MrsKramer

I can't tell who posted this but will respond. Your words are in quotes. "Well, the heroes of 911 were exposed to mountains of toxic microfibers, particularly asbestos, so I find their inclusion into this discussion a sad attempt at a convincing argument." First of all, lets set the rules here. Just because you may not agree with something I write, you do not have the right to assign ulterior motives to my statements. When you do that, you take the discussion off point and make it personal. That is not acceptable in a professional discussion of an issue. I am not here to entertain you or play a game of who is smarter and more honest than who. So lets stick to the points made without assigning motivation or denegrating characteristics to the other in a discussion. Capiche? As I understand it, your understanding is only partially correct. The clean up workers who became ill over a period of time were exposed to a lot of soaked and rotting water damaged material plus a lot of chemicals. Besides giving their lives and health for their country, what they also helped to discredit is that some scientist can sit in an ivory tower with a calculator and conclude from looking at numbers alone, they were not made ill by the contaminants. They helped to establish that epidemiological studies need to be given a bigger seat at the table when untangling the understanding of chronic environmental illnesses. There is a bioaerosol conference coming up where some of the physicians involved, worked with the 911 workers. Its international researchers and I assure you that ICTM or Mr. Connell will not be presenting. http://www.bioaerosol.org/ "I certainly can't dispute Dr. Calabrese, but dismissing Pirages paper as non-science doesn't make any sense. She references multiple studies that appear to be credible. She is a credentialed professional. Why is she wrong, and Calabrese right?" That appears to me to be an oxymoron of a statement. What Calabrese and many others have deemed unscientific about threshold modeling theories, is the entire schtick upon which Gots, Connell, et al, based their conclusions and promote the false concept that it has been proven the multiple contaminants in water damaged buildings (WDB) do not cause illness besides allergy. (Note: See how I politely did that when presenting a different view? I did not call you a moron when you made a self contridicting statement or wrongfully assigned demeaing character to you. I said your statement was an oxymoron) "I have been reading. Mountains of stuff. Whatever I can find. I've talked to a number of medical professionals from NU, mycologists, and IAQ professionals. No one seems to have anything that ties things together." Who have you been talking to? A good chatboard made up of those that LOVE to debate this stuff is IEQuality@yahoogroups.com. Its got a lot of engineers, CIHs, toxicologists, etc, on the board. There are alot of policy setters there. Mr. Connell belongs although he rarely comments. "The prevailing assumptions lead me to think that MrsKramer is disconnected from the larger picture provided by medical professionals. Reading what degreed and credentialed professionals say makes me think more is not known, than known." See, now that statement would make me want to refer to you as a word that begins with the letter "A". You have no right to judge what I know or don't know or deem me disconnected. It does not appear to me that you have been reading what credentialed professionals have been saying. Whose work do you read? "When the professionals can't seem to come anywhere close to consensus on this stuff, how is it that a marketing individual can? I'm trying to avoid jumping to assumptions, but it seems like MrsKramer is working a product line, not developing credible scientific conclusions." Okay. I call BS. You are jumping to conclusions about who I am and what I know; and writing petty words! I keep telling you all, don't listen to me on science. But open your eyes and listen to those who are advancing the science - not trying to stymie it. I keep giving you links and references that are credible sources. "I'm still listening, but the arguments seem patched together with very little glue to hold them together." "Still" listening does not apply to you based on your post. But hopefully, beginning to listen does. WR, Sharon

The form of this chatboard is foreign to me. My apologies if I am not linking properly when responding to posts. Regarding Sue Ellen's paper. Its not even a published work in a medical or IH journal, so it hasn't undergone any peer review. Like Mr. Connell's writings, its just something found on the author's website. It cites no papers that have been published since 2003. A quick read of the references, and I see primarily expert defense witnesses in mold litigation, Burge, Robbins, Terr...the usual crowd. Here's the spin: Spin: define "rather minor" does that mean no illness or a small percentage of the population will become ill from a moldy building or only a small percentage will have mold? Define "potential indoor ambient air concentrations". Does that mean for water damaged buildings or your typical building? Notice no mention of anything beyond mold and mycotoxins that are indoor contaminants when water damage occurs. "influential ignorance" The above is incorrect. They did a dose response/threshold model for one mycotoxin via one route of exposure and an acute exposure at that. Then they professed this proved lack of plausibility of illness while ignoring people are exposed to more than one mycotoxins at a time in WDB - along with other contaminants. Then they mass marketed the concept that this meant anyone claiming illness beyond allergy were liars out to scam insurers. To quote the US Chamber version of Sue Ellen's cited references, In 2003, a think-tank paid tens of thousands of dollars for this sentence to some of the authors Sue Ellen cites. This is an excerpt from just one paper (that IS journal published), why her non journal published paper is not science for determining plausibility of symptoms, or lack there of, for long term exposure to multiple contaminants. http://freepdfhosting.com/b6fe5a07f4.pdf Using threshold risk models for chronic environmental exposures is passe'. We can thank the men and women made sick from 911, for this much needed change in science. There were so many sick over a five or six year period, it forced the exposing the folly of forming conclusions based on threshold or linear models alone. You can't establish an LD50 for this scenario. Too many variables. You have to rely on epidemiological data coupled with risk models and various tests for immunology, toxicity, irritant and allergic effects; coupled with tests of what is in the building. You have to use common sense more than numbers, in most cases. If there's mold, clean it up. Again, I am not a scientist. Don't take my word for it. Read. Also, I would think the vast majority of homes inspectors inspect, do not have a problem/or serious problem with mold. But when they do, look out! I mainly just came to this board to share the OSHA paper with you. You all are who it is geared for. A post of Connell's on another board a few weeks back reminded me that I wanted to get that OSHA doc to inspectors. Calabrese on Errors of Toxicity Modeling (This post reformatted by the Editor, TIJ to make it easier to read)

No. Its not just the toxins. It might be best if you ask Mr. Connell for any disclosures of financial interest and/or conflicts of interest. I, myself can disclose that I do not generate income from this issue. Quite the contrary. It has cost me dearly for speaking out of the deceit. Did I mention the part about the US Chamber of Commerce being involved in the politics and the mass marketing downplaying of the potential for severity of illness? BTW, not all defense experts are wrong. Sometimes one can't prove a building was the cause of illness or that a building stakeholder is responsible for illness. Only those who say they have proven that a building could never cause illness are the ones you have to watch out for.

1. Are you talking about Sue Ellen Pirages from ICTM? If so, to which paper are you refering? 2. Yes. I am published in two medical journals on the subject, IJOEH http://www.ijoeh.com/index.php/ijoeh/article/view/408 and JACI: http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(06)01398-4/abstract 3. The OSHA doc cites us as reference for our reference to WHO with the statement. We are 15 “Persistent dampness and microbial growth on interior surfaces and in building structures should be avoided or minimized as they may lead to adverse health effects (15)â€

Jim, Again, I am not a scientist that can advise on inspections. However I have done a lot of reading on the subject and I always check source information. This is a really good paper by OSHA in my opinion for those who investigate buildings. Its a common sense overview of about 20 pages and its not just about mold. The 40 some source references are mainly extensive papers that are excellent. http://www.osha.gov/Publications/3430in ... ity-sm.pdf We pulled out highlights of the OSHA paper as it relates to mold for a really quick read and cited EPA for some of the health effect information. We then noted from where the misinformation over the stems. http://wp.me/plYPz-36h OSHA cited us for this publication because we did the same overview of the WHO Report on the health effects. (The WHO doc is real detailed. We're simple and it shows in our writing!). Here is what they cited of ours: http://wp.me/plYPz-18n Inspectors are often the first experts people see. I think this OSHA document is great for inspectors and building maintenance managers. That's exactly who it is geared for. Its brief, but it references detail if you want to know more.

Lots of posts. Not sure who asked what makes me qualified to write of science with only a degree in marketing. I don't write about science. What I write about is how information and misinformation moves to influence decision. That is what I understand - how concepts are presented that shape policy. A lot of what has occurred over the mold issue stems from what is called "Influential Ignorance". Meaning it is not he who knows the most, but he who is heard that shapes policy. Those who are in a position to be heard and rely on influential ignorance to shape policy will tell half the story and ask decision makers to form a conclusion based on knowingly incomplete information. Someone wrote in one of the posts that allergy is understood. Toxicity less so. That's exactly right. Toxic effects from contaminants in water damaged buildings are really hard to understand and designate the exact cuprit of causation of illness. This is because there are so many at one time, like bacteria, fungi, beta-glucans, etc. Add to this, people do not just inhale this stuff when it is in the air and lands. They also eat it, walk on it, brush their teeth with it, etc. BUT, what Mr. Connell would like for you to believe (besides that I am an evil witch) is that one can establish a threshold and an LD50 for one toxin via one route of exposure and conclude from this influential ignorance that it has been scientifically proven microbial toxins in water damaged buildings could never reach a level to cause illness. That's silly science. One can't test for apples and conclude oranges. That's why the GAO Report and the WHO Reports are such thorns in "their" sides. These reports don't say we have proven anything -- other than i.) its plausible these serious illnesses are occurring from exposure to the multiple microbes and ii.) anyone who says they have proven "could not be" is basing their erred conclusion on incomplete info. Sometimes people have had this misinformation marketed to them by those they consider knowledgable and trustworthy. They in turn repeat the misinformation. But if you track back the sources for the publications one has had presented to them marketing the myopically based folly/ 99% of the time one will find that the source author generates the lion share of their income off of denying causation of illness on behalf of stake holders of water damaged buildings. They tend to sit on committees that establish policy because this in turn lends credibility to their non$en$e in court. Its a horrible game where people's lives are sometimes ruined from unnecessary illness ; building stakeholders spend a fortune on litigation sometimes because occupants have been made unnecessarily ill - based on poor advise; and remediators/scope writers get sued sometimes because they were not taught how to properly set up a remediation protocol that protects the occupant, etc. For example, can you define who is susceptible to illness during a remediation? It's not as bad as it used to be a few years back. The GAO and WHO reports have forced some semi-government standard and common sense in the issue. But litigation defense work is still lucrative business and in order to have that work, one also needs confusion and litigation. So that's why I am qualified to write and have helped to reshape policy. Marketing IS a science with standards and practices and tricks of the trade. Its just a different kind of science. When used properly it can do alot of good. When used improperly, it can do alot of harm. You don't need to take my word for it. If something is presented to you as current accepted science, but it doesn't seem logical to you -- trust your instincts. There is a good chance they are right - and then check the sources for the material you have been presented.

Dear Mr. Kenney, You asked what is my expertise in this issue and what career did I give up. Basically, I'm a myth buster over this issue. I have a degree in marketing, am corporately trained and have 25 years experience. As such, I know how to find the spins in marketing pieces disguised as science. There are many good and knowledgable people in this issue who have superior knowledge from the technical side, but do not understand they have had misinformation marketed to them regarding scientific proof of lack of causation of illness. Trustingly, they take this info that is out of their realm of expertise at face value because of the stature of some who are practicing the deceptive marketing. (see UCSF Tobacco Legacy Library for a greater understanding of how it works.) In its simpliest form, what I have accomplished over this issue that has helped to reshape US public health policy, is that I have removed the false concept from public health policy that two men with PhDs could apply math extrapolations to data they took from a single rodent study; and based solely on this information prove that no one is ill from the toxic components of contaminants found in water damaged buildings. Its an unscientific non-sequitor to start with such myopic, limited data and profess to scientifically prove such a broad conclusion. Basically, I nailed the proponents of the insurance industry for marketing garbage science in policy to be used as a legitimizing factor when denying liability for causation of illness. Among other things, the way I did this was to cause a GAO audit that federally established serious illnesses from water damaged buildings are indeed plausibly occurring. The audit report, which came out in 2008 is called, "Indoor Mold: Better Coordination of Research on Health Effects and More Consistent Guidance Would Improve Federal Efforts" It helped to take the wind out of the naysayers. It mucked up alot of expert defense witnessses business premises. So I am sure you can understand why "they" hate me. For this effort to reshape public health policy, I have been called every name in the book by those who would prefer not to see the above truth as part of health policy. They have sued me for the words "altered his under oath statements" (in the first public writing of how the false concept it was proven could not be, came to be - while I named names of who marketed it.) They have threatened legal action via the US mail, interstate while enclosing falsified legal document. They have basically used every trick in the book to try to silence and discredit me. But, the truth is the truth. I just keep evidencing it. The federal government just keeps citing it. "They" just keep putting false inuendos on chatboards and other places. The games play on. My advice to anyone on this board is don't take my word for it. READ And when you do, be sure to check the references for what you are reading. I was surprised when I joined the ASTM committee, how many professionals in this issue understand the nuts and bolts of what they do, but don't understand why they do it or what influences they are subjected to that determines how they do it.

Caoimhín, I had no idea you had people back out of that conference because I was scheduled to speak. That seems very unlikely to me, but thank you for informing me that even in my absense you think I aided to curtail a litigation defense arguement disguised as science from spreading further. You have made my day. The "variety of reasons" I did not come were two: I had other things that needed to be done and it was not worth my time or money to fly from California to Vermont for a conference. Please do not continue to falsely infer anything else. I hate committee work and conferences. As you know, I was specifically asked to join ASTM Int'l because of my understanding of the mass marketing of scientific misinformation and politics over the mold issue. (have a degree in marketing) I was even given a free membership by the President of the org. I got in - removed ACOEM's (aka US Chambe of Commerce's) mold statement from the standards - and got out. I believe you were promoting they should be left in, weren't you? Please re-read this Wall Street Journal article for refreshment of your memory of what caused me to agree to do work on a committe (with you) for ASTM in the first place: http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf Also, I don't understand. I cite Federal OSHA/EPA for reference of suggested building maintenance/potential for illness. You cite yourself to refute. Are you able to cite other sources that refute the OSHA/EPA references to which I linked in my last post - and for which I and my associate are cited as reference #15? http://www.osha.gov/Publications/3430in ... ity-sm.pdf I have not seen your work cited for federal publications over this issue. Did I miss it? (meow - could not resist after your less than professional and rumor mongering last post) And last but not least. How does one receive notification when posts are made on this board? I would have responded to your newest post sooner, but was not aware it was made. Will you cc me if you post again? I know you have my email. Thank you, Sharon Kramer PS. Mr. Katin, Yes. Well placed (and mass marketed) conspiracy theories that thousands of sick people, including infants, are just feigning being sick so they can scam insurers does seem to mysteriously be oddly and illogically acceptable in the minds of some people. Wonder why that would be? One might think they have been subjected to those who slyly sell doubt of causation of illness for a living - and without thinking it thru on their own, have become sheeple.

Dear All, I have been meaning to make contact with this discussion group for quite some time. A post made on another chatboard that was recently brought to my attention reminded me. Two items of which I wanted to make you all aware that have the potential to impact your IAQ businesses. One is positive. One is negative. 1. OSHA issued an excellent directive regarding the maintenance of commercial and industrial buildings and the importance of IAQ considerations. These types of advisories add weight to the importance of your work. We blogged about it at Katy's Exposure and gave a brief overview as to how the advisory pertains specifically to water damaged buildings. You may read the OSHA report at Katy's Exposure OSHA 2. This one has more to do with the politics that always seem to pervade this issue. For those of you in CA, this has the potential to make your jobs a bit harder because you will have limited legal recourse should an insurer or other private party unreasonably attack your work or just refuse to pay. Katy's Exposure Cal Courts Fiasco So, these are just a heads up. Wishing you the best of success with your businesses. Mrs. Kramer PS. Interesting name to this thread. Hell yes I will bite. But only if one childishly and unprofessionally bites first! Connell on ToxLaw 7.21.11