Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

[Guest guest]

Semco, etc.

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozc70JPGRMQ

Tearing down house - Need advice please

I am tearing down my contaminated house. It is my understanding that mold

is now growing

on walls and most furniture. (I have not been in the house for some time).

In the state I live in, there are no enviornmental standards regarding

taking the house down.

It was suggested that I water the house down during the process not to

spread mold spores

thought out the neighborhood. (Makes sense). So the fire department is

willing to help.

This is my problem. There were so many types of mold found in my house and

so much, I

am worried about the water and spores soaking into the ground.

I am planning on rebuilding on the same lot.

What can I do to treat the ground? I know there will be a large

concentration of various

molds soaking into the ground.

Any advice on who to call, what kind of company, chemicals, anything to

insure I am not

going to rebuild on contaminated ground and have the same problem again?

Thank you in advance for your suggestions.

[Guest guest]

semco:

First and foremost, the soil is the single and by far the largest reservoir of microbiologicals on this planet; and that includes mold spores. The amount of mold spores added to the soil during your house demolition is miniscule when compared to what is already present therein. Moreover, added spores become food for nematodes, arthropods, worms, and other critters also present in the soil – feed them and they will thrive! Using water to mitigate aerosols during demolition does not need to be in such quantity (i.e., a deluge) that there is run-off. Be diligent in your water use to limit the formation of aerosols and it will also limit material washed into the soil. Moreover, flooding the demolition site will not eliminate the formation of aerosols. Thus, use some common sense! This said, having the fire department assist is not wise, IMHO. Firemen mentality revolves around a deluge. You do not want a deluge. You want a smart use of a water mist in the zone of destruction; which a couple of garden hoses can provide.

For what it is worth.....

I am tearing down my contaminated house. It is my understanding that mold is now growing

on walls and most furniture. (I have not been in the house for some time).

In the state I live in, there are no enviornmental standards regarding taking the house down.

It was suggested that I water the house down during the process not to spread mold spores

thought out the neighborhood. (Makes sense). So the fire department is willing to help.

This is my problem. There were so many types of mold found in my house and so much, I

am worried about the water and spores soaking into the ground.

I am planning on rebuilding on the same lot.

What can I do to treat the ground? I know there will be a large concentration of various

molds soaking into the ground.

Any advice on who to call, what kind of company, chemicals, anything to insure I am not

going to rebuild on contaminated ground and have the same problem again?

Thank you in advance for your suggestions.

[Guest guest]

semco_semco_semco,

We live on a moldy planet – mold is supposed to be

outdoors, including in the soil. Just think about what goes on in a compost

pile. You will quite likely violate federal, state, and/or local regulations if

you “treat” the ground with something to kill/suppress mold.

Water helps to reduce the clouds of dust normal with any

demolition. Water also adds to the weight of the debris, though. Weight would

be a factor in loading/hauling the debris as well as possible disposal costs.

Even with a water spray, there will still be some dust, so you might want to

consider wearing at least an N-95 particle mask. If you use a half face

respirator, make sure it has HEPA filter cartridges (magenta color code) not

the standard paint vapor/VOC filter cartridges (black color code) common at home

improvement stores.

If the house was built before the late 1970’s, you may

want to have it inspected for asbestos (and lead-based paint) before knocking

it down. Spreading asbestos or lead contamination around on your lot (or the

neighbor’s) would be a problem well worth avoiding.

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

Wichita, Kansas

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of semco_semco_semco

Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:21 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Tearing down house - Need advice please

I am tearing down my contaminated house. It is

my understanding that mold is now growing

on walls and most furniture. (I have not been in the house for some time).

In the state I live in, there are no enviornmental standards regarding taking

the house down.

It was suggested that I water the house down during the process not to spread

mold spores

thought out the neighborhood. (Makes sense). So the fire department is willing

to help.

This is my problem. There were so many types of mold found in my house and so

much, I

am worried about the water and spores soaking into the ground.

I am planning on rebuilding on the same lot.

What can I do to treat the ground? I know there will be a large concentration

of various

molds soaking into the ground.

Any advice on who to call, what kind of company, chemicals, anything to insure

I am not

going to rebuild on contaminated ground and have the same problem again?

Thank you in advance for your suggestions.

[Guest guest]

I like burning down the house. Called the fire department and they don't do

that anymore.

House was built in 1994, so there is no danger of anything except a LOT of toxic

mold.

I am standing across the street, but understand what you mean by mist. I have

to use a

fire hose, there is no water at the house.

I CAN'T WAIT TO TEAR IT DOWN! That house was the biggest nightmare of my life!

Thanks everyone for your advice. Funny thing to mention, the county where I

live now has

a " mold line " , but when you call it, you get a recording that says, " This line

is not taking

calls at this time! "

>

> semco_semco_semco,

>

>

>

> We live on a moldy planet - mold is supposed to be outdoors, including

> in the soil. Just think about what goes on in a compost pile. You will

> quite likely violate federal, state, and/or local regulations if you

> " treat " the ground with something to kill/suppress mold.

>

>

>

> Water helps to reduce the clouds of dust normal with any demolition.

> Water also adds to the weight of the debris, though. Weight would be a

> factor in loading/hauling the debris as well as possible disposal costs.

> Even with a water spray, there will still be some dust, so you might

> want to consider wearing at least an N-95 particle mask. If you use a

> half face respirator, make sure it has HEPA filter cartridges (magenta

> color code) not the standard paint vapor/VOC filter cartridges (black

> color code) common at home improvement stores.

>

>

>

> If the house was built before the late 1970's, you may want to have it

> inspected for asbestos (and lead-based paint) before knocking it down.

> Spreading asbestos or lead contamination around on your lot (or the

> neighbor's) would be a problem well worth avoiding.

>

>

>

> Curtis Redington, RS

>

> Environmental Quality Specialist

>

> City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

>

> Wichita, Kansas

>

>

>

> From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On

> Behalf Of semco_semco_semco

> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:21 PM

> To: iequality

> Subject: Tearing down house - Need advice please

>

>

>

> I am tearing down my contaminated house. It is my understanding that

> mold is now growing

> on walls and most furniture. (I have not been in the house for some

> time).

>

> In the state I live in, there are no enviornmental standards regarding

> taking the house down.

> It was suggested that I water the house down during the process not to

> spread mold spores

> thought out the neighborhood. (Makes sense). So the fire department is

> willing to help.

>

> This is my problem. There were so many types of mold found in my house

> and so much, I

> am worried about the water and spores soaking into the ground.

>

> I am planning on rebuilding on the same lot.

>

> What can I do to treat the ground? I know there will be a large

> concentration of various

> molds soaking into the ground.

>

> Any advice on who to call, what kind of company, chemicals, anything to

> insure I am not

> going to rebuild on contaminated ground and have the same problem again?

>

> Thank you in advance for your suggestions.

>

[Guest guest]

You say---- " To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that you

do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is really

like.

-MW "

, don't even think about going there. Are YOU a mold specialists? An

Environmental

Board Certified Physician? An Allergists?

> >

> > semco_semco_semco,

>

> > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black) smoke?

> > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> >

>

> To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that you

> do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is really

> like.

> -MW

>

[Guest guest]

Curtis,

Well stated.

It seems that lack of " one spore can kill you " hysteria on the part of

anyone expressing a moderate view and seeking realistic balance is being

interpreted as extremism at the opposite end of the spectrum on this board

lately.

You're certainly a knowledgeable professional and a gentleman. I wouldn't

have been nearly as polite as you in responding.

Chuck Reaney

Spam: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

" Redington, Curtis " wrote:

>

> semco_semco_semco,

> Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black) smoke?

> Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

>

To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that you

do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is really

like.

-MW

[Guest guest]

Curtis, my statement is just a simple statement of fact, and is not

meant as a personal attack.

Emphasizing the dangers of smoke in comparison to toxic mold sends a

message regarding how you view the two.

We have had thousands of houses burn down this summer, emitting

whatever toxins they would emit, and the after effects are shown on

television.

Entire neighborhoods can burn, and people seem to survive these

fumes and emissions as they evacuate, and then return to the smoking

ruins to shift the ashes for belongings without apparent

apprehensions.

Perhaps you might consider asking semco to give us a description of

what he believes would happen to him, if were he to stand downwind of

his house as it is being dismantled.

-MW

> >

> > semco_semco_semco,

>

> > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black)

smoke?

> > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> >

>

> To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that

you

> do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

really

> like.

> -MW

>

[Guest guest]

MW,

Your statement was clearly ill-informed opinion and did not bear

any resemblance to fact. However, if you consider TV reports to be scientific

documentation, then that helps to explain your position to everyone on this List.

I believe semco was asking for advice from the professionals on

this List. That’s what I offered.

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

Wichita, KS

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of erikmoldwarrior

Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:01 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Spam:RE: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

Curtis, my statement is just a simple statement

of fact, and is not

meant as a personal attack.

Emphasizing the dangers of smoke in comparison to toxic mold sends a

message regarding how you view the two.

We have had thousands of houses burn down this summer, emitting

whatever toxins they would emit, and the after effects are shown on

television.

Entire neighborhoods can burn, and people seem to survive these

fumes and emissions as they evacuate, and then return to the smoking

ruins to shift the ashes for belongings without apparent

apprehensions.

Perhaps you might consider asking semco to give us a description of

what he believes would happen to him, if were he to stand downwind of

his house as it is being dismantled.

-MW

> >

> > semco_semco_semco,

>

> > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black)

smoke?

> > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> >

>

> To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate

that

you

> do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

really

> like.

> -MW

>

[Guest guest]

Chuck,

please notice that I made my comment " selective " ONLY to the subset

of people that are " mold sensitized " , and to no others.

As the statement suggests, it is only this group that would perceive

a comparison of smoke with toxic mold in an unfavorable light.

Portraying the needs of " mold sensitized " people as being

disharmonious with a balanced and realistic view might be perceived

as an indication that your expertise might not apply to their end of

the spectrum.

-MW

" Chuck Reaney " wrote:

>

> Curtis,

>

> Well stated.

>

> It seems that lack of " one spore can kill you " hysteria on the part

of anyone expressing a moderate view and seeking realistic balance is

being interpreted as extremism at the opposite end of the spectrum on

this board lately.

>

> You're certainly a knowledgeable professional and a gentleman. I

wouldn't have been nearly as polite as you in responding.

>

> Chuck Reaney

>

> Spam: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice

please

>

>

>

> " Redington, Curtis " <credington@> wrote:

> >

> > semco_semco_semco,

>

> > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black)

smoke?

> > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> >

>

> To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that

you

> do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

really

> like.

> -MW

>

[Guest guest]

- Why don't YOU ask me?

I have been very ill due to long term exposure to toxic molds. My house is very

contaminated. I react quickly and horribly to mold situations, so you will not

find me

downwind of my house being taken down.

However, I did check with the fire department to see if they wanted to use the

house for

practice. What they told me goes along with exactly what you said. They said

they no

longer use houses for training purposes because of the preparation required.

The chief

told me they are required to just about take the house apart before they burn

it.

They must go in and remove PVC, electrical wiring, AC systems and basically

anything that

emits toxins into the air, (Of course, mold is not yet on that list), before

they can burn

down a house.

So... they don't do that anymore in my area.

However, I am very surprised at your comments on this. If I recall, I was

commenting on

what i considered a jester at humor when someone posted " Burning Down the

House " :

musical video. I didn't take it that seriously.

But, I DO take mold very seriously because it has made me very ill, which I may

never

recover.

Thank you.

> > >

> > > semco_semco_semco,

> >

> > > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black)

> smoke?

> > > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> > >

> >

> > To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> > comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that

> you

> > do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

> really

> > like.

> > -MW

> >

>

[Guest guest]

MW,

You said “I simply stated that if you point out

that the danger of toxins from smoke that would be emitted by burning a house

could possibly outweigh the effects of toxic mold during demolition, then that clearly

expresses your own view of the situation.” No, that’s not really

what you originally stated and subsequently declared to be “fact”.

But yes, that is my professional view of the situation. My professional view

based on nearly 21 years in environmental public health – the last

16 years in the Air Quality section where I have operated and maintained an ambient

air quality monitoring network for compliance with federal air quality

standards (NAAQS), ran an Urban Ambient Air Toxics Monitoring Project for more

than 12 years, and completed thousands (I quit counting many years ago after passing

the 3,000 mark) of IEQ investigations (including assisting the Wichita Police

Dept. and Sedgwick County Forensic Science Center). In addition, I’m a

veteran member (level A entry through Incident Command) of the regional response

HazMat team – which has included responding to a wide variety of fires.

What are your professional qualifications to comment on this

subject? You choose to base your statements on TV reports and lay-opinions. That

would seem to indicate something less than a qualified professional opinion

when it comes to offering technical advice.

To get back to your original statement, you said “To

the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by comparing

" toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that you do not

have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is really like.”

Was this statement based on a poll of mold sensitized people, are you speaking

only for yourself? That is a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious.

Who appointed you spokesperson for mold sensitized people? Because to the mind

of this mold sensitized person, I am offended that you imply I “do

not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is really like“.

I have a very great appreciation that is based on both personal and

professional experience. You can take my advice or leave it, but you most definitely

are not in a position to make judgments about what I (or anyone else, for that

matter) appreciate.

I applaud your passion for your cause – that is a passion

we seem to share. Passion, however, should not be the sole guidance for

decisions that we make.

Curtis Redington, RS (Registered Sanitarian)

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of erikmoldwarrior

Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 3:14 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Spam: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

Curtis. I didn't offer any opinions, ill

informed or otherwise.

I simply stated that if you point out that the danger of toxins from

smoke that would be emitted by burning a house could possibly

outweigh the effects of toxic mold during demolition, then that

clearly expresses your own view of the situation.

A mold-sensitized person might not perceive the two exposures as

being relatively comparable.

Suppose we simply ask semco, if given a choice between accompanying

the fire department out to stand downwind a burning house as the

flames are being fought,

or of standing downwind of his own moldy house while it is being

dismantled,

which one would he dislike the least?

-MW

" Redington, Curtis " wrote:

>

> MW,

>

>

>

> Your statement was clearly ill-informed opinion and did not bear any

> resemblance to fact. However, if you consider TV reports to be

> scientific documentation, then that helps to explain your position

to everyone on this List.

>

>

>

> I believe semco was asking for advice from the professionals on this

> List. That's what I offered.

>

>

>

> Curtis Redington, RS

>

> Environmental Quality Specialist

>

> City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

>

> Wichita, KS

>

>

>

> From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]

On

> Behalf Of erikmoldwarrior

> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 10:01 AM

> To: iequality

> Subject: Spam:RE: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice

please

>

>

>

> Curtis, my statement is just a simple statement of fact, and is not

> meant as a personal attack.

>

> Emphasizing the dangers of smoke in comparison to toxic mold sends

a

> message regarding how you view the two.

>

> We have had thousands of houses burn down this summer, emitting

> whatever toxins they would emit, and the after effects are shown on

> television.

> Entire neighborhoods can burn, and people seem to survive these

> fumes and emissions as they evacuate, and then return to the

smoking

> ruins to shift the ashes for belongings without apparent

> apprehensions.

>

> Perhaps you might consider asking semco to give us a description of

> what he believes would happen to him, if were he to stand downwind

of

> his house as it is being dismantled.

> -MW

>

>

> > >

> > > semco_semco_semco,

> >

> > > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black)

> smoke?

> > > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> > >

> >

> > To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> > comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would

indicate that

> you

> > do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

> really

> > like.

> > -MW

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Semco,

You wrote:

If I recall, I was commenting on what i considered a jester at humor when

someone posted " Burning Down the House " musical video. I didn't take it that

seriously.

-------------------------

Response:

I'm glad you got the joke. If it were serious, I certainly wouldn't have

directed you to a U-Tube page of a Talking Heads video.

I admittedly have a warped sense of humor, and often use it to lighten up

situations and ease people's minds. Some don't always get it. Others do.

Welcome to the dark side of my sense of humor.

Chuck Reaney

RE: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

- Why don't YOU ask me?

I have been very ill due to long term exposure to toxic molds. My house is

very

contaminated. I react quickly and horribly to mold situations, so you will

not find me

downwind of my house being taken down.

However, I did check with the fire department to see if they wanted to use

the house for

practice. What they told me goes along with exactly what you said. They

said they no

longer use houses for training purposes because of the preparation required.

The chief

told me they are required to just about take the house apart before they

burn it.

They must go in and remove PVC, electrical wiring, AC systems and basically

anything that

emits toxins into the air, (Of course, mold is not yet on that list),

before they can burn

down a house.

So... they don't do that anymore in my area.

However, I am very surprised at your comments on this. If I recall, I was

commenting on

what i considered a jester at humor when someone posted " Burning Down the

House " :

musical video. I didn't take it that seriously.

But, I DO take mold very seriously because it has made me very ill, which I

may never

recover.

Thank you.

> > >

> > > semco_semco_semco,

> >

> > > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black)

> smoke?

> > > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> > >

> >

> > To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> > comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that

> you

> > do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

> really

> > like.

> > -MW

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> > > >

> > > > semco_semco_semco,

> > >

> > > > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic

(black)

> > smoke?

> > > > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> > > >

> > >

> > > To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> > > comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate

that

> > you

> > > do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

> > really

> > > like.

> > > -MW

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

MW,

You consider your qualifications (or lack thereof) on a technical

topic to be “entirely irrelevant” and you cite TV news reports as proof

of your position. In all sincerity, why would (or should) anyone on this List be

compelled to pay attention to what you have to say? In order to champion a

cause, it would be beneficial to have some credibility. So far, you don’t

appear to be helping yourself – or anyone else. At this point I’m not

optimistic you will understand, but if you really want to be a “Mold Warrior”,

then you need to know your enemy. You’ve got a lot of drive and perseverance

– I hope you put those traits to good use.

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of erikmoldwarrior

Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 7:59 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Spam: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

> > > >

> > > > semco_semco_semco,

> > >

> > > > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic

(black)

> > smoke?

> > > > Just trying to get you to think about things a little

bit...

> > > >

> > >

> > > To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> > > comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would

indicate

that

> > you

> > > do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

> > really

> > > like.

> > > -MW

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need to burn down a house because of mold contamination.

If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is the real motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme reaction.

Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?

We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less than burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?

Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!

[Guest guest]

No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need to burn down a house because of mold contamination.

If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is the real motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme reaction.

Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?

We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less than burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?

,

Usually true, but not always. Demo vs. burning issues aside with respect to replacing the house, the value of the structure and its systems need to be taken into account, as does the value of the lot. When the house needs to be gutted, cleaned (assuming chemical offgassing, which can't be "cleaned", isn't an issue), and put back together and the plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems are in poor condition and need upgrading, it is a no-brainer to knock the house down and rebuild on the same foundation (if the foundation is good). It's cheaper and easier to start rebuilding from scratch. Houses aren't built to last forever.

When people can't live in their house due to contamination, sometimes the only way to ensure that contaminants are completely removed is to remove the whole house. Most of the time people just sell it (with a disclosure statement) because the next occupants may not have any problem.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

You folks would be more attuned to the finer points of this than I but

it has been my understanding that although its not common, its also

not THAT unusual to have the cost of gutting and replacing all of the

damage to be more than the cost of building a new building.

ALSO, look at it from our perspective. Since somebody's our health is

at stake, and being in a mold contaminated place is additive in its

making one ill, its crucially important to one to start to have a

healthy home as soon as possible and with as little risk of continuing

the exposure as possible. The more " stuff " that goes through the

transition, the more risk.

The risks of an inadequate remediation for a sick person is a very

great one. Its FAR more than the money, because you only have one

life.

Its easy for a consultant to say that " they can fix it " , but talk is

cheap. Also, consultants are very variable in how seriously they take

the responsibility and how much in the way of resources they are

willing to devote, out of their fee. And, testing is not good enough

yet to be able to say for sure a place that was very moldy is safe.

Even if we tested for all known toxins/allergens/etc. " we are

discovering new ones all the time " (Dr. Straus in a phone

conversation with me - talking about stachybotrys's many mycotoxins,

etc.)

As there are no standards that are agreed on for mold remediation and

also, again, as testing for some kinds of contamination is still

inadequate, its clearly to me safer to rebuild, using known good

materials, than to risk spending a lot of money and then not having

the job done right. It may not seem to be an option for many people,

financially, but is getting sicker an option for them either? No.

See what I mean?

We need much better testing. This is a solvable problem, we just

haven't really solved it yet.

> No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need to burn

> down a house because of mold contamination.

> If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is the real

> motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme reaction.

> Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?

> We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less than

> burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quack,

You said: "See what I mean?"

Honestly, No I don't.

It's rare that fixing only mold is more than tearing down and building new. In fact, it might only be so costly because of the inflated costs of remediators (oops, that'll cause an uproar!).

This is not to say structural issues are too costly to implement.

But this is about mold, not re-engineering and re-building.

your arguments seem to be about 'trust' and 'belief' and 'generalizing' and 'anecdotal' , not reality.

Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!

[Guest guest]

I have recommeded demolition over remediation on some rare occasions. Two instances involved hidden/unknown domestic hot water pipe leaks over a winter while the houses were occupied. One was a hot water pipe leak in very low, poorly ventilated crawl space and the other was a hot water pipe leak in a slab (copper in the concrete) into a subslab duct system. It was literally raining in the attics of each of these houses and condensation had occurred inside all exterior walls. In both cases remediation and rebuild would have probably cost about 3X the value of the small older ranch houses. The structures simply weren't worth saving. Surprisingly, in both cases, there were no reported health effects.

Steve Temes

Hi, all:

Tearing down a house is a very difficult decision involving emotional

attachments, financial considerations, insurance, costs, and the real

and critical issue of whether or not the mold remediation, once it is

completed, will be 'acceptable' to those who will be living in the

home in the future.

I have only recommended tearing down one house in my career. It was

a vacation house in the Poconos in Pennsylvania which was unoccupied

in the winter. A toilet broke on the second floor, and the house was

flooded with over a million gallons of water before the family

returned in April. The water was overflowing the windows at a height

of four feet. When I visited the house, there was not a single piece

of wall or ceiling that was not mold contaminated. I could push my

finger through the walls because they were so saturated. I spoke to

the insurance reps and we all agreed that the house would be torn

down with only the chimney remaining. This was more than a decade

ago, and there was still insurance in place. That would not be the

case today, of course!

The family was very upset, but they did go along with the

recommendation. They only wanted to retrieve some family photos and

other mementos. When they entered the home, they were shocked at the

destructive power of water. I reminded them of the Grand Canyon, and

the power of water to destroy so much. The analogy I would use today

would be Hurricane Katrina.

Today I would probably be most cogizant of costs because of the lack

of insurance coverage for mold. However, many policies still cover

catastrophic water occurrences. But the same issues would arise

regarding the potential for an effective remediation, and whether or

not the residents would be willing, and able, to 'accept' the

remediated house. A thorough discussion with the residents about the

remedial process, including a discussion of their expectations at the

end of the project about the results of the post-remediation

verification and reoccupancy air sampling, would be important. I

believe that effective risk communication with the affected

individuals is critical.

Don

>

>In a message dated 10/30/2008 4:57:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

>healthyhouse@... writes:

>>No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need

to burn

>>down a house because of mold contamination.

>>If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is

the real

>>motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme

reaction.

>>Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?

>>We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less

than

>>burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?

>>

>>

>

>,

>

>Usually true, but not always. Demo vs. burning issues aside with

respect to

>replacing the house, the value of the structure and its systems

need to be

>taken into account, as does the value of the lot. When the house

needs to be

>gutted, cleaned (assuming chemical offgassing, which can't

be "cleaned", isn't an

>issue), and put back together and the plumbing, electrical, and

mechanical

>systems are in poor condition and need upgrading, it is a no-

brainer to knock

>the house down and rebuild on the same foundation (if the

foundation is good).

>It's cheaper and easier to start rebuilding from scratch. Houses

aren't built

>to last forever.

>

>When people can't live in their house due to contamination,

sometimes the

>only way to ensure that contaminants are completely removed is to

remove the

>whole house. Most of the time people just sell it (with a

disclosure statement)

>because the next occupants may not have any problem.

>

>Steve Temes

>

[Guest guest]

Now THAT is closer to reality, Ole. A gold star for your sense of humor!

Chuck

Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

>

>

>

> No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need to burn

> down a house because of mold contamination.

> If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is the real

> motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme

> reaction.

> Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?

> We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less than

> burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------

> --

> Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel

> Deals!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-- " Chuck Reaney " wrote:

>

> Okay guys...

>

> For the last time, my post to semco, etc. was a link to a U-Tube

video of the Talking Heads doing " Burning Down the House " . It was

HUMOROUS, a JOKE, wasn't serious!

>

Chuck.

Then I wonder if semco feels that his concerns have been adequately

addressed by someone who understands and empathizes with the nature

his plight?

If semco has the view that nothing less than total eradication of

his house is required, but the professional opinion is that this is

never truly necessary, would such extreme measures on his part be

viewed as an over-reaction to the problem?

-MW

[Guest guest]

,

The original question presented by semco pertained to his concerns about

performing total demolition of the house and disseminating fungal structures

in the process, to surrounding air, building interiors and soil.

I don't believe he was seeking advice regarding whether or not to demo the

structure, as his post was presented in such a manner that the necessity of

demo is a given. Yes, I do believe that the concerns expressed in his

original post were adequately addressed by others who suggested that the

structure should be wet and the demo operation should include

misting/spraying the air/structure during demo and disturbance of debris in

loading for transportation. I also believe that his concerns about fungi

being transferred to the soil was adequately addressed, along with other

comments pertaining to issues other than fungi that could potentially

present health concerns to the building/site occupants in a new structure.

, you seem to be very much on the offensive lately toward anyone who is

not bleeding from the eyeballs about mold related illness. Or maybe it's

just me. While I concur in principal that mold and it's related toxins, and

other by-products, etc. as well as bacteria, etc. are potential causes of

health problems for some people, and also empathize with their plight, I

also don't believe in buying into the hysteria that every sick person in

every sick building is always directly related to exposure to mold and/or

it's by-products.

I also firmly believe that professionals who subscribe to such

narrow-focused approaches are doing their clients a great disservice.

So, unless I'm missing something, what is the point of your

question/concerns?

Chuck Reaney

Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

-- " Chuck Reaney " wrote:

>

> Okay guys...

>

> For the last time, my post to semco, etc. was a link to a U-Tube

video of the Talking Heads doing " Burning Down the House " . It was

HUMOROUS, a JOKE, wasn't serious!

>

Chuck.

Then I wonder if semco feels that his concerns have been adequately

addressed by someone who understands and empathizes with the nature

his plight?

If semco has the view that nothing less than total eradication of

his house is required, but the professional opinion is that this is

never truly necessary, would such extreme measures on his part be

viewed as an over-reaction to the problem?

-MW

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

" Portraying the needs of " mold sensitized " people as being

disharmonious with a balanced and realistic view might be perceived

as an indication that your expertise might not apply to their end of

the spectrum. "

That may be your interpretation, but that's not what I said. Please don't

make assumptions, or put words into my mouth. I fully understand that

" sensitized " people, be it mold, chemical or other factors live in their own

special kind of hell. What I don't subscribe to is zeroing in on mold and

ignoring other contributing or causal factors.

You know nothing about what my areas of expertise are, but if I may be as

presumptuous as you, I would presume that your " expertise " is all about

mold.

As such, it is my opinion that your expertise is less than objective and

therefore not as helpful to sufferers of whatever sensitization(s) they

endure as you would like to believe.

Chuck Reaney

Spam: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice

please

>

>

>

> " Redington, Curtis " <credington@> wrote:

> >

> > semco_semco_semco,

>

> > Burning the house down wouldn't produce a LOT of toxic (black)

smoke?

> > Just trying to get you to think about things a little bit...

> >

>

> To the mind of a mold sensitized person, the thought induced by

> comparing " toxic (black) smoke " to toxic mold would indicate that

you

> do not have the slightest appreciation what mold reactivity is

really

> like.

> -MW

>

[Guest guest]

Semco

If you do not solve the moisture problems the mold comes back. If the mold came back the moisture problems were not solved.

What are you going to do to ensure that this does not happen in the new house; when you do not understand the cause of the last problem you may build it into the new house as well?

Jim H. White

Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

It is a very emotional thing. Devestating. I tried to remediate twice and the mold just came back with a vengence both times.My life if in that house, I have lost my health. I need to tear it down and build a safer place to iive.If you are interested, here is a youtube video of my home. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAFcNy6IZI--- In iequality , "don" wrote:>> Hi, all:> > Tearing down a house is a very difficult decision involving emotional > attachments, financial considerations, insurance, costs, and the real > and critical issue of whether or not the mold remediation, once it is > completed, will be 'acceptable' to those who will be living in the > home in the future. > > I have only recommended tearing down one house in my career. It was > a vacation house in the Poconos in Pennsylvania which was unoccupied > in the winter. A toilet broke on the second floor, and the house was > flooded with over a million gallons of water before the family > returned in April. The water was overflowing the windows at a height > of four feet. When I visited the house, there was not a single piece > of wall or ceiling that was not mold contaminated. I could push my > finger through the walls because they were so saturated. I spoke to > the insurance reps and we all agreed that the house would be torn > down with only the chimney remaining. This was more than a decade > ago, and there was still insurance in place. That would not be the > case today, of course!> > The family was very upset, but they did go along with the > recommendation. They only wanted to retrieve some family photos and > other mementos. When they entered the home, they were shocked at the > destructive power of water. I reminded them of the Grand Canyon, and > the power of water to destroy so much. The analogy I would use today > would be Hurricane Katrina.> > Today I would probably be most cogizant of costs because of the lack > of insurance coverage for mold. However, many policies still cover > catastrophic water occurrences. But the same issues would arise > regarding the potential for an effective remediation, and whether or > not the residents would be willing, and able, to 'accept' the > remediated house. A thorough discussion with the residents about the > remedial process, including a discussion of their expectations at the > end of the project about the results of the post-remediation > verification and reoccupancy air sampling, would be important. I > believe that effective risk communication with the affected > individuals is critical.> > Don > > >> > In a message dated 10/30/2008 4:57:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > > healthyhouse@ writes: > > > No one yet has answered my questions about why anyone would need > to burn > > > down a house because of mold contamination. > > > If there is no rational reason, then we need to wonder what is > the real > > > motivation. And why would anyone agree to pay for such an extreme > reaction.> > > Maybe publicity? Irrational fear? Misinformation?> > > We can clean almost anything - or repair or replace it, for less > than > > > burning it down and re-building the whole house. Right?> > > > > > > > > > ,> > > > Usually true, but not always. Demo vs. burning issues aside with > respect to > > replacing the house, the value of the structure and its systems > need to be > > taken into account, as does the value of the lot. When the house > needs to be > > gutted, cleaned (assuming chemical offgassing, which can't > be "cleaned", isn't an > > issue), and put back together and the plumbing, electrical, and > mechanical > > systems are in poor condition and need upgrading, it is a no-> brainer to knock > > the house down and rebuild on the same foundation (if the > foundation is good). > > It's cheaper and easier to start rebuilding from scratch. Houses > aren't built > > to last forever.> > > > When people can't live in their house due to contamination, > sometimes the > > only way to ensure that contaminants are completely removed is to > remove the > > whole house. Most of the time people just sell it (with a > disclosure statement) > > because the next occupants may not have any problem.> > > > Steve Temes> >>

[Guest guest]

Chuck:

I really enjoyed the link to the Talking Heads. It was great!

Thanks.

Okay guys...

For the last time, my post to semco, etc. was a link to a U-Tube video of

the Talking Heads doing " Burning Down the House " . It was HUMOROUS, a JOKE,

wasn't serious!

Jeeze, if I knew I was starting such a ruckus in applying my warped sense of

humor, I'd have kept quiet about it!

You're a great bunch of people here, but I think some of you may need some

sense-of-humor therapy! Enough about burning down the house, already! It

was not, I repeat NOT a seroious suggestion, or I wouldn't have posted a

link to a rock band video. Think about it!

Chuck Reaney

RE: Re: Tearing down house - Need advice please

> Hello ,

> I worked on two projects where the cost estimates for repair were a push

> or

> very close to new construction. They were both buildings that had been

> left

> wet for an extended period of time and were very very moldy, top to

> bottom.

> One was old and not well built and the remediators did not want to get

> stuck

> with all the code and other rebuild problems. Owner took partial payment

> on

> insurance and demolished the house. Not sure if he rebuilt or sold the

> land.

>

> The other was newer and had water in the HVAC for some time and the whole

> house was damp. Young child was allergic to mold and the parents were

> requiring very very clean and generally wanted a new house. Remediators

> all

> bid very high and the whole thing was a close call on the cost estimates

> provided for repair. The owner did not want a repaired house, he wanted

> original construction. It was a long drawn out event. Lawyers got plenty

> of money over the 3 years.

>

> Sometimes the clear land is worth more than the land and moldy building.

> These were two rare cases. Most are very repairable. Some buildings are

> built wrong need to get re-built anyway. The repair contractors don't

> want

> to take on the liability of the first contractor, so you may end up demo

> most of the poor construction.

>

> There was a case in Oregon where the remediation was about $1,000,000 on

> a

> $400,000 house. It basically had to be done twice. The water repair was

> difficult and got done wrong the first time. It got fixed but may have

> not

> been worth it.

>

> Just some thoughts.

>

> Due to the air pollution issues, none should get burned down.

>

> Bradley Harr

> Sr. Environmental Scientist

> Summit Environmental, Inc.

>