RE: Re: Another new technology

August 17, 2007

,

To expand on your point let me

add what occurs during construction of a building.

I completed environmental

studies in order to show what airborne and surfaceborne fungi comes with new

building materials. My studies started in 1988 at Oregon saw mills and open air

drying fields where I collected air and surface mold spore studies looking at

fungal characterization of the surrounding environment affecting newly cut lumber.

My results are consistent with USFS studies including mold growth on newly cut

lumber sap such as Ceratocystis, Ophiostoma, and Ceratosystiopsis colonies.

I studied construction sites, where

I identified mold in the surrounding dirt, dust and flora on plants and trees.

I found similar fungal characterization of environmental dust and spores in the

newly framed buildings. Finally, I clandestine studied Lowes, Home Depot and

several specialized lumber stores. I found lumber by this point already has

growth on it and settled spores from dust. The stores didn’t

substantially impact the characterization of fungi populations.

In conclusion, what impacted spore

population on new lumber the most was: (1) its natural drying time in open fields

where it is exposed to air and high moisture (e.g., rain); and (2) lumber at

construction sites where disturbance of ground (e.g., trucks moving on dirt,

back hoes, trenching, cutting nearby trees and flora), and leaving dusty

buildings exposed to humid or wet weather conditions. All of these factors

create the mold fingerprint that building framing will have for the rest of its

life. What I attempt to show to builders, they can reduce the micro-bio load of

settled dust in newly framed structures by using good cleanup methods including

removing visible saw dust and debris followed by vacuuming or air-sparging.

Moffett

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of

Shane

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:05 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology

The short answer is: 1) the mold growth originated from the spores already

present on the substrate, 2) more spores likely came with the water, 3) new spores

landed every time someone brought home food, used food or came in the house, 4)

spores came into the home even when the house was closed up. I don't have to

know what kind of mold was growing. This is how mold goes about growing on

everything that gets wet.

Actually, this is a typical case that insurance handle where

they want to know how old the mold is, and if there was existing mold before

the damage occurred. Mostly a quite impossible question to answer.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

D. Shane, Ph.D.

Vice President of Laboratory Services/

I just reviewed a case file regarding inadequate and/or negligent

remediation. I think you will find the facts interesting, and applicable to

this discussion of spores, dry or wet, removal or abrasion, etc.

In this particular case, during a 2002 inspection of an area

with a leaky appliance an IH stated that the active mold growth he

identified was the result of the left over, but dormant, spores from a previous

1996 remediation cleaning up mold from a leak in the same appliance. By the

way, in 2002, the floor was wet, as in active, liquid water present.

He does not attempt to opine about the source of the 2002 mold,

other than a leaky appliance.

Nor is there documentation about the appliance being fixed or

replaced.

Interestingly enough, a third inspection, this time in

2004, found similar problems, and it related the wet moldy condition to the

previous 2002 remediation. Yes, wet, again.

Also, the 2002 spec did not address any water leaks or problems.

Just the remediation and clean up of mold. Which by the way included cleaning

of all contents, including those on the second floor.

(there's a lot more, but you get the point)

So, I ask, if the 2004 mold was result of poor remediation of the

2002 mold and the 2002 mold was result of poor remediation of the 1996 mold,

where did the 1996 mold originate?

Or, simply, Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

Oh yeah, and just for kix, the IH consultant in 2002 was

hired by the insurance company addressing the loss, by 2004 he had

switched consulting firms and was then the IH hired by the owner, who is suing

the same insurance company who was his client in 2002! How this happens is

beyond me.

Armour, M.S.

Armour Applied Science, LLC

Green Building Healthy Building

Cleveland, OH

<earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo>

" The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by

the level of thinking that created them. " A.Einstein

" If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to

know' and if,

knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless and

frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of those

who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, we

should look around and see what other course is open to us. "

Carson

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

<earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo>

August 17, 2007

,

I think I hear you saying that visible mold on wood framing is not

limited to what is commonly assumed to be " just " lumber yard mold

(Ceratocystis, Ophiostoma, and Ceratosystiopsis). That it is likely

to be the more common types of concern.

If so, then I would surmise that removal is advised rather than

leaving in place or extensive testing first.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

>

> ,

> To expand on your point let me add what occurs during construction of

> a building.

> I completed environmental studies in order to show what airborne and

> surfaceborne fungi comes with new building materials. My studies

> started in 1988 at Oregon saw mills and open air drying fields where

> I collected air and surface mold spore studies looking at fungal

> characterization of the surrounding environment affecting newly cut

> lumber. My results are consistent with USFS studies including mold

> growth on newly cut lumber sap such as Ceratocystis, Ophiostoma, and

> Ceratosystiopsis colonies.

> I studied construction sites, where I identified mold in the

> surrounding dirt, dust and flora on plants and trees. I found similar

> fungal characterization of environmental dust and spores in the newly

> framed buildings. Finally, I clandestine studied Lowes, Home Depot

> and several specialized lumber stores. I found lumber by this point

> already has growth on it and settled spores from dust. The stores

> didn´t substantially impact the characterization of fungi

> populations.

> In conclusion, what impacted spore population on new lumber the most

> was: (1) its natural drying time in open fields where it is exposed

> to air and high moisture (e.g., rain); and (2) lumber at construction

> sites where disturbance of ground (e.g., trucks moving on dirt, back

> hoes, trenching, cutting nearby trees and flora), and leaving dusty

> buildings exposed to humid or wet weather conditions. All of these

> factors create the mold fingerprint that building framing will have

> for the rest of its life. What I attempt to show to builders, they

> can reduce the micro-bio load of settled dust in newly framed

> structures by using good cleanup methods including removing visible

> saw dust and debris followed by vacuuming or air-sparging.

>

> Moffett

>

> From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On

> Behalf Of Shane

> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 5:05 AM

> To: iequality

> Subject: Re: Re: Another new technology

>

> The short answer is: 1) the mold growth originated from the spores

> already present on the substrate, 2) more spores likely came with the

> water, 3) new spores landed every time someone brought home food,

> used food or came in the house, 4) spores came into the home even

> when the house was closed up. I don't have to know what kind of mold

> was growing. This is how mold goes about growing on everything that

> gets wet.

>

> Actually, this is a typical case that insurance handle where they

> want to know how old the mold is, and if there was existing mold

> before the damage occurred. Mostly a quite impossible question to

> answer.

> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

>

> D. Shane, Ph.D.

>

> Vice President of Laboratory Services/

>

> I just reviewed a case file regarding inadequate and/or negligent

> remediation. I think you will find the facts interesting, and

> applicable to this discussion of spores, dry or wet, removal or

> abrasion, etc.

>

> In this particular case, during a 2002 inspection of an area witha

> leaky appliance an IH stated that the active mold growth he

> identified was the result of the left over, but dormant, spores from

> a previous 1996 remediation cleaning up mold from a leak in the same

> appliance. By the way, in 2002, the floor was wet, as in active,

> liquid water present.

>

> He does not attempt to opine about the source of the 2002 mold, other

> than a leaky appliance.

>

> Nor is there documentation about the appliance being fixed or

> replaced.

>

> Interestingly enough,a third inspection, this timein 2004, found

> similar problems, and it related the wet moldy condition to the

> previous 2002 remediation. Yes, wet, again.

>

> Also, the 2002 spec did not address any water leaks or problems. Just

> the remediation and clean up of mold. Which by the way included

> cleaning of all contents, including those on the second floor.

>

> (there'sa lot more, but you get the point)

>

> So, I ask, if the 2004 mold was result of poor remediation of the

> 2002 mold and the 2002 mold was result of poor remediation of the

> 1996 mold, where did the 1996 mold originate?

>

> Or, simply, Which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?

>

> Oh yeah, and just for kix, the IH consultant in 2002 was hiredby the

> insurance company addressing the loss, by 2004 he had switched

> consulting firms and was then the IH hired by the owner, who is suing

> the same insurance company who was his client in 2002! How this

> happens is beyond me.

>

> Armour, M.S.

> Armour Applied Science, LLC

> Green Building Healthy Building

> Cleveland, OH

>

> <earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo>

>

> " The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the

> level of thinking that created them. " A.Einstein

>

> " If having endured much, we at last asserted our 'right to know' and

> if,

> knowing, we have concluded that we are being asked to take senseless

> and

> frightening risks, then we should no longer accept the counsel of

> those

> who tell us that we must fill our world with poisonous chemicals, we

> should look around and see what other course is open to us. "

> Carson

>

> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

> <earth%20africa%20satellite%20photo>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

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

> always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are

> making such material available in our efforts to advance

> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,

> democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe

> this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as

> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance

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

> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

> interest in receiving the included information for research and

> educational purposes. For more information go to:

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

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

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

> owner.

>

August 17, 2007