This is one of the most common questions we receive at the Global Indoor Health Network. Our position statement provides detailed information in response to this question. The short answer is: Big Business says NO WAY. And, as we know, government answers to Big Business, not to individuals.
to other cover-ups in our history (such as lead, radon, asbestos,
etc.), Big Business doesn't want the truth to be known. The naysayers
have published numerous papers over the years denying the dangers of
these substances. For example, tobacco companies knew that tobacco was
harmful for 50 years before the truth finally came out. And, insurance
companies removed coverage for mold from insurance policies as soon as
they started seeing too many claims for water damage and mold.
One of the early naysayer papers published in 1992 was titled "The Next Environmental Battleground: Indoor Air." The author told the government not to enact regulations about indoor air quality because it would (supposedly)
devastate the real estate industry, lower employee wages, and increase
death rates among low income workers. The so-called "solutions" he recommended included adding "Boston ferns" and other plants in offices. And, the #1 option offered in the paper said the government should "DO NOTHING."
important to note that this naysayer paper came out shortly after
several federal government agencies and others published significant
papers (from 1987-1991) about the dangers of indoor air pollution. The
naysayer paper was obviously intended to shut down the growing concern
about this important public health issue.
Medical myths are also
perpetuated by medical organizations. One example is the Mold Statement
published by the American College of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine (ACOEM). The ACOEM Mold Statement was published in 2002 and
re-issued in 2011. The 2011 version was almost identical to the original
version. In fact, nine years later, the 2011 version did not update its
review of previous research papers nor include new research that could
have expanded or revised its position.
The ACOEM paper claims
that people can only become ill from mold if they eat it. They are
wrong, and they know it. They have known about the inhalation health
effects of mycotoxins (toxins from mold spores) since at least 1985 and
probably much earlier. ACOEM claims that mycotoxins are not volatile,
and, therefore, are not inhaled. However, this organization fails to
cite peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the mycotoxins are
present in dust and ultra-fine particulates.
The U.S. Army funded a study
that took place from 1982-1985. The paper is titled "Toxicologic and
Analytical Studies with T-2 and Related Trichothecene Mycotoxins."
They proved that the inhalation effects of mycotoxins were similar to
the effects of mycotoxins that were intravenously injected.
In another study in 1987
researchers found that "inhalation of T-2 mycotoxin is at least 10
times more toxic than systemic administration and at least 20 times more
toxic than dermal administration."
So, the next time somebody tells you that mold and mycotoxins aren't harmful unless you eat them, tell them they are wrong.
the next time someone asks you why the government doesn't do something
about indoor air pollution, you can give them the answer.
learn more about the health effects of mold, mycotoxins, and other indoor
air pollutants and the influence of Big Business on these important
public-health issues, read the GIHN position statement
and check out the GIHN video titled "Big Business and the Big Lie Strategy."
Global Indoor Health Network (GIHN) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
organization that is uniting experts and laypersons from the world.
GIHN's vision is a global community of individuals and organizations
working together to ensure that comprehensive information and guidance
concerning medical treatment, investigative techniques and solutions are
available to address the effects of contaminants in the indoor
environment of homes, schools and businesses. Visit our website here
No information provided for this author.
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.