Is mold really more prevalent today than in the past?

(The following is final installment in a seven-part series on the growing rate of mold detection, remediation projects and litigation in the US presented by the experts at the Environmental Health services group at LZA Technology, a division of The Thornton-Tomasetti Group.)

In the last installment we discussedf the rapid increase in mold litigation, and how in many of these lawsuits, the basis of the claims result from purely faulty deductive logic. Upon further investigation, the fallacy of the logic used to arrive at the conclusion that a particular house has a problem becomes apparent.

First, the causal link between mold exposure and health effects ranging from a running nose and asthma to memory loss, loss of libido and even cancer and miscarriages is difficult to impossible to establish in most cases.

There are few medical doctors who are willing to state with assurance that the wide range of symptoms cited as evidence of exposure to mold are in fact caused by mold. The premise upon which the investigation has begun is faulty.

Second, the mold test results are both meaningless and unremarkable. Any scientific testing requires that the tester be experienced and trained in their field so that the data obtained is relevant. A homeowner does not have this training, so the test results could be tainted.

For example, the test could have been taken on the one and only mold colony in the home. The test results would come back with the data that there are millions upon millions of spores in the sample. That is normal in any mold colony. However, the results do not tell the homeowner how extensive the exposure to mold is in the home, only how many are on the small area sampled.

Furthermore, to properly characterize the conditions of a space requires not just a single snap-shot in time, but extensive testing in the space over time, and also in adjacent spaces and in the exterior. Without extensive testing, the results are not representative of the actual conditions in the environment.

The test results are also unremarkable since as noted above, there is going to be mold encountered in virtually every human environment. Merely finding presence of some level of mold only confirms that the space is inhabited.

The third logical fallacy is made by the home inspector. The homeowner has no knowledge regarding the credentials of the inspector, and it is not a particularly well regulated industry. The inspector observes the home and points out some areas where there are construction defects, and areas where the construction of the house merely has minor construction deviations or is less than absolutely perfect. The conclusion that since there are these "defects" and since there is mold, then the two observations are linked is completely without foundation.

There might be some relationship, but making that case requires sophisticated analysis, and a deep understanding of the performance of buildings and cause of mold growth. Just because there are construction defects does not prove that they are the cause of mold.

And in many cases, the construction "defects" cited by the inspector have nothing to do with any contamination, but this is not made clear to the homeowner, who now adopts these new "defects" as further proof of their complaint.

The final logical fallacy is that the home inspector accepts as fact that there is mold present, without providing an independent analysis. They then state as fact the link between the "mold" and the alleged health problems.

This is merely a ratification of the homeowners amateur deduction that this is the case.

Having now established that there is a problem, the home inspector offers to establish the level of damage to the home.

There is a positive incentive for the individual who will be paid to repair the home to find as many defects as possible; to come to the conclusion that there is extensive contamination.

In addition, there is an incentive to provide as much testing as possible, since it represents a significant income stream. At the end of the process the home owner faces huge expenses, which understandably they wish to recover from someone.

The usual "someone" includes insurance companies, builders, architects, real estate agents and former owners, among others. Yet not only were they not responsible for the health problem allegedly caused by the mold, there may have been no health-related mold problem in the first place. There is little incentive for the homeowner to drop the lawsuit at this point, since they are both emotionally and financially committed to its pursuit.

Yet very few of these cases ever see a courtroom. At some point, most of these cases end in a settlement offer that is made simply to staunch the ever growing legal and expert witness costs on the defendants' part.

So, Is Mold More Prevalent Today Than in the Past?

No. Mold is no more prevalent today than in the past. There probably is an increased occurrence in certain types of construction and in certain areas due to misunderstanding of how buildings function in their environment, and consequently they are built improperly.

The health impact of mold probably is no higher today than in the past. There is an increased sensitivity to the presence of mold due to a confluence of events and news reports. There is heightened sensitivity partially because we have the ability to detect mold at lower concentrations.

There is also heightened sensitivity because we attribute more ills to the exposure to mold. There is certainly more mold litigation, but this is a reaction to other cultural events and not evidence that increased litigation is warranted.

In short, mold as an issue has always existed. Mold exists in our environment right now. Litigation for exposure to mold has not been fully explored in the courts, and most of the issues are unresolved, and may never be resolved in the legal arena. It remains to be seen if the current boom in mold litigation is reaching a peak and will decline, or has reached a plateau.