Caoimhín P. Connell vs. Sharon Kramer Slugfest?

[hausdok]

To everyone one who is participating in the bashing of anyone who is simply trying to get the truth out about toxic mold is doing all those who are suffering and dying from exposure a huge disservice! Please, I implore you to rethink your veiws on this topic of toxic mold exposure. It does make people very sick. The proof is in all those around the world who suffer daily. This back and forth bashing on this site and other's isn't solving this issue. It only makes things worse for everyone. Until we, as a people, begin to unite and empathize with those you may not understand, then we, as a people, will never heal this earth! And we will all suffer! Let go of your fear and embrace the truth! It will set you free!

Sincerely,

~DANA

What Bashing?

Nobody is bashing anyone here. If you can't see that, stay off of here.

The users of this forum are professionals who often ask very pointed and blunt questions of other inspectors and professional that participate here. Anyone that comes here has to have a thick skin and needs to expect that nobody here is going to lob softballs just because an issue is somewhat emotional.

Hand wringers contribute absolutely nothing productive to discussions such as this other than to inject a lot of emotion into the thread and that ultimately detracts from the meat of the discussion.

If MrsKramer and Connell, and inspectors here, want to get into a debate about this, fine; but if this thread is going to attract legions of hand wringers from all over the net I'm in favor of the moderators pruning the hell out of it and removing any other posts such as the one quoted above (And this one too for that matter, 'cuz neither is on-topic.).

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

[MrsKramer]

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

[Jim Katen]

"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.

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. This doesn't shake anyone's foundation. Everyone on this board is open to the idea that molds can have a negative impact on human health. But every time we try to find out something more about the specific dangers associated with mold, you go into deflection mode or victim mode.

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.

Now that's not true. Where, exactly, in this discussion has anyone called you a charlatan or a heretic? I just reviewed the entire thread. It's not there. Why would you make such an accusation?

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.

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.

Like I said, I don't blame you for your viscious attacks on my character.

Please cite one unfounded vicious attack on your character on this board. Why would you claim to have been viciously attacked when it has, in fact, not happened?

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.

What, exactly, is Kurt not objective about?

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.)

Please stop making unfounded accusations. No one here has called you a liar. I just read every word of the thread. It's not there. Why would you say that we called you a liar when we didn't?

We are a group of people who base our opinions on facts. You tend to make a lot of claims and you fail to back them up with facts. When we ask for facts, you deflect and point to relevant links. When we press for more cogent information you slip into a victim-like state and accuse us of calling you a charlatan, a heretic, a liar, or making vicious attacks on you when, in fact, none of those things occurred.

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.

Not really. The people on this board have an above average record of altering their opinions to conform to the facts that are presented. We are open minded but we tend to filter our opinions through logic and facts rather than emotion and opinion. So far, much of your side of the discussion has been lacking in logic and facts.

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.

Done.

You are.

[MrsKramer]

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€

[Marc]

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€

[kurt]

Jim's post is completely accurate.

Sharon, you preach to the choir well. Other's, not so well.

[MrsKramer]

"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.

[kurt]

Sharon, when confronted with factual statements, you cry "personal foul", when in fact, no character attacks have been made anywhere in this thread.

Try an argument that's not passive-aggressive and leave out the cries of personal foul.

It's a pattern we all know too well in this forum, and it doesn't fly.

[MrsKramer]

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.

[kurt]

Well, this has been mildly informing, and largely unproductive.

I'm done. Someone turn out the lights when it's through.

[resqman]

As a simpleton, I just want to know what the magic number is that constitutes too much or not enough. Kinda like Radon, either it is less than 4 or more than 4. If Radon is more than 4 it is bad, call the guy to install the pipe and fan unit.

So after all this back and forth about creditenals, and writing style, and junk science, and public policy, and crooked politicians and scientists, and all the other blathering about stuff. Please just break it down into simple words and short sentences.

What is the magic number of what measurable thing is too much? How do I test for the magic number so the client can hire the guy to reduce the bad stuff to a "safe level". No long explanations or diatribes about who is right, wrong, covering up, exposing etc. What is the magic number of what measureable thing?

I am just a average joe trying to help the average home buyer to be safe in their new home. What is the magic number?

[Marc]

As a simpleton, I just want to know what the magic number is that constitutes too much or not enough. Kinda like Radon, either it is less than 4 or more than 4. If Radon is more than 4 it is bad, call the guy to install the pipe and fan unit.

So after all this back and forth about creditenals, and writing style, and junk science, and public policy, and crooked politicians and scientists, and all the other blathering about stuff. Please just break it down into simple words and short sentences.

What is the magic number of what measurable thing is too much? How do I test for the magic number so the client can hire the guy to reduce the bad stuff to a "safe level". No long explanations or diatribes about who is right, wrong, covering up, exposing etc. What is the magic number of what measureable thing?

I am just a average joe trying to help the average home buyer to be safe in their new home. What is the magic number?

There's none Bruce.

Marc

[MrsKramer]

"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.

[MrsKramer]

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.

[Jim Katen]

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."

There's no contradiction there.

2.(a.) "Now that's not true. Where, exactly, in this discussion has anyone called you a charlatan or a heretic? I just reviewed the entire thread. It's not there. Why would you make such an accusation?"

(b.) "We live in a confusing world but with the help of a few well-articulated conspiracy theories, it all makes sense. Jim Katen, Oregon www.amipdx.com"

I see no reference to charlatans or heretics. Just an implication that your blog (which is what was referred to there) tends to have a conspiracy theory based view of the world, which it does. It's practically a poster child for conspiracy theorists.

3.(a.) "Please cite one unfounded vicious attack on your character on this board. Why would you claim to have been viciously attacked when it has, in fact, not happened?"

(b.) "Caoimhín, Wear a cup. She fights dirty. Jim Katen, Oregon"

I said "unfounded." You do fight dirty. Whose kids were they who you wished would "rot in hell?" You've been at the losing end of a libel suit. Whether you like it or not, these are the actions of someone who fights dirty. If you're going to sling it, you have to be able to live with the consequences.

Besides, I would hardly call that a vicious attack.

4.(a.) "The people on this board have an above average record of altering their opinions to conform to the facts that are presented. We are open minded but we tend to filter our opinions through logic and facts rather than emotion and opinion"

(b.) "Done. You are."

Which is it? It is not possible to say mold doesn’t hurt you – or – you can used extrapolations to prove the claims of illness are all just Junk Science? (a.) ____ (b.) ______

Both are true. At this point in the research and knowledge that is available to us, it's irresponsible to say that it's not "possible" for mold to hurt you. I'm not sure that it will ever be possible to say this.

On the other side of the coin, so far, the claims that the inhalation of mold in a residential environment has caused toxic reactions in people doesn't seem to be provable. At least not so far. The attempts to prove it have, indeed, utilized junk science. You, yourself, have stated that people who get sick in these buildings are exposed to many different things - yeasts, bacteria, molds, etc. No one seems to know exactly what has caused the illnessess.

The same lack of knowledge about the toxins fuels both statements.

Our lack of knowledge limits what we can say about the health effects of mold in both directions. We can't say that it can *never* hurt anyone, but we can't say for sure that it is responsible for a *particular* illness either. (Allergic & infectious effects notwithstanding.)

BTW, who is “WE?â€

[MrsKramer]

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.

[Jim Katen]

. . . 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 understand your concern and I suspect that most of the participants on this board do as well.

I think that your paragraph above is a very good way to close this thread, so I've now locked it.

Thanks you for your contributions.