Re: Acceptable Levels of Mould Spores

[Guest guest]

Bob,

That is a great document. Seems very logical as a general rule of thumb. This was written 14 years ago. 1993. Since that time, many research papers have been written on the subject of ill health from WBD's, that vary tremendously from person to person, from the synergistic effects of the multiple contaminants of the matter, coupled with individual susceptibility. Yet amazingly, 14 years later, some are still trying to promote etched in stone exposure limits are scientifically plausible to achieve. Sure wish I was a scientist-or maybe a psychologist -so I could understand why that is.

SharonSee what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

That is a great document. Seems very logical as a general rule of thumb. This was written 14 years ago. 1993. Since that time, many research papers have been written on the subject of ill health from WBD's, that vary tremendously from person to person, from the synergistic effects of the multiple contaminants of the matter, coupled with individual susceptibility. Yet amazingly, 14 years later, some are still trying to promote etched in stone exposure limits are scientifically plausible to achieve. Sure wish I was a scientist-or maybe a psychologist -so I could understand why that is.

SharonSee what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

That is a great document. Seems very logical as a general rule of thumb. This was written 14 years ago. 1993. Since that time, many research papers have been written on the subject of ill health from WBD's, that vary tremendously from person to person, from the synergistic effects of the multiple contaminants of the matter, coupled with individual susceptibility. Yet amazingly, 14 years later, some are still trying to promote etched in stone exposure limits are scientifically plausible to achieve. Sure wish I was a scientist-or maybe a psychologist -so I could understand why that is.

SharonSee what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Mr. s,

Is the " Reuter centrifugal sampler " be the same as the " Hycon

Biotest " sampler? Could these Levels from Canada be applied to the

Andersen Single and multiple stage samplers? I would assume so, but

have assumed wrong before.

Would you recommend incorperating those levels in training classes?

Additionally, are these levels in line with your levels in your book?

Thanks

Dana Brown

GEBCO

>

> GUIDELINES FOR THE

> INVESTIGATION, ASSESSMENT,

> & REMEDIATION

> OF MOULD

> IN WORKPLACES

> Workplace Safety and Health Division

> Manitoba Department of Labour & Immigration

> March 2001

>

> Page 8 - 10

> 8. Suggested guidelines

> There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an

> appropriate standard

> for a " safe " exposure to mould. There are many factors that must be

> considered in the

> establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that

> guidelines be

> established for the purpose of providing direction for the handling

of

> mould

> contamination.

> The standard for airborne concentrations recommended for use in

this

> guideline are

> those accepted by a Federal-Provincial Working Group on Indoor Air

> Quality, and

> reported in Indoor Air Quality in Office Buildings: A Technical

Guide

> and Fungal

> Contamination in Public Buildings: A Guide to Recognition and

> Management. The

> following are the recommendations presented.

> " Canadian guidelines were published in Indoor Air Quality in Office

> Buildings: A

> Technical Guide in 1993. As described in that document, the

guidelines

> are based on a

> large data set gathered over a period of several years using a

with a four-minute sampling time. These guidelines have been

> found useful by

> workers in the field and are used on a regular basis. "

> 1) Significant numbers of certain pathogenic fungi should not be

> present in indoor air

> (e.g., Aspergillus fumigatus, Histoplasma and Cryptococcus). Bird

or

> bat droppings

> near air intakes, in ducts or buildings should be assumed to

contain

> these

> pathogens. Action should be taken accordingly. Some of these

species

> cannot be

> measured by air sampling techniques.

> 2) The persistent presence of significant numbers of toxigenic

fungi

> (e.g., Stachybotrys

> chartarum (= atra), toxigenic Aspergillus, Penicillium and Fusarium

> species)

> indicates that further investigation and action should be taken

> accordingly.

> 3) The confirmed presence of one or more fungal species occurring

as a

> significant

> percentage of a sample in indoor air samples and not similarly

present

> in concurrent

> outdoor samples is evidence of a fungal amplifier. Appropriate

action

> should be

> taken.

> 4) The " normal " air mycoflora is qualitatively similar to and

> quantitatively lower than that

> of outside air. The number of fungal isolates in outdoor air is

> affected by the

> sampling technique, the season, weather conditions, activities,

etc.

> Published data

> on the range of " normal " values in different parts of Canada are

not

> available, and

> those that are available may be based on sampling techniques

unlikely

> to be applied

> in modern indoor studies.

> 5) More than 50 CFU/m3 of a single species (other than Cladosporium

or

> Alternaria)

> may be reason for concern present. Further investigation is

necessary.

> 6) Up to 150 CFU/m3 is acceptable if there is a mixture of species

> reflective of the

> outdoor air spores. Higher counts suggest dirty or low efficiency

air

> filters or other

> problems.

> 7) Up to 500 CFU/m3 is acceptable in summer if the species present

are

> primarily

> Cladosporium or other tree and leaf fungi. Values higher than this

may

> indicate

> failure of the filters or contamination in the building.

>

> " For duct insulation, the following numbers are rough rules of

thumb

> used to assess

> fungal contamination using a dilution sample. "

> TABLE 1

> Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> less than 10,000 CFU/g Low

> 10,000 to 100,000 CFU/g Medium

> 100,000 to 1,000,000 CFU/g Medium to heavy

> >1,000,000 CFU/g Heavy

>

> General recommendations also exist for classifying the degree of

mould

> contamination

> of non-porous surfaces. These recommendations listed in Table 2,

below,

> are based

> on sampling an area of 100 cm2.

> TABLE 2

> Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> less than 200 CFU/ cm2 Low

> 200 to 500 CFU/ cm2 Medium

> > 500 CFU/ cm2 Heavy

>

[Guest guest]

Mr. s,

Is the " Reuter centrifugal sampler " be the same as the " Hycon

Biotest " sampler? Could these Levels from Canada be applied to the

Andersen Single and multiple stage samplers? I would assume so, but

have assumed wrong before.

Would you recommend incorperating those levels in training classes?

Additionally, are these levels in line with your levels in your book?

Thanks

Dana Brown

GEBCO

>

> GUIDELINES FOR THE

> INVESTIGATION, ASSESSMENT,

> & REMEDIATION

> OF MOULD

> IN WORKPLACES

> Workplace Safety and Health Division

> Manitoba Department of Labour & Immigration

> March 2001

>

> Page 8 - 10

> 8. Suggested guidelines

> There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an

> appropriate standard

> for a " safe " exposure to mould. There are many factors that must be

> considered in the

> establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that

> guidelines be

> established for the purpose of providing direction for the handling

of

> mould

> contamination.

> The standard for airborne concentrations recommended for use in

this

> guideline are

> those accepted by a Federal-Provincial Working Group on Indoor Air

> Quality, and

> reported in Indoor Air Quality in Office Buildings: A Technical

Guide

> and Fungal

> Contamination in Public Buildings: A Guide to Recognition and

> Management. The

> following are the recommendations presented.

> " Canadian guidelines were published in Indoor Air Quality in Office

> Buildings: A

> Technical Guide in 1993. As described in that document, the

guidelines

> are based on a

> large data set gathered over a period of several years using a

with a four-minute sampling time. These guidelines have been

> found useful by

> workers in the field and are used on a regular basis. "

> 1) Significant numbers of certain pathogenic fungi should not be

> present in indoor air

> (e.g., Aspergillus fumigatus, Histoplasma and Cryptococcus). Bird

or

> bat droppings

> near air intakes, in ducts or buildings should be assumed to

contain

> these

> pathogens. Action should be taken accordingly. Some of these

species

> cannot be

> measured by air sampling techniques.

> 2) The persistent presence of significant numbers of toxigenic

fungi

> (e.g., Stachybotrys

> chartarum (= atra), toxigenic Aspergillus, Penicillium and Fusarium

> species)

> indicates that further investigation and action should be taken

> accordingly.

> 3) The confirmed presence of one or more fungal species occurring

as a

> significant

> percentage of a sample in indoor air samples and not similarly

present

> in concurrent

> outdoor samples is evidence of a fungal amplifier. Appropriate

action

> should be

> taken.

> 4) The " normal " air mycoflora is qualitatively similar to and

> quantitatively lower than that

> of outside air. The number of fungal isolates in outdoor air is

> affected by the

> sampling technique, the season, weather conditions, activities,

etc.

> Published data

> on the range of " normal " values in different parts of Canada are

not

> available, and

> those that are available may be based on sampling techniques

unlikely

> to be applied

> in modern indoor studies.

> 5) More than 50 CFU/m3 of a single species (other than Cladosporium

or

> Alternaria)

> may be reason for concern present. Further investigation is

necessary.

> 6) Up to 150 CFU/m3 is acceptable if there is a mixture of species

> reflective of the

> outdoor air spores. Higher counts suggest dirty or low efficiency

air

> filters or other

> problems.

> 7) Up to 500 CFU/m3 is acceptable in summer if the species present

are

> primarily

> Cladosporium or other tree and leaf fungi. Values higher than this

may

> indicate

> failure of the filters or contamination in the building.

>

> " For duct insulation, the following numbers are rough rules of

thumb

> used to assess

> fungal contamination using a dilution sample. "

> TABLE 1

> Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> less than 10,000 CFU/g Low

> 10,000 to 100,000 CFU/g Medium

> 100,000 to 1,000,000 CFU/g Medium to heavy

> >1,000,000 CFU/g Heavy

>

> General recommendations also exist for classifying the degree of

mould

> contamination

> of non-porous surfaces. These recommendations listed in Table 2,

below,

> are based

> on sampling an area of 100 cm2.

> TABLE 2

> Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> less than 200 CFU/ cm2 Low

> 200 to 500 CFU/ cm2 Medium

> > 500 CFU/ cm2 Heavy

>

[Guest guest]

Is the " Reuter centrifugal sampler " be the same as the " Hycon

Biotest " sampler? YES

Could these Levels from Canada be applied to the

Andersen Single and multiple stage samplers? YES

Would you recommend incorperating those levels in training classes?

YES

Additionally, are these levels in line with your levels in your book?

YES, but there are so many more standards and guidelines. Limiting

yourself and trainees to

just this information does not inform them of

Action levels that warrant investigation

Evacuation Levels

Clearance standards

Hospital standards

Clean room standards

Etc.

Bob

CHAPTER 2. MOLD STANDARDS

A. CULTURABLE SPORE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL

BUILDINGS

GOVERNMENTAL BODIES

1. BRAZIL

2. CANADA MORTAGE AND HOUSING COMPANY (CMHC)

3. CHINA (PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF)

4. COMMISSION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (CEC)

5. CZECH REPUBLIC

6. FINLAND

7. GERMANY

8. NETHERLANDS (RESEARCH INSTITUTE)

9. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (NYCDOH)

10. NORDIC COUNCIL

11. POLAND (PROPOSED) INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE &

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

12. US OSHA (PROPOSED) INDOOR AIR QUALITY STANDARD

13. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

14. AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS (ACGIH)

15. AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION (AIHA)

16. INDOOR AIR QUALITY ASSOCIATION (IAQA)

17. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE (ISIAQC)

B. TOTAL SPORE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL

BUILDINGS

GOVERNMENTAL BODIES

18. RUSSIAN FEDERATION STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL FUNGAL SPECIES

19. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (TDH) (on)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

20. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ALLERGY, ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY/NAT’L ALLERGY

BUREAU

21. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE (ACOEM)

[Guest guest]

Is the " Reuter centrifugal sampler " be the same as the " Hycon

Biotest " sampler? YES

Could these Levels from Canada be applied to the

Andersen Single and multiple stage samplers? YES

Would you recommend incorperating those levels in training classes?

YES

Additionally, are these levels in line with your levels in your book?

YES, but there are so many more standards and guidelines. Limiting

yourself and trainees to

just this information does not inform them of

Action levels that warrant investigation

Evacuation Levels

Clearance standards

Hospital standards

Clean room standards

Etc.

Bob

CHAPTER 2. MOLD STANDARDS

A. CULTURABLE SPORE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL

BUILDINGS

GOVERNMENTAL BODIES

1. BRAZIL

2. CANADA MORTAGE AND HOUSING COMPANY (CMHC)

3. CHINA (PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF)

4. COMMISSION OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (CEC)

5. CZECH REPUBLIC

6. FINLAND

7. GERMANY

8. NETHERLANDS (RESEARCH INSTITUTE)

9. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (NYCDOH)

10. NORDIC COUNCIL

11. POLAND (PROPOSED) INSTITUTE OF OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE &

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

12. US OSHA (PROPOSED) INDOOR AIR QUALITY STANDARD

13. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

14. AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS (ACGIH)

15. AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATION (AIHA)

16. INDOOR AIR QUALITY ASSOCIATION (IAQA)

17. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE (ISIAQC)

B. TOTAL SPORE EXPOSURE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL

BUILDINGS

GOVERNMENTAL BODIES

18. RUSSIAN FEDERATION STANDARDS FOR INDIVIDUAL FUNGAL SPECIES

19. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (TDH) (on)

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

20. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ALLERGY, ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY/NAT’L ALLERGY

BUREAU

21. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE (ACOEM)

[Guest guest]

Folks:

Please keep in mind that the Manitoba document was written six years

ago, and it was based on a 1993 document. The numbers cited are over

14 years old! Back in 1993, there was many different 'numbers'

floating around about 'acceptable' levels of airborne mould spores

among those of us in the field at the time. Phil Morey and others

had their own 'numbers' that they presented at conferences, all of

which have been refuted years ago.

Over the years, these two documents have been superseded by so many

other documents, including the 2005 ACGIH Field Guide (the 1996

version is cited in the Manitoba document), that this material is way

out of date, and no longer in use by professionals.

Don

> >

> > GUIDELINES FOR THE

> > INVESTIGATION, ASSESSMENT,

> > & REMEDIATION

> > OF MOULD

> > IN WORKPLACES

> > Workplace Safety and Health Division

> > Manitoba Department of Labour & Immigration

> > March 2001

> >

> > Page 8 - 10

> > 8. Suggested guidelines

> > There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an

> > appropriate standard

> > for a " safe " exposure to mould. There are many factors that must

be

> > considered in the

> > establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that

> > guidelines be

> > established for the purpose of providing direction for the

handling

> of

> > mould

> > contamination.

> > The standard for airborne concentrations recommended for use in

> this

> > guideline are

> > those accepted by a Federal-Provincial Working Group on Indoor

Air

> > Quality, and

> > reported in Indoor Air Quality in Office Buildings: A Technical

> Guide

> > and Fungal

> > Contamination in Public Buildings: A Guide to Recognition and

> > Management. The

> > following are the recommendations presented.

> > " Canadian guidelines were published in Indoor Air Quality in

Office

> > Buildings: A

> > Technical Guide in 1993. As described in that document, the

> guidelines

> > are based on a

> > large data set gathered over a period of several years using a

> with a four-minute sampling time. These guidelines have been

> > found useful by

> > workers in the field and are used on a regular basis. "

> > 1) Significant numbers of certain pathogenic fungi should not be

> > present in indoor air

> > (e.g., Aspergillus fumigatus, Histoplasma and Cryptococcus). Bird

> or

> > bat droppings

> > near air intakes, in ducts or buildings should be assumed to

> contain

> > these

> > pathogens. Action should be taken accordingly. Some of these

> species

> > cannot be

> > measured by air sampling techniques.

> > 2) The persistent presence of significant numbers of toxigenic

> fungi

> > (e.g., Stachybotrys

> > chartarum (= atra), toxigenic Aspergillus, Penicillium and

Fusarium

> > species)

> > indicates that further investigation and action should be taken

> > accordingly.

> > 3) The confirmed presence of one or more fungal species occurring

> as a

> > significant

> > percentage of a sample in indoor air samples and not similarly

> present

> > in concurrent

> > outdoor samples is evidence of a fungal amplifier. Appropriate

> action

> > should be

> > taken.

> > 4) The " normal " air mycoflora is qualitatively similar to and

> > quantitatively lower than that

> > of outside air. The number of fungal isolates in outdoor air is

> > affected by the

> > sampling technique, the season, weather conditions, activities,

> etc.

> > Published data

> > on the range of " normal " values in different parts of Canada are

> not

> > available, and

> > those that are available may be based on sampling techniques

> unlikely

> > to be applied

> > in modern indoor studies.

> > 5) More than 50 CFU/m3 of a single species (other than

Cladosporium

> or

> > Alternaria)

> > may be reason for concern present. Further investigation is

> necessary.

> > 6) Up to 150 CFU/m3 is acceptable if there is a mixture of

species

> > reflective of the

> > outdoor air spores. Higher counts suggest dirty or low efficiency

> air

> > filters or other

> > problems.

> > 7) Up to 500 CFU/m3 is acceptable in summer if the species

present

> are

> > primarily

> > Cladosporium or other tree and leaf fungi. Values higher than

this

> may

> > indicate

> > failure of the filters or contamination in the building.

> >

> > " For duct insulation, the following numbers are rough rules of

> thumb

> > used to assess

> > fungal contamination using a dilution sample. "

> > TABLE 1

> > Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> > less than 10,000 CFU/g Low

> > 10,000 to 100,000 CFU/g Medium

> > 100,000 to 1,000,000 CFU/g Medium to heavy

> > >1,000,000 CFU/g Heavy

> >

> > General recommendations also exist for classifying the degree of

> mould

> > contamination

> > of non-porous surfaces. These recommendations listed in Table 2,

> below,

> > are based

> > on sampling an area of 100 cm2.

> > TABLE 2

> > Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> > less than 200 CFU/ cm2 Low

> > 200 to 500 CFU/ cm2 Medium

> > > 500 CFU/ cm2 Heavy

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Folks:

Please keep in mind that the Manitoba document was written six years

ago, and it was based on a 1993 document. The numbers cited are over

14 years old! Back in 1993, there was many different 'numbers'

floating around about 'acceptable' levels of airborne mould spores

among those of us in the field at the time. Phil Morey and others

had their own 'numbers' that they presented at conferences, all of

which have been refuted years ago.

Over the years, these two documents have been superseded by so many

other documents, including the 2005 ACGIH Field Guide (the 1996

version is cited in the Manitoba document), that this material is way

out of date, and no longer in use by professionals.

Don

> >

> > GUIDELINES FOR THE

> > INVESTIGATION, ASSESSMENT,

> > & REMEDIATION

> > OF MOULD

> > IN WORKPLACES

> > Workplace Safety and Health Division

> > Manitoba Department of Labour & Immigration

> > March 2001

> >

> > Page 8 - 10

> > 8. Suggested guidelines

> > There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an

> > appropriate standard

> > for a " safe " exposure to mould. There are many factors that must

be

> > considered in the

> > establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that

> > guidelines be

> > established for the purpose of providing direction for the

handling

> of

> > mould

> > contamination.

> > The standard for airborne concentrations recommended for use in

> this

> > guideline are

> > those accepted by a Federal-Provincial Working Group on Indoor

Air

> > Quality, and

> > reported in Indoor Air Quality in Office Buildings: A Technical

> Guide

> > and Fungal

> > Contamination in Public Buildings: A Guide to Recognition and

> > Management. The

> > following are the recommendations presented.

> > " Canadian guidelines were published in Indoor Air Quality in

Office

> > Buildings: A

> > Technical Guide in 1993. As described in that document, the

> guidelines

> > are based on a

> > large data set gathered over a period of several years using a

> with a four-minute sampling time. These guidelines have been

> > found useful by

> > workers in the field and are used on a regular basis. "

> > 1) Significant numbers of certain pathogenic fungi should not be

> > present in indoor air

> > (e.g., Aspergillus fumigatus, Histoplasma and Cryptococcus). Bird

> or

> > bat droppings

> > near air intakes, in ducts or buildings should be assumed to

> contain

> > these

> > pathogens. Action should be taken accordingly. Some of these

> species

> > cannot be

> > measured by air sampling techniques.

> > 2) The persistent presence of significant numbers of toxigenic

> fungi

> > (e.g., Stachybotrys

> > chartarum (= atra), toxigenic Aspergillus, Penicillium and

Fusarium

> > species)

> > indicates that further investigation and action should be taken

> > accordingly.

> > 3) The confirmed presence of one or more fungal species occurring

> as a

> > significant

> > percentage of a sample in indoor air samples and not similarly

> present

> > in concurrent

> > outdoor samples is evidence of a fungal amplifier. Appropriate

> action

> > should be

> > taken.

> > 4) The " normal " air mycoflora is qualitatively similar to and

> > quantitatively lower than that

> > of outside air. The number of fungal isolates in outdoor air is

> > affected by the

> > sampling technique, the season, weather conditions, activities,

> etc.

> > Published data

> > on the range of " normal " values in different parts of Canada are

> not

> > available, and

> > those that are available may be based on sampling techniques

> unlikely

> > to be applied

> > in modern indoor studies.

> > 5) More than 50 CFU/m3 of a single species (other than

Cladosporium

> or

> > Alternaria)

> > may be reason for concern present. Further investigation is

> necessary.

> > 6) Up to 150 CFU/m3 is acceptable if there is a mixture of

species

> > reflective of the

> > outdoor air spores. Higher counts suggest dirty or low efficiency

> air

> > filters or other

> > problems.

> > 7) Up to 500 CFU/m3 is acceptable in summer if the species

present

> are

> > primarily

> > Cladosporium or other tree and leaf fungi. Values higher than

this

> may

> > indicate

> > failure of the filters or contamination in the building.

> >

> > " For duct insulation, the following numbers are rough rules of

> thumb

> > used to assess

> > fungal contamination using a dilution sample. "

> > TABLE 1

> > Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> > less than 10,000 CFU/g Low

> > 10,000 to 100,000 CFU/g Medium

> > 100,000 to 1,000,000 CFU/g Medium to heavy

> > >1,000,000 CFU/g Heavy

> >

> > General recommendations also exist for classifying the degree of

> mould

> > contamination

> > of non-porous surfaces. These recommendations listed in Table 2,

> below,

> > are based

> > on sampling an area of 100 cm2.

> > TABLE 2

> > Concentration Qualitative Assessment of Contamination

> > less than 200 CFU/ cm2 Low

> > 200 to 500 CFU/ cm2 Medium

> > > 500 CFU/ cm2 Heavy

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The numbers cited in the Manitoba document

are consistent with standards instituted by other countries and

organizations

starting as early as 1986. (Even early, if you count Haldane, et al.)

This includes the AIHA and NIOSH species specific

standards proposed in 1986.

Similar numbers have been continued to be adopted, as recently as, 2003

by the Czech

republic. NONE of the these numbers have significantly changed in

this 20 year period.

The numbers are also consistent with extensive research done in Europe.

The numbers are also consistent with the very limited research

done in the US.

Just because the US won't issue guidelines or standards doesn't mean

they are not

good numbers. The US regulatory system is too tainted by special

interests.

The HUGE dollar impact on real estate property owners (who don't

maintain the properties)

would be millions (billions?). You can't buck that lobby!!

The converse of ignoring these numbers is even worse.

There are ONLY two possibilities - LEVELS SHOULD BE LOWER

OR THEY SHOULD BE HIGHER.

Well, clearly, all the research, and other countries say that these are

the " acceptable "

levels and they should NOT BE HIGHER.

The ONLY other response is that they should be lower.

Is there anyone out there using lower standards?

Is there any justification for higher standards?

The excuse that there is too much variability is just goobiligook.

AAAAI shows a range of population affected by concentration.

Gee, if they could do it, why is it so hard for the US to issue

a range. OH, that's right-didn't the EPA just do that!

Too bad, EPA didn't reference a standard sampling method.

(or at least some data showing there is no relationship.)

Bob

[Guest guest]

The numbers cited in the Manitoba document

are consistent with standards instituted by other countries and

organizations

starting as early as 1986. (Even early, if you count Haldane, et al.)

This includes the AIHA and NIOSH species specific

standards proposed in 1986.

Similar numbers have been continued to be adopted, as recently as, 2003

by the Czech

republic. NONE of the these numbers have significantly changed in

this 20 year period.

The numbers are also consistent with extensive research done in Europe.

The numbers are also consistent with the very limited research

done in the US.

Just because the US won't issue guidelines or standards doesn't mean

they are not

good numbers. The US regulatory system is too tainted by special

interests.

The HUGE dollar impact on real estate property owners (who don't

maintain the properties)

would be millions (billions?). You can't buck that lobby!!

The converse of ignoring these numbers is even worse.

There are ONLY two possibilities - LEVELS SHOULD BE LOWER

OR THEY SHOULD BE HIGHER.

Well, clearly, all the research, and other countries say that these are

the " acceptable "

levels and they should NOT BE HIGHER.

The ONLY other response is that they should be lower.

Is there anyone out there using lower standards?

Is there any justification for higher standards?

The excuse that there is too much variability is just goobiligook.

AAAAI shows a range of population affected by concentration.

Gee, if they could do it, why is it so hard for the US to issue

a range. OH, that's right-didn't the EPA just do that!

Too bad, EPA didn't reference a standard sampling method.

(or at least some data showing there is no relationship.)

Bob

[Guest guest]

Two quotes:

From the Manitoba Department of Health website - 'The air and

surfaces in your home can be sampled for moulds. However, testing is

not recommended as the first step to determine if you have a mould

problem. Your efforts and money are better directed to simply get rid

of any mould and then eliminate the conditions that cause it.'

From the Health Canada Annex on Mould: ' " Further, in the absence of

exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

Manitoba is part of Canada.

Reiterating 'numbers' from twenty years ago does not make them any

more meaningful today. Citing 'numbers' without peer review or

epidemiological data to back them up is irresponsible.

Blaming 'politics' for the lack of 'numbers' is convenient, but not

accurate. Are we to assume that all of the governmental agencies

(USEPA; Health Canada; IOM) and professional organizations (AIHA;

ACGIH) saying that airborne microbial standards are not currently

feasible are somehow beholding to the real estate lobby? That is, to

say the least, farfetched.

ACGIH's Bioaerosols Committee is currently soliciting data which may

assist in the establishment of TLV's for biologically derived

airborne contaminants, specifically gram negative bacterial endotoxin

and (1-3) beta, D-glucan. Please forward all comments and

suggestions, accompanied by substantiating evidence in the form of

peer-reviewed literature, to the Science Group, ACGIH

(science@...).

Lets get science back into the mold business!

Don

>

> The numbers cited in the Manitoba document

> are consistent with standards instituted by other countries and

> organizations

> starting as early as 1986. (Even early, if you count Haldane, et

al.)

> This includes the AIHA and NIOSH species specific

> standards proposed in 1986.

>

> Similar numbers have been continued to be adopted, as recently as,

2003

> by the Czech

> republic. NONE of the these numbers have significantly changed in

> this 20 year period.

> The numbers are also consistent with extensive research done in

Europe.

>

> The numbers are also consistent with the very limited research

> done in the US.

>

> Just because the US won't issue guidelines or standards doesn't

mean

> they are not

> good numbers. The US regulatory system is too tainted by special

> interests.

>

> The HUGE dollar impact on real estate property owners (who don't

> maintain the properties)

> would be millions (billions?). You can't buck that lobby!!

>

> The converse of ignoring these numbers is even worse.

>

> There are ONLY two possibilities - LEVELS SHOULD BE LOWER

> OR THEY SHOULD BE HIGHER.

>

> Well, clearly, all the research, and other countries say that these

are

> the " acceptable "

> levels and they should NOT BE HIGHER.

>

> The ONLY other response is that they should be lower.

>

> Is there anyone out there using lower standards?

>

> Is there any justification for higher standards?

>

> The excuse that there is too much variability is just goobiligook.

> AAAAI shows a range of population affected by concentration.

> Gee, if they could do it, why is it so hard for the US to issue

> a range. OH, that's right-didn't the EPA just do that!

> Too bad, EPA didn't reference a standard sampling method.

> (or at least some data showing there is no relationship.)

>

> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

Two quotes:

From the Manitoba Department of Health website - 'The air and

surfaces in your home can be sampled for moulds. However, testing is

not recommended as the first step to determine if you have a mould

problem. Your efforts and money are better directed to simply get rid

of any mould and then eliminate the conditions that cause it.'

From the Health Canada Annex on Mould: ' " Further, in the absence of

exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

Manitoba is part of Canada.

Reiterating 'numbers' from twenty years ago does not make them any

more meaningful today. Citing 'numbers' without peer review or

epidemiological data to back them up is irresponsible.

Blaming 'politics' for the lack of 'numbers' is convenient, but not

accurate. Are we to assume that all of the governmental agencies

(USEPA; Health Canada; IOM) and professional organizations (AIHA;

ACGIH) saying that airborne microbial standards are not currently

feasible are somehow beholding to the real estate lobby? That is, to

say the least, farfetched.

ACGIH's Bioaerosols Committee is currently soliciting data which may

assist in the establishment of TLV's for biologically derived

airborne contaminants, specifically gram negative bacterial endotoxin

and (1-3) beta, D-glucan. Please forward all comments and

suggestions, accompanied by substantiating evidence in the form of

peer-reviewed literature, to the Science Group, ACGIH

(science@...).

Lets get science back into the mold business!

Don

>

> The numbers cited in the Manitoba document

> are consistent with standards instituted by other countries and

> organizations

> starting as early as 1986. (Even early, if you count Haldane, et

al.)

> This includes the AIHA and NIOSH species specific

> standards proposed in 1986.

>

> Similar numbers have been continued to be adopted, as recently as,

2003

> by the Czech

> republic. NONE of the these numbers have significantly changed in

> this 20 year period.

> The numbers are also consistent with extensive research done in

Europe.

>

> The numbers are also consistent with the very limited research

> done in the US.

>

> Just because the US won't issue guidelines or standards doesn't

mean

> they are not

> good numbers. The US regulatory system is too tainted by special

> interests.

>

> The HUGE dollar impact on real estate property owners (who don't

> maintain the properties)

> would be millions (billions?). You can't buck that lobby!!

>

> The converse of ignoring these numbers is even worse.

>

> There are ONLY two possibilities - LEVELS SHOULD BE LOWER

> OR THEY SHOULD BE HIGHER.

>

> Well, clearly, all the research, and other countries say that these

are

> the " acceptable "

> levels and they should NOT BE HIGHER.

>

> The ONLY other response is that they should be lower.

>

> Is there anyone out there using lower standards?

>

> Is there any justification for higher standards?

>

> The excuse that there is too much variability is just goobiligook.

> AAAAI shows a range of population affected by concentration.

> Gee, if they could do it, why is it so hard for the US to issue

> a range. OH, that's right-didn't the EPA just do that!

> Too bad, EPA didn't reference a standard sampling method.

> (or at least some data showing there is no relationship.)

>

> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

Don,

I think both of these statements are scientifically correct and consistent:

From the Health Canada Annex on Mould: '"Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants."

From the Manitoba document: There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an appropriate standard for a “safe†exposure to mould. There are many factors that must be considered in the establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that guidelines be established for the purpose of providing direction for the handling of mould contamination.

One discusses air samples in conjunction with determining the possibility if people will get sick or not. And it says one cannot apply the numbers for use in this manner. The other discusses a general rule of thumb to be used in determining if there is a probability a building could be the cause illness and if there is a need for future action to be taken.

But it seems to me, that what typically triggers a future action in occupational settings, is if there are occupants complaining of ill health. Then the air testing numbers become one aspect in understanding why this is and what future action needs to be taken. In this case, which is typical, both the Canadian Annex and the Manitoba document provide better direction, not only for the building consultant but also for the health care provider.

Sharon

SharonSee what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Citing 'numbers' without peer review or

epidemiological data to back them up is irresponsible.

This implies that all 12 countries have toxicologists, doctors, public

health officials, etc. that don't review the literature BEFORE they

recommend standards and guidelines.

The most common quote from people in these countries that helped with

these books, is that

" the US is egotistical and if the research was not done in the US, it

does not count. "

Here are just a few of the peer reviewed documents. There are hundreds

more.

23. Construction Research Communications Ltd., " The Concentration Of

Mixed Populations Of Fungi In Indoor Air: Rooms With And Without Mould

Problems: Rooms With And WithoutHealth Complaints, " Indoor Air 99,

Proceedings Of The 8th International Conference On Indoor Air Quality

And Climate, Construction Research Communications Ltd., London, UK,

Vol. 1,1999, p. 920-924.

24. Dutch Occupational Heath (Hygiene) Association N Vva. " Research

Methods Biological IndoorAir Pollution, " Working Group Report, CGFB,

The Hague, Netherlands, 1989, p. 4-6, 18-19.

41. Sociaali-Ja Terveysminisetrioin Oppaassa, " Sisailmaohyeesaa On

Sisailman Mikrobeille Esitetty Seurnavia Ohjearvoja, " Finnish Institute

Of Occupational Health, 1997.

188. Kim, Y.S., T.H. Stock, " House-Specific Characterization Of

Indoor And Outdoor Aerosols, " Environment International, Vol. 12, 1986,

p. 75-92.

405. Gorny R.L., Dutkiewicz J., " Bacterial and Fungal Aerosols in

Indoor Environment in Centraland Eastern European Countries, " ls of

Argricultural Environmental Medicine, 2002; 9(1): 17-23, 2002.

34. National Health And Welfare, Canada, " IAQ In Office Buildings: A

Technical Guide, " National Office, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1993.

16. Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation, " Determination Of Fungal

Propagules In Indoor Air, " Paracel Laboratories Ltd., 1988.

17. Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation, " Testing Of Old Houses

For Microbiological Pollutants, " National Office, Ottawa, Ontario,

Canada, 1991.

360. Wanner, H., A. Verhoeff, A. Colombi, B. Flannigan, S. Gravesen,

A. Mouilleseaux, A. Nevalainen, J. Papadakis, K. Seidel, " Biological

Particles In Indoor Environments,, " Office For Official Publications Of

The European Community, Report No. 12, Eur 14988 En., 1993

404. Garrett, M., Hooper, B., Cole, F., Hooper, M., " Airborne fungal

spores in 80 homes in the Latrobe Valley, Australia: levels,

seasonality and indoor-outdoor relationship, " Aerobiologia,1997, p.

121-126.

238. , J. D., A.M. Laflamme, Y. Sobol, P. Lafontaine, And R.

Greenhalgh, " Fungi And Fungal Products In Some Canadian Houses, " Int.

Biodeterior. Bull., 24: 1988, p. 103-120.

Remember the US only has TLVs for 600 chemicals. The rest of the

world has OELs for over 5,000 chemicals. Not using these standards

from other countries WHEN THE US HAS NONE is both irresponsible and

unethical.

BTW if the US has followed the Latvian standard for Diacetyl - 30 US

workers would NOT BE DEAD due to bronchial obliterans. The US has no

standard for Diacetyl.

Bob

[Guest guest]

Very well stated, Steve, I agree. The focus of any microbial

investigation should be on the decision of what should be remediated,

not what the 'numbers' are. Air sampling results will vary over even

a short period of time, due to the air flow patterns in a building,

the sporulation mechanisms of the microbial source, and the variation

in sampling techniques, such as length of sample and media. But the

microbial contamination will remain to be found, and remediated. A

thorough visual inspection of the premises in question is the primary

means of evaluation, in order to make a proper judgment of the extent

of the mold growth, and where it is located.

Don

>

> In a message dated 4/5/2007 2:09:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> BobB@... writes:

> > Is the " Reuter centrifugal sampler " be the same as the " Hycon

> > Biotest " sampler? YES

> >

> > Could these Levels from Canada be applied to the

> > Andersen Single and multiple stage samplers? YES

> >

> For what it's worth, the RCS sampling method in the Canadian

studies utilized

> Rose Bengal Agar growth medium.

>

> The principles and cfu levels remain valid for practical decision-

making

> purposes. Sampling is only a tool to assist in the application of

> professional judgment. The focus should not be on the numbers,

themselves, but what the

> sampling results mean in terms of environmental contamination and

the need to

> investigate or remediate further.

>

> Steve Temes

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Bob, for providing the citations. I will review them as

soon as I can.

I will note that the four Canadian references from 1988 through 1993

have been superseded by the Health Canada annex published last week.

I have spoken to my neighbor, (one of the co-authors

listed below), about this matter in the past, and he is in agreement

with the Health Canada annex concerning airborne mold spore

standards, namely, that they are not practical currently with the air

sampling methodology in use. When he co-authored the paper in 1988,

he had reason to believe differently, but he has since changed his

mind about this matter. He is one of the co-editors of the 2005 AIHA

Field Guide.

The Field Guide supports the position that standards for airborne

mold spores are not practical at the current time. That may change

as air sampling and analysis technology improves, and there is more

data collected on the mycotoxins and other agents which actually

cause the mold- and moisture-related illnesses. Until then, the best

advice that can be offered is what Steve Temes stated elegantly in

his recent posting, namely, only use mold air sampling data as

adjunct to the decision making process on mold remediation. I agree

with Steve on that.

Having served as Vice President of ISIAQ from 2003-6, I can say that

there are a fair number of American researchers and scientists who

attend both the Healthy Buildings and Indoor Air series of

international conferences on indoor air quality research, including

also a number of pracitioners. I believe that they attend these

conferences to hear about the research of their colleagues in other

countries, for which they have a considerable amount of respect. The

sharing of knowledge between researchers from different nations is

one of the key benefits of attendance at these international

conferences. I would doubt that the US researchers attending these

conferences would agree with the assessment that the research

conducted in other countries 'does not count'. One of the reasons I

have been attending, and presenting, at these conferences since 1993,

is to keep up with the most recent research in other countries. It

has informed my practice immensely over the years.

One of the documents listed below is from Indoor Air '99 in

Edinburgh, which I attended. I can fairly say that there are

often 'conflicting' research papers presented at such conferences.

One of the purposes of presenting research data at a conference is to

hear from your peers on this matter. I believe that the presenters

of the paper cited below (Construction Research Communications Ltd.)

did hear from their colleagues on this paper, who mostly disagreed

with the conclusions. Since the 1999 Edinburgh IA conference, I

don't remember any papers presented at Monterey IA 2002, Beijing IA

2005, Helsinki HB 2000, Singapore HB 2003, or Lisbon HB 2006 that

have supported the position of the setting of numerical airborne mold

spore standards. Perhaps, Bob, you can point them out to me. Thanks!

Living in Ontario, Canada since 2005 with OEL's that are updated

yearly (the last update was Wednesday, April 4th, 2007), I do

appreciate that there are other occupational health standards that

are useful in other countries. I think anyone who is in the health

and safety business in the US knows that the OSHA PEL's have fallen

hopelessly behind the rest of the world. They have not been

effectively updated since the founding of OSHA in 1972. I am hopeful

that this will change some day, but not overly hopeful, given the

political climate in the US.

I would tend to disagree with you that the ACGIH TLV's are in the

same category, however, regarding their current relevance. The TLV's

are updated yearly (most recent - March, 2007) and the TLV Committees

have attempted to keep up with all the potential new chemicals (and

other occupational health agents, such as bioaerosols) that may afect

the health of individuals in US workplaces. That is why ACGIH was

sued four times in early 2000's by business groups upset with

changing TLV's that affected their industry. ACGIH has successfully

defended itself against these 'attacks', and it continues to update

its current TLV's and adds new TLV's each year.

I never like to hear of any workplace deaths due to exposure to any

chemical. However, I am not sure that using a standard for a

chemical from another country would necessarily prevents the deaths

you mentioned. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on this matter in a

different forum.

Weekes

>

> Citing 'numbers' without peer review or

> epidemiological data to back them up is irresponsible.

>

> This implies that all 12 countries have toxicologists, doctors,

public

> health officials, etc. that don't review the literature BEFORE they

> recommend standards and guidelines.

> The most common quote from people in these countries that helped

with

> these books, is that

> " the US is egotistical and if the research was not done in the US,

it

> does not count. "

>

> Here are just a few of the peer reviewed documents. There are

hundreds

> more.

>

> 23. Construction Research Communications Ltd., " The Concentration

Of

> Mixed Populations Of Fungi In Indoor Air: Rooms With And Without

Mould

> Problems: Rooms With And WithoutHealth Complaints, " Indoor Air 99,

> Proceedings Of The 8th International Conference On Indoor Air

Quality

> And Climate, Construction Research Communications Ltd., London, UK,

> Vol. 1,1999, p. 920-924.

>

> 24. Dutch Occupational Heath (Hygiene) Association N

Vva. " Research

> Methods Biological IndoorAir Pollution, " Working Group Report,

CGFB,

> The Hague, Netherlands, 1989, p. 4-6, 18-19.

>

> 41. Sociaali-Ja Terveysminisetrioin Oppaassa, " Sisailmaohyeesaa On

> Sisailman Mikrobeille Esitetty Seurnavia Ohjearvoja, " Finnish

Institute

> Of Occupational Health, 1997.

>

> 188. Kim, Y.S., T.H. Stock, " House-Specific Characterization Of

> Indoor And Outdoor Aerosols, " Environment International, Vol. 12,

1986,

> p. 75-92.

>

> 405. Gorny R.L., Dutkiewicz J., " Bacterial and Fungal Aerosols in

> Indoor Environment in Centraland Eastern European Countries, "

ls of

> Argricultural Environmental Medicine, 2002; 9(1): 17-23, 2002.

>

> 34. National Health And Welfare, Canada, " IAQ In Office

Buildings: A

> Technical Guide, " National Office, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1993.

>

> 16. Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation, " Determination Of

Fungal

> Propagules In Indoor Air, " Paracel Laboratories Ltd., 1988.

>

> 17. Canada Mortgage And Housing Corporation, " Testing Of Old

Houses

> For Microbiological Pollutants, " National Office, Ottawa, Ontario,

> Canada, 1991.

>

> 360. Wanner, H., A. Verhoeff, A. Colombi, B. Flannigan, S.

Gravesen,

> A. Mouilleseaux, A. Nevalainen, J. Papadakis, K. Seidel, "

Biological

> Particles In Indoor Environments,, " Office For Official

Publications Of

> The European Community, Report No. 12, Eur 14988 En., 1993

>

> 404. Garrett, M., Hooper, B., Cole, F., Hooper, M., " Airborne

fungal

> spores in 80 homes in the Latrobe Valley, Australia: levels,

> seasonality and indoor-outdoor relationship, " Aerobiologia,1997, p.

> 121-126.

>

> 238. , J. D., A.M. Laflamme, Y. Sobol, P. Lafontaine, And R.

> Greenhalgh, " Fungi And Fungal Products In Some Canadian Houses, "

Int.

> Biodeterior. Bull., 24: 1988, p. 103-120.

>

> Remember the US only has TLVs for 600 chemicals. The rest of the

> world has OELs for over 5,000 chemicals. Not using these

standards

> from other countries WHEN THE US HAS NONE is both irresponsible and

> unethical.

>

> BTW if the US has followed the Latvian standard for Diacetyl - 30

US

> workers would NOT BE DEAD due to bronchial obliterans. The US has

no

> standard for Diacetyl.

>

> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

Sharon, et al;

May I disagree for a moment (I may be

confused for a second)? The term running through this thread stated as follows:

From the Health Canada Annex on Mould:

' " Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the

presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of

building occupants. "

I can not find myself agreeing with the

term “can not be use to access … .” If the term were stated “May

not “exclusively” be used to assess the risk to health of building

occupants without first eliminating other causes/sources …” or”

Can not be solely relied upon to conclude the risk to health of building

occupants without eliminating other causes/sources …” I could find

myself agreeing with these type of statements. To read it as it is causes

one to believe that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.

All data is relative either to help in

eliminating cause or to acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to

adverse health affect and/or illness.

I.e. If I receive a call that all office

occupants are exhibiting adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support

no other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of mold, it’s

associated spores, and body fragments over the outside conditions as well other

office spaces in the local areas, are they saying that the air sampled are of

no consideration to the EP and/or occupant as associated with potential (or genuine)

adverse health affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from

these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship to SBS or

BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now that may be a

different issue but to say it has no validity of “assessing” risk

to the health of building occupants when we have been informed one or more of

the occupants are immunocompromised (definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been impaired by disease or

treatment) is beyond me. I

just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This is why (my

opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve and therefore are

getting sicker as this debate continues.

Your thoughts on this are welcome.

EnviroBob

From:

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

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 3:52

PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:

" Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores

Don,

I think both of these statements are

scientifically correct and consistent:

From the Health Canada

Annex on Mould: ' " Further, in the absence of

exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air

cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

From the Manitoba document: There is still considerable

controversy over the acceptance of an

appropriate standard for a “safe” exposure to mould. There are many

factors that must be

considered in the establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary

that

guidelines be established for the purpose of providing direction for the

handling of

mould contamination.

One discusses air samples in conjunction

with determining the possibility if people will get sick or not. And

it says one cannot apply the numbers for use in this manner. The

other discusses a general rule of thumb to be used in determining if there is a

probability a building could be the cause illness and if there is a

need for future action to be taken.

But it seems to me, that what typically

triggers a future action in occupational settings, is if there are occupants

complaining of ill health. Then the air testing numbers become one aspect

in understanding why this is and what future action needs to be taken. In this

case, which is typical, both the Canadian Annex and the Manitoba document provide better direction,

not only for the building consultant but also for the health care provider.

Sharon

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Right you are Bob,

The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada. The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential to cause health problems to some segment of the population. Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and that is anything above zero.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores

Don,

I think both of these statements are scientifically correct and consistent:

From the Health Canada Annex on Mould: '"Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants."

From the Manitoba document: There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an appropriate standard for a “safe” exposure to mould. There are many factors that must be considered in the establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that guidelines be established for the purpose of providing direction for the handling of mould contamination.

One discusses air samples in conjunction with determining the possibility if people will get sick or not. And it says one cannot apply the numbers for use in this manner. The other discusses a general rule of thumb to be used in determining if there is a probability a building could be the cause illness and if there is a need for future action to be taken.

But it seems to me, that what typically triggers a future action in occupational settings, is if there are occupants complaining of ill health. Then the air testing numbers become one aspect in understanding why this is and what future action needs to be taken. In this case, which is typical, both the Canadian Annex and the Manitoba document provide better direction, not only for the building consultant but also for the health care provider.

Sharon

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

The fish are biting.

Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

[Guest guest]

Health Canada has established the same threshold; If there is mold clean it up. They also try to prevent mold growth in the first place by saying that water damage must be dealt with promptly.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores

Don,

I think both of these statements are scientifically correct and consistent:

From the Health Canada Annex on Mould: '"Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants."

From the Manitoba document: There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an appropriate standard for a “safe” exposure to mould. There are many factors that must be considered in the establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that guidelines be established for the purpose of providing direction for the handling of mould contamination.

One discusses air samples in conjunction with determining the possibility if people will get sick or not. And it says one cannot apply the numbers for use in this manner. The other discusses a general rule of thumb to be used in determining if there is a probability a building could be the cause illness and if there is a need for future action to be taken.

But it seems to me, that what typically triggers a future action in occupational settings, is if there are occupants complaining of ill health. Then the air testing numbers become one aspect in understanding why this is and what future action needs to be taken. In this case, which is typical, both the Canadian Annex and the Manitoba document provide better direction, not only for the building consultant but also for the health care provider.

Sharon

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

The fish are biting.Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

[Guest guest]

Bob,

"One may interoperate the document to its own benefit if it is not in language that is clear to all readers."

What does interoperate mean? (Get the joke?)

SharonSee what's free at AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

Bob and :

What Health Canada is saying is that the absence of exposure limits

for mold precludes the possibility that one can 'know' that a certain

level of mold spores triggers a certain adverse health reaction in

the population. It does not mean that mold spores may be the cause

of the illnesses experienced by the occupants. It just means that no

one currently knows exactly what levels of airborne mold spores cause

illness, much less a specific disease. This has not been proven

scientifically to date. So air sampling results, without a

threshold, cannot be used to 'prove' that the mold spores cause this

specific illness in an individual in this environment.

In effect, Health Canada is agreeing with the USEPA, in that there is

no current scientifically-based threshold known that will prevent

adverse health effects from mold spores. So the only environment can

be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no

mold spores.

Hope this clarifies this.

Don

>

> Right you are Bob,

>

> The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada.

The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential

to cause health problems to some segment of the population.

Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and

that is anything above zero.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

>

>

> Re: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores

>

> Don,

>

> I think both of these statements are scientifically correct and

consistent:

> From the Health Canada Annex on Mould: ' " Further, in the absence of

> exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in

air

> cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

> From the Manitoba document: There is still considerable controversy

over the acceptance of an

> appropriate standard for a " safe " exposure to mould. There are many

factors that must be

> considered in the establishment of such a standard. However, it is

necessary that

> guidelines be established for the purpose of providing direction

for the handling of

> mould contamination.

>

> One discusses air samples in conjunction with determining the

possibility if people will get sick or not. And it says one cannot

apply the numbers for use in this manner. The other discusses a

general rule of thumb to be used in determining if there is a

probability a building could be the cause illness and if there is a

need for future action to be taken.

>

> But it seems to me, that what typically triggers a future action in

occupational settings, is if there are occupants complaining of ill

health. Then the air testing numbers become one aspect in

understanding why this is and what future action needs to be taken.

In this case, which is typical, both the Canadian Annex and the

Manitoba document provide better direction, not only for the building

consultant but also for the health care provider.

>

> Sharon

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

>

>

> See what's free at AOL.com.

>

>

>

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

______________

> Never miss an email again!

> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.

> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

>

[Guest guest]

Don,

I totally agree with your statements. I am

concerned over attorneys playing the word game. As we all know, depending on

your position, one may interoperate the document to its own benefit if it is not

in language that is clear to all readers.

EnviroBob

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

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 11:08

AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re:

" Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores

Bob and :

What Health Canada is saying is that the absence of exposure limits

for mold precludes the possibility that one can 'know' that a certain

level of mold spores triggers a certain adverse health reaction in

the population. It does not mean that mold spores may be the cause

of the illnesses experienced by the occupants. It just means that no

one currently knows exactly what levels of airborne mold spores cause

illness, much less a specific disease. This has not been proven

scientifically to date. So air sampling results, without a

threshold, cannot be used to 'prove' that the mold spores cause this

specific illness in an individual in this environment.

In effect, Health Canada

is agreeing with the USEPA, in that there is

no current scientifically-based threshold known that will prevent

adverse health effects from mold spores. So the only environment can

be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no

mold spores.

Hope this clarifies this.

Don

>

> Right you are Bob,

>

> The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada.

The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential

to cause health problems to some segment of the population.

Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and

that is anything above zero.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

>

>

> Re: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores

>

> Don,

>

> I think both of these statements are scientifically correct and

consistent:

> From the Health Canada

Annex on Mould: ' " Further, in the absence of

> exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in

air

> cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

> From the Manitoba

document: There is still considerable controversy

over the acceptance of an

> appropriate standard for a " safe " exposure to mould. There are

many

factors that must be

> considered in the establishment of such a standard. However, it is

necessary that

> guidelines be established for the purpose of providing direction

for the handling of

> mould contamination.

>

> One discusses air samples in conjunction with determining the

possibility if people will get sick or not. And it says one cannot

apply the numbers for use in this manner. The other discusses a

general rule of thumb to be used in determining if there is a

probability a building could be the cause illness and if there is a

need for future action to be taken.

>

> But it seems to me, that what typically triggers a future action in

occupational settings, is if there are occupants complaining of ill

health. Then the air testing numbers become one aspect in

understanding why this is and what future action needs to be taken.

In this case, which is typical, both the Canadian Annex and the

Manitoba

document provide better direction, not only for the building

consultant but also for the health care provider.

>

> Sharon

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

>

>

> See what's free at AOL.com.

>

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________________

______________

> Never miss an email again!

> Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.

> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

>

[Guest guest]

Jim,

Excellent. EPA mold guielines stress dealing with water problems but unfortunately S520 does not. S520 does not have the remediator take responsiblity for making sure the water source has been fixed. Nor does S520 recommend any water damage training for remediators... at least not that I have seen.

The TX law makes a big deal out of making sure the water source is fixed. The TX law was strongly influenced by EPA. The TX test to get licensed is right out of the EPA mold guidelines.

The proposed FLA law makes water damage training a requirement for mold remediation and mold assessors. So I think we are on the right track there.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Re: "Acceptable" Levels of Mould Spores

Don,

I think both of these statements are scientifically correct and consistent:

From the Health Canada Annex on Mould: '"Further, in the absence of exposure limits, results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to assess risks to the health of building occupants."

From the Manitoba document: There is still considerable controversy over the acceptance of an appropriate standard for a “safe” exposure to mould. There are many factors that must be considered in the establishment of such a standard. However, it is necessary that guidelines be established for the purpose of providing direction for the handling of mould contamination.

One discusses air samples in conjunction with determining the possibility if people will get sick or not. And it says one cannot apply the numbers for use in this manner. The other discusses a general rule of thumb to be used in determining if there is a probability a building could be the cause illness and if there is a need for future action to be taken.

But it seems to me, that what typically triggers a future action in occupational settings, is if there are occupants complaining of ill health. Then the air testing numbers become one aspect in understanding why this is and what future action needs to be taken. In this case, which is typical, both the Canadian Annex and the Manitoba document provide better direction, not only for the building consultant but also for the health care provider.

Sharon

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

The fish are biting.Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out

new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

[Guest guest]

Don:

I generally agree with what you stated, except for: “ So the only environment can be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no mold spores.” Practically speaking Don, just where does one find an environment where there are no mold spores?

Bob and :

What Health Canada is saying is that the absence of exposure limits

for mold precludes the possibility that one can 'know' that a certain

level of mold spores triggers a certain adverse health reaction in

the population. It does not mean that mold spores may be the cause

of the illnesses experienced by the occupants. It just means that no

one currently knows exactly what levels of airborne mold spores cause

illness, much less a specific disease. This has not been proven

scientifically to date. So air sampling results, without a

threshold, cannot be used to 'prove' that the mold spores cause this

specific illness in an individual in this environment.

In effect, Health Canada is agreeing with the USEPA, in that there is

no current scientifically-based threshold known that will prevent

adverse health effects from mold spores. So the only environment can

be considered 'safe' for all individuals is one where there are no

mold spores.

Hope this clarifies this.

Don

>

> Right you are Bob,

>

> The EPA takes a much different approach than does Health Canada.

The EPA clearly states that any indoor mold growth has the potential

to cause health problems to some segment of the population.

Although you can argue that the EPA has established a threshold and

that is anything above zero.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

> www.Mold-Books.com

>

>

>

> RE: Re: " Acceptable " Levels of Mould Spores

>

> Sharon, et al;

>

> May I disagree for a moment (I may be confused for a second)? The

term running through this thread stated as follows: From the Health

Canada Annex on Mould: ' " Further, in the absence of exposure limits,

results from tests for the presence of fungi in air cannot be used to

assess risks to the health of building occupants. "

>

> I can not find myself agreeing with the term " can not be use to

access ∑ . " If the term were stated " May not " exclusively " be used to

assess the risk to health of building occupants without first

eliminating other causes/sources ∑ " or " Can not be solely relied upon

to conclude the risk to health of building occupants without

eliminating other causes/sources ∑ " I could find myself agreeing with

these type of statements. To read it as it is causes one to believe

that mold has no adverse health impact upon any building occupant.

>

> All data is relative either to help in eliminating cause or to

acknowledge and/or confirm attributes of associations to adverse

health affect and/or illness.

>

> I.e. If I receive a call that all office occupants are exhibiting

adverse health affects and all other sampling/testing support no

other contamination in the space except magnitudes of elevations of

mold, it's associated spores, and body fragments over the outside

conditions as well other office spaces in the local areas, are they

saying that the air sampled are of no consideration to the EP and/or

occupant as associated with potential (or genuine) adverse health

affects in which they suffer? We all know people who suffer from

these conditions. If the document were even stating its relationship

to SBS or BRI as not being the sole contributor until confirmed; now

that may be a different issue but to say it has no validity

of " assessing " risk to the health of building occupants when we have

been informed one or more of the occupants are immunocompromised

(definition: Immunocompromised: Having an immune system that has been

impaired by disease or treatment) is beyond me. I

> just can see making linier statements in a non-linier world. This

is why (my opinion) many are not getting the treatment they deserve

and therefore are getting sicker as this debate continues.

>

> Your thoughts on this are welcome.

>

> EnviroBob

>

>