Mold Testing - Clarification

[Guest guest]

Barb1283 and group,

In response to several posts by you and others on mold testing I'd

like to correct a perception that I may have unwittingly created:

That there is no good mold testing and none of it is worthwhile.

Not all mold testing is worthless or unreliable. Some mold testing is

life saving.

BUT... worthwhile mold testing is not easy. The limitations and

variables are many but can be accounted for by someone with

education, training and experience. The risk of a low mold count that

is incorrect is extremely high. That is one of several reasons why we

continue to be ill even if we don't find anything on the plates or

even if professional testing is " negative. " Wrong results leave us

exposed to what is making us sick. We can't get well.

There are also different levels of proof from testing. The highest

level with the most accuracy is under strictly controlled laboratory

conditions using analytical methods. Ideally, all but one variable is

controlled so they can measure the single variable. This is

impossible in real life outside of the lab. And nearly impossible in

the lab!

There is mold testing that is admissible in court, whether or not it

is accurate. Each case will determine what is credible evidence and

what is not, in other words what it will accept as " proof. "

There is mold testing for medical purpose such as: There is a fungal

infection of X mold and there is Y and Z mold in the air but no X

mold. Or, there is X mold also in the air that MIGHT be the source.

Still not a " proof " but very valuable information.

There is the mold testing done by people who remove mold. Talk about

the high risk of bias! Theor testing has meanng to themselves but

usually not in court or by doctors. The unscrupulous ones find mold

at first so they get the job and then can't seem to find any at the

end to " prove " they are done so they can get paid.

There is mold testing done by people who don't remove mold but their

bias is what they know and believe to be true about mold. Again, it

has meaning to them and hopefully they can communicate that meaning

to occupants, remediators, doctors and courtrooms. But it isn't

" proof. "

Mold testing can also be done by yourself for your own purposes. This

is the type that you are doing. You are gradually creating a baseline

of information and modifying your methods and interpretation as you

learn more. You do this by COMPARING your mold testing results with

you own experience.

It is the COMPARING that is critical. You compare an unknown (mold)

to a known (your experience). A professional does this all the time

and this is how most of us have learned. We have the advantage of

experience with thousands of situations rather than just our own.

They test and compare the results to a regulation, if there is one.

If there isn't a regulation, they compare it to what they believe.

Such as the indoor air must be 10 times higher inside than outside,

equal to the outside, 50% less, or the kinds of mold regardless of

the numbers. It has meaning to them and guides them toward their

recommendations.

For example, 20 years ago I had to create a method for airborne mold

for my use because there were no local labs that did airborne mold

analysis. At that time I knew of none nationally. Even 12 years later

when I wrote my book, 4 out of the 5 national labs I called said

Stachybotrys was a bacteria and not a mold. So I put it in my book as

a bacteria.

As my experience grew and my comparisons increased, I began to fine-

tune my methods and conclusions. When mold became big after the

Ballard case the industrial people became involved and used the

comparisons they were familiar with. Totally wrong, but they used it

in court, creating much harm in my opinion. With increased experience

even they shifted their understanding until most no longer trust the

10 times higher inside than outside " rule " that works for chemicals

in the workplace.

I no longer trust most of mold testing at all, unless the reasons,

conditions, handling, purposes, biasis, building history and on and

on are considered. I know from experience that all this is needed

before I will stake my reputation and the well-being of my clients on

numbers from a lab. As a matter of fact, developing the information

for all the above has proven to be more accurate and less expensive

than 99% of testing. Which is what an increasing number of the 5,000+

consultants are also saying - but with little specific agreement as

to why.

Because there is no consensus, as KC points out, we now have 5,000

consultants with 7,000 opinions. There are efforts underway as we

speak to reduce the 7,000 opinions to at least a handful, but I don't

ever see it being reduced to just one.

Also, mold testing is only one tool in the tool box. Just as a house

can't be built with just a hammer or just a saw, worthwhile mold

assessment can't be done will with just testiing. Good consultants

that achieve successful results will gather information from several

sources and methods before they test and compare all the results with

each other. If several point to a certain direction, the consultant

has increased confidence that the errors have been accounted for and

the correct information is dominant.

When I evaluate the testing of others, I'll do so according to at

least 5 of the 10 prevalent methods to see if any of them agree.

Almost always several of them do but I'm often surprised at which

ones and why. Each situation is different.

Also, like the detective shows on TV and in the movies, or the law in

the courtroom what kind of proof do you need? Do you need absolute

proof? (Expensive and usually impossible). Proof beyond a reasonable

doubt? The preponderance of evidence, whether factual or

circumstantial? Or just a convincing story? (Less costly but also the

least reliable).

Self testing like you are doing, Barb, is great and I wholeheardedly

support it because it has meaning to you and it results in the

improvement of your environment. And it changes as your experience

changes. But it won't have meaning for the doctors or the lawyers or

the remediators or the consultants or anybody else. That's okay

because, as you understand and clearly say, you are using it only for

yourself for your own purposes and not for others.

What I object to and spend perhaps too much time on is warning people

away from the over reliance on just testing with no supporting

information, and just using numbers to convince the unbelievers, the

skeptics and the defense lawyers. Especially with the least reliable

methods from the least reliable sources by those with the most bias.

MOLD TESTING ALONE CAN NEVER PROVIDE PROOF. But that is what we all

want and try to accomplish by testing.

So, yes there are many positives to mold testing. But it is tricky,

it depends on why it is being done, how it is collected and analyzed,

how and who interprets the results and what level of proof you need.

This is an excellent group to compare what each has learned from

their experiences with mold testing and other activities so we can

learn from each other. The recent posts on this topic have been

exactly what is needed to help reduce harm by more quickly

identifying and stopping exposure problems.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Yes, I'm using my own body reactions also to

> detect but testing also. I have not picked up

> any toxic mold in plates but I know it's here

> from other evidence. All I'm trying to do is get

> mold count down. Figuring home with low mold

> count is healthy/healthier. Toxins are a

> different issue I don't understand well yet.

>

> --- erikmoldwarrior

> <erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote:

> > Yes! Exactly.

> > My major sources of exposure weren't in the

> > house at all, sometimes

> > coming from such unexpected places as a moldy

> > thermal as I was Hang

> > Gliding over an area deforested by fire north

> > of Mt Hull.

> >

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>