Re: Re: How do you read a mold report?

[Guest guest]

Tina,

I wouldn't do it.  If your sensetive to mold there shouldn't be any mold. 

When in doubt throw it out, when in doubt get the heck out!!  

When in doubt ?   Don't go in!!

Not worth it.  there are places with out moluds.

Thats my 2 cents for what it worth.

a

From: Tina <kws11@...>

Subject: [] Re: How do you read a mold report?

Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 2:03 PM

1) An inspector I hired took the samples and sent them to a company

in Weston, FL.

2) Its a condo and they took them from the living room, according to

the report. Which concerns me because I know there are loose tiles

in the bathroom and I'm sure the count is much higher there. There

was also moisture found on the adjacent wall in the bedroom. Not a

lot, but present.

3) Outside they were taken on the first floor balcony which is right

near the pool.

4) I'm not sure which was taken first or whether they were taken

simultaneously.

5) I don't know any of these answers. Myself and the realtor showed

up about an hour after he had arrived and the machine was running

for at least a half hour after that.

6) Its a first floor condo near the ocean built in 1973. The grounds

are impeccably maintained, as is the pool. It is an expensive place

to live, relatively.

7) I didn't have any reactions.

8) All I know in response to these questions is that the lab is AIHA

accredited.

9) Don't know the answers to these questions.

I know that there is a problem with the tiles being loose in the

shower. If this is fixed, is this likely to clear up the problem? Do

I need to get rid of all the carpets?

Thanks for your help.

--- In , " Carl E. Grimes " <grimes@...>

wrote:

>

> Tina,

>

> First, forgive my snarky response to your question, " How do you

> read a mold report? "

>

> My answer is with a flaming match held closely to the lower right

> hand corner. If you are left-handed, it will be the lower left

hand

> corner.

>

> I had a long day at a new house, not quite finished, for what was

> supposed to be a simple mold inspection in the crawlspace.

> There was a little visible mold in one spot but was insignificant

> compared to what was needed to prevent big problems because

> of water issues and construction defects throughout. It is a case

> study on how irrelevant mold reports usualy are.

>

> Improper flashing at the edge of decks allowing water to soak

> back below the surface, stone steps with cracked grout and no

> protective membrane beneath alllowing snow-melt to leak inside

> the house with framing showing signs of rot - and the buyer is

> supposed to close next Wednesday. Flagstone walkways

> cracking as we walked on them because they were improperly

> installed, a wood panel installed to hold back dirt in a

penetration

> to the foundation but it was saturated with water draining down

to

> it and into the crawlspace, vapor barriers on exterior walls

> installed incorrectly, a radon contractor offering a lifetime

> guarantee but they been in business less than a year. Wonder if

> they will be around next year, let alone in 20 years.

>

> Shall I go on? Oh yes, it was not a house of cheap construction

> and ill-repute. It was a multi-million dollar house at a ski

resort.

>

> I took no mold samples because to do so would be a waste of

> money. The priority, instead, is to work with the builder to gain

his

> cooperation to stop the current leaks and fix the pending ones for

> prevention. It's going to cost him and his subcontractors at least

> $30,000 because they will have to tear out some construction and

> start over. Decent consultation fees for me and keeps me

> working but it is aggravating when problems such as these, and

> what many on this group experience, are so totally and absolutley

> unnecessary.

>

> Now that I have vented, I need to ask some questions before I

> know what the numbers mean.

>

> 1. Who took the samples and why did he take them? Only the

> person who developed the sampling plan, collected the samples

> and interpreted the data knows how to read his report. Everybody

> does it differently. Why samples of which type were collected at

> their particular locations are all necessary to begin to

understand

> what the numbers mean. The fact he won't discuss the meaning

> is a giant red flag that he doesn't know what they mean either.

It's

> called suck air, collect money, leave.

>

> 2. Where inside the house were they taken?

>

> 3. Where outside the house were they taken?

>

> 4. Was the outside sample taken first or last? Most take the

> outside sample last which completely destroys the outside to

> inside comparison based on the outside moving to the inside.

>

> 5. What sampling method? It appears a spore-trap was used

> based on the unit of measure in " spores/m3 " rather than culturing

> which would be in CFU/m3. Plus, the Penicillium/ Aspergillus

> identification. So a better question would be what was the flow

> rate of the pump, how long did it run, had it been calibrated and

> what was the debris rating?

>

> 6. What is the history of the house? If it was flooded a month ago

> and this is what's left after clean-up you are in very good shape.

If

> the samples were collected for " clearance " inside a containment

> with air scrubbers running there is still a source of mold.

>

> 7. Did you react when visiting the house? If so, did the

complaints

> stop once you left? Or did it take several hours? Some people

> would have no reactions to 10 times these levels but another

> individual could have a life threatening asthma attack from

> exposure to any one of them at 1/10 these numbers. Where are

> you on the sensitivity scale?

>

> 8. The total lack of Cladosporium outside, because it is almost

> always present, raises questions about proper identification of

the

> spores by the lab. Was the lab AIHA or A2LA certified and

> independant from the inspector? Was the sample was actually

> collected outdoors? Did you witness it? I've seen samples taken

> inside by others, right in front of me, with a window open. And

the

> collection air pump was readjusted to an improper flow rate.

>

> 9. Are the numbers from just two samples or were others

> collected and the numbers given you are an average?

>

> There's more but I think you get the idea. The numbers must

> have a context in order to have any meaning. There is no

> meaning in the numbers themselves. They need a history of

> moisture events, the type of building and its systems, the climate

> and time of year, the susceptibility profile of the occupants, a

> definition of the problem so a question can be developed which

> only sampling can answer, etc.

>

> Because you are considering buying the property I suggest you

> need all the other information more than you need lab samples. I

> guarantee that if the same person took samples tomorrow in the

> same locations, they would get different results. What does that

> mean?

>

> So don't feel too badly about not figuring out how to interpret

the

> numbers. Nobody can. Instead, focus on identifying locations of

> dampness conducive to the growth of mold and bacteria and how

> you personally experience the house. That will give you much

> more accurate and representative basis for making a decision

> than a few mold samples will.

>

> In the meantime, to learn more, start by going to

> http://www.epa. gov/iaq/molds/ and read the free information and

> take the short video training course.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats

>

> -----

> > I just spent the last hour trying to research how to read a mold

> > report and there are no answers. I am considering buying a condo

and

> > I had it inspected. The company that took the report is

unwilling to

> > discuss it with me because I stupidly went through a middleman.

> >

> > What do these scores mean? They are spores/m3:

> >

> > Cladosporium (inside): 720

> >

> > Curvularia (inside): 40

> >

> > Other Basidiospores (outside): 40

> >

> > Penicillium/ Aspergillus (inside): 280

> > Penicillium/ Aspergillus (outside): 400

> >

> > Unidentified spores (inside): 40

> >

> > Are these scores bad? I'm trying to buy this property but now I

am

> > thinking of canceling the deal. Can mold be removed?

> >

> >

> >

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

> >

> > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Tina,

First, my apology for not responding to your diligent answers to

my questions. I have misplaced that e-mail. If you will re-send it

to me here or off-line I will answer. In the meantime, I can

respond to your recent answer to the one who suggested to not

buy because there are mold free houses.

I agree with you that all houses have some mold, and that the

concern is a matter of degree. Actually, a series of degrees or

ranges. 1. Amount of mold. 2. Types of mold. 3. Susceptibility of

the person. 4. Length of exposure. 5. Previous exposures. 6.

Other types of exposures. Among others.

As for how your numbers compare with " typical " or " normal, "

assuming there is such a thing, I'd say they are pretty typical

totals but a somewhat unusual mix. The mix in your results is

suspect because, as I said in my first response, I don't

understand why there is no Cladosporium outdoors. Among

others. But I don't consider that significant even for sensitive

people.

Bob s wrote a book about the guidelines and standards

across the world called " Worldwide Exposure Standards for Mold

and Bacteria.' Although the range of " acceptability " is wide, the

general agreement is less than a 1000 total is usually acceptable.

I'd reduce that to less than 200-300 total for susceptable people

and below 100 for hypersensitive individuals. Keeping it below

100 is very difficult and usually attainable in only one tightly

controlled room, certainly not in an entire house.

If there is no history of water damage or physical signs of water

damage and you are not reactive to this house but generally are

in other houses, then I'd say you have a pretty good chance of

living in this house.

Keep in mind there are other concerns and questions, but based

on what I remember from your answers that would be my

cautious conclusion.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Mold exists in all homes. Its a matter of degree, and I'm trying to

> find out how high these levels are .

>

>

> >

> > Tina,

> > I wouldn't do it.  If your sensetive to mold there shouldn't be

> any mold. 

> > When in doubt throw it out, when in doubt get the heck out!!  

> > When in doubt ?   Don't go in!!

> > Not worth it.  there are places with out moluds.

> > Thats my 2 cents for what it worth.

> > a

> >

>

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

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl, Thank you for sharing this opinion.

But I can see one area in which you might easily be misunderstood. In

the cases of some mold species,

is 300 spores/square meter (usually written as M3) still a LOT? Even

for those who are not sick.. (yet- in this situation, they could be..)

I am thinking mostly about stachybotrys, which often seems

underrepresented, spore-wise, for various reasons.

Thank you!

On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

> Bob s wrote a book about the guidelines and standards

> across the world called " Worldwide Exposure Standards for Mold

> and Bacteria.' Although the range of " acceptability " is wide, the

> general agreement is less than a 1000 total is usually acceptable.

> I'd reduce that to less than 200-300 total for susceptable people

> and below 100 for hypersensitive individuals. Keeping it below

> 100 is very difficult and usually attainable in only one tightly

> controlled room, certainly not in an entire house.

>

> If there is no history of water damage

When I read this, I thought - " How can somebody know, especially with

an older building.

Even the current owner might not know much about the history going

more than a few years back.

IMO, the older a building is, the more chance that it may have seen

water intrusion.

That may not be an issue but it may be too...

:\

> or physical signs of water

> damage and you are not reactive to this house but generally are

> in other houses, then I'd say you have a pretty good chance of

> living in this house.

>

I'd have to agree.. People are often a better judge of this than instruments..

But it might take some time too.. some time of spending a decent

amount of time there.

[Guest guest]

You are right about the unit of measure being " cubic meters "

(volume) rather than " square meters " (area). Thanks for noticing

and pointing that out.

Your question about when 300 would be " a lot " is a good one

emphasizing three major reasons why mold sampling is not easily

interpreted. First, in some cases, depending on the answers to the

questions I asked Tina, 300 would be " more than a lot " and other

times inconsequential. Second, almost all mold samples

under-estimate the mold types and levels actually present. How

much higher are they really? Nobody knows. They might be precise

(very unlikely) or they might be 100's of times too low. Third,

the 300 or so spores may be a tiny fraction of all mold

particulates which might be the main source of exposure.

You're also right about Stachybotrys but it's more than just

Stachybotrys. Some Aspergillus species can easily grow in the

lungs of otherwise non-susceptible people and some species are

associated with asthma.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

On Wed Oct 29 11:41:34 CDT 2008, LiveSimply

<quackadillian@...> wrote:

> Carl, Thank you for sharing this opinion.

>

> But I can see one area in which you might easily be

> misunderstood. In

> the cases of some mold species,

> is 300 spores/square meter (usually written as M3) still a LOT?

> Even

> for those who are not sick.. (yet- in this situation, they could

> be..)

>

> I am thinking mostly about stachybotrys, which often seems

> underrepresented, spore-wise, for various reasons.

>

> Thank you!

>

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Carl E. Grimes

> <grimes@...> wrote:

>

>> Bob s wrote a book about the guidelines and standards

>> across the world called " Worldwide Exposure Standards for Mold

>> and Bacteria.' Although the range of " acceptability " is wide, the

>> general agreement is less than a 1000 total is usually

>> acceptable.

>> I'd reduce that to less than 200-300 total for susceptable people

>> and below 100 for hypersensitive individuals. Keeping it below

>> 100 is very difficult and usually attainable in only one tightly

>> controlled room, certainly not in an entire house.

>>

>> If there is no history of water damage

>

> When I read this, I thought - " How can somebody know, especially

> with

> an older building.

> Even the current owner might not know much about the history

> going

> more than a few years back.

> IMO, the older a building is, the more chance that it may have

> seen

> water intrusion.

>

> That may not be an issue but it may be too...

>

> :\

>

>> or physical signs of water

>> damage and you are not reactive to this house but generally are

>> in other houses, then I'd say you have a pretty good chance of

>> living in this house.

>>

>

> I'd have to agree.. People are often a better judge of this than

> instruments..

> But it might take some time too.. some time of spending a decent

> amount of time there.

>

>