Riding up the chair lift at a ski hill near our center ski in Vermont, another snow board rider and I were talking about healthy building. He was involved with environmental analysis, and wanted to know how we tested air quality. The usual answer to this question typically produces fear in the imaginative mind [and wallet] of anyone facing an air quality analysis procedure, but my answer was a bit out of the norm.
Although we are up on all the various ways of testing air quality, and are friends with professional people who do air sample testing around the country, we need to ask some serious questions before we can determine what method is the best to use.
The reason why we ask questions before we sign up to do random air sampling,
is there are several reasons why people want to test air.
1. Why sample the air, or what are the exact problems?
Are people getting sick? What are the symptoms etc.?
2. What do you want to determine, or what is the purpose and goal of
your testing?
Do you want to identify the exact amount of contamination? Do
you want to fix the sources, or are you trying to prove there is no problem?
[ Usually the latter means some kind of legal dispute].
3. How much do you want to spend?
There are numerous items to test for and usually different ways to do testing. For certain contaminants, there are reasonably priced tests, and some of these can be done by the home owner. Testing for dust mites, or lead pipes or so on, can be fast, easy and economical, while raw air sampling to determine toxic type and quantity can be very costly.
Quite honestly, most people have problems with a list of items that is usually longer than several contaminants. Having a person show up to do sampling in itself can be very costly, never mind the cost of each individual test, and individual tests are necessary to determine each separate toxic. To start a project of exploring all the potential toxics in air in a given location at a given time, by testing with equipment, is very expensive, and it can a be long drawn out process. And in the end, it may be very inaccurate as well, because only some of the toxics may be tested for and others may be missed!! Then there's the whole issue of correcting any problems. The past experiences many people have had, usually scare the heck out of any administrator- the case histories are usually nightmares. This is highly unfortunate as there is another simpler way to identify and solve these problems.
Typically when there is an indoor air quality problem there are a number of sources. Usually there are several giants and then a host of lesser or secondary ones. Generally, no air quality problem exists independently to another, they are intertwined, sometimes playing off one another creating other problems. One may contribute to another, actually creating compound reactions, sometimes setting a scenario where people have reactions to a toxic, when before, without the presence of the other one, they would not. Because we think odors or toxics need to be primary or large in quantity to have a detrimental affect on health, we automatically dismiss the idea that lesser toxics may be causing or contributing to a problem as well. Already, our assumptions have set an unscientific method or analysis that will lead the process to failure.
Most people who are concerned about air quality usually don't know what
the problem could possibly be, and sometimes doubt there could be a problem
at all.. So they think to only way to find out what the problem could be
is to do air sampling of some type. A basic general air analysis would
cost a minimum of $500 for starters. Then, to identify each separate toxic,
might cost $75 to $150 per test or more. This kind of testing, especially
when there is no idea of what could be a problem, is just out of reach
financially for most people. And one of the biggest problems that air sampling
companies have, is a total lack of knowledge of what toxics come from what
materials. In fact we have heard more than one testing company say " well,
we can tell you what the toxics are, but there is no way to identify the
sources"!!! Do you believe it?
This is too much. The sources are documented in paper after paper,
book after book. But you have to know where to look and you have to be
able to understand the connection between the clinical data and individual
circumstance case data. This takes time and experience to give a person
the depth of vision to make an accurate assessment. The answers are all
there. Clinical Toxicology books are very expensive, but they are extraordinarily
detailed about toxics from all types of materials, appliances, industries,
products and so on. Medical doctors use these [occasionally] to determine
exposure characteristics. We use these books to document toxics people
are commonly exposed to in their homes and industry.
If a legal battle is pending, this obviously is the most credible method, by most standards, to gather exact data. But if we are interested in general air quality, and in the identification of exact sources, we strongly suggest an inspection by an experienced person who can identify the sources of toxics without doing the costly testing. In either type of case, even if you need to do air sampling, getting an inspector to identify sources, should always be the first step.
In most cases, visual identification by an experienced inspector can uncover sources of toxics in any environment. In fact in many cases, a good inspector can do a fairly accurate inspection over the phone! After asking simple questions that identify equipment, materials, and either personal items, or the various components of the business [ if it is a commercial space], certain sources usually are blatantly obvious. There is no question that an on site inspection needs to be done to be really accurate, but the fact is that many materials and pieces of equipment are common indoor air quality culprits.
Since I am a universal reactor and have many many years in the building trades, doing sick building inspections, locating safe housing for sensitive people, designing, building and renovating, examining equipment and privately testing both materials and equipment from the perspective of sub odor level toxics, toxics in residential and commercial buildings are a very simple subject to me. To anyone unfamiliar with these areas, this subject may be very confusing. But experience is the key in any field, and without a combination of varied experiences, there is no way an inspector can just pick this skill up.
I am always aghast at the typical way administrators go about trying to identify indoor air quality problems. Usually the process takes months, costs thousands of dollars, ends in a terrible legal battle, with enemies made on both sides of the fence, and yields little or no results. The reason I am mentioning this is because of the lack of results and the amount of suffering and expenditures that result from inept people and processes. Public buildings, especially schools, office buildings, and small businesses, are the biggest problems, usually because no one has
1. accurately planned or redesigned the ventilation system - or maintained
it properly,
2. chose the proper materials to renovate or build with, or
3. set up and ventilated all the various pieces of equipment or work
areas properly.
The end result is,
1. [in schools] children, administrators and teachers who are exposed
to low level toxics who become sicker and sicker, fed drugs [ kids ] and
turned into legalized addicts to get them to concentrate, or who are singled
out and labeled as "bad seeds"- or
2. workers[ who by the way, their employers, like school administrators,
are completely responsible for the health of those who are in their care
or employment] who are exposed to toxics that destroy their health, and
may destroy their capability to earn a livelihood, their relationships,
and many times the rest of their family and children.
Indoor air quality is a simple thing to understand, if you can grasp
the concept of low level or sub odor level toxics, and how they can
devastate our health. Once that concept is understood, or even better-
experienced, then identifying the sources of indoor air quality toxics
in any environment becomes a whole other science. If this is not understood,
identifying sources of toxics will not even be possible. Most people
are just becoming aware of the incredible toxicity of sub odor level chemicals.
Recent admissions by industry that fuel oil, oil and bunker oil is carcinogenic
below odors that we can detect, is quite startling to most people. But
this is the 90's. And these are the type of toxics we are dealing with.
We have abused chemicals like these for many years, polluting our food,
water , homes, and air. Sooner or later our bodies and the planet, must
start reacting to and rejecting them. These are not supposed to make
us feel good ! They are deadly poisons that need to be handled delicately
and responsibly. And we have not done so.
Tad is a specialist in detecting sub odor level toxics of all kinds, with and without sophisticated equipment. Costly equipment is useless without knowing the sources and conditions that make these toxics present. Homes, businesses and commercial buildings including schools and offices suffer from scores of common but deadly toxics. Check out our SERVICES pages for ways we can help eliminate these in your environment!