What is toxic mold by law - was: House 3rd episode to mention mold in the past month.

[Guest guest]

At 04:58 AM 5/14/2009, you wrote:

>Am I hearing things?? I know I have " moldbrain " but this is crazy...

The USA is decades behind in medical law other countries, including

both Free World, Third World, and Communist countries. You may

have read that USA is now rated for health care below most Third

World countries? Below is why. Well about half of the reason.

>Criminal Minds on CBS last night had a house in quarantine with men in

>protective suits, when the neighbor asked what was going on the actor

>replied " Toxic Mold " !!

You make a good point. " Mold " is used in an " over generalized " way.

There are " many types " of molds.

" Types " are 5 genres, each genre with tens of thousands of species.

There are over 500,000 species of mold. Over half are " safe " ,

someone is inhaling it daily.

" Toxic mold " is a western medicine " technical term " with " legal meaning "

in almost every state of the USA. Yes, state law determines what

" species " of mold can be called " pathogenic " or " toxic " .

This means this ONE species of mold is 'bad' for ALL humans.

It's like poison, it will, will, will harm 99.99% of all humans who inhale it

or get infected with.

Very few are " toxic " or " pathogenic " according to " state law. "

A dozen, maybe twenty at most.

And in some USA states (perhaps not now, but decades ago),

there are no pathogenic molds, according to " state law. "

If the mold species (not genre) is not listed in some state legal book,

then it's not, not, not toxic, according to law. And the " authorities "

are bound by " law. "

" Medical " law is about 10 years behind in EVERY state.

There is a group of concerned citizens, scientists, doctors and politicians

attempting to gain support to " unify " state 'medical' lawS. Notice the upper

case S for lawS. Several states' legislative bodies have signed on, but

only to the principle. Why? It's a budget reduction method. Every 5-8

years the individual state legislators will " review " (read rubber stamp)

and vote for (usually 100% for) " new " medical laws, and changes to

old ones. Why so infrequently? The new laws are written by " staff "

within the state based upon lawsuits and personal knowledge of

the " staff " (none of the staff are doctors or scientists, just secretaries

and personal assistances of each state's Congressman or Assemblemen),

who " team " together every 5-6 years, to aggregate their separate efforts,

come to agreement to the new " wording " of the medical law to propose).

So, you can see why some experts are paving the way for unification

of states' laws, as a cost saving measure, and to avoid the impunging

of their state's reputation for living in the medical Dark Ages, and having

laws on the books that allow doctors to legally torture and ignore their

patients woes, when a few feet across a state boundary, that same

doctor behavior would be jail time, or a possible trial for the death

sentence. Yes, some states are 15+ years behind.

Most states " borrow " wording from other states whose " laws " have

survived court battles. Meaning the adopted laws are 5+ years old.

Why? Cost cutting measure... if that state's court system does not

have to " fight " over what another state court has already decided...

The USA is decades behind in medical law other countries, including

both Free World, Third World, and Communist countries. You may

have read that USA is now rated for health care below most Third

World countries? Now you know why.

So, when you " hear " mold hypersensitivity... it does not mean " every "

mold species,

it just means " one " species is inhaled or touched and it causes just

" you " problems.

That is not a " toxic " mold. That is not a legally pathogenic mold.

The legal system is not " set up " to recognize " one offs. "

A car crash is not recognized as a one off.

Falling through a K12 school building roof, late at night, on the weekend,

due to rotten timbers, as one is attempting to rob the facility, dressed

in all black with a black hood and black gloves... means you get to sue

the school district for liability and win millions in dollars. Yes, only in

California. You can google for it. That's a 'one off.'

It had to go to court for the burglar to win millions.

Car crashes are so common, they would overwhelm the court system,

so insurance companies battle it out, and only resort to the court

system when an insured party gets a lawyer and files a lawsuit.

And most times then the lawyer wins out of court, so the insurance

companies do not have to " pay " more in court costs.

So, mold problems, if the species is not listed in the law books as

pathogenic, explicitly listed, then ... you guessed it ... if you do not

get advice of a lawyer, go to court, for several years that it takes,

then you will not get anything.

Is this changing? Yes. How fast? In my opinion, 20+ years out

before it reaches a point where " I " would be satisfied.

PEL - permissible exposure levels is the common EPA method

for this. But that is just for " pathogenic " molds. Not for SBS

sensitivity. PEL is a measurement done in '1 hour'. SBS

happens as a chronic exposure (in 98% of the cases) where

a few inhabitants have " low level " symptoms in a few days.

Rarely hours, even more rare is minutes - 1 person being

hospitalized upon walking into a building with 100's of people

in it, does not make that one mold species " toxic " or pathogenic,

right? Right?

And using those same " guidelines " if " half " the people in the

building, say 50 out of 100, within 6 months to 2 years, start

calling in sick, or arrive and go home sick, then that one SBS

mold species is still not " pathogenic. " Right? And never will be.

Never. Why? 50 people are still fine. Totally fine.

" Pathogenic " or " toxic " are legal medical terms.

Do not confuse this 'legal sense' with common horse sense where 50% of the

people fall ill within a year. Yes, that mold species is also

" toxic " , but not

according to the law on the books. The responsible parties avoid liability

by looking at the legal sense, not common decency. Why? Their " job "

is beholden to executives and shareholders, and their responsibility is

to protect those few, or not only lose their job, but become subject to

lawsuit from those few for failure to do their job. How bad can it get

for this " individual? " If the responsible entity loses 10 million in a

law suit, that entity can turn around and sue that individual for...

10 million dollars plus legal fees (of several 100 thousand, from

both trials). Why would the " entity " sue? Well, the top executive

is beholden to the shareholders, and might lose his job and be

liable for the full amount ...

See what I mean by " Medical Dark Ages? "

And why unification of states' medical laws is so important?

I also push for unification. There is a web site, I do not have

the URL off the top of my head. Someone else will post it.

Do donate any spare dollars or cents their way.

Unfortunately, it's not a Non Profit, so is not tax deductible.

Why not? Any NGO that pushes for legal changes is automatically

a political NGO and can not be a NPO.

Again, the legal system in the USA is in a sad state of dark ages, imho.

In Arizona it's likely the best in the USA you will find.

I've been told there are other states as good.

California does fair behind Arizona, but is high up there.