|
Of all those entrusted with guarding the public health, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) emerges as a foremost government authority. Yet, in recent years, over and over again, the CDC has failed to protect and inform. We find them lacking in the area of mold education and information. With the help of the CDC, mold in our schools, residences, government and office buildings would become a nightmare of the past.
Reading these articles about the CDC's conduct, of late, it is easy to see the parallels that exist with the CDC's handling of the problem of mold and health (as well as other environmentally caused illnesses).
Anyone who goes to the CDC website for help with a mold illness recognizes that there is a definite "disconnect". Anyone who has called the CDC for help or asked them to come out to their school and issue a NIOSH report, realizes that the help and/or report is inadequate and there is no authority to even follow the often-incomplete, watered-down advice. Further, in some cases, the CDC seems to favor school districts' interests over those of the school occupants. CDC mold sampling can be described as totally inadequate and their conclusions lackluster. Their attitude is that mold sampling is unnecessary - yet it is this information that doctors of mold-ill patients ask for most often, to document the exact species found, with their known, documented health effects. The CDC routinely ignores hundreds (perhaps thousands) of existing studies and anecdotal records related to toxic/toxigenic mold and health. They are foot-dragging, avoiding, misinforming, and targeting those scientists who would tell the truth, even within their own ranks.
In short, we seem to have politics driving policies and action within our highest public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control - thus, directly causing more health problems for millions, rather than preventing or addressing them, as they are charged to do (SMH).
SMH ACTION ALERT:
WE SUGGEST THAT YOU CALL AND WRITE THE CDC ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS RELATED TO TOXIC MOLD AND SCHOOLS and MOLD AND HEALTH.
Go to http://www.cdc.gov/about/resources/contact.htm for contact information, after reading the entire selection, below. The CDC obviously needs to be educated.
"Bureaucracies are beautiful mechanisms for the evasion of responsibilities and guilt,"
CDC Under Siege
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deirdre-imus/cdc-under-siege_b_94720.html
by Deirdre Imus
When American scholar Warren Bennis said, "Bureaucracies are beautiful mechanisms for the evasion of responsibilities and guilt," he might well have been speaking of the current state of affairs inside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Once revered around the world, hardly a month passes without another news report questioning the credibility, scientific independence, and integrity of the nation's premier health agency.
Over the past four years headlines frequently chronicle a disturbing litany of allegations charging top CDC officials with wasting money on questionable research priorities, public relations stunts, distorting or ignoring health concerns raised by their own scientists, and retaliation against those who object to the censorship of scientific findings.
The past three years have been particularly unpleasant for CDC Director, Dr. Julie Gerberding, but apparently not as bad as she and her managers are making it for many CDC scientists.
In 2005, alarmed at the rapid decline in morale and concerned for the credibility of the agency, five former CDC directors sent Dr. Gerberding a letter complaining that the agency's politicization was jeopardizing its national and international reputation.
You would think criticisms like this would result in a re-evaluation by top CDC officials, but apparently not. The frustration of long time officials was raised again in an Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC) article, "Exodus, Morale Shake CDC" (Sept. 10, 2006). The article quotes Dr. Stephen Cochi, an advisor in the CDC's Global Immunization Division, who said, "The capacity of the CDC to [tackle public health problems] has seriously eroded in a very short time...The American people need to be concerned."
As troubling and often embarrassing revelations continued to plague the CDC, some believed the agency is simply an example of bureaucratic incompetence. Others, inside and out, suggest something far worse. Accusations about manipulation of research data, suppression of safety information, even suggestions of scientific fraud has created a "crisis in confidence" among CDC officials, resulting in scientists leveling harsh criticisms regarding the agency's priorities and asking if its actions, or inactions, are actually putting the public's health at risk.
Chief among the complaints from scientists and citizen's groups has been the way the agency continually disputes, downplays or ignores scientific findings, often from some of their own researchers, and fails to draw any conclusions, or "links," between environmental/industrial pollution and chronic diseases affecting the American public, particularly children.
These criticisms have been voiced for several decades. An example of how the agency can design a study so that it fails to link disease and pollution can be found in the way the CDC investigated the cancer clusters in Fallon, Nevada and Sierra Vista, Arizona. In a 2006 article published in The Tucson Weekly, the CDC's "foot-dragging" and unscientific methods used to investigate the clusters raised serious questions about the study's integrity and the agency's credibility and commitment to protecting the public's health. In describing the CDC's slow reaction to the life and death situations, it is not difficult to see how many would level accusations of "cover-up" to describe the "faulty manner" in which the agency responded to the cluster investigations.
The CDC itself admits the agency repeatedly fails to identify, or connect, environmental chemicals to these clusters. Quoting from the CDC website, "From 1961 to 1982, CDC investigated 108 reported cancer clusters in 29 states and 5 foreign countries...The studies were begun in hopes of identifying a viral cause of cancer clusters. During these investigations, however no clear cause was determined for any of the reported clusters."
Two of the latest in a long list of reported controversies dogging the beleaguered agency involves the delayed disclosure of a 400-page study conducted in the Great Lakes region and the demotion of the study's chief scientist, Christopher De Rosa, a director of the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) since 1992.
Released in early February by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit journalism organization, the study found exposures to PCB's, lead, mercury, dioxin, pesticides and other toxins may have caused "low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer and lung cancer."
In an article accompanying the study, "Great Lakes Danger Zone," reporter Sheila Kaplan, interviewed Canadian biologist Dr. Michael Gilbertson, one of the study's reviewers. Dr. Gilbertson explained, "The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that word 'injury.' If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability, of course, implies damages...The governments, frankly, in both countries [US and Canada] are so heavily aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the word amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence of effect or injury to be allowed out there."
In response to the CDC's handling of the report, Michigan Representatives John Dingell, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupack, Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee launched a congressional investigation charging the agency with a "Cover-Up." In a statement released on February 28th 2008, Chairman Dingell wrote, "If the administration has willfully withheld a report from the public, it raises questions about whether they are putting the public health at risk and about the scientific integrity of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
The release of the Great Lakes study comes on the heels of new accusations charging top CDC officials with down playing cancer risks posed by formaldehyde exposure found in the 144,000 trailers purchased by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
In a February 8, 2008 article in the AJC, "CDC under investigation over Katrina cancer risk," investigative journalist Alison Young reported the House Committee on Science and Technology has begun investigating "disturbing allegations" of improper suppression of "critical information" and "also looking into whether the Atlanta scientist who sought to make the risks public has been the subject of retaliation by the agency." This individual would be the same CDC scientist leading the Great Lakes study, Dr. Christopher De Rosa.
The article cites a letter sent to Director Gerberding from the Committee's chairman and two other subcommittee chairmen stating, "The agency's conduct has called into question its ability to investigate public health hazards accurately and appropriately in the future." Again, suggestions that liability, rather than the health of the people living in the trailers, seemed to be the primary concern of FEMA and CDC officials.
Cleaning up toxic chemicals in the environment can cost businesses a great deal of money. Liability for the diseases caused by these chemicals can cost business even more money. Today's political climate, inside the CDC and out, is not interested in holding corporations accountable for anything, even allowing toxic pollutants to poison our children. This would explain why we have a nation of sick kids and why only a few in government seem interested in doing anything about it.
And if the suppression of safety data and intimidation of agency scientists raising health concerns were not bad enough, the CDC also stands accused of hyping certain health threats and terrifying the public in the hope of benefiting from the "fear" campaigns. Sandwiched between the Great Lakes and FEMA trailer "cover-up" reports, another article by the AJC asks "Did CDC hype TB case as a fund-raising ploy?" (March 13, 2008).
The article chronicles the hysteria created over 31-year-old Atlanta attorney, Andrew Speaker, a man CDC officials diagnosed with XDR TB five months after an agency "strategy" session focused on obtaining more funding for the rare and deadly form of TB.
According to the article, "The handling of the Speaker case was so unusual that it has raised questions among other TB experts, including whether CDC publicized Speaker's case in a quest for more money."
While the CDC's Media Relations Director Glen Nowak maintains "the agency's actions were justified," the agency "has refused for nearly seven months to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) about any role the agency's XDR TB funding strategy played in its handling of the Speaker case." As it turns out, Speaker didn't even have the deadly XDR TB. All that hype and the young man had a different, "more treatable" form of TB all along.
It's a little disturbing that the world's leading health agency would misdiagnose the type of tuberculosis this man has. Makes you wonder how often situations like this are sensationalized way out of proportion and sending the public into a panic. Anyone remember monkeypox? When was the last time you heard about that? And what has become of that deadly bird flu that dominated the news for about a year? Ever notice how the urgent predictions of impending disaster disappear after the CDC gets a big boost in funding from congress to combat these diseases?
We know every year the CDC and health officials claim 36,000 people die from influenza. This little piece of propaganda is spread annually by medical reporters on all the morning and nightly news programs. But does anyone ever ask these so-called "experts" to prove this statistic? No...talk show hosts and medical reporters just regurgitate the "talking points" with no interest in accuracy.
For anyone interested, investigative journalist Kelly O'Meara actually did ask "how does the CDC arrive at its numbers of deaths related to influenza?" In an article for the Washington Times Insight Magazine, CDC spokesman Curtis Allen admited the 36,000 deaths "are not 'real' numbers" and are actually nothing more that a computer generated guess. "There are a couple problems with determining the number of deaths related to the flu because most people don't die from the influenza...We don't know exactly how many people get the flu each year because it's not a reportable disease and most physicians don't do the test [nasal swab] to indicate whether it's influenza."
In a follow up article "A Shot In the Dark - Part I," using the CDC's own data, O'Meara found "The greatest number of actual inluenza deaths recorded since 1979 were 3,006 in 1981."
I found both these stories with a simple Google search, something medical reporters and their interviewers might want to try. (Flu Secrets You Should Know 2/3/04).
Although never held accountable for these misrepresentations, top CDC officials have consistently shown themselves to be quite creative at exploiting certain health threats, like TB, influenza and bird flu, when it suits their purposes, and ignoring other health threats, like childhood cancer and autism, when it doesn't. How do they keep getting away with this stuff?
No where has the CDC's credibility suffered more than in the way it has responded to questions about vaccine safety, and if vaccines are associated with increased rates of autism. When you study the way the CDC has responded to the autism epidemic you will see a very similar pattern of behavior as what occurs when the CDC investigates cancer clusters. Their studies never find a "link" or an "association" because that is what they are designed to do.
For years thousands of parents have maintained their healthy, normally developing children regressed into autism following vaccinations. And for years the CDC has vehemently denied any evidence of an association. The debate has been the subject of thousands of news stories with neither side backing away from their steadfast positions.
On March 6, however, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution carried a front-page headline: FIRST AUTISM-VACCINE LINK: HOW HANNAH MADE HISTORY.
The article details an admission by the federal government, that Hannah Poling, a nine-year-old Georgia girl, was harmed by the nine vaccines she received at 19 months, after which Hannah became autistic. The leaked landmark concession was actually filed last November 9th but the decision remains sealed even though Hannah Poling's parents have asked that the documents be made public. There's that secrecy thing again.
The government's concession was deemed so significant that CNN made it a lead story throughout the day. Predictably, CDC Director Gerberding rushed to the microphones to reiterate the agency's standard talking points in response to the Poling bombshell. "The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism," said Gerberding. Apparently, this is the CDC's story and they are sticking to it. Meanwhile there are nearly 5,000 other claims filed on behalf of children diagnosed with autism awaiting review in vaccine court.
By the end of the day, news of the concession made headlines around the world and was one of the lead stories on every nightly news program. In a report for the CBS Evening News, reporter Sharyl Attkisson uncovered nine additional cases where the government awarded compensation to vaccine-injured children who developed autism.
There has been a lot of parsing of words and the expected "spin" about this decision from the usual sources. But none of these "opinions" changes the facts. Individuals can continue to argue whether or not vaccines cause autism, but there is no arguing that the government -- not a court or a judge -- the government's medical experts conceded this case having determined that vaccines DID harm little Hannah. Hannah Poling did not have autism before she received nine vaccines in one day, but soon after Hannah was diagnosed with autism. And the government's medical experts -- not a judge -- said this little girl should be compensated.
Of interest is the leaking of a second decision involving Hannah Poling filed on February 21st carried in a March 19th AJC op-ed by journalist/author David Kirby. The second concession states, "The cause for (autistic) encephalopathy in Hannah at age 19 months was underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, exacerbated by vaccine-induced fever and immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserves."
Kirby clarifies several misconceptions being reported in other news reports and makes several very good points.
1. Instead of health officials expressing concern for other children who may have experienced the same reaction as Hannah, parents are "met with stonewalling, denial, and misinformation.
2. Hannah's underlying condition was not a "rare" or "inherited" disease. Hannah was asymptomatic prior to receiving her vaccines and by all accounts developing normally.
3. The government still hasn't released either decision.
The conflicts of interest between CDC officials and the vaccine industry are vast, appalling and were detailed by UPI in 2003. "The Vaccine Conflict" is a must read for anyone concerned about industry influence on government agencies. The article provides shocking details about how the CDC collaborates with the vaccine industry. Following a four-month investigation, UPI found:
In two cases in the past four years, vaccines endorsed by the CDC were pulled off the market after a number of infants and adults appeared to have suffered devastating side effects, and some died.
Members of the CDC's Vaccine Advisory Committee get money from vaccine manufacturers. Relationships have included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; getting money to monitor manufacturer vaccine tests; and funding academic departments.
The CDC is in the vaccine business. Under a 1980 law, the CDC currently has 28 licensing agreements with companies and one university for vaccines or vaccine-related products. It has eight ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.
Those are some very serious conflicts. So when Dr. Gerberding or any official rushes to the microphones to tell us vaccines don't cause autism we should consider the source and the implication for the agency if shown to be wrong.
If the CDC were capable of suppressing and minimizing the health risks associated in formaldehyde trailers or pollutants in the Great Lakes, why wouldn't they do the same with vaccines and their association with autism? Why should we trust an agency to tell us the truth about a public health disaster that they may have created?
Make no mistake; I am sure there are thousands of dedicated good people of conscience and science working inside the walls of the CDC. It is regrettable that the credibility of the entire agency is being tarnished.
The bottom line is this...we cannot have a public health system that suppresses health information and deceives the public. Period! Whether it is about chemical pollution, air quality in trailers, or immunizations. This is totally unacceptable both morally and ethically. There should be a zero tolerance policy for any government official who knowingly deceives the public about the safety of products we use and give our children.
America deserves better and it is time we start to demand better as if our lives, and our children's lives depend on it. Because the truth is...they do.
----------------------------------------------
https://www.schoolmoldhelp.org/content/view/1102/195/
We may look forward to the day when the CDC admits it has lagged with regard to mold exposures, as well, in these trailers, our schools, workplaces and homes. (SMH)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080305/news_1n5nation.html
CDC admits lagging on fumes in trailers
March 5, 2008
NEW ORLEANS – The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should have reacted sooner to concerns about hazardous fumes in government-issued trailers housing thousands of Gulf Coast hurricane victims, a CDC official told a congressional panel yesterday.
“In retrospect, we did not engage the formaldehyde issue as aggressively and as early as we should have,” Howard Frumkin, director of the CDC's National Center For Environmental Health, told a Senate subcommittee on disaster recovery.
The CDC announced last month that tests on hundreds of occupied Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers and mobile homes found formaldehyde levels that were, on average, about five times higher than what people are exposed to in most modern homes. The results prompted FEMA to step up efforts to move roughly 35,000 families still living in the trailers after the 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Associated Press
--------------------------------
"It's the latest incident involving allegations that CDC's scientific findings on environmental issues are being watered down."
"The very people they're looking to for answers have been censored," [De Rosa] said. (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
One of the foremost reasons that the American public and legislators remain uninformed about the hazards of damp buildings and mold is the reluctance of the United States CDC (Center for Disease Control) to take a strong stance on educating the public about the extensive, existing literature on the topic. The CDC is charged with the protection of the public from and the monitoring of emerging public health threats. Sick Building Syndrome and mold-related illness has not been adequately addressed by the CDC, throughout the five decades since these illnesses emerged, caused by a change to unhealthy building designs and materials that began in the 1950's. As a result, it is estimated that many millions have been sickened, with little recourse for injuries or help from public health agencies, environmental health agencies, the CDC, OSHA, NIOSH, or the medical establishment. This can be directly blamed, ultimately, on the Center for Disease Control's suppression of science and avoidance - which seems to be their modus operandi.
Reading the following articles about how the CDC avoided identifying the illness caused by toxic FEMA trailers and appears to have punished a longtime, head scientist for the CDC division of toxicology and environmental medicine for raising questions about environmental conditions causing cancer provides a glimpse into how the CDC politicizes health threats. This example illustrates how the CDC does NOT protect the public, contrary to what it is charged with doing, which may be considered a betrayal of the public trust.
Under these present circumstances, it is no wonder that so many are falling ill in sick, damp buildings, with no prevention or strategies to address these problems in place.
We have listed CDC's Health Goals, following these articles, with suggestions for action you may take, to ask for an investigation related to the CDC's avoidance and suppression of the public health threat related to our sick school (and other) buildings. (SMH)
UPDATED: 11:53 p.m. February 08, 2008
Click-2-Listen
CDC under investigation over Katrina cancer risk
Congressional committee also looks into whether agency retaliated against scientist
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/news/stories/2008/02/08/cdc_0209.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=15
By ALISON YOUNG
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/09/08
A congressional committee is investigating "disturbing allegations" that officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suppressed critical information about cancer dangers posed by trailers housing Hurricane Katrina victims.
The committee also is looking into whether the Atlanta scientist who sought to make the risks public has been the subject of retaliation by the agency.
GERALD HERBERT/Associated Press
(ENLARGE)
A congressional panel is looking into allegations that a CDC toxicologist who insisted on publicizing the long-term dangers of exposure to formaldehyde in the Katrina trailers was demoted.
READ THE PDF FILES
• Feb. 6 letter from congressional investigators to CDC's Julie Gerberding
• Jan. 28 letter from congressional investigators to CDC's ATSDR
• More Nation/World news
(emphasis by SMH)
In a letter this week to CDC Director Julie Gerberding, committee members warned that they expect her to protect the scientist, Christopher De Rosa.
"The agency's conduct has called into question its ability to investigate public health hazards accurately and appropriately in the future," wrote the chairman and two subcommittee chairmen from the House Committee on Science and Technology in a letter Wednesday to Gerberding.
"Apparently in retaliation, Dr. De Rosa was removed from his post and given a job ... that appears to include no real responsibilities," the letter said.
CDC spokesman Glen Nowak said Friday the agency has not suppressed any science, nor has it retaliated against De Rosa. "The integrity of CDC's science is paramount to everything we do," Nowak said.
De Rosa had been head of the division of toxicology and environmental medicine in CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry since 1992. He was removed from that job last fall and assigned the title of "special assistant."
Though CDC said De Rosa was simply reassigned, he said in an interview that he's been demoted. De Rosa said the public should be concerned about what's transpired.
"The very people they're looking to for answers have been censored," he said.
At issue is whether the agency intentionally delayed or avoided examining the long-term cancer threat posed by formaldehyde fumes in trailers purchased by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to house victims of the August 2005 hurricane. FEMA initially said air quality in the trailers was safe if they were properly ventilated.
Formaldehyde is a colorless gas with a pungent smell. It is used in the production of plywood and resins. Some studies have linked exposure to formaldehyde with nose and throat cancer.
The committee also is investigating whether CDC abruptly stopped publication of another report involving De Rosa, detailing "disturbing potential health issues" in the Great Lakes region of the U.S., the letter said. The report examined areas with environmental pollution and found elevated levels of certain cancers and other health problems but did not make any cause-and-effect link.
"I want to find out what really happened," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Friday evening.
It's the latest incident involving allegations that CDC's scientific findings on environmental issues are being watered down.
In October, another committee investigated the White House's involvement in the cutting of nearly seven pages of information about the health consequences of climate change. The deletions were from written testimony Gerberding had planned to give to Congress. Gerberding, however, was adamant she had not been censored.
Nowak said CDC's actions were focused on maintaining high standards of science. He said the Great Lakes report was pulled from publication because parts of it were misleading and didn't meet standards of scientific rigor. The committee is investigating whether agency managers "intentionally circumvented" De Rosa in an initial review of potential dangers associated with the trailers.
FEMA wanted ATSDR to look only at the health effects of short-term formaldehyde exposure -- defined as less than two weeks. Yet many Katrina residents have lived in the trailers for months and years, the committee said in its letter.
De Rosa, the committee's letter said, already had raised questions about the long-term health effects and agency managers knew he would insist the report not be confined to short-term effects. Formaldehyde is a suspected carcinogen that has no safe level set for long-term exposure, the letter said.
"De Rosa was then specifically and consciously excluded in the health assessment," said Miller, referring to information provided to the committee.
Miller said information reviewed by the committee indicates FEMA's requests of CDC were driven by concerns about legal liability, not public health.
FEMA officials declined to be interviewed Friday. But in written statements, they have said the agency didn't ignore, hide or manipulate research. They said the health and safety of hurricane victims was their top priority at all times.
Nowak, the CDC spokesman, said the agency initially focused solely on short-term effects because that's what FEMA asked CDC to look at. But he said the agency later issued a supplemental report with information about long-term health effects.
"Nobody was ignoring the fact that formaldehyde had longer-term health consequences," Nowak said. The agency has been sampling the air quality in more than 500 trailers in Louisiana and Mississippi and is now in the process of analyzing the data.
Congressional investigators, however, said CDC only amended the report to include long-term exposure warnings eight months later -- after De Rosa "persistently demanding" they be included.
De Rosa said Friday that he raised his concerns about formaldehyde, the Great Lakes report and other issues through proper channels within the CDC.
"It's sort of like speaking truth to authority. I knew I was doing it at my peril," he said.
Then, in what investigators said was apparently retaliation, De Rosa was removed from his managerial job and in October given an "unsatisfactory" job performance assessment. Before, De Rosa said, he had received good to excellent ratings.
• To reach reporter Alison Young call 404-526-7372.
More on ajc.com
Science censored at CDC?
CDC: Gulf Coast Trailers Have Toxic Air
----------------------------------
Lawmakers Launch Probe Into Whether CDC Withheld Information About Long-Term Cancer Risks Of FEMA Trailers
Main Category: Public Health
Also Included In: Cancer / Oncology; Aid / Disasters
Article Date: 12 Feb 2008 - 6:00 PST
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/96956.php
In a letter to CDC Director Julie Gerberding on Wednesday, three members of the House Committee on Science and Technology said the panel is launching an investigation into "disturbing allegations" that agency officials withheld vital information about the potential cancer risks associated with trailer housing provided to Gulf Coast residents after Hurricane Katrina, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. The committee also plans to investigate whether CDC retaliated against Atlanta scientist Christopher De Rosa after he sought to make the risks public.
The committee will investigate whether CDC might have intentionally delayed or avoided examining the long-term cancer threat posed by formaldehyde fumes in trailers purchased by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to house residents after the August 2005 hurricane. FEMA originally said that the trailers were safe for use with adequate ventilation.
According to the letter, formaldehyde is a carcinogen that has no safe level set for long-term exposure and has been linked to nose and throat cancers. FEMA officials had asked CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to examine the health effects of short-term formaldehyde exposure, defined as less than two weeks, even though many Gulf Coast residents have lived in the trailers for months or years, the Journal-Constitution reports. According to the committee letter, De Rosa had raised questions about the health effects of long-term exposure, and agency managers knew he would insist that the report not focus solely on the short-term effects. De Rosa, who led the division of toxicology and environmental medicine as part of the agency since 1992, said he was demoted from his job in fall 2007 to the position of "special assistant."
The letter said, "The agency's conduct has called into question its ability to investigate public health hazards accurately and appropriately in the future," adding, "Apparently in retaliation, Dr. De Rosa was removed from his post and given a job ... that appears to include no real responsibilities." According to the letter, the investigation also will look into allegations that CDC halted the publication of a separate report involving De Rosa, which indicated "disturbing potential health issues" in the Great Lakes region of the U.S.
CDC spokesperson Glen Nowak on Friday said the agency has not held back any research information or retaliated against De Rosa. Nowak said, "The integrity of CDC's science is paramount to everything we do" (Young, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2/9).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
What You Can Do
NONE of the following health goals are being accomplished by the CDC, with regard to protection of the public from the current educational, health, and economic crisis we are experiencing in America due to unhealthy, damp, moldy buildings - in particular, with regard to damp schools, but also including commercial and residential buildings.
Reading these goals may be very eye-opening and difficult for those who have experienced the devastation of toxic exposures from mold or other known environmental hazards. We encourage you to write the CDC and the House Committee on Science and Technology, to express your thoughts, educate the members about the problem of toxic mold exposure, and ask for a Congressional Hearing related to the CDC's conduct regarding the public health threat caused by damp, sick buildings and mold. Please also note that Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, is interested in what is really going on in the CDC. The members of the House Committee on Science and Technology from your state are listed at the bottom of this page. (SMH)
CDC Health Protection Goals
From the CDC website http://www.cdc.gov/osi/goals/goals.html
CDC is committed to achieving true improvements in people’s lives by accelerating health impact and reducing health disparities. CDC has created a set of four overarching Health Protection Goals, which are supported by a number of strategic goals and objectives. You may learn more about the goals and objectives by following the links for each main goal area.
Healthy People in Every Stage of Life
All people, and especially those at greater risk of health
disparities, will achieve their optimal lifespan with the best possible
quality of health in every stage of life.
• Infants and Toddlers, ages 0–3: Start Strong
• Children, ages 4–11: Grow Safe and Strong
• Adolescents, ages 12–19: Achieve Healthy Independence
• Adults, ages 20–49: Live a Healthy, Productive, and Satisfying Life
• Older Adults and Seniors, ages 50 and over: Live Better, Longer
Healthy People in Healthy Places
The places where people live, work, learn, and play will protect and
promote their health and safety, especially those people at greater risk
of health disparities.
• Healthy Communities
• Healthy Homes
• Healthy Schools
• Healthy Workplaces
• Healthy Healthcare Settings
• Healthy Institutions
• Healthy Travel and Recreation
People Prepared for Emerging Health Threats
People in all communities will be protected from infectious,
occupational, environmental, and terrorist threats.
Pre-event:
• Increase the use and development of interventions.
• Decrease time needed to classify health events.
• Decrease time needed to detect and report chemical, biological,
and radiological agents.
• Improve the timeliness and accuracy of communications.
Event:
• Decrease time to identify causes, risk factors, and appropriate
interventions.
• Decrease time needed to provide countermeasures and health
guidance.
Post-event:
• Decrease time needed to restore health services and environmental
safety to pre-event levels.
• Improve long-term follow-up provided to those affected by threats.
• Decrease time needed to implement recommendations from afteraction
reports.
Healthy People in a Healthy World
People around the world will live safer, healthier, and longer lives through
• Health Promotion
• Health Protection
• Health Diplomacy
Health Protection Goals
For more information on the goals, visit: http://www.cdc.gov/goals or http://intranet.cdc.gov/goals
The following was taken from the CDC website on Feb. 14, 2008
From the CDC's Website re: Mold
http://www.cdc.gov/health/mold.html
Molds are fungi that are found virtually everywhere, indoors and outdoors. Mold can cause or worsen certain illnesses (e.g., some allergic and occupation-related diseases and infections in health care settings). No conclusive evidence exists, however, to associate mold exposure with a multitude of other health problems, such as pulmonary hemorrhage or memory loss. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducts and supports activities to investigate the effect of mold on human health, to assist states in responding to concerns about mold, and to investigate concerns of employees and employers.
General Information About Mold
Protect Yourself from Mold
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/mold/protect.asp
This written for hurricane and flooding issues and mold.
Mold: Environmental Hazards & Health Effects
http://www.cdc.gov/mold/default.htm
Provides basic facts about mold, cleanup and remediation, more...
NCEH › Mold › General Information › Facts about Mold and Dampness
FACTS ABOUT MOLD AND DAMPNESS
PDF [79 Kb] | Español
Mold and Your Health
Mold and Your Home
You Can Control Mold
Mold Prevention Tips
There is always some mold everywhere - in the air and on many surfaces. Molds have been on the Earth for millions of years. Mold grows where there is moisture.
Mold and Your Health
Exposure to damp and moldy environments may cause a variety of health effects, or none at all. Some people are sensitive to molds. For these people, molds can cause nasal stuffiness, throat irritation, coughing or wheezing, eye irritation, or, in some cases, skin irritation. People with mold allergies may have more severe reactions. Immune-compromised people and people with chronic lung illnesses, such as obstructive lung disease, may get serious infections in their lungs when they are exposed to mold. These people should stay away from areas that are likely to have mold, such as compost piles, cut grass, and wooded areas.
A link between other adverse health effects, such as acute idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage among infants, memory loss, or lethargy, and molds, including the mold Stachybotrys chartarum (Stachybotrys atra), has not been proven. Further studies are needed to find out what causes acute idiopathic hemorrhage and other adverse health effects.
(SMH Note: The proof that the CDC is avoiding a known public health threat is found on our Mold Research and Sick Building Symptoms pages, where you will find hundreds of articles and studies taken from thousands of studies, worldwide, to indicate that mold is a very serious public health threat, with far more symptoms than are listed above. The CDC is avoiding the toxic exposure aspect of mold and has been for numerous decades. They insist on conclusive evidence, yet don't want to fund studies. Conclusive evidence is never required to protect the public from health threats.)
top
Mold and Your Home
Mold is found both indoors and outdoors. Mold can enter your home through open doorways, windows, vents, and heating and air conditioning systems. Mold in the air outside can also attach itself to clothing, shoes, bags, and pets can and be carried indoors.
Mold will grow in places with a lot of moisture, such as around leaks in roofs, windows, or pipes, or where there has been flooding. Mold grows well on paper products, cardboard, ceiling tiles, and wood products. Mold can also grow in dust, paints, wallpaper, insulation, drywall, carpet, fabric, and upholstery.
top
You Can Control Mold
Inside your home you can control mold growth by:
Keeping humidity levels between 40% and 60%;
Promptly fixing leaky roofs, windows, and pipes;
Thoroughly cleaning and drying after flooding;
Ventilating shower, laundry, and cooking areas.
If mold is growing in your home, you need to clean up the mold and fix the moisture problem. Mold growth can be removed from hard surfaces with commercial products, soap and water, or a bleach solution of no more than 1 cup of bleach in 1 gallon of water.
Mold growth, which often looks like spots, can be many different colors, and can smell musty. If you can see or smell mold, a health risk may be present. You do not need to know the type of mold growing in your home, and CDC does not recommend or perform routine sampling for molds. No matter what type of mold is present, you should remove it. Since the effect of mold on people can vary greatly, either because of the amount or type of mold, you can not rely on sampling and culturing to know your health risk. Also, good sampling for mold can be expensive, and standards for judging what is and what is not an acceptable quantity of mold have not been set. The best practice is to remove the mold and work to prevent future growth.
If you choose to use bleach to clean up mold:
Never mix bleach with ammonia or other household cleaners. Mixing bleach with ammonia or other cleaning products will produce dangerous, toxic fumes.
Open windows and doors to provide fresh air.
Wear non-porous gloves and protective eye wear.
If the area to be cleaned is more than 10 square feet, consult the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guide titled Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings. Although focused on schools and commercial buildings, this document also applies to other building types. You can get it free by calling the EPA Indoor Air Quality Information Clearinghouse at (800) 438-4318, or by going to the EPA web site at http://www.epa.gov/mold/mold_remediation.html. [external link]
Always follow the manufacturer’s instructions when using bleach or any other cleaning product.
top
MOLD PREVENTION TIPS
Keep the humidity level in your home between 40% and 60%. Use an air conditioner or a dehumidifier during humid months and in damp spaces, like basements.
Be sure your home has enough ventilation. Use exhaust fans which vent outside your home in the kitchen and bathroom. Make sure your clothes dryer vents outside your home.
Fix any leaks in your home’s roof, walls, or plumbing so mold does not have moisture to grow.
Clean up and dry out your home thoroughly and quickly (within 24–48 hours) after flooding.
Add mold inhibitors to paints before painting.
Clean bathrooms with mold-killing products.
Remove or replace carpets and upholstery that have been soaked and cannot be dried promptly. Consider not using carpet in rooms or areas like bathrooms or basements that may have a lot of moisture.
To learn more about preventing mold in your home, see the Environmental Protection Agency's publication A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture, and Your Home at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/moldguide.html. [external link]
Molds in the Environment
http://www.cdc.gov/mold/faqs.htm
Gives answers to Frequently Asked Questions about mold, provides recommendations for prevention.
The following was taken from the CDC website on Feb. 14, 2008
NCEH › Mold › General Information › Basic Facts
http://www.cdc.gov/mold/faqs.htm
BASIC FACTS
PDF [98 Kb] | Español
Molds in the Environment
What are molds?
What are some of the common indoor molds?
How do molds affect people?
Where are molds found?
How can people decrease mold exposure?
What areas have high mold exposures?
I found mold growing in my home, how do I test the mold?
A qualified environmental lab took samples of the mold in my home and gave me the results. Can CDC interpret these results?
What type of doctor should I see concerning mold exposure?
My landlord or builder will not take any responsibility for cleaning up the mold in my home. Where can I go for help?
I’m sure that mold in my workplace is making me sick.
I am very concerned about mold in my children’s school and how it affects their health.
What are molds?
Molds are fungi that can be found both indoors and outdoors. No one knows how many species of fungi exist but estimates range from tens of thousands to perhaps three hundred thousand or more. Molds grow best in warm, damp, and humid conditions, and spread and reproduce by making spores. Mold spores can survive harsh environmental conditions, such as dry conditions, that do not support normal mold growth.
top
What are some of the common indoor molds?
Cladosporium
Penicillium
Alternaria
Aspergillus
top
How do molds affect people?
Some people are sensitive to molds. For these people, exposure to molds can cause symptoms such as nasal stuffiness, eye irritation, wheezing, or skin irritation. Some people, such as those with serious allergies to molds, may have more severe reactions. Severe reactions may occur among workers exposed to large amounts of molds in occupational settings, such as farmers working around moldy hay. Severe reactions may include fever and shortness of breath. Some people with chronic lung illnesses, such as obstructive lung disease, may develop mold infections in their lungs.
top
Where are molds found?
Molds are found in virtually every environment and can be detected, both indoors and outdoors, year round. Mold growth is encouraged by warm and humid conditions. Outdoors they can be found in shady, damp areas or places where leaves or other vegetation is decomposing. Indoors they can be found where humidity levels are high, such as basements or showers.
top
How can people decrease mold exposure?
Sensitive individuals should avoid areas that are likely to have mold, such as compost piles, cut grass, and wooded areas. Inside homes, mold growth can be slowed by keeping humidity levels between 40% and 60%, and ventilating showers and cooking areas. If there is mold growth in your home, you should clean up the mold and fix the water problem. Mold growth can be removed from hard surfaces with commercial products, soap and water, or a bleach solution of no more than 1 cup of bleach in 1 gallon of water.
If you choose to use bleach to clean up mold:
Never mix bleach with ammonia or other household cleaners. Mixing bleach with ammonia or other cleaning products will produce dangerous, toxic fumes.
Open windows and doors to provide fresh air.
Wear non-porous gloves and protective eye wear.
If the area to be cleaned is more than 10 square feet, consult the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guide titled Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings. Although focused on schools and commercial buildings, this document also applies to other building types. You can get it free by calling the EPA Indoor Air Quality Information Clearinghouse at (800) 438-4318, or by going to the EPA web site at http://www.epa.gov/mold/mold_remediation.html. [external link]
Always follow the manufacturer’s instructions when using bleach or any other cleaning product.
Specific Recommendations:
Keep the humidity level in the house between 40% and 60%.
Use an air conditioner or a dehumidifier during humid months.
Be sure the home has adequate ventilation, including exhaust fans.
Add mold inhibitors to paints before application.
Clean bathrooms with mold killing products.
Do not carpet bathrooms and basements.
Remove or replace previously soaked carpets and upholstery.
top
What areas have high mold exposures?
Antique shops
Greenhouses
Saunas
Farms
Mills
Construction areas
Flower shops
Summer cottages
top
I found mold growing in my home, how do I test the mold?
Generally, it is not necessary to identify the species of mold growing in a residence, and CDC does not recommend routine sampling for molds. Current evidence indicates that allergies are the type of diseases most often associated with molds. Since the susceptibility of individuals can vary greatly either because of the amount or type of mold, sampling and culturing are not reliable in determining your health risk. If you are susceptible to mold and mold is seen or smelled, there is a potential health risk; therefore, no matter what type of mold is present, you should arrange for its removal. Furthermore, reliable sampling for mold can be expensive, and standards for judging what is and what is not an acceptable or tolerable quantity of mold have not been established.
top
A qualified environmental lab took samples of the mold in my home and gave me the results. Can CDC interpret these results?
Standards for judging what is an acceptable, tolerable, or normal quantity of mold have not been established. If you do decide to pay for environmental sampling for molds, before the work starts, you should ask the consultants who will do the work to establish criteria for interpreting the test results. They should tell you in advance what they will do or what recommendations they will make based on the sampling results. The results of samples taken in your unique situation cannot be interpreted without physical inspection of the contaminated area or without considering the building’s characteristics and the factors that led to the present condition.
top
What type of doctor should I see concerning mold exposure?
You should first consult a family or general health care provider who will decide whether you need referral to a specialist. Such specialists might include an allergist who treats patients with mold allergies or an infectious disease physician who treats mold infections. If an infection is in the lungs, a pulmonary physician might be recommended. Patients who have been exposed to molds in their workplace may be referred to an occupational physician. CDC is not a clinical facility. CDC does not see patients, diagnose illness, provide treatment, prescribe medication, or provide referrals to health care providers.
top
My landlord or builder will not take any responsibility for cleaning up the mold in my home. Where can I go for help?
If you feel your property owner, landlord, or builder has not been responsive to concerns you’ve expressed regarding mold exposure, you can contact your local board of health or housing authority. Applicable codes, insurance, inspection, legal, and similar issues about mold generally fall under state and local (not federal) jurisdiction. You could also review your lease or building contract and contact local or state government authorities, your insurance company, or an attorney to learn more about local codes and regulations and your legal rights. CDC does not have enforcement power in such matters, nor can we provide you with advice. You can contact your county or state health department about mold issues in your area to learn about what mold assessment and remediation services they may offer. You can find information on your state’s Indoor Air Quality program at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/indoor_air.htm.
top
I’m sure that mold in my workplace is making me sick.
If you believe you are ill because of exposure to mold in the building where you work, you should first consult your health care provider to determine the appropriate action to take to protect your health. Notify your employer and, if applicable, your union representative about your concern so that your employer can take action to clean up and prevent mold growth. To find out more about mold, remediation of mold, or workplace safety and health guidelines and regulations, you may also want to contact your local (city, county, or state) health department.
You should also read the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Guidelines, Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/mold_remediation.html. [external link]
top
I am very concerned about mold in my children’s school and how it affects their health.
If you believe your children are ill because of exposure to mold in their school, first consult their health care provider to determine the appropriate medical action to take. Contact the school’s administration to express your concern and to ask that they remove the mold and prevent future mold growth. If needed, you could also contact the local school board.
CDC is not a regulatory agency and does not have enforcement authority in local matters. Your local health department may also have information on mold, and you may want to get in touch with your state Indoor Air Quality office. Information on this office is available at http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/airpollution/indoor_air.htm.
You can also read the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings, at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/mold_remediation.html [external link]. Also, see these Web sites for more indoor air quality tools for schools:
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/tfs/guidtoc.html [external link]
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/schools/tfs/guideh.html [external link]
http://www.healthyschools.org/guides_materials.html [external link]
top
Other Environmental Hazards & Health Effects Topics
Environmental Public Health Indicators Project
List of core indicators, links to individual indicators, data sources ...more
Environmental Public Health Tracking Program
About the program, communication library, conferences and meetings, data resources, partnerships ...more
Health Studies
Cancer clusters, CAFOs, harmful algal blooms, water, pesticides, chemicals, disaster epi ...more
Radiation Studies
General radiation facts, public health research, radon research ...more
--------------------------
Click to access your state's House Committee on Science and Technology Members:
COMMITTEE MEMBERS in the 110th Congress
BART GORDON (Tennessee), Chairman
Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Mark Udall, Colorado
David Wu, Oregon
Brian Baird, Washington
Brad Miller, North Carolina
Vice Chairman Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
Nick Lampson, Texas
Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona
Jerry McNerney, California
Laura Richardson, California
Paul E. Kanjorski, Pennsylvania
Darlene Hooley, Oregon
Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey
Jim Matheson, Utah
Mike Ross, Arkansas
Ben Chandler, Kentucky
Russ Carnahan, Missouri
Charlie Melancon, Louisiana
Baron P. Hill, Indiana
Harry E. Mitchell, Arizona
Charles A. Wilson, Ohio
RALPH M. HALL (Texas), Ranking Republican Member
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin
Lamar Smith, Texas
Dana Rohrabacher, California
Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
Judy Biggert, Illinois
W. Todd Akin, Missouri
Jo Bonner, Alabama
Tom Feeney, Florida
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Bob Inglis, South Carolina
David Reichert, Washington
Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida
Phil Gingrey, Georgia
Brian P. Bilbray, California
Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Paul Broun, Georgia
(January 4, 2007) Mr. Gordon named Chairman (H. Res. 7)
(January 4, 2007) Mr. Hall named Ranking Republican Member (H. Res. 8).
(January 10, 2007) Republican Members assigned (H. Res. 45).
(January 18, 2007) Democratic Members assigned (H. Res. 75).
(January 23, 2007) Mr. Kanjorski and Ms. Hooley appointed (H. Res. 85).
(March 13, 2007) Mr. Reichert appointed (H. Res. 236).
(July 25, 2007) Mr. Broun appointed (H. Res. 566).
(September 20, 2007) Ms. Richardson appointed (H. Res. 667).
(September 20, 2007) Mr. Honda resigned from the Committee.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
Mark Udall, Chairman
Mr. Wu
Mr. Lampson
Mr. Rothman
Mr. Ross
Mr. Chandler
Mr. Melancon
Mr. Gordon (ex officio)
Tom Feeney , Ranking Republican Member
Mr. Rohrabacher
Mr. Lucas
Mr. Bonner
Mr. McCaul
Mr. Hall (ex officio)
|
