Guest guest Posted January 2, 2008 Report Share Posted January 2, 2008 EnviroBob: You are so predictable! First you ASSume that mold products will “eventually” migrate back into the dwelling....I don’t recall from Downeast’s description that migrating mold products was even mentioned. Second, you ASSume that migrating mold products can’t be stopped from getting indoors. If pathways (areas of communication) between the crawlspace and the occupied space can be sealed and/or the crawlspace can be depressurized, similar to what lar3313 and Cassidy are recommending, and I concur with their recommendations, there is a preferential pathway to the outdoors and not the indoors. Both sealing and preferential pathways are practical methods of mitigation that have their attributes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 Carl: Be VERY careful with this recommendation! Removing soil from a crawlspace should only be performed AFTER an engineer evaluates the building foundation, the depth of the foundation, and then recommends just how much soil and where it can be removed, if possible. (Most of the time, I find the answer is: NO) If the foundation is undermined, the foundation does not become well supported, and the resulting damage can be catastrophic! I have worked on 7 structures where this recommendation was made, soil was removed, and footings shifted. The fix is VERY expensive. Removing soil around existing foundation elements is the realm of an experienced engineer, and those that aren’t need not get involved. Are there structural issues or just the mold growth? Are there health complaints? If neither, what is the reason for doing anything? In addition to the pressure differentials and floor removal, the dirt can be dug out to create sufficient room to work (possible foundation issues). It's expensive but if it must be fixed then that is another way to gain access. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > I have a problem and am looking for a new strategy. There is an > approximately 5,000 sf commercial building (really it is an old > country store with new section added on for offices) that is loaded > with pen/asp in the crawlspace (seems to be concentrated visually on > the floor joists and not the subfloor). The site is located in the > southeast US in the coatsal plain. High water table is usually a > problem but with the drought on our area not so much at the moment. > There is no vapor barrier and no insulation between the floor joists. > The problem is there is no room to work in there (anything form 0 to a > max. of 24 " ). I have been in some tight spots before, but this one > was TIGHT! > > We usually go for physical removal, treating, and coating in > crawlspaces with a good vapor barrier. Here there is just no room to > work. Short of going in from the top down, room by room, or just tear > the thing down, I don't have a good idea. Looking for another way. > > Downeast > > > > 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 3, 2008 Report Share Posted January 3, 2008 In addition to building structure and occupants, budget is definitely another key factor in determining the remediation plan. High water table, 0 - 24" of space and no vapor barrier seems like a bad combination. With enough budget, maybe it's time to dig out some soil, put in vapor barrier (build a short basement if possible) and do remediation during the construction after some soil has been removed. With limited budget, creating negative pressure seems reasonable. Migitation (wind or no wind) is the same problem the occupants are having right now. Creating negative pressure is not making it worse. Again, without occupant compliant/health information. It's hard to come up with something more definite. Maybe this is not an option for sensitive people. If there is no exposure, why heat spores to make them easier to become airborne? If there is an exposure, dead mold spores are not any better than live spores, why kill them? I would only use heat to "dry" buildings after an accidental water intrusion (one-time event) and there are places that can't be dried by other means within 48 hours. This is the market they should focus on. Wei Tang QLab"Carl E. Grimes" wrote: Are there structural issues or just the mold growth? Are there health complaints? If neither, what is the reason for doing anything?In addition to the pressure differentials and floor removal, the dirt can be dug out to create sufficient room to work (possible foundation issues). It's expensive but if it must be fixed then that is another way to gain access.Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC-----> I have a problem and am looking for a new strategy. There is an > approximately 5,000 sf commercial building (really it is an old > country store with new section added on for offices) that is loaded > with pen/asp in the crawlspace (seems to be concentrated visually on > the floor joists and not the subfloor). The site is located in the > southeast US in the coatsal plain. High water table is usually a > problem but with the drought on our area not so much at the moment. > There is no vapor barrier and no insulation between the floor joists. > The problem is there is no room to work in there (anything form 0 to a > max. of 24"). I have been in some tight spots before, but this one > was TIGHT!> > We usually go for physical removal, treating, and coating in > crawlspaces with a good vapor barrier. Here there is just no room to > work. Short of going in from the top down, room by room, or just tear > the thing down, I don't have a good idea. Looking for another way.> > Downeast > > > > 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2008 Report Share Posted January 4, 2008 , You offered good and sound advice surrounding soil removal cautions. I am not saying I agree with frequency just good sound advice (consult an engineer or experienced contractor). Usually 4 inches may not become an issue when it is replaced quickly with concrete of equal dept (weather should also be considered). EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 10:44 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Remediation delima Carl: Be VERY careful with this recommendation! Removing soil from a crawlspace should only be performed AFTER an engineer evaluates the building foundation, the depth of the foundation, and then recommends just how much soil and where it can be removed, if possible. (Most of the time, I find the answer is: NO) If the foundation is undermined, the foundation does not become well supported, and the resulting damage can be catastrophic! I have worked on 7 structures where this recommendation was made, soil was removed, and footings shifted. The fix is VERY expensive. Removing soil around existing foundation elements is the realm of an experienced engineer, and those that aren’t need not get involved. On 1/2/08 3:54 PM, " Carl E. Grimes " <grimeshabitats> wrote: Are there structural issues or just the mold growth? Are there health complaints? If neither, what is the reason for doing anything? In addition to the pressure differentials and floor removal, the dirt can be dug out to create sufficient room to work (possible foundation issues). It's expensive but if it must be fixed then that is another way to gain access. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > I have a problem and am looking for a new strategy. There is an > approximately 5,000 sf commercial building (really it is an old > country store with new section added on for offices) that is loaded > with pen/asp in the crawlspace (seems to be concentrated visually on > the floor joists and not the subfloor). The site is located in the > southeast US in the coatsal plain. High water table is usually a > problem but with the drought on our area not so much at the moment. > There is no vapor barrier and no insulation between the floor joists. > The problem is there is no room to work in there (anything form 0 to a > max. of 24 " ). I have been in some tight spots before, but this one > was TIGHT! > > We usually go for physical removal, treating, and coating in > crawlspaces with a good vapor barrier. Here there is just no room to > work. Short of going in from the top down, room by room, or just tear > the thing down, I don't have a good idea. Looking for another way. > > Downeast > > > > 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2008 Report Share Posted January 7, 2008 , I didn't miss the point and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just didn't specify the details assuming competant professionals would check with the appropriate specialized expert. " Assuming " was my mistake. BTW, Colorado has many homes on piers rather than footers because of expansive soils (bentonite). I'm not sure I'd use your slurry idea. My experience is a thick layer of pea gravel and/or sand will result in a dry surface without slowing moisture migration. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > > Wei: > > Both you and Carl miss the point. Building foundations are designed > by licensed engineers and licensed engineers sign-off on foundation > modifications per permit requirements. Removing soil from a building > foundation triggers a permit condition and warrants use of a licensed > and experienced ENGINEER. I cannot think of a situation where it > would not. Not a generic " professional. " Not a contractor, not an > EC, not a CIH, not a microbiologist, not an MD, etc. An engineer! > > I can think of only two foundations where post-construction of the > footing/stem wall, soil was backfilled that was not necessary. And > to this day I don´t know why. In this instance, soil removal was a > piece of cake. However, if a crawlspace is less than 24-in in > height, it is because the foundation is shallow, and, more often than > not, soil cannot be removed without shoring, or phased removal and > replacement. Like EnviroBob stated, replacing the removed soil with > concrete is often necessary. I typically spec a 1-sack sand:pea- > gravel slurry (post soil removal) that can be easily leveled. Adding > 1 to 2% bentonite will also help mitigate shrinkage cracks and ensure > that the slurry stays tight against the footing; which is VERY > important, especially in areas with frost heave/ lateral freeze > loading. A 4 to 6-in thick layer of slurry also provides adequate > water vapor control in most instances. This said, a crawlspace with > less than 24-in of vertical clearance > All this said, removing soil from a crawlspace is not for > " professionals " capable of working on building structures, it is the > realm of the ENGINEER; typically by code and by law. > > For what it is worth. > > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > I am sure that Carl's comment and mine both meant to have > professionals who is capable of working on building structure to do > that, not the mold remediation contractor. > > > > Wei Tang > > QLab > > > > > > > > Geyer wrote: > > > > Carl: > > Be VERY careful with this recommendation! Removing soil from a > crawlspace should only be performed AFTER an engineer evaluates the > building foundation, the depth of the foundation, and then recommends > just how much soil and where it can be removed, if possible. (Most > of the time, I find the answer is: NO) If the foundation is > undermined, the foundation does not become well supported, and the > resulting damage can be catastrophic! > > I have worked on 7 structures where this recommendation was made, > soil was removed, and footings shifted. The fix is VERY expensive. > > Removing soil around existing foundation elements is the realm of an > experienced engineer, and those that aren´t need not get involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there structural issues or just the mold growth? Are there health > complaints? If neither, what is the reason for doing anything? > > In addition to the pressure differentials and floor removal, the dirt > can be dug out to create sufficient room to work (possible foundation > issues). It's expensive but if it must be fixed then that is another > way to gain access. > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC > > ----- > > I have a problem and am looking for a new strategy. There is an > > approximately 5,000 sf commercial building (really it is an old > > country store with new section added on for offices) that is loaded > > with pen/asp in the crawlspace (seems to be concentrated visually > on > > the floor joists and not the subfloor). The site is located in the > > southeast US in the coatsal plain. High water table is usually a > > problem but with the drought on our area not so much at the moment. > > > There is no vapor barrier and no insulation between the floor > joists. > > The problem is there is no room to work in there (anything form 0 > to a > > max. of 24 " ). I have been in some tight spots before, but this one > > was TIGHT! > > > > We usually go for physical removal, treating, and coating in > > crawlspaces with a good vapor barrier. Here there is just no room > to > > work. Short of going in from the top down, room by room, or just > tear > > the thing down, I don't have a good idea. Looking for another way. > > > > Downeast > > > > > > > > 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. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 EnviroBob: You and must be sleeping in the same bed. You definitely pat each other on the bum all too often. Are you aware that and his side lost? and others sued ThermaPure in a patent dispute, stating that the technology was ineffective and a fraud. They lost! ThermaPure won. They used Dr. Harriet Burge as their expert, and they lost! The science was against Dr. Burge and she fell-apart during deposition and could not support her claim that the science of using heat was unproven. All she could say is “I need more data.” The scientists, contractors, doctors, CIHs, and others supporting ThermaPure were compelling, and they prevailed in court. Folks, in order to stop the growth and amplification of biological growth in structures, moist building materials must be dried. Any disagreement? And the quickest method of drying is with the use of heat. Yes.....desiccation and dehumidification will dry building materials too, but not as quickly as actively heating them. Kiln-dried lumber is not dried with desiccation and/or dehumidification, it is done with elevated temperature. As far as EnviroBob’s opinion that heating shrinks building materials thus creating gaps, spaces, and pathways.....what a bunch of bunk! If building materials were dry to begin with, they would be dimensionally stable and they would not shrink – even when heated and returned to ambient temps, there is no significant change in dimension. This said, when porous building materials get wet they expand dimensionally, and Yes, upon drying there may be gaps and those gaps may be significant. The alternative it to keep them moist. Is this what you are advocating EnviroBob?.....keep it moist once moist? Absurd! It is quite obvious that and EnviroBob have been slamming the use of heat, and have repeatedly stated “heat is absolutely NOT the answer.” I understand ’s incentive, he was a licensee of ThermaPure, he was using ThermaPure methods/equipment to mitigate biologicals, and he tried to breech his contract with ThermaPure. stated in his testimony that ThermaPure heat did not work for him on his projects, yet other contractors testified that ThermaPure heat did work....when applied as ThermaPure recommends. This said, if a contractor cuts corners and does not apply a technology/product as recommended, the effect is often less than advertised. Duh! All reasons for publicly denigrate ThermaPure and the use of heat. Interestingly, it is my understanding that is also a licensee of WaterOut, and WterOut also uses heat to dry building materials and mitigate biological growth. Check out the website “waterout.com” and see for yourself. Thus, I do not understand ’s tone, i.e., denigrate heat and ThermaPure while continuing to use WaterOut’s heat technology. Seems rather two-face to me. This said, I do not understand EnviroBob’s incentive, but time will probably flush that out. Using heat to dry moist building materials, off-gas MVOCs, and kill biological growth (not just mold, but bacteria, algaes, protozoa, insects, etc.) has its merits as a method of mitigation. Heat is not the answer for all situations; neither is total removal. Moreover, the ONLY method of total removal is total demolition....there are too many interstitial spaces in a building assembly that are not accessible solely to physical removal of the mold. Therefore, some mold going to be left behind. What are you going to do about the live viable biomass left behind???? Heat provides a low cost non-chemical means of drying moist building materials and mitigating/killing biological growth without invasive demolition, costly rebuild, and loss of use; and can be more thorough than leaving some viable biomass remaining. Heat compliments other remediation methods. IMHO, ThermaPure represents the most effective method of heating a structure and capturing released bioaerosols. WaterOut is another technology that provides similar mechanisms of temperature increase and aerosol capture – because WaterOut has copied much of ThermaPure’s methods and intellectual property. FYI - WaterOut and Thermapure are duking it out in court re patent infringement. ThermaPure won round one, WaterOut lost, and round two is forthcoming. TempAir is another method of heating structures; albeit without aerosol capture. Take your pick of the method that you want to use in remediation. Heat works. I have used/observed all three and continue to work with contractors that are both ThermaPure and WaterOut licensees; there are benefits to both methods and each has its niche. In fact, my last 3 water-damage projects had a WaterOut trailer parked in front of them; not a ThermaPure trailer. Bottom line: heating structures to dry them out, mitigate odors, and kill biologicals is here to stay. It is very effective. Moreover, it does so without adding toxic chemicals, e.g., biocides, to the environment. Heat has a proven track record......just ask Louis Pasteur. For what it is worth..... , Your statement is the most comprehensive I have seen thus far. What gets me the most is the occupants called in an EC. Why; because the particulate was migrating into the occupied space and coming into contact with triggers. Lets think about it a bit, heat causes expansion, expansion results in increased pressure, increased pressure will migrate to areas of lesser pressure (nature hates an imbalance). This allows or evidences available pathways and additionally due to the shrinkage of the building materials pathways are increased in sized and/or developed. Heat is not the solution. The only acceptable means of remediation based upon industry consensus is removal except under extreme condition to which I do not feel this falls under (according to supplied information at this point). Regardless, heat is absolutely “NOT” the answer for this condition. And as for a vapor barrier, be sure you apply it correctly and to the proper side of the materials or you will revisit the condition again. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of eric anderson Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:10 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Remediation delima To All interested: I have several comments on this topic and lots of experience: First off, although a band-aid, i think the idea of setting up negative pressure installed in the basement is a good idea - you are now controlling the environment or managing it in place...though the occupants need to know that if it shuts down there still could be a health risk involved... which is now a good segway into Mr. Geyer's comments to use heat... WHAT???? First off - what is the heat going to do? Kill the mold??? so what...if the crawlspace is wet or damp, the mold will just come back. If it is dead, dead mold still has allergenic proteins that can be harmful to people. AND if you heat it and dessicate the spores, they may not be lighter and go airborne more easily and risk contaminating the occupied space more easily. DO NOT HEAT the space. If you are still thinking about it - find out what scientific evidence supports heat in mold remediation. There is none. We don't know at what temp for what duration heat will kill what type of mold and how many species of molds are there out there? Again - if it is dead - WHO CARES! Lastly - we had the unfortunate opportunity to use heat in crawlspaces. Terrible mistake and almost cost us $100,000+ job and a severe hit to our reputation. It doesn't work. Use heat to kill bugs - not mold. So - for the crawlspace, you have two options: 1. Band aid - set up air scubbers/filtering machines in the occupied space, monitor regularly and control air borne particulate. 2. Solve the problem correctly. Fix the moisture source, clean the crawlspace (find someone small) or go in from the occupied space by removing flooring. Finally - there is only 1 company who offers heat in mold remediation because they have a patent on doing so. Here is their policy statement taken from their website: Policy Statement: COMPANY is considered a new and developing technology as a fungal remediation tool. The implementation of COMPANY is not the same technology as gross mold removal. Whenever possible, gross removal of mold should be the preferred method of mold remediation. When COMPANY is used as a remediation tool the project should be overseen by an independent and qualified Indoor Environmental Professional (IEP). Most fungal remediation methods, including COMPANY, leave both dead and live fungi following remediation. Both live and dead fungi are a potential health risk. If you want to know who that company is - ask envirobob or email me directly... And lastly - YOU NEED A VAPOR BARRIER! Good luck!! --- EnviroBob <Bob@... <mailto:Bob%40EnvironmentalAirTechs.com> > wrote: > Dear Mr. Geyer, > > > > And how do you address the remaining (or dead) > particulate (spores and body > fragments, etc.) that eventually will migrate back > into the dwelling thus > more likely than not coming into contact with > receptors? I am not sure if > you have kept up with the various concerns over he > issues that surround the > mold and its body fragments. Is your protocol for > relief a temporary means > or permanent? > > > > One must consider that the dwelling or unit owner > most likely called in an > EC due to particulate migration towards the occupied > space. > > > > EnviroBob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 Wei, is making general statements. In our area an engineer is not required to design and/or sign off on foundations and/or the foundation plans. An engineer is not required to sign off on foundation repairs (one may be called in although not required). An unrestricted general contractor is qualified and licensed to conduct such task. Let’s take a moment; how many contractors do you know who use an engineer, not as many as those who do not. Prior to the building process the building plans which include the foundation and/or foundation type of support system must be submitted to the building department for review prior to receiving the building permit. In our area only buildings or additions over 35,000 CF require an engineering stamp. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 6:24 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Remediation delima , Thanks for your explanation. You will be the right guy to be consulted for this job then. Wei Tang QLab Geyer <mgeyeratg1> wrote: Wei: Both you and Carl miss the point. Building foundations are designed by licensed engineers and licensed engineers sign-off on foundation modifications per permit requirements. Removing soil from a building foundation triggers a permit condition and warrants use of a licensed and experienced ENGINEER. I cannot think of a situation where it would not. Not a generic “professional.” Not a contractor, not an EC, not a CIH, not a microbiologist, not an MD, etc. An engineer! I can think of only two foundations where post-construction of the footing/stem wall, soil was backfilled that was not necessary. And to this day I don’t know why. In this instance, soil removal was a piece of cake. However, if a crawlspace is less than 24-in in height, it is because the foundation is shallow, and, more often than not, soil cannot be removed without shoring, or phased removal and replacement. Like EnviroBob stated, replacing the removed soil with concrete is often necessary. I typically spec a 1-sack sand:pea-gravel slurry (post soil removal) that can be easily leveled. Adding 1 to 2% bentonite will also help mitigate shrinkage cracks and ensure that the slurry stays tight against the footing; which is VERY important, especially in areas with frost heave/ lateral freeze loading. A 4 to 6-in thick layer of slurry also provides adequate water vapor control in most instances. This said, a crawlspace with less than 24-in of vertical clearance is a PITA (pain in the ass), and often requires top-down access if extensive repairs, modification, and/or remediation is warranted. More often than not, a crawlspace cannot be easily made deeper (taller). If you have a structure with a shallow crawlspace, you are often stuck with it. All this said, removing soil from a crawlspace is not for “professionals” capable of working on building structures, it is the realm of the ENGINEER; typically by code and by law. For what it is worth. On 1/4/08 3:51 PM, " Wei Tang " <wtangQLABusa> wrote: , I am sure that Carl's comment and mine both meant to have professionals who is capable of working on building structure to do that, not the mold remediation contractor. Wei Tang QLab Geyer <mgeyeratg1> wrote: Carl: Be VERY careful with this recommendation! Removing soil from a crawlspace should only be performed AFTER an engineer evaluates the building foundation, the depth of the foundation, and then recommends just how much soil and where it can be removed, if possible. (Most of the time, I find the answer is: NO) If the foundation is undermined, the foundation does not become well supported, and the resulting damage can be catastrophic! I have worked on 7 structures where this recommendation was made, soil was removed, and footings shifted. The fix is VERY expensive. Removing soil around existing foundation elements is the realm of an experienced engineer, and those that aren’t need not get involved. On 1/2/08 3:54 PM, " Carl E. Grimes " <grimeshabitats> wrote: Are there structural issues or just the mold growth? Are there health complaints? If neither, what is the reason for doing anything? In addition to the pressure differentials and floor removal, the dirt can be dug out to create sufficient room to work (possible foundation issues). It's expensive but if it must be fixed then that is another way to gain access. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > I have a problem and am looking for a new strategy. There is an > approximately 5,000 sf commercial building (really it is an old > country store with new section added on for offices) that is loaded > with pen/asp in the crawlspace (seems to be concentrated visually on > the floor joists and not the subfloor). The site is located in the > southeast US in the coatsal plain. High water table is usually a > problem but with the drought on our area not so much at the moment. > There is no vapor barrier and no insulation between the floor joists. > The problem is there is no room to work in there (anything form 0 to a > max. of 24 " ). I have been in some tight spots before, but this one > was TIGHT! > > We usually go for physical removal, treating, and coating in > crawlspaces with a good vapor barrier. Here there is just no room to > work. Short of going in from the top down, room by room, or just tear > the thing down, I don't have a good idea. Looking for another way. > > Downeast > > > > 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 , It appears by your missive that you are desperate to restore the damage to your reputation. Again it dos not fall upon you that no one has stated that heat is not beneficial. I have stated that heat as offered under the condition you and ThermaPure present is not all that you and ThermaPure (in the past) has presented. , are you aware that ThermaPure has changed it’s web page? Apparently I am not as familiar with this case you state on this list (good ethics would have prevented such an error) so I do not have anything to gain or lose by the purported case you speak of. What I do know is this; when the Thermapure method was mentioned to me I saw to many issues and did not purchase the system as you state Mr. had. It does appear that your glee represents a bias that I would not be proud to banner. Something you may consider, a win or loss does not justify your position due to many other unknown factors. Now back to the science; as an engineer are you telling this list that you can guarantee by heating the occupied space you are also able to heat the cavities including the cavity exterior surface to the same degrees as the occupied space with an exterior temperature of 20 degrees? If you are unable, than you have not proven your claim. BTW, when dry heat is applied to building materials due to ERH the building materials will shrink. It appears you have been successful convincing yourself at least. To reduce oneself to attach another’s character to some how establish your position is not convincing to me. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:20 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Remediation delima EnviroBob: You and must be sleeping in the same bed. You definitely pat each other on the bum all too often. Are you aware that and his side lost? and others sued ThermaPure in a patent dispute, stating that the technology was ineffective and a fraud. They lost! ThermaPure won. They used Dr. Harriet Burge as their expert, and they lost! The science was against Dr. Burge and she fell-apart during deposition and could not support her claim that the science of using heat was unproven. All she could say is “I need more data.” The scientists, contractors, doctors, CIHs, and others supporting ThermaPure were compelling, and they prevailed in court. Folks, in order to stop the growth and amplification of biological growth in structures, moist building materials must be dried. Any disagreement? And the quickest method of drying is with the use of heat. Yes.....desiccation and dehumidification will dry building materials too, but not as quickly as actively heating them. Kiln-dried lumber is not dried with desiccation and/or dehumidification, it is done with elevated temperature. As far as EnviroBob’s opinion that heating shrinks building materials thus creating gaps, spaces, and pathways.....what a bunch of bunk! If building materials were dry to begin with, they would be dimensionally stable and they would not shrink – even when heated and returned to ambient temps, there is no significant change in dimension. This said, when porous building materials get wet they expand dimensionally, and Yes, upon drying there may be gaps and those gaps may be significant. The alternative it to keep them moist. Is this what you are advocating EnviroBob?.....keep it moist once moist? Absurd! It is quite obvious that and EnviroBob have been slamming the use of heat, and have repeatedly stated “heat is absolutely NOT the answer.” I understand ’s incentive, he was a licensee of ThermaPure, he was using ThermaPure methods/equipment to mitigate biologicals, and he tried to breech his contract with ThermaPure. stated in his testimony that ThermaPure heat did not work for him on his projects, yet other contractors testified that ThermaPure heat did work....when applied as ThermaPure recommends. This said, if a contractor cuts corners and does not apply a technology/product as recommended, the effect is often less than advertised. Duh! All reasons for publicly denigrate ThermaPure and the use of heat. Interestingly, it is my understanding that is also a licensee of WaterOut, and WterOut also uses heat to dry building materials and mitigate biological growth. Check out the website “waterout.com” and see for yourself. Thus, I do not understand ’s tone, i.e., denigrate heat and ThermaPure while continuing to use WaterOut’s heat technology. Seems rather two-face to me. This said, I do not understand EnviroBob’s incentive, but time will probably flush that out. Using heat to dry moist building materials, off-gas MVOCs, and kill biological growth (not just mold, but bacteria, algaes, protozoa, insects, etc.) has its merits as a method of mitigation. Heat is not the answer for all situations; neither is total removal. Moreover, the ONLY method of total removal is total demolition....there are too many interstitial spaces in a building assembly that are not accessible solely to physical removal of the mold. Therefore, some mold going to be left behind. What are you going to do about the live viable biomass left behind???? Heat provides a low cost non-chemical means of drying moist building materials and mitigating/killing biological growth without invasive demolition, costly rebuild, and loss of use; and can be more thorough than leaving some viable biomass remaining. Heat compliments other remediation methods. IMHO, ThermaPure represents the most effective method of heating a structure and capturing released bioaerosols. WaterOut is another technology that provides similar mechanisms of temperature increase and aerosol capture – because WaterOut has copied much of ThermaPure’s methods and intellectual property. FYI - WaterOut and Thermapure are duking it out in court re patent infringement. ThermaPure won round one, WaterOut lost, and round two is forthcoming. TempAir is another method of heating structures; albeit without aerosol capture. Take your pick of the method that you want to use in remediation. Heat works. I have used/observed all three and continue to work with contractors that are both ThermaPure and WaterOut licensees; there are benefits to both methods and each has its niche. In fact, my last 3 water-damage projects had a WaterOut trailer parked in front of them; not a ThermaPure trailer. Bottom line: heating structures to dry them out, mitigate odors, and kill biologicals is here to stay. It is very effective. Moreover, it does so without adding toxic chemicals, e.g., biocides, to the environment. Heat has a proven track record......just ask Louis Pasteur. For what it is worth..... On 1/3/08 12:06 PM, " EnviroBob " <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs> wrote: , Your statement is the most comprehensive I have seen thus far. What gets me the most is the occupants called in an EC. Why; because the particulate was migrating into the occupied space and coming into contact with triggers. Lets think about it a bit, heat causes expansion, expansion results in increased pressure, increased pressure will migrate to areas of lesser pressure (nature hates an imbalance). This allows or evidences available pathways and additionally due to the shrinkage of the building materials pathways are increased in sized and/or developed. Heat is not the solution. The only acceptable means of remediation based upon industry consensus is removal except under extreme condition to which I do not feel this falls under (according to supplied information at this point). Regardless, heat is absolutely “NOT” the answer for this condition. And as for a vapor barrier, be sure you apply it correctly and to the proper side of the materials or you will revisit the condition again. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of eric anderson Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 11:10 AM To: iequality Subject: RE: Remediation delima To All interested: I have several comments on this topic and lots of experience: First off, although a band-aid, i think the idea of setting up negative pressure installed in the basement is a good idea - you are now controlling the environment or managing it in place...though the occupants need to know that if it shuts down there still could be a health risk involved... which is now a good segway into Mr. Geyer's comments to use heat... WHAT???? First off - what is the heat going to do? Kill the mold??? so what...if the crawlspace is wet or damp, the mold will just come back. If it is dead, dead mold still has allergenic proteins that can be harmful to people. AND if you heat it and dessicate the spores, they may not be lighter and go airborne more easily and risk contaminating the occupied space more easily. DO NOT HEAT the space. If you are still thinking about it - find out what scientific evidence supports heat in mold remediation. There is none. We don't know at what temp for what duration heat will kill what type of mold and how many species of molds are there out there? Again - if it is dead - WHO CARES! Lastly - we had the unfortunate opportunity to use heat in crawlspaces. Terrible mistake and almost cost us $100,000+ job and a severe hit to our reputation. It doesn't work. Use heat to kill bugs - not mold. So - for the crawlspace, you have two options: 1. Band aid - set up air scubbers/filtering machines in the occupied space, monitor regularly and control air borne particulate. 2. Solve the problem correctly. Fix the moisture source, clean the crawlspace (find someone small) or go in from the occupied space by removing flooring. Finally - there is only 1 company who offers heat in mold remediation because they have a patent on doing so. Here is their policy statement taken from their website: Policy Statement: COMPANY is considered a new and developing technology as a fungal remediation tool. The implementation of COMPANY is not the same technology as gross mold removal. Whenever possible, gross removal of mold should be the preferred method of mold remediation. When COMPANY is used as a remediation tool the project should be overseen by an independent and qualified Indoor Environmental Professional (IEP). Most fungal remediation methods, including COMPANY, leave both dead and live fungi following remediation. Both live and dead fungi are a potential health risk. If you want to know who that company is - ask envirobob or email me directly... And lastly - YOU NEED A VAPOR BARRIER! Good luck!! --- EnviroBob <BobEnvironmentalAirTechs <mailto:Bob%40EnvironmentalAirTechs.com> > wrote: > Dear Mr. Geyer, > > > > And how do you address the remaining (or dead) > particulate (spores and body > fragments, etc.) that eventually will migrate back > into the dwelling thus > more likely than not coming into contact with > receptors? I am not sure if > you have kept up with the various concerns over he > issues that surround the > mold and its body fragments. Is your protocol for > relief a temporary means > or permanent? > > > > One must consider that the dwelling or unit owner > most likely called in an > EC due to particulate migration towards the occupied > space. > > > > EnviroBob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Mr. Geyer, You are wrong on many levels. First off, I don't appreciate you commenting on my sexual orientation - I have never met EnviroBob, and although I'm sure he is a perfect gentleman, I would not like to share a bed with him nor would I pat his bum. After I digest the incredibly inaccurate statements and claims in your recent remarks about me, ThermaPureHeat, and WaterOut, I will post my comments. Until then, anyone who is considering using ThermaPureHeat for ANYTHING - do yourself a favor...don't. The truth will come out soon enough. 2008 is going to be a great year for this industry. > > > Dear Mr. Geyer, > > > > > > > > And how do you address the remaining (or dead) > > particulate (spores and body > > fragments, etc.) that eventually will migrate back > > into the dwelling thus > > more likely than not coming into contact with > > receptors? I am not sure if > > you have kept up with the various concerns over he > > issues that surround the > > mold and its body fragments. Is your protocol for > > relief a temporary means > > or permanent? > > > > > > > > One must consider that the dwelling or unit owner > > most likely called in an > > EC due to particulate migration towards the occupied > > space. > > > > > > > > EnviroBob > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 , Couldn't it be said that the natural process of heat vaporizes almost all substances at different levels of temperature, and that simply raising the temperature of any amorphous collection of dissimilar objects of matter will drive off vapors from those of those objects that are heated and ventilated sufficiently, with the number of substances that are able to be vaporized increasing gradually as the temperature is raised? So, if the range of 'natural' temperatures experienced in a building is, say -20 to 110 degrees F then raising the temperature of the entire building to 130 degrees for a few hours while ventilating it will achieve a TRANSIENT REDUCTION IN PERCEIVED SMELLS emanating from that building's matter, at those lower temperatures as well as a drying, also temporary, of its contents? Just curious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Quack: Yes, with increasing temperature, substances that were not volatile (at the initial temp) will become volatile. Raise the temp high enuff and even solid iron will vaporize. This is why chemistry is described on the basis of standard temperature and pressure (STP) for gases, liquids, and solids; things change, and some chemicals at 70-F and 1-atm are volatile, some are semi-volatile, and others are non-volatile. This said, let’s look at your other comments. The typical range of temperature experienced inside an occupied building does not range from –20F to 110-F, at least not inside my house!, outdoor temperatures maybe, but not the typical indoor temp. Indoor temps are typically kept 60-F to 80-F. Raising the inside temp to 130-F will allow chemicals that were maybe semi-volatile at 70-F, to become volatile; ethanol comes to mind – a typical microbial by-product, and dichlorobenzene – those semi-solid deodorizers used in dirty bathrooms to mask the dirty smells. Chemicals that were volatile at 70-F, those that you can smell, become hyper-volatile....if I can use that term and not get BBQ’d. In the heated atmosphere, these now-volatile chemicals, when vented out of the building, are removed from the building, i.e., there is a net reduction in the mass of the source chemical; be it a volatile or semi-volatile chemical at 70-F. When the building is restored back to 70-F, a net temperature differential of 60-degrees (which is significant), there will be a permanent reduction in perceived smell. IF and only IF there is a net increase in the source chemical post-heating, will the perceived smell be temporary – assuming most if not all of the source chemical was removed during heating. Thus, if there is no net increase in the source chemical, there should be no additional smell because the concentration is less. This said, there are a lot of issues, permutations, and controls that I am glossing-over that warrant attention to detail, e.g., target temp, duration of elevated temps, rate of temp increase, rate of temp decrease, distribution uniformity, air flow patters, thermal masses therein, odor threshold, etc., etc. Case in point.....I recently supervised heating a new two-story residential structure where the (dumb) contractor sprayed all dimensional and veneer wood products with a copper napthinate-containing outdoor-rated wood preservative. Upon moving into the home, the home owners thought that they were being poisoned by the copper napthenate. This said, the odor in the home was not from the copper napthenate, but the mineral spirits used as a carrier/solvent – approx 30-gallons of the stuff. The house reeked of solvent odor! My specs called for heating this house to 120-F over the course of three days. The house was heated with continuous ventilation, i.e., hot air in, and hot air+chemical vapors out. Initially, the house was slowly heated over the course of 12-hours, no more than 5-degree increase per hour, to normalize building materials and get good distribution uniformity. Upon reaching the target temperature of 120-F, odor concentration began to increase. After two days it was intense – you could not stick your face into the exhaust vents without gagging on the volatiles. After three days the odor was still strong, but declining, and I convinced the owner to continue heating for an additional day. (FYI, the contractor charged approx $13K per day to heat this house.) The on-site tech said that at the very beginning of day four, the concentration of odors in the exhaust vents “dropped like a rock.” To me, this indicated that most of the source chemical (mass) had indeed been volatilized and removed. We then began the purge and gradual cool-down process, the whole time venting. After it was over, the owners reported no further odors; except when one specific fan unit is operating in the “heater” mode there was a faint solvent odor....very faint. I could not smell it but the hypersensitive owners could. We are now investigating if the preservative was sprayed inside the fan unit and/or the ducting, or if the return air duct, which is long and deeply buried inside wall/floor systems, has a leak. Other than this single issue, there are no odors associated with the wood preservative in the home – the home that formerly reeked of solvent odors. Thus, heating can significantly reduce odors of a source chemical, and do so permanently. This type of success won’t happen in all instances, there are too many permutations involved, but it can work with great success if the application warrants the technology and heat is applied and monitored properly. For what it is worth.... , Couldn't it be said that the natural process of heat vaporizes almost all substances at different levels of temperature, and that simply raising the temperature of any amorphous collection of dissimilar objects of matter will drive off vapors from those of those objects that are heated and ventilated sufficiently, with the number of substances that are able to be vaporized increasing gradually as the temperature is raised? So, if the range of 'natural' temperatures experienced in a building is, say -20 to 110 degrees F then raising the temperature of the entire building to 130 degrees for a few hours while ventilating it will achieve a TRANSIENT REDUCTION IN PERCEIVED SMELLS emanating from that building's matter, at those lower temperatures as well as a drying, also temporary, of its contents? Just curious... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.