Re: there needs to be a book to explain results of air test

[Guest guest]

who,

Start with EPA's great new Mold Course, announced Mar 14, complete

with animations of mold growing http://www.epa.gov/mold/

Its content is based on their free publications available at

www.epa.gov/iaq/moulds

There are several books available, other than academic texts, but the

issues can be very technical. Therefore, most are written for

professionals and require a moderate science background to

understand. Others require comprehensive knowledge of statistical

analysis. Even then there is wide variation of interpretation of the

data and virtually no agreement about health effects.

Non-technical books (a great one is Microfungi ISBN 87-16-11436-1)

can explain what mold is, what it looks like, how it grows and where,

for example, but any description of sampling is by nature complex

with more statements of what it can't do than what it can do (very

little). After lab sample data is obtained, it must then be

interpreted and that is where great difficulty - and disagreement -

arises. EPA and Health Canada basically says testing is often

unnecessary.

An exposure standard or law would settle this issue but it will never

happen. No one can agree on what the issue is: the type or level of

exposure for any or all of the 100,000+ molds - assuming the

exposure could even be accurately measured. Too much variability of

methods, analysis, interpretation, reaction by each individual, etc.

Perhaps one day they will set an exposure limit for a specific

species, say, Aspergillus fumigatus, for cancer and organ transplant

patients. But I don't see it going much beyond that.

The " gold standard " is the American Conference of Governmental

Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH) Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control

(1999). The American Industrial Hygiene Assoc (AIHA) is currently

working on an update. AIHA also has other publications including

their Field Guide ... (don't remember the full name off-hand).

The Indoor Environmental Standards Organization (IESO, part of the

unification with IAQA and AmIAQ) has very good standards for how to

collect samples by the various methods. http://www.iestandards.org/

They also have a standard for a screening assessment of the sample

results but it is strictly limited to a recommendation that an

experienced professional be hired to actually determine the

conditions. So it doesn't actually interpret whether or not mold

contamination exists.

Speaking of which, I have yet to see a definition - good or lousy -

of " contamination. " In other words, when can mold be left alone,

because some of it is everywhere all the time, and when should it be

removed for whatever reason. If removed, how clean is clean? For you,

me or the person that is so resistant they can drink arsenic and ask

for a Stachybotrys chaser?

A new book in relatively non-technical language, although still

written more for the industry, is Fungal Contamination: A Manual for

Investigation, Remediation and Control (ISBN 0-9760799-0-9), 393

pages, $125. Even it doesn't define mold contamination. However, it

does address the more fundamental issue of moisture, identifying mold

as a symptom of a moisture problem. (MCS'ers may have trouble with

the ink odor).

Finally, for the record, Health Canada says no one should live in a

moldy house and ACGIH Bioaerosols 14.2.1 states: " However, microbial

growth in occupied interiors, in HVAC systems, and on building

materials and furnishings should not be allowed and such

contamination should be removed and further contamination should be

prevented. " But again, what type or how much growth constitutes

contamination and how clean is clean?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> anyone know of any out there? when air test were done on my home, I

> got the felling that the testers didn't know much about it. what is

> rare aspergillus? this was listed as found in my home. and other

> things with no explanation of what they are, how are lawyers supposed

> to understand these air tests? or anyone else. the report itself is

> severly lacking on explanations.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Carl, Jeanine, and others..

You know what also might be helpful in some situations? A program

where you could draw out the geometry of a building, and then plug in

air test results, and then perhaps simulate the flow dynamics of a

building over time with different temperature and solar warming,

moisture, humidity, evaporation, insulation, etc. conditions.

To do this you could use computational fluid dynamics..

On 3/27/06, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

> who,

>

> Start with EPA's great new Mold Course, announced Mar 14, complete

> with animations of mold growing http://www.epa.gov/mold/

> Its content is based on their free publications available at

> www.epa.gov/iaq/moulds

>

> There are several books available, other than academic texts, but the

> issues can be very technical. Therefore, most are written for

> professionals and require a moderate science background to

> understand. Others require comprehensive knowledge of statistical

> analysis. Even then there is wide variation of interpretation of the

> data and virtually no agreement about health effects.

>

> Non-technical books (a great one is Microfungi ISBN 87-16-11436-1)

> can explain what mold is, what it looks like, how it grows and where,

> for example, but any description of sampling is by nature complex

> with more statements of what it can't do than what it can do (very

> little). After lab sample data is obtained, it must then be

> interpreted and that is where great difficulty - and disagreement -

> arises. EPA and Health Canada basically says testing is often

> unnecessary.

>

> An exposure standard or law would settle this issue but it will never

> happen. No one can agree on what the issue is: the type or level of

> exposure for any or all of the 100,000+ molds - assuming the

> exposure could even be accurately measured. Too much variability of

> methods, analysis, interpretation, reaction by each individual, etc.

> Perhaps one day they will set an exposure limit for a specific

> species, say, Aspergillus fumigatus, for cancer and organ transplant

> patients. But I don't see it going much beyond that.

>

> The " gold standard " is the American Conference of Governmental

> Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH) Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control

> (1999). The American Industrial Hygiene Assoc (AIHA) is currently

> working on an update. AIHA also has other publications including

> their Field Guide ... (don't remember the full name off-hand).

>

> The Indoor Environmental Standards Organization (IESO, part of the

> unification with IAQA and AmIAQ) has very good standards for how to

> collect samples by the various methods. http://www.iestandards.org/

>

> They also have a standard for a screening assessment of the sample

> results but it is strictly limited to a recommendation that an

> experienced professional be hired to actually determine the

> conditions. So it doesn't actually interpret whether or not mold

> contamination exists.

>

> Speaking of which, I have yet to see a definition - good or lousy -

> of " contamination. " In other words, when can mold be left alone,

> because some of it is everywhere all the time, and when should it be

> removed for whatever reason. If removed, how clean is clean? For you,

> me or the person that is so resistant they can drink arsenic and ask

> for a Stachybotrys chaser?

>

> A new book in relatively non-technical language, although still

> written more for the industry, is Fungal Contamination: A Manual for

> Investigation, Remediation and Control (ISBN 0-9760799-0-9), 393

> pages, $125. Even it doesn't define mold contamination. However, it

> does address the more fundamental issue of moisture, identifying mold

> as a symptom of a moisture problem. (MCS'ers may have trouble with

> the ink odor).

>

> Finally, for the record, Health Canada says no one should live in a

> moldy house and ACGIH Bioaerosols 14.2.1 states: " However, microbial

> growth in occupied interiors, in HVAC systems, and on building

> materials and furnishings should not be allowed and such

> contamination should be removed and further contamination should be

> prevented. " But again, what type or how much growth constitutes

> contamination and how clean is clean?

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> -----

> > anyone know of any out there? when air test were done on my home, I

> > got the felling that the testers didn't know much about it. what is

> > rare aspergillus? this was listed as found in my home. and other

> > things with no explanation of what they are, how are lawyers supposed

> > to understand these air tests? or anyone else. the report itself is

> > severly lacking on explanations.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Actually, there is a program - a couple actually - very similar that

the building scientists are using. VERY expensive and heavy on the

formulas.

Carl

-----

> Carl, Jeanine, and others..

>

> You know what also might be helpful in some situations? A program

> where you could draw out the geometry of a building, and then plug in

> air test results, and then perhaps simulate the flow dynamics of a

> building over time with different temperature and solar warming,

> moisture, humidity, evaporation, insulation, etc. conditions.

>

> To do this you could use computational fluid dynamics..

>

> On 3/27/06, Carl E. Grimes <grimes@...> wrote:

> > who,

> >

> > Start with EPA's great new Mold Course, announced Mar 14, complete

> > with animations of mold growing http://www.epa.gov/mold/ Its

> > content is based on their free publications available at

> > www.epa.gov/iaq/moulds

> >

> > There are several books available, other than academic texts, but

> > the issues can be very technical. Therefore, most are written for

> > professionals and require a moderate science background to

> > understand. Others require comprehensive knowledge of statistical

> > analysis. Even then there is wide variation of interpretation of the

> > data and virtually no agreement about health effects.

> >

> > Non-technical books (a great one is Microfungi ISBN 87-16-11436-1)

> > can explain what mold is, what it looks like, how it grows and

> > where, for example, but any description of sampling is by nature

> > complex with more statements of what it can't do than what it can do

> > (very little). After lab sample data is obtained, it must then be

> > interpreted and that is where great difficulty - and disagreement -

> > arises. EPA and Health Canada basically says testing is often

> > unnecessary.

> >

> > An exposure standard or law would settle this issue but it will

> > never happen. No one can agree on what the issue is: the type or

> > level of exposure for any or all of the 100,000+ molds - assuming

> > the exposure could even be accurately measured. Too much variability

> > of methods, analysis, interpretation, reaction by each individual,

> > etc. Perhaps one day they will set an exposure limit for a specific

> > species, say, Aspergillus fumigatus, for cancer and organ transplant

> > patients. But I don't see it going much beyond that.

> >

> > The " gold standard " is the American Conference of Governmental

> > Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH) Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control

> > (1999). The American Industrial Hygiene Assoc (AIHA) is currently

> > working on an update. AIHA also has other publications including

> > their Field Guide ... (don't remember the full name off-hand).

> >

> > The Indoor Environmental Standards Organization (IESO, part of the

> > unification with IAQA and AmIAQ) has very good standards for how to

> > collect samples by the various methods. http://www.iestandards.org/

> >

> > They also have a standard for a screening assessment of the sample

> > results but it is strictly limited to a recommendation that an

> > experienced professional be hired to actually determine the

> > conditions. So it doesn't actually interpret whether or not mold

> > contamination exists.

> >

> > Speaking of which, I have yet to see a definition - good or lousy -

> > of " contamination. " In other words, when can mold be left alone,

> > because some of it is everywhere all the time, and when should it be

> > removed for whatever reason. If removed, how clean is clean? For

> > you, me or the person that is so resistant they can drink arsenic

> > and ask for a Stachybotrys chaser?

> >

> > A new book in relatively non-technical language, although still

> > written more for the industry, is Fungal Contamination: A Manual for

> > Investigation, Remediation and Control (ISBN 0-9760799-0-9), 393

> > pages, $125. Even it doesn't define mold contamination. However, it

> > does address the more fundamental issue of moisture, identifying

> > mold as a symptom of a moisture problem. (MCS'ers may have trouble

> > with the ink odor).

> >

> > Finally, for the record, Health Canada says no one should live in a

> > moldy house and ACGIH Bioaerosols 14.2.1 states: " However, microbial

> > growth in occupied interiors, in HVAC systems, and on building

> > materials and furnishings should not be allowed and such

> > contamination should be removed and further contamination should be

> > prevented. " But again, what type or how much growth constitutes

> > contamination and how clean is clean?

> >

> > Carl Grimes

> > Healthy Habitats LLC

> >

> > -----

> > > anyone know of any out there? when air test were done on my home,

> > > I got the felling that the testers didn't know much about it. what

> > > is rare aspergillus? this was listed as found in my home. and

> > > other things with no explanation of what they are, how are lawyers

> > > supposed to understand these air tests? or anyone else. the report

> > > itself is severly lacking on explanations.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Carl,

It could be done graphically, with a GUI and 3D primitives for the

rooms and air/vapor barriers - sort of like a CAD program - to

insulate people from the math...

Have you ever seen anything like that? I know they have stuff like

that for fires.

BTW : This seems like a problem NASA might tackle, since it involves

airflow and the computer simulation of it.. And national security (if

protecting the minds of Americans - including children - from

invisible biotoxins isn't a national security issue, *what is*?