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

[Guest guest]

Thank you for the response, Sharon.

Fortunately, you acquired the knowledge necessary to protect your daughter. The

issue of some people reacting after returning to a home that satisfied even the

most stringent criteria for post remediation verification is very troublesome.

It can be devastating for the person who suffers the health effects, and is also

very frustrating for the remediators, IAQ consultants, and treating physicians.

But it is real. I have performed pre and post remediation evaluations in

hundreds of homes, and I have seen my share of botched remediation jobs. I also

have worked with a few competent and ethical remediators that not only do

terrific jobs, but stand behind their work products. While most people can

return to a properly remediated building, a small percentage of the population

can never return to a water damaged home in which they experienced toxigenic

health effects. The complexity of this issue is underscored by the fact that in

many cases, only one family member experiences the toxigenic reactions.

How wonderful it would be if sucking air or dust could conclusively provide

answers regarding contamination and the necessary fixes. In most cases,

verification by a competent professional who combines a comprehensive visual

inspection with a well thought out testing plan is sufficient to protect the

health of occupants as well as the asset value of the homes. For some, a change

to the " receptor " requires relocation.

Connie Morbach, M.S., CHMM, CIE

sanit-air.com

> >

> > 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

>

>

>