Healthy Indoors Magazine - USA Edition

26 | December 2022 Carl Grimes Continued from previous page The fear of mold infection is palpable among consumers even though the risk of mold infection is basically irrelevant. Mold infections are occasionally possible, but they are neither common nor relevant to exposure to water damaged buildings. None of the documents I've seen, or been presented with, can refute the increasing body of medical evidence which supports the 2006 conclusion in Environmental and Occupational Respiratory Disorders that, "Host factors, rather than environmental exposure, are the main determinant of opportunistic fungal infection."* In other words, even for infections the viability of mold is not the primary concern. Killing mold fails the actual (A) require- ment in multiple ways. Therefore, the claim that killing mold is an alternative to physical removal is the killer zero in the argument of equivalence with physical removal. The Killer Zero Both denaturing and killing mold have a fatal flaw within the context of S520 as a guardrail of the mold remediation industry. This killer zero is for the second require- ment of S520 to identify and stop the moisture. Denaturing nor killing can pre- vent regrowth because neither can identify and stop the sources of moisture responsi- ble for the germination of spores sprouting into colonies of growth which then repro- duce by producing new spores. My analysis of denaturing mold and killing mold concludes that while each set of factors may be internally logical, they fail at some point with the required inter-rela- tionships. In addition, if adding physical re- But if they don't submit it, or are unable, then denaturing should be rejected be- cause its inclusion will allow claims that are not supported, thus corrupting S520 as a guardrail. Without independent validation of the (A) portion of the loop, the claim that denaturing is equivalent to physical re- moval is the killer zero of that claim. Killing Mold Killing mold as a substitute for physical re- moval is very appealing, especially to cus- tomers in dire need of help and already fearful of the horror stories repeated in the echo chambers of Internet support groups. They have been easy prey to those insisting that mold must be killed before removal and again after removal just in case there are any spores or other rem- nants remaining. I've seen reports and heard others say that the argument for kill- ing mold is no essential and risky that ex- traordinary means are necessary. I've ob- served where visible mold is sprayed first, then the surface removed, sprayed again, placed in a bag, sprayed inside the bag, the bag is closed and sprayed, the bag is tak- en outside for disposal and sprayed again. My comment is that either the methods of killing are very ineffective, mold is incredi- bly resilient and dangerous, or someone is exploiting the customer. Aside from possible abuse from meth- ods of killing mold and the efficacy con- cerns, killing mold fundamentally fails to achieve the dynamical inter-relations of the first-facts looping. Even if we assume 100 percent efficacy, which never occurs, the dead mold can continue to trigger reactions in susceptible occupants. Each cell in the structural components of the mold colonies and in the reproductive spores contains multiple substances such as proteins, glucan, and proteases which can trigger allergic reactions, asthma at- tacks, immunological dysfunction, physical irritation, and inflammation. A fundamen- tal microbiology textbook contains the information that killing mold or other micro-organisms is necessary to prevent or to stop infections. But mold infection is exceedingly uncommon. A brief review of the concept and for- mality is illustrated by the figure on the right. The A is for Actual, and the C is for Conceptual. The f is a function, and the s is for structure. The closed loop is anchored in reality (A), and is consistent with the conceptual (C), the structure (s), while the function (f) describes the connection be- tween the conceptual and the actual. The relationship between each is such that when the circle is completed all parts and their relationships are consistent with each other. It's all connected in a verifiable and repeatable manner, like the harmony of a barbershop quartet. Any false fact, relation- ship, or note in the song renders the entire performance false. It's analogous to multi- plying numbers, no matter how many, that if there is even one zero the entire result is a zero. Those false facts are the killer zeros of any discussion or "proof." The current S520 fulfills all four proper- ties individually and it re-loops as a system of verifiable relationships. If any Condition 3 or Condition 2 mold is physically removed there can be no exposure. If the source of moisture which germinated the spores and grew the colonies of mold is identified and stopped there can be no re-growth or new growth. If denaturing and killing mold is to comply with the guardrails of S520 their first-facts must re-loop into a consis- tent and verifiable whole within the S520 guardrails. Denaturing Mold Denaturing mold means that it will no longer have the properties of mold, which means the substances that cause reactions in people are no longer present. The func- tion (f) of denaturing is met, as is the struc- ture (s) and the conceptual (C). But the ac- tual connection to the material world (A) seems to be missing, at least in the real-life situations of houses. Yes, denaturing has suc- cessfully occurred in the closed confines of environmental chambers in labs. But I am not aware of any independent studies vali- dating claims of denaturing in actual real-life homes. If third-party validation is available, then there is an obligation to submit it to the S520 consensus body for consideration.

• Cover