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.

"And yet, you seem to have a deep distrust of those very professionals when they say things that you disagree with." No. The ONLY thing I have really spoken out of that has helped to reshape policy, is the scientific fact that you can't take a rat study, add some math, and then mass market into policy that it has been scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. Yet, that is EXACTLY what has happened over this issue. Like I said, I don't write about science. I write about mis-marketing of science. As far as completed research papers, here is the most current accounting of which I am aware: http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_a_f.html http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_g_m.html http://globalindoorhealthnetwork.com/research_n_z.html I have to go now. You all enjoy the rest of your day.

1. "What mold-produced compounds are toxic to humans via inhalation? I don't need to know all of them, just a few. Preferably those that are common place." Commonly found in WDB, the following are known to be or produce toxins: mycotoxins, endotoxins, beta-glucans and certain proteins 2."What are the inhalation LD50 values for these compounds?" I don't know. Nor, as I understand it, is that a relevant question when determining causation of illness or lack there of, from WDB. This is because people are exposed to multiple contaminants simultaneously that are individually known to have the capability to cause a chronic inflammatory responses (CIR) - sometimes referred to as a "toxic" response. (what constitutes the term "toxic" seems to mean different things to different researchers) Additionally, in WDB people are not just exposed via inhalation. They are exposed via inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. (I would cite a paper here, but I am afraid you will yell at me!) 3. "What are the concentrations of these compounds that are typically found in houses that have mold problems? Not houses that are seething pits of mold, just your average clean-looking house that happens to have, say, a leaking icemaker connection and some mold growing on the floor and wall below it." I don't know that there is a concrete answer to that question. As I understand it, that can vary by area of the country, time of year, etc. I think what you may be asking me is what is the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for these compounds in the air and at what point is it limit breached when some mold, but not alot, is in a house. If that is what you are asking me, I don't know the answer. Like I said, I am not a scientist. As I stated before, I don't know the infant mortality rate. I only know that infants have died from exposure to aspergillus. I linked a paper for you to read that stated this. I don't think it is common, but it has happened. So is there anything else you feel I did not answer honestly to the best of my ability? I try to cite to scientists when I answer these kinds of questions. LD50's, PELs, CIR are not really in my realm of expertise.

....he notified her that her house was infested with "toxic mold." By way of proof he showed her the lab results that showed that she had several types of alleged "toxic" mold in the air of the home....He handed her the business card of a local abatement company and told her they'd do a good job cleaning up....They came back and cleaned again - not for free - and then she hired the inspector to come back a third time. This time the air in the home miraculously contained zero mold spore. Hmmm. She'd spent $10,000 on testing and cleaning." That is a HUGE problem in this issue. Most states don't have licensing requirements for "mold professionals". Anyone can deem themselves an expert. The industry is trying to self regulate via orgs like IAQA. But its hard without laws. One of the main messages that needs to get out is that just because someone deems themselves a professional mold inspector and/or abatement company, doesn't mean they are. People need to know not to trust someone just because they SAY they are a professional. Another thing is, if people aren't feeling well and they find mold in their home, they go on the net, see what mold may cause and tend to conclude that is their problem. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes its something else in the house. Sometimes it has nothing at all to do with the house. Its like anything else when trying to find the root of the problem, you have to look at a lot that gets ruled out, to form a conclusion. And yes, the tem "toxic mold" seems to be used as a hype term the boogie man made up to scare sick people and to scare building stakeholder of sick people.

"I'm getting a clear picture of someone who either can't or won't answer questions directly and who substitutes volume for content." You don't get it both ways. You all asked me questions and asked if I could corroborate. You ask what does a marketing person know about science, so I showed you that what I know is not relevant. Its what the scientists know and are working on. I answered your questions the best I can and provided many credible sources to corroborate. What is it you think I have not answered? Ask me a direct question and I will answer it, the bes I can. What do you want to know? As far as infant mortality rates. I don't know. I did not say there were massive amounts of infant deaths. Nor do I believe that to be the case. I said there have been infant deaths, while I also stated that in the vast majority of cases, mold is no big deal. One example of publications about mortality, children and aspergillus: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 2.abstract (So according to you all, am I suppose to cite info or am I dodging questions with volumes of whatever?) You are welcome to blame me and others for raising public awareness if you would like. But are you saying that people should not know there is sometimes a potential for ill health because it may increase your liaiblity as this becomes common knowledge? That doesn't seem logical to me at all. As far as secondary mold inspections, I would think the relevance of this depends on the skill of the inspector and what it is one is trying to understand about a building. Most times, the answer to the problem is - if there is mold, get rid of it.

Changing hats. I am a real estate agent by profession. Have not worked in the past couple of years. "The inspector performed a service and likely received several hundred dollars for his time. In so doing, his underbelly was exposed to the tune of a million bucks, not including legal fees. It hardly seems fair, does it?" No. It doesn't seem fair. As we all know, not all inspectors, agents, buyers or sellers are created equal. All you can do is your best, document everything and disclose, disclose, disclose. If I was an inspector, I would probably be picky as to which agents with which I would work. Their proper disclosures and disclaimers protect the inspectors and clients, too. I would think one of the toughest questions an inspector faces is when a buyer asks, "Do you think I need a secondary mold inspection?". How is one expected to answer that when there are so many variables and potential for liability; and you are not a physician, mycologist, etc? Over kill on secondaries can kill deals. Under kill can cause problems down the road.

"OK, if they lied and it is the secret killer why isn't western Washington state and the rain forest area of Oregon uninhabitable?" Its not that it is a secret killer in the vast majority of cases - even when the building is water damaged. Its that they hyped it that people were claiming in droves, mold in their buildings were killing them because of "trial lawyers, media and Junk Science". They put fear and distrust into building stakeholders that anyone claiming symptoms at all were scammers out to get into their wallet. They mass marketed it to the courts and to mainstream physicians that people claiming illness at all, were liars. This made it harder for people to find doctors to help them. It made it harder for them to be taken seriously by the stakeholder when they said they needed help of a building being cleaned up. There are people out there whose health has been completely destroyed by this, that if they had known what was making them sick they would have gotten out earlier -- or cleaned up the mold. There have been deaths, mainly infants. But for the vast majority of people, they just need to be made aware of why they can't concentrate, or are coughing alot, have stuffy noses, etc. Get it early and the problem corrects itself once they get away. Its a fine line between over kill and under kill of this issue. Some situations really are serious. Some are no big deal. The mass marketing of misinformation, hatred and distrust has added tremendously to fuel unfounded fear and contention on both sides of the issue. At the same time, it has limited awareness of the advancements in science for those who really do need to get out, sometimes til its too late to completely regain their health.

"I'm still straddling the fence on this one, but you make cogent arguments and, just as importantly, you're a very good sport." Thanks. As I keep saying, I am not a scientist. I would just like you all to be aware there ARE scientists that ARE advancing this issue. I do not find Mr. Connell to be among them. I never would have even come to this board had he not tried to fight the progression of science with personal attacks. I would like for you all to be aware of the politics of this issue that influences some of the garbage that gets written, which can ultimately impact your work. And...you would not believe what a good sport I have been. I have been called every name in the book and then some. I saw a problem and set out to change it. I was so nieve about politics that I thought I could walk into DC and they would immediately correct the wrong, once they understood the problem. I was able to moderate a Senate Staff Briefing where I brought in an immunologist, and ENT, a microbiologist and a biotoxin treating physician. I was able to get a Federal GAO audit of the issue. But, the deceit still lingers in some private sector health policy and the courts to this very day. I had no idea just what a big whistle I blew when I said it's marketing, not science, to take the following extrapolations & hypotheses; and based solely on these -- profess to prove and mass market into policy that thousands of people claiming illness are liars. Below is what was mismarketed into policy. It looks like its massive amounts of studies. NO! Its one set of extrapolations applied to data taken from a single, acute exposure, mold intratrecally instilled, rodent study; with LOTS of assuming along the way and while ignoring dose rate implications and multiple exposures occurring simultaneously via all routes of exposure: "Experimental data on the in vivo toxicity of mycotoxins are scant. Frequently cited are the inhalation LC50 values determined for mice, rats, and guinea pigs exposed for 10 minutes to T-2 toxin, a trichothecene mycotoxin produced by Fusarium spp.69,70 Rats were most sensitive in these studies, but there was no mortality in rats exposed to 1.0 mg T-2 toxin/m3. No data were found on T-2 concentrations in Fusarium spores, but another trichothecene, satratoxin H, has been reported at a concentration of 1.0 x 10-4 ng/spore in a "highly toxic" S. chartarum strain, s. 72.29 To provide perspective relative to T-2 toxin, 1.0 mg satratoxin H/m3 air would require 1010 (ten billion) of these s. 72 S. chartarum spores/m3. In single-dose in vivo studies, S. chartarum spores have been administered intranasally to mice29 or intratracheally to rats.71,72 High doses (30 x 106 spores/kg and higher) produced pulmonary inflammation and hemorrhage in both species. A range of doses was administered in the rat studies and multiple, sensitive indices of effect were monitored, demonstrating a graded dose response with 3 x 106 spores/kg being a clear no-effect dose. Airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver a comparable dose of spores can be estimated by assuming that all inhaled spores are retained and using standard default values for human subpopulations of particular interest73 — very small infants,a school-age children,b and adults.c The no-effect dose in rats (3 x 106 spores/kg) corresponds to continuous 24-hour exposure to 2.1 x 106 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6 x 106 spores/m3 for a school-age child, or 15.3 x 106 spores/m3 for an adult. That calculation clearly overestimates risk because it ignores the impact of dose rate by implicitly assuming that the acute toxic effects are the same whether a dose is delivered as a bolus intratracheal instillation or gradually over 24 hours of inhalation exposure. In fact, a cumulative dose delivered over a period of hours, days, or weeks is expected to be less acutely toxic than a bolus dose, which would overwhelm detoxification systems and lung clearance mechanisms. If the no-effect 3 x 106 spores/kg intratracheal bolus dose in rats is regarded as a 1-minute administration (3 x 106 spores/kg/min), achieving the same dose rate in humans (using the same default assumptions as previously) would require airborne concentrations of 3.0 x 109 spores/m3 for an infant, 9.5 x 109 spores/m3 for a child, or 22.0 x 109 spores/m3 for an adult. In a repeat-dose study, mice were given intranasal treatments twice weekly for 3 weeks with "highly toxic" s. 72 S. chartarum spores at doses of 4.6 x 106 or 4.6 x 104 spores/kg (cumulative doses over 3 weeks of 2.8 x 107 or 2.8 x 105 spores/kg).74 The higher dose caused severe inflammation with hemorrhage, while less severe inflammation but no hemorrhage was seen at the lower dose of s. 72 spores. Using the same assumptions as previously (and again ignoring dose-rate implications), airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would deliver the non-hemorrhagic cumulative 3-week dose of 2.8 x 105 spores/kg can be estimated as 9.4 x 103 spores/m3 for infants, 29.3 x 103 spores/m3 for a school-age child, and 68.0 x 103 spores/m3 for adults (assuming exposure for 24 hours per day, 7 days a week, and 100% retention of spores). The preceding calculations suggest lower bound estimates of airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations corresponding to essentially no-effect acute and subchronic exposures. Those concentrations are not infeasible, but they are improbable and inconsistent with reported spore concentrations. For example, in data from 9,619 indoor air samples from 1,717 buildings, when S. chartarum was detected in indoor air (6% of buildings surveyed) the median airborne concentration was 12 CFU/m3 (95% CI 12 to 118 CFU/m3).75" THIS is what became the sole foundation for the US Chamber's statement written to influences judges of, "Thus the notion that toxic mold is an insidious secret killer as so many trial lawyers and media would claim, is Junk Science, unsupported by actual scientific study"

Mike, Will put your words in quotes. "Why? Why instill bias? Why try to convince folks you've proven that contaminants in water damaged buildings don't cause illness if they do? What is the benefit? What is their motive? Why would anyone, as you allege, want to intentionally deceive people about something like that when folks' health and their lives are at stake?" Because environmental illnesses can be quite expensive for those deemed to have caused them. It is quite lucritive to be a paid expert when litigation occurs. Some of these guys jump from the environmental illness de jour and profess to scientifically prove they "Could not be". An excellent book on the subject is by Dr. David Michaels, head of OSHA. Its titled "Doubt is their product. How industry's assault on science threatens your health." If you want to find individual names of who and how to mass market the downplaing of causation of illness, the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library is a good online source. Several of the experts in this issue came from Big Tobacco around 1999 or so. "Maybe they did pay them, but how can you know that their motive is what you allege it to be? You've chided Kurt for making assumptions about you - aren't you making assumptions based on your own bias?" No, I am not making assumptions. I could write a disertation on the aspect of bastardizing the science of marketing to sell doubt of causation, but will refrain. A journal published paper that details much of the conflicts of interest is written by Dr. James Craner: http://www.drcraner.com/images/A%20Crit ... 20Mold.pdf "We home inspectors were telling folks about sicknesses in buildings long before Ballard vs. Farmers and telling folks to take precautions. There wasn't any media-driven mold frenzy back then. After Ballard it exploded. Why? Nothing had changed except someone had won a whole lot of money in a suit." Right. The Ballard case was good and bad. It raised awareness that people could get really sick from buildings. But at the same time, it helped to cause over reaction that a little mold in one's shower could kill them. It caused politicians on both sides of the isle to become the "champions" of this issue, when what they really did was fuel fear of health problems for occupants and fear of loss of income for stakeholders. Of course, they were both perceived as fighting for their political bases' rights. "I just don't understand why the Chamber would benefit from promoting a false premise." The US Chamber of Commerce is not the same thing as your local Chamber of Commerce. Local chambers work to better their communities and spur local business. They do much good work. The US Chamber is lobbying machine. They primarily represent the interest of big businesses, such as the insurance industry, the building industry, etc. Insiders who have worked for their Institute for Legal Reform have referred to what they do as "views for dues". Some big companies have disassociated with them: http://www.desmogblog.com/pge-quits-us- ... ke-fed-too Its one thing to lobby for the interest of big business, and debate issues. But what they did over the mold issue, crossed the line into dirty politics. Does that answer your questions?

Moderator, Thank you for editing my post to make it more readable. And Marc thank you for this lovely thought, "Methinks if the two could consult each other as well as some of the brethren here have learned to do, progress might be made." I am always up for illustrating what the scientists, researchers and physicians, who are actually doing hands on over this issue, are saying. I try to always cite reference for my words. But Mr. Connell (and I call him that because I can never remember how to spell Kevin in Galic), tends to like to characterize me as the imbicile little sister of the wicked witch of the west. Thus the name of this thread. When Mr. Connell posts mean spirited, nonsense like the below on chat boards to make his "scientific voice" heard, it is not likely we will be having intelligent, professional discussion of the state of the current accepted science any time soon. Mr. Connell's writing on this forum of professionals is below. He failed to mention that I was a fellow committee member of his - who caused the ACOEM Mold Statement to be removed as a source for ASTM Int'l procedure guidelines for mold testers. "Just for the record… Ms. Kramer's announced attendance created a serious problem in the program. I had several world-class speakers decline to speak at the conference arguing that if Ms. Kramer (and her ilk) were invited speakers, then the conference was not a serious or a credible conference on the subject matter. The individual who asked her to speak was at liberty to ask ANYONE to speak during his session (he could have asked his garbage man if he wanted), however, he was heavily criticized for his poor choice in Ms. Kramer. He explained that he wanted to display and highlight the remarkable ineptitude and ludicrous positions of the anti-science "toxic mould" nut-jobs in the realm of science and indoor moulds. Others argued that the purpose of the conference is to present valid, useful information, and Ms. Kramer could not fulfil that role. It the end, the image of conference was at risk of being tarnished when it was believed that such a person would be speaking. For a variety of reasons, Ms. Kramer did not speak, and to my knowledge was not even in attendance. It was only with the guarantee that she would not be a speaker that I was able to get some of the world class authorities to present. Finally, I agree with Ms. Kramer, read the OSHA Document - it will underscore the fact that Ms. Kramer is so very wrong on so very many issues in the IAQ realm. Indeed, is difficult to believe that one could find someone so amazingly consistently wrong on so many fundamental principles in this field...." In the above diatribe, Mr. Connell failed to mention that my writing is a cited reference for the OSHA doc that he professes I am too amazingly stupid to even understand. Reference #15, "Katy's Exposure Blog, Exposing Environmental Health Threats And Those Responsible"

"What think tank and what was their motive?" The Manhattan Institute Center for Legal Policy (MI CLP) and the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (IRL). They paid two PhD owners of the corporation, GlobalTox, Inc., to write a mold position paper in 2003 with the specific direction they were to write something judges could understand. Beside having the hateful buzz words of "toxic mold" "insidious secret killer" "junk science", etc, the paper, "A Scientific View Of The Health Effects of Mold", cites false authorship of being co-written by a physician from UCLA. Its commonly referred to as the "US Chamber Mold Statement". It was to instill bias in the courts that these gentlemen had successfully established the toxic components of contaminants in Water Damaged Buildings (WDB), could never reach a level to cause illness, and anyone who says they can should be considered by the courts to be a liar. It was the science of marketing gone awry and credentials misused to deceive. 1. The Billing Records http://freepdfhosting.com/43f07c34e8.pdf 2. The Canceled Checks http://freepdfhosting.com/8e5c4c5a36.pdf 3. The Statement it was written for judges http://freepdfhosting.com/cfe9bff790.pdf 4. The physician stating under oath that he did not author the US Chamber Mold Statement: http://freepdfhosting.com/daf7d27e86.pdf