Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About MrsKramer

  • Rank
    New Member

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Occupation
  1. Kurt, Emails don't always reflect intent, because there is no voice inflection. I must have been mistaken. Considering I came on this board when there were prior posts of people I had never met before wanting me poked in the eye, etc. I thought we made great strides. What did I take out of context? Do you want something corrected? Let me know. In the meantime, I am curious to know what you all think of this and what you can understand. The reason I came to you all is because you are a direct bunch, no doubt. AND you don't know anything about this, so you would learn it from this audi
  2. Hi Guys, How has everyone been? As some of you know, I have fought the fight to take the myth out of the mold issue that it has been scientifically proven moldy buildings do not harm. I believe the above noted false science that was mass marketed in the US public health policy in the early 2000's has been a major problem in the issue which has caused alot of contention, confusion and litigation. People know that is not true and it causes distrust when they are told that - which causes a push back of over reaction in the other direction. Perfect storm for inspectors and others to
  3. Jim, Saw your detailed post after my last one saying good bye. Thank you for taking the time to go down line by line to support your position. No. Katy's is not a conspiracy theory website. (and it is not even mine -am babysitting because the owner got hacked really bad). What she does is call out descrepancies between statements that support/deny causation of environmental illnesses. My "rot in hell" comment was sent to a "contact us" button on the AIHA website - not an individual. It was never posted anywhere. I was really mad. Had just gotten off the phone with a sick, cryin
  4. Hmmmm? No evidenced rebuttal to the IOM statement of toxicological studies cannot be used by themselves to determine exposure limits before adverse health occurs? "Someone turn out the lights when it's through." Kurt Seems to me that they are already turned off. Call me if you get symptoms of toxicity while examining a WDB (that is scientifically proven not to be able to cause toxicological illness) and want to know where to get help. Been fun, boys. Gotta go.
  5. "As a simpleton, I just want to know what the magic number is that constitutes too much or not enough." There isn't such a number. If a house is tested and the spore count comes back atypically higher in one room over another, or the indoor mold spore counts are significantly higher than the outdoor - then those are indications of a potential problem. Find the source of the numerical descrepancies and get rid of it.
  6. Kurt, I write like this to defend my statements, "Jim, It would appear to me that you are giving self-contradicting replies: 1(a)..." You all write like this to defend your statements: "Caoimhín was right. You've not the skill to present valid, useful information, whether on your blog, at a conference or on this forum." Do you see the difference? You don't present facts to support your statements. Instead, you attack my writing style. What does my writing style have to do with if you can use extrapolations by themselves and profess to prove lack of causation of illness or establi
  7. "In this thread, Jim has NOT posted: "you can used extrapolations to prove the claims of illness are all just Junk Science." Marc, The false LD50 concept that Jim seems to think is valid for this situation, comes from extrapolations in the ACOEM mold statement. Its the foundation for the US Chamber's "Junk Science" slur. The ASTM Int'l committee took it out of their mold tester guidelines. You won't see it cited in the new OSHA doc I showed you all. And I doubt if you will ever see it cited again in any federal document over this issue. Its passe'. It was improperly used to set
  8. Jim, It would appear to me that you are giving self-contradicting replies: 1.(a.) "So far, the only meaninful concept that you've "presented" is that it is not possible to say that mold doesn't hurt you. That's fine. We all agree with that. We all agreed with that before you started posting here." (b.) "We understand that you don't like the rat study and its extrapolations. We understand that you *think* that LD50 values for toxins are unimportant to the discussion but we disagree with you. They are important and the fact that you seem unwilling to admit that makes it seem like you
  9. Every chatboard has its own personality. I would bet you guys have been posting together for years. While the name of this thread is kind of not good, and you have stuff on here about poking me in the eye, and I fight dirty, etc, when I don't even know who you guys are; I just want you to understand the absurdity of what was allowed to become US public health policy and workers' comp policy over this issue in the early/mid 2000's: If one cannot say how much mold or toxins it takes to cause illness in WDB; then logically, one can also not say they have proven no amount of mold and toxi
  10. First of all, I want to thank you for having compassion that I do what I do because of my sickly daughter. That tells me that you all are good people trying to do the right thing. But, I don't have a sickly daughter. My daughter does have cystic fibrosis. But she is 28 years old and is an editor for a reality TV show in Los Angeles. She runs, swims, plays soccer, snow boards and likes to ride dirt bikes. That was just part of the spin of LAWeekly to make you (and everyone else) think I am out here screaming mold is going to kill everyone, while knowing they were aiding a fraud to continue
  11. "For a brief moment, I felt this was constructive. Not any more." It is constructive. Out of adversity comes changes. Just hang with me here a bit. (Argh! This is a b**ch to write. Trying to do it briefly and suscintly with links)
  12. "This is an emotional issue for you, so I'll cut some slack, but so far, I'm unconvinced of the severity of the issue you've devoted your life to." Kurt, I'm not blaming you, for this. I see this all the time. One's long time perceptions of what they believe to know, run deep. I don't write about the severity of this issue as the main topic. That is a by-product of what I write about and why so many would like me silenced. I don't know if this has sunk in for you yet. I have presented you with evidence that has probably shaken the foundation of what you believe to know to be true of w
  13. Kurt, what evidence do you provide to refute the evidence of what I have shown you? I'm sorry. I must have missed it. "Redirection and hyperbole is hard to work with." Thank you for the acknowledgement of that fact. Back in a bit.
  14. Bane, My suggestion to you to find answers about your reactions would be to join two chat groups, Sickbuildings@yahoogroups.com and IEQuality@yahoogroups.com. Sickbuildings is comprised of people who have been made ill. Alot of chit chat to sift thru, but well worth the time to understand the matter. IEQuality is made up of IAQ professionals. Its primarily building science knowledge, but they also have some superior knowledge of the current understanding of the health effects of contaminants in WDB. Kurt & Jim, I can't seem to work the format of this board too well. So I am goi
  15. "And I was stupid enough to actually follow the links. They have abso-freakin-loutly nothing to do with our discussion." Jim, With all due respect, there are hundreds of papers within those links that are right on point of this discussion. Papers like the CDC's Respiratory Morbidity in Office Workers, and POA's Chronic Inflammatory Response Syndrome from Water Damaged Buildings, and MANY about building maintenance for better IAQ. Several about toxicity models - their worth and shortcomings. I don't know what it is you want or why you made a statement of me way back several years ag
  • Create New...