Re: Oh No, not SCIENCE?
Posted by SaraH on 5/13/03
Canines are amazing creatures for the sense of smell. I remember
seeing a program that has research involving dogs and the detection
of maligant moles on humans. It is ongoing research I believe in
The term "toxic" mold brings debate over the word toxic. But as
OSHA defines it as anything capable of causing harm. Dose does
usually indicate the possiblity of harm, however, as anyone severly
allergic to peanuts or seafood can atest that the dose varies from
person to person.
In the good old days of our ancient ancestors the hunters and
gathers they didn't have to worry about mold as they changed their
dwelling several times a year. Maybe they knew something we didn't.
A joke, please don't take that last line serious and jump onto a
discussion of why they moved.
On 5/12/03, AZ Jack wrote:
> On 5/12/03,AZ Jack:
> If memory serves me correctly, I recall dogs are or were used in
> Europe to detect toxic mold. The problem was the dogs would
> become hypersensitized and would have to be retired. HELLO.
> I would bet the dogs out on disablility probably had better
> benefits than our Workers Comp. system offers.
> On 5/12/03, ff wrote:
>> Thanks Sarah H.
>> Good point! There must be one or more simple or complex
>> organisms that can serve as indicators for a toxic problem.
>> Sentinel animals, nothing new. If dogs can detect explosives,
>> termites, and provide early warnings for epileptic seizures,
>> possibly dogs could be used for detecting toxic mold?
>> No joking here, just trying to make a point that something can
>> be done. According to Time Magazine, the military has the
>> capability to instantly detect upone release, a chemical or
>> biolgocal agent from a disatnce of 25 miles, so what't the big
>> deal on the domestic front?
>> On 5/12/03, SaraH wrote:
>>> If memory serves wasn't it the Condors in California that
>>> finally alerted officials of DDT in the environment? Their
>>> shells became so fragile that they broke when the birds sat
>>> on the nest. Your sensitive populations as scientist were
>>> already studying due to their protective status and declining
>>> On 5/11/03, ff wrote:
>>>> Message for Mr. Connell/Scientists:
>>>> OK, enough bickering. Take a new approach to answering
>>>> first is there a problem or not, as opposed to anything-but-
>>>> mold or as you say(ABM), it "must be mold" (MBM)?
>>>> Isn't there a way to run a few tests to see what's going
>>>> on? In agriculture for example, for herbicides that are
>>>> effective below detectable levels (immunoassay and chemical
>>>> analysis), bioassays are done using sensitive plant species
>>>> as indicators for residual effects. Possibly you're
>>>> missing something?
>>>> Is there an organism, a plant, an insect, a microbe,
>>>> mice/rats, birds, something that can be used to indicate
>>>> an effect in homes/structures where complaints occur?
>>>> Recall Dr. James Moss that identified a synergistic effect
>>>> using bioassays, insects exposed to more-than-one-thing
>>>> combinations gave tremendous increases in toxicity, at
>>>> least to the insect used.
>>>> Maybe there is something present that is being missed or
>>>> escapes your effort? An organism, a toxin, a combination?
>>>> Possibly this bio-assay type effort could be useful? Near
>>>> our site, neighbors complained that their pet birds were
>>>> dying. What if you found some living organism that shows
>>>> an effect, only in homes when specific organisms and/or
>>>> materials are present? Next, do some bio-assays in the
>>>> homes (and lab) using various materials, and see if any
>>>> promote or inhibit growth.
>>>> At any rate, it's worth considering when people are
>>>> reporting effects and you do not know what the cause/s is.
>>>> Reproducing effects using bio-assays (or other means) seems
>>>> essential to any legitimate science effort, it's all about
>>>> reproducibility as the scientists tell me.
Posts on this thread, including this one