After the deluge of flooding the politics of toxic mold

[Guest guest]

After the deluge of flooding the politics of toxic mold

Environmental Expert (press release) - Madrid,Madrid,Spain*

Source: Environmental News Network

Published Jul. 7, 2008

http://www.environmental-expert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx?

cid=4791 & codi=33687 & idproducttype=8 & level=0

For days now, a swollen Mississippi River has menacingly roamed far

from its banks, devouring large swatches of picturesque river towns

and some of the Midwest's best farmlands. While countless news

organizations chronicle both the courage of those fighting 'Big

Muddy's' assault and the anguish of those wounded by it, another

battle is about to begin. This battle will go all but unseen, for

the struggle will be one of individual households against mold, mold

that is both toxic and dangerous, though there are those who insist

otherwise.

With an estimated 11 million people and nine Midwestern states

impacted by the floods, the severe weather preceding them, or both,

toxic mold questions have assumed new significance. A reading of the

US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mold concerns quickly

helps one appreciate why.

According to an EPA website last updated April 30th: 'Many symptoms

and human health effects attributed to inhalation of mycotoxins have

been reported including: mucous membrane irritation, skin rash,

nausea, immune system suppression, acute or chronic liver damage,

acute or chronic central nervous system damage, endocrine effects,

and cancer.' The EPA added, 'it is clearly prudent to avoid exposure

to molds and mycotoxins,' and so performed an exercise in what

should be obvious, but sometimes apparently is not.

Posing a dilemma for flood victims, some of those within the medical

community have strongly downplayed toxic mold's dangers. One highly

circulated pronouncement - in a text specifically aimed at flood

victims - reassured: 'Although molds release natural toxins, called

mycotoxins, these don't cause problems to people who live in moldy

houses because the toxins don't diffuse into the air. The only way

to be exposed to them is to swallow them.' But there seems to be a

problem with this.

Published research exists which directly contradicts such

statements, with even the EPA's just cited warning specifically

mentioning the 'inhalation of mycotoxins.' It's been repeatedly

found that mycotoxins can be airborne, inhaled, and are dangerous,

with research also indicating that mold can pose dangers

to 'immunocompetent,' healthy, individuals.

In 2004 a study conducted by scientists with the Department of

Microbiology and Immunology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences

Center, is believed to be the first which revealed that 'mycotoxins

can become airborne.' The study, published in Applied and

Environmental Microbiology, concluded by noting the work 'may have

important implications for indoor air quality assessment.'

Another landmark 2004 study, titled 'Adverse Health Effects of

Indoor Molds,' compiled by researchers from leading institutions

including Harvard University and the University of Illinois at

Chicago, concluded that exposure to high levels of mold can

induce 'injury to and dysfunction of multiple organs and systems'

among normal, 'immunocompetent,' healthy individuals. Notably, the

study specifically attributed the potential for 'hemorrhaging

disorders' to mycotoxin exposure, an issue the EPA has also raised.

The EPA maintains a web page titled 'Children's Health Initiative:

Toxic Mold.' As part of the 'Background' section, the EPA cites an

incident where: 'A cluster of cases of acute pulmonary

hemorrhage/hemosiderosis was reported in Cleveland, Ohio, where 27

infants from homes that suffered flood damage became sick (nine

deaths) with the illness starting in January 1993.'

While the case the EPA cites is yet vigorously debated, it is widely

known that attempts to remediate mold problems, without the use of a

respirator, have produced nosebleeds among those so engaged.

Independent findings subsequent to 2004 led some leading researchers

to declare levels of mycotoxins in mold affected structures

as 'several hundred' times higher than previously thought. Such a

circumstance would seem to readily lend itself to a better

appreciation of mold hazards, though, surprisingly, the hazards of

mold have been discussed for years.

As early as 1999, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

declared: 'Floods Carry a Hazardous Potential For Toxic Mold.' And,

for years now, courts throughout the Country have awarded damages to

a number of toxic mold victims.

Given what appear to be such straightforward pronouncements upon

toxic mold's dangers, some may question the basis for debate,

whether there is actually debate, but a debate does exist. Having

said this, it is important to emphasize that many critics of this

debate suggest its true foundations are other than medical or

scientific.

In strictly monetary terms, the health, property, and liability

costs of mold are projected as 'extremely substantive,' especially

as many insurance companies no longer cover numerous types of mold-

related claims.

As the chairman of the US House of Representatives Judiciary

Committee, Congressman Conyers (D-Mich), observed regarding

toxic mold: 'It's not that no one knows about it, but it seems that

a lot of people don't want to know about it.' Recently, and cutting

to what many see as the crux of 'the debate,' came the reply of a

European researcher to a query, a query concerning the health

hazards mycotoxins pose for those living or working in mold affected

environments.

'A politically, legally, and economically important question!' was

all that was written, and perhaps all that needs to be.