Re: Re: HUD Notice on Mold

[Guest guest]

The reactivity is real. I have it too.

Janet

[Guest guest]

The reactivity is real. I have it too.

Janet

[Guest guest]

,

Yes, this is getting rather amusing. Too bad I don't know someone in

the media who would pick up on this. But, our media doesn't report the

truth anyway, so the beat goes on.... Innocent people, as you pointed

out in your comments, and home buyers need a degree in toxicology to

figure this stuff out. Yes, I guess many are under the illusion that

the government will protect them with laws, and inspections. But,

many of these home inspectors never have been in construction at all,

as I had to find out the hard way. Some of them only have to take a 4

or 6-week training course, but the buyers mistakenly believe they know

what they are doing and probably pay them $500 or so, for their useless

report. Then the buyers risk losing not only their health, but their

health AND sometimes bankruptcy too, since the house could be a total

loss with most mold being excluded from policies now.

You have to wonder if HUD knows that if they don't cover themselves on

mold, they would be opening up even more future lawsuits.

But, insurance companies have big, powerful lobbies that contribute to

political campaigns, and they end up running the show. It's going to

take a lot to fight this stuff. But, I think that information

technology hopefully will level the playing field, in at least uniting

the little guy and victims, and by sharing all this information and

trying to educate and inform the public about the dangers of mold,

hidden mold in wall cavities, from any water intrusion into the home,

or inside of the home.

Are you really living in a tent?

Judi

On Jun 10, 2004, at 11:35 AM, moldincolo wrote:

> OK -- I've been able to think about this overnight.  I'm not trying to

> be inflammatory and hysterical, but this is now getting to be at least

> amusing, so

> maybe I'll try for the other hysterical in the future.  Al en

> says that the activist left has to be funnier than the current

> administration to win the

> swing...

>

> So my continuing concern here is what I percieve as inconsistant

> messaging coming from the government on the issue.  Last week, we have

> a 

> largely undecipherable release from the IoM on toxigenic effects of

> mold --  it took our resident expert witness here to be able to " tease

> this apart "

> and determine that the study was largely noncommital on the subject

> of nonallergenic effects.  Fair enough.  But the PR was structured so

> badly that

> the press ran with the conclusion that there were no serious health

> implications of mold. This is because they worked off the PR, and had

> neither the

> time or the experience to interpret the entire document correctly.

>

> Now we have the office of HUD releasing this document and associated

> public policy, based on the acknowledgment the certain molds CAN cause

> serious health effects, I'm assuming this means something other than

> allergic rhinitis.  I think that this pretty obviously represents a

> gap in

> information between these two government offices, at the very least. 

> I think someone at HUD is going to catch hell for this.

>

> Can consumers get a concise statement around what mold can and cannot

> do? How expert on the subject of pathological mycology is the general

> HUD buyer expected to be?  We look to the government to protect our

> health and well-being, I think anyone here would disagree that this

> supercedes the need to protect insurance concerns.

>

> Sorry, I didn't say a single funny thing there.  Maybe with the next

> press release!

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > >

> > > Here is a good news, bad news, very bad news item. And another

> > > example why those of us who have been victimzed often feel such

> > > Anger!

> > >

> > > WARNING: You may therefore not want to read the rest of this post

> --

> > > unless you are considering buying HUD property.

> > >

> > > - HUD acknowledges the potential health effects of mold. Good.

> > >

> > > - HUD encourages buyers (in big bold type) to INSPECT. Good.

> > >

> > > - However, " Purchasers are hereby notified and agree that they are

> > > solely responsible for any required remediation and/or resulting

> > > damages, including, but not limited to, any effects on health,

> due to

> > > radon or mold in, on or around the property. " Very Bad.

> > >

> > > See the May 28, 2004 HUDCLIPS notice at:

> > > http://www.hudclips.org/cgi/index_cliphome.cgi

> > > and click on 2004 Housing Notices, then click Radon Gas and Mold

> > > Notice and Release Agreement. Read carefully, but here are some

> > > excerpts:

> > >

> > > " ...important information to potential purchasers of HUD-acquired

> > > single family properties that radon gas and some molds have the

> > > potential to cause serious health problems. ...  Mold is visibly

> > > evident, but can also be found in areas that are not readily

> visible;

> > > for example, mold can be found behind barriers such as shower tile

> > > where the tile would have to be removed to expose the extent of

> the

> > > mold. ...

> > >       " The Department is requiring that the attached agreement be

> included

> > > with all sales contracts to ensure that all purchasers are aware

> that

> > > radon gas and mold may cause health problems. "

> > >

> > > There is also a link to the required form. But please note that

> > > although this notification acknowledges the potential for health

> > > problems, the form is a full release of liability of all parties

> into

> > > the future.

> > >

> > > So if you purchase a HUD property, make sure you have appropriate

> > > inspections and assessments by ethical, qualified professionals.

> Not

> > > for the purpose of identifying what HUD needs to correct, but

> solely

> > > to determine whether or not to buy the house. In other words, if

> you

> > > buy you are buying the house " as is. " Bad, because nothing has

> > > changed despite the appearance to the contrary.

> > >

> > > What is so aggravating -- it took someone else pointing this out

> > > before I " got it " --  is that the initial impression is that HUD

> is

> > > protecting the health of buyers. In actuality and despite initial

> > > impressions, it is protecting everyone but the buyer (potential

> > > victim) by eliminating all recourse forever. Very, very bad.

> > >

> > > ---------------------

> > > Carl E.Grimes

> > > Healthy Habitats LLC

> > > grimes@h...

> > > 303-671-9653

> > > 303-751-0416 fax

> > > ==================

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

> of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

> scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

> constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

> without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

> owner.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Yes, this is getting rather amusing. Too bad I don't know someone in

the media who would pick up on this. But, our media doesn't report the

truth anyway, so the beat goes on.... Innocent people, as you pointed

out in your comments, and home buyers need a degree in toxicology to

figure this stuff out. Yes, I guess many are under the illusion that

the government will protect them with laws, and inspections. But,

many of these home inspectors never have been in construction at all,

as I had to find out the hard way. Some of them only have to take a 4

or 6-week training course, but the buyers mistakenly believe they know

what they are doing and probably pay them $500 or so, for their useless

report. Then the buyers risk losing not only their health, but their

health AND sometimes bankruptcy too, since the house could be a total

loss with most mold being excluded from policies now.

You have to wonder if HUD knows that if they don't cover themselves on

mold, they would be opening up even more future lawsuits.

But, insurance companies have big, powerful lobbies that contribute to

political campaigns, and they end up running the show. It's going to

take a lot to fight this stuff. But, I think that information

technology hopefully will level the playing field, in at least uniting

the little guy and victims, and by sharing all this information and

trying to educate and inform the public about the dangers of mold,

hidden mold in wall cavities, from any water intrusion into the home,

or inside of the home.

Are you really living in a tent?

Judi

On Jun 10, 2004, at 11:35 AM, moldincolo wrote:

> OK -- I've been able to think about this overnight.  I'm not trying to

> be inflammatory and hysterical, but this is now getting to be at least

> amusing, so

> maybe I'll try for the other hysterical in the future.  Al en

> says that the activist left has to be funnier than the current

> administration to win the

> swing...

>

> So my continuing concern here is what I percieve as inconsistant

> messaging coming from the government on the issue.  Last week, we have

> a 

> largely undecipherable release from the IoM on toxigenic effects of

> mold --  it took our resident expert witness here to be able to " tease

> this apart "

> and determine that the study was largely noncommital on the subject

> of nonallergenic effects.  Fair enough.  But the PR was structured so

> badly that

> the press ran with the conclusion that there were no serious health

> implications of mold. This is because they worked off the PR, and had

> neither the

> time or the experience to interpret the entire document correctly.

>

> Now we have the office of HUD releasing this document and associated

> public policy, based on the acknowledgment the certain molds CAN cause

> serious health effects, I'm assuming this means something other than

> allergic rhinitis.  I think that this pretty obviously represents a

> gap in

> information between these two government offices, at the very least. 

> I think someone at HUD is going to catch hell for this.

>

> Can consumers get a concise statement around what mold can and cannot

> do? How expert on the subject of pathological mycology is the general

> HUD buyer expected to be?  We look to the government to protect our

> health and well-being, I think anyone here would disagree that this

> supercedes the need to protect insurance concerns.

>

> Sorry, I didn't say a single funny thing there.  Maybe with the next

> press release!

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > >

> > > Here is a good news, bad news, very bad news item. And another

> > > example why those of us who have been victimzed often feel such

> > > Anger!

> > >

> > > WARNING: You may therefore not want to read the rest of this post

> --

> > > unless you are considering buying HUD property.

> > >

> > > - HUD acknowledges the potential health effects of mold. Good.

> > >

> > > - HUD encourages buyers (in big bold type) to INSPECT. Good.

> > >

> > > - However, " Purchasers are hereby notified and agree that they are

> > > solely responsible for any required remediation and/or resulting

> > > damages, including, but not limited to, any effects on health,

> due to

> > > radon or mold in, on or around the property. " Very Bad.

> > >

> > > See the May 28, 2004 HUDCLIPS notice at:

> > > http://www.hudclips.org/cgi/index_cliphome.cgi

> > > and click on 2004 Housing Notices, then click Radon Gas and Mold

> > > Notice and Release Agreement. Read carefully, but here are some

> > > excerpts:

> > >

> > > " ...important information to potential purchasers of HUD-acquired

> > > single family properties that radon gas and some molds have the

> > > potential to cause serious health problems. ...  Mold is visibly

> > > evident, but can also be found in areas that are not readily

> visible;

> > > for example, mold can be found behind barriers such as shower tile

> > > where the tile would have to be removed to expose the extent of

> the

> > > mold. ...

> > >       " The Department is requiring that the attached agreement be

> included

> > > with all sales contracts to ensure that all purchasers are aware

> that

> > > radon gas and mold may cause health problems. "

> > >

> > > There is also a link to the required form. But please note that

> > > although this notification acknowledges the potential for health

> > > problems, the form is a full release of liability of all parties

> into

> > > the future.

> > >

> > > So if you purchase a HUD property, make sure you have appropriate

> > > inspections and assessments by ethical, qualified professionals.

> Not

> > > for the purpose of identifying what HUD needs to correct, but

> solely

> > > to determine whether or not to buy the house. In other words, if

> you

> > > buy you are buying the house " as is. " Bad, because nothing has

> > > changed despite the appearance to the contrary.

> > >

> > > What is so aggravating -- it took someone else pointing this out

> > > before I " got it " --  is that the initial impression is that HUD

> is

> > > protecting the health of buyers. In actuality and despite initial

> > > impressions, it is protecting everyone but the buyer (potential

> > > victim) by eliminating all recourse forever. Very, very bad.

> > >

> > > ---------------------

> > > Carl E.Grimes

> > > Healthy Habitats LLC

> > > grimes@h...

> > > 303-671-9653

> > > 303-751-0416 fax

> > > ==================

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding

> of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,

> scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this

> constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided

> for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title

> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed

> without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving the included information for research and educational

> purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

> owner.

>

>

>

>

>