Guest guest Posted January 29, 2004 Report Share Posted January 29, 2004 Matt, thanks for responding. Yes, I do eat whole wheat bread and if there is a possibility that eating white bread will make a difference, I will start tomorrow. They are looking at the possibility of removing the thumb. I saw my GP today and he said to double the Bextra to 20 mg daily and switched my antibiotic. I have tubes in my ears and the right was in draining (infected) Appears the left tube is clogged and causing me to have ear aches. He think all my problems right now may be due to the " flare " I am experiencing. All of you suffer so much and it sounds like your pain is much greater than mine. I think of each of you every day and am thankful that this site exists to help each of us. Thank you, Matt. Jane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2010 Report Share Posted December 5, 2010 Yes it can be The most likely fusarium fungus to cause infections in humans is Fusarium solani. In fact, it’s associated with about half of the fusarium fungal infections in people. Fusarium verticillioides causes around 20% of the fusarium fungal infections in humans, and Fusarium oxysporum is responsible for another 20% of human fungal infections. Most of the remainder of fusarium fungal infections in humans is caused by Fusarium proliferatum.   God Bless !! dragonflymcs Mayleen ________________________________ From: listspub <listspub@...> Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 11:36:30 PM Subject: [] Fusarium  is in the air here.. any thoughts on this mold being toxic? Thanks.. RObin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 5, 2010 Report Share Posted December 5, 2010 Depends on the species. Some produce trichothecenes. [] Fusarium is in the air here.. any thoughts on this mold being toxic? Thanks.. RObin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 Yes, I pretty sure it is. It was one of the toxic molds I was exposed to in my school. is in the air here.. any thoughts on this mold being toxic? Thanks.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 Replying to all.. thank you for responding.. It is a natural part of the mold " flora " here.. ??? I asked bio-assured where I ordered our ERMI test and asked them why fusarium was not one of the molds tested. They said it was not showing up as a big issue. We had about 1-7 (guessing from memory) spores per cu meter outdoor and 1-2 indoor.. my parents house, possibly the one we are in, cant remember. The windows had been opened here and they had roof damage (recent at the time)that would have allowed outdoor spores in. Do we have a list of which ones are toxic and are there others that are infectous? Wouldnt there be some medical evidence if fusarium infections were a problem here? Any test to recommend? The ERMI is good for measuring specific mold varieties but no good when no fusarium is tested. Robin > > > Yes, I pretty sure it is. It was one of the toxic molds I was exposed to > in my school. > > > is in the air here.. any thoughts on this mold being toxic? > > Thanks.. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 http://www.prevalentfungi.org/state.cfm?id=us_AL There are several fusarium strains that are indigenous to AL (and other states.. fusarium solani (has toxins) is in most states as art of the outdoor mold flora.. Where do you draw the line medically? Same toxin as stachy but diff? Needs to grow on grain to be toxic and eaten or not? Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 Robin, There are still some facts about mold, mold testing and ERMI which need to be emphasized. 1. 1-7 spores per cubic meter is incredibly LOW. Below 100 is often difficult to attain and maintain. 2. ERMI does not include all WDB mold species. Just because Fusarium isn't in the calculations of the Index number doesn't mean Fusarium isn't important. ERMI is a combination statistically intended to create a single digit number. (see next) 3. ERMI is not intended to be a comprehensive diagnostic for most or all water damage molds. The 36 selected are composed of 26 commonly associated with dampness combined with 10 which are not. It is the combination as calculated in a formula that generates the Index number. ERMI is an INDEX method that just happens to also identify the species detected. It was intended to generate an index number that doesn't require an expert to interpret. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. The expert is still necessary. 4. Vesper is the developer of ERMI under an EPA grant, the patent of which is held by EPA. Vesper specifically states that ERMI should not be used as you and others are using it because he and others have not validated it yet. EPA last June issued an official statement that ERMI should not be used as a diagnostic tool in the field, only in the lab for research. 5. For anyone who wants to see why they can go to: http://www.gopetition.com/petition/14485.html and read a petition explaining the weaknesses and misunderstandings of ERMI. 6. If you want species identification from an arbitrarily limited set and ignore the Index number, ERMI can be useful. If you want a less expensive version there is ARMI with fewer species. Quite frankly, I'd prefer a standard PCR methodology which will give you lots more information, assuming you have someone qualified to interpret it. ERMI is the best shot at an interpretation free mold test and it has yet to succeed. Without the expert you have a guess based on whatever level of knowledge and experience is available. And that is a huge range. 7. Any mold can generate mycotoxins. Under the right environmental conditions. Not all of them always generate mycotoxins. But some do generate them more frequently. For example, Stachybotry chartarum usually does (but not always) but Stachy has a relatively limited set of conditions under which it can reproduce and grow. 8. Infectious molds are a little easier to identify because there are so few of them and they have been validated from biopsies and autopsies - removed from inside a body. Aspergillus fumigatus is the primary one. Candida albicans yeast is another. Because it doesn't form a fungal ball, but can sometimes be systemic, it was harder to validate. The pioneers in Candida were villified for decades and were not exonerated until after their death. 9. You are trying to find a single, specific proof and response to a complex combination of inter-related causes, effects, and influences. What you need isn't available in the way you need it. I'm sorry to be the bearer of such negative conclusions but facts are facts. As you know, I support your ongoing efforts to solve these puzzles. But relying on mold testing alone of any kind is a blind alley causing only confusion. It does not, and cannot, have the precision we all want and need. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Replying to all.. thank you for responding.. It is a natural part of the mold " flora " here.. ??? I asked bio-assured where I ordered our ERMI test and asked them why fusarium was not one of the molds tested. They said it was not showing up as a big issue. We had about 1-7 (guessing from memory) spores per cu meter outdoor and 1-2 indoor.. my parents house, possibly the one we are in, cant remember. The windows had been opened here and they had roof damage (recent at the time)that would have allowed outdoor spores in. Do we have a list of which ones are toxic and are there others that are infectous? Wouldnt there be some medical evidence if fusarium infections were a problem here? Any test to recommend? The ERMI is good for measuring specific mold varieties but no good when no fusarium is tested. Robin > > > Yes, I pretty sure it is. It was one of the toxic molds I was exposed to > in my school. > > > is in the air here.. any thoughts on this mold being toxic? > > Thanks.. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 It does not need to brown on grain to be toxic. [] Re: Fusarium http://www.prevalentfungi.org/state.cfm?id=us_AL There are several fusarium strains that are indigenous to AL (and other states.. fusarium solani (has toxins) is in most states as art of the outdoor mold flora.. Where do you draw the line medically? Same toxin as stachy but diff? Needs to grow on grain to be toxic and eaten or not? Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 I would say if it is making you a sick, it is time to go. God Bless !! dragonflymcs Mayleen ________________________________ From: listspub <listspub@...> Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 6:19:52 PM Subject: [] Re: Fusarium  http://www.prevalentfungi.org/state.cfm?id=us_AL There are several fusarium strains that are indigenous to AL (and other states.. fusarium solani (has toxins) is in most states as art of the outdoor mold flora.. Where do you draw the line medically? Same toxin as stachy but diff? Needs to grow on grain to be toxic and eaten or not? Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 I don't know if there is a norm or av for fusium outdoors but mold in general outdoors can be in the thousands per sq meter in the summertime and fall and goes down into the hundreds in winter. At Dr Rea's clinic you can buy settling plates that try to target mold in the air that are more troublesome for disease. They use a different medium and let it culture longer. They used to be $100 for 4 which included testing but not sure now. I put them on my cold air returns because all the air in the house goes through them. Outside culture plates run over with growth, never tested it. > > Replying to all.. thank you for responding.. > > It is a natural part of the mold " flora " here.. ??? > > I asked bio-assured where I ordered our ERMI test and asked them why fusarium was not one of the molds tested. They said it was not showing up as a big issue. > > We had about 1-7 (guessing from memory) spores per cu meter outdoor and 1-2 indoor.. my parents house, possibly the one we are in, cant remember. The windows had been opened here and they had roof damage (recent at the time)that would have allowed outdoor spores in. > > Do we have a list of which ones are toxic and are there others that are infectous? Wouldnt there be some medical evidence if fusarium infections were a problem here? > > Any test to recommend? The ERMI is good for measuring specific mold varieties but no good when no fusarium is tested. > > Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 The problem is there is no way to know that. I am also living in a new house and unmasking... Robin > > I would say if it is making you a sick, it is time to go. > > God Bless !! > dragonflymcs > Mayleen > > ________________________________ > From: listspub <listspub@...> > > Sent: Mon, December 6, 2010 6:19:52 PM > Subject: [] Re: Fusarium > >  > http://www.prevalentfungi.org/state.cfm?id=us_AL > > There are several fusarium strains that are indigenous to AL (and other states.. > fusarium solani (has toxins) is in most states as art of the outdoor mold > flora.. > > Where do you draw the line medically? > > Same toxin as stachy but diff? Needs to grow on grain to be toxic and eaten or > not? > > Robin > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 Ugh Carl! :-D I am not relying on the ERMI! I think the index is crazy and have no clue why shoemaker relies on it so heavily. The lab set me additional info regarding the specific molds. This is what the ERMI can be helpful for. I would like clarity on the furasium.. when is it a problem? Seemingly this stuff is all over the place as per the map I linked to. Yet its a toxic mold, seemingly quite toxic. Can you give me some insight on when to be concerned and when not to? We are told 1 spore per cu meter (air) in your house is too much.. yet what if 1- so many (?) spores of fusarium blows in from outside into the house? Obviously we keep things clean.. When is outdoor fusarium considered a problem? Are there other toxic outdoor molds that can put the fusarium into perspective for me? Below 100 is an acceptable number (per cu meter- air). ?? Its a bit unnerving to realize there is an outdoor fungus that can be as toxic (?) as the stachy growing in my house (?) ANd yes specifically mycos which in themselves are enough of a problem.. ?? Thanks.. Robin > > Robin, > > There are still some facts about mold, mold testing and ERMI > which need to be emphasized. > > 1. 1-7 spores per cubic meter is incredibly LOW. Below 100 is > often difficult to attain and maintain. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2010 Report Share Posted December 6, 2010 are there PCR plates, Barb? Where does one get a PCR test other than ERMI which I think is PCR... When we relocate, which may be sooner than expected.. we will be testing with an inspector and I want a PCR as well as infrared and the usual treatment (air) for what its worth which from my experience is very little because if fluctuates so much.. but a high reading would I think be a def sign to look further.. lows.. dont trust them. Robin > > > > Replying to all.. thank you for responding.. > > > > It is a natural part of the mold " flora " here.. ??? > > > > I asked bio-assured where I ordered our ERMI test and asked them why fusarium was not one of the molds tested. They said it was not showing up as a big issue. > > > > We had about 1-7 (guessing from memory) spores per cu meter outdoor and 1-2 indoor.. my parents house, possibly the one we are in, cant remember. The windows had been opened here and they had roof damage (recent at the time)that would have allowed outdoor spores in. > > > > Do we have a list of which ones are toxic and are there others that are infectous? Wouldnt there be some medical evidence if fusarium infections were a problem here? > > > > Any test to recommend? The ERMI is good for measuring specific mold varieties but no good when no fusarium is tested. > > > > Robin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 everything is so technical here lately brain cant keep up. I know I am sick from mold. In a message dated 12/7/2010 2:25:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scottarmour@... writes: I agree with all comments made by Carl. It gets even more complicated. I can not stress how important it is to learn and understand the ecology and biology of molds -snip- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Again : you are relying upon spore counts. As both Carl and I have pointed out there is more to the story than just spore counts. Spore counts indoors and outdoors are not a reliable approach to determine the degree of contamination. You are insisting upon numbers, when numbers are not available. If a person is sensitive to the indoor environment and/or outdoor environment, I doubt anyone can tell you exactly to which contaminant you are responding. I suggest you quit losing sight of the extent of the contamination and all of the contaminants that are present indoors. Jack-Dwayne: Thrasher, Ph.D. Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist www.drthrasher.org toxicologist1@... Off: 916-745-4703 Cell: 575-937-1150 L. Crawley, M.ED., LADC Trauma Specialist sandracrawley@... 916-745-4703 - Off 775-309-3994 - Cell This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 I agree with all comments made by Carl. It gets even more complicated. I can not stress how important it is to learn and understand the ecology and biology of molds (i.e., filamentous fungi) when discussing sampling methods, analysis, toxins, and species identification. I urge you to read the ACGIH BioAersosols book, see the chapter (3, I think) on fungi and the discussion of the study on impact of temperature and water content on species growth rates. The differences in growth rates per species is truly amazing. It only takes a few degrees or a few percent H2O to shift the ecology from one primary species to another. There is a study that looked at mycotoxin production from Stachybotrys. I believe it's by Sorenson and/or Jarvis around 2005. If I recall correctly, the study created nine different growing conditions (combinations of 3 different nutrients, and 3 different moisture levels). The results were astounding. The Stachy produced a different toxin on each of the unique growth conditions. (from memory, I don't have it sourced; see also the 2002 study of 122 Stachy isolates and the resultant differences in toxin produuctions, by , and Jarvis) Also, from a 2003 article by Kuhn and Ghannoum: " There are at least 21 different mycotoxin classes with over 400 individual toxins produced by at least 350 fungi. ...A variety of factors affect toxin occurrence Many toxins are secondary metabolites, produced under suboptimal growth conditions or in the presence of limited nutrients . Temperature, relative humidity, moisture, and growth rate all affect fungal mass as well as toxin synthesis. " This alone (only 3 articles/studies) should set the average IEP's head spinning. The problem: most of them never read these studies, and most of those do not have the science training background to interpret the important implications. If you don't understand this, and use it to understand the " results " of environmental sampling, then you will be interpreting incorrectly (i.e., too 'strictly' based on simple site samples). Therefore, I urge great caution when asking questions such as which toxin or species do I test for? Based on the variability suggested by these two basic studies, the answer may not be as easy as one would wish. > > Robin, > > There are still some facts about mold, mold testing and ERMI > which need to be emphasized. > > 1. 1-7 spores per cubic meter is incredibly LOW. Below 100 is > often difficult to attain and maintain. > > 2. ERMI does not include all WDB mold species. Just because > Fusarium isn't in the calculations of the Index number doesn't > mean Fusarium isn't important. ERMI is a combination > statistically intended to create a single digit number. (see next) > > 3. ERMI is not intended to be a comprehensive diagnostic for > most or all water damage molds. The 36 selected are composed > of 26 commonly associated with dampness combined with 10 > which are not. It is the combination as calculated in a formula that > generates the Index number. ERMI is an INDEX method that just > happens to also identify the species detected. It was intended to > generate an index number that doesn't require an expert to > interpret. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. The expert is still > necessary. > > 4. Vesper is the developer of ERMI under an EPA grant, > the patent of which is held by EPA. Vesper specifically states that > ERMI should not be used as you and others are using it because > he and others have not validated it yet. EPA last June issued an > official statement that ERMI should not be used as a diagnostic > tool in the field, only in the lab for research. > > 5. For anyone who wants to see why they can go to: > http://www.gopetition.com/petition/14485.html and read a petition > explaining the weaknesses and misunderstandings of ERMI. > > 6. If you want species identification from an arbitrarily limited set > and ignore the Index number, ERMI can be useful. If you want a > less expensive version there is ARMI with fewer species. Quite > frankly, I'd prefer a standard PCR methodology which will give > you lots more information, assuming you have someone qualified > to interpret it. ERMI is the best shot at an interpretation free mold > test and it has yet to succeed. Without the expert you have a > guess based on whatever level of knowledge and experience is > available. And that is a huge range. > > 7. Any mold can generate mycotoxins. Under the right > environmental conditions. Not all of them always generate > mycotoxins. But some do generate them more frequently. For > example, Stachybotry chartarum usually does (but not always) > but Stachy has a relatively limited set of conditions under which it > can reproduce and grow. > > 8. Infectious molds are a little easier to identify because there are > so few of them and they have been validated from biopsies and > autopsies - removed from inside a body. Aspergillus fumigatus is > the primary one. Candida albicans yeast is another. Because it > doesn't form a fungal ball, but can sometimes be systemic, it was > harder to validate. The pioneers in Candida were villified for > decades and were not exonerated until after their death. > > 9. You are trying to find a single, specific proof and response to a > complex combination of inter-related causes, effects, and > influences. What you need isn't available in the way you need it. > I'm sorry to be the bearer of such negative conclusions but facts > are facts. > > As you know, I support your ongoing efforts to solve these > puzzles. But relying on mold testing alone of any kind is a blind > alley causing only confusion. It does not, and cannot, have the > precision we all want and need. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 You have touched on the tip of the sampling debate regarding " zero tolerance " . The 'one spore' syndrome is derived from that desire to rid a space of 100percent of the spores/molds. Especially with Stachybotrys, this is a typical goal of many IEP's and contractors. I will not discuss the irrationality of zero tolerance at this time. However, I will tell you that a recent discussion on the IAQA discussion group revealed that the professional who use zero/one spore tolerance as a post remediation requirement are still not able to legitimzie the argument. I asked them repeated times to provide any rational support for the requirement and none of them could produce any literature. However, they were all very adept at the hypothetical and speculative reasons; some were able to provide a rational but unfounded legal/liability reason. I would not allow any professional IEP or contractor to demand a zero/one spore tolerance in any standard mold remediation. I would even question the ability to achieve this standard in a health care setting for pathogenic species. I can provide much more discussion and support for the inability to use zero/one spore tolerances. I urge you to read more, and use this discussion (Grimes, Thrasher, me) as a starting point in your further education. > > Ugh Carl! :-D > > I am not relying on the ERMI! I think the index is crazy and have no clue why shoemaker relies on it so heavily. > > The lab set me additional info regarding the specific molds. This is what the ERMI can be helpful for. > > I would like clarity on the furasium.. when is it a problem? Seemingly this stuff is all over the place as per the map I linked to. > > Yet its a toxic mold, seemingly quite toxic. Can you give me some insight on when to be concerned and when not to? > > We are told 1 spore per cu meter (air) in your house is too much.. yet what if 1- so many (?) spores of fusarium blows in from outside into the house? > > Obviously we keep things clean.. > > When is outdoor fusarium considered a problem? > > Are there other toxic outdoor molds that can put the fusarium into perspective for me? > > Below 100 is an acceptable number (per cu meter- air). ?? > > Its a bit unnerving to realize there is an outdoor fungus that can be as toxic (?) as the stachy growing in my house (?) ANd yes specifically mycos which in themselves are enough of a problem.. ?? > > Thanks.. > > Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 To All, I notice that someone just switched the discussion from toxic to pathogenic (infection). Please make sure your terminology and understanding of illness is correct before responding " yes " so quickly. > > Yes it can be > > The most likely fusarium fungus to cause infections in humans is Fusarium > solani. In fact, it’s associated with about half of the fusarium fungal > infections in people. Fusarium verticillioides causes around 20% of the fusarium > fungal infections in humans, and Fusarium oxysporum is responsible for another > 20% of human fungal infections. Most of the remainder of fusarium fungal > infections in humans is caused by Fusarium proliferatum. >  >  > > God Bless !! > dragonflymcs > Mayleen > > > > > ________________________________ > From: listspub <listspub@...> > > Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 11:36:30 PM > Subject: [] Fusarium > >  > is in the air here.. any thoughts on this mold being toxic? > > Thanks.. > > RObin > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Thanks . The fixation on molds alone is why the defense and insurance companies are able to get away with their concepts of no adverse health effects. I have a situation in New Mexico where there is rain, plumbing and sewage leaks with the odor of rotten eggs. Airborne spore counts are totally unreliable in this situation. The endotoxins from the Gram Negative bacteria were very high in dust and air. Also, Gram positive bacilli were present in high concentrations. They also detected Actinomycetes, which I was surprised since the CFU of Gram Negative and Positive bacteria were so high that they probably crowded out the slower growing Actinomycetes. Also the odor of rotten eggs (hydrogen sulfide) was so intense that occupants and customers became nauseous and left the building. Although the spore counts of Asp/Pen and Stachybotrys were highly elevated, we are approaching this matter from multiple contaminants, not just molds and mycotoxins. [] Re: Fusarium You have touched on the tip of the sampling debate regarding " zero tolerance " . -snip- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 You are exactly right, Janet! And you have my complete sympathy. But it has gotten technical because it is technical. I and others only get " technical " when the statements and discussion go too far away from the facts. It often takes " technical " responses to clarify where the conversation is going wrong. I'll make this simple: The problem is we use " mold " generically as a shorthand for all the " stuff " I have begun referring to as " filth caused by moisture. " But property managers, insurance, and attorneys get real specific and take our use of " mold " literally and limited to just spore counts. Because almost all mold testing finds only a small portion of the spores present and because spores are not being created all the time almost all mold testing fails to accurately find mold. Even when mold spores are found, anybody can intepret the results anyway they want and are difficult to refute. When we victims focus only on spore counts we are not only setting ourselves up for easy defeat by the skeptics and naysayers, but we are also preventing ourselves from getting well. So some do what we all should, and that is ask questions and ask more questions until we understand. However, sometimes those questions get off track and create confustion rather than clarity. That is when we must get " technical. " If we don't address the real problem then the real problem continues. Even in your situtation, which many of the newer members may not be aware, mold was the most obvious contaminant - grossly so!!! But I guarantee that if additional testing had been conducted there would have been as much if not more bacteria and other organisms Dr Thrasher discusses. If we all knew then what we know now then there would have been much more supportive evidence for you and it would have been more difficult for the government to deny their responsibility to you. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- everything is so technical here lately brain cant keep up. I know I am sick from mold. In a message dated 12/7/2010 2:25:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scottarmour@... writes: I agree with all comments made by Carl. It gets even more complicated. I can not stress how important it is to learn and understand the ecology and biology of molds -snip- ---------- 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Good points, . Even if a remediator can produce zero detectable spores (and I've done it on rare occasions of extreme need in a very tiny area) as soon as the containment is removed the normal air moves in and normal air always has mold spores of more than is commonly detected with current testing methods. The other side of the coin is how many spores does it take to trigger a reaction in a specific individual? No one knows for sure or can state definitively but there is credible anecdotal evidence that it doesn't take much. Theoretically perhaps a single spore can do so. Now, here is where it gets interesting, to me anyway. Because mold doesn't always produce spores and because spores will fragment into many tiny pieces, and because the hyphal fragments carry the same components as the spore, I can unequivacably assert that even in a zero spore situation a reaction to mold could occur. Even with zero actual spores! Detected or not. It's more than the spore and its more than the mold, intact spores and fragments or not. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- You have touched on the tip of the sampling debate regarding " zero tolerance " . The 'one spore' syndrome is derived from that desire to rid a space of 100percent of the spores/molds. Especially with Stachybotrys, this is a typical goal of many IEP's and contractors. I will not discuss the irrationality of zero tolerance at this time. However, I will tell you that a recent discussion on the IAQA discussion group revealed that the professional who use zero/one spore tolerance as a post remediation requirement are still not able to legitimzie the argument. I asked them repeated times to provide any rational support for the requirement and none of them could produce any literature. However, they were all very adept at the hypothetical and speculative reasons; some were able to provide a rational but unfounded legal/liability reason. I would not allow any professional IEP or contractor to demand a zero/one spore tolerance in any standard mold remediation. I would even question the ability to achieve this standard in a health care setting for pathogenic species. I can provide much more discussion and support for the inability to use zero/one spore tolerances. I urge you to read more, and use this discussion (Grimes, Thrasher, me) as a starting point in your further education. > > Ugh Carl! :-D > > I am not relying on the ERMI! I think the index is crazy and have no clue why shoemaker relies on it so heavily. > > The lab set me additional info regarding the specific molds. This is what the ERMI can be helpful for. > > I would like clarity on the furasium.. when is it a problem? Seemingly this stuff is all over the place as per the map I linked to. > > Yet its a toxic mold, seemingly quite toxic. Can you give me some insight on when to be concerned and when not to? > > We are told 1 spore per cu meter (air) in your house is too much.. yet what if 1- so many (?) spores of fusarium blows in from outside into the house? > > Obviously we keep things clean.. > > When is outdoor fusarium considered a problem? > > Are there other toxic outdoor molds that can put the fusarium into perspective for me? > > Below 100 is an acceptable number (per cu meter- air). ?? > > Its a bit unnerving to realize there is an outdoor fungus that can be as toxic (?) as the stachy growing in my house (?) ANd yes specifically mycos which in themselves are enough of a problem.. ?? > > Thanks.. > > Robin ---------- 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Thats because people are making it more complicated than it has to be pushing purist concepts. People do get sick from mycotoxins from mold. People do get sick from the gram pos, gram neg bacteria and endotoxins, sewage slug, etc. People get sick from having xmrv, lyme, thus compromised immune systems; they get sick from sewage back up and more. But you may just be sick from mold mycotoxins esp if you are out of your mold house and in a clean environment and dont have other complicating infections (leftover from WBD contamination or from some other source like a tick etc) Robin > > everything is so technical here lately brain cant keep up. I know I am sick > from mold. > > > In a message dated 12/7/2010 2:25:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > scottarmour@... writes: > > I agree with all comments made by Carl. It gets even more complicated. > > I can not stress how important it is to learn and understand the ecology > and biology of molds > > -snip- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Robin, I disagree with you use of " purist concepts. " When we include all the other possibilities we are not purists. When anyone arbitrarily limits the possibilities to just mold or just mycotoxins then that is a purist approach. Artificial limitation of cause is the easiest for courts and skeptics to shoot down. Because their is no supporting evidence for the artificial determination of a singular cause. It is the main reason most mold court cases are lost. It is one of the main reasons why doctors treat us like we're crazy. We insist on mold and mycotoxins when " they " know it could easily be any of several possibilities. What arguments do we offer them? The counter accusation that they don't know or don't care. Now, both may be true. It may be true that it is only mold or mycotoxins. It may also be true the physicians don't know or don't care. But we don't help ourselves by trying to win argu ignoring the facts that have been established or which the naysments using incorrect information, crappy testing, andayers believe. We don't stop our own suffering by chasing the wrong ghost. We don't stop the suffering by trying to stop one specific cause (or spore) when the cause is by the many. We must keep in mind that it is not just exposure. It is also the body. And, most importantly, the interaction between the body and its environment. I'm sorry, but that's complicated. More complicated than anybody has figured out so far. But it's the best we have right now. If we don't accept the uncertainty then we will continue to push for the precise which doesn't exist. And that may cause more harm than if we ignored the problem to begin with. It is what Dr Henry Vyner has labeled as the need to be vigilent rather than being in denial and igoring it all, or being hypervigilent by assuming the cause is anything and everything along with the compulsive actions to push their own agenda. This can sometimes cause more harm than denial because we lose focus and become blind to what is actually affecting us. Sometimes missing what is important. I don't mean to be harsh, Robin. We know each other very well. But you are pushing to control what can't be controlled. Don't give up. But please accept what we do know as facts so you have a better chance of improving your situation. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- Thats because people are making it more complicated than it has to be pushing purist concepts. People do get sick from mycotoxins from mold. People do get sick from the gram pos, gram neg bacteria and endotoxins, sewage slug, etc. People get sick from having xmrv, lyme, thus compromised immune systems; they get sick from sewage back up and more. But you may just be sick from mold mycotoxins esp if you are out of your mold house and in a clean environment and dont have other complicating infections (leftover from WBD contamination or from some other source like a tick etc) Robin > > everything is so technical here lately brain cant keep up. I know I am sick > from mold. > > > In a message dated 12/7/2010 2:25:10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > scottarmour@... writes: > > I agree with all comments made by Carl. It gets even more complicated. > > I can not stress how important it is to learn and understand the ecology > and biology of molds > > -snip- > ---------- 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Robin, I don't mean to be patronizing and sincerely apologize. I mean to be responding to what you write in a manner that is not inflammatory or rude. I mean to clarify the issues you bring up. They are important. And sometimes they aren't directed at only you but to others, especially newer members. Would it help if I acknowledge what you know and then identify when I'm addressing the group? Again, I apologize for offending you. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ------ Carl, you and Dr T are getting a bit patronizing. I get it.. purist is when you stick to one side or the other and patronizing is when hyou keep jumping on people nicely or not about what you think they dont know. Robin > > Robin, > > I disagree with you use of " purist concepts. " When we include all > the other possibilities we are not purists. When anyone arbitrarily > limits the possibilities to just mold or just mycotoxins then that is a > purist approach. > > Artificial limitation of cause is the easiest for courts and skeptics > to shoot down. Because their is no supporting evidence for the > artificial determination of a singular cause. > > It is the main reason most mold court cases are lost. It is one of > the main reasons why doctors treat us like we're crazy. We insist > on mold and mycotoxins when " they " know it could easily be any > of several possibilities. > > What arguments do we offer them? The counter accusation that > they don't know or don't care. > > Now, both may be true. It may be true that it is only mold or > mycotoxins. It may also be true the physicians don't know or don't > care. > > But we don't help ourselves by trying to win argu ignoring the > facts that have been established or which the naysments using > incorrect information, crappy testing, andayers believe. > > We don't stop our own suffering by chasing the wrong ghost. We > don't stop the suffering by trying to stop one specific cause (or > spore) when the cause is by the many. We must keep in mind > that it is not just exposure. It is also the body. And, most > importantly, the interaction between the body and its > environment. > > I'm sorry, but that's complicated. More complicated than anybody > has figured out so far. But it's the best we have right now. > > If we don't accept the uncertainty then we will continue to push for > the precise which doesn't exist. And that may cause more harm > than if we ignored the problem to begin with. It is what Dr Henry > Vyner has labeled as the need to be vigilent rather than being in > denial and igoring it all, or being hypervigilent by assuming the > cause is anything and everything along with the compulsive > actions to push their own agenda. This can sometimes cause > more harm than denial because we lose focus and become blind > to what is actually affecting us. Sometimes missing what is > important. > > I don't mean to be harsh, Robin. We know each other very well. > But you are pushing to control what can't be controlled. Don't give > up. But please accept what we do know as facts so you have a > better chance of improving your situation. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC ---------- 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2010 Report Share Posted December 7, 2010 Carl, you and Dr T are getting a bit patronizing. I get it.. purist is when you stick to one side or the other and patronizing is when hyou keep jumping on people nicely or not about what you think they dont know. Robin > > Robin, > > I disagree with you use of " purist concepts. " When we include all > the other possibilities we are not purists. When anyone arbitrarily > limits the possibilities to just mold or just mycotoxins then that is a > purist approach. > > Artificial limitation of cause is the easiest for courts and skeptics > to shoot down. Because their is no supporting evidence for the > artificial determination of a singular cause. > > It is the main reason most mold court cases are lost. It is one of > the main reasons why doctors treat us like we're crazy. We insist > on mold and mycotoxins when " they " know it could easily be any > of several possibilities. > > What arguments do we offer them? The counter accusation that > they don't know or don't care. > > Now, both may be true. It may be true that it is only mold or > mycotoxins. It may also be true the physicians don't know or don't > care. > > But we don't help ourselves by trying to win argu ignoring the > facts that have been established or which the naysments using > incorrect information, crappy testing, andayers believe. > > We don't stop our own suffering by chasing the wrong ghost. We > don't stop the suffering by trying to stop one specific cause (or > spore) when the cause is by the many. We must keep in mind > that it is not just exposure. It is also the body. And, most > importantly, the interaction between the body and its > environment. > > I'm sorry, but that's complicated. More complicated than anybody > has figured out so far. But it's the best we have right now. > > If we don't accept the uncertainty then we will continue to push for > the precise which doesn't exist. And that may cause more harm > than if we ignored the problem to begin with. It is what Dr Henry > Vyner has labeled as the need to be vigilent rather than being in > denial and igoring it all, or being hypervigilent by assuming the > cause is anything and everything along with the compulsive > actions to push their own agenda. This can sometimes cause > more harm than denial because we lose focus and become blind > to what is actually affecting us. Sometimes missing what is > important. > > I don't mean to be harsh, Robin. We know each other very well. > But you are pushing to control what can't be controlled. Don't give > up. But please accept what we do know as facts so you have a > better chance of improving your situation. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.