Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFor days now, a swollen Mississippi River has menacingly roamed far from its banks, devouring large swatches of picturesque river towns and some of the Midwest's best farmlands. While countless news organizations chronicle both the courage of those fighting 'Big Muddy's' assault and the anguish of those wounded by it, another battle is about to begin. This battle will go all but unseen, for the struggle will be one of individual households against mold, mold that is both toxic and dangerous, though there are those who insist otherwise.
With an estimated 11 million people and nine Midwestern states impacted by the floods, the severe weather preceding them, or both, toxic mold questions have assumed new significance. A reading of the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mold concerns quickly helps one appreciate why.
According to an EPA website last updated April 30th: "Many symptoms and human health effects attributed to inhalation of mycotoxins have been reported including: mucous membrane irritation, skin rash, nausea, immune system suppression, acute or chronic liver damage, acute or chronic central nervous system damage, endocrine effects, and cancer." The EPA added, "it is clearly prudent to avoid exposure to molds and mycotoxins," and so performed an exercise in what should be obvious, but sometimes apparently is not.
Posing a dilemma for flood victims, some of those within the medical community have strongly downplayed toxic mold's dangers. One highly circulated pronouncement -- in a text specifically aimed at flood victims -- reassured: "Although molds release natural toxins, called mycotoxins, these don't cause problems to people who live in moldy houses because the toxins don't diffuse into the air. The only way to be exposed to them is to swallow them." But there seems to be a problem with this.
Published research exists which directly contradicts such statements, with even the EPA's just cited warning specifically mentioning the "inhalation of mycotoxins." It's been repeatedly found that mycotoxins can be airborne, inhaled, and are dangerous, with research also indicating that mold can pose dangers to "immunocompetent," healthy, individuals.
In 2004 a study conducted by scientists with the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, is believed to be the first which revealed that "mycotoxins can become airborne." The study, published in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, concluded by noting the work "may have important implications for indoor air quality assessment."
Another landmark 2004 study, titled "Adverse Health Effects of Indoor Molds," compiled by researchers from leading institutions including Harvard University and the University of Illinois at Chicago, concluded that exposure to high levels of mold can induce "injury to and dysfunction of multiple organs and systems" among normal, "immunocompetent," healthy individuals. Notably, the study specifically attributed the potential for "hemorrhaging disorders" to mycotoxin exposure, an issue the EPA has also raised.
The EPA maintains a web page titled "Children's Health Initiative: Toxic Mold." As part of the 'Background' section, the EPA cites an incident where: "A cluster of cases of acute pulmonary hemorrhage/hemosiderosis was reported in Cleveland, Ohio, where 27 infants from homes that suffered flood damage became sick (nine deaths) with the illness starting in January 1993."
While the case the EPA cites is yet vigorously debated, it is widely known that attempts to remediate mold problems, without the use of a respirator, have produced nosebleeds among those so engaged.
Independent findings subsequent to 2004 led some leading researchers to declare levels of mycotoxins in mold affected structures as "several hundred" times higher than previously thought. Such a circumstance would seem to readily lend itself to a better appreciation of mold hazards, though, surprisingly, the hazards of mold have been discussed for years.
As early as 1999, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) declared: "Floods Carry a Hazardous Potential For Toxic Mold." And, for years now, courts throughout the Country have awarded damages to a number of toxic mold victims.
Given what appear to be such straightforward pronouncements upon toxic mold's dangers, some may question the basis for debate, whether there is actually debate, but a debate does exist. Having said this, it is important to emphasize that many critics of this debate suggest its true foundations are other than medical or scientific.
In strictly monetary terms, the health, property, and liability costs of mold are projected as 'extremely substantive,' especially as many insurance companies no longer cover numerous types of mold-related claims.
As the chairman of the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich), observed regarding toxic mold: "It's not that no one knows about it, but it seems that a lot of people don't want to know about it." Recently, and cutting to what many see as the crux of 'the debate,' came the reply of a European researcher to a query, a query concerning the health hazards mycotoxins pose for those living or working in mold affected environments.
"A politically, legally, and economically important question!" was all that was written, and perhaps all that needs to be.
--Ritt Goldstein
Copyright June 2008
5 Comments so far
Show AllLarger economic interests play louder than the individual(s) who suffer from toxic mold exposure. Aside from the inequity of financial strength, there exists a conspiracy of business and government (and often the judiciary) to thwart progress for mold sufferers seeking relief. The catastrophic effects of substantiated claims and awards for damages would turn the economy up-side-down. Therefore, "the debate continues."
I am not a conspiracist. However, even a pedestrian can clearly see a dispositive relationship between those who deny the toxic effects to those who live them.
Industries, from developers to landlords (and their insurers), who own and insure these toxic properties all have a common interest: to profit, regardless of the damage to public health and welfare.
The judiciary, eminently authorized in control of their environs, are first to vacate such when imminently confronted with toxic mold and its spores within their buildings. They can hardly speak for the public while the distress we suffer remains "subject to debate" – that is, unless their personal experience dictates otherwise. Then, the judges, attorneys, clerks, bailiffs, and the army of personnel that govern the courtrooms disappear, leaving the courts as vacant as the plaintiffs' and cases and they have served to deny.
All anyone need do is review the courthouses and government buildings closed and shutdown due to mold–related injuries, such as: (most prominent) David Dyer Federal Courthouse in Miami, FL, where Magistrate Judge Ted Klein "died … suddenly of a mysterious pulmonary illness"; Luzerne County Annex Building in Hazleton, PA; Elbert County Justice Center in Castle Rock, CO; Tulare County Courthouse, CA; Morgan County Courthouse in Martinsville, IN; Henderson County Courthouse in Athens, TX; Nye County, NV; Polk County Courthouse, FL; Martin County Courthouse, FL; and so forth.
Why are any courts of justice incapable of recognizing the health and life threatening effects of toxic mold? Because . . . the debate goes on.
Congressman John Conyers (DMich), should take to heart, as Representative of the Judiciary Committee, the harsh realities of these conditions. His intervention is welcomed by a growing (and slowly dieing) population of mold sufferers.
California and New York remain troubled by the dichotomy of their legal decisions. Yet their public health officials deserve our support for acknowledgement of the problems.
And the authors of the endless stream of articles should research their work before dismissing such claims as Solomon might have. A cursory effort would support need for stronger opinions upon completion of their investigation.
If it is the people these institutions and individuals represent, then they should stand more strongly in their defense. A public outcry is long overdue.
Great article! It is about politics and insurance companies and other large greedy, unethical companies and the greedy, unethical politicians and judges they buy. Perfect time for this article and for those who want to help stop all this corruption visit twusea.org and this-is-not-okay.blogspot.com. I may have to delete this is NOT OKAY! blog because I received a letter stating possible legal action from one of the above mentioned in the greedy, unethical catagory for "defamation". Gosh, then they should also go to all the apartment rating sites and sue all those who report similar complaints. Everything I have said is fact and can be backed up with solid evidence. Of course that depends on whose court you are in
What building codes, what enforcement of codes? that was another thing we encountered in trying to fight the toxic mold in Corpus Christi, that the city literally did not go out to check out complaints about mold! They just didn't do it, though they had an office supposedly that was in charge of doing just that.
Nothing will change as long as building codes still allow homes and buildings to be built the same way they were two centuries ago. Wood products in particular should be banned from structural elements, it absorbs water and creates food for mold and bugs, and is vulnerable to fire as well. Metal and concrete and synthetics and paper-free sheetrock board should be made the legal standard, not only will homes be less vulnerable to flood and fire but they'll also last longer and be more environmentally friendly. If the legal codes require all homes to be constructed of these more expensive, better quality materials then the economies of scale will drop the price as they become standard. Concrete and steel and brick withstand hurricanes far better as well.
One example of futuristic construction is the AI dome, made of concrete and steel with rigid foam insulation instead of paper-backed fiberglass.
http://www.aidomes.com/
Not only are they practically indestructible, they're significantly less expensive than traditional construction. Plus they're easily expandable, you want more space simply pop up another dome and connect the two with a covered hallway. They're highly energy efficient and there's no separate roof to pay for or lose in a storm.
My daughter was effected neurologically by exposure to mold in Corpus Christi, yet no lawyer would take our case, saying that the real estate industry had made it impossible to sue and win. The real estate industry has a whole harem of Doctor Whores who will swear that mold doesn't do anything, and the US corporate press will write oodles of nonsense in their editorials in support of that position, too.