Re: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

[Guest guest]

Allergens... and toxins..

From

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/bw_ii/bw_tabe.htm

" The trichothecene mycotoxins are nonvolatile compounds produced by

molds. These substances are relatively insoluble in water but highly

soluble in ethanol, methanol, and propylene glycol. The

trichothecenes are very stable and resist heat- and ultraviolet

light-induced inactivation.

Heating to 500o F for 30 minutes will inactivate the toxins, while

exposure to sodium hypochlorite destroys toxic activity. "

Also, see Chapter 34 of the handbook on Chemical and biological

warfare linked here

http://www.sc-ems.com/ems/NuclearBiologicalChemical/MedicalAspectsofNBC/chapters\

/chapter_34.htm

http://www.sc-ems.com/ems/NuclearBiologicalChemical/MedicalAspectsofNBC/

Influence of processing on trichothecene levels

Trichothecene mycotoxins frequently occur in cereal grains that are

intended for ...

Trichothecenes are relatively heat stable chemicals, with high water ...

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN & cpsidt=16459587

TRICHOTHECENE MYCOTOXINS Bioterrorism Agent

Profiles for Health ...

.... clothing & other objects – T-2 mycotoxins are stable in the

environment, resistant to heat ... Frequently Asked Questions About

Trichothecene Mycotoxins ...

http://www.azdhs.gov/phs/edc/edrp/es/pdf/t2mycotoxinsset.pdf

[Guest guest]

Jon,

I thought referencing was acceptable. It slipped

by me. BTW, there are a lot of other good articles as well. I would suggest if

you don’t get the IE Connections, you would consider doing so.

Thanks Jon,

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Klane

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007

11:34 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Hi

Bob/Ma. and all!

It is considered appropriate and standard practice on lists like this

one (and others) to merely quote small bits of the article and then to

refer readers to a link for the entire article. To copy the entire

article into a list serve posting is widely considered copyright

infringement. FYI.

-

Klane, M.S.Ed., CIH, CHMM, CET

Klane's Education Information Training Hub (KEITH)

93 Norridgewock Road.

Fairfield, ME 04937-3116

Phone: (207) 453-KEITH (5348)

Fax:

E-mail: jonathantrainerman

www.TrainerMan.com

ciec_bob wrote:

>

> To the group;

>

> There is an article in the January 2007 IE Connections revolving

> around the old question as to the validity of thermal radiation for

> the purpose of eradicating mold. The article was written by Ms. Dr.

> Burge.

>

> To not post in full may appear to be bias so I am inserting the

> whole article (its not long).

>

> Dr. Burge writes when the question was asked for the fifth time

> within the week (according to the IE Connections):

> I have been asked this question at least five times during the past

> week, and my short answer is no. The reason is that while fungi can

> be killed by heat, as can every other living organism, there is no

> evidence to support the contention that heat treatment of a house

> will kill all the fungi present, nor will heat destroy all of the

> allergens and irritants that are a part of all fungal growth.

>

> A very small amount of research has been conducted that supports the

> killing of some fungi with heat such as is associated with currently

> used heat treatment technologies. However, the research has been

> done only in the laboratory, and documentation that hidden mold in

> houses is killed by whole-house heat treatment is not available. In

> fact, some anecdotal studies indicate that hidden growth in walls

> remains culturable after heat treatment.

>

> An equally limited amount of laboratory research has provided some

> indication that heat treatment will damage some fungal allergens.

> However, these preliminary findings were equivocal, and no follow-up

> research was conducted to document them. In addition, only one

> fungus, Aspergillus fumigatus, was used in the studies, and this is

> not one of the most common fungi found growing in residences.

> Finally, I have said several times that heat treatment could dry out

> a structure, which should be helpful in slowing or stopping fungal

> growth. This may be true, provided sufficient ventilation is

> provided to remove the water vapor resulting from the heat

> treatment. This fact has been pointed out to me by several

> experienced mold investigators.

>

> It also seems noteworthy that traditional methods of drying, like

> using dehumidifiers and fans, can also dry a building with the

> advantage of not subjecting the entire building to the thermal

> stress heat treatment may cause.

>

> The bottom line is this: Based upon the information and evidence

> that I have reviewed, if you want to prevent exposure to fungi and

> the agents they contain that may affect human health, you must

> physically remove any growth that is likely to lead to any human

> contact. Biocides (quaternary ammonium compounds, bleach, ozone,

> chlorine dioxide) and heat, while they may kill some fungi, do not

> prevent exposure to the primary agents of human disease. There are

> very few situations in which I would recommend killing fungi before

> their removal.

>

> All of these involve handling of fungal pathogens (e.g.,

> Cryptococcus neoformans associated with pigeon droppings) or

> Aspergillus fumigatus or other opportunistic species in hospitals.

> Obviously, you can use these fungal killing approaches if you want

> to, but you will still have to do standard remediation that involves

> actually removing fungal growth.

>

> Bob/Ma.

>

>

[Guest guest]

"Why can’t we manage mold in place? This is just food for thought."

Mold/microorganisms will keep on eating their food source.

If you are referring to management of "dead mold/dust/fragments/fillaments", ensuring prevention of exposure to them would be a big challenge.

Asbestos can be effectively encapsulated and safely contained. In the event of any disturbance and damage, asbestos exposure is also possible.

any ideas and comments? Biological vs chemical origin argument? any thoughts?

Re: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

In a message dated 1/19/2007 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Bob@EnvironmentalAi rTechs.com writes:

Jon,

I thought referencing was acceptable. It slipped by me. BTW, there are a lot of other good articles as well. I would suggest if you don’t get the IE Connections, you would consider doing so.

Thanks Jon,

Bob/Ma.

How does that work as far as copyright infringement? I could see why IE Connections and other publications would not want one to take their paper, make copies and post it all over the net. They generate income from the paper. But, the Burge article is now out on their website. There is free public access. So if one takes info from one public access site, and posts to another, where is the harm? What is the difference between posting the article and just posting the link? Isn't it almost like free advertising to promote that site? Does it say on IE Connection one should not do this? I think the internet in conjunction with copyright infringements is a rather gray and confusing area.

Sharon

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

[Guest guest]

The way I understand it, mold should never be left in the wall in wooden buildings because even when the buildings are experimentally constructed to be very 'tight' (and brand new, it appears) penetration by the smallest particles seems to be unstoppable.. Holes exist. So if reservoirs of mold exist within the building envelope.. once that mold dries out and gets pulverized.. the particles will travel.

This was from:FUNGAL SPORE TRANSPORT THROUGH A BUILDING STRUCTUREM Airaksinen1∗, J Kurnitski1, P Pasanen2, O Seppänen1 " The study carried out laboratory measurements with a full-scale timber frame structure to determine penetration

of inert particles with size distribution from 0.6 to 4 µm and spores of Penicillium and Cladosporium through thestructure. Pressure difference over and air leakage through the structure were varied. Measurements at moderate

pressure differences resulted in the penetration factors within the range of 0.05 to 0.2 for inert particles, andindicated also the penetration of fungal spores through the structure. The measurements showed that the

penetration was highly dependent on pressure difference over the structure but not on holes in surface boards ofthe structure. The results show that surface contacts between the frames and mineral wool may have a significant

effect on penetration. The penetration was approximately constant within particle size rage of 0.6-2.5 µm, butparticles with diameter of 4.0 µm did not penetrate through the structure at all even at a higher-pressure

difference of 20 Pa, except in the case of direct flow-path through the structure. Results have importantconsequences for practical design showing that penetration of fungal spores through the building envelope is

difficult to prevent by sealing. The only effective way to prevent penetration seems to be balancing orpressurizing the building. In cold climates, moisture condensation risk should be taken into account if pressure is

higher indoors than outdoors. Determined penetration factors were highly dependent on the pressure difference.Mechanical exhaust ventilation needs a special consideration as de-pressurizing the building may cause health

risk if there is hazardous contamination in the building envelope exists. "

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

"And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains"

I am inclined to believe there will not be too many meaningful discussions in your near future. While I can't speak to whether heat works or not, apparently some that are able to, do not see benefit to heat.

As an advocate for those who are sick, if there is a question as to whether something works or not, then of course my choice is to err on the side of safety and go with what is proven.

To sum it up: "When in doubt, rip it out."

Sharon

[Guest guest]

:

This is my point also, i.e., why can’t mold be managed in place? It was managed in place prior to 1995 when mold wasn’t such a big deal and before the media blew it out of proportion. The source advocacy folks say mold must all be removed; which is hog wash! If all mold was removed, we could state that the structure was sterile of mold; which is impractical, unrealistic, and hog wash. No matter how hard a remediator works to remove mold, without demolishing the structure into its functional components, all the source cannot be removed. And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains. I, for one, believe that Dr. Burge made some factual errors and omissions with what she wrote, and I am preparing a letter to her. I will share my letter and her response with this group, if and when I get a response.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

Group,

I understand Dr. Burge’s point, if mold is killed by heat it may still have toxic properties and be an allergen, but a corollary can be drawn concerning asbestos containing material such as floor tile.  Often asbestos containing floor tile is left in place and covered by non-asbestos containing flooring.  This is called managing asbestos in place.  If the asbestos is covered and cannot become airborne it is not a hazard as long as it is not disturbed.  This has been the standard practice of managing asbestos in place for many years and is approved by OSHA & the EPA. 

Asbestos causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.  Is mold that toxic?  I don’t know.  Why can’t we manage mold in place?  This is just food for thought.  I know this is contrary to the way mold is handled, but why?  I know this is going to cause a firestorm but I believe this issue has to be aired.

, MS, CIH, CIEC

-----Original Message-----

[Guest guest]

:

This is my point also, i.e., why can’t mold be managed in place? It was managed in place prior to 1995 when mold wasn’t such a big deal and before the media blew it out of proportion. The source advocacy folks say mold must all be removed; which is hog wash! If all mold was removed, we could state that the structure was sterile of mold; which is impractical, unrealistic, and hog wash. No matter how hard a remediator works to remove mold, without demolishing the structure into its functional components, all the source cannot be removed. And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains. I, for one, believe that Dr. Burge made some factual errors and omissions with what she wrote, and I am preparing a letter to her. I will share my letter and her response with this group, if and when I get a response.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

Group,

I understand Dr. Burge’s point, if mold is killed by heat it may still have toxic properties and be an allergen, but a corollary can be drawn concerning asbestos containing material such as floor tile.  Often asbestos containing floor tile is left in place and covered by non-asbestos containing flooring.  This is called managing asbestos in place.  If the asbestos is covered and cannot become airborne it is not a hazard as long as it is not disturbed.  This has been the standard practice of managing asbestos in place for many years and is approved by OSHA & the EPA. 

Asbestos causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma.  Is mold that toxic?  I don’t know.  Why can’t we manage mold in place?  This is just food for thought.  I know this is contrary to the way mold is handled, but why?  I know this is going to cause a firestorm but I believe this issue has to be aired.

, MS, CIH, CIEC

-----Original Message-----

[Guest guest]

:

Asbestos DOES produce microfragments as it decays!!!

Asbestos and mold are different. Asbestos is typically inert unless disturbed. Mold is not. It is alive. Asbestos does not produce microfragments as it decays. It does not product volatile spore as does mold.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org <http://www.Mold-Free.org>

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

[Guest guest]

:

Asbestos DOES produce microfragments as it decays!!!

Asbestos and mold are different. Asbestos is typically inert unless disturbed. Mold is not. It is alive. Asbestos does not produce microfragments as it decays. It does not product volatile spore as does mold.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org <http://www.Mold-Free.org>

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

[Guest guest]

Group,

I am pleasantly surprised by the response to my post concerning managing

mold in place. I thought I would

get flamed.

I should have been clearer; I am talking about managing it after a

building or structure has been heat treated to kill all the spores etc.

I have the utmost respect for Dr. Burge. She is an icon.

I agree, the best way to deal with mold is by total remediation, but

what about cost? What about all

the homes in New Orleans? Are they

a total loss? What about a poor homeowner

who can’t afford remediation? What

are you going to tell him or her; sorry you just lost you home?

Why not heat treat the home and then cover the walls, ceiling, floors

etc and completely encase the mold?

Then have the family move back into the home and closely monitor their

health and air quality. It’s an

alternative that deserves investigation.

, MS, CIH, CIEC

Los Angeles, CA

robert.williams@...

-----Original

Message-----

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ]On Behalf

Of Geyer

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

7:40 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:

Asbestos DOES produce microfragments as it decays!!!

On 1/19/07 4:22 PM, " gary rosen " <garyrosen72652>

wrote:

Asbestos and mold are different. Asbestos is typically inert unless

disturbed. Mold is not. It is alive. Asbestos does not produce

microfragments as it decays. It does not product volatile spore as does

mold.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org <http://www.Mold-Free.org>

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold

Contamination?

[Guest guest]

,

Although cost is inevitably an issue it doesn’t

change what is right. It only says one may be unable to afford what is right. Keep

in mind; mold isn’t concerned if the owner is able to pay. Neither is it submissive

to or governed by laws or guidelines set in place to help with remediation

practices and/or associated cost, i.e. mold will not choose to respond this way

or another depending upon how many SF an IEP or owner may discover.

Even if it is killed, the body fragments

are not governed by guidelines or cost as well. To monitor along the way may

become more costly in the end. As well, what if the process is discovered to be

inadequate? Therefore I feel if we stick to what should be done and than allow

the balance of the equation to play out, the owner(s) will at least have had creditable

information available. Let them choose the variables. In this way we will not be

dumbing down creditable advice.

As far as the homes in NO, only time will play

that out. What I do know is we must use what we do know. I do not feel we will

see the end to NO for quite some time to come.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of ,

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

11:24 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Group,

I am pleasantly surprised

by the response to my post concerning managing mold in place. I thought I

would get flamed.

I should have been

clearer; I am talking about managing it after a building or structure has been

heat treated to kill all the spores etc.

I have the utmost respect

for Dr. Burge. She is an icon. I agree, the best way to deal with

mold is by total remediation, but what about cost? What about all the

homes in New Orleans?

Are they a total loss? What about a poor homeowner who can’t

afford remediation? What are you going to tell him or her; sorry you just

lost you home?

Why not heat treat the

home and then cover the walls, ceiling, floors etc and completely encase the

mold? Then have the family move back into the home and closely monitor

their health and air quality. It’s an alternative that deserves

investigation.

, MS, CIH,

CIEC

Los Angeles, CA

robert.williamsladwp

Re: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:

Asbestos DOES produce microfragments as it decays!!!

On 1/19/07 4:22 PM, " gary

rosen " <garyrosen72652> wrote:

Asbestos and mold are different. Asbestos is typically inert unless

disturbed. Mold is not. It is alive. Asbestos does not produce microfragments

as it decays. It does not product volatile spore as does mold.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org <http://www.Mold-Free.org>

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold

Contamination?

[Guest guest]

Sharon,

It seems odd to me that when a PE is

designing or drawing structural plans i.e. a home or dwelling they normally are

conservative in their calculations i.e. structural load bearing, floor and wall

assemblies, and wind and snow loads as much as up to 40-60%. Yet when they

speak about mold remediation, all conservative efforts are discarded. I wonder

if the relationship is the reduce or unperceived liability.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

11:18 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

,

You wrote:

" And until the

source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful

discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains "

I am inclined to believe there will not

be too many meaningful discussions in your near future. While I

can't speak to whether heat works or not, apparently some that are able to, do

not see benefit to heat.

As an advocate for those who are sick, if

there is a question as to whether something works or not, then of course my

choice is to err on the side of safety and go with what is proven.

To sum it up: " When

in doubt, rip it out. "

Sharon

[Guest guest]

If mold is to be left in place (I recommend this sometimes) then it is very important indeed that the inner surfaces be sealed to the point that they are truly airtight. I am working on one house now where the inside surfaces have been made as airtight as possible and the suspect space has been depressurized, but due perhaps to the complexity of the space, some regions are not yet adequately depressurized and yet not adequately sealed. The very sensitive occupants cannot live in this house and may have to sell because they do not have the funds to do a thorough deconstruction and rebuild. Perhaps 'normal' people could live in this house, but maybe not. Then where are they?

I have been following some of the recent posts with much interest, but since indoor surface sealing has to be done to well beyond energy-driven standards, I am at a loss to see how we can leave mold in place without some new procedures and inspection/test standards. Any suggestions/comments?

Many people in moldy houses have not become exquisitely sensitized yet, but some have and more will. I wonder how we are going to help those who are so sensitive that they may soon loose their ability to work; and then spend all of their time in a house that makes them sick.

Jim H. White SSC

systemsa@...

Re: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:This is my point also, i.e., why can’t mold be managed in place? It was managed in place prior to 1995 when mold wasn’t such a big deal and before the media blew it out of proportion. The source advocacy folks say mold must all be removed; which is hog wash! If all mold was removed, we could state that the structure was sterile of mold; which is impractical, unrealistic, and hog wash. No matter how hard a remediator works to remove mold, without demolishing the structure into its functional components, all the source cannot be removed. And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains. I, for one, believe that Dr. Burge made some factual errors and omissions with what she wrote, and I am preparing a letter to her. I will share my letter and her response with this group, if and when I get a response.For what it is worth....-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 1/19/07 1:15 PM, ", " <robert.williamsladwp> wrote:

Group, I understand Dr. Burge’s point, if mold is killed by heat it may still have toxic properties and be an allergen, but a corollary can be drawn concerning asbestos containing material such as floor tile. Often asbestos containing floor tile is left in place and covered by non-asbestos containing flooring. This is called managing asbestos in place. If the asbestos is covered and cannot become airborne it is not a hazard as long as it is not disturbed. This has been the standard practice of managing asbestos in place for many years and is approved by OSHA & the EPA. Asbestos causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Is mold that toxic? I don’t know. Why can’t we manage mold in place? This is just food for thought. I know this is contrary to the way mold is handled, but why? I know this is going to cause a firestorm but I believe this issue has to be aired. , MS, CIH, CIEC -----Original Message-----

[Guest guest]

I have watched this thread with interest and am especially interested in what happens as far as continuing treatment after mold remediation. We have been using a product for a number of years to stop smoking fireplaces and improve IAQ, but it also seems to inhibit mold growth as well. I don't know of any other brand or I'd let you know about it. This one is called PlusAire. It is a whole-house ventilator that is attached to a forced-air furnace. This system is NOT an HRV, which only re-supplies the air taken by the furnace, not other appliances After we install it homeowner's tell us that they have no more condensation or mold problems. We put one in our house and it worked for us, too. It works by providing 6 air exchanges a day and the make-up air that a house

needs. Mold, as well as condensation, inadequate combustion air for appliances, etc. are problems usually associated with well-insuated (tight) homes that have no means for make-up air. If you want to see more about this system visit www.chimkc.com/us_plusaire.htm.

Sincerely,

Marge Padgitt Padgitt Chimney & Fireplace

Independence, MO 64050 Fax

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Thanks for the comments.

Before I would recommend managing mold in place, I would want EPA to buy

off on it. New Orleans is an excellent

laboratory to test this idea. I

urge EPA to consider using N.O. to test managing mold in place. They could take a few of the homes that

are scheduled for demolition, do the encasement I suggest, monitor the air

quality and publish their finding.

This is indeed a way to serve the public instead of sitting in their

ivory tower and saying the only way to deal with mold is to rip and tear. Let them spend some of our tax dollars and

test this idea.

I realize managing something in place is extensive, but so is loosing a

home. Asbestos is managed in place

and the long term cost (air sampling, inspection and training etc.) maybe

higher than removing asbestos up front, but it has its place. Managing mold in place deserves

investigation.

Your comments are appreciated.

, MS, CIH, CIEC

Los Angels, CA

Email robert.williams@...

-----Original

Message-----

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Bob/Ma.

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

11:13 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

,

Although cost is inevitably an issue it

doesn’t change what is right. It only says one may be unable to afford what is

right. Keep in mind; mold isn’t concerned if the owner is able to pay. Neither

is it submissive to or governed by laws or guidelines set in place to help with

remediation practices and/or associated cost, i.e. mold will not choose to

respond this way or another depending upon how many SF an IEP or owner may

discover.

Even if it is killed, the body fragments

are not governed by guidelines or cost as well. To monitor along the way may

become more costly in the end. As well, what if the process is discovered to be

inadequate? Therefore I feel if we stick to what should be done and than allow

the balance of the equation to play out, the owner(s) will at least have had

creditable information available. Let them choose the variables. In this way we

will not be dumbing down creditable advice.

As far as the homes in NO, only time will

play that out. What I do know is we must use what we do know. I do not feel we

will see the end to NO for quite some time to come.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]

On Behalf Of ,

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

11:24 AM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Group,

I am

pleasantly surprised by the response to my post concerning managing mold in

place. I thought I would get flamed.

I should

have been clearer; I am talking about managing it after a building or structure

has been heat treated to kill all the spores etc.

I have

the utmost respect for Dr. Burge. She is an icon. I agree, the best

way to deal with mold is by total remediation, but what about cost? What

about all the homes in New Orleans? Are they a

total loss? What about a poor homeowner who can’t afford

remediation? What are you going to tell him or her; sorry you just lost

you home?

Why not

heat treat the home and then cover the walls, ceiling, floors etc and

completely encase the mold? Then have the family move back into the home

and closely monitor their health and air quality. It’s an alternative

that deserves investigation.

, MS, CIH, CIEC

Los

Angeles, CA

robert.williamsladwp

Re: Ask Dr. Burge:

Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:

Asbestos DOES produce microfragments as it decays!!!

On 1/19/07 4:22 PM, " gary rosen "

<garyrosen72652> wrote:

Asbestos and mold are different. Asbestos is typically inert unless

disturbed. Mold is not. It is alive. Asbestos does not produce

microfragments as it decays. It does not product volatile spore as does

mold.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org <http://www.Mold-Free.org>

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold

Contamination?

[Guest guest]

Sharon:

Since you are obviously one of the source removal advocates, let me ask....How do you remove mold between the vertical studs and the sheeting, the blocking and the top and bottom plates? How do you remove mold between the double top plate? How do you remove the mold between joists and the sheeting? Please enlighten me! You must have a miracle way to do so, OR you are an advocate for total demolition.

,

You wrote:

" And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains "

I am inclined to believe there will not be too many meaningful discussions in your near future. While I can't speak to whether heat works or not, apparently some that are able to, do not see benefit to heat.

As an advocate for those who are sick, if there is a question as to whether something works or not, then of course my choice is to err on the side of safety and go with what is proven.

To sum it up: " When in doubt, rip it out. "

Sharon

[Guest guest]

, I have for the most part been a fly on the wall on this board, but have seen your posts and I both agree and disagree with certain statements, not only by you but also the other posts. Please tell me what type of PE you are so I may gauge your statements further. Civil, mechanical, structural, chemical, environmental, etc? By the way, I play both sides of the fence (assessor and remediator).

Gray, CIE,CMR

Re: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:This is my point also, i.e., why can’t mold be managed in place? It was managed in place prior to 1995 when mold wasn’t such a big deal and before the media blew it out of proportion. The source advocacy folks say mold must all be removed; which is hog wash! If all mold was removed, we could state that the structure was sterile of mold; which is impractical, unrealistic, and hog wash. No matter how hard a remediator works to remove mold, without demolishing the structure into its functional components, all the source cannot be removed. And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains. I, for one, believe that Dr. Burge made some factual errors and omissions with what she wrote, and I am preparing a letter to her. I will share my letter and her response with this group, if and when I get a response.For what it is worth....-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 1/19/07 1:15 PM, ", " <robert.williamsladwp> wrote:

Group, I understand Dr. Burge’s point, if mold is killed by heat it may still have toxic properties and be an allergen, but a corollary can be drawn concerning asbestos containing material such as floor tile. Often asbestos containing floor tile is left in place and covered by non-asbestos containing flooring. This is called managing asbestos in place. If the asbestos is covered and cannot become airborne it is not a hazard as long as it is not disturbed. This has been the standard practice of managing asbestos in place for many years and is approved by OSHA & the EPA. Asbestos causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Is mold that toxic? I don’t know. Why can’t we manage mold in place? This is just food for thought. I know this is contrary to the way mold is handled, but why? I know this is going to cause a firestorm but I believe this issue has to be aired. , MS, CIH, CIEC -----Original Message-----

[Guest guest]

Ok. You've heat treated the structure in New Orleans. What moisture permeable surface would you use to encase it with? Would the deceased enzymes combine with moisture over time an permeate the structure?

Bear in mind I'm referring to loaded walls that should just go away.

[Guest guest]

Jim:

Your points and questions are well received.

If one is concerned that mold spores are moving out of wall cavities, should one not also be concerned with fiberglass spicules moving out of the same wall cavity? If the wall cavity is breathing into the occupied space, then all particulates in that wall cavity should be equally, more or less, moving along with the mold spores. Mold spores do not move preferentially to other particulates. Moreover (and I have said this before), if air movement out of a wall cavity is so significant that appreciable amounts of mold spores are moving out of it too, then the thermal performance of that wall cavity sucks. The purpose of insulation and air-tightness is to increase thermal performance by reducing air movement thereby increasing the creature comfort of the dwelling unit. Older houses did not have as many mold problems as newer tighter construction assemblies of today because they were drafty; they were also either too hot or too cold and very expensive to moderate the temperature. Now we have assemblies that don’t breath as much and are much more affordable to operate; which is good for thermal performance but bad to mitigate retained moisture. This said, I don’t accept some folk’s claims that hollow cavity wall assemblies, stick-framed of course, breath soooo very much that mold spores are preferentially moving out of the wall assembly and into the occupied space; at least not by my measurements and experience. BTW...steel-stud wall assemblies are VERY leaky – both horizontally and vertically.

Regarding your comment....”Many people in moldy houses have not become exquisitely sensitized yet, but some have and more will. I wonder how we are going to help those who are so sensitive that they may soon loose their ability to work; and then spend all of their time in a house that makes them sick.” This is very well intended, and I agree with you. My opinion, the sensitized may not be able to live in conventional housing; and I have help quite a few of them modify their housing the be more accommodating to their needs. One person I know of built a home with massive (not holllow-cavity) wall systems and was very selective of interior furnishings and finishes; because of his sensitivities. But most folks cannot afford what this guy did in order to make his life more comfortable while in his home. What do we do for those that cannot afford anything but conventional housing? Damn good question! Do we change the building codes and building practices of the conventional home-building industry to accommodate the most sensitive? In effect, make the masses live in a SUPER HOUSE? Is this not lowering everyone down to the lowest common denominator? I feel this will only make housing more expensive and put out of reach home ownership for the less fortunate. On the other hand, the sensitive folks, IMHO, are like canaries, and these canaries, albeit they suffer, can teach us how to build better for the masses. Construction science is not static, it is an evolution.

Great dialog. Thanks

If mold is to be left in place (I recommend this sometimes) then it is very important indeed that the inner surfaces be sealed to the point that they are truly airtight. I am working on one house now where the inside surfaces have been made as airtight as possible and the suspect space has been depressurized, but due perhaps to the complexity of the space, some regions are not yet adequately depressurized and yet not adequately sealed. The very sensitive occupants cannot live in this house and may have to sell because they do not have the funds to do a thorough deconstruction and rebuild. Perhaps 'normal' people could live in this house, but maybe not. Then where are they?

I have been following some of the recent posts with much interest, but since indoor surface sealing has to be done to well beyond energy-driven standards, I am at a loss to see how we can leave mold in place without some new procedures and inspection/test standards. Any suggestions/comments?

Many people in moldy houses have not become exquisitely sensitized yet, but some have and more will. I wonder how we are going to help those who are so sensitive that they may soon loose their ability to work; and then spend all of their time in a house that makes them sick.

Jim H. White SSC

systemsa@...

Re: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:

This is my point also, i.e., why can’t mold be managed in place? It was managed in place prior to 1995 when mold wasn’t such a big deal and before the media blew it out of proportion. The source advocacy folks say mold must all be removed; which is hog wash! If all mold was removed, we could state that the structure was sterile of mold; which is impractical, unrealistic, and hog wash. No matter how hard a remediator works to remove mold, without demolishing the structure into its functional components, all the source cannot be removed. And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains. I, for one, believe that Dr. Burge made some factual errors and omissions with what she wrote, and I am preparing a letter to her. I will share my letter and her response with this group, if and when I get a response.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

On 1/19/07 1:15 PM, " , " wrote:

Group,

I understand Dr. Burge’s point, if mold is killed by heat it may still have toxic properties and be an allergen, but a corollary can be drawn concerning asbestos containing material such as floor tile. Often asbestos containing floor tile is left in place and covered by non-asbestos containing flooring. This is called managing asbestos in place. If the asbestos is covered and cannot become airborne it is not a hazard as long as it is not disturbed. This has been the standard practice of managing asbestos in place for many years and is approved by OSHA & the EPA.

Asbestos causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Is mold that toxic? I don’t know. Why can’t we manage mold in place? This is just food for thought. I know this is contrary to the way mold is handled, but why? I know this is going to cause a firestorm but I believe this issue has to be aired.

, MS, CIH, CIEC

-----Original Message-----

[Guest guest]

,

If you read historically what

Dr. Burge says in Indoor Environmental Connections magazine about the use of

heat to kill mold, Sr. Burge reports, heat has many benefits. In a laboratory

environment, the use of high heat is able to affect some fungi, meaning, heat has

been able to kill spores and denature the antigen of some fungi.

Does this mean moldy

building materials should not be removed because of a contractor’s

ability to use high heat above 140F? No. As an expert I would argue, leaving

dead mold growth behind in walls and ceilings, even with an encapsulate after

heat-treatment, the affected areas have “not” been returned back to

an environmental or structural pre-loss condition.

In wet buildings, I use

heat to eliminate building saturation before mold growth occurs; generally, less

than 2-days of structural drying for most wet drywall buildings. (I wrote a

book on the subject of heat drying wet buildings “The Physics

Theory and Principles of Heat Drying Wet Buildings”.)

That said, if my home has

a mold growth problem, would I rely on heat as my only attempt to mitigate the

mold problem? No. I would carefully remove the mold growth (following EPA and

IICRC guidelines), so I do not have (1) an environmental issue and (2) a

disclosure issue when I go to sell my home.

As an EPA assessor who is

in contact with NIOSH, USEPA, etc., from my discussions, I do not see EPA

taking on the study you recommend.

In closing, in the real

world of remediation (not laboratory experiments), heat by itself is not able to

kill all mold growth and eliminate antigens, where it is expected to replace the

practice of hands-on mold remediation.

Moffett

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of ,

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

1:10 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Bob,

Thanks for the

comments. Before I would recommend managing mold in place, I would want

EPA to buy off on it. New

Orleans is an excellent laboratory to test this idea.

I urge EPA to consider using N.O. to test managing mold in place.

They could take a few of the homes that are scheduled for demolition, do the

encasement I suggest, monitor the air quality and publish their finding.

This is indeed a way to serve the public instead of sitting in their ivory tower

and saying the only way to deal with mold is to rip and tear. Let them

spend some of our tax dollars and test this idea.

I realize managing

something in place is extensive, but so is loosing a home. Asbestos is

managed in place and the long term cost (air sampling, inspection and training

etc.) maybe higher than removing asbestos up front, but it has its place.

Managing mold in place deserves investigation.

Your comments are

appreciated.

, MS, CIH,

CIEC

Los Angels, CA

Email robert.williamsladwp

Re: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:

Asbestos DOES produce microfragments as it decays!!!

On 1/19/07 4:22 PM, " gary

rosen " <garyrosen72652> wrote:

Asbestos and mold are different. Asbestos is typically inert

unless disturbed. Mold is not. It is alive. Asbestos does not

produce microfragments as it decays. It does not product volatile spore

as does mold.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Free.org <http://www.Mold-Free.org>

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold

Contamination?

[Guest guest]

Mike,

To answer your questions to Sharon;

>....How do you remove mold between the vertical studs

and the sheeting …

Remove the inside or outside wall surface (whichever is

cheaper and less inconvenient to the owner

>, the blocking and the top and bottom plates?

Sand or blasting works well as long as one does not impede

the integrity of the structural member.

>How do you remove mold between the double top plate?

Remove and replace if blasting is not effective. You see

, this is an issue with sewage contamination as well. Any wood that absorbs

the sewage should be removed (IICRC). No where do you see the IICRC say or

stating it depends on the cost. Why, because the percentage that do not have

insurance can not define the process. This must work the same for mold and/or

any other contamination.

>How do you remove the mold between joists and the

sheeting?

As stated above

>Please enlighten me! You must have a miracle way

to do so, OR you are an advocate for total demolition

Some times partial or total demo is required, i.e. when

the cost to remediate is greater than demo and reconstruction.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Geyer

Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007

4:25 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Sharon:

Since you are obviously one of the source removal advocates, let me ask....How

do you remove mold between the vertical studs and the sheeting, the blocking

and the top and bottom plates? How do you remove mold between the double

top plate? How do you remove the mold between joists and the sheeting? Please

enlighten me! You must have a miracle way to do so, OR you are an

advocate for total demolition.

On 1/22/07 8:17 AM, " snk1955aol " <snk1955aol>

wrote:

,

You wrote:

" And until the source removal folks accept and

acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do

next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains "

I am inclined to believe there will not be too many

meaningful discussions in your near future. While I can't speak to

whether heat works or not, apparently some that are able to, do not see benefit

to heat.

As an advocate for those who are sick, if there is a question as to whether

something works or not, then of course my choice is to err on the side of

safety and go with what is proven.

To sum it up: " When in doubt, rip it out. "

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Partick,

As usual, you hit the nail on the head. Well said.

Rosen

RE: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.

[Guest guest]

>How do you remove the mold between joists and the sheeting?

>Please enlighten me! You must have a miracle way to do so, OR you are an advocate for total demolition

Some times partial or total demo is required, i.e. when the cost to remediate is greater than demo and reconstruction.

If a small amount of mold is hidden inside a wall and there is no moisture source and it is not detectable (spores or odor) in the living space, a good case would be to leave it where it is. Wall cavities are not living space. As someone that has inspected many, many homes under construction, there are not any new homes built that are mold free inside of wall cavities or inside of attics. And there are certainly no older homes that are mold free inside of walls and in the attic or other crawl spaces that are exposed to outside air.

You won't find any spec anywhere that says you have to remove mold inside wall cavities that is not detectable within the home.

Let's use some common sense here.

Rosen

Re: Ask Dr. Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

Sharon:Since you are obviously one of the source removal advocates, let me ask....How do you remove mold between the vertical studs and the sheeting, the blocking and the top and bottom plates? How do you remove mold between the double top plate? How do you remove the mold between joists and the sheeting? Please enlighten me! You must have a miracle way to do so, OR you are an advocate for total demolition.On 1/22/07 8:17 AM, "snk1955aol (DOT) com" <snk1955aol (DOT) com> wrote:

, You wrote:

"And until the source removal folks accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains"

I am inclined to believe there will not be too many meaningful discussions in your near future. While I can't speak to whether heat works or not, apparently some that are able to, do not see benefit to heat. As an advocate for those who are sick, if there is a question as to whether something works or not, then of course my choice is to err on the side of safety and go with what is proven. To sum it up: "When in doubt, rip it out." Sharon

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

[Guest guest]

,

I think some molds can be managed in

place.  For instance the blue cheese in

my refrigerator is managing nicely as are the yeasts in my beer.  J  Sorry, I couldn’t

resist.

When it comes to managing certain molds,

though, in place management does not seem practical or smart.  There are many molds that are known to grow

on water damaged building materials that have been implicated in human illness.

Do a search for some of the articles written by J. . I think if we

are talking about these molds, you would be prudent to physically remove them.

I disagree that we managed mold in place

prior to 1995 (Why that date?).  I would

suggest that most consultants ignored mold, not managed it in place.  I guess using your logic; we managed radon in

place, too, until the mid 1980’s. 

Historically the medical profession was concerned with small pox,

measles, diphtheria, and a host of other organisms that were getting their

attention at the time (because people were dying from them).  The built environment was not really

considered suspect until the early 1980’s after the discovery of indoor

radon concentrations that were harmful. 

The “healthy homes” concept evolved as a result of looking

at all sources of indoor contamination. 

For the longest time molds were considered

harmless with the exception of some very powerful mushroom toxins.  This was in large part due to the lack of

anyone studying them.  I took a graduate

mycology course in the late 1970’s. 

There were three of us in the class. 

The instructor at the time stated that there were approximately 30

mycologists in the US. It doesn’t take a math genius to figure how long it would

take for these 30 scientists to study the million or so mold species thought to

exist.  (Even if you increase the number

of researches by an order of magnitude, it would take a long time).  Add to this the fact that many of the

diagnostic tools we have today did not exist or were not readily available, and

you can see why mold was not high on everyone’s list until the evidence

began to swing the other way: sometime around the 1995 date that you suggest.

I think most of us would agree that we

have lived in and around mold contamination for a very long time.  Many people can tolerate huge exposures: many

can’t. 

Regarding the use of heat to alter fungal

proteins, I think it may have some validity, but proving that the proteins have

been denatured into inert globs will prove to be an expensive and time

consuming process.  Until you can make

those proofs, you really can’t suggest that it is safe for all molds in

all buildings and for all people. So what can one say and still have science

behind your opinion?

Mark Doughty

 

Re: Ask Dr.

Burge: Can We Use Heat to Remediate Mold Contamination?

:

This is my point also, i.e., why can’t mold be managed in place? It

was managed in place prior to 1995 when mold wasn’t such a big deal and

before the media blew it out of proportion. The source advocacy folks say

mold must all be removed; which is hog wash! If all mold was removed, we

could state that the structure was sterile of mold; which is impractical,

unrealistic, and hog wash. No matter how hard a remediator works to

remove mold, without demolishing the structure into its functional components,

all the source cannot be removed. And until the source removal folks

accept and acknowledge this, we cannot have a meaningful discussion of what to

do next, e.g., use heat to kill what remains. I, for one, believe that

Dr. Burge made some factual errors and omissions with what she wrote, and I am

preparing a letter to her. I will share my letter and her response with

this group, if and when I get a response.

For what it is worth....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

On 1/19/07 1:15 PM, " ,

" <robert.williamsladwp> wrote:

Group,

I understand Dr. Burge’s point, if mold is killed by heat it may still

have toxic properties and be an allergen, but a corollary can be drawn

concerning asbestos containing material such as floor tile. Often

asbestos containing floor tile is left in place and covered by non-asbestos

containing flooring. This is called managing asbestos in place. If

the asbestos is covered and cannot become airborne it is not a hazard as long

as it is not disturbed. This has been the standard practice of managing

asbestos in place for many years and is approved by OSHA & the EPA.

Asbestos causes asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. Is mold that

toxic? I don’t know. Why can’t we manage mold in

place? This is just food for thought. I know this is contrary to

the way mold is handled, but why? I know this is going to cause a

firestorm but I believe this issue has to be aired.

, MS,

CIH, CIEC

-----Original Message-----

[Guest guest]

, like yourself, I 've seen many folks not be able to afford a

proper remediation despite paying enormous homeowners insurance

premiums (Florida) for little or no coverage. And, some of our

retires, already frail, have -0- homeowners insurance as they also

have -0- mortgage, but despirately need every available dollar for

prescriptions & other forms of health care.

It would be wonderful if a 'managing in place' solution could be

found. Of course, this assumes correcting the source of the moisture

at the outset. Unlike asbestos that will stay out unless one brings

it back into the structure, mold is an uninvited guest that will

move-in on any host that will provide it with ripe conditions.

That said, one of my concerns (Florida - Hot-Humid) is modifying the

permeance of the wall assembly, which I feel might happen with a

skin application. In Hot-Humid, we must have walls dry to both sides.

Obviously to all on this board, it would be great to solve the

problem with positive pressurization, but that is more often than

not extremely costly. It is also virtually impossible in many

buildings.

What kinds of other methods do you fell may offer hope? I may be

missing many. Thanks in advance, ~Cheryl