Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2007 Report Share Posted April 4, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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 > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2007 Report Share Posted April 5, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2007 Report Share Posted April 6, 2007 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2007 Report Share Posted April 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 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/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 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/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2007 Report Share Posted April 13, 2007 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.