Re: Anyone can post 3-4 labs that test for 160 species of molds?

[Guest guest]

Dear Lyme,

I'm still unclear why you are so determined to spend your money on such a test

procedure looking for som many species. Please explain your purpose. Your

insistence without sufficient knowledge and understanding has me intrigued, to

say the least. I'm convinced you won't receive the value you think will arrive

with the results.

The variability in analysis results is huge. Even if you found somewhere to test

for what you think you want, it's unlikely the results will be accurate and/or

precise with regard to the location and time of the original single sample. I

can go on about methodolody, error, variance, validity and reliability, but I

think you need to look those up and study more about sampling.

I think the descriptions you've received from Carl and Jack would have convinced

you otherwise. Did you talk to the lab tech experts? I'd talk to the in-house

experts at places like Galson, EMSL, QLabUSA, MLAB/P & K. They will explain a lot

in a short discussion.

Until then, keep reading and save your money. I strongly urge you to read the

ACGIH BioAerosols book. Maybe you will gleen some of the complexity of sampling

methodology, errors, and interpretation difficulties.

>

> air and/or dust. I'm having a hard time finding any. mycometrics told me they

test for 50ish. Should be accredited by AIHA and EPA (ERMI). thanks

>

[Guest guest]

Hey ,

My purpose is simple: Given a budget of say 1000$, try to get as much

information as possible about possible mycotoxins in my apartment and in my

former office.

the goal is to determine roughly what I think is the chance that molds in my

former office and/or my current appartment contribute(d) to my current symptoms.

Most of my symptoms could be attributed to lyme, which I have, but a few are

less typical and in any case I want to get rid of as many physiological

stressors as possible.

I understand that this will be far from perfect, but better than nothing. So

while trying to maximize the amount/quality of information I'm likely to get

from the testing, I have to decide how many species I want to test, and how. If

the price is not that much more for a 160 species then it's worth it, if not

then maybe 30ish will be all i want to afford. But I'm under the impression that

several not-so-rare molds like Fusarium species are not included in the EMRI.

Carl stated, if I understood what he said, that mycotoxins can be present in the

air of a room without turning up on the dust analysis. I don't know if this is

frequent.. if it is then I would have to test both an air sample and a dust

sample.

Of course all these tests have many limitations but im just trying to spend my

grand as wisely as possible. Does it make sense?

Maybe I could call the lab tech experts you mentionned. I'm also interested in

other air contaminants like VOC, formaldehyde, etc For example outgassing two

new mattress in a row definitly made me worse - 3 years ago. But I suppose that

would be for another round of testing, if the current round does not provide me

the answers I'm looking for.

All this health business is like poker - its about playing the probabilities to

maximize a goal. If it works you get your health back - if it doesnt you stay

sick.

>

> Dear Lyme,

>

> I'm still unclear why you are so determined to spend your money on such a test

procedure looking for som many species. Please explain your purpose.

[Guest guest]

Lyme,

I'll let answer for himself but in the meantime it sounds like

you want mycotoxin information you need mycotoxin testing.

If so, neither PCR nor any other speciation method will produce

that information. It will only identify species and not all species

produce mycotoxins all the time. The particular environment the

mold and bacteria and other filth is in is the major influence on

whether or not mycotoxins are produced. (or endotoxins from the

bacteria).

Getting lots of information without zeroing in precisely on what

you need and how to get it is not playing the probabilities of poker

or any other set of rules. It is playing several games helter-skelter

all at once each with their own set of probabilities. It is like playing

the stock market by gathering each day all the information in the

newspaper (remember them?) instead of the information relevant

to your trading plan.

You need to first establish the environmental context and that will

guide the sampling plan (if any).

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Hey ,

My purpose is simple: Given a budget of say 1000$, try to get as much

information as possible about possible mycotoxins in my apartment and in my

former office.

the goal is to determine roughly what I think is the chance that molds in my

former office and/or my current appartment contribute(d) to my current symptoms.

Most of my symptoms could be attributed to lyme, which I have, but a few are

less typical and in any case I want to get rid of as many physiological

stressors as possible.

I understand that this will be far from perfect, but better than nothing. So

while trying to maximize the amount/quality of information I'm likely to get

from the testing, I have to decide how many species I want to test, and how. If

the price is not that much more for a 160 species then it's worth it, if not

then maybe 30ish will be all i want to afford. But I'm under the impression that

several not-so-rare molds like Fusarium species are not included in the EMRI.

Carl stated, if I understood what he said, that mycotoxins can be present in the

air of a room without turning up on the dust analysis. I don't know if this is

frequent.. if it is then I would have to test both an air sample and a dust

sample.

Of course all these tests have many limitations but im just trying to spend my

grand as wisely as possible. Does it make sense?

Maybe I could call the lab tech experts you mentionned. I'm also interested in

other air contaminants like VOC, formaldehyde, etc For example outgassing two

new mattress in a row definitly made me worse - 3 years ago. But I suppose that

would be for another round of testing, if the current round does not provide me

the answers I'm looking for.

All this health business is like poker - its about playing the probabilities to

maximize a goal. If it works you get your health back - if it doesnt you stay

sick.

>

> Dear Lyme,

>

> I'm still unclear why you are so determined to spend your money on such a test

procedure looking for som many species. Please explain your purpose.

----------

The following section of this message contains a file attachment

prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

---- File information -----------

File: DEFAULT.BMP

Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10

Size: 358 bytes.

Type: Unknown

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Are you saying that there are labs which can reliably test an air or a dust

sample for a broad spectrum of mycotoxins (as opposed to mold species)? That is

the kind of information I'm after in order to play my best poker game.. Can you

please tell me which one, given the fact that I live very far from you anyway?

btw I'm planning to do the urine mycotoxins test by realtime labs

Best

T.

[Guest guest]

to my knowledge there are no air tests that well detect mycotoxins.

>

>

> Carl,

>

> Are you saying that there are labs which can reliably test an air or a dust

sample for a broad spectrum of mycotoxins (as opposed to mold species)? That is

the kind of information I'm after in order to play my best poker game.. Can you

please tell me which one, given the fact that I live very far from you anyway?

>

> btw I'm planning to do the urine mycotoxins test by realtime labs

>

> Best

> T.

>

[Guest guest]

Before you do any mycotoxin testing you must consider what you are going to

sample and test. If you do air sample testing you most likely will get negative

results. The reason for this is you will be trapping airborne spore and hyphae

at concentrations that if mycotoxins are present will be below detection levels.

Airborne mycotoxins must be taken from the fraction of particles less than the

size of spores and hyphae. The particles must be collected and analyzed

according to Brasel et al. You can also consider using bulk samples of fungal

growth and/or dust samples. As Carl said, you need to develop a protocol on what

you are attempting to do. If you are not careful you will be wasting your time

and money

See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1287651/pdf/0530-05.pdf and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC544211/pdf/0645-04.pdf

[] Re: Anyone can post 3-4 labs that test for 160

species of molds?

Carl,

Are you saying that there are labs which can reliably test an air or a dust

sample for a broad spectrum of mycotoxins (as opposed to mold species)? That is

the kind of information I'm after in order to play my best poker game.. Can you

please tell me which one, given the fact that I live very far from you anyway?

btw I'm planning to do the urine mycotoxins test by realtime labs

Best

T.

[Guest guest]

T.

Yes, air can be sampled for mycotoxins. But should only be done

according to the Brasel paper (or equivalent) Dr Thrasher linked

us to. An update for increased lab sensitivity is the Bloom paper

(Stockholm) from last year.

What this means is the routine 5-10 minute sample time for

spores is grossly insufficient. You can " maybe " detect airborne

mycotoxins with sample times of many hours to days. You have

to collect a lot of material! This is one reason why dust and bulk

samples are preferred.

As for reliability, as mentioned, there are multiple ways in

which all testing may not be reliable.

The lab can only detect what is in a sample assuming it is

properly collected, handled, shipped, and identified. Then the

data must be interpreted - NOT by the lab but by the person

collecting the sample because they are the only ones who know if

it was collected, handled, shipped, and identified correctly.

But even before that, as Dr Thrasher indicated, you have to

determine relevance. That the sample location is representative

of the whole situation, part of the building, or a small area within a

room for example.

Presence is not the same as exposure. For that you need to

determine length of time a person is in the presence of the

mycotoxins (or spores or bacteria or VOCs or pesticides) and if

the level detected during the sampling is representative of the

level during the time of exposure. Was the sample taken during

normal people activity for the room or house or after several

hours of the " dust " settling. This is not simple.

Then the type of sample needs to be determined according to the

question being asked. etc etc

There is a lot of information, detail, and expertise that goes into a

meaningful and reliable set of samples. (Notice I said " set of

samples, " and not " a sample. " )

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habibitats LLC

-----

Carl,

Are you saying that there are labs which can reliably test an air or a dust

sample for a broad spectrum of mycotoxins (as opposed to mold

species)? That is the kind of information I'm after in order to play my

best poker game.. Can you please tell me which one, given the fact that I

live very far from you anyway?

btw I'm planning to do the urine mycotoxins test by realtime labs

Best

T.

----------

The following section of this message contains a file attachment

prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

---- File information -----------

File: DEFAULT.BMP

Date: 15 Jun 2009, 23:10

Size: 358 bytes.

Type: Unknown

[Guest guest]

You are wrong. You must read my post on air sampling for mycotoxins.

[] Re: Anyone can post 3-4 labs that test for 160

species of molds?

to my knowledge there are no air tests that well detect mycotoxins.

>

>

> Carl,

>

> Are you saying that there are labs which can reliably test an air or a dust

sample for a broad spectrum of mycotoxins (as opposed to mold species)? That is

the kind of information I'm after in order to play my best poker game.. Can you

please tell me which one, given the fact that I live very far from you anyway?

>

> btw I'm planning to do the urine mycotoxins test by realtime labs

>

> Best

> T.

>

[Guest guest]

Correct: A classical example is a home I did in Hawaii. The party had the

money. Mycotoxins varied according to the sample. The various samples

included: bedroom carpet dust, living room carpet dust, carpet backing,

contaminated wood, contaminated bathroom towel, contaminated dry wall, etc. The

party was adamant regarding detection of various samples. All were positive but

the concentrations varied and type of mycotoxins varied according the sample

material. Bloom also demonstrated this in her paper on mycotoxins in water

damaged buildings.

Re: [] Re: Anyone can post 3-4 labs that test for 160

species of molds?

Yes, air can be sampled for mycotoxins. But should only be done

according to the Brasel paper (or equivalent) Dr Thrasher linked

us to. An update for increased lab sensitivity is the Bloom paper

(Stockholm) from last year.

What this means is the routine 5-10 minute sample time for

spores is grossly insufficient. You can " maybe " detect airborne

mycotoxins with sample times of many hours to days. You have

to collect a lot of material! This is one reason why dust and bulk

samples are preferred.

As for reliability, as mentioned, there are multiple ways in

which all testing may not be reliable.

The lab can only detect what is in a sample assuming it is

properly collected, handled, shipped, and identified. Then the

data must be interpreted - NOT by the lab but by the person

collecting the sample because they are the only ones who know if

it was collected, handled, shipped, and identified correctly.

But even before that, as Dr Thrasher indicated, you have to

determine relevance. That the sample location is representative

of the whole situation, part of the building, or a small area within a

room for example.

Presence is not the same as exposure. For that you need to

determine length of time a person is in the presence of the

mycotoxins (or spores or bacteria or VOCs or pesticides) and if

the level detected during the sampling is representative of the

level during the time of exposure. Was the sample taken during

normal people activity for the room or house or after several

hours of the " dust " settling. This is not simple.

Then the type of sample needs to be determined according to the

question being asked. etc etc

There is a lot of information, detail, and expertise that goes into a

meaningful and reliable set of samples. (Notice I said " set of

samples, " and not " a sample. " )

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habibitats LLC

[Guest guest]

isnt it enough to know the mold types and that they do produce mycotoxins even

in a indoor environment?

is it really that important to find them in the indoor environment?

>

Yes, air can be sampled for mycotoxins. But should only be done

> according to the Brasel paper (or equivalent) Dr Thrasher linked

> us to. An update for increased lab sensitivity is the Bloom paper

> (Stockholm) from last year.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Oh, ok ,remember reading on this before.

--- In , " Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. " <toxicologist1@...>

wrote:

>

> You are wrong. You must read my post on air sampling for mycotoxins.

>

>

[Guest guest]

The definitive answer to your legitimate question is " It depends. "

Your assumptions have been proven accurate for your purposes as you understand

them because you have put in a lot of effort, study, self challenge,

trial-and-error.

I will even back off from your minimal protocol by saying we usually don't even

need to know " mold types. "

Moisture and water damage should be recognized and controlled within a couple of

days at the most. No mold GROWTH.

If not attended to (or known) expeditiously then the ubiquitous spores (seeds)

will germinate and GROW into colonies. They need food and will eat whatever is

available on the surface they are on. The surface itself if digestible (or the

biofilm on the surface) is affected (digested) and the complexity accelerates.

The longer this is allowed to occur and persist the greater the risk, exposure,

complexity, addition of other organisms growing, and possible harm to materials

and people.

Once past a " certain " threshold for your particular immune system (the $64B

question), that is when we can be in serious trouble requiring a long to

extremely long recovery even after the mold growth and damaged materials are

removed. Recovery from what? That depends on even more variables and

complexities.

Even so, to remediate (stop the moisture and clean or remove the surfaces the

mold is growing on) we still don't need to know mold types.

But if there is a relevant medical, contractual, or legal question which

requires the mold type or quantity then sampling is necessary. But it must be

the type of sample and lab analysis which will answer the question. Because

there can be many different questions we need many different sampling and

analysis methods.

Sample numbers by themselves cannot meaningfully answer much beyond " is this

mold or not mold? " And a rough estimate of quantity.

Some comparisons can be made between samples but you must carefully control so

you are actually comparing same-to-same rather than apples to rocks. Comparing

inside to outside is the most common mistake and myth which persists even by

those who should know better.

For proper comparisons you need the history, building type and use,

environmental conditions and much more. To get credible information you need

different sample types of the same location as a cross check and a sufficient

number of samples to eliminate as many of the unavoidable errors as possible.

Consider Dr Thrashers report on how few of his Hawaii samples were specifically

consistent.

To now answer your question based on what I just wrote I'd say, " It depends. "

It depends on the situation and the question. And the questions which almost all

sampling CANNOT easily answer by itself is what we all desperately want to know:

What is making me sick? Is this house safe? Why me?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

[] Re: Anyone can post 3-4 labs that test for 160 species

of molds?

isnt it enough to know the mold types and that they do produce mycotoxins even

in a indoor environment?

is it really that important to find them in the indoor environment?

>

Yes, air can be sampled for mycotoxins. But should only be done

> according to the Brasel paper (or equivalent) Dr Thrasher linked

> us to. An update for increased lab sensitivity is the Bloom paper

> (Stockholm) from last year.

>

>

[Guest guest]

It all depends on what one wants to do with the information. If you are in

litigation, for example, the mycotoxins need to be tested and shown to be

present in the environment and in the individual.

[] Re: Anyone can post 3-4 labs that test for 160

species of molds?

isnt it enough to know the mold types and that they do produce mycotoxins even

in a indoor environment?

is it really that important to find them in the indoor environment?

>

Yes, air can be sampled for mycotoxins. But should only be done

> according to the Brasel paper (or equivalent) Dr Thrasher linked

> us to. An update for increased lab sensitivity is the Bloom paper

> (Stockholm) from last year.

>

>

[Guest guest]

say someone does have lyme than are exposed in a WDB which they know made them

much sicker and have a possable lawsuit,

does that make their case harder to prove because they had lyme?

if they have medical diagnoses of say mycotoxins in urine, and other medical

documentation that WDB illness and lyme might share,

but their documentation of the WDB contamination is limited to

some mold types found and documentation and pictures proveing there was a water

sorce and mold growth.

I guess what I'm asking is, is there now enough knowledge about WDB exposures to

support the probablity that if someone, regardless of a prior illness, say's

this building made me sick and they do have some documentation as far as

medical and even limited documentation on the WDB at least proveing there was a

moisture sorce that allowed mold growth, doesn't that support the probability,

pretty well that the WDB did harm them.

do they have to go that extra mile to get mycotoxins documented from that WDB

that were found in their urine to prove their case?

>

> The definitive answer to your legitimate question is " It depends. "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jeannine,

Your key phrase is " support the probability. "

I agree with your choice of words, because there are few absolutes in life. But

lets look at some different contexts to see why there can be severe disputes and

confusion.

How much probability do you need to make a decision to take care of yourself?

Who will be blamed if you are wrong?

How much probability do you need to make a decision about taking care of someone

else? Who will be blamed if you are wrong?

How much probability do you need when relying on a professional remediator or

doctor? Who will you blame if they are wrong?

If you are being accused of harming someone and facing the potential for

bankruptcy and possible prison, how much probability of guilt will you demand?

Who will be blamed and who will wrongly suffer if they are wrong about you?

This is not meant to justify abuse of courts or the distortion of science that

Sharon Kramer has been exposing. Whenever there is a lack of absolute certainty

the door is always open to create (or manufacture) doubt and then exploit it.

How do we defend against the skeptics and especially those who abuse and exploit

the inherent uncertainty about exposure to WDB and other sources?

It can be done but it requires more than a couple of " screening " type tests and

a strong personal conviction. It takes the type of comprehensive testing and

evaluation like Dr Thrasher and others discuss, and argued using the support of

the current science in a way which convincingly rebutts the counter-arguments.

If the skepticism or counter argument is less strong then less evidence of lower

quality will work.

But too little or too inaccurate information can lead to wrong diagnosis and

response and a continuation of unnecessary harm. This is what frequently occurs

in this group. Then who is to blame?

If this were easy it would have been resolved long ago. Unfortunately we have

yet to win the battle of the more resistant Naysayers, whether they be family or

paid defensors.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

(fm my Blackberry)

[] Re: Anyone can post 3-4 labs that test for 160 species

of molds?

say someone does have lyme than are exposed in a WDB which they know made them

much sicker and have a possable lawsuit,

does that make their case harder to prove because they had lyme?

if they have medical diagnoses of say mycotoxins in urine, and other medical

documentation that WDB illness and lyme might share,

but their documentation of the WDB contamination is limited to

some mold types found and documentation and pictures proveing there was a water

sorce and mold growth.

I guess what I'm asking is, is there now enough knowledge about WDB exposures to

support the probablity that if someone, regardless of a prior illness, say's

this building made me sick and they do have some documentation as far as

medical and even limited documentation on the WDB at least proveing there was a

moisture sorce that allowed mold growth, doesn't that support the probability,

pretty well that the WDB did harm them.

do they have to go that extra mile to get mycotoxins documented from that WDB

that were found in their urine to prove their case?

>

> The definitive answer to your legitimate question is " It depends. "

>

>

[Guest guest]

Lyme,

Wow. Is all I can say! Well, not really. I will say that you clearly want to

throw away $1000. So I recommend you throw it my way, I'll send you my address,

what have you got to lose? Nothing less than what a PCR will get you. I'll even

throw in a fancy sounding report on my letterhead with my signature on the

bottom! Very valuable indeed.

Remember, the 40 species in ERMI, or even if you get a scan for 160 species,

will only report what you are lucky enough to grab at that time and place

(spatial and temporal variability, not to mention sampling bias, etc). It will

never identify the other tens of thousands of other possible species. Yes, I

said Thousands, maybe 250,000 or more! E.g., Some mycologists suggest there are

up to 700 species in the generic Asp/Pen group reported by spore trap analyses

(casettes)! Some of which are not even Asp or Pen genus! How many Asp are on the

ERMI or other PCR group? Now how's that for unreliable reporting?

Then you still ask about mycotoxins and your potential exposure. The PCR

certainly is innapropriate for that. So why bother doing the PCR if you really

want to know about mycotoxins?

Ask yourself (all of you ask this on any project) where's the VALUE in getting

only partial charactirization of the environment?

It's like describing the elephant with the 4 blind men, each one gets a little

part to touch and reports something completely different than the others -

trunk/snake; leg/tree; tail/broom; tusk/spear. Only when taken as a group can

the elephant be described. And even then, we'll never know complety, it'll only

be a rough sketch with a lot of guess work for the blanks.

As we often say when we critique a methodology, your hypothesis is incomplete or

wrong; or, your sampling design is wrong. Either way, your data will not be

VALID. It may be precise and accurate, but it will lack value. Validity

describes the relationship between the question and the method. Not having

validity means the answer to the question is useless. Period. No further

discussion needed. Start your research over again.

Save your money and ASSUME that YES there are some toxins present from the mold

contamination (past and/or present).

Spend that money on cleaning and replacing items likely to be contaminated and

not easily cleaned.

Everyone, on any and all projects, needs to ask the following:

Do the predicted results of sampling increase the power of my future

decision-making?

Create a logic chart for yourself before you sample or let some IEP sample: If

you get result " 1 " , what will you do? If you get result " 2 " , what will you do

and will it be different from result/action " 1 " ?

Typically, with mold (and all the other bio-gunk from WDB)the response is the

same regardless of species or type of bio-gunk. So why bother trying to identify

species? (Asking for 'species' is very common in our industry: insurance reps,

restorers, owners, all ask: what species? But they don't know why, except

someone told them that they NEED to know if the " deadly toxic black mold " is

there! If not, they can breathe a sigh of relief. If it's there, run run run!)

The methods to treat/clean species of mold, bacteria, insects, allergens, are

the same. HEPA/WASH/HEPA. Avoid adding chemicals, don't use any gimmicks, and be

detail oriented, very complete. Use detergents not " biocides " when you clean.

Test them on yourself to make sure you aren't sensitive. Rinse well! Use a

proper vacuum. Prevent cross contamination, protect workers, protect occupants.

Perform ongoing project quality control and oversite; assure the job is

completed as expected - aka, PRV, post remediation verification.

>

> Lyme,

>

> I'll let answer for himself but in the meantime it sounds like

> you want mycotoxin information you need mycotoxin testing.

>

> If so, neither PCR nor any other speciation method will produce

> that information. It will only identify species and not all species

> produce mycotoxins all the time. The particular environment the

> mold and bacteria and other filth is in is the major influence on

> whether or not mycotoxins are produced. (or endotoxins from the

> bacteria).

>

> Getting lots of information without zeroing in precisely on what

> you need and how to get it is not playing the probabilities of poker

> or any other set of rules. It is playing several games helter-skelter

> all at once each with their own set of probabilities. It is like playing

> the stock market by gathering each day all the information in the

> newspaper (remember them?) instead of the information relevant

> to your trading plan.

>

> You need to first establish the environmental context and that will

> guide the sampling plan (if any).

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>