Could it be mold? I need some opinions

[jbraun (James E. Braun, CMI)]

@jfarsetta

Dude, you need a better understanding of the atmosphere and building science…

I have taken mold courses. I have seen the litigation regarding construction defects and mold issues. The trends are changing, and high payouts are becoming a thing of the past. There is a reason for it.

Hysteria is being replaced by common sense.

I have the feeling that you are one of the type of inspectors that I often have to clean-up after because the client is still becoming ill. This type of inspector charges a fee and says mold is just hype but I have no idea why you are having chronic symptoms when you are in your home.

[jbraun (James E. Braun, CMI)]

Finding the cause of the problem is common sense. Denying the problem exists is foolish.

[jbraun (James E. Braun, CMI)]

And another thing, Joe. You do not believe that water grains in the air can not be absorbed by drywall? You are smarter than that.

[jfarsetta (Joe Farsetta)]

James,

“Water grains” ???

Do you mean moisture, or droplets, or perhaps granules? Grains?

Wheat or oat?

Come on…

I have the feeling that you are one of the type of inspectors that I often have to clean-up after because the client is still becoming ill.

I have no idea why you are having chronic symptoms when you are in your home

And this is PRECISELY the problem with our industry, James. You see, you also HAVE NO IDEA WHY THE CLIENT IS FEELING ILL.

Is is mold? Is it something else. Tell me, James, what else shall we test for today?

Please tell me… Are you an immunologist? An allergist? A pulmonologist? An interninst? A respiratory therapist? An infectious disease doctor? An osteopath? A rheumatologist? An orthapedist? A neurologist?

What gives you the pedigree, legally or morally, to make the statement you made with regard to discovering what is wrong with someone’s HEALTH? You have no BUSINESS, legaly or otherwise to develop any hypothesis with regard to human illness.

Read the research. Read the re-print from the mayo clinic and other research institutes with regard to the correlation between molds and the alleged illnesses associated with it. Officially, there is little to support the hysteria of blaming mold for everything from cancer (unless it is actually INGESTED in large quantities) to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

So, are we speaking of simple allergies or hypersensitive pneumonitis? Is it Legionairre’s Disease. What is it?

With one person feeling ill, it definitely AIN’T sick building syndrome.

Had the client gone for testing by a medical doctor? Has the physician recommended testing for mold and other substances? How about pesticides or herbicides, dust, and dander? Or anything else, for that matter. What PROTOCOLS shall we use today? Will we bore into the wall and take a sample from the wall cavity. What is the acceptable level of aspergillius for your client to live with. Can you tell me, please. Give me a number?

Oh, I forgot… there is no such number or level.

Give me a break. Read the transcription of the teleconference given by the CDC relative to Katrina and being fleeced by mold testing companies. Oh, I forgot. You are obviously far more knowledgable on this subject that the physician who heads the CDC’s division on respiratory illnesses, and the EPA official involved with the issue, or the head of Louisiana’s Health Department.

Silly me.

Dont mean to be combative here, James… but a lot of what you are saying can steer inspectors in the wrong direction.

[badair (Barry Adair, EIFSTX#39)]

[quote=ccurrins]
You may already have these. In case you don’t.

EPA has a decent free course, also good for Nachi credit.

http://www.epa.gov/mold/moldcourse/resourcelibrary.html

[pretty neat trick to get credit for something without any means of verification! :roll:

• The National Environmental Health Association (NEHA)

• **American Indoor Air Quality Council (AIAQC)
  ](“http://www.forensic-applications.com/moulds/mvue.html”)

[badair (Barry Adair, EIFSTX#39)]

You can also get 12 Hrs credit for the NACHI Mold Course in less then 1 hour, just take and pass the final exam, another neat trick :roll:

Does this bother anyone?

[mlarson (Michael Larson, WI Lic. # 1672-106)]

@badair

You can also get 12 Hrs credit for the NACHI Mold Course in less then 1 hour, just take and pass the final exam, another neat trick :roll:

Does this bother anyone?

Yes:(

[badair (Barry Adair, EIFSTX#39)]

@mlarson

Yes:(

At least there’s a test to pass for credit…

I’ve been to many on-site CE where some just slept though the course and received their credit just like the ones that paid attention and actually learned something

Maybe I’m thinking too much of an on-line course that can be used in some states for license renewal

btw…the information was useful, it just lessens the credibility of the industry when “pseudo-certifications” are issued by others and NACHI…jmo

[jfarsetta (Joe Farsetta)]

Barry,

No one is allowed to sleep in any of my classes, or run the risk of catching a beat-down from the instructor:D

[badair (Barry Adair, EIFSTX#39)]

@jfarsetta

Barry,

No one is allowed to sleep in any of my classes, or run the risk of catching a beat-down from the instructor:D

Joe,

Exceptions exist, not the norm, I commend you!

Just in case keep

http://www.healthinajiffy.co.uk/images/breathe%20right%20tan%20large%2010.jpg

on hand

[ccurrins (Christopher Currins, CMI)]

@badair

Chris,

Do you know how much credit NACHI issues?

Nothing on the EPA site except for this:

Please note: This course is free and available to all. EPA will not provide a certificate, certification, or any other credential for viewing the course – it is for informational purposes only. Some organizations may choose to offer continuing education credits (CEUs) for completion of the course. The knowledge tests are for the information of the person taking the course only. EPA does not track test results or provide the information to any other party. All participation in the course is completely anonymous.
Continuing Education Credits (CEUs) and other educational uses of the EPA Mold Course

This course, or portions of this course, may be used for presentations and educational purposes without contacting EPA - please see the EPA Privacy and Security Notice for more information.
Some organizations may choose to offer CEUs for viewing or studying this course. This decision is solely that of the organization - EPA will not offer any type of CEU or certificate for completing this course.
Organizations offering education credits for viewing the course include:
](http://www.iaqcouncil.org)
pretty neat trick to get credit for something without any means of verification! :roll:

InterNACHI® - International Association of Certified Home Inspectors

U.S. (EPA) Mold Web Course
Jul 27, 2007 in Washington, DC Credits 4.0_

I agree with the way to get credit without verification. Personally I believe for someone to skip through these courses or say they did but didn’t would be their loss. I read through this one and took all of the quizzes. This was before Nachi had a mold course.

This shows proctored exams do help.

Note: I do not offer mold inspections.

[jbraun (James E. Braun, CMI)]

Joe,
If all you going to do is to twist my words around than to have a sensible conversation, than I will be done talking with you.
You got to listen to be a good teacher Joe. Just go to a local mold victims group in your area before you start spouting mold is just a fraud. Your ignorance about mold can and someday will endanger an innocent life. If you get to Missouri, I will be glad to arrange some meetings with my former clients for they can share their stories with you.
Think about this Joe, if a client was getting ill, the doctors do not know why and this has been going on for years. The only thing that could be found in the environment was considered toxic mold and the mold was remediated successfully. A couple days later the client’s symptoms disappeared. What changed? (I can show you too many of my cases, so this cannot be a coincidence.)
Note: Some of my clients have experienced permanent disabilities because of mold. They will most likely be disabled for the rest of their lives. But most of the chronic symptoms have disappeared after the mold was remediated successfully.
I help mold victims for a living. I do not just read or listen to information that our government throws out there, because the government has been wrong before. I try to keep up on current information by studying what the top mold specialist in our country have found. (The government takes too long to adopt to new studies.) I am in the trenches fighting for the lives of my clients. Narrow minds will not stop me. Common sense always prevail.

[mlarson (Michael Larson, WI Lic. # 1672-106)]

The Toxic Mold Rush: California Mom Helps Fuel an Obsession

There’s no doubt that the mold incubating in Erin’s lungs 10 years ago was real, as was her severe allergic reaction. What is in doubt — severe doubt — is the “toxic clouds” and poisonous spores blamed throughout California and the nation for maladies from hemorrhoids to bleeding scalp, memory loss, athlete’s foot and even rotten teeth.
Oh, there’s mold there. Mold accounts for a quarter of the world’s biomass. It is living rot, and, to many, a sign of death. Mold can sicken people in three ways, according to the National Academy of Sciences and the CDC. Very large quantities can irritate a person’s nose or eyes. It can cause an allergic response. In the very frail, it can cause infection.
Mold grows in moisture and warmth, emitting spores and cell fragments. But there’s no evidence that it can take away a 480-pound man’s ability to run, as one very fat victim claimed, or cause a person’s teeth to itch, as another insisted.
As insurance companies and builders stiffened their defense in response to the “mold rush,” scientist Bruce Kelman entered the picture — as a skeptical, serious scientific type calling out the mold movement.

Click story headline to read whole thing.

[jfarsetta (Joe Farsetta)]

James,

You’re a bit dramatic for me. Who are you? Ben Casey or Dr. Kildare.

Think about this Joe, if a client was getting ill, the doctors do not know why and this has been going on for years. The only thing that could be found in the environment was considered toxic mold and the mold was remediated successfully. A couple days later the client’s symptoms disappeared. What changed? (I can show you too many of my cases, so this cannot be a coincidence.)

Let’s see, James. Could it be that the ALLERGIC REACTION to the mold which was present magnified another toxic substance in or around the environment, which is the REAL cause of the problem to begin with?

Was the mold the actual problem, or a trigger mechanism for something else.

Sorry, but… I’m truly sorry that members of your family got sick. However, the more that is learned about mold, the more it is debunked.

And, its not just me. In fact, the great Texas mold case, which was settled for substantially less than what was originally awarded (on appeal) is rarely mentioned.

Again, the more that is discovered by health care professionals, the more doubt is cast on the TRUE nature of what is happening.

Some of my clients have experienced permanent disabilities because of mold. They will most likely be disabled for the rest of their lives.

More drama.

I am in the trenches fighting for the lives of my clients. Narrow minds will not stop me. Common sense always prevail.

Just because others do not believe your entire line of crap, does not translate into a narrow mind. Sure mold can and is unhealthy. But the degree of drama you throw around should win you a drama desk award.

As to common sense prevailing… All I can say is that I sincerely hope so.

[jfarsetta (Joe Farsetta)]

The following information is presented as a reminder that the truth has yet to be determined with regard to mold exposure.

The final bits of information deal specifically why the tide has apparently turned against those who claim that mold is to blame for just about everything. it is a long read, but makes some of my points, especially as it pertains to litigation…

[FONT=Arial]One was a 2002 report by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) that nullified the arguments of many victims, and decimated several court cases that might have won big bucks. The paper asserted that severe and debilitating health effects from indoor mold were “highly unlikely at best, even for the most vulnerable of subpopulations.”
Top scientific groups like the National Academy of Sciences see no evidence that mold can hurt healthy people. The academy’s study, seen as one of the most comprehensive by both sides of the mold divide, was unable to prove a direct link between mold and severe ailments in healthy people. Its mild language found “sufficient evidence of an association between exposure to damp indoor environments [which incubate mold] and some respiratory health outcomes” of a modest variety — shortness of breath, wheezing and coughing.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]The following information should be read and understood. It goes to the heart of the “problem” relative to incorrect diagnosis with regard to perceived illnesses relative to mold exposure, and any other number of factors which could contribute to failing health.

Therefore, any injury or illness allegedly caused by exposure to a “toxic” substance should be analyzed using the above framework in order to have scientific and epidemiologic validity. If not, the opinion on causation should be excluded. This is especially true under a Daubert analysis that will examine, among other things, the quality of the scientific method used to arrive at an expert’s opinion on causation. If the plaintiff cannot establish that their expert’s causation opinions are based on sound scientific methodology, which in the field of toxicology is defined as the Bradford-Hill Criteria, the gate-keeping role of the trial court requires preclusion of that expert under Daubert. With that said, let’s take a closer look at the application of the criteria to an alleged “toxic” mold case.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]The first criteria, Strength of Association is an examination of whether more intense exposure leads to more frequent or more severe effects. It is measured in epidemiological studies as the magnitude of the measure of effect… … one would look to seasonal changes in the ambient air mold content as well as any variations in the results of air quality testing and compare them to the documented complaints or symptoms contained in the medical records. Only where there is a demonstrated worsening of medical symptoms as the mold exposure increases is the Strength of Association demonstrated.

… Due to the ubiquitous nature of molds in the environment, it is extremely unlikely to ever be in an environment completely free of all mold spores or hyphae.

Establishing the Consistency of Association requires that an association be found regularly in a variety of medically valid and scientifically supported studies…. In essence, there must be published, scientifically valid medical studies that show consistent health effects from the same molds across the tested population. This is especially important in the mold exposure dynamic. It is not disputed that there are literally hundreds of species of molds, not all of which are even suspected or claimed of being a health hazard.

It is therefore of paramount importance to identify the mold, down to its species, that is alleged to have caused an adverse health effect. It is not possible to make this type of inquiry at the genus level as, for example, there are over two hundred species of penicillium and many species of aspergillus, some of which are used for beneficial or innocuous purposes, such as making penicillin or Roquefort cheese. Once one or more specific species are identified, one must look for studies that are directly applicable to the claimed agent or agents

While the examination of epidemiological studies is but one of many factors in a Daubert analysis using the Bradford Hill criteria, it may be more prominent in a Frye challenge… In such a challenge, the court will look to see if the opinion of plaintiff’s expert has gained acceptance in the field and should review all pertinent literature. If there are no scientifically valid studies regarding the mold or molds that are the subject of the lawsuit, it will be difficult to prove general acceptance. Under the Bradford Hill evaluation*, if there is no pertinent supporting literature as defined above, the criteria are not satisfied and the expert’s opinion should be found unreliable and therefore precluded.*

There are numerous studies of the mycotoxic effects of molds that go back many years… Most significantly, to date, no valid peer reviewed study has been put forth establishing toxic causation as a result of the inhalation of mycotoxins by humans. Thus, any claim of such a toxic causation should fail the Bradford-Hill analysis, as it cannot satisfy the Consistency of Association requirement.

Dr. Stephen Redd of the Centers for Disease Control highlighted the difference between ingestion and inhalation and the lack of evidence on the effects of the latter in his testimony before a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Housing and Community Opportunity. In his testimony, Dr. Redd noted that the only evidence of tumors being connected to mycotoxin exposure was as a result of chronic ingestion of toxin contaminated foods. While acknowledging the reactive airway and asthmatic effects of inhalation exposure to mold, he went on to state that there is simply an absence of evidence linking inhalation exposure with pulmonary hemorrhage, memory loss or lethargy. The epidemiological studies of the effects of ingestion exposure should not, on their own, suffice to show consistency of association in a case of inhaled or other type of exposure. *Only when a study shows consistency of association in the same manner of exposure will this aspect of the epidemiological criteria be satisfied.
*

The Plausibility and Coherence criteria ask whether there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the proposed agent/response association fits into existing biologic or medical knowledge. This also requires an examination of the actual mechanism that is claimed or suspected of linking the cause and effect and determining if it makes medical sense. In other words, “how would an inhaled mycotoxin cause a tumor, brain damage or damage to the immune system?” The existence of a possible mechanism of cause and effect will increase the likelihood of exposure-disease association. Likewise, the absence of a plausible causative mechanism will make the association less likely.

The application of the Bradford Hill criteria in evaluating the reliability of the opinions of a plaintiff’s expert was illustrated in detail in Amorgianos v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corporation, 137 F. Supp 2d 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff’d on appeal 303 F. 3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002). Here, using the Bradford Hill criteria in a Daubert analysis, the court determined that various opinions expressed by the plaintiffs’ experts that permanent illness due to xylene exposure did not satisfy the established criteria. The court found that there was insufficient support in the medical literature for the plaintiffs claim of exposure related chronic neurological condition and therefore precluded any testimony on the matter… The plaintiff’s claims that did not satisfy the Bradford Hill criteria were dismissed. The Bradford Hill criteria have also been applied in federal cases in Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Jersey, Illinois and Texas, among others.

This methodological framework has also now been applied under the Daubert standard in a federal case of alleged mold poisoning. In Roche v. Lincoln Property Co., (No. 02-1390 E.D.Va, July 25, 2003.), the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, evaluated the claims by plaintiffs expert physician that exposure to Stachybotrys, Cladosporium, Penicillium and Aspergillus caused chronic headaches, nasal stuffiness, shortness of breath, sinus congestion and chest congestion. Citing Cavallo v. Star Enterprise, 892, F. Supp. 756, the Court confirmed that the principles and methodologies of toxicology, as set forth by the World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, and other agencies of the United States government, had to be applied to the opinions set forth by plaintiffs expert to aid in determining reliability, and thus, admissibility.

In the opinion of plaintiffs’ expert, the above symptoms were due to exposure to the various molds found in their apartment. Plaintiffs’ expert did not, however, develop a differential diagnosis to rule out other possible causes of the plaintiffs’ symptoms. He could not rule in or rule out the impact that the other allergies for which the plaintiffs tested positive had on their health. In fact, the only one of the methodological criteria plaintiffs could satisfy was the temporal relationship between exposure and symptoms. The court found that temporality, on its own, is insufficient to satisfy the scientific inquiry to Daubert satisfaction. The Court then dismissed all claims of injury and thus, granted summary judgment, as there were no provable damages.

In sum, for every claimed mold exposure there are several variables that must be examined including: the species of mold, the presence or absence of mycotoxins, the degree of exposure (in both concentration and duration), the prior health of the plaintiff, the condition of the plaintiff during the exposure and the injuries alleged as a result. A complex evaluation must be made in the context of the accepted epidemiological and toxicological methodologies to determine if a cause and effect relationship can be established. If not, the proposed causal connection should not withstand scientific challenge in court. Unless and until there is solid epidemiological evidence specifically showing that certain species of molds, inhaled by humans at certain levels of exposure, cause the toxic effects such as neurological damage, memory loss or an increased risk of cancer, as claimed by some plaintiffs, the accepted toxicological criteria will not be satisfied and there should be no “toxic” in mold.

[/FONT]

[jbushart (James H. Bushart)]

Joe,

You really need to restate these points and expound upon them on your next NACHI Tv video. I’m sure that the NACHI Tv Educational Film Producer, in his constant search for truth over hyperbole, would be happy to produce it.

In all seriousness…I think that there was a lot of hoopla made over mold on both sides of the issue. Lawyers who were waiting for the ambulance driver strike to end found a new “novelty lawsuit” they could exploit. On our side of the fence, many home inspectors and laboratories decided to take advantage of the hysteria.

Now that more actual studies have been performed, it looks like the middle of the road (as usual) has the smoothest travel.

Should an elderly man dying from emphazema lie in a bed in a room filled with mold spores? Of course not. Will Mark Phelps die from the mold growing on his towel as he swims 20 laps tomorrow? Probably not. The truth can rarely be found in the extremes.

[msylvester (Mark Sylvester, #0500001766)]

Bottom line is that there are way too many things that can contribute to ones health problems. The first thing out of my mouth with clients is “Do you or anyone in your family have health related problems such as asthma, allergies, or anything else. Have you all been previously tested for both environmental and food related allergies or any other testing. Etc.”

Joe last I knew you weren’t a DR or even close to becoming qualified as one, so what makes you any different or anymore qualified? Remember there is no such qualifications. Why the constant ranting about how you know all? I’m pretty sure we are all here to learn. You fuel the fire instead of being helpful.

[jbushart (James H. Bushart)]

@msylvester

Bottom line is that there are way too many things that can contribute to ones health problems. The first thing out of my mouth with clients is “Do you or anyone in your family have health related problems such as asthma, allergies, or anything else. Have you all been previously tested for both environmental and food related allergies or any other testing. Etc.”

Joe last I knew you weren’t a DR or even close to becoming qualified as one, so what makes you any different or anymore qualified? Remember there is no such qualifications. Why the constant ranting about how you know all? I’m pretty sure we are all here to learn. You fuel the fire instead of being helpful.

Joe told me a story once about how he wrote up a basement for moisture damage and warned the client of conditions conducive to mold. Without further examination or inspection after Joe’s advice, the client bought the property anyway. After moving in he discovered an odor and hired a “mold guy” to inspect who tore out a wall behind a pile of furniture that was present during Joe’s inspection and found mold he claimed to be “toxic”…alarming the client by forbidding him to go into the basement…and the client wanted to hold Joe accountable. The inspector, by tearing out the wall, released more spores and caused more danger to the client than had previously existed.

This kind of crap would sour me, too.

There are people in our profession who are exploiting mold…with the mantra “Mold is Gold”. They are doing it at the expense of the consumer and, in some cases, at the expense of the good reputations of fellow home inspectors.

Our SOP excludes mold. Those of us who do not offer the additional service do not concern ourselves beyond the existence of conducive conditions for mold and/or wood destroying insects.

[jbraun (James E. Braun, CMI)]

There are too some untrained home inspectors out there but I do not tell people that home inspectors are frauds.
And how could the mold spores cause damage when Joe says mold is not dangerous?
Joe cannot paint everything with a broad brush.
Joe’s problem is with that inspector. Not the mold industry.

[jbushart (James H. Bushart)]

@jbraun

There are too some untrained home inspectors out there but I do not tell people that home inspectors are frauds.
And how could the mold spores cause damage when Joe says mold is not dangerous?
Joe cannot paint everything with a broad brush.
Joe’s problem is with that inspector. Not the mold industry.

I don’t disagree, James.

Few people know the extent of your training and the fact that you actually employ a forensic hygenist to work with you.

Unlike you with your investment in training, equipment and skilled employees…some so-called “mold inspectors” become so by watching a video, calling themselves certified, and establishing an account with Pro-Lab.

Those who sell the video and provide the lab services will argue that this is sufficient. You know it’s not…and these are the folks who are being addressed, generally, in Joe’s comments, I’m sure.