What is the debate over mold?

[Guest guest]

What is the debate over mold?

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/opinion/opinionview.asp?c=160791

- By Arsenault, Hollywood

There seems to be a strong correlation between the subject of Indoor

Air Quality and human emotions.

Recent editorials have called indoor air advocates " communist-

environmentalists. " They wage an emotional debate trying to defend

mold in indoor spaces. But, what is the argument?

Is the argument over the health impact of mold?

We've known of the dangers of mold in food for thousands of years.

History is filled with examples of mold ingestion harming human

health, from the Irish potato famine to the use of mold-toxins in

modern bio-weapons. We know the inhalation of mold is one of the

leading causes of asthma and sinusitis and can cause life-

threatening pneumonia (hypersensitivity pneumonitis). Medical

doctors are now receiving specialized training so they can start to

deal with the increasing number of patients with mold-related

illness. Researchers are discovering new mold toxins (mycotoxins)

every month which when present can be the most powerful carcinogens

on the planet.

There really is no controversy as to whether there is a health

impact - only how much of an impact for who and the degree of the

impact. Realize that there are hundreds of thousands of species of

molds. These molds release spores, chemicals (called microbial VOCs)

and mycotoxins differently depending on the materials they are

consuming, the weather conditions, the degree of water involvement

and the other species of mold in the vicinity.

So, there are billions of potential combinations in any living space

that will affect mold's health effects at any given snapshot of

time. Can we give you a specific health assessment of mold in an

editorial? Impossible, just as you cannot give a health assessment

on all bacteria or all viruses.

Some of your editorials have claimed that there is no empirical

evidence about the health impacts of mold. This is complete hogwash.

If they are referring to empirical evidence correlating mold

inhalation to cancer then I remind them that there still is no

direct empirical proof that cigarette smoking causes cancer. So,

light up and inhale some aspergillus from wet drywall while you're

at it.

We know mold can have a tremendous impact on human health. We can't

sum it up in a sentence and we are in the infancy stage in research.

Because we are just beginning to learn how dangerous it can be does

that mean we should wait and do nothing? Of course not.

The conditions for the modern mold problem are brand new even though

mold has been around since antiquity. Indications are that the new

building practices and materials we've been using since the energy

crisis have created a time-bomb for mold problems.

Waiting is obviously a dangerous game that will cost a tremendous

toll on our citizenry. Conversely, should we enact laws and

regulations in the areas science says it needs decades and a huge

amount of research to understand? Of course not. The political

process should be a careful, slow process that by its very nature

cannot react fast enough to stop all the dangers our citizenry face.

It becomes up to the public to take action to protect itself in the

interim.

Is the argument over the impact of mold on the structural integrity

of our buildings and homes?

Mold eats the stuff we make our homes out of. But in recent years to

save cost, create more beautiful buildings and conserve energy,

we've been making our buildings out of mold candy. These new

materials are often high in the sugars molds consume and recycled

products such as gypsum board have trillions of mold spores already

sandwiched into them. Just add water.

When you combine these new materials with improper installation and

you get water intrusion, they will always grow mold. This mold eats

the structure, weakens it and, of course, introduces mold spores,

chemical byproducts and mycotoxins into the living space of the

structure. Health impact or not, we don't want our buildings to

be " self composting, " especially with house prices at an all-time

high.

Is the argument whether we want mold to be regulated and government

to intrude upon our lives in this area?

The nay-sayers have little to worry about because industry and

government have definitely shown their colors over the last decade.

Any homeowner or renter's policy now has clear mold-disclaimers and

the responsibility has been given to the consumer to learn all about

mold (mycology). Regulations have failed to help the citizenry

despite massive popular support (example: The California Toxic Mold

Protection Act).

And like the decades-long battle against the tobacco industry, which

claimed smoking was not harmful to human health, this is going to

take forever. Should there be regulation? Definitely. Will there be

soon? No way.

But landlords, builders, insurance and home-sellers beware. Mold

lawsuits may have been dampened by disclaimers and lies. But because

the problem is growing (literally) and millions are being impacted

across America, the lawsuits continue. Personal and property damage

is in the billions of dollars and climbing. So, educating ourselves

about how to avoid the problem and taking a grassroots effort in

solving the problem correctly is imperative to avoid very expensive

litigation for mom and pop, builders, insurers or landlords.

This isn't really a debate at all. But, anytime you have victims

being told by the ignorant (or greedy) that their loss is imagined,

you are going to have fireworks. Maybe that's why recent editorials

have been so emotional.

But, if Clean Air Advocates are " commie-environmentalists, " doesn't

that make mold-supporters Fungal-Rights activists? And isn't that

hypocritical seeing as they are not pro-bacteria and viruses in

living spaces?

There is no debate.