Mould v. Asbestos

Gute Morgens, Gents!

I don’t know what it’s like where you are, but it’s bloody cold at 9,000 feet, I can tell you. I put this on a new thread since I think it may move the discussion in a different direction.

On 12/15/06 Mr. Abernathy stated:

[FONT=Arial]…remember Asbestos was accepted at one point before they realized it = DEATH…never know where Mold may go…like Radon…even if the EPA has elevated it…and is the # 2 cause of lung cancer…it was at one point…ignored.[/FONT]

I’m afraid your parallel to mould/radon and asbestos is wide of the mark. Let’s start with a look at asbestos. You seem to think that asbestos is a “new” hazard. The reality is that the health consequences of asbestos exposure are very real, and as such, the hazards of asbestos have been known for millennia. In the first century AD, Pliny the Elder, described the hazards associated with asbestos; the hazards of asbestos exposure were described again in 1556 by the German scholar, Agricola, and again in 1700 by Bernardo Ramazzini. There was nothing new about the knowledge that exposure to asbestos was potentially lethal. What changed over the years was the human concept of risk and benefit. 2,000 years ago when slaves and prisoners worked the mines, and other dangerous jobs it didn’t really matter to polite society as a whole that the slaves were dying off from white lung disease.

Furthermore, with the end of WWI and WWII when the western world was industrializing, asbestos, complete with its known hazards was an ideal material to fill the bill of the burgeoning industrial needs. So what if it was a little “dangerous” (whatever that means to an American soldier who just spent the last coiuple of years facing German and Japanese guns, gas, bombs… now THAT was dangerous!) Besides, think of the benefits! Asbestos kept the industrial world rolling – the comparitive risks were considered by society to be acceptable.

The risks of asbestos have never changed. They have remained the same and humans have known about those risks since time immemorial. That is because the risks are real and readily observed with exposures.

Yet, mould has been around almost as long as asbestos. Why, then, did nobody until just a couple of years ago decide that airborne exposures to moulds in houses was dangerous and responsible for illnesses? Answer: Because then, just as now, there is no evidence to support the argument that exposures to moulds at concentrations normally seen in houses (even “contaminated” houses) is a serious risk. (By the way, if you are interested in “asbestos,” you may be interested to learn that what you think is asbestos, is probably very different that what asbestos is, and indeed, your equation of asbestos=death is also very, very wide of the mark since there are many forms of asbestos, and the degree of their inherent toxicity varies from non-toxic to particularly hazardous). Indeed, most people have a gross misconception of the word “carcinogen” and mistakenly think that “carcinogen” mean cancer causing agent.

Yet people have been exposed to air borne moulds and their mycotoxins for thousands upon countless of thousands of years, in all that time, there is virtually no evidence to support the argument that those exposures lead to the myriad of health complaints now claimed in the last several years. Why not? The answer is before you.

In my experience, the only people who promote the myth that “Well, science doesn’t really know much about moulds or their health effects…” are the same people who

  1. don’t know anything about mould
  2. don’t know anything about health effects,
  3. don’t know much about history.

In my experience, the only people who promote the myth that “Well, there aren’t any accepted sampling procedures for mould…” are the people who

  1. don’t know anything about mould
  2. don’t know anything about sampling,
  3. don’t know much about history.

We already know where the mould/risk issue is headed – it has only been a mystery to those who

  1. don’t know anything about mould
  2. don’t know anything about epidemiology,
  3. don’t know much about history;
  4. don’t really want to know since it will interfere with their attempts to frighten people into giving up their hard earned cash in return for useless mould sampling.

Regarding the radon risk issue, (from which the EPA has REALLY backed away), I recommend that you read my discussion on radon at:
http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html

If you would like me to explain my thoughts on asbestos, I would be happy to do that. BTW, somebody, I think it was Mr. Dapkus, asked me about developing an acceptable protocol for mould sampling - just as a reminder, I have already answered that question somewhere on this board.

Cheers,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

By all means Yes I would love to learn more about (If you would like me to explain my thoughts on asbestos, )
Do you have any reports that I can read on Line . Thanks for being here I and many sure appreciate all the knowledge we can get.

As I am sure you know we in Canada spell it MOULD and I see you do to is that because you come from Ireland or is it the way it is spelled in the scientific world .

Cookie

Caoimhín,

As usual, to the point with facts from a professional.

I particularly like #4

We already know where the mould/risk issue is headed – it has only been a mystery to those who

  1. don’t know anything about mould
  2. don’t know anything about epidemiology,
  3. don’t know much about history;
    4) don’t really want to know since it will interfere with their attempts to frighten people into giving up their hard earned cash in return for useless mould sampling.

Hello Roy:

I will prepare a brief discussion on asbestos shortly… in the meantime:

Although I grew up in Ireland, and learned the correct spelling for mould, (King’s English, you know), the truth is when I moved to the U.S., I naturally adopted the US spelling. However, I am on certain international standards development committees (based in the US), and I write technical standards for an international audience. There has been a recent move by some in the committees to move the US towards the international spelling for mould for the purposes of reducing ambiguity and increasing consistency. I was not at the leading edge of the movement (I think it may initially have been Dr. Chin Yang during an informal international meeting of experts).

Inconsistency in language can create REAL problems in an international market. When I was a younger man (but perhaps still a gurrier) I used to work in a geochem lab in Ireland and we received two new Perkin Elmer atomic absorption spectrophotometers. The instruction manuals were in German, and the methods manuals came from the US, (well, New Jersey, actually… I suppose that’s close). Although I could adequately translate the German into English, I wasn’t able to translate the American into English and had an helluva time calibrating the instrument according to the American English manuals. Until I finally figured out the problem - in American, a “billion” was a thousand millions, instead of a million millions like rest of the world, all my prowess in German and English came crashing down in goop three orders of magnitude deep! Because the word “billion” in German is 1E12, the American word “billion” is 1E9, the English word “billion” (that we used in Ireland) is 1E12 (that’s a lot of goop.)

My favourite English to English translation story is about one of your English speaking countrymen visiting English speaking Scotland. The Canadian saw “brodie” on the menu and asked the Scottish waiter what was a “brodie.” The waiter casually answered, in plain, simple, clear English:

“It’s juist a big roond slap o’ dough wi’ the tap hauf spread wi’ steak cut sma’ an’ chappit ingins. Syne the boddom hauf’s luftit an’ laid ower the tap an’ scolpit ee aidge. Nick oot twa holes ee tap, fauld, an’ there y’are - a brodie.”

See? How simple is that? :mrgreen:

BTW, as I hammered out the initial post in this thread, it occurred to me that I wrote an article that appeared in the journal Environmental Health and Safety Solutions which addressed mould and risk and asbestos. It was in about the spring of 2003 – I never got a chance to see it. Does anybody get this rag?

Also, along the same lines, for those who are interested, another article of mine just appeared in this edition of “The Monitor” (The quarterly publication of the Industrial Hygiene Practice Specialty of the American Society of Safety Engineers). I haven’t seen it yet, so I don’t know what the editors did to it … but hopefully its good. If anybody gets a copy let me know.

Cheers,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Right, Lads – Here we go…(this is long winded, so if you don’t like technical stuff, skip this post). :wink:

Before we look at asbestos in light of carcinogenesis, lets look at cancer causers and carcinogens. Although “cancer causing agent” is apparently a self-evident term, the term “carcinogen” is less tangible and has been evolving to keep up with our state of knowledge. Like so many other terms, the root meaning of the word remains the same as when it was first created, but its usage, for right or wrong, has been altered. (Rather like the Old (Catholic) Celtic Church wherein certain heresies notwithstanding, we still use specific references, otherwise rejected… it too is a long story).

First, “carcinogen,” which strictly translated means “giving rise to carcinoma.” Carcinomas, strictly translated are malignancies of tissues known as the epithelium. But then, if an agent causes a malignancy to occur in other parenchyma, apart from epithelium, what do we call the agent? A “carcinogen,” of course, because the use of the word is no longer exclusively reserved for carcinomas. Thus, agents which produce sarcomas are now also termed carcinogens since the use of the word has been altered to fit the need (in spite of the imprecision).

It is generally assumed (in the industrial hygiene world, anyway) that on the road to cancer, one must first have a neoplasm (a tumour). The suffix -gen of “carcinogen,” implies that the agent causes the neoplasm. In fact, carcinogens are roughly divided into two groups: genotoxic carcinogens (which are “instabilities” in the DNA) and epigenetic carcinogens (wherein the tumour is produced as a result of tissues having to repair themselves too many times.) Genotoxic carcinogens are those agents which can interact directly with a cell’s DNA, corrupting the strand and resulting in an inheritable somatic mutation passed from initial cell to subsequent daughter cells.

Epigenetic carcinogens, by contrast, appear to promote and/or otherwise enhance the probability that a converted cell (the neoplastic cell) will “dedifferentiate” (forget who it is, and what it is supposed to do) and (very importantly) loose its ability to properly communicate with surrounding cells and the rest of the total organism’s system. Therefore, we have agents which *cause *a cell to mutate (genotoxic carcinogens) and agents which promote the mutation of a cell (epigenetic carcinogens). Yet we still refer to those promoters as carcinogens even though it is currently not thought that the promoter causes the cancer. Therefore, we can have a “carcinogen” that doesn’t even cause a neoplasm, much less a carcinoma.

Contrary to common belief, there are very few commonly agreed upon confirmed human cancer causing compounds. Although there are certainly hundreds of carcinogens, to memory, there are only about 23 confirmed genotoxic cancer causing compounds; 5 epigenetic compounds, and 5 that appear to be in a grey area. (This is from memory. It is possible that the actual numbers are slightly different). And yet we have hundreds and hundreds of compounds listed as carcinogen. So, from whence comes the difference? From the fact that a compound no longer needs to cause a malignancy of any parenchyma to be classified as a carcinogen.

For each of these, for the functional definition of a carcinogen to be realized, it is assumed that a sufficient dose has been received to result in a cancer; and thus begins the road to the highly contentious question of how much is required which in turn begins to form the now commonly used term “carcinogen.” (I will go into that more if anyone is interested).

That takes us to “asbestos.” “Asbestos” is not a mineral classification, rather the word is a general descriptor for any one of several naturally occurring minerals that, because of their chemical composition and/or physical characteristics have found use in industry. Even “asbestos” and “asbestiform” are not synonymous; many “asbestos” products contain non-asbestiform minerals as the “asbestos” component. (This is old hat, see for example, U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8751 (1977) “Selected Silicate Minerals and Their Asbestiform Varieties” Campbell, W.J., et al)
**
Typically, in the US and Canada, we run into chrysotile asbestos, so I will focus on this material (although there are many other forms, each having different human exposure limits based on their inherent toxicity). I actually prepared a lot of the following discussion for some home inspectors at another location some time ago.

The white asbestos found in the US and Canadan, usually belongs to the “Serpentine” family of minerals and is called chrysotile. The chemical composition of white asbestos is chemically very similar (virtually identical) to talc since, like so many other minerals, white asbestos and talc have a typical, but not a definitive chemical composition.

However, two chrysotile asbestos specimens may actually have different chemical compositions, but are both called chrysotile based on morphological (crystal) characteristics. Similarly, two minerals may have exactly the same chemical formula but may actually be two entirely different minerals. For example, chrysotile and antigorite both have the chemical composition of Mg6Si4O10(OH)8, but chrysotile is an asbestiform mineral and antigorite is not an asbestos or asbestiform mineral.

To complicate the matter even further, the complete mineral we call chrysotile is actually composed of alternating sheets of two other distinct sheet-like minerals, silica, (SiO2) and brucite, Mg(OH)2) which fit “uncomfortably” along side each other. The minerals fit uncomfortably because of the mismatch of electronic charges surrounding the molecules in the sheet-like structures. To facilitate a “comfortable fit” between the two dissimilar sheets, the two component sheet minerals distort their shape in one of two ways. If the two sheets “flip-flop“ in an alternating fashion, (see my drawing at http://forensic-applications.com/misc/antigorite.jpg ), the wavy sheet-like mineral is called “antigorite.”

However, if the two sheets simply layer one on top of the other, they form a curved sheet resembling a rolled up spiral; this is a form of chrysotile (go to http://forensic-applications.com/misc/chrysotile.jpg).

This structural arrangement produces irregular bond angles and non-symmetrical charge distributions which renders the microstructure inherently less stable than other silicates. It is for this reason that chrysotile is readily attacked by organic acids and is rendered unstable in the biological environment. This is, in my opinion, one of the important aspects which begins to toxicologically differentiate the white asbestos from other asbestiforms.

Various trace elements (cations such as iron and nickel) “contaminate” the crystal lattice which further induce additional electrical charge abnormalities and alter the shape of the layers. In some deposits, entire sheets may be missing or the ordering of the sheets may be substituted, again altering the microstructure, but still resulting in a mineral called “chrysotile.”

Hydration in asbestiform minerals is very important and speaks to the “carcinogenic” power of the material. It is usually referred to as “dustiness” and “harshness” of a particular lode of mineral which appears to be associated with the size of the radius of the helix. The greater the degree of contamination, the greater the diameter of the helix, and the greater the “harshness.” Similarly, the “harshness” seems to be associated with the structural water content. One author suggests that fewer water molecules in the lattice make the fiber harsher and subsequently easier to bind to cell membranes. He (the author, Langer) notes that exposure to the dust of heated chrysotile products convey greater biological potential than does exposure to the unaltered original material.

The idea of harshness of a fiber does not seem to be generally well known (or perhaps accepted). The British Asbestos Newsletter Vol. 17 (1994) provided a synopsis of papers given at the 1993 “Chrysotile Workshop.” The Asbestos Newsletter states:

A minority of delegates expressed divergent views on chrysotile. At session one on November 17, Dr. A. Langer (USA) spoke of the wide range of physical characteristics that chrysotile fibers exhibit: “The fibre may be non-flexible (‘stiff’) and low in tensile strength (‘brittle’), and may lack an ability to curl…The behaviour of the harsh fibres is more amphibole-like and their splintery nature suggests an enhanced inhalation potential…Chrysotile’s properties may vary from place to place and among different user industries.”

In addition to structurally altering the shape of the mineral, contaminants also alter the stability of the crystal lattice. Substitutional cations such as nickel and iron (which replace the magnesium) are readily leached out of the lattice in the biological environment. Which further creates instability of the structure.

Presuming that the definition of the mineral is, at least in part, incumbent on its structure, by inducing morphological changes one changes the identification of the mineral. Thus, non-curling chrysotile (especially in the presence of aluminum) becomes known as a lizardite (Caruso L.J;, Chernosky J.V. The Stability of Lizardite, Canadian Mineralogist, Vol. 17, pp.757-769 (1979)) mineral. Since chrysotile is not a chemically defined substance, there is a spectrum of chemical compositions wherein the magnesium is substituted to varying degrees with aluminum and other cations. The more substitution by aluminum, the more probable that the structure of chrysotile will “flatten out” resulting in the non-asbestiform mineral called lizardite or antigorite.

While there is, I believe, very little contention concerning white asbestos and, say, pneumoconioses and asbestosis, there is some contention with the carcinogenicity of the serpentines vs. the amphiboles. In particular, there is controversy over the ability of the serpentines to cause plural mesothelioma and pericardial mesothelioma and or lung cancer. It is certainly a fascinating toxicological issue, not yet resolved.

So, when you find asbestos, think about that. Also, is there a reason for a Home Inspector to sample for asbestos? Sure, why not? I think it’s a good service to offer your clients. Bulk sampling for asbestos is cook-book stuff, and an HI can learn how to do proper sampling from EPA guidelines (wherein the data quality objectives (the sampling plan) are already developed, and the sampler needs only to follow the step-by-step directions). However, some states regulate who can (and cannot) perform such sampling, especially in commercial buildings and the Feds regulate who and how to sample in schools for compliance issues.

There are some “secret” ways to structurally alter asbestos in situ so that it remains chemically the same, but is no longer asbestos. How odd is that?

Anyway - there’s my chrsotile diatribe (BTW, I no longer get involved in asbestos issues… I hate asbestos and refuse to do asbestos inspections.)

Cheers,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

No offense…but If I felt that way about the profession I was in one would have to question why on EARTH are you in it…not argueing with you as you have more experience on this topic…unless I can drag you over into the electrical forum…I will just defer the arguement…lol

However it begs me to ask why you do mold inspections for court cases or to be honest what is your connection to mold…if it is not a problem…why justify paying you for any services…both in court or out of court…since basicially it is a waste of money in doing any testing…sorry I just have to ask because I am unclear now.

Also…how come the disclaimer…on every post…I do not make one when I give electrical advice… because I know that advice comes from a licensed master electrician who is giving sound advice…just wondering?

What a joy to read Caohimhin P. Connell. There’s nothing quite so refreshing as the plain truth.

So Mr. Connell has been accepted as the preemminent authority when it come to mold? Ooh, I’m sorry your majesty, I meant mould. It appears so since the NACHI Vice-President has recognized his dissertation as the plain truth.

I certainly find this curious - how can NACHI be partnered, teamed, etc. with Pro-Lab and then have the Vice President make this post? If what Mr. Connell states is true and makes us swoon in amazement, then what Pro-Lab teaches is garbage. Someone is right and the other is wrong. Which is it, NACHI leaders? Calling Nick Gromicko, are you out there? Do you feel any responsibility to your members? Is NACHI promoting Pro-Lab knowing they (Pro-Lab) are full of stuff? There are a lot of inspectors who’d like to know.

I agree Keith and he most certainly provides many great thoughts .
Some agree and some think differently .
I agree and will not be doing Mould Inspections . …

Cookie

Leviticus 14:37 “And he shall look on the plague, and, behold,
[if] the plague [be] in the walls of the house with hollow strakes,
greenish or reddish, which in sight [are] lower than the wall;”
Leviticus 14:38 “Then the priest shall go out of the house to the door
of the house, and shut up the house seven days:”

 This 7 day period of waiting is to see if the suspicion was

ungrounded, or to allow a short time for this problem to right itself.
Plague is like an infection. I believe this is just giving a time to
the one who is examining this, to determine if there is any need for
doing anything.

 Leviticus 14:39 "And the priest shall come again the seventh day,

and shall look: and, behold, [if] the plague be spread in the walls of
the house;" Leviticus 14:40 “Then the priest shall command that they
take away the stones in which the plague [is], and they shall cast
them into an unclean place without the city:”
:shock: :shock: :shock:

Thomas, just caught up with your post (12/20/2006). The truth is I didn’t know that his “majesty” had anything to do with ProLab. About fifteen years ago, I took a five-day course in asbestos. I still have the four-inch thick book on it. I concluded that most of the cases involving inspectors and asbestos were bogus. The long fiber type of asbestos that was predominantly in residential use for many years would be difficult to get into the alveoli of the lungs where it might might metastisize. Regardless, and inspite of the fact that the EPA and the CPSC recommended leaving it alone if it was in good condition, I became aware of numerous cases where innocent inspectors were found guilty of not commenting on the potential for asbestos in a acoustical ceiling material and in the insulation of air-cell ducts. So much for the “quality” of knowedge and common sense.
By the way, vice-presidents, presidents, and even illustrious founders do not magically acquire any special powers with their position, and their views carry no more scientific validity than your own. I am an inspector and a mere mortal, like you. I wish you well.

Although I’ve been told by an insurance executive that mold will not follow the way of asbestos, I’m on record in my book as saying that it will. In my tiny little world, I have learned of two mold cases in the last month, and I will write about these cases, and continue to warn inspectors that they will be victimized. I don’t want to annoy Thomas by appearing to be an authority on such matters, but the real threat of mold will not be to our health but to our pocket books.

“but the real threat of mold will not be to our health but to our pocket books.”

Well said Keith

Good morning, Gents:

Happy St. Stephen’s Day. I hope all of you had a blessed and joyous Christmas.

Some good questions and criticisms, I hope I can answer them satisfactorily.

Mr. Abernathy asks:

However it begs me to ask why you do mold inspections for court cases or to be honest what is your connection to mold…if it is not a problem…why justify paying you for any services…both in court or out of court…since basicially it is a waste of money in doing any testing…sorry I just have to ask because I am unclear now.

That’s a fair question. There are a couple of ways I get involved in mould inspections, and for a couple of different reasons. However, in truth, virtually every time an homeowner calls me up and asks for a mould inspection, I spend time on the phone explaining the facts, and debunking the myths which underlie the purpose of their call. Almost always, I talk myself out of that work. Some of those people will ask me to come out and perform a visual inspection for insurance purposes or to help them better identify the moisture problem (if there is one).

When I perform sampling, here is an example of how it comes up:

Someone will perform sampling or a mould inspection and based on that report, they rely on myth and nonsensical silliness about “toxic moulds” and frighten the homeowner who then enters into litigation with another party (Landlord, Seller, Home Builder, HOA, etc). The litigation seeks punitive damages and/or other remunerations that are often in hundreds of thousands (to millions) of dollars. The attorneys for the defense hire a rebuttal witness. As part of their strategic argument, they require a qualitative, objective, statement of fact concerning the actual mould exposures in the property. The rebuttal opinion, and those data upon which the expert opinion is rendered must stand up in court. I will prepare a sampling plan, establish an hypothesis, develop data quality objectives and perform the sampling to meet the objectives. I then will evaluate the data pursuant to standard PARCC parameters, and issue a report. Virtually always, at that point, the case settles when the Plaintiff’s legal counsel realize they will loose in court. So for example, in my upcoming mould sampling project, the $3,800.00 the Defense will spend on my sampling, is small beer compared to the potential financial loss that the client would otherwise suffer.

Here is another example of some mould sampling I performed a few months ago. An irresponsible medical doctor went out on a limb, and without any validity or scientific foundation or medical foundation, wrote a letter to her patient and told her that her illness (although undiagnosed) was due to the presence of “toxic moulds” in the patient’s house. The homeowner launched a law suit against the builder claiming construction defects that resulted in exposure to “toxic moulds.” The homeowner’s legal counsel hired me to perform sampling to qualitatively demonstrate what the exposures were in the home – since they were going to sue the pants off the builder. My sampling and inspection not only demonstrated that there was NO mould problem in the house, (and the exposures were actually below normally expected values), my work also identified that actual cause for the illnesses at the house. I critically addressed the doctor’s report and criticized it as non-medical junk science. The doctor now realized that SHE was on the hook for causing the mess, and so she withdrew her initial medical report, apologizing to her patient and admitting that she didn’t really know anything about mould, and that she should not have concluded that mould in the home was responsible for the illness. So in that case, my work benefited my client by demonstrating that they didn’t have a case, and they would loose if they pursued their claim.

Those are just two examples, here’s another:

In another case, my client was a medical doctor who had comedown with a mysterious constellation of symptoms that seriously effected his immune system. At his request, and in conjunction with directives from with his medical providers, I performed a chemical and microbial profile of his exposures which included Gram Positives, Gram Negatives, endotoxins and moulds. The over all project, when all was said and done, was probably about $25,000.00. My client, the MD, successfully sued the HOA for the building wherein his condo was located arguing that their intentional refusal to follow proper maintenance practices resulted in his illness. As usual, upon issuance of my final opinion redressing their expert, the HOA decided to settle out of court in favour of my client for a large, undisclosed, sum of money.

Regarding my disclosure that I try to remember to put at the bottom of each post: These posts that I make here are not a work product. They are akin to “kitchen chats” wherein I may play the devil’s advocate, or I may present ideas that I don’t necessarily support to illustrate a theme, or I may joke and cajole, harangue or otherwise behave in a manner that has a lower standard of care and a lower standard of professionalism than would be seen in my actual work products.

As such, when I am on the stand and undergoing direct examination, attorneys would have a difficult time using these posts against me, since, as clearly stated in my disclaimer, these comments do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. Similarly, because of the disclaimers, no one can go to the agency with whom I am a law enforcement officer and complain about any representations I may have made here, since these are exclusively my personal opinions and do not in any way represent the positions of my law enforcement agency or my positions or opinions as a sworn police officer.

When I issue an official report – there is NO disclaimer - EVER. My reports are hard hitting, objective, stand-alone documents.

Finally, regarding Leviticus – although the identity of the material remains unknown, it is known that it cannot have been mould. The biblical reference commonly cited and misunderstood as being mould misunderstands the larger message, since the actual reference is part of a larger passage that discusses leprosy; and which is actually the embodiment of an even larger teaching on defilement as a punishment for disobedience to Y***. I have read several versions of the Bible, and nowhere (not even in the make-believe versions of the Episcopalians) does the Bible warn of moulds; toxic or otherwise.

Scripture tells us in the passage (Leviticus 14:37) that the referenced “greenish or reddish spots” appear on stones and mortar. Mould is a saprophyte and does not readily grow on stones or mortar. In light of Leviticus 14:33, and consistent with the traditional rabbinical teachings on this passage, the concept being proffered in Leviticus is that sickness is the result of the Holy and Unclean coming together and is known as the “defilements of the body;” as also addressed in Leviticus 16:21-28 and Numbers 19:7,8,10. So although the common notion that “toxic mould” is somehow addressed in the Bible may be a fun diversion, it is largely untrue.

But then, that’s just my take. And after all, just like Mr. Swift – I’m just another mere mortal, one of billions, nothing special – but nevertheless a Brother in our Lord.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

(I edited this post at 11:50 MST 12/26/06 by correcting a mispelling - CPC)

Sound like more “plain truth” to me, if I may be permitted to express an opinion. What say you, Mr. doubting Thomas (Szezepanski)?

Mr. Swift,

I apologize for my comments if they have offended anyone. I find it quite humorous to have comments made that state the “correct” spelling of mould is according to the King! With multi-culturalism in the news lately, it seems ridiculous for such a simple word that most English-speaking folk understand no matter how it is spelled, be pointed out again how the U.S. spells mold incorrectly. And my name is Szczepanski, not Szezepanski - I think?:smiley:

I also have extensive training and experience with asbestos (a little longer than 5 days), however my comments regard mold. I still am curious why NACHI seems to endorse Pro-Lab when the information that they (Pro-Lab) are providing can harm NACHI inspectors in court according to Mr. Connell.

The actual truth appears to be that Mr. Connell has plenty of time to write enormously long opinions on this message board.

Thomas, your ability to reason is impaired, and renders your apology almost meaningless. The course that I took fifteen years ago on asbestos was five-days, but my research and field experience since that time has been quite extensive. Mr. Connell is quite clearly an authority on environmental pollutants, and graciously provided the membership with some plain truths about asbestos and mold, and yet you respond with unsubstantiated accusations and resort to such juvenile behavior as name-calling. You owe him an apology. If you want to be politically correct, my title is “Dr,” not “Mr,” but you may call me Keith. As for spelling, “preemminent” only has one “m” in it. His humor is self-evident; yours is not.

You asked. I haven’t denied you from expressing your opinion. I never said you had impaired reasoning or called you juvenile or placed “doubting” in front of your name.

Every part of your argument is flawed and has no basis in fact. You simply maligned an obvious expert and then indulged in juvenile, yes, juvenile, name-calling. Then, you’re foolish enough to imply some complicity in my having complimented his post. In point of fact, I know very little about this man, other than the fact that he is an industrial hygienist. Regardless, his writing skills and command of the subject matter convinced me that he is someone worth listening to. If you cannot contribute something postive, or buttress your arguments with logical proof, I suggest you read and learn and refrain from writing.

As a former REALTOR, considering that nearly all inspections we perform are associated with real estate transactions, I would think that whether or not mold or radon or asbestos or widgetts for that matter are ACTUALLY dangerous to human beings is a totally moot point and not one we need to be qualified to argue either way.

Our clients pay us to provide them with documents… the more documents (be they pictures, lab reports, etc)… the better we serve our clients.

I knew a man who bought a home with a radon level in excess of 600 pCi/L because he thought radon was B.S. He never even asked me for a copy of the lab report (the document) and so never used it to walk from the executed contract or negotiate with the seller. Fine. But when he went to resale his home a year later he discovered that the marketplace didn’t think radon was B.S. The radon may or may not have been ACTUALLY harmful to him (who knows, I’m not a health physicist), but it sure as heck was harmful to his re-selling price.