RE: Risk assesment of mold

January 2, 2012

The liability part of your question is a

hard one, but from your perspective as employer worried about liability to or

arising from your employees you have the stronger position. Since the AECOM

paper finding no correlation between serious health threats and mold exposure

it has been very difficult for plaintiffs to win cases for personal injury/mold

exposure. As to clearance for contamination, assuming you have identified and

remediated the contamination in the first place that seems easy (of course to a

lawyer not technical guy); if the water source has been resolved and the

visible mold removed, aren’t you home free?

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of jeffcharlton2001

Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012

2:36 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Risk

assesment of mold

When attending water damage building and occupants are

suffering poor health what guidance should be given regarding the health and

risk aspects to both occupants and workers?

There is only one maximum exposure level for one type of mould (aspergillus

flavus -aflatoxin) and absolutely no idea of complex synergy between bacteria

and variant mould genus?

While work place legislation may require the wearing of PPE this does not roll

over to occupants.

Do we assume the potential toxicity which may be a legal responsibility to our

employees and issue relevant PPE but ignore the occupants who may be exposed

24/7 ?

How do you measure the risk/toxicity when no guidance or standards exist?

How do you prove clearance of contswmination (not spores)and oif you can´t

whats your liability?

January 2, 2012

Shel,

When you say "since the ACOEM paper..." are you talking about the 2002 version or the newest one in 2011?

Sharon

The liability part of your question is a hard one, but from your perspective as employer worried about liability to or arising from your employees you have the stronger position. Since the AECOM paper finding no correlation between serious health threats and mold exposure it has been very difficult for plaintiffs to win cases for personal injury/mold exposure. As to clearance for contamination, assuming you have identified and remediated the contamination in the first place that seems easy (of course to a lawyer not technical guy); if the water source has been resolved and the visible mold removed, arenâ€™t you home free?

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of jeffcharlton2001Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:36 AMTo: iequality Subject: Risk assesment of mold

When attending water damage building and occupants are suffering poor health what guidance should be given regarding the health and risk aspects to both occupants and workers?There is only one maximum exposure level for one type of mould (aspergillus flavus -aflatoxin) and absolutely no idea of complex synergy between bacteria and variant mould genus?While work place legislation may require the wearing of PPE this does not roll over to occupants.Do we assume the potential toxicity which may be a legal responsibility to our employees and issue relevant PPE but ignore the occupants who may be exposed 24/7 ?How do you measure the risk/toxicity when no guidance or standards exist?How do you prove clearance of contswmination (not spores)and oif you canÂ´t whats your liability?

January 2, 2012

Hi Shell

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond.

I am taking what appears to be a totally different perspective about risk and hazard.

While nobody can prove causation of illness from a single mould component, and most importantly all professional mould removal companies believe visible mould removal or rank order to ambient is clearance I do not see it this way.

It is my belief that varying components which individually may be seen as possibly present although unproven to be a hazard when present there is a synergistic risk without the capability of being measured.

It is my belief that in a civil court a contractor or landlord would be hard pushed to prove that a historic water damaged building is safe just be removing visible contamination and drying it.

The hazard must be seen as the chemical components and exposure 365 days a year to the atopic population.

Just how can anyone prove they have decontaminated chemical mycotoxins, VOCS and other compounds which have not been measured just by measuring spores?

If someone has medical history after a water damage event isn´t that evidence of associated harm especially if blood or medical tests prove the presence in the human system?

I have no legal or medical training so I am not arguing with you, just debating.

Regards

Jeff

Sent: 02 January 2012 17:24

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Risk assesment of mold

January 2, 2012

ï»¿Both papers prove nothing: 2002 & 2011. Just look at the references cited. Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologistwww.drthrasher.orgtoxicologist1@... Cell: Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADCTrauma Specialistsandracrawley@... - Cell "The ultimate success of a truth depends not on the many but on the perseverance and earnestness of the few".Emma Goldman This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance. Re: Risk assesment of mold Shel, When you say "since the ACOEM paper..." are you talking about the 2002 version or the newest one in 2011? Sharon The liability part of your question is a hard one, but from your perspective as employer worried about liability to or arising from your employees you have the stronger position. Since the AECOM paper finding no correlation between serious health threats and mold exposure it has been very difficult for plaintiffs to win cases for personal injury/mold exposure. As to clearance for contamination, assuming you have identified and remediated the contamination in the first place that seems easy (of course to a lawyer not technical guy); if the water source has been resolved and the visible mold removed, arenâ€™t you home free?Shell BleiweissLaw Offices of Shell J. BleiweissEnvironmental and OSHA LawOffices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois sbleiweiss@...http://www.shell-bleiweiss.comFrom: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of jeffcharlton2001Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012 2:36 AMTo: iequality Subject: Risk assesment of mold When attending water damage building and occupants are suffering poor health what guidance should be given regarding the health and risk aspects to both occupants and workers?There is only one maximum exposure level for one type of mould (aspergillus flavus -aflatoxin) and absolutely no idea of complex synergy between bacteria and variant mould genus?While work place legislation may require the wearing of PPE this does not roll over to occupants.Do we assume the potential toxicity which may be a legal responsibility to our employees and issue relevant PPE but ignore the occupants who may be exposed 24/7 ?How do you measure the risk/toxicity when no guidance or standards exist?How do you prove clearance of contswmination (not spores)and oif you canÂ´t whats your liability?

January 2, 2012

There are also genetic risk including CP450 polymorphism as well as HLA susceptibility. Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D.Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologistwww.drthrasher.orgtoxicologist1@... Cell: Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADCTrauma Specialistsandracrawley@... - Cell "The ultimate success of a truth depends not on the many but on the perseverance and earnestness of the few".Emma Goldman This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to advise the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance. RE: Risk assesment of mold Hi ShellThanks for taking the trouble to respond.I am taking what appears to be a totally different perspective about risk and hazard.While nobody can prove causation of illness from a single mould component, and most importantly all professional mould removal companies believe visible mould removal or rank order to ambient is clearance I do not see it this way.It is my belief that varying components which individually may be seen as possibly present although unproven to be a hazard when present there is a synergistic risk without the capability of being measured. It is my belief that in a civil court a contractor or landlord would be hard pushed to prove that a historic water damaged building is safe just be removing visible contamination and drying it. The hazard must be seen as the chemical components and exposure 365 days a year to the atopic population.Just how can anyone prove they have decontaminated chemical mycotoxins, VOCS and other compounds which have not been measured just by measuring spores?If someone has medical history after a water damage event isn´t that evidence of associated harm especially if blood or medical tests prove the presence in the human system?I have no legal or medical training so I am not arguing with you, just debating.RegardsJeff Sent: 02 January 2012 17:24To: iequality Subject: RE: Risk assesment of mold

January 2, 2012

I was referring to the earlier one, but I

don’t see that the recent one has changed anything.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012

11:32 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Risk

assesment of mold

Shel,

When you

say " since the ACOEM paper... " are you talking about the 2002

version or the newest one in 2011?

Sharon

In a

message dated 1/2/2012 9:24:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

sbleiweiss@... writes:

The liability part of your question is a hard one, but from your

perspective as employer worried about liability to or arising from your

employees you have the stronger position. Since the AECOM paper finding no

correlation between serious health threats and mold exposure it has been very

difficult for plaintiffs to win cases for personal injury/mold exposure. As to

clearance for contamination, assuming you have identified and remediated the

contamination in the first place that seems easy (of course to a lawyer not

technical guy); if the water source has been resolved and the visible

mold removed, aren’t you home free?

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of jeffcharlton2001

Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012

2:36 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Risk

assesment of mold

When attending water damage building and occupants are suffering

poor health what guidance should be given regarding the health and risk aspects

to both occupants and workers?

There is only one maximum exposure level for one type of mould (aspergillus

flavus -aflatoxin) and absolutely no idea of complex synergy between bacteria

and variant mould genus?

While work place legislation may require the wearing of PPE this does not roll

over to occupants.

Do we assume the potential toxicity which may be a legal responsibility to our

employees and issue relevant PPE but ignore the occupants who may be exposed

24/7 ?

How do you measure the risk/toxicity when no guidance or standards exist?

How do you prove clearance of contswmination (not spores)and oif you can´t

whats your liability?

January 2, 2012

Your statement:

It is my belief that

in a civil court a contractor or landlord would be hard pushed to prove that a

historic water damaged building is safe

belies the issue. It

is the plaintiff that has to prove a hazard and causation. It is not the

contractor or landlord that have to prove a building is safe.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago

and Barrington, Illinois

sbleiweiss@...

http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of tech

Sent: Monday, January 02, 2012

11:57 AM

To: iequality ;

iequality

Subject: RE: Risk

assesment of mold

Hi Shell

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond.

I am taking what appears to be a totally different perspective about risk and

hazard.

While nobody can prove causation of illness from a single mould component, and

most importantly all professional mould removal companies believe visible mould

removal or rank order to ambient is clearance I do not see it this way.

It is my belief that varying components which

individually may be seen as possibly present although unproven to be a

hazard when present there is a synergistic risk without the

capability of being measured.

It is my belief that in a civil court a

contractor or landlord would be hard pushed to prove that a historic water

damaged building is safe just be removing visible contamination and drying it.

The hazard must be seen as the chemical

components and exposure 365 days a year to the atopic population.

Just how can anyone prove they have

decontaminated chemical mycotoxins, VOCS and other compounds which have not

been measured just by measuring spores?

If someone has medical history after a water

damage event isn´t that evidence of associated harm especially if blood or

medical tests prove the presence in the human system?

I have no legal or medical training so

I am not arguing with you, just debating.

Regards

Jeff

From: " Shell

Bleiweiss "

Sent: 02 January 2012 17:24

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Risk

assesment of mold

January 2, 2012

I agree. I have heard that the new one is not even being used in litigations. Too much water under the bridge.

Sharon Noonan Kramer

I was referring to the earlier one, but I donâ€™t see that the recent one has changed anything.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

Offices in Chicago and Barrington, Illinois

January 3, 2012

This opens an interesting situation.

If my property is contaminated with mould and a contractor charges $20,000 to decontaminate he should provide a clearance certificate or invoice stating charges for decontamination.

How did he measure decontamination and if he didn´t was it a fraudulent invoice?

If an insurer nominated that contractor would they be supporting that fraud?

Seems to me decontamination at present is nothing of the sort and simply reflects a partial clean up and if medical history (suggested in IOM) shows symptoms of mould exposure following ccupancy or water damage event would that be a difficult case to win??

Sent: 02 January 2012 19:54