Mold question?

[Shawn Garza]

Originally Posted by dbucknavich

Jason,

Not trying to be argumentative, just curious. By "analytical report with protocol", do you mean a step by step process for remediation? Isn't that an entirely different certification, and why would an inspector have knowledge of that? The lab I work with performs that service and I recommend that they use them, but I have to trust the remediator for something right? And who should know better than them on the remediation process. I have to assume they earned their designation in their field the same way I did, and to discredit them should give anyone the right to discredit myself throughout the testing process.

The obvious aspects of the process consists of;
A) eliminating the source
B) removing or cleaning contaminated surfaces and material
C) perform post testing

But the details are far beyond my scope, and my scope includes inspecting and testing. So why should I rely on myself to provide the detailed protocol, if that is in fact what to you are referring?

Thank you

Did I read this correctly? The lab you work with does remediation work? Is that correct?

Thanks!

[dbucknavich]

Originally Posted by Shawn Garza

Did I read this correctly? The lab you work with does remediation work? Is that correct?

Thanks!

No they do not. They will however perscribe a protocol for repair. I think it starts at 700 dollars or so.

[Jason Yost]

In reply to Dylan Bucknavich's post:

I can appreciate what you're saying. I've worked both as a remediator (for a number of years while earning my CIE and CIEC) before starting my own business, getting out of remediation, and performing the pre- and post- remediation inspections and assessments. Remediators like IEPs when liability can be transferred to the Consultant and the Consultants like leaving some (if not all) of the scope of work interpretation up to Remediators so as to remain in a defensible position. The laboratory, having not performed a full inspection of the situation, will limit their report to their analysis of the samples taken by the IEP, making sure to keep things simple and defensible for them too. I don't mean to seem as though I'm judging any of them. God knows - I'm a board-awarded Indoor Environmental Consultant and Microbial Remediation Supervisor (among other things) NOT a lawyer. So, I think to keep things in the realm of the professional's perspective (and try to answer your question from that perspective only) I'd say that the writing of protocols or not by an IEP would be a business decision based on what kind of liability a company wants to assume and their expertise. (In my area it is common place for the IEP to generate a protocol as a starting point of remediation, allowing the Remediator room to recognize necessary precautions and actions when facing complications along the way.)

What I was trying to do is look at this from a consumer perspective and apply the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning & Restoration Certification's S520 Standard & Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation to the initial post (as it has been explained to me by their technical advisor). In the S520 there are clear definitions of what a Remediator's knowledge and expertise are and what the IEP's should be. In that Standard (revised and released 200 Remediators can perform a 'preliminary determination' after the initial inspection is completed, which “is a conclusion that identifies actual or potential mold growth, known or suspected areas of moisture intrusion, and the need for assistance from other specialized experts such as an IEP to conduct assessments or to perform necessary services beyond the expertise of the Remediator.” The IEP performs inspections and assessments. The idea behind the designations and definitions in this Standard were to recognize levels of education and experience, designating some of the work toward the appropriate professional. (Too much to go into here. I’d be happy to chat sometime over it though. I like getting other’s perspectives and experiences.)

Consumers are constantly faced (as I'm sure you're well aware) with contractor controversy. In order to avoid conflict of interest self-diagnosis of the Condition of the environment and in an effort to successfully identify and address the safety and health issues of a mold claim the IICRC went into the definitions it did. Using those definitions, making sure to involve themselves (Consumer) with their IEP helps them to reduce contractor controversy (perhaps they seem to think one contractor is up selling a job when in reality the other contractor is not doing all necessary, or vice versa, for example) and become more empowered to manage their own claim alongside the IEP and Remediator they've chosen to work with.

Acting as one’s own third-party has been a compromising position for Remediators in courts of law all over this country. Avoiding the conflict in the first place is in the best interest of everyone involved. Like I said earlier I understand everyone wanting to be in a defensible position. I was just trying to apply things in a clear manner for the Consumer so as to make sure they understand how to avoid some of the unwanted situations that come up occasionally.

For more on this Standard I typically go to the IICRC S520 technical advisor. I hope this post doesn’t offend anyone. Just trying to clarify my point’s perspective.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by dbucknavich

No they do not. They will however perscribe a protocol for repair. I think it starts at 700 dollars or so.

Wow, I am not charging enough for my protocols.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by Jason Yost

In reply to Dylan Bucknavich's post:

I can appreciate what you're saying. I've worked both as a remediator (for a number of years while earning my CIE and CIEC) before starting my own business, getting out of remediation, and performing the pre- and post- remediation inspections and assessments. Remediators like IEPs when liability can be transferred to the Consultant and the Consultants like leaving some (if not all) of the scope of work interpretation up to Remediators so as to remain in a defensible position. The laboratory, having not performed a full inspection of the situation, will limit their report to their analysis of the samples taken by the IEP, making sure to keep things simple and defensible for them too. I don't mean to seem as though I'm judging any of them. God knows - I'm a board-awarded Indoor Environmental Consultant and Microbial Remediation Supervisor (among other things) NOT a lawyer. So, I think to keep things in the realm of the professional's perspective (and try to answer your question from that perspective only) I'd say that the writing of protocols or not by an IEP would be a business decision based on what kind of liability a company wants to assume and their expertise. (In my area it is common place for the IEP to generate a protocol as a starting point of remediation, allowing the Remediator room to recognize necessary precautions and actions when facing complications along the way.)

What I was trying to do is look at this from a consumer perspective and apply the Institute of Inspection, Cleaning & Restoration Certification's S520 Standard & Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation to the initial post (as it has been explained to me by their technical advisor). In the S520 there are clear definitions of what a Remediator's knowledge and expertise are and what the IEP's should be. In that Standard (revised and released 200 Remediators can perform a 'preliminary determination' after the initial inspection is completed, which “is a conclusion that identifies actual or potential mold growth, known or suspected areas of moisture intrusion, and the need for assistance from other specialized experts such as an IEP to conduct assessments or to perform necessary services beyond the expertise of the Remediator.” The IEP performs inspections and assessments. The idea behind the designations and definitions in this Standard were to recognize levels of education and experience, designating some of the work toward the appropriate professional. (Too much to go into here. I’d be happy to chat sometime over it though. I like getting other’s perspectives and experiences.)

Consumers are constantly faced (as I'm sure you're well aware) with contractor controversy. In order to avoid conflict of interest self-diagnosis of the Condition of the environment and in an effort to successfully identify and address the safety and health issues of a mold claim the IICRC went into the definitions it did. Using those definitions, making sure to involve themselves (Consumer) with their IEP helps them to reduce contractor controversy (perhaps they seem to think one contractor is up selling a job when in reality the other contractor is not doing all necessary, or vice versa, for example) and become more empowered to manage their own claim alongside the IEP and Remediator they've chosen to work with.

Acting as one’s own third-party has been a compromising position for Remediators in courts of law all over this country. Avoiding the conflict in the first place is in the best interest of everyone involved. Like I said earlier I understand everyone wanting to be in a defensible position. I was just trying to apply things in a clear manner for the Consumer so as to make sure they understand how to avoid some of the unwanted situations that come up occasionally.

For more on this Standard I typically go to the IICRC S520 technical advisor. I hope this post doesn’t offend anyone. Just trying to clarify my point’s perspective.

I do not thing it offended anybody, just confused them. You got to understand that most of our members are ordinary home inspectors, they do not specialize in mold, so you will need to say things in simpler terms.
Even I had a hard time following. It is like explaining infrared cameras to me, since I have not taken the training, I do not understand the more technical threads about thermography.

I, myself, prefer to preform some testing first before calling for a protocol to be written. Some times the mold tests come back not considered toxic. In most of those cases a protocol would not need to be written. Visual inspection and some clearance testing after clean up, just in case, but not a full blown protocol written. But in the mold field everybody does things different even if they have the same training.

[Jason Yost]

Knowing what the consumer wants out of their mold inspection and being able to incorporate those requests and limitations on your inspection into your contracts and reports helps the tests become more useful to the consumer and allows you room to really write a defensible report. There is a guy in Chicago that consults people and educates people doing mold inspections, Ian Cull. (He is a good friend of mine.) He doesn't perform the tests anymore. He's an educator and consultant to inspectors and consultants. He has a lot of experience helping people write good reports and contracts. I think his website is http://www.indoorsciences.com/ if anyone would ever want to look into it. He even has some basic templates for contracts on his site that you can manipulate. I think he only asks that you post your revisions to share with others as the template he put out is free of charge. He can tell you more. Tell him Jason sent you if you call. He has a lot of experience in indoor air quality.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by kbraun

The 'grey fuzzy stuff' appears to be the remnants of overspray from when the insulation was blown in. (Note no use of baffles at the eaves)

Especially with cellulose fiber!

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by mnorthrup

Christopher
First mold is not prejudice it will grow on any surface that has food moisture and oxygen. And it does not appear to be on the rafters or the insulation just the sheeting. It looks like the insulation is sticking on the lower portion of the sheeting but no where else. This is common on blown in insulation. I do see what looks like black staining on the sheeting. Does it continue under the rafter if it does most likely it was there before the sheet was nailed in place. Mold will get on the rafter and sheeting. Since I see a bath fan venting into the attic. Where are the black spots related to the bath fan duct.
I don’t see baffles on the lower end of the roof. Which when the house fan is running I bet some of the insulation is moving around also. I do see what looks like a cracked rafter.
In my opinion I would call out the bath fan venting into the attic and note staining on the sheeting (If it does not go under the rafter) but no moisture if that is the case. Recommend further evaluation and correction as needed by a licensed contractor.
When you see this look for other signs of moisture intrusion. Kitchen stove/ bath fans venting into the attic, leaking roof, leaking pipes etc.

Good hunting
Good post!

There may a be a small bit of mold that has started in that attic but not an alarming situation........get the fans vented to the exterior, airseal at the attic level to (1) prevent warm air in winter from leaving the house and (2) stop house moisture entering the attic with the house air......then you should have a dry attic with no further mold growth.

Is this really enough mold to have to remediate with written protocols by highly trained individuals........I don't think so.

Too much "alarmism" and "the sky is falling" in the IAQ field by those who may fabricate to create a market. There are some real problems out there but let's separate those from situations when minor improvements (fans exhaust to outdoors, airsealing and maybe some more attic venting) will prevent any further mold growth that appears to very minor at worst!

Here's what I have on my website:

The mention of "mould" today raises fears in just about everyone. In order to maintain and protect a family's health, the control of mould in housing is a must!! BUT the press and companies with services and products to sell have raised the level of fear to near hysteria! Following are some examples :
- From a company selling a service: "Building inspectors hired by prospective purchasers look for mould growth in the attic" and "Prospective purchasers do not buy houses with mould growth"

- From a court case: “claiming in the court document that deadly mould growing in their apartment homes made them seriously and chronically ill.”

- A newspaper headline: “Erin (Brockovich) Works for California Toxic Mould Law”

To clear the air a bit (poor pun), we include some recent quotes from Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Home experts:
From the MOLD REPORTER (An Online Journal) in an article titled "2002 Air Quality in Review"

•• John Bower, owner, The Healthy House Institute, Bloomington, Ind.:
"The worst thing that has happened to the indoor air quality marketplace in the last year or so is mould. This is because much of the media coverage is designed to sensationalize the topic and frighten the public - so much so, that the word 'mould' always seems to be preceded by the adjective 'toxic'. Thus, homeowners and building managers are scared to death of any minor infestation that might possibly be toxic mould, and they often ignore other health issues, such as combustion byproducts, VOC’s, second-hand tobacco smoke and poor ventilation."

•• Dr. Joseph Lstiburek, president, Building Science Corp., Westford, Mass.: "The biggest news is the insurance people getting out of covering mould claims. This is great news because the easy money is gone. Now we are dealing with real money——yours and mine; insurance money was always viewed as someone else's. Now, attorneys are wary of taking mould cases on contingency. They actually have to work for their money" (and you still have to pay them whether you win or lose- our comment)

•• Larry D. Robertson, president and CEO, Mycotech Biological Inc, Jewett, Texas: "As industry leaders, our failure to have in place an appropriate outlet for public knowledge and education has resulted in gross misrepresentations and misunderstandings of basic Indoor Air Quality fundamentals."

Other quotes:
"If you see it or smell it, you do not have to test for it. It is more important to get rid of the mould rather than spend a lot of money trying to find out more about it." (by sampling and identifying the species of mould- our comment) Dr. Joe Lstiburek, P. Eng., Phd..; Building Scientist and principle at Building Science Corporation (Website: www.buildingscience.com)

Why Air Sampling Results Are Undependable
By Jim H. White, Former senior researcher at CMHC

"The problem with most air sample methodologies is that they take a "snapshot" of a highly variable measurement. Several studies have shown that the number of viable spores in a building, at a given location, varies by orders of magnitude over a few days to weeks. This is due to changes in weather (and the way air moves through the building), changes in colony condition (moisture and food availability, energy available for sporulation, and so on), etc. Sampling outcomes are also highly dependent on the specific location of the sampling, especially if the mould is growing."

FACTS: MOULD ON INTERIOR OF ROOF SHEATHING
Recently, houses up for sale that have not caused health problems in the vendor's family are being rejected by buyers for reasons that benefit only others outside the house sale itself. Some of the remedial costs can be $2-$5,000 and up before the house sale can proceed yet....... the house has not been proven to be a health hazard but the fear has been set in the mind of the purchaser (see above). If mould is found on the underside of your roof sheathing, the first action is not to call in the "mould experts".

Let's go through the processes that allowed the mould to grow in the first place and how stop the problem.

The moisture that mould needs to grow on the lower side of roof (boards, framing, etc.) is the result of air leakage from the house below. (Or fans vented to attics) Homes built before 1990-1995 were not required to be airsealed by the building code of the day and have many hidden holes- wiring, plumbing, chimney penetrations; unweatherstripped attic hatches; small but long openings behind drywall panels after the wood studs dry and shrink. These "holes" allow warm air to move into the attic due to wind pressures on the house and the "stack" or "chimney" effect (warm air rises).

During the winter, the chimney effect gets stronger as the temperature drops, thus the deposition of moisture is highest in the coldest wether. The fiberglass batts or loose fill insulation in your attic may slow air leakage but not stop it.(Remember-fiberglass is used for filters on hot air heating systems-it catches dirt particles but not air).

The heated house air also contains invisible water vapour from household activities such as showering/bathing, cooking, washing floors, breathing, watering plants, etc. When the attic and roof sheathing are cool enough, the water condenses as liquid moisture and then as frost as it gets colder.

If the attic roofing/framing wood does not dry before attic temperatures rise to only a couple of degrees above zero, mould begins to grow. The best solution to attic mould growth is: Stop the air leakage and moisture from getting to the attic. Once the air leakage and moisture are removed from the equation, the mould growth will stop and you save on heating costs!!!

FACT: Uncontrolled air leakage in houses is responsible for 20-40% of a heating bill. Granted we need air exchange for air quality but when you have more than you need, it costs, the house air can be too dry (the moisture's gone to the attic), and drafts are uncomfortable.To solve attic moisture problems and save on your heating bill, the following steps should be taken:
(1) Change how you deal with moisture sources in the house. Try to eliminate internal sources of moisture by curing wet/damp basements, venting dryers or not drying clothes indoors, placing damp firewood outside, covering aquariums, not having too many plants
(2) Vent bathrooms and kitchens properly to the outdoors. (See Ventilation for Older Homes at the Nova Scotia Department of Energy website: www.gov.ns.ca/energy)
(3) Airseal the attic and ceiling to stop the air and moisture leakage from the house below. See Keeping The Heat In at Natural Resources Canada website: www.nrcan.gc.ca & Sealing, Caulking and Weatherstripping at the Nova Scotia Department of Energy website: www.gov.ns.ca/energy)
(4) Increase attic ventilation only if necessary. After taking care of #'s 1-3, increased ventilation will probably not be necessary. Attic ventilation is way overrated and poorly understood. (See Attic Moisture, Attic Venting and Ice Dams at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation website: www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca) Note: In some homes, adding attic ventilation without working on the prevoious items can actually increase moisture flow to the attic, making the problem worse, as well as increasing heat loss.

Endnote: If the mould on the sheathing is treated chemically only, it does not stop the moisture from getting to the attic nor the heat loss by air leakage from the house.......heat you paid for!!!! In the worst case, you may still get moisture dripping from the roof sheathing into the ceiling insulation. Here other problems with mould may occur and wood framing under the insulation may support mould and rot.

[Shawn Garza]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

There may a be a small bit of mold that has statred in that attic but not an alarming situation........get the fans vented to the exterior, airseal at the attic level to (1) prevent warm air in winter from leaving the house and (2) stop house moisture entering the attic with the house air......then you should have a dry attic with no further mold growth.

Is this really enough mold to have to remediate with written protocols by highly trained individuals........I don't think so.

Too much "alrmism" and "the sky is falling" in the IAQ field by those who may fabricate to create a market. There are some real problems out there but let's separate those from situations when minor improvements (fan exhausts to outdoors, airsealing and maybe some more attic venting) will prevent any further mold growth that appears to very minor at worst!

Here's what I have on my website:

The mention of "mould" today raises fears in just about everyone. In order to maintain and protect a family's health, the control of mould in housing is a must!! BUT the press and companies with services and products to sell have raised the level of fear to near hysteria! Following are some examples :
- From a company selling a service: "Building inspectors hired by prospective purchasers look for mould growth in the attic" and "Prospective purchasers do not buy houses with mould growth"

- From a court case: “claiming in the court document that deadly mould growing in their apartment homes made them seriously and chronically ill.”

- A newspaper headline: “Erin (Brockovich) Works for California Toxic Mould Law”

To clear the air a bit (poor pun), we include some recent quotes from Indoor Air Quality and Healthy Home experts:
From the MOLD REPORTER (An Online Journal) in an article titled "2002 Air Quality in Review"

•• John Bower, owner, The Healthy House Institute, Bloomington, Ind.:
"The worst thing that has happened to the indoor air quality marketplace in the last year or so is mould. This is because much of the media coverage is designed to sensationalize the topic and frighten the public - so much so, that the word 'mould' always seems to be preceded by the adjective 'toxic'. Thus, homeowners and building managers are scared to death of any minor infestation that might possibly be toxic mould, and they often ignore other health issues, such as combustion byproducts, VOC’s, second-hand tobacco smoke and poor ventilation."

•• Dr. Joseph Lstiburek, president, Building Science Corp., Westford, Mass.: "The biggest news is the insurance people getting out of covering mould claims. This is great news because the easy money is gone. Now we are dealing with real money——yours and mine; insurance money was always viewed as someone else's. Now, attorneys are wary of taking mould cases on contingency. They actually have to work for their money" (and you still have to pay them whether you win or lose- our comment)


•• Larry D. Robertson, president and CEO, Mycotech Biological Inc, Jewett, Texas: "As industry leaders, our failure to have in place an appropriate outlet for public knowledge and education has resulted in gross misrepresentations and misunderstandings of basic Indoor Air Quality fundamentals."

Other quotes:
"If you see it or smell it, you do not have to test for it. It is more important to get rid of the mould rather than spend a lot of money trying to find out more about it." (by sampling and identifying the species of mould- our comment) Dr. Joe Lstiburek, P. Eng., Phd..; Building Scientist and principle at Building Science Corporation (Website: www.buildingscience.com)

Why Air Sampling Results Are Undependable
By Jim H. White, Former senior researcher at CMHC

"The problem with most air sample methodologies is that they take a "snapshot" of a highly variable measurement. Several studies have shown that the number of viable spores in a building, at a given location, varies by orders of magnitude over a few days to weeks. This is due to changes in weather (and the way air moves through the building), changes in colony condition (moisture and food availability, energy available for sporulation, and so on), etc. Sampling outcomes are also highly dependent on the specific location of the sampling, especially if the mould is growing."

FACTS: MOULD ON INTERIOR OF ROOF SHEATHING
Recently, houses up for sale that have not caused health problems in the vendor's family are being rejected by buyers for reasons that benefit only others outside the house sale itself. Some of the remedial costs can be $2-$5,000 and up before the house sale can proceed yet....... the house has not been proven to be a health hazard but the fear has been set in the mind of the purchaser (see above). If mould is found on the underside of your roof sheathing, the first action is not to call in the "mould experts".

Let's go through the processes that allowed the mould to grow in the first place and how stop the problem.

The moisture that mould needs to grow on the lower side of roof (boards, framing, etc.) is the result of air leakage from the house below. (Or fans vented to attics) Homes built before 1990-1995 were not required to be airsealed by the building code of the day and have many hidden holes- wiring, plumbing, chimney penetrations; unweatherstripped attic hatches; small but long openings behind drywall panels after the wood studs dry and shrink. These "holes" allow warm air to move into the attic due to wind pressures on the house and the "stack" or "chimney" effect (warm air rises).

During the winter, the chimney effect gets stronger as the temperature drops, thus the deposition of moisture is highest in the coldest wether. The fiberglass batts or loose fill insulation in your attic may slow air leakage but not stop it.(Remember-fiberglass is used for filters on hot air heating systems-it catches dirt particles but not air).

The heated house air also contains invisible water vapour from household activities such as showering/bathing, cooking, washing floors, breathing, watering plants, etc. When the attic and roof sheathing are cool enough, the water condenses as liquid moisture and then as frost as it gets colder.

If the attic roofing/framing wood does not dry before attic temperatures rise to only a couple of degrees above zero, mould begins to grow. The best solution to attic mould growth is: Stop the air leakage and moisture from getting to the attic. Once the air leakage and moisture are removed from the equation, the mould growth will stop and you save on heating costs!!!

FACT: Uncontrolled air leakage in houses is responsible for 20-40% of a heating bill. Granted we need air exchange for air quality but when you have more than you need, it costs, the house air can be too dry (the moisture's gone to the attic), and drafts are uncomfortable.To solve attic moisture problems and save on your heating bill, the following steps should be taken:
(1) Change how you deal with moisture sources in the house. Try to eliminate internal sources of moisture by curing wet/damp basements, venting dryers or not drying clothes indoors, placing damp firewood outside, covering aquariums, not having too many plants
(2) Vent bathrooms and kitchens properly to the outdoors. (See Ventilation for Older Homes at the Nova Scotia Department of Energy website: www.gov.ns.ca/energy)
(3) Airseal the attic and ceiling to stop the air and moisture leakage from the house below. See Keeping The Heat In at Natural Resources Canada website: www.nrcan.gc.ca & Sealing, Caulking and Weatherstripping at the Nova Scotia Department of Energy website: www.gov.ns.ca/energy)
(4) Increase attic ventilation only if necessary. After taking care of #'s 1-3, increased ventilation will probably not be necessary. Attic ventilation is way overrated and poorly understood. (See Attic Moisture, Attic Venting and Ice Dams at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation website: www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca) Note: In some homes, adding attic ventilation without working on the prevoious items can actually increase moisture flow to the attic, making the problem worse, as well as increasing heat loss.

Endnote: If the mould on the sheathing is treated chemically only, it does not stop the moisture from getting to the attic nor the heat loss by air leakage from the house.......heat you paid for!!!! In the worst case, you may still get moisture dripping from the roof sheathing into the ceiling insulation. Here other problems with mould may occur and wood framing under the insulation may support mould and rot.

This is an excellent point. At QuanTEM Labs we are constantly telling home inspectors who are worried about mold-like substances that "Mold is NOT a dealbreaker." The fear out there is crazy! We believe that home inspectors should know enough about mold to limit their liability and have an extra service in their arsenal. This does not mean that home inspectors should all become mold inspectors, but that a simple tape life sample of visible mold-like substances will give enough information to make further recommendations to the client.

[Shawn Garza]

Originally Posted by dbucknavich

No they do not. They will however perscribe a protocol for repair. I think it starts at 700 dollars or so.

Whew! Good! Had me scared there.

[Rick K. Kie]

Qute the post I cand spell either but come on!! Mould is not Mold

[Mathew Hawley]

I agree with Brian,

There are many on the "mold is gold boat". That amount in the photo is not enough in my opinion to be so alarming about. Also the attic is not living space. Mold is really over rated and is often pushed un-ethically in my opinion, again thats just my opinion. Not trying to offend anyone.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

I have found that most mold in attics are not considered toxic. Also no mold is worth getting alarmed about. Most of the time the mold was there quite some time before it was discovered. It is important though that all mold growths need to be properly removed no matter what their toxicity is.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by jbraun

I have found that most mold in attics are not considered toxic. Also no mold is worth getting alarmed about. Most of the time the mold was there quite some time before it was discovered. (and didn't affect anyone in the house!!) It is important though that all mold growths need to be properly removed no matter what their toxicity is.

James:
When they blast mold off the inner side of roof sheathing with soda or dry ice, where do all the mold fragments/spores go? Is all the attic insulation then removed and all the ceiling/attic floor vacuumed with a HEPA system?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Yes, and under negative pressure.

Considered toxic mold will wear at the immune system. If occupants are fairly healthy, it will take a while before they will get sick, in most cases I have observed. I do not usually get a call until somebody is already sick for months or years. In most cases the mold has already done enough damage, full recovery of the person's health is not achieved.