Mold is everywhere—on cheese, in the compost pile, on the bathroom ceiling—and is mostly harmless. Yet over the past decade, health experts have claimed toxic mold causes a laundry list of illnesses from Alzheimer's disease to cancer. The fungus has become the subject of high-profile lawsuits, filed by such celebrities as Ed McMahon and crusading paralegal Erin Brokavich.

Despite minimal scientific evidence behind many of these health claims, mold exposure litigation is skyrocketing, with over 10,000 cases currently pending. How did this happen?

In 1994, Cleveland health officials noticed an unusual cluster of infant deaths caused by a rare infection of the lungs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta investigated the outbreak and concluded the deaths might be linked to exposure to stachybotrys mold, later called toxic mold, in the infants' homes. The finding set off widespread panic and reports of a killer fungus dominated television newscasts.

The CDC has since discounted stachybotrys as the culprit in the Cleveland deaths but the mold scare already had taken hold and acquired a life of its own. In 1999, in an unprecedented verdict, a Texas jury awarded a Dripping Springs family $32 million in punitive damages and compensation for their mold-infested home. The plaintiffs alleged stachybotrys mold exposure had caused one family member brain damage — a claim that eventually was thrown out by the judge due to lack of evidence. Nonetheless, the verdict reflected the jury's conclusion that mold had caused the family's health problems. In the original suit the plaintiffs said, 'I have mold in my house and my husband has brain damage' and that was enough.

Indeed, the Texas verdict touched off a flurry of similar lawsuits, and since 1999 mold litigation has increased by 300 percent. Most of theses legal actions have targeted the insurance industry, which has been forced to hike premiums in some states in order to shoulder the financial burden. Trial lawyers, on the other hand, have found mold litigation to be a growth industry.

But what does science say? Studies done on mold's health effects suggest it can irritate preexisting conditions such as asthma and allergies. In very rare cases—usually when a patient is severely immunocompromised—fungi can cause serious infections.

If you live in a moldy house and you have asthma, your asthma is likely to get worse. It's well documented that children born into damp houses they tend to have more respiratory infections. For that reason, the CDC, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and ACOEM advise people with mold problems to identify the water source causing its growth and clean up existing infestation with either bleach or soap and water.

However, an association between airborne exposure to any mold and cancer has never been documented, nor has mold been implicated in neurological damage. By blaming mold, many experts believe that other, perhaps more dangerous environmental toxins or disease conditions could be overlooked.

Only a limited number of studies provides suggestive evidence mold exposure might cause more serious symptoms. A study by Veteran Affairs Northern California Health Care System found patients who were exposed to mold in their homes and workplaces performed worse on a number of cognitive measures than unexposed subjects.

A sentinel study by Dr. Eckardt Johanning of Albany, NY, reviewed the symptoms and tested blood samples of patients with indoor mold exposure and found they exhibited disorders of the respiratory system, skin, mucous membranes, and central nervous system. However, because the researchers did not compare the subjects to an unexposed control group, the findings are of limited use.

Should more studies be done? Definitely. In the meantime, keep your home dry and clean regularly with bleach!

From information posted Wednesday, September 03 @ 10:31:27 CEST by Superuser

Mad Cows, Pugnacious Pigs, Silent Chickens & Alzheimers

Avoiding hamburger or switching to chicken may not be enough to keep you safe from Mad Cow disease, despite official assurances. As reported by Michael Greger, MD, in Well Being Journal, March/April 2004, Mad Cow disease is more extensive than officially recognized, and a variant of the disease is being misdiagnosed as Alzheimers.

"Mad Cow," or Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (CJD), is a tragic form of brain wasting characterized by dementia, psychosis, paralysis, and invariably death. One form of this disease is known to be spread by eating beef from cows already infected with CJD.

However, it is not just infected beef that can cause problems. Researchers have more recently acknowledged a connection between lamb and pork. Hundreds of "mad sheep" were found in the U.S. in 2003, and there is reason to suspect the pork and fowl supply, too. Cattle remains are still boiled down and legally fed to pigs and chickens in this country. Chickens, of course, are natural vegetarians!

Dr. Paul Brown, medical director for the U.S. Public Health Service, believes that pigs and poultry could indeed be passing on Mad Cow disease to humans. "It's speculation," he says, "but I am perfectly serious."

The USDA may have actually recorded an outbreak of "mad pig" disease in New York 25 years ago but still refuses to reopen the investigation, despite petitions from the Consumer's Union. Sporatic CJD has also been associated with the consumption of roast lamb, veal, venison, brains in general, and in North America, seafood. Even though chickens and turkeys themselves are not susceptible, they may become "silent carriers" of Mad Cow and pass it on to human consumers.

Dateline NBC quoted D. Carleton Gajdusek, a Nobel Prize recipient for his research in this field, as saying, "it's got to be in the pigs as well as the cattle. It's got to be passing through the chickens."

A number of autopsy studies have shown that a few percent of Alzheimer's deaths may in fact be CJD. Thousands of Americans may already be dying of Mad Cow disease every year. Gajdusek estimates that 1% of people showing up in Alzheimer clinics actually have CJD.

The USDA considered various precautionary measures as far back as 1991 to protect the public but were overruled by cattle owners. The Cattlemen's Association did not want to set a precedent of being ruled by "activists." Feeding plant protein to farm animals could virtually eliminate the risk of CJD to consumers, but this would cost up to 30% more than feeding cattle remains. "Activists" believe that millions of Americans remain at serious risk.

Earth Island Journal, Summer 2004, reporting on this dilemma, recommends banning all feeding of animal by-products to animals intended for human consumption, the testing of all cattle for CJD at the slaughterhouse (we're now testing only a fraction of one percent), and point-of-origin labeling so consumers can make informed choices. For us that means eating free range beef and poultry or, to be completely safe, going totally vegetarian.

For more information read the book Mad Cow U.S.A. and log on to www.organicconsumers.org/madcow.htm.

Rifkin, Vonnegut & Brinker: Oil's Not Well With The World

Just because Saudia Arabia has recently opened the oil spigots and gasoline prices seem to have peaked, don't get overly complacent. Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Hydrogen Economy, believes that our dependency on oil puts us at continuing risk for global depression.

Rifkin comments, "We have all the conditions coming together to create the perfect economic storm: record oil prices triggering a restriction in US economic growth and an increase in the federal budget deficit, accompanied by further erosion in the value of the dollar—with increased budget deficits and the diminished value of the dollar leading in turn to higher interest rates to convince foreign investors to lend the US additional money, followed by a further retraction of the US economy as rising interest rates lead to a drop in domestic investment and consumption."

With the US economy in apparent recovery it would seem that Rifkin's gloomy assessment is off the mark. But is it? "As long as the US and global economy are increasingly dependent on an ever-dwindling supply of oil from the Middle East, the conditions for a perfect economic storm will continue to haunt us."

Rifkin concludes, "The solution, in the long run, is to wean the world off its dependency on oil. That would require much tougher fuel efficiency standards, greater energy conservation measures, support of hybrid vehicles and a switch to renewable sources of energy."

While Jeremy Rifkin might be dismissed by some as a liberal lefty, it is not so easy for conservatives to ignore business commentators such as Bob Brinker, host of ABC Radio's nationally syndicated Moneytalk. Brinker, who frequently sides with Republicans on most tax issues, recently grumbled, "The reality is, we should have weaned ourselves of Mideast oil many, many years ago. What we need is leadership that starts at the White House. We need to conserve, too.... Don't expect an oil man to do this."

With the solution so obvious, why do we keep relying on oil? And what in the world are we doing mired in Iraq?

Writer Kurt Vonnegut offers this answer:
"Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't like TV news, is it? We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey.
"And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on."

Sources: Jeremy Rifkin is quoted from The Guardian, March 24, 2004. Kurt Vonnegut, "Cold Turkey," In These Times, May 12, 2004. Bob Brinker, Moneytalk, May 29, 2004.

Renewable Energy Grows Hot!

Lest the above story leave you depressed (Vonnegut is funny but mordant!), the good news is that green technology is, pardon the expression, a "growth" industry.

The renewable-energy market is entering a new era, growing independently of fluctuations in fossil-fuel energy prices. Although renewable energy provides only a small percentage of the energy consumed in the U.S. (an estimated 6.7 percent this year) and remains more expensive than fossil-fuel energy, analysts are bullish on its future prospects. Production from renewables continues to rise and prices continue to fall, and investment in solar, wind, and geothermal technologies is growing.

Sources: The New York Times, Barnaby J. Feder, 29 May 2004; San Francisco Chronicle, Jan Sandred, 31 May 2004; www.gristmagazine.com.

Historians Rate Bush: Nixon Looks Good By Comparison

As reported by author and historian Robert S. McElvaine, "a recent informal, unscientific survey of historians conducted at my suggestion by George Mason University's History News Network found that eight in ten historians responding rate the current presidency an overall failure.

"Of 415 historians who expressed a view of President Bush's administration to this point as a success or failure, 338 classified it as a failure and 77 as a success. (Moreover, it seems likely that at least eight of those who said it is a success were being sarcastic, since seven said Bush's presidency is only the best since Clinton's and one named Millard Fillmore.) Twelve percent of all the historians who responded rate the current presidency the worst in all of American history, not too far behind the 19 percent who see it at this point as an overall success."

Of those who rated Bush a success, some expressed bitter irony. McElvaine continues, "'His presidency has been remarkably successful,' one historian declared, 'in its pursuit of disastrous policies.' 'I think the Bush administration has been quite successful in achieving its political objectives,' another commented, 'which makes it a disaster for us.'"

McElvaine notes that while it is too early for history to pass a final judgement, and many historians harbor a liberal bias, the results are still damning. "It seems clear that a similar survey taken during the presidency of Bush's father would not have yielded results nearly as condemnatory." Moreover, the junior Bush rates lower than Ronald Reagan or even Richard Nixon. As one historian adds, "Indeed, Bush puts Nixon into a more favorable light. He has trashed the image and reputation of the United States throughout the world; he has offended many of our previously close allies; he has burdened future generations with incredible debt; he has created an unnecessary war to further his domestic political objectives; he has suborned the civil rights of our citizens; he has destroyed previous environmental efforts by government in favor of his coterie of exploiters; he has surrounded himself with a cabal of ideological adventurers."

McElvaine concludes, "The depth of the negative assessment that so many historians make of George W. Bush is something of which the public should be aware. Their comments make clear that such historians would readily agree with conclusion that then-Democratic presidential hopeful Richard Gephardt pronounced a few months ago: the presidency of George W. Bush is 'a miserable failure.'"

Source: News at Home, 5/17/04. Robert S. McElvaine teaches history at Millsaps College and is author of Eve's Seed: Biology, The Sexes and the Course of History (McGraw-Hill).

Conservatives Berate Bush

It is not just progressives and liberals who dislike Bush policies. A growing number of conservative policy-makers are growing disillusioned with the Bush administration. "Historically, conservatism in the United States has meant support for small government, balanced budgets, fiscal prudence and great skepticism about overseas adventures," notes Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan administration official and one-time young Republican for GOP standard-bearer Barry Goldwater. "What I see now is an administration that's not for any of these things."

Crusading internationalism is being blamed for squandering American lives and precious economic resources. The right-wing National Review recently criticized the Bush administration for its "underestimation... of the difficulty of implanting democracy in alien soil." And conservative columnist George Will recently fumed, "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts."

When Vice President Dick Cheney is quoted as saying, "Deficits don't matter," many conservatives beg to differ. The website of the libertarian Cato Institute bristles with information about government subsidies that the Bush administration has lavished on corporations, despite its laissez-faire rhetoric. "LBJ got pilloried [by conservatives] for guns and butter. It's now guns and butter and tax cuts all put together," noted former Nixon Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson, offended by tax cuts for "fat cats" like himself.

Source: The Nation, "Even Conservatives Are Wondering," May 31, 2004.

Renewable Energy Creates Jobs!

There is a prevailing misconception, often perpetuated by corporate interests, that paying more attention to the environment means throwing people out of work. Since the early 1970s enviros have fought against this myth, which is often translated by reactionary politicians as "Jobs Versus The Environment." In truth, good environmental policies actually create more jobs than they retire.

Federal policies favorable to renewable energy could yield up to 240,000 jobs by 2020 nationwide, whereas continued focus on new fossil-fuel development would yield only some 80,000 jobs, according to a new study by researchers from the University of California at Berkeley. The research was released on April 13, 2004, at a Seattle press conference that highlighted the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of enviros, politicians, labor activists, and deep thinkers that is promoting a national effort on renewable energy commensurate with the single-minded pursuit of space travel under President Kennedy's Apollo Project. The Alliance's goal is to have renewables providing 15 percent of the nation's energy by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020.

The Alliance sees hope for its agenda in the current troubles besetting Bush's dinosaur-fuel energy plan, which is mired in the Senate and dirty with crude.

Sources: The San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and Grist (www.gristmagazine.com), April 14, 2004.

Massage Boosts Immune Function For Breast Cancer Patients

For almost 30 years OPEN EXCHANGE has been touting the benefits of therapeutic massage, and new studies keep confirming this. As reported in www.newsrx.com, the Touch Research Institutes (TRI) at the University of Miami School of Medicine, Florida, announced that massage therapy increases the number of natural killer cells known to destroy cancer cells in women with breast cancer, thereby increasing patient immune function.

The findings are the result of a TRI study conducted with funding from Biotone, San Diego, California, a provider of massage and body treatment products for massage therapy, health, and spa professionals, to determine the effects of massage therapy for enhancing immune function in breast cancer patients.

A total of 58 breast cancer patients from the Miami area participated in the TRI study. Participants, who were in the early stages of cancer, received 20-minute massage therapy twice a week for 5 weeks; others in a control group received no massage therapy.

At the end of the 5-week period, blood tests indicated an 11% increase in the number of natural killer cells that destroy cancer cells among the participants who received massage therapy. These participants also reported being less depressed, less anxious, and less angry, as well as having more vigor than the control group.

"The results of our study indicate the importance of complementary therapies, like massage therapy, for improving the immune function and well being of women with breast cancer," said Dr. Tiffany Field, TRI director.

"This study adds to the many other studies we have conducted about the importance of massage therapy to enhance the immune systems of patients with serious healthcare problems, such as HIV in adolescents and adults and leukemia in children."

"We are at the beginning of a new era where massage therapy will play an increasingly important role in the prevention and treatment of major illnesses," said Monica Fraser, Biotone president.

Source: www.NewsRx.com, 10/16/2003.
Find a local massage therapist in OPEN EXCHANGE's Bodywork Therapies category.

Acupuncture & Acupressure Can Promote Women's Fertility

A new German medical study, published in the April edition of the medical journal Fertility and Sterility, has found that acupuncture, an important element in the 4,000-year-old tradition of Chinese medicine, increases the chance of pregnancy for women undergoing in-vitro fertilization.

It does not identify how acupuncture may affect the uterus and reproductive system, but the researchers found the technique enhanced the chances of becoming pregnant for a significant number of the women in their small study population. "Though the reason that acupuncture helps may be somewhat of a mystery, it is a serious study that deserves attention," ABCNEWS' Dr. Nancy Snyderman said.

Researchers included 160 patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization for the study. The patients, who were all required to have good quality embryos, were evenly and randomly divided into two groups similar in age and diagnosis.

When the patients were examined using ultrasound six weeks after their IVF procedures, the differences in pregnancy rates were notable. In the control group, 26 percent of the women, or 21 out of 80 patients, became pregnant. Of the patients who had received acupuncture treatments, 42 percent of the women, 34 out of 80, became pregnant.

According to the principles of traditional Chinese medicine, energy flows through the body along defined pathways, also called "meridians." The researchers inserted sterile needles into the patients' bodies at specific points, including along the spleen and the stomach "meridians," in an effort to stimulate blood flow and direct energy to the uterus, and to produce a sedative effect.

"The idea being that if you can stimulate the nerves, you can make the uterus quiet and blood flow," Dr. Snyderman said. "It makes it easier for the embryos to take hold."

Researchers inserted additional needles into the patients' ears, both to influence the uterus and stabilize the endocrine system. Needles were left in place for 25 minutes while the patients rested. The control group also rested, lying still for 25 minutes after embryo transfer, as part of the IVF protocol.

The researchers plan to conduct further studies to try to rule out possible psychological or psychosomatic effects.

Dr. Snyderman said the study backs up what doctors have heard anecdotally for years: that by relaxing a woman you can increase her chances of becoming pregnant. This may be the evidence to prove it that has been lacking.

We asked Michael Reed Gach, founder of the Bay Area's Acupressure Institute for comments. He noted that acupressure works on meridians, similar to acupuncture but using touch therapy, not needles.

Michael wrote about using acupressure as a means to stimulate fertility several years ago in his book, Acupressure For Lovers, still available at Amazon.com and at the Acupressure Institute. Having treated a woman with acupressure to help her and her husband conceive, he had the occasion of meeting her again many months later at a local copy store. This time she had young twins in tow. Upon seeing Michael the woman exclaimed in gratitude, "Michael, if it weren't for you I would have never gotten pregnant!" Everyone throughout the store looked up in surprise—and Michael simply smiled!

Sources: ABCNEWS.com, April 16, 2004.
Michael Reed Gach, founder of the Acupressure Institute, longtime OPEN EXCHANGE lister, featured p. 5.