Carl Grimes comments on ozone discussion

[Guest guest]

Mia Culpa.

I totally agree with Carl's commentary on what

constitutes a " safe " level of mould in a building.

It is unfortunate that I used " safe " in my note, I

actually know better than to suggest something could

be defined as " safe " . I present many seminars and

workshops on mould contamination in buildings, and in

my section on Risk Assessment I stress there is no

definition of " safe " level of mould; there may be

acceptible levels, or normal levels, but no one can

define safe.

Carl's point that " safe " depends upon many factors is

exactly right. These factors include type and

virulence of mould, it's activity level, communication

path to the host, susceptibility of the host,

synergistic effects, proximity to the host, etc.

The point I was trying to make was that when a

building is treated for mould (by any method)what is

taken out or killed is not as important as what is

left.

Jim

__________________________________________________