Re: Industrial Hygenists

[Guest guest]

Your letter reminded me of an occupational physician to whom my employer

sent me a few years ago. When I suggested to him that I was allergic to

something growing in the workplace HVAC system, he defiantly stated " I'm the

doctor here. I'll decide what you're allergic to. "

Recently, in a social setting, I mentioned this to another doctor who knew

the first, and thought highly of his skills. He laughed at my story, then

explained " You have to remember who is paying the bill. He could not show

agreement with you right up front, no matter how right he thought you were.

He had to at least give the impression of an unbiased researcher. That's the

reason I no longer practice occupational medicine. "

Industrial hygienists are in the same position. They are seldom hired by

individuals, but often by defensive, unbelieving employers trying to protect

their economic interests.

There are however many CIH's who do believe in the harm of indoor air

quality problems. A good example is the long list of publications on the IAQ

subject on the www.acgih.org web site (American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygienists).

Gil Vice

----Original Message Follows----

From: " Jeff and " <jeff@...>

Reply-

< >

Subject: [] Industrial Hygenists

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:17:42 -0600

I'm new, so please forgive me if this was covered before. Why does it

seem that most experts are at the very least " keeping an open mind " , yet

the one group that seems to be in debunking mode is industrial

hygenists?

I've now run into the third one that is out there stating boldly that

there is no evidence that mold is in any way dangerous to humans unless

it is eaten. They all bring up things such as " proving things on

animals is not the same as proving it on humans... " , and the lack of

proof of a connection.

The one thing that I have noticed in all three lectures I observed was

that they are basically stating that there is no data proving a

connection; however no one has cited data that disproves it.

I may be naïve, but I think you could have made the same thing back in

the late 1800s about " germs " . At that time, there was no proof that

germs even existed, but theories were being tossed around that the cause

of illness might not be " night air " , but that it could be something too

small to be seen with the eye. Now we have proof that germs do in fact

exist and do cause disease, but if the lack of proof was reason to not

be concerned, then people in the late 1800s should have just drank

disease infested water without boiling it.

The Chinese have known for years that it is not good to drink unboiled

water; hence the popularity of tea in that culture.

Anyway -- I digress -- what I'm wondering is if anyone knows why

industrial hygenists seem to be standing alone on the leg that " mold is

harmless "

Jeff

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

[Guest guest]

Jeff and others.

I'm not qualified to authoritatively answer your question but I can point

you in the direction of statements made by the ACGIH, American

Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. (And, of course, offer

my opinion). This is an organization that many, including the American

Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) " relies " on or " looks toward " for

policy and guidance.

F. Herrick, Sc.D., C.I.H., in the 1999 edition of the ACGIH book,

" Bioaerosols Assessment and Control, " addressed this specific issue in

the Foreword. (page v).

Dr. Herrick talks of how the industrial hygiene profession slowly moved

from purely industrial settings to other workplaces -- which were seen,

in comparison, as " apparently benign environments; " and from

measurements of chemical sources to bioaerosols (including mold).

They applied the tools and techniques that were available and which

they comfortably knew how to use. Those measurements " revealed

exposures far below the levels " found in manufacturing.

Dr Herrick continues, " There was a tendency to dismiss the worker's

complaints, because the exposures we measured in their environments

did not approach the levels we had become accustomed to finding in the

workplaces where industrial hygienists had traditionally practiced. In

retrospect, it is clear that we were wrong to dismiss the workers for two

reasons. First, we tended to discount evidence of a causal association

between symptoms and the workplace because the exposure levels

were below the limits....Second, we were not sufficiently aware of the

limitations of our measurement methods... "

It seems that the practices of many in this profession has still not

caught up to the awareness of Dr Herrick.

Just as revealing is the beginning of the next paragraph, " ...(this) book

illustrates the application of the scientific method to the study of

occupational hazards and disease. This is remarkable only by

comparison to the conventional approach to industrial hygiene, which is

frequently compliance-driven. "

In other words -- or in my words at least -- the historical approach of

industrial hygiene has been to determine issues of regulatory

compliance for chemicals -- not science, not cause and effect, not

medicine, not mold.

Furthermore, all of Dr Herrick's comments apply specifically to the

industrial and manufacturing workplaces. He does not seem to directly

address the office workplace (yet) and never does he imply applicability

to residential.

Dr Herrick's words also accurately describe how I have experienced the

profession of industrial hygiene over the past 15 years. It is my hope

that his comments and guidance becomes more widely read,

comprehended, and heeded by those practicing industrial hygiene.

It is also my hope that others, especially attorneys and courtrooms,

stop misusing and misapplying valid industrial hygiene principles --

which typically are better served by other professions anyway. Such as,

rendering medical opinions, declaring hard lines between safe and

unsafe levels of exposure, insisting that data true for the statistical

majority are also true for specific individuals, mis-application to

environments out of the IH realm, and mis-application to exposure

sources which have no exposure limits. Such as mold.

---------------------

Carl E.Grimes

grimes@...

Healthy Habitats (sm), Denver, CO

303-671-9653 voice, 303-751-0416 fax

" Starting Points for a Healthy Habitat, " GMC Media, 1999.

================