New weapons in the war on toxic mold
Environmentally friendly building materials may help combat "sick building syndrome." But if that doesn't work, there's always your lawyer.
By Sam Boykin
Sept. 12, 2002 | Just days after moving into their new $300,000 home in Austin, Texas , Dawn and Scott Richardson and their two young daughters began experiencing health problems. At first it was the occasional headache, nosebleed or bout of dizziness. They also started having trouble concentrating, and often felt muddled and fuzzyheaded. When a water stain appeared on the ceiling, it was discovered that a leaky air-conditioning line had bred a big patch of black mold in the attic, and spewed water down the walls and under the floors. Five weeks later, as their health continued to deteriorate, the Richardson family abandoned their home and nearly all its contents.
"I was bumping into walls and getting lost in my own neighborhood," says Dawn Richardson. "The final straw was when my 16-month-old daughter stopped talking. She regressed to primitive grunting and screaming; she lost her coordination and dexterity. The house was literally killing us."
Both Dawn and her youngest daughter, Erica, were diagnosed with neurological disorders and brain damage, as well as autonomic dysfunction and hypotension. Dawn, who has a degree in electrical engineering from the University of Connecticut and used to design microprocessor chips, feels like a part of her has been forever stolen. "I was pretty damned smart," she says. "And there are areas of my brain now that are permanently damaged. This affects my whole family, especially now that I'm a mother."
In March, the Richardsons sued the builder, David Weekley Homes, claiming that their negligence during the construction process created the optimal environment for the growth of toxic molds and compounds, many of which produce poisonous chemicals that cause chronic and acute health problems, including cancer.
The afflictions plaguing the Richardsons are hardly an isolated incident. An increasing number of people both at home and in the workplace are being affected by sick building syndrome (SBS), defined as situations in which a substantial proportion of building occupants experience discomfort and health effects that are relieved upon leaving the building. In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that indoor levels of pollutants are often higher -- sometimes as much as 100 times higher -- than outdoor levels. Moreover, the EPA says that sick buildings cause an estimated loss of $61 billion a year in employee absenteeism, medical costs, reduced productivity and lower earnings.
Legal action has been a fast-growing response to the rising incidence of SBS -- proliferating as quickly as mold behind damp drywall. The building industry has responded in kind -- after the Richardsons filed their lawsuit, they discovered that a clause in their construction agreement stipulated that all disputes must be resolved through binding arbitration, a legal condition that has become increasingly common in the construction industry. This means that a designated third party -- one often chosen by builders, contractors and attorneys with ties to the construction industry -- will unilaterally settle a suit, with no judge, jury, right of appeal and often no public record. And even if the Richardsons decide to move forward and prevail in the arbitration, they stand to have tens of thousands of dollars in arbitrator fees deducted from any award.
As concerns and lawsuits have mounted, building and furniture industries have begun to introduce environmentally friendly building materials, toxic-free paints and other products and advances in ventilation technology. The movement isn't as quick as some would like, and it won't do anything to remedy the damage already caused, but it is a sign that the same industry whose phenomenal growth has led to unprecedented health problems is realizing that it has to clean up its act, or suffer the consequences.
Next page: The unbearable dread of particle board
