World Health Organization says mold is a health hazard. That ends the argument IMHO.

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

The following is from the recent (July, 2009) World Health Organization’s Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality, Dampness and Mold (note, I bolded the bold parts):

The conditions that contribute to the health risk were summarized as follows.

• The prevalence of indoor dampness varies widely within and among countries, continents and climate zones. It is estimated to affect 10–50% of indoor environments in Europe, North America, Australia, India and Japan. In certain settings, such as river valleys and coastal areas, the conditions of dampness are substantially more severe than the national averages for such conditions.
• The amount of water on or in materials is the most important trigger of the growth of microorganisms, including fungi, actinomycetes and other bacteria.
• Microorganisms are ubiquitous. Microbes propagate rapidly wherever water is available. The dust and dirt normally present in most indoor spaces provide sufficient nutrients to support extensive microbial growth. While mould can grow on all materials, selection of appropriate materials can prevent dirt accumulation, moisture penetration and mould growth.
• Microbial growth may result in greater numbers of spores, cell fragments, alergens, mycotoxins, endotoxins, β-glucans and volatile organic compounds in indoor air. The causative agents of adverse health effects have not been identified conclusively, but **an excess level of any of these agents in the indoor environment is a potential health hazard. **
• **Microbial interactions and moisture-related physical and chemical emissions from building materials may also play a role in dampness-related health effects. **
• Building standards and regulations with regard to comfort and health do not sufficiently emphasize requirements for preventing and controlling excess moisture and dampness.
• Apart from its entry during occasional events (such as water leaks, heavy rain and flooding), most moisture enters a building in incoming air, including that infiltrating through the building envelope or that resulting from the occupants’ activities.
• Allowing surfaces to become cooler than the surrounding air may result in unwanted condensation. Thermal bridges (such as metal window frames), inadequate insulation and unplanned air pathways, or cold water plumbing and cool parts of air-conditioning units can result in surface temperatures below the dew point of the air and in dampness.

On the basis of this review, the following guidelines were formulated.

• Persistent dampness and **microbial growth on interior surfaces and in building structures should be avoided or minimized, as they may lead to adverse health effects. **
• Indicators of dampness and microbial growth include the presence of condenation on surfaces or in structures, visible mould, perceived mouldy odour and a history of water damage, leakage or penetration. Thorough **inspection and, if necessary, appropriate measurements can be used to confirm indoor moisture and microbial growth. **
• As the relations between dampness, microbial exposure and health effects cannot be quantified precisely, no quantitative health-based guideline values or thresholds can be recommended for acceptable levels of contamination with microorganisms. Instead, it is recommended that dampness and mould-related problems be prevented. When they occur, they should be remediated because they increase the risk of hazardous exposure to microbes and chemicals.
• Well-designed, well-constructed, well-maintained building envelopes are critical to the prevention and control of excess moisture and microbial growth, as they prevent thermal bridges and the entry of liquid or vapour-phase water.
• Management of moisture requires proper control of temperatures and ventilation to avoid excess humidity, condensation on surfaces and excess moisture in materials. Ventilation should be distributed effectively throughout spaces, and **stagnant air zones should be avoided. **
• Building owners are responsible for providing a healthy workplace or living environment free of excess moisture and mould, by ensuring proper building construction and maintenance. The occupants are responsible for managing the use of water, heating, ventilation and appliances in a manner that does not lead to dampness and mould growth. Local recommendations for different climatic regions should be updated to **control dampness-mediated microbial growth in buildings and to ensure desirable indoor air quality. **
• Dampness and mould may be particularly prevalent in poorly maintained housing for low-income people. Remediation of the conditions that lead to adverse exposure should be given priority to prevent an additional contribution to poor health in populations who are already living with an increased burden of disease.
• The guidelines are intended for worldwide use, to protect public health under various environmental, social and economic conditions, and to support the achievement of optimal indoor air quality. They focus on building characteristics that prevent the occurrence of adverse health effects associated with dampness or mould. The guidelines pertain to various levels of economic development and different climates, cover all relevant population groups and propose feasible approaches for reducing health risks due to dampness and microbibial contamination. Both private and public buildings (e.g. offices and nursing homes) are covered, as dampness and mould are risks everywhere. Settings in which there are particular production processes and hospitals with high-risk patients or sources of exposure to pathogens are not, however, considered.
• While the guidelines provide objectives for indoor air quality management, they do not give instructions for achieving those objectives. The necessary action and indicators depend on local technical conditions, the level of development, human capacities and resources. The guidelines recommended by WHO acknowledge this heterogeneity. In formulating policy targets, governments should consider their local circumstances and select actions that will ensure achievement of their health objectives most effectively.

READ: World Health Organization confirms that mold is a health hazard. - InterNACHI®

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

And note:

**Thorough inspection and, if necessary, appropriate measurements can be used to confirm indoor moisture and microbial growth. **

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

http://www.nachi.org/who-july-2009.htm

[jfarsetta (Joe Farsetta)]

It is not uncommon for the WHO to be at odds with the US on issues. In many instances, the WHO is off base and develops policy or procedure backed on convenience as opposed to science.

Hetertrophic Plate Count in water samples is a prime example.

Simply speaking, HPC is a measure of all bacteria in water, not just bacterial that is harmbul to humans. A high HPC count indicates high bacteria levels. So, the idea is like measuring the level of how easy is it for bacterial to flourish in this environment. And furtherin the idea is that it is a measure of fertile environment for ALL bacteria to flourish, including those who harm humans.

This is the CDC and EPA’s spin on it. Most states concurr. The WHO, however, seed no validity in this test. Maybe this explains why water quality is such a dilemma across the globe.

As to mold, it is no mystery that mold is a health hazard. Our EPA and the CDC concurr. However, they believe that ALL mold is toxic at some level. Therefore, the source of the moisture should be controlled or eliminated and the mold remediated… regardless of species.

The EPA recommends correction… as opposed to testing. All the WHO has stated is that, in their opinion, some testing MAY be warranted.

Big deal. It probably cost a half-billion dollars for them to come out with this earth-shattering thesis.

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

Accorrding to Mr. Caoimhín P. Connell,

[size=3]nothing has changed.

[/size][size=2][size=4]In July of 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its position paper [size=2]1a](http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/sok.html#1a)on indoor moulds and Indoor Air Quality. Contrary to what many people want to believe, the WHO guidelines reinforced the findings of the 2004 Institute of Medicine mould study group. In that study, the IOM stated there was insufficient evidence to find a causal association between the presence of moulds and any of the claimed adverse health effects. That is, after reviewing the global scientific and medical literature, the IOM could not find sufficient evidence to support the argument that the normal presence of mould in residences and workplaces caused any adverse health effects.[/size][/size][/size]

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

Caoimhin is wrong again.

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

@gromicko

Caoimhin is wrong again.

OK Lisa:roll:

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

I’ll tell the contributors:

Alireza Afshari Danish Building Research Institute, Copenhagen,
Denmark
Hugh Ross Anderson1 St George’s Hospital Medical School,
University of London, London, England
Aaron Cohen1 Health Effects Institute, Boston,
United States of America
Eduardo de Oliveira Institute of Mechanical Engineering,
Fernandes Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto,
Porto, Portugal
Jeroen Douwes Centre for Public Health Research, Massey
University, Wellington, New Zealand
Rafal Górny Institute of Occupational Medicine and
Environmental Health, Sosnowiec, Poland
Maija-Riitta Hirvonen National Public Health Institute, Helsinki,
Finland
Jouni Jaakkola Institute of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, United Kingdom
Séverine Kirchner1 Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment,
Marne la Vallée France
Jarek Kurnitski University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland
Hal Levin Building Ecology Research Group, Santa Cruz,
United States of America
Mark Mendell Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, United States of America
Lars Mølhave1 Department of Public Health,
University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Lidia Morawska International Laboratory for Air Quality and
Health, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
Aino Nevalainen1 National Public Health Institute, Helsinki,
Finland
Malcolm Richardson University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
Peter Rudnai National Institute of Environmental Health,
Budapest, Hungary
Hans W. Schleibinger Institute for Research in Construction,
National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa,
Canada
Per E. Schwarze Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo,
Norway
Bernd Seifert1 Consultant, Berlin, Germany
Torben Sigsgaard University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Weimin Song Fudan University, Shanghai, China
John Spengler1 Harvard School of Public Health, Boston,
United States of America
Regine Szewzyk Federal Environment Agency, Berlin, Germany
Sadras Panchatcharam Sri Ramachandra University, Chennai, India
Thyagarajan
Giulio Gallo European Commission, Brussels, Belgium
Manfred Giersig (observer) European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC)
and Bayer Material Science AG, Leverkusen,
Germany
Co-authors who did not participate in the working group meeting
Jakob Bønløkke University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Kerry Cheung Centre for Public Health Research, Massey
University, Wellington, New Zealand
Anna G. Mirer Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
Berkeley, United States of America
Harald W. Meyer Hillerød Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
Marjut Roponen National Public Health Institute, Helsinki,
Finland

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

@gromicko

Caoimhin is wrong again.

Sponsor a debate Nick.

Could be interesting.

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

*Both the Institutes of Medicine and the World Health Organizations went to great pains to explain that their studies did NOT (NOT) find any causal relationships with mould and adverse health effects.

One more time – Their studies did NOT find ANY causal relationships with mould and adverse health effects*

[rbibler (Ron Bibler)]

Mr. Caoimhín P. Connell, Has never lost a Court case as an Expert in his field.

I Would not want to be on the other side of him in a court of law…

Facts are facts…

Best

Ron

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

Michael writes

• the World Health Organizations went to great pains to explain that their studies did NOT (NOT) find any causal relationships with mould and adverse health effects.

One more time – Their studies did NOT find ANY causal relationships with mould and adverse health effects*

Huh? Did you even read post #1? It can’t be more clear.

Sounds almost like something Caoimhin would say. Like I’ve been explaining, Caoimhin is mostly correct about meth but he is as wrong about mold as he was wrong about radon.

The World Health Organization went to great pains to explain that there is a relationship between mold and adverse health effects. Read the summary again posted in post #1… better yet… I’ll give you a few excerpts from the very short summary, but you can read the whole summary in post #1 for yourself.

***an excess level of any of these agents in the indoor environment is a potential health hazard.

******may also play a role in dampness-related health effects.

******microbial growth on interior surfaces and in building structures should be avoided or minimized, as they may lead to adverse health effects.

****they increase the risk of hazardous exposure to microbes

**** for providing a healthy workplace or living environment free of excess moisture and mould

******adverse exposure should be given priority to prevent an additional contribution to poor health

******protect public health

******adverse health effects associated with dampness or mould

******reducing health risks due to dampness and microbibial contamination

******dampness and mould are risks

***Now I didn’t pluck these quotes out of their entire long report, these are ALL found in their little summary. Again, the World Health Organization went to great pains to explain that there is a relationship between mold and adverse health effects.

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

Nick,

How can you and Mr. Connell read the same document and draw such different conclusions?***

Invite him over here to debate his and your claims.

---

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

He’s all alone on this one. No need for a debate, the summary says it all in plain English that every 3rd grader can understand. The World Health Organization went to great pains to explain that there is a relationship between mold and adverse health effects. Their summary couldn’t be more clear: http://www.nachi.org/who-july-2009.htm

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

@gromicko

He’s all alone on this one. No need for a debate, the summary says it all in plain English that every 3rd grader can understand. The World Health Organization went to great pains to explain that there is a relationship between mold and adverse health effects. Their summary couldn’t be more clear: World Health Organization confirms that mold is a health hazard. - InterNACHI®

If he is wrong it should be win a debate.

Bring him over and let the experts hash it out.

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

We were waiting to print our new book “How to Perform a Proper Mold Inspection” until this report was released. Printing going on all night tonight as I post this. Book will begin shipping tomorrow morning.

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

If he is wrong it should easy be win a debate.

Bring him over and let the experts hash it out.

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

Nothing to “hash out.” He is as incorrect about mold as he was about radon. Radon is one of the few carcinogenics that actually have dead bodies (uranium miners) laying around to prove it kills.

Let him write letters to the World Health Organization and the EPA if he wants. And as always, he’s free to come here and explain why the world disagrees with him.

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

Good debate should not be feared.

[gromicko (Nick Gromicko, CMI)]

I seriously doubt that the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, the coordinating authority for international health, cares to debate with a Caoimhin, a guy who thinks radon doesn’t cause lung cancer.