MrsKramer

Kurt, Emails don't always reflect intent, because there is no voice inflection. I must have been mistaken. Considering I came on this board when there were prior posts of people I had never met before wanting me poked in the eye, etc. I thought we made great strides. What did I take out of context? Do you want something corrected? Let me know. In the meantime, I am curious to know what you all think of this and what you can understand. The reason I came to you all is because you are a direct bunch, no doubt. AND you don't know anything about this, so you would learn it from this audio. I am looking for feedback and understanding by those who will say it like it is - based on their understanding. I want to know what you can't understand after listening. Here is the audio. Starts at minute 37, if you are so inclined to listen and comment. http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/ta ... terId=1547 Thanks, Sharon

Hi Guys, How has everyone been? As some of you know, I have fought the fight to take the myth out of the mold issue that it has been scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. I believe the above noted false science that was mass marketed in the US public health policy in the early 2000's has been a major problem in the issue which has caused alot of contention, confusion and litigation. People know that is not true and it causes distrust when they are told that - which causes a push back of over reaction in the other direction. Perfect storm for inspectors and others to get caught in the middle. I was able to get a Federal GAO audit that has caused it to be federally recognized serious illness is plausible (we're talking water damaged buildings here, not a little mold in the shower). The GAO report has helped alot to stop the extreme positions in both directions and defuse the contention and confusion. (side note: Sometimes people do get really sick and have a right to be alarmed. But that is far from typical) GAO overview: www.gao.gov/highlights/d08980high.pdf So anyway, you all would not believe where I have been for daring to get it Federally recognized that it is plausible moldy buildings can and sometimes do cause illness. I am literally facing jail time. Not kidding! Jail time. Not charged with a crime. The Ca courts are trying to force and coerce me into silence of what they did (that's criminal) and that allowed the "proven not possible" to remain in policy far longer than it should have. Now they are trying to CYA and shut me up. This is where I am asking for you all's help. I did an interview on IAQ Radio yesterday. I KNOW I can count on you all to tell it like it is, no holds barred. I am curious to know what you think, what you can understand and what you can't of the matter. If you are so inclined to give me feedback, click on the "IAQ Radio" link in the below post on Katy's Exposure to listen to the interview. I start talking at about minute 37. You can skip to it by moving your curser over the scale that tracks to which minute you listening. http://katysexposure.wordpress.com/2012 ... -internet/ The first part of the program might be of interest to you all, too. Its info of various conventions in the cleaning and restoration/remediation industry. Thanks, Sharon PS. How do I get noticed when people reply to posts? PSS. Dan, you nailed it in your second post. You don't have to test for mold to know you have to clean it up and stop the source of moisture. Sometimes you do need to professionally test if you are trying to understand other things - depending on the facts and parties of the individual situation and with full knowledge of the limitations of what info testing can and cannot provide. - a story for another day.

Jim, Saw your detailed post after my last one saying good bye. Thank you for taking the time to go down line by line to support your position. No. Katy's is not a conspiracy theory website. (and it is not even mine -am babysitting because the owner got hacked really bad). What she does is call out descrepancies between statements that support/deny causation of environmental illnesses. My "rot in hell" comment was sent to a "contact us" button on the AIHA website - not an individual. It was never posted anywhere. I was really mad. Had just gotten off the phone with a sick, crying teacher who was having her workers comp claim denied and she was being called a liar for saying she was sick, based on the ACOEM mold statement. AIHA was having the authors of that statement teach CIH's how to handle mold claims. Basically, they were mistraning CIH's to be a little defense army, based on the falsehood of proven not possible for toxicological induced illnesses. I went on the cite and saw that, just talked to someone whose life was being devastated by it. Hit the contact button. "Don't your children attend schools? etc" I was never sued for that, contrary to popular belief. AND AIHA has since changed their tune. They have published a great book on the subject. They call it "The Green Book". Its their best seller. Would highly recommend it for inspectors. All I really want you all to understand is that there has been alot of misinformation that downplays the potential for severity of illness. Don't take this lightly and treat people with respect when they say they are sick - don't accuse them being liars when they need you the most to be professional. I think I have made my point. There is really not much more to say. I wish you all the best of success in your careers.

Hmmmm? No evidenced rebuttal to the IOM statement of toxicological studies cannot be used by themselves to determine exposure limits before adverse health occurs? "Someone turn out the lights when it's through." Kurt Seems to me that they are already turned off. Call me if you get symptoms of toxicity while examining a WDB (that is scientifically proven not to be able to cause toxicological illness) and want to know where to get help. Been fun, boys. Gotta go.

"As a simpleton, I just want to know what the magic number is that constitutes too much or not enough." There isn't such a number. If a house is tested and the spore count comes back atypically higher in one room over another, or the indoor mold spore counts are significantly higher than the outdoor - then those are indications of a potential problem. Find the source of the numerical descrepancies and get rid of it.

Kurt, I write like this to defend my statements, "Jim, It would appear to me that you are giving self-contradicting replies: 1(a)..." You all write like this to defend your statements: "Caoimhín was right. You've not the skill to present valid, useful information, whether on your blog, at a conference or on this forum." Do you see the difference? You don't present facts to support your statements. Instead, you attack my writing style. What does my writing style have to do with if you can use extrapolations by themselves and profess to prove lack of causation of illness or establish some mythical LD50? I am arguing facts. I am giving references. You all come back with frivilous statements about me, that do nothing scientifically support your argument. Here's another fact for you. The Institute of Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and Mold 2004 "Toxicologic studies which examine such response in animal and cellular models cannot be used by themselves to draw conclusions about human health effects". ACOEM, the US Chamber and the AAAAI - which were all written by expert defense witnesses in mold litigation - had the erred conclusions based on using extrapolations from mechanistic researc by itself. You may think I can't communicate well or support my facts, but someone is listening. I blew those numbers of ACOEM, AAAAI and the US Chamber out of the Federal policy ball park. From a book about my part in taking them out from federal policy over this issue: http://freepdfhosting.com/faa6ac92d5.pdf Yet you all, for some odd reason, still want to hang on to this falsehood in science. But you present so scientific reason or supporting documentation of why. Why? If you chose to respond in the defense of using extrapolations by themselves and profess to be able to prove lack of causation of illness, please attack the above IOM statement saying its not science to do that, not me.

"In this thread, Jim has NOT posted: "you can used extrapolations to prove the claims of illness are all just Junk Science." Marc, The false LD50 concept that Jim seems to think is valid for this situation, comes from extrapolations in the ACOEM mold statement. Its the foundation for the US Chamber's "Junk Science" slur. The ASTM Int'l committee took it out of their mold tester guidelines. You won't see it cited in the new OSHA doc I showed you all. And I doubt if you will ever see it cited again in any federal document over this issue. Its passe'. It was improperly used to set policy in the early 2000's. (which caused a lot of problems). Its no longer current accepted science. Its passe'. I am not spinning anything. With all due respect, you all need to learn how to challenge a statement - not the moral character of someone who made a statement with which you disagree.

Jim, It would appear to me that you are giving self-contradicting replies: 1.(a.) "So far, the only meaninful concept that you've "presented" is that it is not possible to say that mold doesn't hurt you. That's fine. We all agree with that. We all agreed with that before you started posting here." (b.) "We understand that you don't like the rat study and its extrapolations. We understand that you *think* that LD50 values for toxins are unimportant to the discussion but we disagree with you. They are important and the fact that you seem unwilling to admit that makes it seem like you pick & choose what facts to consider when forming your own opinions." Concept mass marketed into policy based on the extrapolations: “Current scientific evidence does not support the existence of a causal relationship between inhaled mycotoxins in home, school, or office environments and adverse human health effects.â€

Every chatboard has its own personality. I would bet you guys have been posting together for years. While the name of this thread is kind of not good, and you have stuff on here about poking me in the eye, and I fight dirty, etc, when I don't even know who you guys are; I just want you to understand the absurdity of what was allowed to become US public health policy and workers' comp policy over this issue in the early/mid 2000's: If one cannot say how much mold or toxins it takes to cause illness in WDB; then logically, one can also not say they have proven no amount of mold and toxins in WDB cause illness. The mass marketing of the down right ridiculous science, i.e., that one doesn't know how much, but has proven never; has caused a huge problem for a lot of people. Its instilled bias and distrust of the sick -- which causes the sick to react back with distrust of the building stakeholders. When you have two sides that are set up not to trust each other right from the get go, its real hard to amicably solve a problem. There is a lot of stuff going on over this issue. A lot of research. People are beginning to understand its important to get out early if they don't feel well. Building stakeholders are beginning to understand why its important to get rid of mold in buildings. The whole LD50 concept for WDB, based on goofy hypotheses, is becoming rightfully passe'. So hopefully, I have helped you all to understand this (and you don't want to poke me in the eye anymore!) WR, Sharon

First of all, I want to thank you for having compassion that I do what I do because of my sickly daughter. That tells me that you all are good people trying to do the right thing. But, I don't have a sickly daughter. My daughter does have cystic fibrosis. But she is 28 years old and is an editor for a reality TV show in Los Angeles. She runs, swims, plays soccer, snow boards and likes to ride dirt bikes. That was just part of the spin of LAWeekly to make you (and everyone else) think I am out here screaming mold is going to kill everyone, while knowing they were aiding a fraud to continue is US public health policy. Contrary to the LAWeekly, I couldn't keep a trailer in my driveway for my "sickly daughter" to stay in, even if I wanted to. My HOA would not allow it. I type this psot from my dark dank hovel of an office...as I look out at a lake in my view. Still, I do appreciate your compassion. So, THIS is what I have been trying to tell you: http://wp.me/plYPz-38x

"For a brief moment, I felt this was constructive. Not any more." It is constructive. Out of adversity comes changes. Just hang with me here a bit. (Argh! This is a b**ch to write. Trying to do it briefly and suscintly with links)

"This is an emotional issue for you, so I'll cut some slack, but so far, I'm unconvinced of the severity of the issue you've devoted your life to." Kurt, I'm not blaming you, for this. I see this all the time. One's long time perceptions of what they believe to know, run deep. I don't write about the severity of this issue as the main topic. That is a by-product of what I write about and why so many would like me silenced. I don't know if this has sunk in for you yet. I have presented you with evidence that has probably shaken the foundation of what you believe to know to be true of what is proven over this issue. You asked me questions of what is the LD50. I answered with "I don't know". You then accused me of being a charlaton heritic for saying that. Hello Kurt???? What I have been trying to tell you is that there is no LD50 for this situation. There is no evidence that moldy buildings don't harm. Its a scientific myth that has been mass marketed into policy by the use of extrapolations and hypotheticals applied to data taken from a single rodent study. Like I said, I don't blame you for your viscious attacks on my character. Actually, its kind of fascinating to me because I can tell that you sincerely believe what you are writing. You are a professional in this issue which makes it all the more interesting to me of how deeply seeded bias is that it stops objectivety. You keep trying to trap me to write of what IS science. I keep telling you I don't write of what IS science. I am not a scientist. What I write of is how a scientific fraud mass marketed its way into US public health policy. How the Hell would I know what compounds of mold are toxic and...whatever the rest of your question was that I tried to answer? (And then you accused me of being a liar when I answered the best I could.) Its not you. What you are doing and your reaction is typical human behavior when one is faced with new information that flies in the face of what they thought they knew to be true. Please do me one favor. Go back and read our posts. Then tell me which one of us is making unevidenced statements and emotional posts on this thread. Back in a bit. (I need to link stuff and can't do it well on this board) Warm Regards, Sharon

Kurt, what evidence do you provide to refute the evidence of what I have shown you? I'm sorry. I must have missed it. "Redirection and hyperbole is hard to work with." Thank you for the acknowledgement of that fact. Back in a bit.

Bane, My suggestion to you to find answers about your reactions would be to join two chat groups, Sickbuildings@yahoogroups.com and IEQuality@yahoogroups.com. Sickbuildings is comprised of people who have been made ill. Alot of chit chat to sift thru, but well worth the time to understand the matter. IEQuality is made up of IAQ professionals. Its primarily building science knowledge, but they also have some superior knowledge of the current understanding of the health effects of contaminants in WDB. Kurt & Jim, I can't seem to work the format of this board too well. So I am going to post my response to you on a blog that I can work well and then link it here. Kurt, you write, "There isn't an answer to that question [how much or how little mold makes one sick], which is why there's such confusion, and why it opens the door to the scammers and loons." That is EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT is EXACTLY what I blew the whistle on. Its BILLIONS in insurer fraud mass marketed into US public health and workers comp policy by scammers and loons who have professed to have scientifically proven that no amount of mold and toxins in WDB could ever make one sick. Its a workers' comp insurer COST SHIFTING SCHEME onto taxpayers for the expense of WDB disabled workers. That LAWEEKLY article is work of fiction and is evidence of just how bad they want me discredited and silenced. Back to you in (hopefully) about an hour. In the meantime, here are two videos for you: HOW IT BECAME A FRAUD IN POLICY THAT IT WAS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN MOLDY BUILDINGS DO NOT HARM: http://blip.tv/laborvideo/sharon-kramer ... rs-5075373 3 Min Video ATTEMPT TO USE COURTS TO COERCE ME INTO SILENCE (fat chance!) http://blip.tv/conflictedsciencemold/3- ... an-2073775

"And I was stupid enough to actually follow the links. They have abso-freakin-loutly nothing to do with our discussion." Jim, With all due respect, there are hundreds of papers within those links that are right on point of this discussion. Papers like the CDC's Respiratory Morbidity in Office Workers, and POA's Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome from Water Damaged Buildings, and MANY about building maintenance for better IAQ. Several about toxicity models - their worth and shortcomings. I don't know what it is you want or why you made a statement of me way back several years ago that I "fight dirty". I don't even know you. You asked for links to completed papers. I gave it. I'm sorry but you are going to have to read thru them on your own IF it is your intent to address an issue with an open mind. Here is a challenge for you: Find one paper in those links that addresses the current accepted understanding of illness from WDB according to the IOM. If you can't find one, I will know you are just blowing smoke - not really trying to communicate. If you just want to diss me for doing the best I can to answer your questions and provide information to you, then so be it. There is nothing I can do about that.