Posted by Greg Weatherman on 1/06/04

More | Report Post

Caoimhin,

Stick to facts and answer the initial questions, please.
Quit obfuscating, redirecting and running interference with
peripheral subjects that are of no consequence or curiosity
to the general public. I don't think you can answer the
questions in a way that spares the validity of your web
pages concerning mold and IAQ. I bet you are furiously
reading material to see if there is a snare. How often do
you go to the University of Denver Library?

I will give concise answers to each point below the
appropriate paragraph. I will not beat a dead horse. I do
not suffer from "logorrhea". Does the culture of your
rearing make you write in the style of Herman Melville and
the Brontes? Get to the point, please! This is America.

*********************************************

On 1/06/04, Caoimhín P. Connell wrote:
> Good Morning, Mr. Weatherman:
>
> I find it curious that you send me private emails
pandering
> for my favour by slavishly praising me for what you
perceive
> as my superior logic and knowledge, and for the aplomb
with
> which I have dispensed some poster by a particular
argument.

*********************************************

I congratulated your posting about the problems with carpet
sample interpretations. I also let you know a better way to
collect carpet samples with a common sterile bag used in
healthcare instead of a common sterile cassette used in
environmental microbiology. Your reply was, "Not bad for a
rock with lips".

I sent another email congratulating you for using
scientific references on the IAQ List in an argument about
UV lighting for antimicrobial benfits. You listed articles
dating back to the 1920's. You must have got them from
a "periodic journal" in library. Most people do not even
attempt to give reference for their statements on a
chatboard.

I guess I'm strange to you since I give credit where credit
is due. Try it. Your religeous researches are greatly
misunderstood until you grasp the simple truth.

*********************************************
>
> I find it curious that you then pander for the favour of
> those very same people by openly criticizing me on boards
you
> were unaware I monitored with ad hominem attacks for
> making the very same argument.

********************************************

I made a disparaging comment about your inability to be
reasonable on the OSB chatboard more than one year ago -
1st ammendment, dude. Doug Haney is fine with me. He made
mistakes in statements. He owned-up to them like a mature
person does. He got a little to angry in some of his
postings directed at you. He was going through a very
emotional time since someone he has known for years was
suffering health problems that may have been partially
caused from mold - cancer. He was kicked-off for a period
of time from this chatboard. Yes he got angry and said some
things he should not have posted. But, Doug Haney is not so
ugly he needs pork chops hung aroung his neck to get dogs
to play with him. This is just a peculiar saying we
have "Down South".

Do you know I never called your employer like you have
called other people's employer. Let me refresh your memory.
You threatened Dr. Ken Hudnell, Lead EPA Neurotoxicolgy
Researcher, after he gave everyone text book answers
concerning toxicolgy while posting arguments to your
general statements about toxic mold and toxicity. You
threated him on the phone. You threatened to cause him
trouble by calling his employer, the EPA, to complain about
him. He told me all about it. Dr. Hudnell helps fix people.
He and Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker have peer-reviewed papers and
both can testify about human health in
court. Can you?

********************************************
>
> I find it curious that you pander for the favour of
> unscrupulous consultants who are known charlatans with
> fraudulent academic credentials because you perceive that
you
> may be able to pick up a few crumbs they may drop along
the
> way without due regard for what the association may do to
any
> desires you may have had to develop a respectful
reputation.

*********************************************

Dr. Richard Lipsey has passed Daubert and Frye examinations
in courts. He also testifies for plaintiffs or defense
depending on the truth. He does not lead clients to believe
they have a case when they don't - while bilking them of
money better spent in other areas. He also does not answer
all your attacks since he is busy and has many customers.

If anyone wants to know why porous furniture (irreguardless
of growth in the upholstery) can not be saved in some moldy
homes, call Dr. Lipsey. His background makes him "uniquely
qualified" to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt. He has the
scientific references.

If anyone wants to know why mold outdoors is very different
from mold indoors with respect to toxicity, call Dr.
Lipsey. He has the scientific references.

Don't expect him to post his knowledge that gives him
the "professional edge". He charge very little for
investigations compared to competent investigators. His
income comes from courtroom testimony on human health.

*********************************************
>
> I find it curious that you parade aloft with such bravado
a
> single scientific article as though you somehow had
something
> to do with its “discovery” or its content; without ever
> realizing that the article in question didn’t, as you
> supposed, support the argument you were attempting to
make at
> the time. Indeed, for sometime thereafter, your opinions
> were quite contrary to the work provided in the article
since
> you misunderstood the work.
>
> It’s curious you somehow take credit for me being aware
of
> the article; I have hundreds upon hundreds of similar
> articles. Greg, my boy, its not the ownership of an
article
> that empowers one with wisdom – rather the ability to
speak
> with authority comes from understanding the strengths and
> weaknesses of the information contained therein.
>
> I find it curious that in spite of your strange claims
> regarding the Ahearn paper, you continued for some time
to
> argue against it; I believe now that you never actually
read
> it until recently – or certainly didn’t understand it.

*********************************************

Your Statement: Stachybotrys is in the outddor air and
therefore normal and a "pollutant" (legal term).

Price, Ahearn study: Stachybotrys is in the paper backing.
Therefore, it is not a "pollutant" (legal term)!

Your Statement: Use Lysol for dust suppression.

Price, Ahearn study: Quaternary Ammonium is the worst for
mold. Lysol also has used cresol, o-chlorophenol and o-
phenylphenol in the past in different versions. Which
product were you advertising?

*********************************************
>
> I find it curious that here, on this very board, you
> declared to the world with great humility that you were
> NOT a mold expert, but rather you were a self
> proclaimed expert mold remediator. (You should have stuck
to
> that claim).

********************************************

The experts are usually experts for a small area of
microbiology. They might be and expert for 1 to 5 genuses
of mold that share some ability to produce certain
mycotoxins, cause food spoilage, harm animals or produce
certain antibiotics. There is no person in the world who is
an expert for "MOLD" or "BACTERIA".

I knew my limitations and pursued the knowledge to make me
better and hopefully solve my customers problems with their
properties. The people I encountered who are "real experts"
will not go into areas outside their research. Dr. Bean
will tell a person to speak to Dr. J. Pitt or Dr. J.D.
Miller if they want to know about Penicillium. Dr. Bean
will give knowledge about Stachybotrys, Fusarium,
Myrothecium, Memnoniella or anything that produces
macrocyclic thrichothecenes or aflatoxins.

I learned a lot from remediation that investigators don't
see due to lack of knowledge in building sciences or
inability to tear-out building materials since the
customers are apprehensive. I became very good at
investigating by default since you have to know where the
problems are, what caused the problems and how to resolve
the moisture sources.

I learned investigation and sampling since you have to know
the limitations of the results and plans given by others. I
also pay for inhouse research to verify my suspicions that
gives me a "professional edge".

I carry "professional" insurance (E & O insurance)for
environmental investigation to include "microbial
pollution" (legal term). I also carry comercial general
liability insurance (CGL) for "microbial remediation" and
a "pollution" policy to also include "microbial
pollutin". "Instant experts" do not get this insurance
coverage.

********************************************
>
> I find it curious that you made the above claim in light
of
> the fact that also on this very board, you announced with
> conviction that air and light killed mold and that all
one
> needed to do to remediate a mold problem was expose the
mold
> to air and light. I find it curious that you actually
held
> the opinion that mold grew inside walls because, in your
> opinion, there was no air inside walls.

********************************************
I love it when you misquote with such chest-beating gusto
to the point of sounding authoritative. You could write for
the "Enquirer" with your ability ot "pontificate". Got any
ideas on "Area 54"?

Growth is affected by light patterns. Some mold grow better
in areas with less airflow. This has to do with their
ability to attain their nitrogen from substrates. I won't
go further with this basic fact.

*********************************************
>
> I find it curious that on this very board you briefly
became
> a labour regulations expert making wild and outlandish
claims
> regarding the OSHA HazComm standard and heavily
criticized me
> for correcting you – only to later end up apologizing to
me
> on this very board (much to your credit).

***************************************************

I was mistaken about that standard. Appaerntly many people
have been according to OSHA's new webpage...........

I err, ergo, I'm human. I go back and verify. I can admit
mistakes. I'm not so egotistical or lacking in self
confidence that I can't do this normal behavior. Try it.

***************************************************
>
> I find it curious that a person of normal self respect,
who
> would be embarrassed by such events continues in exactly
the
> same vein, apparently never learning by those mistakes
and
> indeed now seems to think that you command some kind of
> authority to demand answers of me. Greg, your history and
> actions have already defined your credibility.
>
> I find it curious, knowing that I normally don’t bother
to
> read your posts (or reply to your personal emails) you
felt
> the only way to get me to take notice of you was by
leaving
> your name off the leader of this post. And it almost
worked,
> Greg, I actually read through the first paragraph before
I
> became aware of the proverbial wafting of a rodent.

*************************************************

It must have worked. You spent a good deal of time
answering the echos in your mind.

Answer the initial questions or lose the credibility you
claim to have.
************************************************
>
> I find it curious that I bothered to reply to one of your
> posts… 'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Caoimhín (he was
so
> much surprised, that for the moment he quite forgot how
> futile such a reply was). With apologies to Lewis Carroll
> and Alice.
>
> I consider the matter closed. However, if you would like
to
> take this up on another board, say a moderated IAQ board,
I
> would be happy to enlighten you... and the other board
> members, who may get a kick to find out a little more
about
> you.
>
> Cheers,
> 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.)
> AMDG
***************************************

I guess you consider me a rat for asking tough, scientific
questions. Ce la vie. See spot run. Spot is a bulldog.

Regards,

Greg Weatherman
gw@aerobiological.com
A professional guy who does not have the personality or
appearance of a "door knob"

p.s. To all the long suffering Boudreouxs that watched LSU
go all the way, "WHODAT"!

The days of the "Aints" paperbag masks can be peacefully
retired.

MCS/MCSS Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST