Re: hi Mary
Posted by Mary on 4/10/03
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I infer that you are
concerned that people made sick by exposure to bad things may
inappropriately be discounted as mentally ill.
To be clear, I share that concern. History suggests that much of our
collective knowledge about the effects of chemical exposure is
revealed first by exposed workers, and not by epidemiologists,
toxicologists, physicians and the like. This is not to suggest that
these scientists are somehow conspirators in an effort to suppress
information. Ultimately it is their work that reveals the details and
true nature of the relationships between exposure and outcome. It is
also their work that we rely on to demonstrate that relationships may
not, in fact, exist between exposure and outcome. After all, it is
important to put exposure control efforts into things that really
I think many people struggle with the idea that exposure does not
necessarily equal harm. I think most people will buy into the idea
that less exposure is probably better than more exposure, even when
the impact is poorly understood. Things become REALLY difficult when
we, as a society, begin to decide how to manage exposure related risk.
Let's use your example of mold produced toxins. Some of the toxins
produced by mold are clearly capable of causing harm under certain
circumstances. Most of what is known comes from our experience with
severly contaminated food. Airborne or dermal exposures to low levels
of the same toxins may or may not be hazardous. A few examples for
your consideration. Asbestos is toxic through inhalation, but not via
dermal exposure. Mercury is toxic via respiration and via dermal
exposure, but has dramatically reduced effect via ingestion. Go figure.
So what do we do in the face of uncertainty about potential health
Others have suggested that their are essentially three choices:
1. Do nothing until more is known.
2. Do everything possible even at great cost to prevent all exposure.
3. Take reasonable action to reduce exposure when you are able to do
so, and continue to study the problem. As more information is
developed you can always change your plan to 1 or 2.
My belief is that too many people default to choice 2. This is okay as
long as they are footing the bill and dealing with the inconveniences
created by their choice. When their decision impacts others it
potentially becomes a problem. This is why courts were invented I
suppose. (Oh, yes and to create a vehicle for plaintiff attorneys to
exploit deep pockets.)
So, conflict is created when someone seeks to enforce an extreme
opinion and extreme actions upon others. In the context of this forum,
that means litigation and money changing ownership, with the usual 30%
to plaintiff's counsel.
Extreme claims and allegations, unsupportable opinions and demands for
big bucks are certain to generate defensive actions. Gee, and along
the way someone might say something that upsets the other side. Sad
but true, what can I say.
> Please accept this in proper context, a few things came to mind, and
> probably do not have any real meaning, just thoughts.
> "The Looneys." It's in a book I was just reading, "Behind the Nylon
> Curtain," employees exposed to a certain chemical were nicknamed The
> Looneys because after the exposure thewy acted crazy. Now, did
> people have psych problems or exposure problems?
> "Toxic Mold." "There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence
> link..." We hear it all the time. And if the liable parties have
> their way, there won't ever be any scientifically credible evidence.
> It's the same for mold, chemicals, tobacco, pharmaceuticals, tires,
> what have you.
> At the same time exposed/injured persons are discredited, specific
> chemicals are used in chemical warfare, and specific organisms
> (toxins) are used as biological warfare agents. If any of these are
> the same, i.e. fusarium and stachybotrys, does how they are labeled
> (weapon or indoor mold) determine when they are toxic?
> On 3/28/03, Mary wrote:
>> Hello Pat:
>> Well yes, I was repeating myself, actually cut and past, in
>> my 'trying to be less sarcastic' mode. The original poster,
>> returned from some kind of vacation so I was sharing my 'evolved'
>> By the way, I don't doubt that at least some, perhaps many, people
>> alleging they have mcs are in fact ill. My main beef is with the
>> seemingly all inclusive mcs diagnosis net. It seems to be a tool
>> of convenience, vs a real diagnosis. Some may be fakers, some may
>> have mental illness. I know you believe it incorrect to declare
>> all 'mcsers' as nuts, and I agree. I believe it is just as
>> incorrect to cast the broad mcs net simply because the actual
>> illness is unknown.
>> Short for time Pat, gotta go, now
>> Best regards
>> On 3/28/03, Pat wrote:
>>>>>> I suggest you consider that the vast majority of public health
>>> authorities doubt that MCS is real. While this fact may trouble
>>> you, and may upset those with contrary opinions, it remains a
>>> reality. <<<
>>> Mary, although the post was not for me, I have indeed already
>>> replied to your above comments. The fact that you are repeating
>>> such comments is very interesting to me.
Posts on this thread, including this one