Re: Re: Tests find no elevated mold levels (refs that might be useful)

[Guest guest]

But sadly, very few of them realize the extent to which spore sampling

methods (air trap, surface sampling) can underestimate

or completely miss mold contamination in a building, giving false

negatives. The rate with stachybotrys is so high that that kind of

test

is next to worthless for post-remediation testing for stachybotrys

except under conditions that are highly unusual in that situation.

(active water source, mold in the process of drying out as sampling is taken)

What are the chances that a mold sampling will be done while

stachybotrys mold is sporulating? Not very high.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17267247

Fungal Genet Biol. 2007 Jul;44(7):641-7. Epub 2006 Dec 24.

Biomechanics of conidial dispersal in the toxic mold Stachybotrys chartarum.

Tucker K, Stolze JL, Kennedy AH, Money NP.

Department of Botany, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.

Conidial dispersal in Stachybotrys chartarum in response to

low-velocity airflow was studied using a microflow apparatus. The

maximum rate of spore release occurred during the first 5 min of

airflow, followed by a dramatic reduction in dispersal that left more

than 99% of the conidia attached to their conidiophores.

Micromanipulation of undisturbed colonies showed that micronewton

(microN) forces were needed to dislodge spore clusters from their

supporting conidiophores. Calculations show that airspeeds that

normally prevail in the indoor environment disturb colonies with

forces that are 1000-fold lower, in the nanonewton (nN) range.

Low-velocity airflow does not, therefore, cause sufficient disturbance

to disperse a large proportion of the conidia of S. chartarum.

PMID: 17267247 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

(shows WHY spore tests FREQUENTLY miss stachybotrys chartarum)

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/1/114

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2005, p. 114-122, Vol. 71, No. 1

Detection of Airborne Stachybotrys chartarum Macrocyclic Trichothecene

Mycotoxins on Particulates Smaller than Conidia

T. L. Brasel, D. R. , S. C. , and D. C. Straus

(shows how toxic the many, many particles much smaller than spores -

i.e. conidia, are and how they carry much of the toxic load in WDBs)

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/11/7376?view=long & pmid=16269780

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2005, p. 7376-7388,

Vol. 71, No. 11

Detection of Airborne Stachybotrys chartarum Macrocyclic Trichothecene

Mycotoxins in the Indoor Environment

T. L. Brasel, J. M. , C. G. Carriker, S. C. , and D. C. Straus*

(shows what needs to be done to detect trichothecenes in indoor air,

sampling procedure mimics human lung action on high volumes of air)

http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2003/isbn9512267756/ (scroll down for Article 6)

Airaksinen M., Kurnitski J., Pasanen P. and Seppänen O.,

Fungal spore transport through a building structure.

Indoor Air, accepted for publication. (shows how te tiniest particles

as described above can migrate between cavities in wooden buildings -

the smallest particles, much smaller than spores, can penetrate much

farther than people think, they are also the ones that most damage

people's health)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15487326

Mycopathologia. 2004 Jul;158(1):87-97.

Protein translation inhibition by Stachybotrys chartarum conidia with

and without the mycotoxin containing polysaccharide matrix.

Karunasena E, Cooley JD, Straus D, Straus DC.

(shows how spores presence or lack of presence does not mean the same

things as toxin presence or lack of, mentions water

solubility issue, semi-volatile issue)

On Jan 31, 2008 1:39 AM, salzberglver3 <salzberglver3@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> Teachers, and parents whose kids are in sick schools do not buy this

> rhetoric on district air samplings. We know that those companies hired

> by districts to do the testing do indeed ignore the complexity of damp

> sick buildings but we need some user friendly statements to give to

> teachers and parents to use when districts state that " no one " is sick

> from mold in their buildings according to these bogus air samplings

> with this one line emphasized over and over throughout the U.S.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Was that a bit too dense? I think so.. I'm sorry.

What I meant to say was that there was no *single* test that was cheap

to test for mold,

that mold testing is a serious business

and that each of the several methods available does something

different and has shortcomings and limitations that

make the typical mold report something that needs to be seen in its context.

Also, consultants can and do do various things to cover up problems if

thats what

the customer wants. You are never going to see mold tests showing

positive when there is no mold

but you are OFTEN going to see them showing negative when there is a

problem lurking right behind

the wall, and people are getting sick.

the bottom line SHOULD be that IF PEOPLE ARE GETTING SICK FROM MOLD,

THERE IS A PROBLEM.

And also that spore tests alone should not be used for testing in

post-remediation situations

becuse of the various shortcomings. ERMI also has shortcomings. Toxin

testing is difficult

unless you have expensive equipment for high volume air sampling, or a

chunk of the mold

from bulk sampling which wouldn't apply in post remediation

situations, obviously.

Bla bla bla.. I'm sorry for the pompous tone.. I need to lighten up.

Look, I just get stressed about this because I know how these issues

get twisted and

also how many people's lives are being destroyed by these 'dont worry,

what you can't see cant hurt you' situations.

Politicians and public health officials, especially, need to knw more,

much more than they do now, so

they can protect us.

Right now this is NOT happening.

[Guest guest]

They say that they look at it as a business decision.

How many hours they have to spend vs the money payoff they expect to

get and their chance of getting it.

That puts poor people at a huge disadvantage. Unfortunately most mold

victims fall into that category,

unless its a multi-million dollar house that they are arguing over.

Something is fundamentally wrong with a system that encourages greedy people to

hurt other people and then lets them get away with it with such a

small chance of having to pay for it.

The government should offer free testing, Free notarizing of sample

submission, and at cost help with every other possible thing.

They really should give people free legal help. Because people cannot

pay $300/hour who have lost everything. That is not realistic.

***Its in society's interest to have these people prosecuted.*** Since

it is a civic duty for people to sue, lets make people able to do it.

That is the only way. They should also extend the statute of

limitations to four or five years and offer medical care for people

who have been injured and deduct a surcharge from rents to pay for it.

When employers get caught forcing people to breathe moldy air in

workplaces, their insurance costs should go up and that money go into

a fund to pay victims. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ANYONE AT THAT SITE IS

SUING THEM.

The same thing with apartments. The law should specify that fines are

to be levied even if they have intimidated their own victims into

silence. Victims should get medical care regardless of whether they

won a lawsuit.

That would remove a small amount of the financial incentive poisoners

have to poison.

On Jan 31, 2008 10:20 PM, salzberglver3 <salzberglver3@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> testing is difficult

> unless you have expensive equipment for high volume air sampling

>

> The above was the excuse of my WC attorney when I first asked for an

> independent industrial hygienist for my building... " You don't have the

> kind of money it takes to do a thorough investigation of the building "

>

> So NOW, four years later! he tells me " We know you got sick in that

> building and so did the children, and the principal did move you out

> of that classroom BUT we don't " know " what made you sick and OSHA

> didn't help us figure it out now did they? "

>

> When will there ever be justice for the injured worker in sick buildings?

>

>