Re: Bio-Safety level for Molds

[Guest guest]

heres a 2007 biosafety manual,biotoxins

2007-buosafety manual

http://www.gmu.edu/research/labsafety/BHAS-Resources/Biosafety%

20Manual.pdf

>

> Does anyone know where I can find the listing that identifies the

> molds and their safety level? The higher the biosafety level the more

> dangerous the mold is?

>

> Would appreciate any help.

> Thanks,

> Sherry

>

[Guest guest]

this might be a better search to do

" 2007,biosafety levels of fungal agents "

heres one

http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/~wjt/safety/SOP-BL2.pdf

>

> Does anyone know where I can find the listing that identifies the

> molds and their safety level? The higher the biosafety level the

more

> dangerous the mold is?

>

> Would appreciate any help.

> Thanks,

> Sherry

>

[Guest guest]

maybe this is the one your looking for

2007,5th edition BMBL

http://www.cdc.gov/od/ohs/biosfty/bmbl5/bmbl5toc.htm

>

> Does anyone know where I can find the listing that identifies the

> molds and their safety level? The higher the biosafety level the

more

> dangerous the mold is?

>

> Would appreciate any help.

> Thanks,

> Sherry

>

[Guest guest]

I have talked to several government agencies and as far as the

information given to me there are no " standard " measurement etc for

mold, let alone the myotoxins that can be reproduced. I have talked

to such agencies such as the EPA< CDC< OSHEA etc. Hard to believe

there is no standard for testing.

> >

> > Does anyone know where I can find the listing that identifies the

> > molds and their safety level? The higher the biosafety level the

> more

> > dangerous the mold is?

> >

> > Would appreciate any help.

> > Thanks,

> > Sherry

> >

>

[Guest guest]

reb_black,

There are hundreds of reasons why there are no standards for testing

mold. I'll offer only a few and you can check the Archives for a lot

of discussion about this over the past year or so.

1. Testing for mold is like testing for animals or for plants. Mold

(fungi) is an entire kingdom of life forms. Which one will a

particular method detect and which one do you need to find? As with

testing for animals, it makes a difference if the animal inside the

house is a kitty or a lion or a vulture. With mold we don't always

know which are dangerous and which are beneficial. Cheese is

beneficial - unless you are reactive.

2. Most mold testing detects only spores (the seeds), missing the

enzymes, mycotoxins, glucans, proteins, MVOCs, proteinazes (sp?) and

whatever else the researchers eventually find that we can react to.

Finding only spores is like looking for a forest based only on tree

seeds. PCR can detect the DNA and precisely identify the species from

only fragments but only for the few dozen in the database and not the

quantity.

3. Do you need to know the genus or the species? Some methods can and

some can't.

4. Do you need to know the location of the types and amounts on

surfaces (which) or in the air (where and when)? Behind the walls and

ceilings? In the forced air system? Attics and crawlspaces?

5. Some sampling methods only detect mold that is alive. Others will

detect both, which should find more but the results are often at

lower levels. Why? No sampling method is definitive and no analytical

method is definitive. Many, many errors in all phases.

6. Even if the above were not true, each individual can react to any

particular mold if they have been sensitized, even if they are the

only one in the world to be reactive. It is not enough to know what

is present. We also need to know what the person is being exposed to

and what they are reactive to, plus if the impact is sufficient to

warrant action. At least 1/3 of the time mold is not involved and

about 1/2 the time the problem is mold PLUS other exposure types.

This is very brief but I hope it gives you a beginning for

understanding why there is no standard now and probably never will

be.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> I have talked to several government agencies and as far as the

> information given to me there are no " standard " measurement etc for

> mold, let alone the myotoxins that can be reproduced. I have talked

> to such agencies such as the EPA< CDC< OSHEA etc. Hard to believe

> there is no standard for testing.

> > >

> > > Does anyone know where I can find the listing that identifies the

> > > molds and their safety level? The higher the biosafety level the

> > more

> > > dangerous the mold is?

> > >

> > > Would appreciate any help.

> > > Thanks,

> > > Sherry

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl,

What about Canada?

They ban detectable/visible/findable/amplified mold growth outright.

That seems a good way to go. And its NOT impractical. You see mold, you get

rid of it.

[Guest guest]

Good point. As long as you also stop the moisture source. If it's

dry, it won't grow.

Also, Canada discourages mold testing, viewing reliance on testing

as a lack of confidence by the consultant in their protocol of

observation, moisture measurements, building type, building use,

building history, occupant information, etc etc etc. I have found

this protocol to be more descriptive and predictive of the situation

than sampling.

I limit sampling to providing additional information by answering

specific questions (usually comparisons) that cannot be answered by

other means. But I never use it to determine if a building is safe or

unsafe, or if someone should stay or leave. It's not that simple.

The overall assessment is what gives meaning to any lab sample

results, not the other way around.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl,

>

> What about Canada?

>

> They ban detectable/visible/findable/amplified mold growth outright.

>

> That seems a good way to go. And its NOT impractical. You see mold, you get

> rid of it.

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl,

You know, after my own experience and seeing so much grief and pain here and

in all the news stories of how these tests are just used to DELAY and AVOID

cleaning up mold in schools, apartment buildings and even homes I think

banning it all is the only options that would WORK. But it would have to

apply to all commercial spaces and have teeth..

And come with some kind of national support system to HELP PEOPLE GET

THERE...

Thats an essential part of this because without it many, many people would

lose their homes.

On 9/26/07, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

>

> Good point. As long as you also stop the moisture source. If it's

> dry, it won't grow.

>

[Guest guest]

Live,

Getting people help is really the issue, not mold sampling. The need

for stopping moisture and removing mold without cross-contaminating

isn't that difficult and can be established easily. Canada

discourages mold sampling, and has for years, for example.

The push behind sampling is the mis-applicaiton of the historical

roots of industrial hygiene (homes are not industry and mold is not

an artificial result of the activities of the workplace or the home)

The defense side knows sampling can't prove anything so they offer

that as a strawman to be eaisly disproved. To compound the

difficulties we fall for that trap and try to prove them wrong with

sampling.

What is needed is principles and laws with teeth, as you said, based

on common sense, not inadequate, inaccurate sampling whose data is

reproducible anyway. Do we need lab data to know to wash our hands

after using the bathroom? Do we need to know the types and levels of

bacteria and mold on our hands are lower than what is on the kitchen

counter? It's a matter of hygiene, not numbers and sampling.

Besides, the number of mold, bacteria and yeast in and on our bodies

is 10 times higher than all the cells in our body.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl,

>

> You know, after my own experience and seeing so much grief and pain here and

> in all the news stories of how these tests are just used to DELAY and AVOID

> cleaning up mold in schools, apartment buildings and even homes I think

> banning it all is the only options that would WORK. But it would have to

> apply to all commercial spaces and have teeth..

>

> And come with some kind of national support system to HELP PEOPLE GET

> THERE...

>

> Thats an essential part of this because without it many, many people would

> lose their homes.

>

> On 9/26/07, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

> >

> > Good point. As long as you also stop the moisture source. If it's

> > dry, it won't grow.

> >

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'd like to be clear about my comments on testing. I am not against

any testing. Some testing can be valuable and even necessary. But it

must be specific. There is no general " test for mold " like there is a

" test for asbestos " or a " test for radon, " for example. There is no

level above which is " dangerous " or below which is " safe. " It varies

with the situation and the person.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Live,

>

> Getting people help is really the issue, not mold sampling. The need

> for stopping moisture and removing mold without cross-contaminating

> isn't that difficult and can be established easily. Canada

> discourages mold sampling, and has for years, for example.

>

> The push behind sampling is the mis-applicaiton of the historical

> roots of industrial hygiene (homes are not industry and mold is not

> an artificial result of the activities of the workplace or the home)

> The defense side knows sampling can't prove anything so they offer

> that as a strawman to be eaisly disproved. To compound the

> difficulties we fall for that trap and try to prove them wrong with

> sampling.

>

> What is needed is principles and laws with teeth, as you said, based

> on common sense, not inadequate, inaccurate sampling whose data is

> reproducible anyway. Do we need lab data to know to wash our hands

> after using the bathroom? Do we need to know the types and levels of

> bacteria and mold on our hands are lower than what is on the kitchen

> counter? It's a matter of hygiene, not numbers and sampling.

>

> Besides, the number of mold, bacteria and yeast in and on our bodies

> is 10 times higher than all the cells in our body.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> > Carl,

> >

> > You know, after my own experience and seeing so much grief and pain here and

> > in all the news stories of how these tests are just used to DELAY and AVOID

> > cleaning up mold in schools, apartment buildings and even homes I think

> > banning it all is the only options that would WORK. But it would have to

> > apply to all commercial spaces and have teeth..

> >

> > And come with some kind of national support system to HELP PEOPLE GET

> > THERE...

> >

> > Thats an essential part of this because without it many, many people would

> > lose their homes.

> >

> > On 9/26/07, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

> > >

> > > Good point. As long as you also stop the moisture source. If it's

> > > dry, it won't grow.

> > >

> >

> >

> > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Now that you mention this testing it does seem that these schools,

etc. just get someone to test and say everything is fine. People

smelling mold and getting sick is enough indication that something is

wrong. Unfortunately people are put through so much just trying to

get help of any kind, and then they start testing. And also they say

not enough research is available-- well after 10 years of this

illness you would think that the research would be available. And we

are not mice, we are people. -- In

, " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...> wrote:

>

> I'd like to be clear about my comments on testing. I am not

against

> any testing. Some testing can be valuable and even necessary. But

it

> must be specific. There is no general " test for mold " like there is

a

> " test for asbestos " or a " test for radon, " for example. There is no

> level above which is " dangerous " or below which is " safe. " It

varies

> with the situation and the person.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

[Guest guest]

Carl, I'm not against testing at all either. I think it is often necessary

to show BLIND people that something NEEDS to be done.

What do you think of banning it? Just saying 'no mold or amplified mycotoxin

accumulation is permissable' (once it is found)

To put my cards on the table, I think Canada's approach of banning it makes

sense.

Both insides and outside of walls. But then as I said, I think we

need to put in place a set of widely available support infrastructures to

make that something that can happen without too much pain.

On 9/27/07, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

>

> I'd like to be clear about my comments on testing. I am not against

> any testing. Some testing can be valuable and even necessary. But it

> must be specific. There is no general " test for mold " like there is a

> " test for asbestos " or a " test for radon, " for example. There is no

> level above which is " dangerous " or below which is " safe. " It varies

> with the situation and the person.

>

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

>

[Guest guest]

I agree, but in the meantime we have to convince our legislators to

act and continue our resistance against the defensors (as Sharon

Kramer calls them) regarding the ACOEM statement and similar

travesties.

But what is most important is our message must be CLEAR AND ACCURATE

about how damp indoor spaces are hurting us. It is more than mold.

Our biggest mistake is to insist mold is the problem, allowing them

to dispute it with bogus interpretation of testing, rather than

forcing them to explain why we are sick.

Yes, I know some insist on testing, but that is when we need to

respond by educating and correcting their misguided/disingenuous

behavior with the truth. We need a clear message that challenges.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl, I'm not against testing at all either. I think it is often necessary

> to show BLIND people that something NEEDS to be done.

>

> What do you think of banning it? Just saying 'no mold or amplified mycotoxin

> accumulation is permissable' (once it is found)

>

> To put my cards on the table, I think Canada's approach of banning it makes

> sense.

>

> Both insides and outside of walls. But then as I said, I think we

> need to put in place a set of widely available support infrastructures to

> make that something that can happen without too much pain.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On 9/27/07, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

> >

> > I'd like to be clear about my comments on testing. I am not against

> > any testing. Some testing can be valuable and even necessary. But it

> > must be specific. There is no general " test for mold " like there is a

> > " test for asbestos " or a " test for radon, " for example. There is no

> > level above which is " dangerous " or below which is " safe. " It varies

> > with the situation and the person.

> >

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > Good point. As long as you also stop the moisture source. If it's

> > dry, it won't grow.

I don't get this part...I thought I read in Dr. S's book that not all

species need moisture to grow & I thought there is enough moisture in

wood, fabrics & our bodies to sustain this stuff??

Hugs,

Cheryl

[Guest guest]

Cheryl,

Semantics and subtleties get in the way again. Not all molds need

flooding or condensation to keep growing if there is enough available

moisture in wood, fabrics etc that it is growing on. But to start the

" garden " growing usually needs added water.

The technical term is water activity and is independant of where the

moisture comes from our how it gets there.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> > > Good point. As long as you also stop the moisture source. If it's

> > > dry, it won't grow.

>

> I don't get this part...I thought I read in Dr. S's book that not all

> species need moisture to grow & I thought there is enough moisture in

> wood, fabrics & our bodies to sustain this stuff??

> Hugs,

> Cheryl

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In houses, air, etc. any SPOT where the humidity is RH 50 or below, I don't

think any species of mold can grow.

But 50 RH in the middle of a room is not 50% inside of the walls. Or at the

wall surface. The humidity *at the wall surface* can easily be higher. If

its an exterior wall, and its cold outside, it will always be higher.

So, a house that has 50% in one place (where the RH meter is) can have much

higher humidity elsewhere.. where the RH meter isn't at that moment.. Sound

confusing? It is just like the weather in the outdoors, it follows the same

rules. Dew forms where warm humid air meets cold solid objects. For example,

in a bathroom after a shower, the water often condenses on the walls.

In a house, water in the air can end up condensing on the walls, floor or

ceiling. Or the sides of any cavity in a wall, like the sheetrock.

The thing I don't think a lot of people understand is that the part of any

room that is right at the wall, ceiling or floor has a different

microclimate than the middle of the room. And the cavities inside of walls

are still different. The humidity at the surface of a wall or inside of a

wall cavity can be much higher or lower than the relative humidity at the

middle of a room.

If you have a basement and the concrete walls are sealed with sealant, even

if the porous concrete walls are well sealed and don't allow any water to

pass, the walls might still collect dust and humidity out of the air and

grow mold on that, because they are cooler than the air. If moist air gets

into wall cavities, and one side of those cavities is cold, expect moisture

to condense there..

Thats why sealing up those holes is a good idea!

[Guest guest]

Carl,

I am with you on reducing moisture in homes and I agree that most folks have

a myopic attitude towards the results of mold testing.

But testing is essential in determining the types of problems present and

locating their sources. And the most useful tool to help out with this type

of investigation is microscopy.

All the information is in the dust and the aerosol. We just have to be able

to read it.

Unfortunately, labs only report on a few of the possible allergens and

irritants visible in non-viable samplers like Air-O-Cell. Typically, the

labs limit their observations to mold spores and hyphae, though they may

make some comments on other variables. (One of the more foolish, recent

inclusions is skin-scale counts.)

What about dog and cat dander, rabit dander, bird and feather bioaerosol,

wool dander, house-dust-mite and mold-mite fecal pellets, insect hairs,

fiberglass fibers, actinomycetes and pollen? All of these and more can be

seen and be potential sources of health issues. (I have some

photomicrographs of examples on my websites.)

Let's at least use the tools we have. And don't be limited in the sampling.

I have found mold growing in beds and people's favorite easy chairs, dust

mite droppings in rugs carried into the bedroom with the family dog from a

mite-infested dog bed; fiberglass carried into a teenagers bed with the cat

after it napped in the basement insulation; and wool rugs, feather quilts

and pillows whose emissions caused chronic coughs that disappeared the

moment the contaminated item was removed from the environment.

I could provide hundreds of examples of how microscopy revealed the sources

of suffering, so don't throw out the baby with the bath water (is that the

expression??). Sampling and examination by microscopy are essential

methodologies for the investigators, the labs just don't do the analyses we

need.

C. May, M.A., CIAQP

May Indoor Air Investigations LLC

3 Tolkien Lane

Tyngsborough, MA 01879

617-354-1055

www.mayindoorair.com

www.myhouseiskillingme.com

>Re: Bio-Safety level for Molds

>Posted by: " Carl E. Grimes " grimes@... grimeshh

>Date: Thu Sep 27, 2007 11:49 am ((PDT))

>I'd like to be clear about my comments on testing. I am not against

>any testing. Some testing can be valuable and even necessary. But it

>must be specific. There is no general " test for mold " like there is a

> " test for asbestos " or a " test for radon, " for example. There is no

>level above which is " dangerous " or below which is " safe. " It varies

>with the situation and the person.

>Carl Grimes

>Healthy Habitats LLC