Re: Another Mold Settlement

More | Report Post

On 11/26/07, Mike B. wrote:
> >
> Not a single word was said, nor has any evidence been offered,
that
> the mold growing in these apartments was the result of some
> pesticide lable prohibitions. As a matter of fact, there is no
> discussion whatsoever about the use of pesticides (which, by
> definition, includes fungicides) to control or abate the growth of
> the mold in these apartments.

So what?

>
> Now, what do you mean by your comment "you may want to seek
> professional advice on preservation of capital and investment?"

So you wouldn't waste your $1.3 million?

ff

>
>
> On 11/26/07, ff wrote:
>
>>
>> Would you please explain why you think my post referencing
>> IAQ/Toxic Mold was unrelated to the article about your lawsuit
>> and settlement? Also, you may want to seek professional advice
>> on preservation of capital and investment?
>>
>> ff
>>
>>
>> On 11/23/07, Mike B. wrote:
>>> Wow, you're actually trying to impress us by pointing out that
>>> Oakland is in Alameda County. From what source material did
>> you
>>> copy the rest of your blabber that is wholly-unrelated to the
>>> article I posted?
>>>
>>> You're a trip.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/22/07, ff wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Alameda County, I always take note of this. It was one of
>>>> the areas in the US where problems with systemic fungicides
>>>> surfaced early on, to a degree that could not be ignored.
>>>> Application there is prohibited on the label, and has been
>>>> for decades.
>>>>
>>>> It is my position that documentation pointing out that
>>>> fungal resistance was merely an academic concept prior to
>>>> the introduction of systemic anti-fungal compounds in the
>>>> 70's, sheds light on the question so many ask today - "what
>>>> changed".
>>>>
>>>> The emerging patterns of resistance, and a shift to
>>>> dominance by toxin-producing species, coincides with the
>>>> increase in IAQ/Toxic Mold problems today.
>>>>
>>>> ff
>>>>
>>>> On 11/19/07, Mike B. wrote:
>>>>> What are ya'll doing wrong with your litigation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Apartment Mold
>>>>> Oakland, CA: (Nov-18-07) Twelve immigrant families who
>>>>> lived in a dilapidated, unheated, mold and cockroach
>>>>> infested apartment, brought charges against their
>>>> landlord,
>>>>> Roosevelt Owyang, accusing him of not providing a
>>>> habitable
>>>>> dwelling at the complex. The suit also alleged breach of
>>>>> contract. The former tenants stated that rain water leaked
>>>>> into their apartments from windows and ceilings so the
>>>>> apartments were constantly damp and mold was thick.
>>>>> Cockroaches were everywhere, and stairway railings and
>>>>> floorboards were often broken. Several plaintiffs claimed
>>>>> that they developed asthma along with the 39 former and
>>>>> current residents who are party to the suit. Several
>>>> others
>>>>> claimed that they suffered from chronic sinusitis and
>>>> upper-
>>>>> respiratory problems as a result of staying at the
>>>>> apartment. The complaint was filed in state Superior Court
>>>>> in Alameda County. As part of a settlement reached, the
>>>>> twelve immigrant families received a $1.3 million payout,
>>>>> resolving the lawsuit. [INSIDE BAY AREA: APARTMENT MOLD]