The short answer on mold is “something is wrong in the environment”.

Now let's get into some specifics, or really we should be saying not so specific because we really do not know. Yes that is correct... you, I, the science community, the health community really do not know. There is some associations but the hard evidence is just not there because it is much more complex than that.

Setting the Stage part Two.

The current state of knowledge.

From the CDC (Center for Disease Control)

“Molds are fungi that can be found both indoors and outdoors. No one knows how many species of fungi exist but estimates range from tens of thousands to perhaps three hundred thousand or more. Molds grow best in warm, damp, and humid conditions, and spread and reproduce by making spores. Mold spores can survive harsh environmental conditions, such as dry conditions, that do not support normal mold growth.

From the CDC

“I found mold growing in my home, how do I test the mold?

Generally, it is not necessary to identify the species of mold growing in a residence, and CDC does not recommend routine sampling for molds. Current evidence indicates that allergies are the type of diseases most often associated with molds. Since the susceptibility of individuals can vary greatly either because of the amount or type of mold, sampling and culturing are not reliable in determining your health risk. If you are susceptible to mold and mold is seen or smelled, there is a potential health risk; therefore, no matter what type of mold is present, you should arrange for its removal. Furthermore, reliable sampling for mold can be expensive, and standards for judging what is and what is not an acceptable or tolerable quantity of mold have not been established.”

From the NIH (National Institute of Health)

“One should remember that many of the health effects attributed to the presence of mold or other dampness-related agents in the papers cited here have also been attributed to other factors. Not all papers that address damp indoor spaces control for those other factors, just as dampness-related agents are not always examined as possible factors in studies of the health effects of indoor spaces. This weakness in the literature underlines the importance of the committee's recommendations for research on improved methods of exposure assessment.”

Also from the IOM

“Recent studies have suggested that indoor exposures--to dust mites, cockroaches, mold, pet dander, tobacco smoke, and other biological and chemical pollutants--may influence the disease course of asthma. To ensure an appropriate response, public health and education officials have sought a science-based assessment of asthma and its relationship to indoor air exposures.”

From Harvard International Center for Toxicology and Medicine (ICTM)   

“Stachybotrys is the most dangerous of molds and has been known to cause hemorrhage in lungs. Three papers purported to show a connection between newborns with bleeding lungs and the presence of Stachybotrys in the indoor environment (Dearborne et al. 1997, Etzel et al. 1997, Montana et al. 1997). However, the findings of an association between this disease  and exposure to Stachybotrys has been rescinded by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) because the study design was flawed thus, data compiled in these studies were inadequate to support a hypothesis of a cause and effect relationship (CDC 2000). Moreover, no further clinical evidence of this disease has emerged, despite the increasing number of  homes found to contain levels of the Stachybotrys mold species. “

Also from Harvard International Center for Toxicology and Medicine

“Self-reported symptoms are indicators of mold exposure.

Many epidemiological studies of mold do not have documented concentrations present in the building of concern (e.g., Gordon et al. 1999, Johanning et al. 1999). Rather, these studies rely on self-reported symptoms as a surrogate of mold exposure. Because these self-reported symptoms are non-specific, it is not possible to identify specific chronic diseases based on these symptoms alone. Such self-reported symptoms are not valid surrogates of exposure. Symptoms are frequently over-reported when people believe their health has been threatened. A review of the scientific literature regarding self-reported symptoms indicates that these can be unreliable when perceived hazards exist as a basis for confirming health problems. Numerous authors have studied and reported upon the unreliability  of self-reported symptoms, particularly following perceived toxic exposures (Barsky and Borus, 1995 and 1999; Barsky, et al, 2001, Gots et al 1992, Hopwood and Guidotti 1988, Lees-Haley and Brown 1992, Kaye et al 1994, Lipscomb et al 1991, Lipscomb et al 1992, Logue and Fox 1986, Pennebaker 1994, Roht et al 1985). One important reason given for this unreliability is the well-known phenomenon of "reporting bias" (Last 1992, Hennekens and Buring 1987, Lipscomb et al 1991, Logue and Fox 1986, Pennebaker and Epstein 1983, Pennebaker 1994). The term "reporting bias" is a standard epidemiological term, and not meant as a pejorative. Rather, it refers to the normal human tendency to connect physical phenomenon with unrelated causes, particularly when the perceived cause is viewed as a health threat.”

Now let’s add a confounding factor to all of this... the “Nocebo Effect”.

Nocebo is a “negative placebo effect”.  So that phenomenon by which a placebo creates a positive or beneficial response Nocebo creates a negative placebo effect.

From a study by the Technical University of Munich

“The nocebo effect is surprisingly common and ought to be taken into consideration by medical professionals on an everyday basis.”

From the NIH-

“The opposite of the placebo phenomenon, namely nocebo phenomena, have only recently received wider attention from basic scientists and clinicians.”

Anecdotal Evidence abounds and most of it just does not mean anything. Humans are horribly unreliable at one analyzing oneself and typically do not have enough information other than to say say “I think this or That”. I am sorry that is not science.

As a former HazMat responder I have personally witnessed the Nocebo effect in action. During the chemical waste spill event that I was responding a person from a distance away, well beyond our cold zone control border, had reported to a hospital emergency room (which in this response was incredibly close but that is another story) due to the perceived exposure received from our spill event. This person was not even in a drift pattern that could be associated with the spill but since they saw our response team fully encapsulated and working in a hot zone we must have caused this person adverse health effect.

I grew up in Seattle Wa. Mold was everywhere in every home I lived in (some were kinda disgusting and would be considered a toxic wasteland by some of the so called experts). Mold was visually present in many homes I have been in Seattle.  My anecdotal evidence was there was not health outbreak and elevated mortality from living in these conditions and this is just about as scientific and valid as all the other anecdotal evidence.

So the question is “What do I do?”

The answer is  correct the underlying cause of the growth and clean it up. Now depending on where it is the level of cleaning can vary. We all live with risk every day and we need to put the MOLD RISK in perspective.  Much of what information that is out there is incomplete, is being presented  incorrectly and/or is just flat out wrong.

Living with risk- Excerpts from Richard Wilson's piece- Analyzing the Daily Risks of Life

"The world seems a very hazardous place. Every day the newspaper announces  that some chemical has been found to be carcinogenic, or some catastrophic accident has occurred in some far-off place. This leads some us to hanker after a simpler world where there are fewer risks in life. But does such a world really exist?

If we look back at the world a century ago, we find that the expectation of life was 50 years; now it is 70 years. Therefore the sum of all the risks to which we are now exposed must be less than it was. We find that many of the large risks of the last century have been eliminated, leaving us conscious of a myriad of small risks, most of which have always existed.

The moment I climb out of bed I start taking risks. I ponder risks as I walk down to breakfast taking care not to fall upon the stairs. Falls kill 16,000 people a year- mostly in domestic accidents. Shall I drink coffee or tea with my breakfast? Both contain caffeine, A well-known stimulant which may be carcinogenic. I have a sweet tooth ; do I use sugar which makes me fat or give me heart disease, or saccharin which we now know causes cancer?”

So we need to understand there are always risk we need to assume that. We now need to get perspective and understanding on those risks.

 

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

Richard Feynman

Your Wenatchee and Chelan Professional Real Estate, Home and Structural Pest Inspection Service

Instructor- Fundamentals of Home Inspection-  Bellingham Technical College

You can follow me on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and on my website Blog.