Mold In Our Classrooms
.jpg)
My hometown newspaper Greenwich Time, reported in a front page headline on March 25, 2009 "Mold found again at Ham Ave." The Hamilton Avenue Elementary School in Greenwich was closed in 2005 largely due to the perception that mold made the school unsafe for students and faculty. For the past three years, the youngsters attended classes in temporary modular classrooms, which ironically also suffered from mold problems, while awaiting completion of the oft-delayed reconstruction of the school, the Greenwich Time reported. It was discovered last week at the newly re-opened school that a 2-to-3-square-foot patch of mold was discovered due to a leaky interior pipe that hadn't been properly sealed during construction. It is not surprising that the school's industrial hygienist, Hygenix, found "exceptionally low" levels of mold after sampling. What is surprising is that the decision was made to perform sampling at all considering that the source of the water infiltration was addressed and the mold removed. Sampling is often not necessary and sampling results are frequently misinterpreted to suggest a health hazard where none exists. In its guidance for "Mold Remediation in Schools and Contaminated Buildings", the USEPA cautions that there a number of pitfalls associated with mold sampling which at best only provides a "snapshot" of conditions as they exist at a given time. To suggest, as the school's consultant did, however, that any "residual microbial hazards" had been eliminated is an unfortunate choice of words because it is probably the case that no hazard ever existed in the first place. Ron Gots, a toxicologist based in Rockville, Maryland, who has written extensively about public misinformation about mold describes how medical statements by mold testers may result in unintended consequences in the event of a claim. For example, the statement in a hygienist's report that "This mold is known to produce toxins which can cause a variety of adverse health effects including......" is not only irrelevant, but begs the question whether:(1) the mold is producing toxins in this instance?; (2) those toxins are getting to people?; and (3) they are getting to people in sufficient quantity to cause harm? As Dr. Gots points out, the issue is not what molds can do; the question is what they are likely or proven to do under these particular circumstances in this setting. To avoid further fear and confusion about mold (and unnecessary costs) at the Hamilton Avenue school, a more scientifically objective approach should be considered by the Town.
Obviously, as a "horrible mold tester", I am going to have some things to respectfully say to you.
When you wrote that sampling only elevates fear and causes people to falsly think that their health is being jeopardized, I say the opposite is true.
With over 100 years experience and expertise, my team of doctors, scientists, chemists, microbiologists, certified industrial hygienists have spent years sampling homes and saving peoples lives.
Yes, I said saving peoples lives.
We have seen families who are very sick, chemically sensitive, immune compromised, firemen who got dosed from 911 get better once their microbial contamination is remediated.
My question to you is if the remediation company didn't have the home tested first, how would he be able to follow a 'scope of work' from a testing company like he's supposed to do? How do you think he is going to know how to proceed in cleaning it if he doesn't have a blueprint to follow?
How does he see what's in the air and how many rooms are affected?
Is it just in the basement, or has it become airbound throughout the entire home?
How does he know extent of colonization?
How does he know whether or not it is toxic?
If it is toxic, it needs to be remediated by a professional who follows the IICRC protocols.
How does he know if he cleaned it up properly if he doesn't have a separate company testing his work?
The only people who don't like the preliminary test, are the remediation companies because it keeps them on a leash so they don't come in and take homes down to the stud for no reason.
The other people who are discounting links with mold contamination and health these days are attorneys, landlords, property owners and businessmen who have alot to lose if this link is ever commonly established, because they will have to pay to make it right.
There's alot of money being spent right now to discount the myriad of health issues associated with mold.
I do agree with you however, that a mold company should not speak medically. We are very clear about where our company begins and where it ends.
We always recommend that our clients take the samples to their physician to let them know medically if it s alright or not.
Since there is no such thing as a building with 'no mold', we look for numbers that are equal to or less than outside numbers( per the ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists as well as Dr. John Santilli)
If persons are suffering with respiratory problems such as asthma, immune compromised conditions such as Cancer, etc...anything toxic over 500-1000 particulates is too high. This could be perfectly fine for another individual who doesn't have any sensitivities.
But this cannot be looked at as a one size fits all like you did in your post.
There are too many variables.
I have been on radio interviews and have consulted with several parents and teachers whose children attend a Westport, CT school where Hygienix cleared rooms with 27 spores of Stachybotrys inside.
Would you let your child remain in a room that was that toxic??? I wouldn't, sorry.
I am certain though, that if the author of this blog had a member of his or her family suffer from this type of contamination, which is much like asbestos exposure, I believe they would be thinking much differently.