the counts outdoors for specific species of Aspergillus and Penicillium ranges from zero to a few thousand spores per cubic meter. A similar variation is seen in Cladosporium, although it never reaches zero because of its abundancy. Further, I suggest that everyone read the paper by Cooley, et al in Straus' book, Sick Building Syndrome. Figures 14 and 15 page 21 tell the story. Indoor counts remain relativley constant througout the day. Outdoor counts vary according to the time of day when the sampling is done. Also, one needs to obtain the species of molds, not just the genus. There are certain species of Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, and S. chartarum that are always higher indoors than outdoors. Also, why outdoor counts? People spend between 80 to almost 100 % of their time indoors. Adults less than infants, for example. Finally, one also needs to test for the nanoparticulates, e.g. Brasel and Straus papers on this subject as well as the master piece by Gorny in Poland. Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D. Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist www.drthrasher.org toxicologist1@... Off: 775-636-8513 Cell - 505-937-1150 --------------------------------- Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 Dr. Thrasher, I agree with you that the tiny particles are obviously really important, from the research, but unless something has changed, its not available anywhere that I have heard of. So how does one test for nanoparticulates? Who offers this test? As far as sampling, if people can't afford to pay a professional to sample, and then to testify in court (maybe they are unemployed due to illness, and nearly homeless and paying hundreds of dollars is too much?) what do you think would transpire in court if the sampling was done by a victim and the entire process was recorded on video, from collection to packing for shipping and entry into the mailbox with the labs address on it, without any breaks? On Jan 4, 2008 8:42 PM, Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. <toxicologist1@...> wrote: > > Darlene and the Rest of the Group: One does not need outside tests for > control. I am currently involved in a case in Santa Barbara, CA where we > have looked at outside mold spore counts over the year. Even in the summer > time the counts outdoors for specific species of Aspergillus and Penicillium > ranges from zero to a few thousand spores per cubic meter. A similar > variation is seen in Cladosporium, although it never reaches zero because of > its abundancy. Further, I suggest that everyone read the paper by Cooley, et > al in Straus' book, Sick Building Syndrome. Figures 14 and 15 page 21 tell > the story. Indoor counts remain relativley constant througout the day. > Outdoor counts vary according to the time of day when the sampling is done. > Also, one needs to obtain the species of molds, not just the genus. There > are certain species of Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, and S. chartarum > that are always higher indoors than outdoors. Also, why outdoor counts? > People spend between 80 to almost 100 % of their time indoors. Adults less > than infants, for example. Finally, one also needs to test for the > nanoparticulates, e.g. Brasel and Straus papers on this subject as well as > the master piece by Gorny in Poland. > Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D. > Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist > www.drthrasher.org > toxicologist1@... > Off: 775-636-8513 > Cell - 505-937-1150 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 Dr Thrasher, Thanks for emphasizing the question of why even take outdoor counts. Emphasis on this comparison detracts from the fact that people indoors are exposed to what is indoors whether or not it is also outdoors. The outdoor comparison is, as I'm sure you know all too well, an artifact of industrial hygiene and it confuses the issue. If I may provide a little history: Originally, to verfiy that the source of a substance inside the factory was from inside the factory and not from outside, the IH or CIH took samples from inside and outside. If the measurement was higher inside then it came from inside and the employer was liable. If not, then the employer was not liable. This is bias number 1 which confuses the mold issue because mold naturally occurs outside and inside. Bias number 2 is the answer to the question of " how much higher? " Because of variations in measurements and shifting exposure levels it was decided that an order of magnitude (10 times higher) would suffice. So if the indoors was only 6 times higher than outdoors, it wasn't significant because the difference could be from the many errors that were possible. But if it was 10X or greater then they could definitely say the source was inside. The 10X rule is still very much alive but is no longer the only unit of comparison. The change slowly occurred as the IH and CIH gained more experience in non-occupational settings where people were sick even if the numbers were equal. Pathcon produced the first large scale statistical study of mold about 4 years ago which put the lie to the 10X rule. They found that typical indoor air is 6-7 times LOWER than outside. This is in line with your estimate in a previous post. But your points are the more important ones: No matter where the mold comes from or what the ratio of comparison is, the occupant is being exposed to what is inside. That comes first. Yes, it's important to know " where it is coming from " so it can be removed but that concern should not, as you imply, should not take precedence over or be confused with the fact that the occupant is exposed and needs help. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > Darlene and the Rest of the Group: One does not need outside tests for control. I am currently involved in a case in Santa Barbara, CA where we have looked at outside mold spore counts over the year. Even in the summer time the counts outdoors for specific species of Aspergillus and Penicillium ranges from zero to a few thousand spores per cubic meter. A similar variation is seen in Cladosporium, although it never reaches zero because of its abundancy. Further, I suggest that everyone read the paper by Cooley, et al in Straus' book, Sick Building Syndrome. Figures 14 and 15 page 21 tell the story. Indoor counts remain relativley constant througout the day. Outdoor counts vary according to the time of day when the sampling is done. Also, one needs to obtain the species of molds, not just the genus. There are certain species of Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, and S. chartarum that are always higher indoors than outdoors. Also, why outdoor counts? People spend between 80 to almost 100 % of their > Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D. > Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist > www.drthrasher.org > toxicologist1@... > Off: 775-636-8513 > Cell - 505-937-1150 > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 I have some other questions Are there different species of stachybotrys? How can people speciate mold samples? Is the $250 per sample Aerotech ERMI test good enough? How much do these DNA tests for mold cost? Do people need to hire CIH's to take samples that are used in court, and then additionally pay them to testify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 I'll take a quick stab at your questions: > Are there different species of stachybotrys? Yes. The Stachybotrys we all talk about is Stachybotrys chartarum. The " chartarum " is the species. It used to be called " atra. " It seems, I don't know why, that the other species have been eliminated from concern. Memnoniella is another mold similar to Stachybotrys (and should be of equal concern) except it produces spores in long chains. > How can people speciate mold samples? The samples have to be cultured (with a couple of exceptions for a skilled microscopist). For example, Penicillium and Aspergillus spores cannot be differentiated under the microscope unless growth structures are present. The difference, as hinted in the previous, is determined by the growth structures and how the colonies form and how spores are generated (culturing). It takes training and equipment to control the conditons of temp, humidity and food source to separate the different species. > Is the $250 per sample Aerotech ERMI test good enough? Good enough for what? It is fantastic at speciating but the number of molds and species it can identify is limited to 36 (If I remember correctly). As for the ERMI Rating system itself, there has been considerable discussion among the experts about several fundamental flaws preventing it from accomplishing what it claims. There is also concern that it was originally developed with support from EPA but they withdrew any connection because it was released before they felt it was sufficiently developed. There is more information on a petition at http://www.gopetition.com/online/14485.html > How much do these DNA tests for mold cost? The DNA tests alone are identified as PCR or qPCR process. ERMI, which is an index interpretation, uses PCR process to identify the molds to the species level (limited by their library). This data is then interpreted by a specific evaluation method which generates the Relative Moldiness Index (the RMI of ERMI). PCR cost varies by lab but is " roughly " in the the $250-$350 per sample range. Keep in mind that neither the PCR nor ERMI tell you how much mold. The DNA identification may come from 100 spores or a million spores, it can't tell the difference. > Do people need to hire CIH's to take samples that are used in court, No. Such a requirement, unless there were other criteria like for licensed medical doctors, could well be a violation of the restraint of trade laws. In other words, people other than CIHs can obtain the education, training and experience to collect and interpret samples. (You only asked about collecting samples, which is important, but not nearly as much as interpreting the data). However, some attorneys and judges prefer CIHs based on general reputation. Or, as one attorney told me when he admitted CIHs have no special technical or professional advantage, they make for a better " show " in the courtroom. Bear with me as I digress to what is actually a hot topic in the industry. Many non-CIHs insist most of the CIHs have not been trained and don't understand the non-work environment. Remember, the " I " in CIH or IH stands for " industrial. " CIHs claim their extensive and in- depth scientific training quality them to do any kind of sampling. The difference, to me, comes down to interpretation of results. CIHs interpret according the regulations and in the context of the 40 hour work week for middle-aged healthy white males. This is a well documented mistake. On the other side of the argument, although many if not most non-CIHs interpret results in the context of non-work environments, few understand how to correctly determine why, where and when to sample, how to handle the samples and which labs are appropriate. Then comes the interpretation of results, which is extremely controversial for mold because there are no permissible exposure levels of specific criteria for comparison. It is left to each person to apply their own. I once wrote a post to this group where I interpreted mold data according to ten (10) different methods of comparison. No single one is agreed upon by industry consensus. However, there are a few qualified experts, several on this group, who have developed consistent procedures and consistent interpretations backed by best available studies who successfully testify in court. Unfortunately, many mold trials are decided by legal issues and not by exposure and harm. But getting back to your question: CIH and IH are often used as a generic term for someone qualified (whatever that means) to collect and interpret samples. No certification is required to be qualified but it often makes qualification for testifying much easier. > and then additionally pay them to testify? Of course. There is a cost for collecting the samples, handling, supplies, time, analysis of the results and writing a report. If they are deposed they are paid for their time, but by the opposing party. However, there is also preparation time for depositions and testifying plus time on the witness stand. Many of these " hard " costs are not included in the deferred costs in a contingency case. Unless specifically included in the written agreement with the attorney, they usually required payment at time of service. Hope this helps more than it confuses. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.