Old Boston Globe story from 1994

[Guest guest]

I found this article in 2002, about two years into my quest to find truth

about mold illnesses.

This must have been written just around the time that the " powers that be "

decided they had to fight with a vengeance the recognition of mold illnesses.

I am just sickened to realize that if back in 1994 more was done to bring

the illnesses to light, none of us would be members of because

the problems would have been recognized we as a country would be well on the

way to keeping others from getting sick. As you will see, former Congressman

Joe Kennedy did believe this was a problem and tried to do something about it.

He found scarce info when trying to look into mold problems to help his

constituents. I was curious to see what happened with his request for federal

funding and another piece I found following up on that can be found below the

1994 Boston Globe story.

On a personal note, I am just so very disgusted that FOR YEARS there has

been a well orchestrated " cover up " on this issue to the detriment of all who

have been made ill by mold exposure. When you read this article and then think

about what the LA Weekly has tried to do to Sharon Kramer and all she has

done to further the understanding of the conflicts of interest on this issue, I

just want to scream. I know that these are strong words, but in my heart of

hearts, I believe she is being targeted by some very powerful interests who,

as far as I can see, have sensed the shift in tides in the general

population's emerging understanding that you can't have mold in your home,

school or

place of work or you will get sick and the special interests (and those

" hired " to protect them) are just hanging on for dear life. They sense the end

of

their ability to shove the misinformation down people's and our government's

throats is coming to an end and they are desperately holding on for as long

as they can.

On a positive note, I truly believe that something good is going to come of

this because the truth will always out; not necessarily on our timetable but

the truth will always out.

Mulvey son

ENEMIES WITHIN UMASS WOES SHARPEN AWARENESS OF POWERFUL POLLUTANTS INDOORS

Author(s): Usha Lee McFarling, Contributing Reporter Date: February 2,

1994 Page: 1 Section: METRO

Beth Smuts spends her days telling the public that indoor air pollution

-- the problem currently plaguing the University of Massachusetts campus in

Dorchester -- is one of the nation's top environmental problems. She has

become her own best example. Her husband can't report to work at UMass. Her

daughter's elementary school is about to be filled with the fumes of fresh

paint.

And after last week's flooding, her own office at the US Environmental

Protection Agency may have illness-causing mold growing inside.

" It's curious that three out of four of my family are being affected by

potential indoor air problems, " said Smuts, the indoor air expert for the

Boston

EPA office. " Are we an average family? "

They could be.

While highly visible cases such as the one at UMass garner intense public

scrutiny, specialists say indoor air pollution problems -- from the toxic fumes

of new carpeting to dust mites in that carpeting -- can plague virtually any

building.

And the majority of air pollution problems are denied or ignored, say

experts, leaving people who work or live in bad air at higher risk for illness

and

cancer. While most people equate air pollution with billowing smokestacks,

much indoor air is now considered to be of poorer quality than outdoor air.

" Walking into the average house can be compared to putting your head in a

plastic bag that is full of toxic fumes, " is how Bower regularly describes

it. Bower, a mechanical engineer, founded the Healthy House Institute in

Unionville, Ind., after a home renovation project made his wife sick.

The cause of indoor air pollution is two-fold: Synthetic materials like

carpets, paint and house cleaners give off toxic fumes. In addition, buildings

on

former industrial sites or landfills can take in gases wafting upward from

waste or decaying garbage. The UMass Harbor campus sits atop a landfill, but

experts have said methane gas from decomposing landfill materials is not

likely to be causing the air problems there.

Tightly sealed and heavily insulated houses then trap the fumes. And people

spend 90 percent of their time indoors, breathing those fumes.

Commonly called " sick building syndrome, " indoor air pollution has afflicted

schools, hospitals and even ice rinks across the state. Ironically, sick

building problems traced to new carpeting plagued the EPA's own national

headquarters in Washington for years.

While there is disagreement over how widespread the problem is, a 1984 study

by the World Health Organization estimated that 30 percent of all new

buildings could be sick buildings.

The EPA's emphasis on outdoor pollution needs to be shifted, argues Rep.

ph P. Kennedy 2d, who is proposing a $47 million bill to help the EPA study

and cure sick buildings.

" We have a government that is spending millions and millions of dollars

cleaning up outdoor air pollution, yet people spend 90 percent of their time

indoors, " Kennedy said in an interview yesterday. He became interested in the

issue when the largest high school in his district -- Cambridge Rindge & Latin

-- was branded a sick building in 1989.

At the time, Kennedy said, " We couldn't find anyone to help us. There was

just a complete vacuum. " The national budget for dealing with indoor air

pollution is $11.5 million.

EPA officials say public awareness of the problem is increasing. But like

other " invisible " environmental problems like radon gas exposure, people

usually do not become concerned until pollution problems cause illness. Radon,

a

naturally occurring gas that seeps out of the ground in some geographic areas,

including New England, is the second leading cause of lung cancer, estimated

to cause 14,000 cases a year.

Growing awareness of indoor pollution has created consumer demand for

paints, carpets and household cleaners that emit fewer chemicals, said Bower of

the

Healthy House Institute. There are now more homeowners likely to spend

$12,000 for a home ventilation system than there were 10 years ago, he said.

Sick buildings can usually be cured by increasing ventilation or removing

contaminants such as chemicals or mold. But those simple remedies often are not

undertaken because building managers ignore or deny complaints of workers

and residents, sometimes because they fear legal liability or attribute the

problem to mass hysteria.

Some UMass professors, faculty and students have complained that university

administrators ignored air quality problems at the campus until the current

crisis.

" The worst thing a building manager can do is not take a complaint

seriously, " said Axlerad, head of the EPA's national office on indoor

air

pollution. " If they're pro-active, they won't find themselves on the front page

of

the newspaper. "

House Votes To Cut Funding For Enviro Science

Greenwire reported that the House on May 30 passed a bill that would

authorize $19.7 billion for federal civilian science programs in FY '97, which

is

$625 million less than FY '96 funding (Congress Daily, 5/31). The measure

includes " substantial cuts in environmental and atmospheric science " (

Clayton, Houston Chronicle, 5/30).

The House rejected a proposed amendment to the bill that would have kept

alive the US EPA's Environmental Technology Initiative, which spurs

technologies

to help the private sector comply with environmental regulations

(Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/2). The House also rejected an amendment to continue

funding

for EPA research for the Climate Change Action Plan. The House accepted an

amendment by Rep. ph Kennedy (D-MA) to restore funding for

indoor-air-quality research (Congress Daily A.M.).

Given the demand by wise users and their allies in Congress that

environmental policy be based on " sound science, " the cuts in environmental

sciences

demonstrate the lack of commitment to both science and the environment on the

part of the anti-environmental Congress. Don't expect an outcry from any of the

" sound science " groups in the wise use movement over this.

**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for

FanHouse Fantasy Football today.

(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the article .

Yes, in 2001, when I was living in a moldy house and still putting the mystery

together, there was no consensus. All I could find was Don Vrana's site and a

couple of others. But eventually, I found the answers although dispersed here

and there.

However, mold research around the world should be 7 years more advanced, (even

though it is moving slowly), which means we should be more able than ever to

agree this is a problem. I thought we already did! In fact, I thought

" everyone " understood mold is dangerous.

The reason the other side is winning is that the mold community allows their

advocates and doctors to be slandered and picked off one by one. Look at what

happened to Dr. Ordog. They filed about 23 charges against him. Only 2 stuck

and they were technical details. Apparently he had the wrong lettering on his

lab coat or something trivial like that. Why didn't the community rally around

him? This is not about individuals, that is merely a military tactic: instill

fear in the group and pick off the leaders. Shouldn't unity be discussed?

Shouldn't all of these bickering scientific sides and related industries come

together in a show of collective force?

Best,