Re: mold counts within a house? what level is cinsidered to be bad?

[Guest guest]

You might get a different answer from an indoor air quality person

but there is a well known doctor who deal with chronic sinusitis

that says to keep mold count down to 5 or fewer in hour exposure of

mold plate. Plates I get from Environmental Center in Dallas say 5

or less is low level of mold also. There plates say to only expose

them for 20-30 minutes though. However the medium they use in

plates is much more sensitive and I pick up more mold in their

plates than I do Pro Lab plates, so probably the same. 5 in 20

minutes in their plate would probably be 5 in an hour in Pro Lab

plate. Those are only two I have used. I know a woman who goes to

Dallas center from CA every year for a month and she is mcs, takes

mold plate readings in her house frequently to make sure level is

below 5. Her husband and she built their house from scratch for her

mcs and mold problems.

>

> does anyone know the acceptable levels of mold counts within a

house? thank you. jane

[Guest guest]

The bottom line is that there are some kinds of mold that cause the entire

body to react at very low levels. These reactions are caused by the genetic

material, not just spores. So its quite common to have a building that has a

serious problem and does not show a lot of spores. A huge problem with spore

testing is its inability to register the difference between the many

hundreds of " aspergillus/penicillium type " spores (and also often the

smaller " aspergillus/penicillium type " spores also simply sail through the

filters used to trap them in so called " air testing " situations (Air-O-Cell,

etc)

Thats why the EMRI approach (QPCR) works better to identify an active mold

infestation and toxin testing of the dust works better to identify a

building with a heavy mold problem in the past that has been dry (maybe

because its been unoccupied and sealed up) for a while.

The gold test of a building is whether people can live there for a while

without getting sick. In areas with distinct climates, there are really

several diferent climate scenarios that need to get tested by people living

there. For example, in California you really have wet and dry season,

moisture wise, and cold and hot season heat wise. If a building has been

unused and unoccupied indoor testing is going to be lacking the crucial

element of people generated activity and humidity..

So its a complex picture that does not translate well into a $100 or $200

test that says 'this situation is bad' (Mold testing should not be used to

say a situation is 'okay')

However, it IS safe to say that if someone does a mold test and it comes

back with lots of spores of asp/pen type or even a few stacybotrys or many

other kinds of mold that can cause illness, its safe to add that data point

to a list of data points that point to a problem existing that NEEDS

attention.

[Guest guest]

Also, very important - *someone's mold tolerance can get used up by

even as little as one long, continuous bad exposure*. So if you have

been exposed to a lot of mold at some point you may need to avoid even

low levels of toxic species exposure therafter.

This is a concept that a lot of people don't want to accept, but its

what makes life difficult for a lot of people. It makes many buildings

more and more dangerous to inhabitants the longer those people stay in

them. Because its CUMULATIVE.

Thats why I think people should receive hazard pay of some kind for

jobs in moldy environments. If the law simply gave people a right to

five or ten times their normal salary if mold levels in a building

were consistantly above a fairly low level *of toxinogenic species*

then I think these problems would get fixed quickly.

Especially if this pay would be retroactive.

[Guest guest]

lIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONES TOLERANCE IN GENERAL TO

PM/IRRITANTS/MOLD/POLLUTANTS/CHEMICALS ECT. MAY BE GETTING EFFECTED

JUST BASED ON THE RATES ON ASTHMA NOW DAYS. DONT YOU THINK THAT THIS

IS ENOUGH TO MAKE ANYONES DEFENCES AGAINT A MOLDY ENVIROMENT WEAKER?

I DONT THINK YOU CAN REALLY SAY SOMEONE HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF

TOLERANCE TO MOLD THAT GETS USED UP, MOLD SPORES ARE ALSO A IRRITANTS

AND CAN INVOLVE MYCO'S AND WHATEVER ELSE ATTACHES TO IT. OUR IMMUNE

SYSTEMS REACT TO MANY THINGS AND IT'S NOT JUST MOLD IN THE ENVIROMENT

THAT CAUSES THIS REACTION. I DONT THINK ANY SINGLE MOLDY ENVIROMENT

IS LIMITED TO JUST EXPOSURE TO MOLD, WAY MORE INVOLVED AND IT'S

EVERYTHING INVOLVED THAT DOES THE DAMAGE TO OUR SYSTEMS.IT IS

EVERYTHING ENVOLVED THAT IS CUMULATIVE AND IT CUMULATES BECAUSE OUR

DEFENCE SYSTEMS CANT TAKE THE CONSTANT ASULTS AND BEGAN TO BREAKDOWN

ALLOWING ORGAN DAMAGE. PEOPLE CAN GET MCS FROM TOXIC CHEMICAL

EXPOSURE AND MOLD MAY OR MAY NOY BE INVOLVED. SAYING WE ARE ALL HERE

JUST BECAUSE WE USED UP OUR LEVEL OF MOLD TOLERANCE JUST LEAVES MANY

OTHER IRRITANTS/TOXONS OUT OF THE PICTURE AND THATS NOT TRUE. SAYING

WE HAVE A CERTAIN MOLD TOLERANCE THAT GETS USED UP SOUNDS LIKE YOUR

REFERING TO ALLERGIES AND WE ALL KNOW THATS NOT THE ONLY THING

INVOLVED AND FOR SOME IT MAY NOT BE INVOLVED AT ALL.

>

> Also, very important - *someone's mold tolerance can get used up by

> even as little as one long, continuous bad exposure*. So if you have

> been exposed to a lot of mold at some point you may need to avoid

even

> low levels of toxic species exposure therafter.

>

> This is a concept that a lot of people don't want to accept, but its

> what makes life difficult for a lot of people. It makes many

buildings

> more and more dangerous to inhabitants the longer those people stay

in

> them. Because its CUMULATIVE.

>

> Thats why I think people should receive hazard pay of some kind for

> jobs in moldy environments. If the law simply gave people a right to

> five or ten times their normal salary if mold levels in a building

> were consistantly above a fairly low level *of toxinogenic species*

> then I think these problems would get fixed quickly.

>

> Especially if this pay would be retroactive.

>