Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Re: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Rate this topic

Guest guest

By Guest guest
in Health, Medicine and Natural Healing 04

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I suggest that the issue is one of what is meant by " ordering " evacuation.

You, I or the next-door neighbor can give our opinion that the occupants

need to leave the building. The opinion of someone considered to be an

expert may be given greater weight by the person who has to make the

decision whether to leave or not.

However, the " evacuation order " the health department is talking about is

probably one with the force of law, which someone can be arrested or fined

for violating.

Private parties probably shouldn't be handing out such orders.

Tim Toburen

Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

> I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that

> in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or

> other building.

>

> Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was

> very adamant in his opinion.

>

> The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the

> insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS

> told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out

> of the home for 6 months now.

>

>

> Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why

> doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue

> in WS?

>

> Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what

> criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?

>

> BOB

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,

political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice

issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your

own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I have never recommended that anyone

evacuate a home or apartment because of mold, but I know that there are many

so-called mold inspection services that use the scare tactic when performing

their inspections.  After finding Stachy

during an inspection, they have told people that they need to get out of there

ASAP, that they are going to die, and that they need to burn all of their

clothes and furniture.  It’s

unfortunate, but until we can educate everyone, the leeches and vultures will

prey on them…

Jasson Walke

Mold Tech Services, Inc

www.moldtechservices.com

jasson@...

Re: Building

Evacuation in Wisconsin

I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from

Wisconsin said that

in WS only the health department can order the

evacuation of a home or

other building.

Local building officials can do it too, but

consultants can not. He was

very adamant in his opinion.

The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in

Racine, WS who said that the

insurance company she represented had a claim

where the consultant in WS

told the family to evacuate the home and they

did. They have been out

of the home for 6 months now.

Can anyone back up the first consultants

statement. If so, then why

doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know

about this authority issue

in WS?

Needless to say, does anyone (on this

list) want to admit what

criteria they have used to recommended

evacuation.?

BOB

FAIR USE

NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of

which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We

are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of

environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and

social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any

such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site

is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For

more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own

that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Bob,

In many cases, the mere prescense of stachy or aspergillous seems to be groungs for recommended evacuation by numerous professionals all accross the country from what I have seen. In regards to mold, high spore counts along with simple visible mold can also be cause for evacuation - untill removal of course. Makes evacuation a quick and easy call from what I have seen.

Shane

Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or other building.Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was very adamant in his opinion.The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out of the home for 6 months now. Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue in WS?Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I think Tim is exactly right. No consultant in any state I know of can order

an occupant out of their lawful abode. A recommendation, even a strong one

from a professional, is far short of an order to vacate. That said, I would

find it surprising if the Fire Departments in Wisconsin didn't have

evacuation authority.

Shell Bleiweiss

Law Offices Of Shell J. Bleiweiss

Environmental and OSHA Law

sbleiweiss@...

<http://www.shell-bleiweiss.com>

Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

>

>

> > I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that

> > in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or

> > other building.

> >

> > Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was

> > very adamant in his opinion.

> >

> > The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the

> > insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS

> > told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out

> > of the home for 6 months now.

> >

> >

> > Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why

> > doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue

> > in WS?

> >

> > Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what

> > criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?

> >

> > BOB

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > FAIR USE NOTICE:

> >

> > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

> been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

> material available in our efforts to advance understanding of

environmental,

> political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social

justice

> issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

> copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law.

> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site

is

> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

> receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

> For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of

your

> own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the

copyright

> owner.

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

From all the discussion all I can say it is too bad more CIE'S didn't get their training from down in Florida. He taught us unless you are a medical doctor how can you say the mold in a home is making someone sick and they should leave. All of my reports in such cases recommend that they should consult their doctor. This statement has kept me out of trouble with three lawyers now. In extreme situation, I will send a registered letter to homeowner stating they should check with their family doctor. Keep up the great work . Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Bob

I have recommended that people leave buildings that were very moldy in

several cases:

1 When they were quite ill when in the home and better when away, and I

could sense a problem in my own body after only an hour of exposure (or

less);

2 When the occupants were ill, but had not been away to know the

difference that exposure would make, but I got quite noticeably ill in less

than an hour in that building.

In the latter cases the occupants did feel better when away, and remained so

when they returned to their houses after they were properly remediated (to

what is slightly better than the existing IICRC S520 procedures, but with no

fungicides or other toxic coatings).

I realize that, in spite of the work that I commissioned on moldy houses and

health in Canada, there is still not sufficient 'proof' that moldy houses

make people sick, but when the occupants get better when they leave, then

return to a clean house, I do not care about absolute proof (as if there was

such a thing) but only that they got better.

JIm H. White SSAL

Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

> I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that

> in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or

> other building.

>

> Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was

> very adamant in his opinion.

>

> The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the

> insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS

> told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out

> of the home for 6 months now.

>

>

> Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why

> doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue

> in WS?

>

> Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what

> criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?

>

> BOB

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,

political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice

issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your

own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright

owner.

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Needless to say, does

anyone (on this list) want to admit what

criteria they have used to recommended

evacuation.?

I have evacuated people from buildings due to microbial

contamination--and the times I did were not scare tactics. As an

example, one time was the guy whose bedroom was in the basement where

water from a waste pipe on the first floor had saturated the basement

carpeting and the whole place smelled like a septic tank. I also

don't want occupants in the house during remediation activities, in part

because of the chance for exposure, but mostly because they can't seem to

leave the containment plastic alone. I also want them out because I

usually specify that the air handler be turned off; I don't want to

chance it screwing up containment pressurization, spreading contaminants

throughout the building or becoming contaminated during

remediation. In buildings with basements, the air handler is

usually in the basement and that is usually where flooding

occurs.

I also evaluate how the occupants are doing and whether they might be

having symptoms due to mold exposure. If a chance exists that they

are, I will recommend that they relocate; but if they don't, I want it in

writing that they made that decision. If the occupants want to be

relocated and I cannot convince them otherwise, relocation is a lot

cheaper than a lawsuit. In general, most don't want relocation,

except that guy mentioned above. His kids were reportedly and

physically showing allergy-like symptoms that could have been due to

contamination. He had to be forced to relocate by his landlord, who

did not want to risk a lawsuit. Even then, he covertly moved the

family back in at night and on weekends.

In most cases, building occupants don't need relocation prior to

remediation because the mold areas can usually be isolated from the rest

of the building (and I am a firm believer in at least trying to isolate

the area prior to remediation to avoid chance exposure). Whether to

relocate prior to remediation tends to be a gut-feel thing that is

influenced by many different reasons. Most of those reasons are NOT

what I consider realistic health threats to the occupants. The

litigiousness and health riskiness of the situation have a strong

influence on whether to relocate occupants. I would much prefer to

take a conservative approach than have to spend hours trying to defend my

actions in a lawsuit.

******************************************************

If what is written looks too stupid to be written by me, I disclaim

it. On

the other hand, if it is brilliant, then I have no one to blame but

myself.

Otherwise, whether you choose to accept my opinion is up to you.

******************************************************

K. Klein, PE ME, MBA

Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Inc.

PO Box 7

Bethel, OH 45106-0007

VOICE: FAX:

E-mail: mkklein68@...

*******************************************************

Wouldn't it be nice if common sense were really common?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Bob,

I work closely with several health departments. Typically, a government agency such as the health department will not intervene on private property. Who can is the building department but in limited situations where there is a defect in a building that can cause damage to itself or effect the occupants. The few times I have been involved with the health department in privately owned buildings for non-public use where the building is not acting as a pre-school, day care, etc., and where the building is not required to have a health permit to operate, is when the building occupants and its environment have contact with infectious hepatitis.

In water damages, sewage and mold claim, the county or city department of environmental health hate to get involved with these types of issues and they have very little jurisdiction in the matters.

Moffett

-----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in WisconsinI was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or other building.Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was very adamant in his opinion.The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out of the home for 6 months now. Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue in WS?Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold? Really, why not? As professionals, we are evaluating whether conditions in the home/building could be considered unhealthy. Doesn't mean we are diagnosing any person as having a specific medical condition. If you found 300 ppm carbon monoxide in a home would you recommend everyone get out? I sure hope so. So what's the difference if you find some major mold problems, especially if the occupants are reporting health problems that could be related to mold exposure?

Yes, there are unscrupulous people seeking to taking advantage of "mold hysteria". Similarly, there are seemingly well meaning people that are just poorly trained and poorly educated. On the other hand, how are you "educating" anyone by failing to recommend people get out of a situation that as a professional you should recognize may be hazardous to their health? Clearly, as professionals, we need to understand the difference between "scare tactics" and sound advice.

What's the point in assessing the health of a home if not because of the affect it may have on the occupants? Your assessment of conditions in the home, along with your opinion as to the severity of the conditions, is vitally important information. The physician (in nearly all cases) has no means of inspecting the home, few physicians have much in the way of any environmental training, and there is a scarcity of diagnostic tests to prove many potentially environmentally induced health effects. Why, then, would we withhold information that may be the key to someone's health?

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

1900 E. Ninth St.

Wichita, KS 67214

-----Original Message-----From: Jasson Walke Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:33 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I have never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold, but I know that there are many so-called mold inspection services that use the scare tactic when performing their inspections. After finding Stachy during an inspection, they have told people that they need to get out of there ASAP, that they are going to die, and that they need to burn all of their clothes and furniture. It's unfortunate, but until we can educate everyone, the leeches and vultures will prey on them...

Jasson Walke

Mold Tech Services, Inc

www.moldtechservices.com

jasson@...

-----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or other building.Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was very adamant in his opinion.The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out of the home for 6 months now. Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue in WS?Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

If

you recommend they evacuate their home and someone later determines that

was not necessary you may be liable for the costs incurred by the

occupants due to the evacuation. Because of this we will not

recommend an occupant move out.

I have never heard of such liability being incurred. I would

further assume that should a liability case occur for whatever reason, a

jury would be far more likely to decide for someone who erred on the side

of people safety rather than someone who erred on the side of cost over

safety.

As for your doctor argument, if a person goes to their doctor and says

they have mold in his or her house and that they are concerned that they

becoming ill from it, in the absence of the doctor not going to the

residence to evaluate the problem, WHAT do you think the doctor will tell

the person? It's sort of along the lines of a doctor getting a call

from a patient about an illness. In most cases, the doctor will

tell them to go to the ER or Urgent Care. The only exceptions are

usually when the patient is chronic and the doctor knows the patient

history. Too many lawsuits have ended the days of prescribing over

the phone. Again, in my experience, doctors nearly always are even

more conservative than I am.

******************************************************

If what is written looks too stupid to be written by me, I disclaim

it. On

the other hand, if it is brilliant, then I have no one to blame but

myself.

Otherwise, whether you choose to accept my opinion is up to you.

******************************************************

K. Klein, PE ME, MBA

Indoor Air Quality Solutions, Inc.

PO Box 7

Bethel, OH 45106-0007

VOICE: FAX:

E-mail: mkklein68@...

*******************************************************

Wouldn't it be nice if common sense were really common?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I must agree with Curtis that unfortunately many physicians

have little, if any training associated with IAQ/IEQ.

The specialists that do practice " environmental medicine " are

generally very expensive, insurance will often not cover it if

the people have ins. to begin with, and some even require a very

substantial amount of money before they will even take you on as

a patient.

I think that every situation is completely unique. While it is

imperative as a good business person to have standards and methods

in place, quite frankly, sometimes rules are meant to be broken.

I personally would much rather be sued for telling someone

(in an extreme situation mind you) to leave, versus not, and being

unintentionally responsible for the death of a child. I could

not live with that, nor would I ever want to. I would like to believe

that one of the main focuses of IAQ/IEQ is the betterment of people's

health. Is it not? Saying the same exact thing in every single

situation, sounds to me like a great scapegoat. Every situation

is unique! It's very important in general, to think outside of the box

and treat other people like human beings.

Just my opinionated thoughts on the matter...

Best Regards,

Stacey Champion

" Well-behaved women seldom make history. "

>

> Informing an occupant that they are in danger from mold exposure

> requires more than just mold familiarization, it requires the medical

> training of health care providers.

>

> The reason for not recommending the occupants leave is to avoid

> litigation. This day and age requires this type of caution. Although

> we may be trained to identify mold types and we may be familiar with the

> potential for illness due to exposure we are not normally medically

> trained.

>

> We do report findings to the occupant [or whoever is our client]. If

> the client is an insurance company and the results are " high " by most

> standards we will let the client know and inform them they need to

> recommend the occupant see a physician. If they don't, we will tell an

> occupant that we have found high mold levels [if we have found them]

> based on commonly accepted levels and that they should consult with

> their physician to indentify any potential for health harm to them.

>

> If you recommend they evacuate their home and someone later determines

> that was not necessary you may be liable for the costs incurred by the

> occupants due to the evacuation. Because of this we will not recommend

> an occupant move out.

>

>

>

> Dale Francke, PE, CIE

> Environment, Safety & Health, LC

> ext 206

> Fax

>

> e-mail: dfrancke@...

> Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

>

> I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that

> in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or

> other building.

>

> Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was

>

> very adamant in his opinion.

>

> The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the

>

> insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS

>

> told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out

> of the home for 6 months now.

>

>

> Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why

> doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue

>

> in WS?

>

> Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what

> criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?

>

> BOB

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

> been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

> material available in our efforts to advance understanding of

> environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,

> and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'

> of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the

> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the

> material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have

> expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

> research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

> been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

> material available in our efforts to advance understanding of

> environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,

> and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'

> of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the

> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the

> material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have

> expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

> research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always

> been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

> material available in our efforts to advance understanding of

> environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,

> and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'

> of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the

> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the

> material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have

> expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for

> research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

I have experienced all of what everyone is

saying with regard to occupants leaving their home. I have found it beneficial to tell all

parties involved that “prudence” may suggest evacuation of the home

or building. I also convey that I

am not a physician or public health professional and that outside consultation should

be sought. Of course, this all goes

in writing when our report is submitted.

Sometimes, a decision has to be made quickly and there is no time to

wait for a report. Again, I inform

all parties and let the occupants make the final decision. In over 12 years of experience, I have

never once had anyone (attorney, insurance carrier, etc) want to assume the

liability of the occupants “staying” in a potentially harmful

environment.

Shapiro

Re: Building Evacuation

in Wisconsin

>

> I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a

consultant from Wisconsin said that

> in WS only the health department can order

the evacuation of a home or

> other building.

>

> Local building officials can do it too, but

consultants can not. He was

>

> very adamant in his opinion.

>

> The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in

Racine, WS who said that the

>

> insurance company she represented had a claim

where the consultant in WS

>

> told the family to evacuate the home and they

did. They have been out

> of the home for 6 months now.

>

>

> Can anyone back up the first consultants

statement. If so, then why

> doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know

about this authority issue

>

> in WS?

>

> Needless to say, does anyone (on this

list) want to admit what

> criteria they have used to recommended

evacuation.?

>

> BOB

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the

use of which has not always

> been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. We are making such

> material available in our efforts to advance

understanding of

> environmental, political, human rights,

economic, democracy, scientific,

> and social justice issues, etc. We believe

this constitutes a 'fair use'

> of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the

> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the

> material on this site is distributed without

profit to those who have

> expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for

> research and educational purposes. For more

information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for

purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission

from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the

use of which has not always

> been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. We are making such

> material available in our efforts to advance

understanding of

> environmental, political, human rights,

economic, democracy, scientific,

> and social justice issues, etc. We believe

this constitutes a 'fair use'

> of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the

> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the

> material on this site is distributed without

profit to those who have

> expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for

> research and educational purposes. For more

information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for

purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission

from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

> This site contains copyrighted material the

use of which has not always

> been specifically authorized by the copyright

owner. We are making such

> material available in our efforts to advance

understanding of

> environmental, political, human rights,

economic, democracy, scientific,

> and social justice issues, etc. We believe

this constitutes a 'fair use'

> of any such copyrighted material as provided

for in section 107 of the

> US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17

U.S.C. Section 107, the

> material on this site is distributed without

profit to those who have

> expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for

> research and educational purposes. For more

information go to:

> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

If you wish to use

> copyrighted material from this site for

purposes of your own that go

> beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission

from the copyright owner.

>

>

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Dale,

We may have to agree to disagree because it appears we at complete odds. In the spirit of healthy debate, however, I'll offer some thoughts for your (and others) consideration.

The medical effects related to mold (damp buildings, really - and everything that entails) are poorly understood at best. Professionals in the field constantly observe what appears to be relationships between sick people (variety of symptoms) and moldy conditions, but there is an absence of information that meets the burden of scientific proof. Weren't the latest conclusions from CDC that there are some known (proven) health hazards associated with damp/moldy homes, but MORE STUDY is needed to confirm or refute other claims? Your typical physician has had little or no training in environmental medicine and only knows what they've seen on TV about mold. In addition, there is a notable lack of diagnostic test procedures (for possible mold related conditions) available to the physician. So what is the physician going to do? Likely just prescribe medication to treat whatever the reported symptoms happen to be and send them back home to the environment they came from. Sometimes the physician may tell the patient to move out, but that recommendation typically isn't based on anything other than CYA to limit the physicians liability!

Who cares what type of mold you happen to get lucky enough to identify through some type of sampling methodology? There are no remediation guidelines based on the type of mold. Furthermore, who out there is going to say "Well, you've got fuzzy stuff all over the walls, but it's the friendly mold that won't harm you!"? Let's see what the attorneys could do with something like that! Major mold problem, people that feel really bad when they are in the moldy environment and you don't feel comfortable telling the folks to leave but you do feel comfortable talking to them about different types of mold?! Where did that information come from? Are the studies even relevant to human exposures through inhalation? ACGIH retracted all of their mold exposure limits, yet you're not concerned about liability telling someone a number the lab reports back to you is higher or lower than "acceptable"? Who has provided the "standards" and "commonly accepted levels" that you use when making your recommendations? If they are not supported by any of the consensus guides that ARE commonly accepted (ACGIH, NYC, EPA, CMHC), what does that do for your concerns about liability?

Here's my point: as indoor air quality professionals, our primary purpose for evaluating the indoor environment is because of the potential health effects for the occupants. We need to work WITH the physicians by providing our professional assessment of the potential hazards associated with the environment. As IAQ professionals, we can't diagnose the patient (that's the doctor's job), but the physician can't diagnose the environment (that's OUR job!), and in between is the fuzzy area where there is some overlap. A recommendation is a professional opinion based on knowledge and experience. As consultants, investigators, or what ever you want to call yourself, we are being paid to provide our professional opinion. If you are with holding your professional opinions because of fears about liability, then are you providing adequate service? For those who simply want to be "technicians" that just collect and report data, I don't think you're helping anyone. As for me, I'm interested in seeing people feel better after I've been able to provide them with the appropriate advice.

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

Wichita, KS

-----Original Message-----From: Dale Francke Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:10 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Informing an occupant that they are in danger from mold exposure requires more than just mold familiarization, it requires the medical training of health care providers.

The reason for not recommending the occupants leave is to avoid litigation. This day and age requires this type of caution. Although we may be trained to identify mold types and we may be familiar with the potential for illness due to exposure we are not normally medically trained.

We do report findings to the occupant [or whoever is our client]. If the client is an insurance company and the results are "high" by most standards we will let the client know and inform them they need to recommend the occupant see a physician. If they don't, we will tell an occupant that we have found high mold levels [if we have found them] based on commonly accepted levels and that they should consult with their physician to indentify any potential for health harm to them.

If you recommend they evacuate their home and someone later determines that was not necessary you may be liable for the costs incurred by the occupants due to the evacuation. Because of this we will not recommend an occupant move out.

Dale Francke, PE, CIE

Environment, Safety & Health, LC

ext 206

Fax

e-mail: dfrancke@...

-----Original Message-----From: Redington, Curtis Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:26 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold? Really, why not? As professionals, we are evaluating whether conditions in the home/building could be considered unhealthy. Doesn't mean we are diagnosing any person as having a specific medical condition. If you found 300 ppm carbon monoxide in a home would you recommend everyone get out? I sure hope so. So what's the difference if you find some major mold problems, especially if the occupants are reporting health problems that could be related to mold exposure?

Yes, there are unscrupulous people seeking to taking advantage of "mold hysteria". Similarly, there are seemingly well meaning people that are just poorly trained and poorly educated. On the other hand, how are you "educating" anyone by failing to recommend people get out of a situation that as a professional you should recognize may be hazardous to their health? Clearly, as professionals, we need to understand the difference between "scare tactics" and sound advice.

What's the point in assessing the health of a home if not because of the affect it may have on the occupants? Your assessment of conditions in the home, along with your opinion as to the severity of the conditions, is vitally important information. The physician (in nearly all cases) has no means of inspecting the home, few physicians have much in the way of any environmental training, and there is a scarcity of diagnostic tests to prove many potentially environmentally induced health effects. Why, then, would we withhold information that may be the key to someone's health?

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

1900 E. Ninth St.

Wichita, KS 67214

-----Original Message-----From: Jasson Walke Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:33 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I have never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold, but I know that there are many so-called mold inspection services that use the scare tactic when performing their inspections. After finding Stachy during an inspection, they have told people that they need to get out of there ASAP, that they are going to die, and that they need to burn all of their clothes and furniture. It's unfortunate, but until we can educate everyone, the leeches and vultures will prey on them...

Jasson Walke

Mold Tech Services, Inc

www.moldtechservices.com

jasson@...

-----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or other building.Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was very adamant in his opinion.The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out of the home for 6 months now. Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue in WS?Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Curtis,

Well said! All I would change is adding 7 words to the ending of your

last sentence so it would read: " As for me, I'm interested in seeing

people feel better after I've been able to provide them with the

appropriate advice so they can make better, informed decisions. "

I think too often we get hung up on the assumption of our own

authority and perceived responsibility, rather than how to empower

our clients so THEY can make better decisions. We still have a

responsibility but we don't expect (or want!) them to become

subservient to us.

---------------------

Carl E.Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

fax

==================

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Dale & Curtis,

I have just picked this up this morning since I am 8 hours away in time zones.

I partially agree with both of you. As professionals we have an obligation to the client and if we consider a house or apartment unhealthy we should give that opinion. Under the law regime I am in now, Middle East, that opinion would not be questionned.

However I have been involved in at least one case in North America where the insurance companies and lawyers got involved. The case had been ongoing for 5 years when I left and may still be active. As soon as the 'professional' gave the opinion that the house was unhealthy the family moved out and sued.

Then the insurance company hired their own expert and doctors and lawyers.

So why I agree that we, as professionals, have an obligation to tell the client if there is a health risk, in the NA litigation milieu, it can get very messy.

As long as our conscience, at the end of the day, tells us we did the right thing I guess we can sleep soundly.

Dan Wurster

Industrial Hygienist"Redington, Curtis" wrote:

Dale,

We may have to agree to disagree because it appears we at complete odds. In the spirit of healthy debate, however, I'll offer some thoughts for your (and others) consideration.

The medical effects related to mold (damp buildings, really - and everything that entails) are poorly understood at best. Professionals in the field constantly observe what appears to be relationships between sick people (variety of symptoms) and moldy conditions, but there is an absence of information that meets the burden of scientific proof. Weren't the latest conclusions from CDC that there are some known (proven) health hazards associated with damp/moldy homes, but MORE STUDY is needed to confirm or refute other claims? Your typical physician has had little or no training in environmental medicine and only knows what they've seen on TV about mold. In addition, there is a notable lack of diagnostic test procedures (for possible mold related conditions) available to the physician. So what is the physician going to do? Likely just prescribe medication to treat whatever the reported symptoms happen to be

and send them back home to the environment they came from. Sometimes the physician may tell the patient to move out, but that recommendation typically isn't based on anything other than CYA to limit the physicians liability!

Who cares what type of mold you happen to get lucky enough to identify through some type of sampling methodology? There are no remediation guidelines based on the type of mold. Furthermore, who out there is going to say "Well, you've got fuzzy stuff all over the walls, but it's the friendly mold that won't harm you!"? Let's see what the attorneys could do with something like that! Major mold problem, people that feel really bad when they are in the moldy environment and you don't feel comfortable telling the folks to leave but you do feel comfortable talking to them about different types of mold?! Where did that information come from? Are the studies even relevant to human exposures through inhalation? ACGIH retracted all of their mold exposure limits, yet you're not concerned about liability telling someone a number the lab reports back to you is higher or lower than

"acceptable"? Who has provided the "standards" and "commonly accepted levels" that you use when making your recommendations? If they are not supported by any of the consensus guides that ARE commonly accepted (ACGIH, NYC, EPA, CMHC), what does that do for your concerns about liability?

Here's my point: as indoor air quality professionals, our primary purpose for evaluating the indoor environment is because of the potential health effects for the occupants. We need to work WITH the physicians by providing our professional assessment of the potential hazards associated with the environment. As IAQ professionals, we can't diagnose the patient (that's the doctor's job), but the physician can't diagnose the environment (that's OUR job!), and in between is the fuzzy area where there is some overlap. A recommendation is a professional opinion based on knowledge and experience. As consultants, investigators, or what ever you want to call yourself, we are being paid to provide our professional opinion. If you are with holding your professional opinions because of fears about liability, then are you providing adequate service? For those who simply want to be "technicians" that just collect and

report data, I don't think you're helping anyone. As for me, I'm interested in seeing people feel better after I've been able to provide them with the appropriate advice.

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

Wichita, KS

-----Original Message-----From: Dale Francke Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:10 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Informing an occupant that they are in danger from mold exposure requires more than just mold familiarization, it requires the medical training of health care providers.

The reason for not recommending the occupants leave is to avoid litigation. This day and age requires this type of caution. Although we may be trained to identify mold types and we may be familiar with the potential for illness due to exposure we are not normally medically trained.

We do report findings to the occupant [or whoever is our client]. If the client is an insurance company and the results are "high" by most standards we will let the client know and inform them they need to recommend the occupant see a physician. If they don't, we will tell an occupant that we have found high mold levels [if we have found them] based on commonly accepted levels and that they should consult with their physician to indentify any potential for health harm to them.

If you recommend they evacuate their home and someone later determines that was not necessary you may be liable for the costs incurred by the occupants due to the evacuation. Because of this we will not recommend an occupant move out.

Dale Francke, PE, CIE

Environment, Safety & Health, LC

ext 206

Fax

e-mail: dfrancke@...

-----Original Message-----From: Redington, Curtis Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:26 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold? Really, why not? As professionals, we are evaluating whether conditions in the home/building could be considered unhealthy. Doesn't mean we are diagnosing any person as having a specific medical condition. If you found 300 ppm carbon monoxide in a home would you recommend everyone get out? I sure hope so. So what's the difference if you find some major mold problems, especially if the occupants are reporting health problems that could be related to mold exposure?

Yes, there are unscrupulous people seeking to taking advantage of "mold hysteria". Similarly, there are seemingly well meaning people that are just poorly trained and poorly educated. On the other hand, how are you "educating" anyone by failing to recommend people get out of a situation that as a professional you should recognize may be hazardous to their health? Clearly, as professionals, we need to understand the difference between "scare tactics" and sound advice.

What's the point in assessing the health of a home if not because of the affect it may have on the occupants? Your assessment of conditions in the home, along with your opinion as to the severity of the conditions, is vitally important information. The physician (in nearly all cases) has no means of inspecting the home, few physicians have much in the way of any environmental training, and there is a scarcity of diagnostic tests to prove many potentially environmentally induced health effects. Why, then, would we withhold information that may be the key to someone's health?

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

1900 E. Ninth St.

Wichita, KS 67214

-----Original Message-----From: Jasson Walke Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:33 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I have never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold, but I know that there are many so-called mold inspection services that use the scare tactic when performing their inspections. After finding Stachy during an inspection, they have told people that they need to get out of there ASAP, that they are going to die, and that they need to burn all of their clothes and furniture. It's unfortunate, but until we can educate everyone, the leeches and vultures will prey on them...

Jasson Walke

Mold Tech Services, Inc

www.moldtechservices.com

jasson@...

-----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or other building.Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was very adamant in his opinion.The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS told the family to evacuate the home and they did.

They have been out of the home for 6 months now. Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue in WS?Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use

of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own

that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material

from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use

copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Guest guest

Posted
Posted

Curtis,

I actually think we are closer to agreeing than may be obvious. I need to clarify some terms I may have miss used. When I referred to "high" levels I was intending to indicate that "high" levels are those levels above either normal levels we have experienced in our area for the same type of property and relative to both outside levels (at the time of sampling) and levels found throughout the property. I don't know of any source that can give a high/low threshold level.

To be sure it is the obligation of the IAQ professional to inform the occupant and client of the results and their meaning within the parameters that are accepted for determining "a dangerous situation" or harmful levels of mold. As you and others have noted there is little specific definition of the harmful level.

In referring an occupant to a physician we do not necessarily expect the physician to have a complete knowledge of molds, when levels are dangerous or how a specific mold level will affect their patient. We would, possibly naively, expect the physician to know the overall health of their patient and whether, in general, they may be more susceptible to mold reaction than the average (?) person. I would hope that they would also know their limitations [again this is possibly a naive position] and seek additional help in areas where his/her knowledge is limited. In some cases the IAQ professional can help the physician or a specialist in mold related medical problems [they must exist within the medical community] may be needed.

We have also seen numerous cases that occupants have complained of and have had symptoms that might be mold exposure related but sampling has shown no presence of mold. Many possibilities exist. Were the samples taken in the wrong places? Was the analytical method sound? Are sampling methods adequate? Or, something present year round in Florida, the occupants are suffering from allergies to other than molds, i.e. grasses, pollen, foods, etc.? In many cases it can be an allergic reaction to something other than mold. I am not sure the current mold sampling protocols are sufficient to make this differentiation and I don't think any of us would like to recommend to someone leave their home and incur expenses not necessary. Conversely we don't want to have people stay in an unsafe situation.

Hopefully enough reasonable debate and evaluation of what is known will lead to reasonable standards but I don't think it will be soon or that standards will be all encompassing. I hope discussions like this and others by people in the IAQ and medical fields will lead to better guidance for everyone.

Thanks.

Dale Francke, PE, CIE

Environment, Safety & Health, LC

ext 206

Fax

e-mail: dfrancke@...

RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Dale,

We may have to agree to disagree because it appears we at complete odds. In the spirit of healthy debate, however, I'll offer some thoughts for your (and others) consideration.

The medical effects related to mold (damp buildings, really - and everything that entails) are poorly understood at best. Professionals in the field constantly observe what appears to be relationships between sick people (variety of symptoms) and moldy conditions, but there is an absence of information that meets the burden of scientific proof. Weren't the latest conclusions from CDC that there are some known (proven) health hazards associated with damp/moldy homes, but MORE STUDY is needed to confirm or refute other claims? Your typical physician has had little or no training in environmental medicine and only knows what they've seen on TV about mold. In addition, there is a notable lack of diagnostic test procedures (for possible mold related conditions) available to the physician. So what is the physician going to do? Likely just prescribe medication to treat whatever the reported symptoms happen to be and send them back home to the environment they came from. Sometimes the physician may tell the patient to move out, but that recommendation typically isn't based on anything other than CYA to limit the physicians liability!

Who cares what type of mold you happen to get lucky enough to identify through some type of sampling methodology? There are no remediation guidelines based on the type of mold. Furthermore, who out there is going to say "Well, you've got fuzzy stuff all over the walls, but it's the friendly mold that won't harm you!"? Let's see what the attorneys could do with something like that! Major mold problem, people that feel really bad when they are in the moldy environment and you don't feel comfortable telling the folks to leave but you do feel comfortable talking to them about different types of mold?! Where did that information come from? Are the studies even relevant to human exposures through inhalation? ACGIH retracted all of their mold exposure limits, yet you're not concerned about liability telling someone a number the lab reports back to you is higher or lower than "acceptable"? Who has provided the "standards" and "commonly accepted levels" that you use when making your recommendations? If they are not supported by any of the consensus guides that ARE commonly accepted (ACGIH, NYC, EPA, CMHC), what does that do for your concerns about liability?

Here's my point: as indoor air quality professionals, our primary purpose for evaluating the indoor environment is because of the potential health effects for the occupants. We need to work WITH the physicians by providing our professional assessment of the potential hazards associated with the environment. As IAQ professionals, we can't diagnose the patient (that's the doctor's job), but the physician can't diagnose the environment (that's OUR job!), and in between is the fuzzy area where there is some overlap. A recommendation is a professional opinion based on knowledge and experience. As consultants, investigators, or what ever you want to call yourself, we are being paid to provide our professional opinion. If you are with holding your professional opinions because of fears about liability, then are you providing adequate service? For those who simply want to be "technicians" that just collect and report data, I don't think you're helping anyone. As for me, I'm interested in seeing people feel better after I've been able to provide them with the appropriate advice.

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

Wichita, KS

-----Original Message-----From: Dale Francke Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 10:10 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Informing an occupant that they are in danger from mold exposure requires more than just mold familiarization, it requires the medical training of health care providers.

The reason for not recommending the occupants leave is to avoid litigation. This day and age requires this type of caution. Although we may be trained to identify mold types and we may be familiar with the potential for illness due to exposure we are not normally medically trained.

We do report findings to the occupant [or whoever is our client]. If the client is an insurance company and the results are "high" by most standards we will let the client know and inform them they need to recommend the occupant see a physician. If they don't, we will tell an occupant that we have found high mold levels [if we have found them] based on commonly accepted levels and that they should consult with their physician to indentify any potential for health harm to them.

If you recommend they evacuate their home and someone later determines that was not necessary you may be liable for the costs incurred by the occupants due to the evacuation. Because of this we will not recommend an occupant move out.

Dale Francke, PE, CIE

Environment, Safety & Health, LC

ext 206

Fax

e-mail: dfrancke@...

-----Original Message-----From: Redington, Curtis Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 10:26 AMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

Never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold? Really, why not? As professionals, we are evaluating whether conditions in the home/building could be considered unhealthy. Doesn't mean we are diagnosing any person as having a specific medical condition. If you found 300 ppm carbon monoxide in a home would you recommend everyone get out? I sure hope so. So what's the difference if you find some major mold problems, especially if the occupants are reporting health problems that could be related to mold exposure?

Yes, there are unscrupulous people seeking to taking advantage of "mold hysteria". Similarly, there are seemingly well meaning people that are just poorly trained and poorly educated. On the other hand, how are you "educating" anyone by failing to recommend people get out of a situation that as a professional you should recognize may be hazardous to their health? Clearly, as professionals, we need to understand the difference between "scare tactics" and sound advice.

What's the point in assessing the health of a home if not because of the affect it may have on the occupants? Your assessment of conditions in the home, along with your opinion as to the severity of the conditions, is vitally important information. The physician (in nearly all cases) has no means of inspecting the home, few physicians have much in the way of any environmental training, and there is a scarcity of diagnostic tests to prove many potentially environmentally induced health effects. Why, then, would we withhold information that may be the key to someone's health?

Curtis Redington, RS

Environmental Quality Specialist

City of Wichita Dept. of Environmental Health

1900 E. Ninth St.

Wichita, KS 67214

-----Original Message-----From: Jasson Walke Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 3:33 PMTo: iequality Subject: RE: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I have never recommended that anyone evacuate a home or apartment because of mold, but I know that there are many so-called mold inspection services that use the scare tactic when performing their inspections. After finding Stachy during an inspection, they have told people that they need to get out of there ASAP, that they are going to die, and that they need to burn all of their clothes and furniture. It's unfortunate, but until we can educate everyone, the leeches and vultures will prey on them...

Jasson Walke

Mold Tech Services, Inc

www.moldtechservices.com

jasson@...

-----Original Message-----From: Bob s Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 1:11 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Building Evacuation in Wisconsin

I was at a meeting Tuesday, where a consultant from Wisconsin said that in WS only the health department can order the evacuation of a home or other building.Local building officials can do it too, but consultants can not. He was very adamant in his opinion.The next day, I got a call from a lawyer in Racine, WS who said that the insurance company she represented had a claim where the consultant in WS told the family to evacuate the home and they did. They have been out of the home for 6 months now. Can anyone back up the first consultants statement. If so, then why doesn't this lawyer or insurance company know about this authority issue in WS?Needless to say, does anyone (on this list) want to admit what criteria they have used to recommended evacuation.?BOBFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...