Re: Questions for: Oils that eliminate mold---Really?

[Guest guest]

So long as you don't get it on any mucous membranes (inside nose,

etc.), it's pretty safe. I do inhale it when needed. It abrades mostly

dead skin cells, so is good for foot callouses and corns. I don't know

that I'd describe it as caustic. There are different grades and

dilutions of Tea Tree Oil, so maybe the highest concentrate is

caustic.

Barth

www.presenting.net/sbs/sbs.html

SUBMIT YOUR DOCTOR: www.presenting.net/sbs/molddoctors.html

---

b> Tea Tree oil for example is very caustic when not diluted. I can't imagine

it would be a good idea to inhale vapors from it regularly. Perhaps you could

use it when you are away from home

b> occasionally. To see, just put some straight tea tree oil on a finger and

repeat for a few times. Your skin begins to be dry and very irritated. Now

imagine inhaling that same thing into your

b> lungs.

[Guest guest]

and Dr Close,

Please send offline to my e-mail grimes@... the case

studies and other supporting documents you cite. Until I can

evaluate those I don't know how to reply to most of your

comments.

I can comment, however, that we have a vast difference of

opinion as to what constitutes mold remediation per S520 and

equivalent documents. A discussion about that could be

informative to all.

Also, the documents I cite have been peer reviewed by a wide

range of professionals, often with differing personal opinions

about remediation. These documents represent the best

consensus available. That does not mean, however, that there

are not better methods. Specifically ANSI-IICRC S520 and the

AIHA Recognition, Evaluation, and Control of Indoor Mold.

With your permission, I'd like to send your studies for their review.

As I said before, if it is a better method I'll spread the word. But

we need to have a more broad objective evidence than a closely

knit group of self-review. Can your data convice the (reasonably)

skeptical?

Finally, I am the Chair of an ANSI accredited non-profit who is

currently writing a mold assessment standard for mold in

residences. Send me your information. It will go through

subcommittee review, then Consensus Body review and finally

ANSI Public Review.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

>

> Carl,

>

> Again I do want to say thank you for taking the time to listen to and discuss

my responses. I hope that my

> responses have helped you understand what we are about and I have enjoyed

discussing this topic with you

> and will look forward to discussing this further if needed.

>

> That being said here are mine and Dr. Closes responses.

>

> 1. We have fundamental differences and they lie in the issues of the SER of

Thieves Oil compared to the SER

> of other methods, including HEPA with an adequate CADR and air exchange rate;

if Thieves Oil has provable

> denaturing of mold spores and hyphal fragments which no other method has; and,

if your protocol requires

> professional remediation then those standard-of-care procedures should

preclude the need for Thieves Oil.

>

> JC: I tried to post a table with Spore Removal Efficiency (SRE) information on

it however it didn't display

> very well after it posted. Basically the SRE of Thieves oil is 100% for any

mold genus found Growing Inside

> Only. We have compared the results of the Close protocol with standard

remediation methods including the

> use of HEPA filters, chemical fungicides and removal of water-damaged

materials (moldy walls, insulation,

> carpets, etc.). The SRE calculations showed that the protocol produced

superior results in every case. The

> problem with the use of HEPA filters, as well as other methods like UV and

Ozone, is that they only treat the

> air stream passing through them. They do not treat the source, but rely on

removal and fogging with

> chemical fungicides to get rid of the source of spores. Such methods have

little or no residual effect and

> samples taken a week or so after the treatment often show a rebound of mold

spores, especially in older

> homes or buildings. Dr. Close presented a paper that included case

> Data from specific applications in the field by Dr. Close and others continue

to show that the diffusing of

> Thieves oil according to the Close protocol destroys mold spores. The second

part of this statement reflects

> the attitude of remediators who dismiss the need for before and after sampling

on the basis that mold and

> water-stained materials have to be removed anyway. We have case studies

demonstrating that using the

> Close protocol resulted in substantial savings over estimates given by

remediators using current standard-of-

> care technologies, because much less material needed to be removed after the

application of the protocol;

> and the results were documented. Some remediators have switched from

conventional methods to using the

> Close protocol, but many resist doing so, at least in some cases because they

see the potential revenue from

> remediation jobs reduced.

>

> 2. So let me cut to the chase. How does the Spore Effiency Removal (SER) of

Thieves Oil compare to the SER

> of other methods of removing airborne particles? If it is better then the

expense may be worthwhile. If not as

> good why use it? What do independent studies of SER show? How does the SER

compare to the CADR of

> HEPA air filters?

>

> JC & EC: Actual comparisons of results are discussed above. However, comparing

the SRE of the Close

> protocol to the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) of a HEPA filter is like

comparing apples and oranges. Here's

> why: The SRE is a comparison of evidence of mold activity in a given room or

space before and after

> treatment, while the CADR is simply a calculation made for the purpose of

comparing the air moving

> efficiency of different air filtering devices. In specific case studies, we

have found that pulling air through a

> HEPA filter at a high rate has pulled mold spore laden air from leaky sewer

lines, crawl spaces, and hidden

> cavities. SER calculations reveal this.

>

> 3. Identification of " toxic mold " is critical to your protocol because the

specifics depend on whether or not the

> mold is toxic. There is a huge cost advantage if it is not toxic because that

only requires us to diffuse Thieves

> Oil into the air for 2-3 days to achieve a high SER. If it is toxic then

professional mold remediation is

> required. (more on that later)

>

> JC: This is an over-simplification, if you operate under the assumption that

when we refer to toxic mold we

> are referring to genera of mold that are known to produce toxins, then this

would be an accurate statement.

> EC: The fact that some professional mold remediation is required does not

negate the use of the Thieves

> protocol. The amount of professional remediation (amount of material that has

to be removed and replaced)

> after applying the protocol is an indicator of the effectiveness of the

protocol, and the key to reducing cost.

>

> 4. I'd be very interested in seeing the independent studies confirming that

proteins, enzymes, glucans,

> proteinases and the other cell components of mold spores and hyphae, including

PM 2.5, associated with

> health effects can no longer be identified after using Thieves Oil. If this

can be independantly verified and

> highly sensitive occupants don't react then you have the " silver bullet " of

mold remediation and I'll help the

> world beat a path to your door!

>

> JC: These conclusions were drawn by Dr. Close by taking tape lift samples of

areas in locations with

> concentrations of mold spores in the air and the bio-tape lift and swab

samples were taken before and after,

> these surfaces weren't wiped down with the Thieves cleaner prior to the after

sample, to test the efficacy of

> the Thieves oil vs. mold spores in the air. So, in essence demonstrating that

the mold spores are destroyed by

> the fact that when the samples were analyzed, while there were spores on the

surfaces before applying the

> protocol, no mold spores were detected in the after samples, the conclusion

based on these results would be

> that the mold spores were destroyed not knocked out of the air.

> EC: There have been some independent studies on the effectiveness of essential

oils on mold. Two pages of

> references are given in the book (Nature's Mold RX, pages 43 and 44). We'd

like to see more such

> independent studies, especially field studies. I have suggested additional

research in my presentations.

>

> 5. I suggest he consult with mycologists who are also familiar with indoor

environments and building science.

> Handling mold in the lab has different vocabulary and different requirements

than mold in buildings where

> people live. This is why mold labs should be IAQ mold labs with accreditations

such as EMPAT, EMLAP,

> AL2A and run by mycologists who are familiar with the special requirements of

the indoor environment.

>

> EC: Good recommendations. I have confidence in the labs I have used because of

their accreditation and

> personal contacts with microbiologists and mycologists.

>

> 6. The protocol requires that we know if the mold is toxic. But the only way

to identify " toxic mold " is with a

> lab analysis specifically for mycotoxins. That costs between $700 and $900 per

sample. Determining the

> toxicity of the mold by identifying the genus - or even the species - by

microscopy or culturing is only

> marketing, not science. Toxicity cannot be determined any other way.

>

> JC: As stated above this was determined by information gathered from the

client and the detection of genera

> that are known to be toxin producing through spore-trap or tape lift samples.

>

> EC: Toxic mold in the context of the protocol is any mold known to produce

toxins having documented

> serious health effects. This includes Stachybotrys chartarum, Cladisporium,

and certain species of

> Aspergillus, like A. niger and A, versicolor, and some others. Testing for

actual mycotoxins is simply not

> practical at this time in the real world. This is not a marketing ploy, as you

suggest, but a useful rule-of-

> thumb to help develop an effective protocol.

>

> 7. There is no need to know toxicity for the purpose of remediation. None of

the consensus, peer reviewed

> documents on mold remediation make the distinction because all molds are

removed the same way. Mold

> genus, species and toxicity makes no difference in remediation procedures.

However, different surface types

> each have their own procedures. Your need to know toxicity appears to

determine whether or not a client

> should buy your product.

>

> EC: This again reflects the remediators' mentality and leads to gross

overkill, resulting in unnecessary

> expense in many instances.

> " Mold genus, species and toxicity makes no difference in remediation

procedures. "

> EC: Not in conventional remediation practices. However, our data show that it

should; and it does in our

> protocol, resulting in documented savings to many who have used the protocol.

>

> 8: Diffusing Thieves Oil, or any similar product including water, into the air

will cause the spores to settle

> more quickly out of the air and onto surfaces. Then if surfaces are wiped

clean then there is nothing left for

> Thieves Oil or bleach or anything else to kill or denature. If that is all

that is needed to bring relief, then I'm

> all for it. ON THE CONDITION that the occupant doesn't react to the Thieves

Oil.

>

> JC: This conclusion would be incorrect, as the Thieves oil does not cause the

mold spores to settle more

> quickly or at all. This statement would also only work on a non-porous

material as using bleach or water

> would leave water behind to restart mold growth. This would also have to

assume that either there were no

> carpets or that the carpets had been removed, in most cases this is not the

case.

>

> But I still don't know when your protocol applies because your protocol still

requires moisture sources to be

> identified and fixed and damaged structures to be removed. That is

professional mold remediation and their

> methods preclude the need for Thieves Oil or similar processes.

>

> JC: Your statement that the professional mold remediation and their methods

preclude the need for Thieves

> oil is again an incorrect statement as the use of chemicals, and other

synthetic forms of remediation kill the

> mold spores or ignore the mold spores in the air all together or potentially

leave behind toxins that could be

> more harmful than the mold spores and mycotoxins that were there in the first

place. The reason for having a

> professional mold remediator come out and " clean up " the mold is to have them

dispose of infested materials

> in industry best practices, ie Tyvek suites P-95 or P-100 respirators and all

mucous membrane locations

> sealed and protected from mold spores as well as sealing off and disposing of

these materials in the proper

> way. It is not their job to remediate the mold in the house just to remove the

infested materials.

>

> So I'm back to the beginning: Your own protocol eliminates all but the most

minor of situations. In which

> case a properly sized HEPA filter will remove the mold spores at least as fast

as diffusing Thieves Oil (it won't

> take 2-3 days). It is my opinion that a good HEPA with a CADR of 100 or higher

and properly sized for 8-10

> air exchanges per hour will equal or exceed the SER for diffusing Thieves Oil,

in less time with less cost and

> less risk of exposure to reactive chemicals

>

> JC: This is not an accurate statement unless you have air intakes in every

room in the house with the HEPA

> filters at the air intake in every room in the house because if you are trying

to pull the air from the entire

> house through 1 intake and then run said air through a filter you are not

taking into account that mold spores

> can and will stick to materials that they are passing. Again this is comparing

apples to oranges.

>

> EC: This is primarily a summary of the arguments already dealt with above. The

arguments you present are

> based on pre-conceived notions about mold remediation, misinterpretation of

the protocol, and lack of

> review and knowledge of the considerable data accumulated to date by myself

and several others. We

> welcome open discussion and independent study of the effects of the protocol.

However, we have enough

> hard evidence of its effectiveness to continue using the protocol and

recommending it to others. Not only

> does the data show that the protocol is very effective and relatively

inexpensive, the documented residual

> effects of the protocol, up to several months after one application, provide

prevention of mold rebound not

> shown by any conventional method. Beyond this, most people who have used the

protocol report positive

> health effects.

>

> 9.The key to resolving our differences lie in the SER of Thieves Oil compared

to the SER of HEPA and other

> methods; if Thieves Oil has provable denaturing of mold spores and hyphal

fragments; and if it is even

> needed if professional remediation is performed per S520 and equivalent

standards.

>

> JC: While we can't state the SRE of HEPA filters we can state as stated above

that the SRE of the Thieves oil

> on mold genus found growing inside only is 100%.

>

> EC: We have not seen any calculations of the SRE of HEPA filter and other

conventional methods other than

> the comparisons Dr. Close has made and reported in the book, articles and

professional papers. Field spore

> removal efficiency calculations for HEPA and other conventional mold

remediation methods by other

> researchers would be welcomed. We, and others, have demonstrated the high SRE

of the Close protocol and

> proved its superiority over conventional remediation methods consistent with

S520 in numerous case

> studies. These results have been published and reviewed by independent

professionals and individual users

> are available.

>

>

> >

> > ,

> >

> > I really appreciate your sticking with this. Most who post about a

> > particular service or product stop after the first set of questions. I

> > think it's because they are really only interested in Phishing, not

> > helping. Thanks for the explanation, they really help me to

> > understand what Dr Close's protocol really is.

> >

> > So here's what I've learned and some conclusions. Let's see if

> > I've got it mostly right this time.

> >

> > We have fundamental differences and they lie in the issues of the

> > SER of Thieves Oil compared to the SER of other methods,

> > including HEPA with an adequate CADR and air exchange rate; if

> > Thieves Oil has provable denaturing of mold spores and hyphal

> > fragments which no other method has; and, if your protocol

> > requires professional remediation then those standard-of-care

> > procedures should preclude the need for Thieves Oil.

> >

> > Here's are the details and explanation of that conclusion:

> >

> > 1. I agee that Dr Close, and yourself, understands the difference

> > between viable and non-viable spores and how to test for each.

> >

> >

> > 2. He knows how to calculate Spore Efficiency Removal.

> >

> > So let me cut to the chase. How does the Spore Effiency

> > Removal (SER) of Thieves Oil compare to the SER of other

> > methods of removing airborne particles? If it is better then the

> > expense may be worthwhile. If not as good why use it? What do

> > independent studies of SER show? How does the SER compare

> > to the CADR of HEPA air filters?

> >

> >

> > 3. Identification of " toxic mold " is critical to your protocol because

> > the specifics depend on whether or not the mold is toxic. There is

> > a huge cost advantage if it is not toxic because that only requires

> > us to diffuse Thieves Oil into the air for 2-3 days to achieve a high

> > SER. If it is toxic then professional mold remediation is required.

> > (more on that later)

> >

> > 4. " Destroys mold spores, instead of just killing them "

> >

> > I'd be very interested in seeing the independent studies

> > confirming

> > that proteins, enzymes, glucans, proteinases and the other cell

> > components of mold spores and hyphae, including PM 2.5,

> > associated

> > with health effects can no longer be identified after using Thieves

> > Oil.

> > If this can be independantly verified and highly sensitive

> > occupants don't

> > react then you have the " silver bullet " of mold remediation and I'll

> > help the

> > world beat a path to your door!

> >

> >

> > 5. " However Dr. Close has consulted with mycologists to verify

> > the accuracy of his statements before releasing his protocol. "

> >

> > CG: I suggest he consult with mycologists who are also familiar

> > with indoor environments and building science. Handling mold in

> > the lab has different vocabulary and different requirements than

> > mold in buildings where people live. This is why mold labs should

> > be IAQ mold labs with accreditations such as EMPAT, EMLAP,

> > AL2A and run by mycologists who are familiar with the special

> > requirements of the indoor environment.

> >

> >

> > Here are two areas where I disagree with your protocol.

> >

> > A. The protocol requires that we know if the mold is toxic. But

> > the only way to identify " toxic mold " is with a lab analysis

> > specifically for mycotoxins. That costs between $700 and $900

> > per sample. Determining the toxicity of the mold by identifying

> > the genus - or even the species - by microscopy or culturing is

> > only marketing, not science. Toxicity cannot be determined any

> > other way.

> >

> > B. There is no need to know toxicity for the purpose of

> > remediation. None of the consensus, peer reviewed documents

> > on mold remediation make the distinction because all molds are

> > removed the same way. Mold genus, species and toxicity makes

> > no difference in remediation procedures. However, different

> > surface types each have their own procedures. Your need to

> > know toxicity appears to determine whether or not a client should

> > buy your product.

> >

> >

> > CONCLUSION: Diffusing Thieves Oil, or any similar product

> > including water, into the air will cause the spores to settle more

> > quickly out of the air and onto surfaces. Then if surfaces are

> > wiped clean then there is nothing left for Thieves Oil or bleach or

> > anything else to kill or denature. If that is all that is needed to

> > bring relief, then I'm all for it. ON THE CONDITION that the

> > occupant doesn't react to the Thieves Oil.

> >

> > But I still don't know when your protocol applies because your

> > protocol still requires moisture sources to be identified and fixed

> > and damaged structures to be removed. That is professional

> > mold remediation and their methods preclude the need for

> > Thieves Oil or similar processes.

> >

> > So I'm back to the beginning: Your own protocol eliminates all but

> > the most minor of situations. In which case a properly sized

> > HEPA filter will remove the mold spores at least as fast as

> > diffusing Thieves Oil (it won't take 2-3 days). It is my opinion that

> > a good HEPA with a CADR of 100 or higher and properly sized

> > for 8-10 air exchanges per hour will equal or exceed the SER for

> > diffusing Thieves Oil, in less time with less cost and less risk of

> > exposure to reactive chemicals.

> >

> > The key to resolving our differences lie in the SER of Thieves Oil

> > compared to the SER of HEPA and other methods; if Thieves Oil

> > has provable denaturing of mold spores and hyphal fragments;

> > and if it is even needed if professional remediation is performed

> > per S520 and equivalent standards.

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

> > -----

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

,

It is good to see others reading and understanding what is being said in the

dialog between Mr. Grimes and myself. There are a few things that I would like

to point out in regards to your statements about the HEPA filters and the

sulphur.

In my responses to Mr. Grimes I did cover that HEPA filtration while it can be

effective can also cause problems and as far as mold remediation is really not

that effective for the same reasons you have stated below. I could go into

detail but I believe that the dialog going on with Mr. grimes covers the

majority of these responses. There is one point I would like to address in the

use of essential oils by diffusion. That is that since we diffuse continuously

for 24-72 hours in 1000-1500 square feet with average height ceilings the oils

will permeate all areas so that dead air spaces are a non factor.

In regards to the Sulphur burning you state that the molecules are much

smaller. I don't know how small the molecules for the sulphur are but I do know

that with the diffuser that Dr. Close used in his studies the essential oil is

atomized at about an order of magnitude smaller than mold spores according to

the specifications of the company that manufactures the diffuser. So when

diffusing for extended periods of time you should be able to cover the same area

and get close to the same penetration with the diffusing process as you would

with burning sulphur.

Finally if you do decide to use Dr. Close's protocol do not use HEPA

filtration at the same time as this would damage the results due to air exchange

and the filtration effects of the HEPA filter. Overkill in this case can

actually mean no kill. So if you are going to use different modalities I would

either verify that they can be used as complimentary to each other or use them 1

at a time so that each modality has the ability to work most effectively.

Other than that and my personal lack of knowledge on the use of sulphur and

the size of the molecule vs. the size of the atomized essential oil, I would

agree with the majority of what is stated here. People prefer different ways to

remediate mold and in the end the only result that matters is the ability to

live healthy and happy.

Josh

>

>

> I really want to read the answers to Carl's

> questions. I'd like to thank for an

> outstanding effort in getting us answers.

>

[Guest guest]

I agree ,  there are benefits from tea tree oil.  For some it maybe

irritating. 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0001/ai_2603000122/

 

 The most promising new function of tea tree oil is to counter

methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), also called the hospital

super bug. In United States and European hospitals, MRSA grew from under 3% in

the 1980s to 40% in the late 1990s. This super bug attacks people who have

wounds, such as post-operative infections , and a depressed immune system. MRSA

resists conventional antibiotics, except Vancomycin. A Thursday Plantation in

vitro study, at East London University, comparing Vancomycin and tea tree oil,

shows the latter as a powerful alternative.

read more............

God Bless !!

dragonflymcs

Mayleen

______________________________

From: Patilla DaHun <glypella@...>

barb1283 < >

Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 6:26:15 PM

Subject: Re: [] Re: Questions for: Oils that eliminate

mold---Really?

 

So long as you don't get it on any mucous membranes (inside nose,

etc.), it's pretty safe. I do inhale it when needed. It abrades mostly

dead skin cells, so is good for foot callouses and corns. I don't know

that I'd describe it as caustic. There are different grades and

dilutions of Tea Tree Oil, so maybe the highest concentrate is

caustic.

Barth

www.presenting. net/sbs/sbs. html

SUBMIT YOUR DOCTOR: www.presenting. net/sbs/molddoct ors.html

[Guest guest]

Josh and ,

A correction to your discussion about HEPA filtration and whether

or not I have sufficiently covered it.

I never advocated using HEPA filtration as a remediation method.

It should be used as one part of the total set of procedures.

I was comparing the ability of HEPA to remove spores and

fragments from the air with the ability of oil diffusion to do the

same. My position is that HEPA is as effective, and probably

more so, than oil diffusion alone. A properly sized and positioned

HEPA won't need 2-3 days to clear the air. So one of the

decisions between the two is the cost for each.

I agree the oil and the HEPA are not compatable, the oil will ruin

the HEPA media. One protocol at a time.

I agree the HEPA only removes the particles (mold or otherwise)

from the air which goes through it (the gate effect). But

professional remediators don't use a single HEPA and no other

techniques. They use a HEPA as a negative air machine to

control the direction of the air flow through a contained area.

They use a different HEPA as an air scrubber. High velocity with

air exchanges much greater than the 8-10 per hour of a typical

retail air purifier (1500 cfm or greater compared to 100-200 cfm).

These are part of the OSHA requirements that engineering

controls have a higher priority over Personal Protection

Equipment (PPE) for worker protection. If oil diffusion is used

without the engineering controls, there may be a risk to workers.

Also, moldy surfaces are removed under the above conditons.

Mold which is distrubed along with other dusts are removed

under the above conditions. Remaining surfaces, including the

plastic walls of the containment, are vacuumed with a HEPA

vacuum to remove spores, hyphae and other particles.

Unless the surface is damp (growing mold) the particles are light

like dust. In fact, they are a component of dust. So the HEPA vac

easily cleans the surface but because there is still a disturbance

of the dust and the growth (as you previously noted) some

becomes airborne. Which will then be removed by both the air

flow control of the negative air HEPA and the HEPA air scurbber.

Some remediators use leaf blowers to further disturb the " dust "

so the air scrubbers can remove it. Others use a water mist to

more quickly remove the dust from the air so it can be cleaned

from surfaces. (Slight water which dries is a few minutes, or even

hours, will not amplify mold. It needs to stay damp a much longer

time).

This is partially what I meant when I said we have different

understandings of professional mold remediation protocols

according to ANSI-IICRC S520 and equivalent. If we compare

apples to apples the above factors should be considered.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

>

> ,

>

> It is good to see others reading and understanding what is being said in the

dialog between Mr. Grimes and

> myself. There are a few things that I would like to point out in regards to

your statements about the HEPA

> filters and the sulphur.

>

> In my responses to Mr. Grimes I did cover that HEPA filtration while it can be

effective can also cause

> problems and as far as mold remediation is really not that effective for the

same reasons you have stated

> below. I could go into detail but I believe that the dialog going on with Mr.

grimes covers the majority of

> these responses. There is one point I would like to address in the use of

essential oils by diffusion. That is that

> since we diffuse continuously for 24-72 hours in 1000-1500 square feet with

average height ceilings the oils

> will permeate all areas so that dead air spaces are a non factor.

>

> In regards to the Sulphur burning you state that the molecules are much

smaller. I don't know how small the

> molecules for the sulphur are but I do know that with the diffuser that Dr.

Close used in his studies the

> essential oil is atomized at about an order of magnitude smaller than mold

spores according to the

> specifications of the company that manufactures the diffuser. So when

diffusing for extended periods of time

> you should be able to cover the same area and get close to the same

penetration with the diffusing process as

> you would with burning sulphur.

>

> Finally if you do decide to use Dr. Close's protocol do not use HEPA

filtration at the same time as this would

> damage the results due to air exchange and the filtration effects of the HEPA

filter. Overkill in this case can

> actually mean no kill. So if you are going to use different modalities I would

either verify that they can be

> used as complimentary to each other or use them 1 at a time so that each

modality has the ability to work

> most effectively.

>

> Other than that and my personal lack of knowledge on the use of sulphur and

the size of the molecule vs. the

> size of the atomized essential oil, I would agree with the majority of what is

stated here. People prefer

> different ways to remediate mold and in the end the only result that matters

is the ability to live healthy and

> happy.

>

> Josh

>

>

> >

> >

> > I really want to read the answers to Carl's

> > questions. I'd like to thank for an

> > outstanding effort in getting us answers.

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 04:52 PM 9/8/2009, xnavyfoxm wrote:

>Finally if you do decide to use Dr. Close's protocol do not use HEPA filtration

at the same time as this would damage the results due to air exchange and the

filtration effects of the HEPA filter.

Very good point. The oil would gum up the HEPA filter, and the HEPA fan motor

could overheat, causing a fire.

>That is that since we diffuse continuously for 24-72 hours in 1000-1500 square

feet with average height ceilings the oils will permeate all areas so that dead

air spaces are a non factor.

I agree that mathematical modeling of diffuse (that is how I learned of

diffusion in college, and again for

diffusion of carbon monoxide in a room, or any gas molecule) can permeate the

entire volume, including

dead air spaces, particularly if one goes 72 hours. Droplet size though will

limit the " diameter " or distance

from the atomizer, which in a typical home, no room is so large as reach this

limit. Droplet size is also

limited by height, and having enough high pressure air molecules hitting from

underneath to push it

upwards. Again, most rooms, even with double height ceilings, 16 foot, will not

reach this limit.

>studies the essential oil is atomized at about an order of magnitude smaller

than mold spores ... get close to the same penetration with the diffusing

process as you would with burning sulphur. ....

>Other than that and my personal lack of knowledge on the use of sulphur and the

size of the molecule vs. the size of the atomized essential oil,

, you write with skill and sense of your limitations, and is exactly the

type of person we want on this list, imho.

As a physical chemist, I have this relative size of everything in the universe

off the top of my head.

That seldom serves to convince. So, I have included external references. I've

been very interested

in gasses, as I was poisoned by Carbon Monoxide, one of the smallest molecules

there is (I think

it is number 7). Burnt sulphur combustion gasses are twice as large, or larger.

I also got very

interested in atomization, the smallest droplet size possible, some years back,

due to post on

a different health list.

SUMMARY

Sulphur oxide molecules are many, many orders of magnitude smaller than mold

spores, thus

at many orders of magnitude smaller than essential oil atomization, that is at

least

30,000 to 100,000 times smaller.

DETAILS

Atomizing produces aggregates of molecules clumped together in a sort of

spherical shape, or droplet.

http://www.begellhouse.com/journals/6a7c7e10642258cc,297c90b656bb2c5a,3bb24d5d45\

5be800.html

talks about droplet sizes in the range of 80 to 11 microns. There are literally

millions of molecules of

oil present in each droplet.

Sulphur when it burns forms SOx, like SO2, which is slightly larger than a water

molecule.

You also get SO, which is smaller than a water molecule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_monoxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_dioxide

Bond lengths are under 150 picometers (pm) and add to that half the diameter of

sulphur and half the diameter of oxygen

gives a cross section size of less an 300 pm.

1 micron equals 1,000,000 picometers.

So, the size comparison is 11 microns, which is 11,000,000 pm to 300 pm, or at

least 30,000 times smaller.

--

Sulphur reference for fungicide use (as a powder) in agriculture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulphur#Fungicide_and_pesticide

--

[Guest guest]

What I dislike about a thread that keeps the same " Subject " field value,

is when a new sub thread starts up, that is not related to other sub threads,

that some " cross talk " can occur between them. Cross talk that is assumed,

and it's not safe to do so, imho.

I pointed out TTO as an example of an essential oil that fully evaporates.

No other implications, implicit or explicit, where otherwise stated.

Someone, who will remain unnamed, took my one TTO paragraph and

related it to inhalation therapy, and to skin treatment, and included

anecdotal stories. I do not agree, but YMMV.

Logical fallacies are to avoided on any health list. At the end of this

post I point out this with an example. ... The dose is key.

At 01:59 PM 9/8/2009, you wrote:

>Tea Tree oil for example is very caustic when not diluted.

My skin does not find it to be so. I only get 100% pure, as the diluted is

irritating to me.

I apply it directly to my skin for many purposes, in a variety of ways.

WARNING: Do not do this yourself, unless you have read the label and tested

diluted mixtures.

100% can irritate the skin, can cause redness, rash, welts, swelling, etc.

None of that happens for my skin. I even use it on the inside of my mouth.

>I can't imagine it would be a good idea to inhale vapors from it regularly.

Well, a new topic you bring up is TTO vapors. TTO is not a common

aroma therapy smell. WARNING: Do not inhale TTO fumes unless

instructed to do so by someone you trust, a health practitioner.

>Perhaps you could use it when you are away from home occasionally. To see, just

put some straight tea tree oil on a finger and repeat for a few times. Your skin

begins to be dry and very irritated.

Olive leaf extract oil, oregano oil, jojobo and other oils will do much worse to

your skin,

much faster than TTO. Even mineral oil will damage skin, severely so.

WARNING: Do not put oil on your skin, of any sort, unless instructed to do

so by someone you trust.

>Now imagine inhaling that same thing into your lungs.

Aroma therapy effectiveness varies per individual.

Most all essential oils have some aspects of both skin and aroma therapy

but must be used as instructed. With medical studies on a few of these

oils being published, it is becoming a science, not a form of alternative

medicine. Insurance companies have been reimbursing for a wide variety

of long time accepted inhalation therapies (and may include a few essential

oils soon).

Point: Try inhaling pure oxygen. For 3-5 lung fulls. You die.

Does that mean inhaling oxygen is bad for you?

Try inhaling no oxygen for 7-9 breaths, you die.

The same is true of hydrogen dioxide, drinking it that is.

The dose is key.

[Guest guest]

,

Just a point of clarification. We found the exact specs from the

manufacturer, and the size of the atomized essential oil would be .2 to .7

nanometers (nm) or .0002 to .0007 microns. So based on the 1 micron = 1,000,000

picometers this would put the size at 200 to 700 picometers making it equivalent

in size to the sulphur molecule. Have we verified this specification. No. Just

stating what the manufacturer has stated the specifications are for the size of

the atomized particles.

Josh

> >Finally if you do decide to use Dr. Close's protocol do not use HEPA