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

[Nick Gromicko]

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.

[Michael Larson]

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

Bring him over and let the experts hash it out.

[Nick Gromicko]

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.

[Michael Larson]

Good debate should not be feared.

[Nick Gromicko]

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.

[rbibler]

I do find this odd. I have look at the WHO Paper and it's very clear to me that the paper states there is NO relationship between mold and adverse health effects.

I have had the same understanding for some 35 years now. I have removed more fungus and mold infected wood and Sheetrock then just about any other man on the earth. With 4 Termite and building inspection companies in my family going back to 1947. None of our people have ever had a problem with the stuff. I just don't see the relationship between mold and adverse health. the stuff has had effects on me
nor any of our crews. ever! Never put a mask on just cut the stuff out and put up the new materials.

Toxic Peanut butter for lunch any one...

Best

Ron

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

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.

Either on or both of you are be misreading the WHO document and/or one or both of you are "reading into it" just what you want to see.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rbibler

I do find this odd. I have look at the WHO Paper and it's very clear to me that the paper states there is NO relationship between mold and adverse health effects.

I have had the same understanding for some 35 years now. I have removed more fungus and mold infected wood and Sheetrock then just about any other man on the earth. With 4 Termite and building inspection companies in my family going back to 1947. None of our people have ever had a problem with the stuff. I just don't see the relationship between mold and adverse health. the stuff has had effects on me
nor any of our crews. ever! Never put a mask on just cut the stuff out and put up the new materials.

Toxic Peanut butter for lunch any one...

Best

Ron

No doubt, there are varying levels of toxicity among the various species of mold.....as well as varying degrees of reaction to various agents among human beings.

There are people who can eat peanut butter sandwiches at the same table with people who will die if they eat a product that came into contact with a peanut.

There are people who have no immunity issues at all who, following anesthetic from surgeries or while taking certain medications, develop permanent or temporary allergic reactions to a variety of organic things.

Thus....anyone proclaiming that any organic anything is "harmless" to humans when found growing in their home is likely to be found to be full of another type of organic substance that the obscenity filtering system prevents me from typing.

Personally, I find the mold business a bit too controversial to involve myself and my business in at the present time and limit my own mold remediation activities to the times when I must clean out my refrigerator to make room for more leftovers. Yet, I recognize the need for serious, trained and professionally equipped specialists to refer clients to.

Bottom line: Beware of blanket, absolute statements proclaiming any organic substance as totally safe for all humans.

[Joe Farsetta]

Ron,

I personally believe that mold DOES affect some and not others. THAT is why there are no absolutes. IAC2 has published sampling protocols which are at odds with virtually all certified experts in the field. The WHO findings published by Nick at the beginning of this thread, differ from the EPA standard which states that testing is generally un-necessary.

But, please tell me where your and Caomin's position that the WHO has stated no causal effect exists. Please provide the quote and reference.

I know for a fact that people who are severely immunocomprimised (like hospital-bound) have died as a result to exposure to extremely high levels of aspergillius. I am no mold-is-gold proponent, but facts remain. It happened at New York Presbyterian Hospital during a renovation, where proper infection control measures were not followed. It prompted new infection control procedures at all Federal healthcare facilities.

[Michael Larson]

I have read a good portion of the WHO document.

A search for the word "causal' yields many hits. Notably:

In agreement with the Institute of Medicine (2004), we consider that there is
insufficient evidence of a causal relationship with any of the health outcomes
reviewed, although for asthma exacerbation we consider that there is almost
enough evidence to meet the criteria of causality for dampness-related agents.
The evidence does not suggest that any one measurement of microbiological ma-
terials is demonstrably more specific or sensitive for assessing dampness-related
exposure that is relevant to health effects. Thus, although it is plausible that heavy
exposure to indoor mould or other microbial agents plays a causal role, this has
not been established conclusively.

and:

The epidemiological evidence is not sufficient to conclude causal relationships
between indoor dampness or mould and any specific human health effect, al-
though the findings of one strong epidemiological intervention study, in con-
junction with the other available studies, suggest that dampness or mould exac-
erbates asthma in children.

[Nick Gromicko]

Oh Joe, that is absurd. IAC2's Standards are not "at odds" with everyone else's other than IAC2 recommends 2 outdoor samples and 2 other smaller associations only require 1. Saying that the Marines requiring 50 push-ups is "at odds" with the Army requiring 40 push-ups is silly.

Furthermore, we are able to demonstrate why the other 2 little associations are wrong and we are right.

Furthermore, it is not a matter or our opinion vs. theirs, as anyone who has ever done an up-wind test and a down-wind test can verify that we are correct.

Furthermore, more and more people in the field are beginning to agree with us and are now taking 2 outdoor samples.

Furthermore, our experts have more pedigree's than both of their's combined.

IAC2's is simply a better more defensible standard that requires a bit more in exactly the area where a bit more is needed.

[Nick Gromicko]

A search for the word "causal' yields many hits.

Why would you do that search or point that out? If there were no causal relationship between being fat and heart attacks, would we all get to eat like pigs?

Summaries in home inspection reports or WHO reports are there for a reason.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Why would you do that search or point that out? If there were no causal relationship between being fat and heart attacks, would we all get to eat like pigs?

Summaries in home inspection reports or WHO reports are there for a reason.

No reaction to what I posted?

In agreement with the Institute of Medicine (2004), we consider that there is
insufficient evidence of a causal relationship with any of the health outcomes
reviewed, although for asthma exacerbation we consider that there is almost
enough evidence to meet the criteria of causality for dampness-related agents.
The evidence does not suggest that any one measurement of microbiological ma-
terials is demonstrably more specific or sensitive for assessing dampness-related
exposure that is relevant to health effects. Thus, although it is plausible that heavy
exposure to indoor mould or other microbial agents plays a causal role, this has
not been established conclusively.

and:

The epidemiological evidence is not sufficient to conclude causal relationships
between indoor dampness or mould and any specific human health effect, al-
though the findings of one strong epidemiological intervention study, in con-
junction with the other available studies, suggest that dampness or mould exac-
erbates asthma in children.

[Nick Gromicko]

Yes, Michael. I refer you to the last sentences of each first paragraph you quote.

#1 says:

it is plausible that heavy exposure to indoor mould or other microbial agents plays a causal role

#2 says:

studies, suggest that dampness or mould exacerbates asthma in children.

The only reference to the word causal in the entire summary appears only once.

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.

[Michael Larson]

Do you understand the words potential and may?

As has been said, the evidence is not conclusive at this point in time.