Talk:Stachybotrys chartarum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cyril.li.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Stachybotrys chartarum → Black mold – S. chartarum is the species of mold to which the news media are referring to when they talk about "black mold", such as here, here, and here. While there is some evidence that all molds of the Stachybotrys genus may be considered black molds, only one of these molds currently has an article written on it, and that is S. chartarum because no other species has been identified as being the cause of any health problems (I am certain they could be, but whenever a sample of Stachybotrys genus mold is sampled and specified, it looks like it almost always turns out to be S. chartarum). When people are looking for information on black mold, they need to land on an article about the black mold they are almost certainly looking for, and that mold is S. chartarum, not the genus Stachybotrys generally and not on an article with the namespace S. chartarum but on the namespace "Black mold". I will be glad to handle the various clean-up steps once the move has been made (fixing hatnotes, redirects, disambig entries, etc.). KDS4444 (talk) 07:16, 4 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  15:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. A difficult one, as most of the English-speaking world calls it mould, not mold! So we will be moving from a generic term to an American-specific term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Popular usage is notoriously inaccurate. Scientific names give precision, as per WP:AT. I doubt very much that "black moulds" are regularly identified to species level. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Redirecting Black mould and Black mold to Stachybotrys chartarum is fine, but not the other way round. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• oppose per Peter Southwood--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as compromises accuracy, Pbsouthwood sums it up well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• There are likely many other fungi which are black or nearly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

We also see that Black mould redirects to Aspergillus niger Black mold.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  12:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 15#Black mould.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  13:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Need to remove misinformation

The CDC has not found any evidence that Stachybotrys chartarum can be characterized as "toxic mold". I deleted the reference to "toxic mold" but it was restored by @Esculenta because there is a redirect. I see the citation is based on a fringe conspiracy theorist book (Black mold: Your health and your home). It needs to be made abundantly clear that any characterization of toxic mold is a misnomer. I then started to look at some of the other sources used in the article. Many of the sources are problematic and not from recognized experts in human health. ScienceFlyer (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The CDC's website isn't the best source in this case for a number of reasons, not the least of which is how cutting-edge some of the research into S. chartarum is right now. You might find this review paper by Dyląg et al. (2022) useful -- they were rather thorough in their perusal of the literature and dissection of which case studies were well-thought vs. half-baked.

Thank you all for being so diligent about ensuring the accuracy of these pages! It's really appreciated. 69.41.94.249 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The mouse study is flawed. Rodents likely have an immunity that humans wouldn't have due to the niche they exploit. 89.12.142.74 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

What?!

I'm sorry, the cdc is not a reliable source. Mice are not great canaries for black mould. Literally their are tons of studies showing the negative health effects of living with black mould. This page is garbage. 89.12.142.74 (talk) 05:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Review of black moulds toxicity

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8945704/

This wiki page is garbage misinformation, black mould is toxic to humans, whoever wrote otherwise should probably take care if their tenants mould problem instead of messing around on Wikipedia causing actual harm. Do we need moderation and to kick the page? I'll be checking back here regularly. Above is the tool to fix this wiki page. 2A02:3032:0:FC44:74A5:A862:AC2B:714 (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)talonx

In summary from the 2022 article

"Interaction of these metabolites with mucous membranes of the respiratory or digestive tract and with the skin can induce necrotic changes and even life-threatening pulmonary or gastrointestinal hemorrhage."

The 2024 CDC article was not real research, but a pretty bad review of a single old data set. The 2012 study on mice is riddled with problems and contradicted by the 2022 review above. The citation in this article is the perfect example of scientifically illiterate persons not understanding how to read, sort, or cite research.

This wiki article is going to damage someone's health if it is not changed. It probably already has done harm.the 77.11.126.72 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The link you listed is included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 meaning articles from that specefic journal are generally avoided when there is better alternatives. I'm not super up to date on this topic so I'll have to do some more research before making any strong opinions however Hossain, Mohammad Ashraf; Ahmed, Mohamed Sotohy; Ghannoum, Mahmoud Afif (2004). "Attributes of Stachybotrys chartarum and its association with human disease☆". Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 113 (2). Elsevier BV: 200–208. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2003.12.018. ISSN 0091-6749. looks like it may be a good place to start. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Newer reviews that might potentially be useful: Australian government, German consensus, Science-Based Medicine, Skeptical Inquirer ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be one of the better newer reviews: Dyląg M, Spychała K, Zielinski J, Łagowski D, Gnat S. Update on Stachybotrys chartarum-Black Mold Perceived as Toxigenic and Potentially Pathogenic to Humans. Biology (Basel). 2022 Feb 23;11(3):352. doi: 10.3390/biology11030352. PMID: 35336726; PMCID: PMC8945704. Also this older review seems to be pretty good: Pestka JJ, Yike I, Dearborn DG, Ward MD, Harkema JR. Stachybotrys chartarum, trichothecene mycotoxins, and damp building-related illness: new insights into a public health enigma. Toxicol Sci. 2008 Jul;104(1):4-26. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfm284. Epub 2007 Nov 15. PMID: 18007011. Jaredroach (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)