Ticking Clock- Was: Re: How would you test this mcs safe ...

[Guest guest]

I think that it is very important to understand that when certain people are

exposed to contaminants in water damaged buildings that they, as the receptors,

have changed. Levels of contaminants that they previously might have been able

to tolerate can trigger significant reactions. This becomes an important issue

after a water damage event, as the goal of remediators is generally to restore

the home to conditions that existed before a water loss. This might not be good

enough for many people. The ultimate judge of effective remediation is the

ability to re-occupy without complaints, which might not be feasible.

Connie Morbach, M.S., CHMM, CIE

Sanit-Air, Inc.

>

> Joe,

>

> You bring up an interesting point about posting on chatboards. I read

> your posts. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. People tend to

> respond to posts with which they do not agree. But, that doesn't mean

> anyone has a reverse fan club of naysayers. Sorry if you were made feel that

> way.

>

> And Carl, absolutely right. Many diverse exposures. Many diverse

> reactions. Many diverse illnesses. The problem this causes is not that one

must

> burn down the house to get rid of the mold, etc. It is that because of the

> unknown, when someone is extremely ill or vulnerable to become even sicker

> (like my daughter with cystic fibrosis), sometimes it is just not worth the

> risk to find out if a possession such as a house can be made safe for

> occupancy again or not.

>

> When people say " you can never go home again " , it needs to be made clear

> that just because a house is not safe for one family anymore because of

> special circumstances or acquired susceptibilities - it does not necessarily

> mean it is not safe for another family.

>

> I think it is important, particularly for new people on this board, to

> understand the difference.

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 10/16/2010 3:58:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> grimes@... writes:

>

> Joe,

>

> You probably consider me as one of your " fan club " who tells

> others to ignore you. Actually, in this case, I agree strongly with

> you about the " ticking clock. "

>

> What you describe below is a common occurance which traps

> those whose bodies can't easily and quickly recover. They need

> to be aware of it and continue to take precautions.

>

> When I disagree is when you post on the " ticking time bomb " of

> inevitable death with any subsequent exposure.

>

> For the record, I also disagree with others who equate the rare

> fungal infection with the all too common allergic reaction or

> asthma trigger; with the accompanying assumption we should

> respond to all exposures as if we have the dreaded worst case.

> Or who equate any reaction at any time to only mold. Or those

> who equate any reaction at any time to only chemicals. Or only

> dust mites.

>

> >

[Guest guest]

Connie,

That was very well stated. In our case, I will never know if the house

could have been made acceptable for our family, specifically, again. I know

it is safe for the family we sold it to, (my disclosures basically said

" I'd turn back if I was you " ) because I run into them from time to time at

the grocery store. I stopped asking them a few years ago " are you okay " ,

everytime I would see them. They are fine. Would we have been? Who knows?

Who cares? My daughter is alive, well and healthy. That is what is

important.

Sharon

In a message dated 10/16/2010 8:02:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

connie@... writes:

I think that it is very important to understand that when certain people

are exposed to contaminants in water damaged buildings that they, as the

receptors, have changed. Levels of contaminants that they previously might

have been able to tolerate can trigger significant reactions. This becomes an

important issue after a water damage event, as the goal of remediators is

generally to restore the home to conditions that existed before a water

loss. This might not be good enough for many people. The ultimate judge of

effective remediation is the ability to re-occupy without complaints, which

might not be feasible.

Connie Morbach, M.S., CHMM, CIE

Sanit-Air, Inc.

--- In _ _

(mailto: ) , snk1955@... wrote:

>

> Joe,

>

> You bring up an interesting point about posting on chatboards. I read

> your posts. Sometimes I agree with them, sometimes I don't. People tend

to

> respond to posts with which they do not agree. But, that doesn't mean

> anyone has a reverse fan club of naysayers. Sorry if you were made feel

that

> way.

>

> And Carl, absolutely right. Many diverse exposures. Many diverse

> reactions. Many diverse illnesses. The problem this causes is not that

one must

> burn down the house to get rid of the mold, etc. It is that because of

the

> unknown, when someone is extremely ill or vulnerable to become even

sicker

> (like my daughter with cystic fibrosis), sometimes it is just not worth

the

> risk to find out if a possession such as a house can be made safe for

> occupancy again or not.

>

> When people say " you can never go home again " , it needs to be made clear

> that just because a house is not safe for one family anymore because of

> special circumstances or acquired susceptibilities - it does not

necessarily

> mean it is not safe for another family.

>

> I think it is important, particularly for new people on this board, to

> understand the difference.

>

> Sharon

>

>

> In a message dated 10/16/2010 3:58:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> grimes@... writes:

>

> Joe,

>

> You probably consider me as one of your " fan club " who tells

> others to ignore you. Actually, in this case, I agree strongly with

> you about the " ticking clock. "

>

> What you describe below is a common occurance which traps

> those whose bodies can't easily and quickly recover. They need

> to be aware of it and continue to take precautions.

>

> When I disagree is when you post on the " ticking time bomb " of

> inevitable death with any subsequent exposure.

>

> For the record, I also disagree with others who equate the rare

> fungal infection with the all too common allergic reaction or

> asthma trigger; with the accompanying assumption we should

> respond to all exposures as if we have the dreaded worst case.

> Or who equate any reaction at any time to only mold. Or those

> who equate any reaction at any time to only chemicals. Or only

> dust mites.

>

> >

Sharon Noonan Kramer