Caoimhín P. Connell vs. Sharon Kramer Slugfest?

[MrsKramer]

"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

[hausdok]

OK,

I get the who; I still don't understand the motivation. This might be true but as a motive it doesn't make sense to me:

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.

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?

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?

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.

I just don't understand why the Chamber would benefit from promoting a false premise.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[kurt]

I'm getting a fairly clear picture of MrsKramer out of this discussion.

She's highly competent at the pejorative.

No one has disputed, (at least I don't think they have), that mold causes illness. I think there's some reasonable evidence to show that it does. Most of our (my) questions involve how toxic this stuff is, what exposure amounts/rates/quantities are significant in which individuals, etc.

To which there are seemingly no apparent answers. Yet.

The Bioaerosol conference looks very interesting. I'll wait to hear what the results of their conference indicates. Until then, it's a link to a conference, not an argument that supports a position.

[MrsKramer]

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"

[hausdok]

No one has disputed, (at least I don't think they have), that mold doesn't cause illness.

I dunno that I agree with that statement, Kurt. I personally don't think casual exposure to mold causes illnesses in those who aren't already predisposed by way of compromised immune system or a known allergy. Hell, if it did everyone in the western corridor of Washington state would be sick; too, those folks down in Oregon who live on the rain forest coast.

In our climate, things get moldy fast if one isn't careful to ensure things don't leak and that ventilation systems are functioning properly. We are constantly exposed to mold here and know that mold spore is present 24/7 in 100% of the air that we breath and it has been since our ancestors first slithered out of the water onto land. Fungi is the greatest recycler on the planet. I still can't accept that casual exposure to mold is "toxic," although I've always known - and didn't really need any scientist to tell me, that exposure to chemicals of all sorts is not good.

It would be so easy for the scientists who argue against the whole mold is gold dynamic to jump ship and simply change their minds. Why haven't they? I understand that professional pride can make folks do some stupid stuff, but I can't accept that legions of professionals are all part of a great conspiracy to hide the fact that wet buildings make people sick. We all live with certain assumptions and often change our minds about those assumptions when we become better educated; so don't scientists. It's not that unusual to read some article about some new understanding of something scientific and to read where scientists involved say something like, "Based on previous scientific studies we've always thought this, but now we think this." There is no great disgrace in admitting one has been wrong. I don't see what makes scientists that research this whole wet building syndrome any different than scientists researching other fields.

Still having trouble ascribing evil motives to the folks who've authored some of the documents she's claimed here are false or deceptive.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Marc]

I side with those who say 'we don't know that', that the model used to 'prove' these conclusions is flawed and that the results based on that model remain unproven, not necessarily wrong, just unproven.

I guess I'm saying that I side with the marketing professional who wasn't so deeply immersed within the topic that she 'couldn't see the forest for the trees'. A clear overview can elude those who are too focused within it.

Just my humble opinion.

Marc

[MrsKramer]

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?

[Bain]

Sharon,

Thank you for taking time to explain your positions and answer questions. Please know that while there aren't gobs of responses to your posts, they are being read by many who, like myself, are eager to learn more about mold and its effects on human beings.

Connell's views on radon were once challenged by someone on this board, and Caoimhin became exceedingly emotional, and countered with insults and name-calling rather than rationally expressing his differing opinion. You, are a decidedly pleasant contrast.

I'm still straddling the fence on this one, but you make cogent arguments and, just as importantly, you're a very good sport.

[kurt]

Yeah, she's a good sport.

I'm not in connells cap, but I'm not in kramers either.

My problem with Connell is he's a crank, my problem with Kramer is vast reference to subject matter leading to.............what?

Lots of links and reference to folks talking about the matter as support for.........what?

So far, I'm not finding useful information, mostly theories.

When the medical professionals can't determine specifics, how can appropriate action be prescribed?

What results is hysteria without scientific basis. At least, that's how it plays out in the neighborhood.

[MrsKramer]

"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"

[hausdok]

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"

OK, if they lied and it is the secret killer why isn't western Washington state and the rain forest area of Oregon uninhabitable?

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Bain]

Anyone who's even remotely in touch realizes that ideology and politics exert far too much influence than pragmatism and facts when it comes to shaping policy on our planet.

In my State, a property inspector was hit with a seven-figure judgment because allegedly-toxic mold conditions were supposedly overlooked in a house. 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?

This thread is interesting, but for me, sadly, public perception is more important than fact because it's the public who will be sitting in the jurors' box if I'm ever sued due to a mold issue. That hardly seems fair or reasonable, either, but it's reality . . .

[MrsKramer]

"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.

[MrsKramer]

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.

[kurt]

As far as secondary inspections.........

What mold inspection provides useful information? I've looked at a few hundred by now, and not a one of them provided any credible or useful information regarding appropriate action. Not one.

Lacking dose response relationships, credible studies showing toxicological severity, or anything that one might associate with information that allows informed decision making, means I got nothing to work with.

If the doctors can't figure it out and are at opposing ends of the continuum, where's that leave us?

Ripe for hysteria, overreaction to what we all know to be normal mold growth in houses (black stains in attic, on foundations, etc.), and foolishness about causation.

Until the medical professionals reach some consensus on this stuff, I'm inclined to think it's wildly overblown. There's some amount of mold everywhere, with no corresponding or recognizable health effects, for me to think otherwise.

One last question (for now).......Where's the study showing the infant mortality rates, causation, etc.,

i.e......."There have been deaths, mainly infants."

[Jim Katen]

. . . This thread is interesting, but for me, sadly, public perception is more important than fact because it's the public who will be sitting in the jurors' box if I'm ever sued due to a mold issue. That hardly seems fair or reasonable, either, but it's reality . . .

Yes. And MrsKramer is one of the reasons that it's a reality.

[Jim Katen]

I'm getting a fairly clear picture of MrsKramer out of this discussion.

She's highly competent at the pejorative.

. . .

I'm getting a clear picture of someone who either can't or won't answer questions directly and who substitutes volume for content.

[hausdok]

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

Maybe they aren't liars but simply wrong and they aren't ill.

I'm not a scientist - I don't have lots of studies to cite. I only know what I've personally seen and experienced and it makes me doubt this whole toxic mold phenomenon.

I had a case a couple of years ago where an elderly lady here in Seattle saw one episode of Extreme Home Makeover where they talked about how an entire family had gotten sick from mold caused by some kind of water leak and how the house couldn't be lived in. She'd had a washing machine hose burst and cover the floor of her basement before it drained out through the basement garage. Based on the sad story in that show, she got worried and hired a home inspector that does mold "inspections," to determine if her home might be infested.

The inspector came into her home with an air pump, took samples, told her he'd send the samples to a lab and that he'd get back to her. A few days later 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.

She panicked and wanted to know what to do. He handed her the business card of a local abatement company and told her they'd do a good job cleaning up. She hired them to clean up her home. They left, she brought the inspector back and he tested the air again. He reported again that she had toxic mold in the air of her home. She called the abatement company and complained. 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.

Several months later, her daughter called me and asked me to go look at the house. She explained that her mother had been complaining of headaches and fatigue and short term memory loss and was convinced it had something to do with mold contamination.

I went out to the house and asked her to tell me what was going on. She explained, and handed me the laboratory report. Very impressive document with scary numbers of parts per million and language that implied lots of folks get sick from mold exposure in homes but didn't say that lots of other folks don't.

I looked the home over and didn't see anything unusual for an 80-year old home. I did find some black stuff under the floor in the basement and pointed it out to her. She was irritated - the cleaning company and mold guy had showed her that stuff and it was supposed to have been cleaned up she said. I rubbed it with my fingers and then smelled it - coal dust. "Did you ever have a coal-burning furnace?" I asked her. "Oh yes, we had one for years but replaced it many many years ago," she answered. "Was the coal bin where this laundry is now?" I asked her. "Why yes it was. Why?" she asked. "'Cuz, as close as I can tell without having it analyzed, this is coal dust."

We went back upstairs. "How long have you lived in this home," I asked this 80+ year old woman. "More than 64 years," she answered. "Have you ever had water in the basement before?" I asked. "Oh yes, we occasionally had plumbing leaks or some infiltration from outside just like everyone else in the neighborhood." "Did you ever suffer any form of sickness during any of those previous incidents?" I asked. "No never," she replied. "Do you realize that the fungi listed in this report is commonly occurring all over western Washington and that it's probably on your clothes right now, in your hair and in your lungs, as it is on my clothes, in my hair and in my lungs, and has been 24 hours a day 7 days of the week since I was born?" I asked her. Wide-eyed, "No, it didn't know that." "Would you agree that we live in a very damp environment out here in Western Washington and that we have the perfect environment for mold growth," I asked her. "Yes I would," she answered. "So why, after living in this state your entire life and residing in this home for more than 64 years did you suddenly become ill after one episode of a broken washing machine hose?" "I don't know," she answered. "Did you feel sick before you received this mold report or after," I asked her. "After," she answered." "Well, don't take my word for it," get to a doctor and have a doctor determine whether you are actually sick from mold or are simply feeling stressed."

I left. The next day I got a call from her daughter, "Mike, what did you say to my mother? She's completely recovered!"

you're a media person. You should understand that mass marketing of a concept, such as the concept that exposure to mold, any exposure, can make you sick, can probably cause people to believe they are ill when they in fact aren't.

About 3-4 years ago, I got a call from a fellow. His wife was complaining about itchy eyes and nose, nose bleeds and headaches. He wasn't. He thought something in his house might be affecting her. I went over there. The house was six months old and he'd never gotten an initial inspection because it was a new house and he'd assumed that everything would be fine. The wife was home. I asked her if she had any known allergies, "Yes, I'm allergic to mold. I was tested when we lived down in California." (And you move to Washington state? I thought to myself.).

I checked the house out. The whole house air change system was broken - the timer in the laundry was functional but it had never been coupled to the air intake system on the heating system or to the exhaust fan on the second floor. I decided to check the attic. I climbed up on my ladder, lifted the attic hatch and the smell - kind of like the smell one encounters when one walks into an open pit haylage silo on a dairy farm - rolled out of the attic. It was nauseating and the affect on the wife was instantaneous. She began wheezing and sneezing and within minutes had a bloody nose. The husband and I? Nauseated by the smell but not feeling any ill affects. I went up into the attic, the underside of the roof and framing were kelly green with a nice thick blanket of fungi that was about one-eight of an inch thick. In the attic, insulation batts were blocking air intake at the eaves and they'd combined gable end vents with pot vents essentially short circuiting attic ventilation. You could feel the humidity in that attic without using a hygrometer.

The builder came out, removed all of the insulation, had the entire attic soda blasted and treated every square inch of exposed wood with borates. They fixed the ventilation by clearing the eave vents, closing off the gable end vents and pot vents and installed full-length ridge vents and also fixed the whole house air change system and reinsulated the attic.

They still live in the house. I was asked to come back there last spring to consult about something else. I asked the wife - who you must remember is allergic to mold - how her allergy to mold has been doing since she'd moved to Washington state. She said she's fine. Go figure.

I'm not saying some folks don't get sick from mold; I'm just saying that I think that the whole issue is extremely inflated and distorted by the media to the point where some people, who are not predisposed to illnesses from molds, have become convinced they are sick when they aren't; and that even when some folks have known allergies to mold exposure that they seem to do fine - even when they are living in mold-rich climates.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[Mike Lamb]

Center for Disease Control: http://www.cdc.gov/mold/stachy.htm#Q1.

“The term "toxic mold" is not accurate. While certain molds are toxigenic, meaning they can produce toxins (specifically mycotoxins), the molds themselves are not toxic, or poisonous.â€

[MrsKramer]

"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.

[Jim Katen]

. . . Ask me a direct question and I will answer it, the bes I can. What do you want to know? . . .

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.

What are the inhalation LD50 values for these compounds?

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.

[Jim Katen]

"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.

I never asked that.

You ask what does a marketing person know about science, so I showed you that what I know is not relevant.

I never asked that.

Its what the scientists know and are working on. I answered your questions the best I can and provided many credible sources to corroborate.

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

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?

See my previous post.

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?)

This is an example of a deflection. Kurt asked about studies showing infant mortality rates and you post one abstract about a single child that died from a mold infection. You're not addressing the question directly and you're wasting everyone's time by sending them all over the internet to chase information that doesn't address the question.

For goodness sakes, if you don't have information to back up a claim, just say so.

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.

No. No one's saying that. You're putting words in my mouth and then criticizing them.

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.

Not my question.

[MrsKramer]

....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.

[Jim Katen]

....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.

And it's hard to write laws without basing them on hard facts.

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.

And yet, you seem to have a deep distrust of those very professionals when they say things that you disagree with.

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 yet you seem unaware of the part you've played in fueling that very paradigm.

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.

Yes, it certainly is a hype term. How do you suppose it got that way?

[kurt]

I've been trying to be polite and open, simply because I appreciate MrsKramer coming in here to talk and answer questions.

I can see why some in the medical profession might like her on their side; she's good at marketing, which I define as convincing folks previously disinclined to think about something, to think about it in ways advantageous to a particular position or entity. Marketing works best on those disinclined to think real hard about much of anything; we live in a sound bit society. Her work appeals to those disinclined to pursue information in context, meaning most folks.

A lot of the "arguments" are links to studies that don't say anything; they're notices of folks about to engage in study, or notices indicating a viewpoint. Not any hard science that tells me anything.

A lot of deflection.........making statements about deaths, "mainly infants", then coming up with a single case study bereft of context.

I think that if the dust ever settles, it will find that there are some diseases caused by airborne molds, and the individuals with the disease have severe genetic predisposition to the particular disease. Kind of like every other disease.

Meanwhile, we will continue to get people freaking out about black mold stains in the grout of the bathroom tile, bulldozing houses because there is mold in the attic, and similarly crazed response to things that can be are, at base, simple conditions we can find just about anywhere, due to marketing of half (1/8?) truths taken out of context.

When actual studies are presented that allow reading and study (IOW, not links to studies about to occur), I'll be glad to read them and alter my current perspective if the information is compelling.

Until then, I still think the whole mess is wildly overblown.