How to Pick the Right Moving Company - Question to Ask Your Potential Mover

You should first narrow down your options to 3 movers, and then use the following vetting process to narrow down your options. Don't be afraid to ask the company about their competitors - a true professional will tell you about their legitimate competition, and their below-average competition. A true professional also knows that they cannot move every customer that comes to them due to scheduling, but it is their duty to point you in the right direction so that they ensure that the customer is in good hands.

Are you licensed, bonded, and insured? Can you send me a certificate of insurance?

A moving company should be readily able to produce insurance documents covering themselves for following types of coverage: general liability, automotive, Worker's Compensation, Motor Truck Cargo. It also helps if they are members of their state moving association, and the national one, namely AMSA, MASS DPU, and DOT. Though these are not required, they provide the peace of mind that a company is verified and in good standing with regulating authorities. If the company you are calling is not a reputable and honest company, they will have trouble answering these questions or providing the documents. They might even try to change the topic. A reliable moving company should be able to provide these answers and documents at a moment's notice!

What is your hourly rate?

Some moving companies have all sorts of hidden rates that they don't disclose up front on the initial few conversations. The pricing structure, no matter how it is calculated, should be transparent and simple. For example, we charge at an hourly rate of time-start, to time-finish, plus an hour for mileage and truck charges. This way we can provide the most accurate moving estimate possible. This structure is a little different with interstate movers, where moves are calculated according to weight of the items being moved.

Can you provide some testimonials from previous customers?

Check the company's rating on sites such as Better Business Bureau, Angie's List, Service Magic, Google, Yahoo etc., and you should get a good feel for what people are saying about them. A company's own website can tout many positive reviews, but keep in mind that these reviews can be manipulated or even fabricated, so reviews on independent sites are much more reliable.

What are my insurance options?

There is an automatic insurance option that is included with your move, though it's not very high. A good moving company should be able to give you a detailed explanation about your options, and back that information up with some documentation for your reference. For more details regarding this, read our blog post on our website about movers insurance options.

Can you provide a binding quote?

If a moving company is not forthcoming with their rates, they will possibly have a nervous breakdown when asked for a binding quote. A binding quote guarantees that your moving cost will not exceed the number quotes to you, and will give you peace of mind and reduce stress.

When faced with the questions, we are proud to say that Brookline Moving Company is regarded as one of the best Boston Movers and Boston Storage companies.

Broojkline Moving Company is a full-service provider of relocation services, including moving, storage, packing, and unpacking. BMC has offices in Walpole, Brookline, Belmont, and Westwood, but provides local, long-distance, and international services to our clients.

To Meat or Not To Meat? That Is The Question

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstein couldn't have said this any better. The only problem, we're not listening to his advice.

This probably isn't a good time of the year to write an article about the effects of eating animal products, but I can't help notice all the stores fridges and freezers stuffed full of fresh and frozen meats all ready and waiting to make their way to the dinner table. Heck, I practically can't walk into the grocery store without being asked if I'd like to try the latest burger or slider or some other type of flesh food they'd like to sell me on. It just makes me shudder to think of what we're doing to not only our health, but also the planet with all this meat mankind is now consuming.

A century ago, the diet of the average person was based on fruits, vegetables, and whole grains products. However many people were not receiving enough nutrition most likely due to their economic status, and many people were developing deficiency diseases. In the early 1900s, food policies changed and were now directed towards eliminating these deficiency diseases. For the less fortunate and undernourished people, adding meat and milk to their diet made a huge difference. Not only that, but studies showed that children who were small for their age, grew faster when given more animal products. As a result, these foods were given special status and governments offered large subsidies to farmers in an effort to increase production. These subsidies also supported intensive marketing initiatives as well as massive nutrition education campaigns to insure increased consumption. Nutritional deficiency diseases quickly decreased, and the interest of animal agriculture was becoming well established in the economy. It began looking as though the job of improving the health of the nation, with the addition of meat and dairy in the diet, had been accomplished.

However, what was discovered by the middle of the twentieth century was a less favorable health picture. Although deficiency diseases were no longer the threat they had once been, heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and obesity were on the rise, and the authorities were baffled. Science could not explain why these serious health conditions were on the increase.

It wasn't until 1990 that the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a panel of nutrition experts from around the world to sort through the existing research and assess the evidence linking diet to disease. Their results were clear. Less whole-milk dairy products, fatty meats and refined sugar, and more vegetables, fruits, cereals and legumes. In the later part of the decade, more and more health organizations joined together to develop and endorse one set of dietary guidelines. Their message was just as clear. Most of what you eat should come from plant sources.

Although governments, health organizations and officials are all aware of this, and encourage the public to increase the amount of plant foods they eat, there remains a great hesitation to tell people to cut back on their consumption of animal products. Sure they tell us to cut back on saturated fat and cholesterol. But aren't animal products the primary source of these harmful dietary substances? This is where the buck stops...or I should say, doesn't stop.

Animal agriculture is big business and it's literally killing us, and our planet. Animal agriculture demands huge amounts of fresh water, is the biggest polluter of our water systems, is destroying the earth's rainforests, is causing desertification, is increasing global warming, and consuming the earth's resources. Here are a few startling facts about animal agriculture from the book "Becoming Vegetarian" by Vesanto Melina and Brenda Davis:

"Animal agriculture demands tremendous amounts of water. It is estimated that almost 50 per cent of all water consumed in the United States is used for the raising of livestock. On average, it takes about 100 times more water to produce a pound of beef than it does to product a pound of wheat."

Animal agriculture is the biggest polluter of our water systems. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), agriculture is the biggest polluter of America's water systems. It is responsible for 70 per cent of water-way pollution, its damage exceeding that of sewage treatment plants, urban storm sewers, and pollution from contaminants in air. The major offenders are livestock-feeding operations. This waste (manure from immense feedlots) never sees a sewage system or treatment plant and all too often ends up poisoning rivers, causing severe oxygen depletion, and devastating fish populations. Livestock manure is a breeding ground for dangerous pathogens such as E. coli, giardia, and pfiesteria, which cause sickness and death in people living in regions where factory farms are concentrated. Furthermore, waste from North America's 9 billion chickens and 150 million other farmed animals is permeated with hormones that propel the bird "from egg to fryer in thirty-nine days" and other similar unnatural feats.

Animal agriculture is destroying the earth's rainforests. According to the Rainforest Action Network, two-thirds of the rain forests in Central America have been cleared primarily for the purpose of raising cheap beef to stock American fast-food establishments. They estimate that for every fast-food burger made from rain forest beef, 16.75 square metres (55 square feet) of tropical rain forest has been cleared. With the trees go twenty to thirty different plant species, 100 different insect species, plus dozens of birds, mammals, and reptile species.

Animal agriculture is causing desertification. Overgrazing is considered the leading cause of desertification worldwide. In the western United States, 70 per cent of the entire land mass is used for grazing livestock. When land is overgrazed, the soil is compacted, decreasing its ability to absorb water. When heavy rains fall, topsoil is carried away. Fifteen centimetres (six inches) of topsoil are needed to grow healthy crops. It takes approximately 3,000 years for nature to produce this amount of topsoil. Every twenty-eight years in the United States, every fourteen years in developing countries, and every seven years in China, 2.5 centimetres (1 inch) of topsoil are lost as the result of current intensive farming practices. As this rate, it is estimated that there are as few as forty-five years of farmable soil left on the planet.

Animal agriculture is increasing global warming. Intensive animal agriculture is a significant factor in global warming, increasing all major global warming gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides, and chlorofluorocarbons. Carbon dioxide emissions come largely from fossil fuels. Raising livestock requires huge amounts of fossil fuels-for transporting feed, heating shelters (often large buildings), and transporting animals to slaughter and the products to meat-packing plants and stores. According to Worldwatch Institute, 15-20 per cent of all methane emissions come directly from livestock. In addition, the chemical fertilizers used to produce food for grain-fed animals are important contributors to nitrous oxides. Finally, the increased refrigeration necessary to preserve animal products releases chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere.

Animal agriculture is consuming the earth's resources. It is estimated that if every inhabitant on this planet used as many resources to produce his or her food as each American does, we would need three planet earths to sustain the current population. Unfortunately, that is the very direction we are heading. Between 1990 and 1995, China's grain consumption increased by 36,280,000 tonnes (40 million tons). Of this total, 29,931,000 tonnes (33 million tons) were consumed as animal fodder and 6,349,000 tonnes (7 million tons) as food for humans. China, like many other developing countries, is rapidly moving up the food chain. Tragically, more and more of the world's resources are used for raising livestock to provide food for the wealthy, while one in every six people goes hungry every day. Today, our planet is home to nearly 1 billion pigs, 1.3 billion cows, 1.8 billion sheep and goats, and 13.5 billion chickens-more than two chickens for each man, woman, and child. We have altered vast ecosystems and devoted massive resources to support this inefficient way of eating. The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people-more than the entire human population on earth.

"Becoming Vegetarian" was copyrighted in 2003. I would imagine some of these figures are now much higher.

Consuming less meat and other animal products (or eliminating them all together) will not only have a significant effect on the improvement of one's health, but will also help our earth and her resources. Reducing our consumption of animal products is easy to do, and there are many books and recipes both online, and in your local bookstore or library, that can help you make the transition to a healthier diet. Many supermarkets now carry a large variety of meat and dairy alternative products. There are also many nutritional supplements that contain a broad spectrum of nutrients to supply our body with the vital nutrition we need.

AIM's Daily Essentials consisting of BarleyLife, AIMega, and Herbal FiberBlend will provide us with the greens, essential fatty acids and fibre we need on a daily basis to help our body detoxify, cleanse, build and energize.

Hopefully very soon, governments, health organizations, agriculturists, farmers, and people from all walks of life will realize we cannot continue to consume our earth's resources at the rate we are consuming them. Unless we do, there won't be much hope for future generations.

To meat or not to meat? The answer should be clear.

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

The AIM Companies provides high-quality whole food concentrates and superior nutritional supplements. Their products work well for anyone wanting to improve their nutritional status and would be very beneficial for vegetarians, semi-vegetarians, and vegans. For more information about the AIM products, please visit our website at http://www.followthegreen.com where you can read more, download a data sheet and watch a video. As with any supplement it is always recommended to read the literature thoroughly to find out if this product is right for you, and consult a health care practitioner if you have any medical conditions or concerns.

A Member of The AIM Companies for over twenty-three years, Joanne Jackson takes pride in sharing her knowledge of nutrition and the AIM products with others. As an advocate of healthy eating and proper nutrition, Joanne understands that the choices we make, and choosing them wisely, is the key to wellness. Joanne holds a certificate in Nutrition: Studies and Applications and a certificate in Natural Health Fundamentals. She is currently studying for her diploma as a Certified Holistic Nutritionist. http://www.followthegreen.com

Mold: To Test Or Not To Test - That Is The Question

Let me start off by saying that I am not a mold specialist, nor do I test for mold. In fact, home inspectors are not even allowed by the NC Home Inspection Licensure Board to call a substance mold unless they are experts in the field. We can and do use the words mold-like substances even if it's obviously mold. However I did study microbiology in high school and college and my first major was medical lab technician. I am familiar with mold and other micro-organisms and have worked with them extensively. Now as a licensed home inspector I work closely with real estate professionals in the transaction of homes. There is a lot of misconception about mold as it relates to homes and this article is an attempt to clear up the confusion.

My hope is to give you a better understanding of the research on mold; the health effects, what it does to homes and what should be done if it is found. I hope to clear up questions you might have about how moisture, mildew and mold can complicate home sales. I hope to give you enough information from the experts so you can understand how unfair the lawsuits are that have been in the news. To me, the real threat in homes is the long term effects of moisture and mold which is structural issues due to rot.

From my research as well as my personal opinion, mold testing is not necessary. When mold, or mold like substances are found in a home by a home inspector, it shouldn't be a deal breaker even if the inspector/tester thinks it should be. Let me share with you the conclusions of the experts on the subject so you will have a better understanding of what you are facing when you encounter mold or mold like substances or shall we just call it all - fungus.

Here are the basics about mold:

Molds are decomposers of dead organic material such as leaves, wood and plants. Without mold, we would find ourselves wading deep in dead plant matter. And we wouldn't have cheese and some medicines without mold. But mold needs water to grow; without water mold cannot grow. In order to reproduce, molds produce spores, which spread through air, water and by insects. These spores act like seeds and can form new mold growth if the conditions are right. Think of spores as dandelion seeds on a microscopic level. A little air movement and they're everywhere hoping to land where they can grow. It's important to realize that mold spores are present everywhere, in outside air as well as indoor air. They just don't grow unless the conditions are right.

Since mold needs moisture to grow, here are a few things to look for around your house.

• The sprinkler system too close to the house

• Downspouts and the ground sloping toward the house

• A watered garden too close to the house

Then there are less obvious sources of moisture in a house you may not see right away that would be picked up during an inspection.

Things like:

• Moisture movement through exterior walls from things such as:

• Poor caulking and paint

• Poor flashings

• Poor shingles

• Poor thresholds

• Interior rooms excluded from air circulation like closets

• Poor attic ventilation trapping moisture in the attic

• Humid summer air condensing on cooler crawl space surfaces when there is no vapor barrier present

• Moisture wicking up through the slab if the builder didn't provide a vapor barrier

• High humidity from showering, cooking, etc.

• Plumbing leaks

• Any break in the synthetic stucco envelope

Think about this. It only takes 24 to 48 hours for mold to develop. How often do today's homeowners check their crawl space and attic to make sure there are no leaks? Some areas where mold develops, like a broken pipe in a wall or ceiling, are more obvious and are picked up early enough to make repairs before there's much damage. Others like faulty bathroom caulk which allows moisture into the structure over a long period of time, can be so hidden that no one notices until the framing is so rotted the tub falls into the crawl space. Well, maybe not. The likelihood of catching mold before it causes structural damage is less likely than finding rot. We need to be more concerned about rot and structural issues than mold. Mold can be cleaned up but rot must be replaced and can cause significantly more damage. Short term moisture - mold, long term moisture - rot.

Construction methods and building standards have changed to accommodate the increased interest in conserving energy. Houses built prior to the 1930's generally had no effective insulation in either ceilings or walls. In essence they were naturally ventilated and moisture dried out quickly. Roofs were usually steeply pitched and constructed with shingles that had gaps between them which ventilated attics and cooled the roof deck. These homes were, of course, heat wasters. Heat escaped into the attics and natural ventilation kept the attic air moving. Homes today don't dry out as quickly because we insulate better and build tighter. Besides that homes today are built with more moisture-sensitive materials. Paper, like that which is found on drywall is nature's most perfect mold food. Mold likes processed wood more than it likes lumber. Just a little moisture in processed wood like OSB and particle board can affect its stability.

Mold can even be built into new homes. In this age when time is money, contractors may not wait until the house structure dries out after a rain before sealing in the walls, trapping the moisture in the walls. This may not happen often but it can happen; so even new homes should be inspected. If you walk into a brand new house and it smells musty, there's probably a problem.

Now let's see what the experts say about mold.

Most people have no reaction when exposed to molds. The biggest health problem from exposure to mold is allergy and asthma in susceptible people. However exposure to environmental factors other than mold in damp indoor spaces, notably house dust mites, viruses, tobacco smoke, and cockroaches, along with pesticides, volatile organic compounds and fumes from furnishings or construction materials can cause the same health effects. There are no tests to determine whether the symptoms are caused by the mold or something else.

There are more than 100,000 types of mold. Some molds, like Stachybotrys, produce toxic substances called mycotoxins. These molds generally have a higher water requirement than common household molds and tend to thrive only under conditions of chronic and severe water damage. Presently we don't know all that much about the health effects of most mycotoxins on humans. Most of what we know about mycotoxins comes from exposure of farm animals to moldy grain or hay. We don't have any tests that can determine whether mycotoxins are the cause of someone's illness. We can't easily or reliably measure the level of mycotoxins in air samples to determine exposure levels. Currently there are only guidelines and no regulations regarding indoor mold. There may never be any regulations on exposure to mold, because even the lowest levels bother people with severe hypersensitivity. Believe it or not, allergic responses can come from exposure to dead as well as to living mold spores. Therefore, killing mold with bleach and or other disinfectants may not prevent allergic responses.

What about black mold? Stachybotrys is a mycotoxin producing mold and usually associated with black mold. It's one of several that are very unhealthy but gets all the attention. Stachybotrys does not easily grow indoors and requires large amounts of moisture to grow. The known health effects from exposure to Stachybotrys are similar to other common molds, but have been inconclusively associated with more severe health effects in some people. Testing for it is expensive; the results are difficult to interpret and often inconclusive.

From a 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine:

There are no existing effective, reliable measurement processes for mold and that such assessment techniques should be developed. The entire process of fungal-spore aerosolization, transport, deposition, re-suspension, and tracking, all of which determine inhalation exposure, is poorly understood, and methods for assessing human exposure to fungal agents are poorly developed. In clinical medical practice, there is no known dose-response relationship between a specific ambient fungal concentration and any human health effects. There is no significant clinical evidence that humans have adverse effects of immunotoxic, neurologic, respiratory or dermal responses after exposure to mold other than allergic reaction and that, in the clinical medical field, there is no known dose response relationship between a specific ambient fungal concentration and any toxic human health effect. Therefore, there is no valid data available to support sampling since an assessment of risk-relevant exposure cannot be produced.

The following are statements from the Scientific Community:

• The Texas Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs released a report in September 2002 stating that there is no significant evidence connecting "black mold" to human disease.

• The American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery has reported that there is no convincing evidence of a causal association between the black mold Stachybotrys and human disease.

• The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine states that, except for persons with severely impaired immune systems, indoor mold is not a source of fungal infections. Current scientific evidence does not support the proposition that human health has been adversely affected by inhaled mycotoxins in homes, schools or office environments.

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported July 2003 that in "A Scientific View of the Health Effects of Mold," a team of scientists found that mold can cause reactions for those who are prone to allergies. Infections caused by mold are rare, except for those who are "immune compromised." The study concludes that "there is no sound scientific evidence that mold causes 'toxicity' in doses found in home environments."

• Dr. Gailen Marshall, Jr., Director, Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at the Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, states that some people do develop allergies and experience symptoms of asthma or hay fever when exposed to some mold spores. "There also are a few mold-related diseases that can be serious, but those are rare. So what about the 'experts' who claim to diagnose all sorts of mold-related illnesses such as memory loss or learning disabilities? There is no proof to support those claims."

• The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, in its report issued in May 2004, failed to find evidence of a causal link with (mold) and a wide variety of other health conditions.

• The National Center for Environmental Health states that at present there is no test that proves an association between Stachybotrys Chartarum and particular health symptoms.

• The Environmental Protection Agency states that the standards or threshold limit values for airborne concentrations of mold or mold spores have not been set. Currently, there are no EPA regulations or standards for airborne mold contaminants.

• The American Industrial Hygiene Association states that some molds produce toxic substances called mycotoxins. Airborne mycotoxins have not been shown to cause health problems for occupants in residential or commercial buildings.

• Drs. Chapman, Terr, Jacobs, Charlesworth and Bardana report the conclusion of their recent study in the September 2003 issue of Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology: "When mold related symptoms occur, they are likely the result of transient irritation, allergy, or infection. Building-related illness due to mycotoxicosis has never been proved in the medical literature. Prompt remediation of water-damaged material and infrastructure repair should be the primary response to fungal contamination in buildings."

There are several ways to test for mold. In bulk sampling, samples (like sections of drywall, pieces of carpet or air filters) are collected for analysis to determine if molds are actively growing. In surface sampling, a swab or adhesive tape lifts the samples for analysis. Air sampling uses a suction type pump to sample the air. According to the HUD Healthy Homes Issue "air sampling is more technically challenging and has greater opportunity for error than source sampling. Comparative assessments of the performance of the different samplers have been inconclusive, although certain samplers have been observed to perform better for specific purposes."

According to the New York City Department of Health, "air sampling for fungi should not be part of a routine assessment. This is because decisions about appropriate remediation strategies can usually be made on the basis of a visual inspection. In addition, air-sampling methods for some fungi are prone to false negative results and therefore cannot be used to definitively rule out contamination. Microscopic identification of the spores/colonies requires considerable expertise. These services are not routinely available from commercial laboratories."

From another expert, Dr. Yost of the Building Science Corporation, "an increasing number of companies are offering 'air testing for mold.' On the surface this seems like a reasonable thing to do. The problem, however, is that the results of most air sampling for mold are meaningless for two reasons. Air sampling for mold was not developed to determine if an environment was safe or has a dangerous level of mold in the air. Air sampling was developed to help identify the location of a hidden reservoir of mold. If the source of mold is already identified, air sampling does not provide additional meaningful information. Furthermore, safe or toxic levels of airborne mold have not been established. An individual air sample for mold provides a 'snapshot' of what was in the air during the few minutes of sampling. The results may not be indicative of the amount of mold that is in the air during most of the day. The Center for Disease Control, the US Environmental Protection Agency and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists do not recommend routine air testing for mold." "The Minnesota Department of Health does not recommend testing for mold. Instead, you should simply assume there is a problem whenever you see mold or smell mold odors. Testing should never take the place of visual inspection and it should never use up resources that are needed to correct moisture problems and remove all visible growth. Mold testing is rarely useful for trying to answer questions about health concerns."

Again according to Dr. Yost, "Don't test for mold. If you see it or smell it you have it. You don't need to know what species it is to deal with it. You should deal with all mold exactly the same way. Fix the water problem that caused it. Replace the water damaged materials. Clean up the mold, dust and mold spores. If for some inexplicable reason you decide to test for mold insist that the report contains only the following things: Who did the test and when? Where were the samples taken and how? How were the samples analyzed? What are the results of the analysis? The report should contain absolutely no interpretation. Too much mold in a home is obvious. If you see mold and you smell mold - you have mold - and if you see it and you smell it you probably have too much of it. If a home has mold and the water problem that led to mold is obvious it is pointless to test for mold. Mold testing is expensive. Any money spent on mold testing will not be available for cleaning up the mold and fixing the water problem that led to the mold. Also, the samples can take days or weeks to be analyzed - time that is lost that could better be spent cleaning up the mold and fixing the water problem. No recognized authoritative public agency recommends mold testing to guide the clean-up or to direct correction of the water problem."

So when is testing advised by the experts? Dr. Yost again: "Biological measurements sometimes provide useful information in finding hidden mold when thorough inspection has not found moisture or mold. The likelihood that airborne samples will provide evidence that inspection does not is very small. Reserve sampling for mystery cases, where things smell moldy or people complain of symptoms that are consistent with mold exposure, but no mold is found upon inspection. If an insurance company or a third party requires 'testing to verify the presence of mold,' simply send a piece of moldy material to a qualified lab for verification of the presence of mold."

Alright, your house has mold or mold-like substances. Now what? Find the cause of the moisture and fix it fast. Begin remediation. Remove damaged material (especially porous materials) that can't be cleaned or is more expensive to clean than replace. Clean the salvaged material (non-porous). Dry out the area before closing in a wall or ceiling. New building materials were mentioned earlier. Again, Dr Yost says, "Materials like lumber, plywood, oriented strand board (OSB), particle board, paper covered gypsum board may or may not be salvageable. The base case test is - has the material lost structural integrity? Mold growing on solid lumber is most likely a surface contamination issue, not a structural issue. It can be cleaned, dried and salvaged. If solid lumber has lost structural integrity, then it has been colonized by wood decay fungi and probably certain bacteria and that portion must be replaced." Who should do the clean-up? "The Institute of Medicine committee studied numerous historical studies and publications on the prevention and remediation of mold. The most recent of these include remediation procedures that are based on the assumption that mold is toxic and should be remediated in a manner similar to remediation of a building with asbestos. The physician panel proposes that until medical science has evidence of mold toxicity, remediation should be based on non-clinical factors and the focus should be on moisture control and structural repair." According to the New York City Department of Health, "there are no special requirements for the disposal of moldy materials."

In summary, above all, when there's a moisture problem, it needs to be fixed - fast. Whether it's a leak or high humidity, time is of the essence. The source needs to be located and repaired. The affected area needs to be either cleaned or replaced and dried thoroughly.

As far as testing goes, research is very specific. It doesn't matter what species of mold is present. The only time testing is useful is to find hidden mold or determine if an area has been adequately cleaned or remediated.

The houses we hear about in the big lawsuits had to be extremely wet for a very long time. Why didn't anyone notice the obvious mold? Were they empty for a long period of time? Didn't they have an inspection before they moved in?

Who is to blame when mold is found in a house - who do you sue? Nature? Father Time when a fifty year old pipe bursts? The sun because the shingles succumbed?

If the experts say that there is no connection to mold and health issues other than allergies, where did the data come from in these lawsuits to say that there is?

I hope this answers at least some of the questions and misconceptions you have about the mysterious mold issue in homes.

By Judy Abernathy

A Lady Home Inspection Service

PO Box 987

Davidson, NC 28036

704-239-3700

Smart Parents Question Vaccines

The vaccine debate is escalating. With 18 states currently considering laws to mandate the new HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine for school entry, the number of persons questioning the necessity of vaccination is at an all-time high. Those promoting vaccination seem to be pulling out all the stops to defend their positions.

On February 4, 2007, New York Times Online published a review of a new book, "VACCINE: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesaver, by Arthur Allen. Here is a portion of David Oshinsky's review:

"Allen is sympathetic to parental fears regarding the dangers of various vaccines, though he remains skeptical that scientific studies of these dangers, no matter how rigorous, will open many minds. At this point, he writes, much of the 'antivaccinist' leadership is composed of countercultural types who view life through the prism of conspiracy theory: the government lies, the drug companies are evil, the medical profession is corrupt; trust the Internet instead...To a large extent, says Allen, this antivaccination impulse is fueled by an ignorance of the past. Vaccines have done their job so well that most parents today are blissfully unaware of the diseases their children are being inoculated against.

"The end result is a culture that has become increasingly risk-averse regarding vaccination because people have greater trouble grasping the reward. The problem appears to be growing. As more children go unvaccinated in the United States, there has been a rise in vaccine-preventable diseases. Meanwhile, fewer pharmaceutical companies are now producing vaccines, citing the high cost of testing, diminishing markets and a fear of litigation. For Allen, a reversal of these trends will require something long overdue: a frank national discussion about the risks and benefits of vaccination. His splendid book is a smart place to begin."(1)

Allen's book appears to be one in a recent series of books that give tribute to the "wonder of vaccines." Based on Oshinsky's commentary, the author seems to promote his views by disparaging intelligent adults and dedicated physicians who have researched the problems associated with vaccines and consider mass vaccination to be the casualty-causing loss-leader of the pharmaceutical industry. The drug companies count vaccine injuries as few, at least in part, because safety is concluded through the use of large epidemiological studies. The larger one makes the denominator, the easier it is to discount the size of the numerator. For example, 231 injured in a study that involved 679,900 persons makes the percentage of those injured appear unarguably small.(2)

But vaccine injuries are real despite claims that occurrences are rare. Fears of developing autism as a result of vaccination have been dismissed by mainstream medicine which prefers to attribute the increase incidence of autism, currently at 1 in 166 children, to the unfounded mechanism called a "better diagnosis." (3)

Thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines has received much attention in the association with autism. Undoubtedly, many children have been damaged by mercury in vaccines as the numbers of successful recoveries using chelation therapy attest. However, the rate of autism in California has continued to escalate despite the removal of mercury from most of the childhood vaccines.(4) The rest of the ingredients in the vaccines need to be investigated with the same intensity as mercury. The answers regarding the toxicity of these substances are still forthcoming.

Another avenue being heavily investigated is the search for genetic causes of autism spectrum disorders.(5) The identification of a corrupted gene will allow doctors to point an incriminating finger at defective parents as the "cause" of their child's autism. A better use of scare research funds would be to investigate which bio-medical treatments are most effective for these ill children.

Chronic illnesses among children, such as allergies/asthma, diabetes, ADD-ADHD and cancer, have exploded over the last 10 years. Instead of suspecting the large number of vaccine antigens and aliquots of chemicals being injected into chubby little thighs in the name of "health" for problems as children get older, drugs such as Prozac and Concerta, designed for adults, have been given expanded approval for use in children. It is notable that since vaccines for rotavirus, hepatitis A and an annual flu shot have been added, children inoculated with all recommended vaccines receive more than 110 vaccine antigens by the time they enter kindergarten. Measurable amounts of formaldehyde, MSG, and aluminum are also present in the chemical soup. The image of four to five syringes being jabbed into infants every other month during the first year of life should be startling enough to make even the most trusting parent pause and question.

Healthcare providers continue to view vaccination in the same way as described by Mr. Allan's catchy book title: "Medicine's greatest lifesaver." This accolade is attributed to the reduction of childhood infectious diseases such as chickenpox, mumps and three-day measles. But can a negative truly be proven? Conventional medicine assumes that all children will be exposed and when exposed, all unvaccinated children will get sick. This is a faulty premise. If a vaccinated child does not contract chickenpox, is it due to the protection of the vaccine? Or was it because the child was never exposed to the virus?

What if an unvaccinated child is exposed but does not become sick? Isn't that a testament to the health of the child's immune system? Not every child in a classroom exposed to influenza comes down with the flu. Long term studies comparing the health of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations of children as they enter adulthood are very much needed to clearly define the benefits of vaccination.

A patient population from which this data could be evaluated is the nearly 35,000 unvaccinated children cared for by Homefirst Health Services in metropolitan Chicago. The good health of these children can be assumed; for example, there have been no reported cases of autism among this group.(6) Examining the health histories of these children could be a telling exercise. Discovering that large numbers of unvaccinated children have not contracted "vaccine-preventable diseases" --or if they did, they recovered uneventfully--would deliver a serious blow to the concept that vaccination is necessary to keep children healthy. An even more provocative study would be to examine the health of the unvaccinated, older children (those approaching 18 years of age) including a questionnaire investigating how many are on prescription drugs.

If vaccines were safe, manufacturers would not need to have federal legislation to protect them from liability. If vaccines were effective, no one would question the value of their use. If vaccines were good for us, state mandates would not be necessary to force them upon children. A growing number of adults are investigating vaccines, discovering the truth about their contents and refusing injections for their children.

Vaccines are grown on monkey kidneys, in chicken embryos and contain bovine (cow) serum. Vaccines contain particles of viruses, bits of bacteria and measurable amounts of aluminum, formaldehyde, gelatin, polysorbate 80, MSG and other chemicals. A responsible adult who concludes that this combination of pathogens and chemicals can be harmful is not a "countercultural type who views life through a prism of conspiracy theory" as Mr. Allen apparently contends in his book. Understanding that autoimmune reactions can be the consequence of injecting animal cells and foreign chemicals into the body does not require a medical degree or PhD. Instead of calling them names, parents and physicians who challenge the current dogma that has been spoon-fed to us for nearly two centuries should be commended.

According to Oshinsky, Mr. Allen calls for "a frank national discussion about the risks and benefits of vaccination." I wholeheartedly agree. The real health risks of vaccination are well documented but rarely discussed. Beyond the impact of vaccines on health, the economic ramifications of vaccine injuries need to be exposed. Vaccine manufacturers and government officials attempt to justify the cost of vaccine programs by showing a correlation between dollars spent on immunization and healthcare dollars saved. For example, in 2005 it was reported that vaccinations saved more than $52 billion in total health care costs and 33,000 childrens' lives.(7) Because injuries are reported as rare, dollars spent to care for those who are injured are never published to balance the other side of the accounting ledger.

Medical expenses of a vaccine-injured person can be substantial and need to be included in the economic profile. A distinct example comes from a study of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports between 1990 and 1995. A total of 697 patients were identified who experienced syncope (a fainting spell) within 12 hours following vaccinations. Six patients had falls that resulted in a serious head injury, including skull fracture, cerebral bleeding and cerebral contusion. All six patients experienced the episode within 15 minutes of vaccination and were injured either in, or just outside, the doctor's office or clinic where the vaccination was given. Three of these patients required surgery, and two were left with substantial residual deficit at six months to two years after follow-up.(8)

Even though the number of patients in this report is small, these costs of their life-time care could be in the millions of dollars. Keep in mind this report encompasses only one injury example. Similar analyses for all other injuries should be undertaken. The expenditure of healthcare dollars to care for injured individuals could negate any meaningful "savings" touted by vaccine pundits.

Since the federal government is the largest purchaser of vaccines, the cost to the American taxpayer for mandated state vaccination programs needs to be discussed. The Vaccines For Children Program (VFC) allows children and teens to get vaccines through Federally Qualified Health Centers or Rural Health Centers, purchased by government dollars, if their private health insurance does not cover the vaccine. In addition, mandated vaccines increase the cost of insurance for everyone, even those who do not have children or do not want to receive the vaccines. These costs, in addition to the requirement to vaccinate children in exchange for a public education, must be part of that "frank national discussion."

Yes, Mr. Allen, a nationwide open discussion is long overdue.

____________________________________________________

(1) Oshinsky, David. "Preventive Medicine." A book review of "VACCINE: The Controversial Story of Medicine's Greatest Lifesave" published on New York Times Online. February 4, 2007.

(2) Barlow, WE. et al. "The risk of seizures after receipt of whole-cell pertussis or measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 30;345(9):656-61. PMID: 11547719

(3) "A better Diagnosis: What Newsweek Missed," by Dan Olmsted. January 20, 2006.

(4) M.I.N.D. Institute Study Confirms Autism Increase.

(5) "Genetic cause of autism." January 18, 2006.

(6)"The Age of Autism: A pretty big secret," by Dan Olmsted. Dec. 7, 2005. UPI.

(7) Ensuring a Stable Vaccine Supply. May 18, 2005.

(8) Braun MM, et al. Syncope after immunization. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1997;151:255-9.

Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny is respected as one of the country?s most knowledgeable and outspoken medical physicians regarding the negative impacts of vaccines on health. Through her education company, NMA Media Press, she spreads her vision of retaining freedom of choice in healthcare, including the freedom to refuse vaccination.

Her three hour DVD, Vaccines: The Risk, The Benefits and The Choices,, her new book FOWL! Bird flu: It?s Not What You Think, and many other books, tapes and materials are available at http://www.nmaseminars.com/

Her clinic, OsteoMed II in Cleveland, Ohio provides bio-medical treatment for vaccine-injured children. For more information see http://www.osteomed2.com