I have never heard of warnings to not retaliate against
employees. Is that a standard aspect for a state DOL document?
Also, I am not aware of anyone ever finding T-2 Toxin in
building materials. Are you? Tricothecenes, yes. T-2, no.
I am no scientist, nor have I read any documents from this
school and can only go on what is in the newspaper. From what
I am reading, I think it sounds like that ventilation system
has got some serious problems. I heard there was a teacher who
retired early due to illness and now the teacher that took over
the room is also pretty sick. The kids in that room have had a
lot of problems, too. That is not an untypical situation.
But for 75% of the teachers and 50% of the kids to have
complaints, that is pretty unusual. It seem like it has got to
be the ventilation system to cause that, unless there is just a
whole bunch of unmitigated leaks, or they left the moldy
materials in after they fixed the leaks. With all the money
they have already spent to figure out this problem, that
doesn't seem logical to me.
Also, Dr. Thrasher has written on sickbuildings, clarifying
some of the quotes that were attributed to him.
"I have a few comments to correct some misinterpretation of my
conversaton with Paul Clark.
1. The T-2 toxin test recommended by Linda May (I have a copy
of her resume, pathetic, in case anyone wants a copy) is
marketed by an entity not associated with Dr. Hooper. The T-2
toxin kit was developed and is sold for testing for mycotoxins
in foods. It detects moncyclic (T-2 toxin) trichothecenes. It
has not been approved by the FDA for use with human urine. It
does not test for Mold DNA by PCR.
2. Dr. Hooper took the T-2 kit concept, developed his own
patented method and can test for macrocyclic trichothecenes,
aflatoxins and ochratoxins in human body fluids and in biopsy
and autopsy specimens. His laboratory has undergone CLIA
inspections and passed honorably. He is allowed to use the test
for human diagnostic. The FDA does not approve or recommend any
diagnostic test. For example, CBC, blood chemistry, skin
allergy tests, IBT hypersensitivity pnemoniitis panel, etc. are
not approved by the FDA. The testing laboratories must undergo
CLIA inspections. If they pass the inpsection then they are
allowed to perform the diagnostic tests.
3. Mr Kreis is not up on the literature regarding molds and
where mycotoxins are found. All should be aware of the research
by Dr. Brasel and Dr. Kraus as well as that of Dr. Gorny. Fine
particulates (<2 microns) are shed from mold and bacterial
colonies at frequencies of 1 to 20 hertz. These frequencies lie
in normal human activity, e.g. talking, walking, TV, radio,
etc. The fine particulates are up to 320 times more
concentrated than are mold spores and hyphae. Mycotoxins and
other toxins are present in this fine particulate fraction. As
a matter of fact, Drs. Brasel and Straus demonstrated the
presence of trichothecenes in these fine particles and in the
sera of individuals exposed to Stachybotrys in contaminated
buildings. Finally, Dr. Lewis has demonstrated the presence of
gliotoxin in the sera of patients with aspergillosis. Gliotoxin
is produced by species of Candida and Aspergillus.
4. Dr. Hooper has developed and patented a very sensitivie PCR
mold DNA test that is very accurate. Although the ERMI test my
produce results that overstate the extent of the contamination,
nevertheless, it is still useful for determining mold species
in the indoor and outdoor environments. Dr. Hooper's test is
even more reliable for bulk samples and can also be used to
detect mold DNA in biopsy and autopsy materials.
5. The press, M.D.s, and others keep citing the Institute of
Medicine Report as a reliable source. I must remind everyone
that the IOM cut off for its literature review was in October,
2003. Therefore, the IOM report is outdated by almost 6 years.
It also missed key papers, particularly those published after
the cutoff date, e.g. Drs. Crago, Gray, Kilburn, Brasel,
Straus, Gorny to mention a few.
6. We must commend and thank Sharon Kramer for gettin the GAO
report accomplished on mold. This report concluded that there
is evidence that mold is a health problem and more research is
needed in this area. I agree.
7. Note in the article on the Oak Ridge siluation that
remediation was done. Testing of molds was done after
remediation for the most part. The majority of sampling was for
airborne spores, which only represents that specific time and
day. Dr. Robinson of the Health Deparment stated that hidden
mold is not important (Tsk, Tsk).
8. Again, emphasis is being placed only on molds. Bacteria
(gram negative and positive) grow along with the mold. The
potentially dangerous gram positive bacteria include
Actinobacter (Streptomyces, Nocardia and Mycobacterium), which
can be human pathogens and which do produce toxins of their
own. For example, Streptomyces species is the source of toxic
antiobtics as well as chemotherpeutics. Mycobacterium can cause
hypersensitivity pneumonitis, can be infectious (mycetoma) and
Mycobacteriu Avium Comples (MAC) is on the increase World Wide
in both immune competent and immune incompetent individuals. As
a matter of fact, so is Aspergillosis. The tram negative
bacteria are potential pathogens and release endotoxins.
If you want to become educated on the indoor environment and
its potential health effects, I suggest that you do a search of
the literature via entrez pubmed as well as Google. I am
through and will get off my high horse.
Jack D. Thrasher, Ph.D.
Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist
www.drthrasher.org
toxicologist1@msn.com..."
Will be interesting to see what the problem really is and how
they find it.
On 6/28/09, Deano wrote:
> I would not get too worked up over the NCDOL complaint
> letter. That is a standard response in cases where someone
> files a complaint alleging an unsafe work environment. If
> the employer ignores the direction to respond in writing,
> then they may conduct an inspection (and they will likely
> not be in the most helpful mood, since their request was
> ignored). However, coming up with meaningful citations
> would likely be difficult, in that there is not much they
> could cite. If they get pissed off, then they could
> probably dig up some non-mold/IAQ standards that have not
> been met.
>
> Well, there is at least one thing Dr. Thrasher said with
> which I agree: "The woman doesn't know what she's talking
> about." ROTFLMAF! (as the kids say)
>
>
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.