Guidelines for the Protection and Training of Workers

[Guest guest]

http://www.wetp.org/wetp/newsbriefs/may05/Final_NIEHS_Mold_Guide_05-20-

05.pdf

[Guest guest]

According to the NIEH report,

" NIOSH (2003) corroborated these findings with data from Health Hazard

Evaluations of remodeling work in moldy buildings. During remediation, the spore

count has been documented to increase a thousand fold. "

While I will certainly grant that spores and mycotoxins are not at all the same

thing, I think we could agreed that since mycotoxins are produced by the mold

that produces the spores, an increased spore count is a very, very dangerous

indicator to both occupants and remediators. And, since the first step in

performing the remediation is to stop the source of water intrusion, we

presumably now have mold which is drying out and dying out - a perfect

combination of events for increasing toxin release.

All of the information in the report assumes that all you have to do is count

spores and protect yourself from breathing in spores. I mention this for 2

reasons: first, that NIOSH clearly has NO idea how to protect anyone from

airborn mycotoxins; and second, because the assumption comes up on this board

regularly that mold responders safely can be anywhere in or near a remediation

effort - or even do some of the work thermselves. Spores and mycotoxins are two

entirely different substances, and protection from one does NOT equal protection

from the other. (They don't call it mycotoxicosis for nothin'!)

In fact, the report even suggests that you can remediate an occupied building by

" isolating " the work area. I'm still wondering how they think you possibly do

this, if the source of the contaminating is leaking HVAC units and the

remediation is being done on a tight building where you can't possibly turn the

HVAC off, and the venting system has been exposed to the contamination! I'm also

wondering how on earth they think you could remove the contaminated building

materials without tracking the stuff throughout the building, since a disposable

coverall gets coated with the very stuff you are supposedly isolating the rest

of a building FROM. Doh!

Having seen people become and remain ill POST-remediation done according to the

guidelines in this report (and being one of them myself), WITH the masks AND the

suits AND all the plastic draping, I'm starting to lean toward the Leviticus

" Burn baby burn " solution.

In any case, the report makes for some interesting and educational reading. Just

keep in mind that they still don't know jack about mycotoxins, and are doing

their dead level best not to ever find out. When they talk about " adverse health

effects " , they are always ALWAYS talking about the first two types of fungal

related illnesses - irritant effects and colonizing. They are NOT talking about

toxic effects.

tigerpaw2c <tigerpaw2C@...> wrote:

http://www.wetp.org/wetp/newsbriefs/may05/Final_NIEHS_Mold_Guide_05-20-

05.pdf

FAIR USE NOTICE:

[Guest guest]

> Having seen people become and remain ill POST-remediation done according to

the

guidelines in this report (and being one of them myself), WITH the masks AND the

suits

AND all the plastic draping, I'm starting to lean toward the Leviticus " Burn

baby burn "

solution.

That seems good to me too, but remember the Texas gal who found spores from

Mexico

in her air samples for her science project? Burning may not get them all either,

but it

seems like it would at least knock down the level. I haven't burned much

firewood since

then.

[Guest guest]

I think the spores were from Africa.

--- In , " kl_clayton " <kl_clayton@y...>

wrote:

> > Having seen people become and remain ill POST-remediation done

according to the

> guidelines in this report (and being one of them myself), WITH the

masks AND the suits

> AND all the plastic draping, I'm starting to lean toward the

Leviticus " Burn baby burn "

> solution.

>

>

> That seems good to me too, but remember the Texas gal who found

spores from Mexico

> in her air samples for her science project? Burning may not get

them all either, but it

> seems like it would at least knock down the level. I haven't

burned much firewood since

> then.

[Guest guest]

Serena,

Excellent points!

> During remediation,

> the spore count has been documented to increase a thousand fold. "

There is a study in the appendix of S520 that estimates the increase

at even higher levels. It also describes how none of the NIOSH

respirators remove 100%, usually only about 50% or less. That's why

some workers still get sick. They assume 100% protection even when

they deliberately use those with less protection because of

(understandable!) comfort issues. Ever try to do manual labor while

breathing through a HEPA filter! It feels like asthma. And Tyvec

suits aren't air conditioned. They are heat tents like those suits

that used to be advertised on TV for losing weight!

> we presumably now have mold

> which is drying out and dying out - a perfect combination of events

> for increasing toxin release.

Exactly. This is why inspectors often use mini-containments when they

open walls and ceilings. Containment should also be established prior

to the beginning of work.

> All of the information in the report assumes that all you have to do

> is count spores and protect yourself from breathing in spores.

That is one of my objections, also. Spore counting is not the same as

viable counting, fragment counting, glucan counting, enzyme counting,

mycotoxin counting or MVOC counting. See

www.ieconnections.com/archive/apr_05/apr_05.htm#article2 for more

reasons.

Another is the industrial hygiene basis for their recommendations.

Homes are different from industry, especially for occupacy times.

Industrial standards are based on exposures during an 8 hr day, 5 day

work week. That's 40 hours of exposure per week. Homes, especially

for children, at home parents and home office workers can reach 20

hour days, 7 days a week. That's 140 hours per week, 3.5 times more

exposure. Another is the comparison of indoors to outdoors. A

reliable, must-do for industrial contaminants but usually misleading

for indoor mold. They also recommend only the AIHA qualifications for

assessors - industrial based again, most of which have no training in

the knowledge base and skill set required for residential, especially

mold. The leading science document, ACGIH " Bioaerosols, "

unequivocably states that this approach is WRONG! and that historical

industrial methods and interpretations are WRONG! (Foreword by Dr

Herrick).

> Spores and mycotoxins are two entirely

> different substances, and protection from one does NOT equal

> protection from the other.

True. But in some cases it is possible. See below.

> In fact, the report even suggests that you can remediate an occupied

> building by " isolating " the work area. I'm still wondering how they

> think you possibly do this, if the source of the contaminating is

> leaking HVAC units and the remediation is being done on a tight

> building where you can't possibly turn the HVAC off, and the venting

> system has been exposed to the contamination!

The example you give is one a difficult one of and is also the most

common mistakes " professional " remediators make. If the HVAC is not

considered as a source itself and/or as a distributor of other

sources, then they cross-contaminate despite all the other best

efforts. It takes special skills and ingenuity to solve this

challenge!

> I'm also wondering how

> on earth they think you could remove the contaminated building

> materials without tracking the stuff throughout the building, since a

> disposable coverall gets coated with the very stuff you are supposedly

> isolating the rest of a building FROM. Doh!

Another mistake many " professional " remediators make is to not have a

decontamination chamber for donning and doffing their Tyvec suits and

respirators when entering and exiting the containment area. They

should also design the contained area to allow for the removal of the

contaminated materials through a " tunnel " of containment or through a

convenient window, for example. The contained area should also have a

HEPA filtered air mover exhausting air to the outside. This creates a

slight suction so air will move from the clean areas into the

contained contamination and then through the HEPA filter to the

outside. This is to prevent air moving in the opposite direction.

With a sufficient amount of pressure the particles of mold, fragments

and most mycotoxins plus the molecules of endotoxins and some of the

mycotoxins will not flow back into the clean area. But nothing is

absolute! The more susceptible the occupants, the more careful the

remediators should be.

> Having seen people become and remain ill POST-remediation done

> according to the guidelines in this report (and being one of them

> myself), WITH the masks AND the suits AND all the plastic draping, I'm

> starting to lean toward the Leviticus " Burn baby burn " solution.

If becoming ill after the remediation, the remediation wasn't

complete, sufficient or something else is affecting them. I wouldn't

consider the job complete and ACGIH sections 8.6.3 and 15.5 don't

either. If they remain sick then they should consider ideas and

protocols like Dr Shoemaker's .

> In any case, the report makes for some interesting and educational

> reading.

I agree. Just remember there are other guidelines out there. For

example, even though several of the S520 leaders participated in the

meetings that led to this document the writers chose to emphasize the

NYC Guidlelines of square footage of visible mold and the industrial

mind-set to the exclusion of many key parts of S520, EPA and other

documents.

> When they talk about " adverse health effects " , they are always ALWAYS

> talking about the first two types of fungal related illnesses -

> irritant effects and colonizing. They are NOT talking about toxic

> effects.

Key point! Keep this in mind when you are " working " with typical

professionals that have the industrial and public health mind-set.

You are not the " statistically calculated phenomena resulting from a

large group of people. " You are an individual with an individual

reaction. The fact that you may be the only person who is reacting

does not mean you are not reacting. It also doesn't mean they no

longer have a duty to help you. Don't waste your time with them, you

will never convince them. Find someone, instead, who understands the

individuality issues. They are usually hard to find but here are more

and more out there all the time.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

[Guest guest]

,

About 15 years ago I participated in a pollen study conducted by

Washington Univ. One of the unusual findings was Cyprus tree spores

in the air of Colorado. How did it get north and west of its source?

That and your Texas example just confirm that when something gets

into the air it can and will go where ever the air goes. Which is

everywhere. " Everywhere " leaves no room for " no where. " Seattle was

only 11 days from the radiation of Chernobyl.

A book some of you may find interesting was written in 1987 by

H. Brown, who broke the Love Canal story. " The Toxic Cloud:

The Poisoning of America's Air, " Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-015801-8. It

recounts one story of an isolated island in the middle of Lake

Superior. In the middle of the island was a small isolated lake. The

air was the only way anything could get into the lake. Sediment at

the bottom contained traces of a pesticide for cotton that had been

used for only a couple of years in the southeastern US. How did it

get that far north plus to the west when the prevailing winds are to

the east?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> That seems good to me too, but remember the Texas gal who found spores

> from Mexico in her air samples for her science project? Burning may

> not get them all either, but it seems like it would at least knock

> down the level. I haven't burned much firewood since then.