Re: Testing for mold might be a waste of money

[Guest guest]

Thanks for this article, KC. It's one of the better ones, especially

Tim Wallace's advice and recommendations.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

>

>

> Testing for mold might be a waste of money

> By Elliott (Contact)

> Tuesday, June 23, 2009

> TCPalm - West Palm Beach,FL,USA

>

> http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/jun/23/testing-mold-might- be-waste-money/

>

> Homeowners wanting to test their homes for mold should usually just turn to

their nose and eyes, according

> to a new Florida Department of Health consumer advisory.

>

> Now is the humid season when summer rains foster mold growth - which many

Treasure Coast residents

> came face to face with following the 2004 hurricanes.

>

> Rains poured in through broken roofs. Mold proliferated in dampened wallboard

and attics when air

> conditioning system weren't working.

>

> As a number of owners found, mold can cause respiratory problems and skin

rashes, especially among those

> with allergies and asthma.

>

> And homeowners wanted indoor air quality testing to either verify that they

had a problem or that it had

> been cleaned up by a contractor.

>

> But state health officials looked into mold testing and found that it is often

unreliable and proves little in

> most cases, state reports show. Plus it can be expensive: scientifically valid

mold testing can cost $6,000 for a

> standard home, according to the health department.Even then it is a " snapshot "

of conditions at a particular

> time, said Tim Wallace, a Department of Health environmental health program

consultant.

>

> And some mold is always around, to some extent.

>

> In the end, finding the species of mold in a home isn't that important, health

officials said.

>

> Mold is mold.

>

> So agency officials urge homeowners to consider skip testing and go directly

to cleanup and stopping the

> source of moisture fostering mold growth.

>

> Brad Dunning is the manager of Certified Mold Solutions that does mold cleanup

in homes from Sebastian to

> West Palm Beach. He, too, advises homeowners to go ahead and clean up if mold

is visible, yet he said some

> insurance companies want testing as part of mold cleanups.

>

> A basic set of three tests for insurance companies, he said, costs about $300.

>

> A regional testing lab, Pro-Lab, of Weston, advertises itself as being

accredited by the American Industrial

> Hygiene Association, an industry group. It does testing of mold samples from

the Treasure Coast. Company

> officials couldn't be reached for comment about the state's recommendations.

>

> Florida Department of Health officials said the signs of mold can be

discolorations in drywall and ceiling tiles

> and a tell-tale earthy, musty odor, Wallace said.

>

> Mold also can proliferate anytime from a pipe leak or drips from an air

conditioning line. It can show up

> around sinks or in showers.

>

> " When mold growth becomes visible or mold odors can be smelled ... there is a

problem that should not be

> tolerated, " according to his department's Web site.

>

> Cleanup can be as simple as " elbow grease, " soap and a scrub brush in

instances of small amounts of mold in

> a washbasin, Wallace said. Or a contractor may have to be hired to repair a

leak and replace dampened

> drywall where mold is growing.

>

> In showers, water can seep into walls through cracks in tile grouting.

>

> Still, some people want testing to see if mold is present and to guide

cleanup. Both, the health department

> says, are poor reasons for paying someone to do test sampling in a home.

>

> " Many people have unrealistic expectations of what mold testing can do and

they can be taken advantage of

> by those who perform testing poorly or for inappropriate reasons, " according

to the agency's Web site.

>

> That money is better spent, Wallace said, on removal and repairs. In general,

the state says homeowners can

> do their own cleanup when mold is in an area less than 10 square feet in size.

If a cleanup company is hired,

> consumers are advised to check references and work record.

>

> State recommendations about mold:

>

> o Skip mold testing and go directly to cleanup

>

> o Money is better spent on cleanup than on testing in most cases. Mold is

naturally present to some extent, so

> tests will always show something.

>

> o Homeowners can detect mold though smell and sight. Mold has an earthy musty

odor. And it appears as a

> discoloration in various colors: white, gray, black, orange and greenish.

>

> o Mold problems are caused by water leaks in everything from pipes and air

conditioning systems to roofs.

> Also, mold may grow at the bottom of washbasins and showers.

>

> o Small cleanups can be done with a scrub brush, soap and water. If chlorine

is used, don't mix it with

> anything other than water. Drywall may have to be removed and replaced.

>

> o For more information about dealing with mold go to the Florida Department of

Health Web site:

> doh.state.fl.us. At the site, do a search for mold. Then open the Indoor Air

Quality Guide to indoor mold.

>

> SOURCE: Florida Department of Health

>

> Government regulations are limited:

>

> o There are no government standards for mold testing by laboratories or

standards for the amount of mold in

> residences or buildings in Florida. The only exception is for testing of homes

with children with asthma.

>

> o Currently, mold-removal companies aren't required to be licensed by the

state. Beginning July 1, 2010, the

> state Department of Business and Professional Regulation is authorized to

start licensing companies doing

> mold remediation and assessment. But no money has been appropriated for

putting the licensing into effect.

>

> SOURCE: Florida Department of Health and Florida Department of Business and

Professional Regulation.

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 07:32 PM 6/24/2009, you wrote:

>Testing for mold might be a waste of money

>By Elliott (Contact)

>Tuesday, June 23, 2009

>TCPalm - West Palm Beach,FL,USA

>

>http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/jun/23/testing-mold-might-be-waste-money/

I'd like to hear about any published mold repair articles intended

for the common layperson.

This article would be highly rated if it had limited itself to just

minor mold incidents,

as for those it is accurate and good. But for when a mold incident

is not minor,

this article is rated by me as " below fair " as it has two major

shortcomings that

those fighting mold need to be aware for their own personal safety during

clean up, and even if they should re-enter the building safely for cleanup.

1) Some molds are pathogenic, dangerous to all humans, especially to

elderly, babies, and immune compromised. This should have been

explicitly stated, along with the warning of onset symptoms that could

lead to death, or lung or nose infection, or other cavity (mouth, ear, eye).

I consider it irresponsible the author did not include this information,

as without the introduction of the article severely misinforms, to a

possibly deadly level, a shocking lack of informed investigative

journalism. If it was not for the rest of the good information in the

article, I would have rated this article below poor, closer to bad.

2) The time period for mold clean up should have been stated within

hours, certainly before 24 hours has expired after the initial moisture

entered the premise. This would include temporary repairs to prevent

continual moisture release (rain, broken pipe). Again, this is such a

severe oversight, as to thoroughly not protect the do it yourself repair

person. That a person might think they can wait a week, could turn

deadly.

On a lessor angle of bad penmanship there are numerous warnings that

were excluded, too numerous for me to list.

On the up side is that money for testing might be better spent on repairs,

and not delaying until test results come back (which I do not recall reading,

so another minus).

This article could be used by friends and family to disclaim a mold survivor.

Overall, my evaluation of this article is a 'service " , a marginal one, to the

person wanting to know more, and a dis-service to the many whose health

will be damaged, perhaps die, an early death, or have quality of living issues

for years, decades, due to the incomplete information in the article.

It's this type of incomplete information, dis-information, an omission is still

a lie, a lie of omission. Quite obviously the author has felt they toed the

fine line, and perhaps the author realizes the failure in truthfulness is dire.

The author has nothing to hold their head high on this account.

I do have to encourage more articles of this " quality " , even if it

has shortcomings,

as public awareness increases that articles like this provide, facts

that are not

disputed by either side, is a good thing.