Follow us!


    Posted by johncodie on 9/08/06

    Correction: biolabs in bio-science Inc. They have removed the
    fradulant letter on NAVSEA stationary but continue to list an
    endorsement "Quotations from unknow from DOD" The DOD does not
    allow any Military Branch Service to advertise, make endorsement,
    or comment of any particular vendor. This is by federal statue a
    competive bid process. The cheaper vendor typically gets the job.
    Most all products used in the military or for the military will
    have applicable standards the vendors have to conform. Thats a
    part of ensuring all vendors will clean-up to the same standard.

    Which means since there are no federal standards for mold
    remediation, the claim from bio-science inc. should be questioned.
    When federal bases are given back to the community, such as the
    Naval Yard in Washington D.C. If bio-science Inc. is on NAVSEA's
    approved vendors list for services that is all that is requred.

    The person on the bio-science Inc web site being quoted is either
    fictious or never had the authorization in the first place. Do you
    find it odd that such a major mediation player would not list their
    References by name, or maybe they never did any work in the first
    place. Did they remediate the mold on the submarine that was lost,
    at sea with all their crew, or did they remediate some barracks in
    some unknown land that no one can inspect. If I were spending 20
    to 30k for remediation and had a DOD claim I would like to inspect
    the work and know who approved the payment after the work was
    completed to DOD standards.

    Department of Defense: US Navy Groton, CT

    "Ten months have passed since initial Bio-Science treatment
    eliminated the original contamination, including Aspergillus spp,
    Stachybortys atra, Penicillium spp, and Cladosporium."
    "We tried numerous applications of bleach (10%) and various other
    methods suggested by EPA, but were not able to solve our problem on
    our own."

    On 9/08/06, johncodie wrote:
    > The sporocides which you use I am not sure is even a word. The
    > biolabs group in Texas was advertising the use on DOD facilities
    > of two barracks named after submarines but made it appear was used
    > on US Ships; which was not true. Upon review of the DOD letter
    > from the submarine base was found be a fradulant document posted.
    > Upon review the rebuttal sent from the groups president and
    > associate was from a former seaman not even assigned to the
    > mechanical portions of the ship. I know for a fact that the tough
    > areas of the ship for cleaning use the most caustic cleaning
    > solustions with appropriate protective cleaning devices and the
    > most stable of fixtures for not being eatten away from each
    > successive cleaning. One way for the molds to continue below the
    > visible surface is its wicking method of pulling the moisture back
    > into the spores. The coating and priming only last the time the
    > paint is able to be unpermeable. There is plenty of history
    > through wood preservation, but once wet must be properly dried,
    > and once moldy will continue to wick Three is plenty of wood out
    > of the mills that don't completely dry and shows stains,which is
    > different, or moldy prior to the preservatives that apply.
    > With the biolabs sporocides they claimed propriety but when
    > pressed for propertys from FTC, FDA approved cow utter dip. Lets
    > face it not going to put unknown sporocides in a home that causes
    > more harm than the mycotoxins themselves. If your getting
    > remediation, best bet is replace as much of the product as
    > possible and wait, wait, wait for adequate drying. We still had
    > residual moisture 5 years after the storm, and had been inspected
    > about 8 times. They wouldn't hear or removing sheet rock then.
    > jc
    > On 9/07/06, RemDude wrote:
    >> John - The common/popular antimicrobials that are used for
    >> white glove cleaning only have a limited effect on mold spore.
    >> There are some high end products which are effective
    >> sporocides, however, you generally only see the cheap stuff
    >> being used for remediation jobs.
    >> The problem with soda blasting is it dislodges
    >> spores/hypha/fungal components and spreads them throughout the
    >> remediation site and beyond. The biogrowth that is present in
    >> cracks, crevices and pores are only driven deeper into the
    >> surface. Then when the remediator applies their antimicrobial,
    >> it is totally ineffective on the surviving fungal components
    >> which have now found a new home deeper in the surface.
    >> When the clearance study is performed, surface lifts and air
    >> sampling show no contamination - assuming that extensive air
    >> scrubbing, extensive HEPA vacuuming, and lots of white glove
    >> cleaning has been performed (this is seldom the case).
    >> However, contamination still resides in pores and non-
    >> remediated areas of the structure. All that is necessary is
    >> for minimal growing conditions to be met once again and presto-
    >> chango mold contamination is back.
    >> This is why many remediators are being called back a year
    >> after a soda remediation job has been performed. Many times
    >> the contamination is covering a greater area than the original
    >> growth thanks to the spreading of contamination. Soda blasting
    >> has a Wow Factor by abrading surfaces to a clean appearance.
    >> What the customer does not understand is that the rest of
    >> their structure is now contaminated. Geee, thanks a lot.
    >> Yet another gimmic from the remediation industry.
    >> On 9/07/06, johncodie wrote:
    >>> Nothing kills mold spores! It is an inherent ingredient in
    >>> the product that is sold. You can probably change the
    >>> chemical compositon by plasma, or fusion of fire which is
    >>> about the same thing. The remediation groups were trying to
    >>> sell a product sold for coating cow utters after being milked
    >>> to prevent bacteria spread and milk comtamination. Sure it
    >>> would inhibit bacteria but its shelf life was so short it
    >>> would not hold up to the needs of a home. Can you imagine
    >>> coating your interior home with cow utter dip and then
    >>> encasing that in a varnish? Listening in on the mediation
    >>> group they were planning on just painting over the mold but
    >>> were not sure how to prevent it from bleeding through before
    >>> they finshed the job. Baking soda in the pool does make the
    >>> pH neutral to let the clorine work properly. The algea dies
    >>> from the clorine and is filtered out. Abrasing porious
    >> items
    >>> with backing soda just removes the odor but does not prevent
    >>> the wicking action that the pores develop when embeded
    >> within
    >>> its host. If the idea is an abrassive medium, just use a
    >>> commercial product like sand to get the surface ready for a
    >>> primer, and seal. If properly dried and primer seal is
    >>> applied the mold can be held in a suspended state.
    >>> On 9/05/06, JOE ALEXANDER wrote:
    >>>> baking soda is the media used in sodablasting. it is not
    >>>> caustic and it also kills moel spores

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.