The City of New York has a large issue with mold in both private and public housing – about 15,000 complaints a year are received. Most readers may not know that the original guidelines for cleaning and remediation of mold originated from the NYC Department of Health in 1993. Under consideration, are the guidelines for cleaning and remediation [1]of different levels of mold contamination: Level I: Small Isolated Areas (10 square feet or less); Level II: Mid-Sized Isolated Areas (10 - 30 square feet); Level III: Large Isolated Areas (30 - 100 square feet). Each level, one through three, has different recommendations for the containment, cleaning and protection of the building occupants and the workers performing the remediation.
You may be wondering why the square feet of mold contamination is the measure of difference between the cleaning and remediation guidelines. There is a simple but not well understood explanation: the dose-response relationship between the volume of mold present and the potential danger to building occupants and remediators is the critical to the medical and scientific communities. The more mold present, the greater the possibility of allergy-type reactions. The question at hand driving the review is the amount of mold stated in each level of the guidelines. Many feel that the amounts are too liberal and need to be revised. This is a sticky issue for those affected and the medical and scientific communities. Normally, medical and scientific advice is driven by epidemiological studies – scientific and medical studies of the causes and transmission of disease and health issues within a population. Mold-related health effects are not yet verified by epidemiological evidence and therefore, rest on individual interpretation of the medical and environmental science practitioners. The common divide exist: those who claim medical affects (to the bizarre) and those who claim there is no evidence that the problem is specifically related to the presence of mold and the mycotoxins that cause the health issues (to the bizarre). What’s at stake is a great deal of money – and that should surprise no one who understands what drives change.
Case law has made a difference in this arena. Landlords who pay large settlements, personally or through their insurance carriers, now find it cost effective to be more pro-active in managing their properties to prevent mold. Water is the real issue. Buildings leak or accumulate moisture from occupant use. Construction defects are the real culprit and much of the current scientific evidence indicates that moisture (wetness, especially as droplets of condensed or absorbed liquid, or in a vapor) in the built environment presents more potential for medical issues than any other single factor. Water causes most things to grow, including mold and bacteria. The fix is simple – stop the water or water vapor (above 60% relative humidity – Rh in the abbreviated form) and eliminate the associated or presumed health risks, some known and many unknown.
Meanwhile, get to know a qualified restoration specialist[2] who has the equipment to assist you in finding and fixing water intrusion and elevated relative humidity (Rh). Consider this as part of the annual physical maintenance of your home. It will save you thousands of dollars in potential damage to your home; prevent a real estate disclosure that can kill a sale; and provide maximum comfort and health for you and your family.
[1] Refer to http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/epi/moldrpt1.shtml for a complete copy of the guidline.
[2] Consult the Restoration Industry Association’s list of Certified Specialist at http://www.restorationindustry.org/omnisam/memberdirectory_custom/search.cfm
Comments