Re: Mold Prevention coatings applied during new construction
Posted by John L. . on 11/17/04
On 11/05/04, John L. wrote:
> On 11/03/04, Robert wrote:
>> On 11/03/04, Gilligan wrote:
>>> On 11/02/04, Robert wrote:
>>>> EPA registration is important only if you are actually applying a
>>>> pesticide. The EPA regulates pesticides. Most of the mold
>>>> prevention products do not contain pesticides. All the mold Killers
>>>> contain pesticides.
>>>> Paint products have all kinds of additives added to them and they do
>>>> not require EPA approval. The new mold prevention products are under
>>>> the same requirements. Those of you, who do not understand the
>>>> guidelines of the Gov't and what they are for are mislead
>>>> I have been a builder for years and understand water intrusions and
>>>> mold. To prevent is better than to react.
>>>> Several of the products on the market are designed to kill existing
>>>> mold on the product surface. This is good, but they do not last
>>>> (check the warranty claims) they also can be washed off by a water
>>>> intrusion over time. (once again not good because mold needs moisture
>>>> to grow).
>>>> Once you actually check out the facts you all will see that you should
>>>> prevent mold growth over the long term, see your states home owners
>>>> warranty (most are 10 years and then some).
>>>> Be very careful of fast talking salesmen that try to scare you away
>>>> from products or into using product. These guys are no good. Check
>>>> the facts warranties are very important, and it doesn't really matter
>>>> what state the parent company resides in. If the manufacturer doesn't
>>>> warrant the product then don't trust them. Chevy and Ford stand
>>>> behind their products so do several companies out there.
>>>> On 11/01/04, concerned wrote:
>>>>> I looked up the St Jude Case. I was told the John Barry and Lenny
>>>>> Abbott owned PCG. I did not see anything about either of them. I
>>>>> have been approached by PCG to sell their product instead of the
>>>>> Aegis product in Florida. Everyone at the CIA Group has been very
>>>>> forward with their product and its ability to fight mold. I do
>>>>> that EPA registration is important. Who else is protecting us?
>>>>> PCG is nothing but an opportunistic fraud
>>>>>> taking advantage of a vunerable Florida market. They mislead you
>>>>>> by making illegal claims and getting their users in trouble for a
>>>>>> quick buck, (see EPA treated Article Exemption PR notice
>>>>>> www.epa.gov), their so called technology officer is named in a
>>>>>> lawsuit involving St.Jude where he developed a product that - see
>>>>>> for yourself, its sickening: (www.mnd.uscourts.gov/Tunheim) a
>>>>>> cohort real estate scam artist with other lawsuits on file in
>>>>>> kansas and indiana. BUYER BEWARE.
>>>>>>It sounds to me like someone has a bit of product envy! I also
>>> checked out your us courts website, and there was nothing there.
> Aren’t we really asking ourselves “Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth the Cost
> for Homebuilders?”
> If so then the real question for homebuilders should be, “Is it worth it to
> know that I have done everything possible to prevent a future outbreak of
> mold in the homes that I build?”
> “Is it worth it to potentially minimize my personal injury claims that might
> be brought against me because of an unforeseen water intrusion event?”
> Are you willing to make a nominal investment to enhance your current risk
> management strategy?
> Builders have successfully developed new building techniques and continually
> improved upon the design, function, and efficiency of the homes we live in.
> As these progressive builders improve upon the design and efficiency of our
> homes they seem to be ignoring the fact that the building envelopes are so
> tight that they no longer allow the home to breathe.
> As our homes are built with tighter building envelopes we must now address
> the question, “What happens to the moldy lumber once it is covered up by the
> Wooden building members with mold on them have the potential to create health
> related concerns after they are enclosed in wall and ceiling cavities, even
> though the mold is dormant or inactive, high relative humidity or moisture
> intrusion via a pipe leak or condensation can turn it into active mold
> There are many excellent examples of risk management pretreatments. Applying
> mold prevention practices to building members at the time of construction can
> greatly reduce the risk of health and financial threats posed by mold and
> Treatment of moldy building members prior to drywall greatly reduces the
> potential for costly mold remediation and/or litigation should water
> intrusion or high relative humidity cause mold growth.
> Dealing with homeowner concerns about mold has become a significant issue for
> builders as publicity increases consumer awareness and anxiety. The Pro-
> Active Builders are addressing these concerns prior to "close-in," that is,
> before sheetrock and finishing components are added.
> Today, a select number of builders are taking certain steps to minimize their
> mold liability risk. These builders are using new building envelope designs
> that improve interior moister control and are using building materials that
> don’t support mold growth. Additionally, these builders are using microbial
> pretreatment on all vulnerable surfaces that could support mold growth under
> the right conditions. The cost of treatment, which ever it may be, far out
> weighs the risk associated with a future mold liability law suite.
> I was asked to look over this chat board. Read what some have said about the
> pretreatment services available.
> I am happy with what I have read in most part, but agree that it would appear
> the site is being used to direct sales and not raise awareness of the
> developing options available to builders in response to the overwhelming
> onslaught of mold litigation.
> I hope we can all agree that we are in a position to improve the builders
> position while providing an improved indoor environment for the home buyer.
> John L.