George,
You are welcome. This is a VERY Significant document that
should carry much weight in the courts and should dispel the
industry influenced garbage that the medical associations of
ACOEM, AAAAI, ACMT and AOEC are promoting as legitimate
science. It SHOULD assist the physicians in understanding that
people truly are ill from exposure to the biological
contaminants that are present in water damaged buildings IF the
information is allowed to get thru to the doctors.
Yesterday, I sent Dr. Gary Greenberg, moderater of the
occupational physicians chatboard and ACOEM board member a
message asking that he share the WHO info with the physicians
of the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (ACOEM) & the physicians of the Government funded
Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics (AOEC).
Thus far, I have seen nothing come up on that board.
This is the message I sent:
Dear Gary,
Will you please share the following information with the
occupational physicians on your chatboard? Below is the link to
the May 2008 WHO Newsletter addressing indoor air quality with
a focus being on mould, assessment, health ramifications,
etc. I can't pull key snippets out of this doc to cut and
paste to show you. But it is well worth the read. To
paraphrase, their is a microbial contaminant soup in water
damaged buildings. As such, one cannot merely examine one
toxic, irritant or allergic component via only one route of
exposure at a time and determine human illness is not plausible
to occur.
Someone should call the US Chamber of Commerce and ACOEM and
tell them they are WRONG for promoting the concept that reports
of severe illness from exposure in WDB's are merely a result
of "trial lawyers, media hype and Junk Science". (Concluding
sentence of US Chamber of Commerce paper. The authors of this
paper and the ACOEM Mold Statement have stated that
the "scientific concept" of the two papers are the same.)
Someone needs to inform the occupational physicians that damp
indoor environments can indeed cause illness beyond simple
allergy. They need to understand that this is such a serious
problem, WHO is giving much attention to the matter. They need
the litigation defense argument of "not plausible" that has
been fed to them to be undone.
You are more than welcome to paraphrase my writing before
posting to the UNC List-serv.
Thank you,
Sharon Kramer
cc: Kathy Kirkland, Executive Director Association of
Occupational and Environmental Clinics
Dr. Robert McLellen, Past President, American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Dean Barbara Rimer, UNC School of Public Health
WHO Link:
(won't go thru the ToxLaw spam filter)
US Chamber of Commerce:
(deleted from post, spam filter)
"Thus, the notion that “toxic mold” is an insidious,
secret “killer,” as so many media reports and trial lawyers
would claim, is “junk science” unsupported by actual scientific
study."
US Chamber of Commerce, July 17, 2003, The Growing Hazard of
Mold Litigation:
(deleted, spam filter)
“Lawsuits over fungi fail to meet the test for sound science,”
said Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute
for Legal Reform, which along with the Manhattan Institute’s
Center for Legal Policy commissioned the
papers. “Unfortunately, plaintiffs’ trial lawyers, with help
from the media, are playing on the public’s fear of ‘toxic’
mold to generate litigation that costs all of us.”
The serious health claims that pervade mold litigation – brain
damage, lung hemorrhage, and cancer – cannot withstand scrutiny
under the “reliable science” standard set by the U.S. Supreme
Court in a 1995 case, according to attorneys Cliff Hutchinson
and Robert Powell in “Mold Litigation: How Hysteria and Junk
Science Built a Cottage Industry.” The paper reports that much
of the fear about mold has been perpetuated by media accounts,
which in turn have fueled lawsuits."
Policy implications of interventions to reduce indoor air
pollution by damp and mould
"It is expected that at the end of this project,
recommendations can be formulated for public policy aiming at
reduction of health impacts of biological contaminants in
indoor air."
European review of case studies and policies
Exposures to biological agents in indoor environments are a
significant health hazard causing a wide range of health
effects. The presence of biological agents in the indoor air is
attributable to housing characteristics and in particular to
dampness, inadequate ventilation and structural failures.
Dampness has been therefore suggested to be the strongest and
most consistent indicator of risk for asthma and respiratory
symptoms (e.g. cough and wheeze) related to indoor air quality.
Proper ventilation on the other hand is an important control
for humidity, and prevention of condensation, and is also an
important determinant of good indoor air quality.
However, the implementation of specific actions to achieve
indoor conditions that are acceptable from a health perspective
is still a difficult area for public health due to the great
variety of indoor spaces, fragmentation of responsibilities
and, in case of homes, a limited mandate of public authorities
for interventions.
This project will accumulate evidence on existing actions
implemented in various countries to address health hazards
associated with dampness, mould and inadequate ventilation.
This review will consider the effectiveness of the
interventions, as well as their practical constraints and
feasibility. It is expected that at the end of this project,
recommendations can be formulated for public policy aiming at
reduction of health impacts of biological contaminants in
indoor air.
On 5/16/08, GeorgeM wrote:
> Sharon, thanks for sharing this newsletter. There is a lot
> of valuable information in the research papers cited. I
> pulled out a few key points from this article.
>
> "Dampness and mould in indoor environments are recognized as
> a significant health hazard related to a wide range of
> health effects."
>
> "WHO actions in the field of dampness and mould in built
> settings are now a main part of the working agenda of the
> WHO European Center for Environment and Health in Bonn. A
> first task is the development of WHO Indoor Air Quality
> Guidelines for Dampness, Mould and Ventilation, which have
> been discussed and suggested by an expert meeting of
> scientists in October 2007. The suggested recommendations
> are part of the meeting report (see the newsletter for the
> link to this report). The suggested guidelines are
> currently being reviewed and the associated evidence
> background is summarized for publication of the guidelines
> in mid-2008."
>
>
>
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.