Re: this message board, still doing it
Posted by ff on 6/28/03
I need some help here, with you mr. johncodie. You are a long
time contributor to the board and have earned the right to post
at will, almost, and I doubt anyone would contest that. You
post about many subjects. What I fear now is that you may make
the same types of mistakes in the other posts that you have in
the ones that address subjects I am familiar with. Add your
authoritative manner, the false allegations and conclusions by
you, and for people using this board as a source of information
you could be a problem. I had rather see you as a resource
than a problem.
johncodie, the last few days of posts were absurd, on your part
and mine. I even apologized to readers befor they complained.
At risk to me, my crediiblity and ability to contribute, I
tried unsuccessfully to point out to you, that routinely jump
to false coinclusions, make allegations based on these
conclusions, and misquote or incorrectly attribute various
statements to the wrong people. I gave you very specific
In this morning's post, you again made the same types of
mistakes. If you consider this an important area, do you not
want to have your facts staright?
Pat, again the discussion did initiate with MCS and VCS, and
the 3/14/03 post remains unanswered.
On 6/27/03, johncodie wrote:
> On 6/27/03, pat wrote:
>> If I am not mistaken (and I am not) this board is supposed
>> to be on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), yet very
>> little of what is posted here has anything to do with MCS.
>> We have people insulting others, mocking sufferers or
>> doctors, people ignoring any data on MCS, and so forth.
>> Why is this allowed to continue? Given the current state of
>> such nonsense, what makes this message board any different
>> from all the other intellectually absent message boards?
>> Given the supposed limitation of keeping discussions to
>> MCS---as implicated by this particular message board’s
>> title("MCS Chatboard")---shouldn't posts actually be about
>> ~ Pat
> Simply Stated:
> We read your post between people that suffer and Mary
> through out the year. I will go back to the 03/07/03 to
> your post of a site to read. Will reference back to the
> Post that Frank Fuzzell had asking Mr. Connell's opinion.
> Frank has knowledge of the Florida water quality problem.
> Dr. Shoemaker was asked to investigate. Current litigation
> has transcribed within the past year. Dupont was a defense
> in the case. As annoying it may be to you Pat, and your
> interpretation of the MCS chat board. People are gleaming
> as much information as the possible can out of this board.
> The last post that I remember you posting Pat was between
> Mary and yourself of how a MCS patient had no knowlege of
> what she is talking about.
> Re: question for mr connell
> Posted by Frank Fuzzell on 3/14/03
> Mr. Connell:
> Data on changes in genera prevalence for different locales?
> There should be plenty, at least regarding some microbial
> poulations. Lakes in central Florida have changed, there has
> been a shift in algal populations to dominance by
> (90&37; now), well documented by various entities including
> FDEP, and the state's Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. These
> are the Lake Apoka and Lake Harris chains which include Lake
> Griffin. Apopka and Griffin, are two of Florida's most
> contaminated lakes.
> The promoted or generally accepted explanation is nutrient
> based: Phosphorous contamination in the water resulting from
> years of farming operations adjacent to these lakes, and
> discharges into the lakes. However, it seems unlikely that
> nutrients alone would account for the drastic shift in
> cyanobacteria, rather, P is simply a food source. This is a
> major problem in this area and over $200,000,000.00 has been
> spent on restoration efforts designed to remove phosphorous
> from the water (marsh flow ways), so this has not been taken
> It also seems unlikey algae would be the only population
> changed. During the same time period that the first blooms
> were occured, a new strain of fusarium oxysporum began
> affecting agricultural crops in Florida. FDACS, referencing
> the systemic fusarium infections in plants, referred to this
> a "relatively newly encountered pathogen" in Florida.
> Similarly, UF researchers noted cyanobacteria in greenhouse
> operations, as new during this same time period.
> Research also indicates a correlation, such that pseudomonas
> aeruginosa occurs with greater frequency in alligator clutch
> eggs along these contaminated lakes with adjacent farms,
> in lakes which are not near agricultural lands.
> shifts in microbial populations (DRB including pseudomonas
> have been reported in agricultural land, with chemical
> application suggested as a possible cause.
> This could all be just anecdotal, bits and pieces that
> don't mean anything, possibly just a sign of the times,
> change. However, this thinking did prompt my question to
> and I would suggest that it is worth considering, at least
> the back burner. Some of the same chemicals used in
> agriculture, prone to resistance, and affecting various non-
> target populations, are also used in paint for example.
> Possibly, with resistant populations (ag operations chemical
> usage), all that is needed for an IAQ problem is adequate
> moisture in a home? The treated material may provide the
> Based on the above, it also would not surprise me to see
> fusarium, pseudomonas, cyanobacteria, etc., in homes or
> buildings in close proximity to affected agricultural land
> and/or contaminated waterways. If I worked for an insurance
> company, I would be hard pressed to write a policy covering
> mold, algae, or other microbial problems, even when such
> policies did exist, for structures in certain locations.
> I am unaware of anyonein this area that has performed
> to determine if there is any relationship betweem the
> of homes and buildings to lakes/ag land, and reportedor
> identified IAQ problems. Has this been done in other areas
> such as Texas, Missouri, California... ?
> Your responses are again, most appreciated. I did visit your
> site, read your papers, and note that the information was
> informative and objective.
> Frank Fuzzell
> On 3/14/03, Caoimhín P. Connell wrote:
>> Good morning, Mr. Fuzzell:
>> During exposure assessments, the issue of culturing
>> genera is less important than the presence of the
>> organism. This thread started with a question concerning a
>> lecture I gave last week at an IAQ seminar in TX. During
>> that seminar, one of the questions put to me was proffered
>> Dr. Godish who asked me to explain my views on the
>> differences between Anderson sampling and spore traps;
>> speaks directly to your question as well.
>> When we set out to culture general airborne genera, we
>> the media and conditions that will be most favourable to
>> greatest number of species. In doing so, we recognize from
>> the beginning, that we will sacrifice accuracy and we will
>> bias counting in favour of some genera over others. This
>> necessary “evil” is due to two facts: 1) All bioaerosol
>> samplers are by their very nature size selective (theses
>> been written on the particle physics of the cascade
>> impactor). Since spores are of different sizes depending
>> their genus, they will be biased high or low for any given
>> method. 2) There is no media and growth condition that is
>> equally favourable to all genera. As such, some organisms
>> will be apparently missing when some methods are used, and
>> apparently present in abundance when using other methods.
>> This is one of the problems when comparing data from
>> different sources, especially when the full methodology
>> not been provided by the reporting authors. Culturability
>> not the same thing as viability. Although all culturables
>> were obviously viable, not all viables are equally
>> Finally, the world distribution of genera is remarkable
>> similar across the globe with regard to genus profiles. I
>> just read a study from South Vietnam or South Taiwan
>> the profiles reported by the authors (which to memory
>> included the Fusaria) were remarkably similar to those
>> we would find in downtown Boston Mass or Bozeman Montana.
>> Cladosporia,Aspergilli and Penicillia
>> lead the list in prominence. The Fusaria certainly
>> enjoy global distribution.
>> I would be keen to see any data that you may have on the
>> prevalence or changes in prevalence of any genus for any
>> locality. Please feel free to pursue this idea further.
>> Caoimhín P. Connell
>> (The opinions expressed here are exclusively my
>> personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my
>> professional opinion, opinion of my employer, peers, or
>> professional affiliates. The above post is for information
>> only and does not reflect professional advice and is not
>> intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)
Posts on this thread, including this one