Re: Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article

More | Report Post

MBobMean,

I don't know anything about the NSC. However, the document you
cite is authored by the principals of Veritox:

Coreen A. Robbins, Ph.D., CIH, Lonie J. Swenson,CIH, William
T.Geer, CIH, and Bruce J. Kelman, Ph.D., DABT

This is the same litigation defense support corp that authored
the ACOEM Mold Statement.

NO ONE besides this corp has professed to be able to establish
human threshold/dose indicative of human mycotoxin exposure
within a water damaged building by using extrapolations founded
upon data from rodent studies. Their findings in this matter
have been replicated by NO ONE ELSE.

You can't do. Among other reasons, with a primary reason being
is that when humans are exposed to mycotoxins within a water
damaged building, the toxins enter the body via all three
routes of exposure simultaneously. So to do an inhalation study
of mice and attempt to corrolate that to the human situation is
irrelevant.

Also, when humans are exposed to mycotoxins within water
damaged buildings, they are exposed to several (along with
other microbial contaminants) simultaneously. Therefore the
threshold/dose would change for each mycotoxin because the
other variables involved would change the level of mycotoxins
that would cause ill health. Not well worded, but the data
would need to be lowered for each toxin as there is alot going
on within the body and the building when water damage/mold is
involved that can't be studied simply by instilling one type of
mycotoxin into the lungs of mice/rats.

And different molds have different weights. You can't study
Stachy and conclude aspergillus. So to use the genertic
term "mycotoxin" does not apply equally for all mycotoxins. The
dose relevant for humans to become ill from mycotoxins/molds
within a water damaged building is an indeterminable number.

Rodent studies are very valuable though. While they can't
establish dose, they do help to understand what the human
symptoms are when mycotoxins are within the body.

Sharon

On 1/25/07, MBobMean wrote:
> Actually Sharon, the NSC published a brief review that echos
> teh findings of the ACOEM. I have never found the NSC to be
> corporate shills or doubters, simply people concerned with
> what could and could not be established. See it at:
>
> https://secure.nsc.org/public/issues/mold.pdf
>
> Also, the ACOEM acknowledges some potential health effects
> from mold exposure:
>
> "A growing body of literature associates a variety of
> diagnosable respiratory illnesses (asthma, wheezing, cough,
> phlegm, etc.), particularly in children, with residence in
> damp or water-damaged homes (see reviews 3-5). Recent
> studies have documented increased inflammatory mediators in
> the nasal fluids of persons in damp buildings, but found
> that mold spores themselves were not responsible for these
> changes.6,7 While dampness may indicate potential mold
> growth, it is also a likely indicator of dust mite
> infestation and bacterial growth. The relative contribution
> of each is unknown, but mold, bacteria, bacterial
> endotoxins, and dust mites can all play a role in the
> reported spectrum of illnesses, and can all be minimized by
> control of relative humidity and water intrusion."
>
> Why are you being so hard on them? They're simply
> explaining the state of the available evidence. I wasn't
> impressed with the WSJ piece, I don't think newspaper
> reporters typicall--regardless of how exhaustive they say
> their reserach is--are terribly accurate or qualified, and I
> certainly agree that the evidence to date is lacking for
> many of the cause and effect associations that have
> been "hinted at" in many case reports, but that molds are
> certainly, or certainly can be, allergens and sensitizers
> and make people sick.
>
> What's so terribly wrong with that?
>
> mbobmean