It is interesting that we never heard much about mold as a prime concern in our buildings until the days when energy consciousness and economics caused us to favor virtually airtight construction to save on our heating bills, and to favor cheaper materials to save on our construction costs.
Oh, sure, everyone knew about dry rot – a phenomenon usually occurring when a wood beam sat directly on the damp ground, or when wooden structures were exposed to long-term leaking pipes. But mold growing inside our walls? Sick building syndrome? Not in the old days.
Older construction styles and materials shed rain water just fine, insulated walls reasonably well – and also breathed air, allowing it to circulate and help dry out dampness that might occur from interior condensation, or from minor leakage (what we now call “water intrusion”).
Porous brick or lapped shingle siding and wood interior paneling (if any paneling) have been replaced by composite exterior boards, plastic liners, bagged insulation and sheetrock all taped and tucked so tight that our buildings have become rigid balloons with no escape route for moisture.
So now, the economics of energy bill consciousness and modern construction standards contribute greatly to the proliferation of trapped dampness and mold growth. Water that “intrudes” from the exterior, accumulates from condensation or other internal sources, or seeps from wet materials used during construction, has little chance to dry out. It often leads to mold inside the walls, particularly when that mold can feed upon organic papers present on sheetrock and on certain types of insulation. Molds lead, in turn, to illness on occasion, lawsuits and financial losses by many.
What is the solution? Shall we legislate limits on claims against builders as many in the construction industry have advocated in recent years? Wouldn’t that be an artificial treatment of a symptom, and not address the cause? Or, consider that mold is not exactly new. Why don’t we legislate away all “injury” or “sick building claims” on the basis that mold is simply a fact of nature, and decree it to be sound public policy that we should not hold builders or developers or sellers responsible for someone else’s unpredictable sensitivity?
But again, wouldn’t we just be treating the symptoms, not eliminating the cause of the problem?
How about this – encourage building codes that permit, or even require, breathable home construction once again. Some authorities suggest that well-ventilated structures would be beneficial to the release of otherwise trapped radon gas, too, so we’d perhaps reduce radon exposure while we are at the same time inhibiting mold. We would all be a little colder in the winter, but I have heard that they are using these new personal energy-saving devices in Sweden that we could try. They’re called sweaters.
David W. Meyer is an of-counsel attorney with the Vancouver office of Bullivant, Houser, Bailey PC.
