Mold Tests not making sense - Carl

[Guest guest]

BUT Carl, let's just say you had to play the devil's

advocate. Or the devil. Or the advocate;)

How would you explain those numbers in a way that made

sense to me? That made sense AND made the number in

my room sound bad.

Thanks, Harriet

Message: 10

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:31:11 -0700

From: " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...>

Subject: Re: Mold Inspection Test Results question

Harriet,

Your experience is an all too true and an all too

common abomination

of how different people give different meaning to the

same

information - usually to further their self-interest.

It is also why

reliance on only mold testing is to be discouraged and

not relied on

to convince the skeptical. There are at least 5 ways

to interpret the

lab data you gave us. And then there is my way, which

of course is

the best way or else I would do it differently. ;-)

This isn't

science, but more like belief systems not unlike the

True Believers

who are ozone salespeople.

In my opinion, 4 of the 5 ways would indicate the need

for further

evaluation. However, the information and history you

have given, if

verified and documented by an experienced

professional, SHOULD be

sufficient without any testing. For example, if there

are identified

locations of active growth in the house, who cares

what the

comparison to the outside levels are. The mold growth

exists and

should still be remediated. The lab results however

interpreted

doesn't make the mold disappear and the health effects

cease.

It is the professional duty of our industry leaders to

stand up to

the pretenders and challange their self-serving spin.

I had a

conversation just today with someone on a team of

three people in the

Gulf Coast area that did just that. But it took all

three plus

reliance on other resources to be successful. It isn't

easy but it is

possible.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Hi everyone. Y'all certainly give me a lot to read

> and learn every day:)

>

> Here's the question I wander around with bugging me.

> A little background: I am trying to get a lawyer to

> take my case. My landlord basically has ignored

that

> there's a mold problem in my apartment for 5 years

> that I've lived here, even though he knew I was

> immune-compromised when I moved in. He painted over

> the mold a few months ago, so now I can't even get

the

> government out to look at the place (they have to be

> able to see it and smell it). ANYWAY, I got a mold

> inspector to come out (my cost), and these were the

> weird results:

>

> The outside level of Aspergillius/Pennicillium was

> 12,000.

> Inside was 7,000.

>

> So, lawyers are saying, well, the inside is lower

than

> the outside, so all is cool. BUT, the inspectors

say

> the outside is NORMALLY, 2000-3000 and say the 7,000

> should be compared to that. Well, the lawyers seem

to

> miss that part. The inspectors also said that

> regardless, 7000 is ridiculous and I should leave.

> Also, the swab tests are so high they can't even be

> counted - 4+ for whatever that's worth.

>

> **********

>

> Interestingly, my roommate got her area tested a

month

> later. Outside was 1,000, and inside was 3,000.

>

> ***************

>

> WHAT?????

>

> Please help me understand this and what I need to do

> to make a lawyer accept or `look over' the 12,000

that

> is ruining my case.

>

> Thanks for all your help!

>

> Harriet

>

> PS: I know I could get the air tested AGAIN to show

> it's normally low, but that's $600 that I don't

have.

>

>

>

>

__________________________________

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

Harriet,

Every room, building and even hospitals have mold. The EPA and IAQ

Councils (Indoor Air Quality) are pushing the government to push

health standards for most types of buildings (apartments,

townhomes,single family). However, ever individual person's

tolerance to certain levels of mould contamination is different.

Certain indoor levels that make me terribly sick may not even make

you sneeze.

Swab and Bulk sampling of mold infested areas will always yield a

very high count (off the charts). Air sampling is really a last

resort to prove you have a mold problem indoors. Using a spore trap

in your home to collect air samples has many factors involved: Air

Temp, Humidity, Volume of Air being tested, activity in the room. A

lawyer will not back anything with so many variables behind it since

it wont hold up in court.

If you want your land lord to pay attention and state officials,

look for the mold in your apartment. You dont need a mold inspector

to find moisture and moisture is where the mould is. However, I

would suggest hiring a certified remediator to remove materials

covered in mold.

Wayne Gaskill

President

www.hepacore.com

>

> BUT Carl, let's just say you had to play the devil's

> advocate. Or the devil. Or the advocate;)

>

> How would you explain those numbers in a way that made

> sense to me? That made sense AND made the number in

> my room sound bad.

>

> Thanks, Harriet

>

>

>

>

>

> Message: 10

> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:31:11 -0700

> From: " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@h...>

> Subject: Re: Mold Inspection Test Results question

>

> Harriet,

>

> Your experience is an all too true and an all too

> common abomination

> of how different people give different meaning to the

> same

> information - usually to further their self-interest.

> It is also why

> reliance on only mold testing is to be discouraged and

> not relied on

> to convince the skeptical. There are at least 5 ways

> to interpret the

> lab data you gave us. And then there is my way, which

> of course is

> the best way or else I would do it differently. ;-)

> This isn't

> science, but more like belief systems not unlike the

> True Believers

> who are ozone salespeople.

>

> In my opinion, 4 of the 5 ways would indicate the need

> for further

> evaluation. However, the information and history you

> have given, if

> verified and documented by an experienced

> professional, SHOULD be

> sufficient without any testing. For example, if there

> are identified

> locations of active growth in the house, who cares

> what the

> comparison to the outside levels are. The mold growth

> exists and

> should still be remediated. The lab results however

> interpreted

> doesn't make the mold disappear and the health effects

> cease.

>

> It is the professional duty of our industry leaders to

> stand up to

> the pretenders and challange their self-serving spin.

> I had a

> conversation just today with someone on a team of

> three people in the

> Gulf Coast area that did just that. But it took all

> three plus

> reliance on other resources to be successful. It isn't

> easy but it is

> possible.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

> -----

> > Hi everyone. Y'all certainly give me a lot to read

> > and learn every day:)

> >

> > Here's the question I wander around with bugging me.

>

> > A little background: I am trying to get a lawyer to

> > take my case. My landlord basically has ignored

> that

> > there's a mold problem in my apartment for 5 years

> > that I've lived here, even though he knew I was

> > immune-compromised when I moved in. He painted over

> > the mold a few months ago, so now I can't even get

> the

> > government out to look at the place (they have to be

> > able to see it and smell it). ANYWAY, I got a mold

> > inspector to come out (my cost), and these were the

> > weird results:

> >

> > The outside level of Aspergillius/Pennicillium was

> > 12,000.

> > Inside was 7,000.

> >

> > So, lawyers are saying, well, the inside is lower

> than

> > the outside, so all is cool. BUT, the inspectors

> say

> > the outside is NORMALLY, 2000-3000 and say the 7,000

> > should be compared to that. Well, the lawyers seem

> to

> > miss that part. The inspectors also said that

> > regardless, 7000 is ridiculous and I should leave.

> > Also, the swab tests are so high they can't even be

> > counted - 4+ for whatever that's worth.

> >

> > **********

> >

> > Interestingly, my roommate got her area tested a

> month

> > later. Outside was 1,000, and inside was 3,000.

> >

> > ***************

> >

> > WHAT?????

> >

> > Please help me understand this and what I need to do

> > to make a lawyer accept or `look over' the 12,000

> that

> > is ruining my case.

> >

> > Thanks for all your help!

> >

> > Harriet

> >

> > PS: I know I could get the air tested AGAIN to show

> > it's normally low, but that's $600 that I don't

> have.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

> http://farechase.

>

[Guest guest]

Harriet,

Since you want me to play devils advocate and if the devil is in the

details, here are a devil's dozen methods of interpreting your lab

numbers for outside Aspergillius/Pennicillium at 12,000, inside at

7,000. The assumed question, but maybe not the right one: Is the mold

coming from outside or inside your house?

1. Inside must be 10 times higher than outdoors or it is not a

problem. This is leftover from the industrial hygiene beliefs about

man-made substances in the work place. Dr Herrick exposed that

myth and even said " ...we were wrong " in the Foreword to Bioaerosols.

With yours, the indoors is lower than outdoors so there is no

problem. (See the end for comments on " no problem " ).

2. Indoor must be 2-3 times higher than outdoors. After some real-

life experience, traditional IHs realized the 10X rule was not

representative so they " guessed " at 2-3 times. With yours, the

indoors is lower than outdoors so there is no problem.

3. Indoors is normally about equal with outdoors. Further modifiation

of #2 as the honest and curious ones got more real life experience

and guessed that outside infiltration through doors and windows

should make both environments equal unless the mold was growing

indoors. They forgot that the primary function of a built structure

is to seperate the outdoors from the indoors.

3a. No one has even tried to figure the transfer rate for mold to

move from outside to inside in any given house. If it takes 10

minutes then you have to time your sampling accordingly. If it takes

10 hours, then you wait 10 hours.

Your indoor level is less but only by about 30%. If the indoor sample

had been taken 10 minutes after, or maybe 10 hours, they might have

been equivalent. Either way, there is no problem according to this

belief system.

4. Indoors is assumed to be normally less than outdoors unless there

is an active source of growth indoors. Further enlightenment. Yours

is the same as #3.

5. The mean indoor levels are 6-7 times LOWER than outdoors. This is

the first statistical study based on lab results from actual samples.

According to this " rule " your indoor results that would not be a

problem would be about 1,400 to 1,700. Your result was 4-5 times

higher than this " normal " level. You have a problem, thanks to the

PathCon study.

6. Comparable types of mold. If the types of mold outdoors and

indoors is the same then there is no problem. If the types indoors

are different, especially for those not normally found outdoors, then

you might have a problem. With your results we can't tell because we

don't know what other molds were found. Penicillium is common

outdoors and indoors. Your results were by microscopy which can't

tell the difference between Penicillium and Aspergillus. You could

have Penicillium outside and Aspergillus inside, indicating a

problem. But you'd never know it from this data.

6a. The mold with this method has to be cultured to the species level

to have any meaning. If you have Aspergillus at 10,000 outside and

7,000 inside, it looks like you don't have a problem. But if the

species outside is fumagatus and the species inside is versicolor,

then the versicolor did not come from outside. It has to have come

from inside. This method is 50-70% more expensive per sample and you

can't get this from Home Depot.

7. Rank order of comparable types of mold. If the comparative levels

of the various molds found outdoors is the same indoors, you don't

have a problem. E.g. from high to low Cladosporium, Penicillium,

Ascospores, Aspergillus outside and the same ranking order inside.

The total could be 10,000 or 100 but the only considertion is the

rank order. If different, especially if reversed, then you do have a

problem. Similar thinking to #3 and #6. We don't know.

8. Normal Fungal Ecology. This term was developed in the IICRC S520,

printed December 2003. The idea is that most molds are everywhere but

the environment determines which ones grow some and which become mold

" gardens " or mold " jungles. " Buildings that are well maintained,

clean and dry will have a particular profile of types, levels and

rank order. Climatic and geographical regions will differ, as well as

how the building is used. Buidlings that are damp or otherwise water

damaged will have a different normal profile - regardless of levels.

20 Aspergillus indoors may indicate a problem in a clean room or

intensive care unit for the immune compromised but 2000 is okay for a

building for the " general public. " With your data, I would tend to

agree with your consultant that 7,000 of anything is not

representative of a normal fungal ecology of a clean and dry

building. I would disagree with him that 2000-3000 is normal. Maybe

where you live but not in Colorado.

8a. What fungal ecology does not account for is the susceptibility

and impact level on a highly sensitized individual. If they had no

complaints before a roof leak, for example, but they do after, then I

don't care about any of the above numbers. There is now a problem

that should be resolved - for that person. On the other hand, an

extreme level of over 100,000,000 might be fine for someone that can

drink arsenic and ask for a cyanide chaser. Why would they want to

even consider testing or removing mold? Or arsenic?

9. Combinations of all the above. Each of the above methods address

one portion of the whole problem. Each may be very appropriate in one

situation but not in others. That limitation should be noted with any

lab results by any method. A more useful method that would have a

better chance of giving representative information that is actually

meaningful and useful would be various combinations of the above

based on an assessment of the situation. But these are very complex

and costly. Therefore, the next method was developed:

10. MY way. I, and a number of others here and on IEQuality group for

example, have developed our own preferred methodolgy and comparative

baselines for creating meaning for when to test and how to interpret

the results. It work for us, much like investing in pork belly

futures works for those that have developed a successful system. But

that system is almost never transferred directly to somebody else.

They will come up with their own ideas and improvements, but most

likely will go broke, instead.

10a.For the last 6 months or so I have not take a single mold sample

for any reason. My success rate for diagnosis and verification has

not changed from when I used to take many, many samples of various

kinds from lots of locations with different lab analysis techniques

costing thousands of dollars for my clients. My annual revenues have

decreased accordingly but my value to my clients has increased.

10b. According to " my way, " your data is insufficient for making any

definitive or authoritative conclusion. However, I would be very

comfortable with the general recommendation for further investigation

based on the assumption of a problem of some kind until proven

otherwise.

11. The November Steering Committee, composed of the most

authoritative research experts in the world, most of whom wrote the

ACGIH book Bioaerosols, considered by many to be the " bible " of mold

and other biologicals in the air. They can find no method,

statistical or otherwise, that is representative and whose results

can be reproduced. When they try to duplicate test results even side-

by-side at the same time, the differences vary by factors of hundreds

to thousands. Or more.

11a. As an alternative, they are discussing some sort of

" cleanliness " method that doesn't quantify levels of mold. It is not

yet completed.

12. A follow-on to my Orlando workshop at the IAQA-AmIAQ-IESO

unification conference last month is an unofficial, ad hoc committee

addressing this issue. My expectation is not numerical levels or even

a singular procedure. We'll have to wait and see what they come up

with.

13. Here is one that NOBODY wants to touch and would just as soon

forget. ACGIH section 8.6.3 and 15.5 states (my paraphrase) that the

ultimate criteria for a successful remediation is the structure can

be reoccupied without complaint. My interpretation of a more

comprehensive position would be something like, if a location has

occupant complaints then something is wrong and the remediation job

is not complete until the source of the complaints are removed or

otherwise mutually resolved.

So there is my " devil's dozen, " sort of like a baker's dozen only

with details instead of donuts.

Which leads to my final comment about the use of the conclusion " No

problem. " " No problem " is not the same as " according to this method "

or " the comparative data do not meet the requirements for

remediation " or other verbage. NONE of the methods are able to

determine if there is a problem. NONE can determine whether to remove

mold or leave it alone. For you or anyone. It can only say it answers

a specific question. If the question isn't stated then the results

have no meaning.

In your case, is the mold detected by the sampling coming from inside

or outside your house? It may be important and it may not. You may be

reactive to what they see or you may be reactive to mold that their

methods don't see, regardless of where it is growing. That's why all

the other info is so important and why we and the professionals need

to insist on conclusions based on much more information, including

occupant complaint profiles, than just numbers on a lab report. This

should be science, not numerology.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> BUT Carl, let's just say you had to play the devil's

> advocate. Or the devil. Or the advocate;)

>

> How would you explain those numbers in a way that made

> sense to me? That made sense AND made the number in

> my room sound bad.

>

> Thanks, Harriet

[Guest guest]

Carl,

Wow. I can't tell you how much I appreciate these type of

informative explanations. You don't realize how many questions and

thoughts I've had over the years, you have just cleared up. All in

one post.

KC

--- In , " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@h...>

wrote:

>

> Harriet,

>

> Since you want me to play devils advocate and if the devil is in

the

> details, here are a devil's dozen methods of interpreting your lab

> numbers for outside Aspergillius/Pennicillium at 12,000, inside at

> 7,000. The assumed question, but maybe not the right one: Is the

mold

> coming from outside or inside your house?

>

> 1. Inside must be 10 times higher than outdoors or it is not a

> problem. This is leftover from the industrial hygiene beliefs

about

> man-made substances in the work place. Dr Herrick exposed

that

> myth and even said " ...we were wrong " in the Foreword to

Bioaerosols.

> With yours, the indoors is lower than outdoors so there is no

> problem. (See the end for comments on " no problem " ).

>

> 2. Indoor must be 2-3 times higher than outdoors. After some real-

> life experience, traditional IHs realized the 10X rule was not

> representative so they " guessed " at 2-3 times. With yours, the

> indoors is lower than outdoors so there is no problem.

>

> 3. Indoors is normally about equal with outdoors. Further

modifiation

> of #2 as the honest and curious ones got more real life experience

> and guessed that outside infiltration through doors and windows

> should make both environments equal unless the mold was growing

> indoors. They forgot that the primary function of a built

structure

> is to seperate the outdoors from the indoors.

>

> 3a. No one has even tried to figure the transfer rate for

mold to

> move from outside to inside in any given house. If it takes

10

> minutes then you have to time your sampling accordingly. If

it takes

> 10 hours, then you wait 10 hours.

>

> Your indoor level is less but only by about 30%. If the

indoor sample

> had been taken 10 minutes after, or maybe 10 hours, they

might have

> been equivalent. Either way, there is no problem according to

this

> belief system.

>

> 4. Indoors is assumed to be normally less than outdoors unless

there

> is an active source of growth indoors. Further enlightenment.

Yours

> is the same as #3.

>

> 5. The mean indoor levels are 6-7 times LOWER than outdoors. This

is

> the first statistical study based on lab results from actual

samples.

> According to this " rule " your indoor results that would not be a

> problem would be about 1,400 to 1,700. Your result was 4-5 times

> higher than this " normal " level. You have a problem, thanks to the

> PathCon study.

>

> 6. Comparable types of mold. If the types of mold outdoors and

> indoors is the same then there is no problem. If the types

indoors

> are different, especially for those not normally found outdoors,

then

> you might have a problem. With your results we can't tell because

we

> don't know what other molds were found. Penicillium is common

> outdoors and indoors. Your results were by microscopy which can't

> tell the difference between Penicillium and Aspergillus. You could

> have Penicillium outside and Aspergillus inside, indicating a

> problem. But you'd never know it from this data.

>

> 6a. The mold with this method has to be cultured to the

species level

> to have any meaning. If you have Aspergillus at 10,000

outside and

> 7,000 inside, it looks like you don't have a problem. But if

the

> species outside is fumagatus and the species inside is

versicolor,

> then the versicolor did not come from outside. It has to have

come

> from inside. This method is 50-70% more expensive per sample

and you

> can't get this from Home Depot.

>

> 7. Rank order of comparable types of mold. If the comparative

levels

> of the various molds found outdoors is the same indoors, you don't

> have a problem. E.g. from high to low Cladosporium, Penicillium,

> Ascospores, Aspergillus outside and the same ranking order inside.

> The total could be 10,000 or 100 but the only considertion is the

> rank order. If different, especially if reversed, then you do have

a

> problem. Similar thinking to #3 and #6. We don't know.

>

> 8. Normal Fungal Ecology. This term was developed in the IICRC

S520,

> printed December 2003. The idea is that most molds are everywhere

but

> the environment determines which ones grow some and which become

mold

> " gardens " or mold " jungles. " Buildings that are well maintained,

> clean and dry will have a particular profile of types, levels and

> rank order. Climatic and geographical regions will differ, as well

as

> how the building is used. Buidlings that are damp or otherwise

water

> damaged will have a different normal profile - regardless of

levels.

> 20 Aspergillus indoors may indicate a problem in a clean room or

> intensive care unit for the immune compromised but 2000 is okay

for a

> building for the " general public. " With your data, I would tend to

> agree with your consultant that 7,000 of anything is not

> representative of a normal fungal ecology of a clean and dry

> building. I would disagree with him that 2000-3000 is normal.

Maybe

> where you live but not in Colorado.

>

> 8a. What fungal ecology does not account for is the

susceptibility

> and impact level on a highly sensitized individual. If they

had no

> complaints before a roof leak, for example, but they do

after, then I

> don't care about any of the above numbers. There is now a

problem

> that should be resolved - for that person. On the other hand,

an

> extreme level of over 100,000,000 might be fine for someone

that can

> drink arsenic and ask for a cyanide chaser. Why would they

want to

> even consider testing or removing mold? Or arsenic?

>

> 9. Combinations of all the above. Each of the above methods

address

> one portion of the whole problem. Each may be very appropriate in

one

> situation but not in others. That limitation should be noted with

any

> lab results by any method. A more useful method that would have a

> better chance of giving representative information that is

actually

> meaningful and useful would be various combinations of the above

> based on an assessment of the situation. But these are very

complex

> and costly. Therefore, the next method was developed:

>

> 10. MY way. I, and a number of others here and on IEQuality group

for

> example, have developed our own preferred methodolgy and

comparative

> baselines for creating meaning for when to test and how to

interpret

> the results. It work for us, much like investing in pork belly

> futures works for those that have developed a successful system.

But

> that system is almost never transferred directly to somebody else.

> They will come up with their own ideas and improvements, but most

> likely will go broke, instead.

>

> 10a.For the last 6 months or so I have not take a single mold

sample

> for any reason. My success rate for diagnosis and

verification has

> not changed from when I used to take many, many samples of

various

> kinds from lots of locations with different lab analysis

techniques

> costing thousands of dollars for my clients. My annual

revenues have

> decreased accordingly but my value to my clients has

increased.

>

> 10b. According to " my way, " your data is insufficient for

making any

> definitive or authoritative conclusion. However, I would be

very

> comfortable with the general recommendation for further

investigation

> based on the assumption of a problem of some kind until

proven

> otherwise.

>

> 11. The November Steering Committee, composed of the most

> authoritative research experts in the world, most of whom wrote

the

> ACGIH book Bioaerosols, considered by many to be the " bible " of

mold

> and other biologicals in the air. They can find no method,

> statistical or otherwise, that is representative and whose results

> can be reproduced. When they try to duplicate test results even

side-

> by-side at the same time, the differences vary by factors of

hundreds

> to thousands. Or more.

>

> 11a. As an alternative, they are discussing some sort of

> " cleanliness " method that doesn't quantify levels of mold. It

is not

> yet completed.

>

> 12. A follow-on to my Orlando workshop at the IAQA-AmIAQ-IESO

> unification conference last month is an unofficial, ad hoc

committee

> addressing this issue. My expectation is not numerical levels or

even

> a singular procedure. We'll have to wait and see what they come up

> with.

>

> 13. Here is one that NOBODY wants to touch and would just as soon

> forget. ACGIH section 8.6.3 and 15.5 states (my paraphrase) that

the

> ultimate criteria for a successful remediation is the structure

can

> be reoccupied without complaint. My interpretation of a more

> comprehensive position would be something like, if a location has

> occupant complaints then something is wrong and the remediation

job

> is not complete until the source of the complaints are removed or

> otherwise mutually resolved.

>

> So there is my " devil's dozen, " sort of like a baker's dozen only

> with details instead of donuts.

>

> Which leads to my final comment about the use of the

conclusion " No

> problem. " " No problem " is not the same as " according to this

method "

> or " the comparative data do not meet the requirements for

> remediation " or other verbage. NONE of the methods are able to

> determine if there is a problem. NONE can determine whether to

remove

> mold or leave it alone. For you or anyone. It can only say it

answers

> a specific question. If the question isn't stated then the results

> have no meaning.

>

> In your case, is the mold detected by the sampling coming from

inside

> or outside your house? It may be important and it may not. You may

be

> reactive to what they see or you may be reactive to mold that

their

> methods don't see, regardless of where it is growing. That's why

all

> the other info is so important and why we and the professionals

need

> to insist on conclusions based on much more information, including

> occupant complaint profiles, than just numbers on a lab report.

This

> should be science, not numerology.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> > BUT Carl, let's just say you had to play the devil's

> > advocate. Or the devil. Or the advocate;)

> >

> > How would you explain those numbers in a way that made

> > sense to me? That made sense AND made the number in

> > my room sound bad.

> >

> > Thanks, Harriet

>

[Guest guest]

Couldn't agree more! Great job, Carl. It really improved my understanding to see

it all laid out like that. Would it be possible to put this in the files

section?

tigerpaw2c <tigerpaw2c@...> wrote: Carl,

Wow. I can't tell you how much I appreciate these type of

informative explanations. You don't realize how many questions and

thoughts I've had over the years, you have just cleared up. All in

one post.

KC

--- In , " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@h...>

wrote:

>

> Harriet,

>

> Since you want me to play devils advocate and if the devil is in

the

> details, here are a devil's dozen methods of interpreting your lab

> numbers for outside Aspergillius/Pennicillium at 12,000, inside at

> 7,000. The assumed question, but maybe not the right one: Is the

mold

> coming from outside or inside your house?

>

> 1. Inside must be 10 times higher than outdoors or it is not a

> problem. This is leftover from the industrial hygiene beliefs

about

> man-made substances in the work place. Dr Herrick exposed

that

> myth and even said " ...we were wrong " in the Foreword to

Bioaerosols.

> With yours, the indoors is lower than outdoors so there is no

> problem. (See the end for comments on " no problem " ).

>

> 2. Indoor must be 2-3 times higher than outdoors. After some real-

> life experience, traditional IHs realized the 10X rule was not

> representative so they " guessed " at 2-3 times. With yours, the

> indoors is lower than outdoors so there is no problem.

>

> 3. Indoors is normally about equal with outdoors. Further

modifiation

> of #2 as the honest and curious ones got more real life experience

> and guessed that outside infiltration through doors and windows

> should make both environments equal unless the mold was growing

> indoors. They forgot that the primary function of a built

structure

> is to seperate the outdoors from the indoors.

>

> 3a. No one has even tried to figure the transfer rate for

mold to

> move from outside to inside in any given house. If it takes

10

> minutes then you have to time your sampling accordingly. If

it takes

> 10 hours, then you wait 10 hours.

>

> Your indoor level is less but only by about 30%. If the

indoor sample

> had been taken 10 minutes after, or maybe 10 hours, they

might have

> been equivalent. Either way, there is no problem according to

this

> belief system.

>

> 4. Indoors is assumed to be normally less than outdoors unless

there

> is an active source of growth indoors. Further enlightenment.

Yours

> is the same as #3.

>

> 5. The mean indoor levels are 6-7 times LOWER than outdoors. This

is

> the first statistical study based on lab results from actual

samples.

> According to this " rule " your indoor results that would not be a

> problem would be about 1,400 to 1,700. Your result was 4-5 times

> higher than this " normal " level. You have a problem, thanks to the

> PathCon study.

>

> 6. Comparable types of mold. If the types of mold outdoors and

> indoors is the same then there is no problem. If the types

indoors

> are different, especially for those not normally found outdoors,

then

> you might have a problem. With your results we can't tell because

we

> don't know what other molds were found. Penicillium is common

> outdoors and indoors. Your results were by microscopy which can't

> tell the difference between Penicillium and Aspergillus. You could

> have Penicillium outside and Aspergillus inside, indicating a

> problem. But you'd never know it from this data.

>

> 6a. The mold with this method has to be cultured to the

species level

> to have any meaning. If you have Aspergillus at 10,000

outside and

> 7,000 inside, it looks like you don't have a problem. But if

the

> species outside is fumagatus and the species inside is

versicolor,

> then the versicolor did not come from outside. It has to have

come

> from inside. This method is 50-70% more expensive per sample

and you

> can't get this from Home Depot.

>

> 7. Rank order of comparable types of mold. If the comparative

levels

> of the various molds found outdoors is the same indoors, you don't

> have a problem. E.g. from high to low Cladosporium, Penicillium,

> Ascospores, Aspergillus outside and the same ranking order inside.

> The total could be 10,000 or 100 but the only considertion is the

> rank order. If different, especially if reversed, then you do have

a

> problem. Similar thinking to #3 and #6. We don't know.

>

> 8. Normal Fungal Ecology. This term was developed in the IICRC

S520,

> printed December 2003. The idea is that most molds are everywhere

but

> the environment determines which ones grow some and which become

mold

> " gardens " or mold " jungles. " Buildings that are well maintained,

> clean and dry will have a particular profile of types, levels and

> rank order. Climatic and geographical regions will differ, as well

as

> how the building is used. Buidlings that are damp or otherwise

water

> damaged will have a different normal profile - regardless of

levels.

> 20 Aspergillus indoors may indicate a problem in a clean room or

> intensive care unit for the immune compromised but 2000 is okay

for a

> building for the " general public. " With your data, I would tend to

> agree with your consultant that 7,000 of anything is not

> representative of a normal fungal ecology of a clean and dry

> building. I would disagree with him that 2000-3000 is normal.

Maybe

> where you live but not in Colorado.

>

> 8a. What fungal ecology does not account for is the

susceptibility

> and impact level on a highly sensitized individual. If they

had no

> complaints before a roof leak, for example, but they do

after, then I

> don't care about any of the above numbers. There is now a

problem

> that should be resolved - for that person. On the other hand,

an

> extreme level of over 100,000,000 might be fine for someone

that can

> drink arsenic and ask for a cyanide chaser. Why would they

want to

> even consider testing or removing mold? Or arsenic?

>

> 9. Combinations of all the above. Each of the above methods

address

> one portion of the whole problem. Each may be very appropriate in

one

> situation but not in others. That limitation should be noted with

any

> lab results by any method. A more useful method that would have a

> better chance of giving representative information that is

actually

> meaningful and useful would be various combinations of the above

> based on an assessment of the situation. But these are very

complex

> and costly. Therefore, the next method was developed:

>

> 10. MY way. I, and a number of others here and on IEQuality group

for

> example, have developed our own preferred methodolgy and

comparative

> baselines for creating meaning for when to test and how to

interpret

> the results. It work for us, much like investing in pork belly

> futures works for those that have developed a successful system.

But

> that system is almost never transferred directly to somebody else.

> They will come up with their own ideas and improvements, but most

> likely will go broke, instead.

>

> 10a.For the last 6 months or so I have not take a single mold

sample

> for any reason. My success rate for diagnosis and

verification has

> not changed from when I used to take many, many samples of

various

> kinds from lots of locations with different lab analysis

techniques

> costing thousands of dollars for my clients. My annual

revenues have

> decreased accordingly but my value to my clients has

increased.

>

> 10b. According to " my way, " your data is insufficient for

making any

> definitive or authoritative conclusion. However, I would be

very

> comfortable with the general recommendation for further

investigation

> based on the assumption of a problem of some kind until

proven

> otherwise.

>

> 11. The November Steering Committee, composed of the most

> authoritative research experts in the world, most of whom wrote

the

> ACGIH book Bioaerosols, considered by many to be the " bible " of

mold

> and other biologicals in the air. They can find no method,

> statistical or otherwise, that is representative and whose results

> can be reproduced. When they try to duplicate test results even

side-

> by-side at the same time, the differences vary by factors of

hundreds

> to thousands. Or more.

>

> 11a. As an alternative, they are discussing some sort of

> " cleanliness " method that doesn't quantify levels of mold. It

is not

> yet completed.

>

> 12. A follow-on to my Orlando workshop at the IAQA-AmIAQ-IESO

> unification conference last month is an unofficial, ad hoc

committee

> addressing this issue. My expectation is not numerical levels or

even

> a singular procedure. We'll have to wait and see what they come up

> with.

>

> 13. Here is one that NOBODY wants to touch and would just as soon

> forget. ACGIH section 8.6.3 and 15.5 states (my paraphrase) that

the

> ultimate criteria for a successful remediation is the structure

can

> be reoccupied without complaint. My interpretation of a more

> comprehensive position would be something like, if a location has

> occupant complaints then something is wrong and the remediation

job

> is not complete until the source of the complaints are removed or

> otherwise mutually resolved.

>

> So there is my " devil's dozen, " sort of like a baker's dozen only

> with details instead of donuts.

>

> Which leads to my final comment about the use of the

conclusion " No

> problem. " " No problem " is not the same as " according to this

method "

> or " the comparative data do not meet the requirements for

> remediation " or other verbage. NONE of the methods are able to

> determine if there is a problem. NONE can determine whether to

remove

> mold or leave it alone. For you or anyone. It can only say it

answers

> a specific question. If the question isn't stated then the results

> have no meaning.

>

> In your case, is the mold detected by the sampling coming from

inside

> or outside your house? It may be important and it may not. You may

be

> reactive to what they see or you may be reactive to mold that

their

> methods don't see, regardless of where it is growing. That's why

all

> the other info is so important and why we and the professionals

need

> to insist on conclusions based on much more information, including

> occupant complaint profiles, than just numbers on a lab report.

This

> should be science, not numerology.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> > BUT Carl, let's just say you had to play the devil's

> > advocate. Or the devil. Or the advocate;)

> >

> > How would you explain those numbers in a way that made

> > sense to me? That made sense AND made the number in

> > my room sound bad.

> >

> > Thanks, Harriet

>

FAIR USE NOTICE: