InspectAPedia ^TM

Electric Power Lines, Electromagnetic Fields, Cancer Risk, & "Enviro-Scare" The Normal Curve Cycle of Public Fear of Environmental Issues and its Effect on Property Values Enter your search terms Submit search form   Search This Website - InspectAPedia.com

What is the EMF Hazard The pattern of rise and fall of public fear for environmental hazards The effect of environmental hazards on real estate prices

This paper discusses electromagnetic radiation or electromagnetic fields (EMF) as a possible cancer risk and offers a brief analysis of the probable cancer risk from EMF compared with other hazards. It graphs the effect of fear of power lines and EMF exposure as well as other environmental concerns as it affects property values over time.

I define "Enviro-Scare" (ES) and I use this cyclic fear pattern to describe the variation and effects of the level of public environmental worry by recapping the enviro-scare history of asbestos, EMF, UFFI, and other environmental concerns. The red graph depicts the varying level of ES or public fear for a given environmental concern. ES generally increases, peaks, and then diminishes over time, independently of the actual level of risk.

As people become acclimated to the particular topic it loses its initial shock value. Links to other resources include EMF Procedures & Causes of EMF Measurement Error & Variation . © Copyright 2008 Daniel Friedman, All Rights Reserved. Information Accuracy & Bias Pledge is at below-left. Use links at the left of each page to navigate this document or to view other topics at this website. Green links show where you are in our document or website.

What is an Electromagnetic Field (EMF) or Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR)

Every (electric) current going through a wire generates magnetic radiation which travels around the wire. There is continuing controversy regarding possible health effects of exposure to this radiation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Navy performed a study which reported that 5 out of 6 laboratories found increased levels of embryological changes in chickens when exposed to magnetic radiation.

Other tests have shown biological effects on mice, miniature pigs, and humans. Recent articles claim or at least suspect that exposure to high levels of ELF radiation is a factor in leukemia in children. A recent article in The New Yorker Magazine along with other media reports have focused public attention on this topic.

Magnetic radiation surveys measure Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) and Very Low Frequency (VLF) fields which have nothing to do with high frequency radioactivity such as radon, X-rays, and so-called ionizing radiation. In a separate article we report on several recent studies and articles which discuss the health issues regarding ELF and VLF radiation. Magnetic radiation is produced by high tension power lines, but also by ordinary secondary lines, power transformers, household wiring, certain electric radiant heating devices, improperly grounded appliances.

Origins of Cancer Scare and Electromagnetic Fields

Realtors listing or owners selling a property which adjoins an overhead power transmission line know that there are sometimes very significant marketing issues because of consumer concern for potential health issues where electric power lines expose people to strong and continuous electromagnetic fields (EMF). A lengthy US government review of studies of the health effects of exposure to EMF concluded both that the actual level of risk was uncertain and that prudent avoidance of significant EMF exposure was warranted.

A later Swedish study of the health effects of electromagnetic fields was able to overcome important difficulties in calculating actual EMF exposure levels, and suggested that there was indeed some carcinogenic risk from EMF exposure. The Swedish study is important: it established a "dose-relationship" between the amount of exposure and the frequency of leukemia. The failure of other studies to demonstrate a specific dose-disease relationship has been used by utilities and government to assert that there is no proven relationship and no proven risk associated with EMR.

If the public exposure to EMF has been present for a long time, what causes surges in public anxiety about this topic? At times the release of cancer-risk studies regarding EMF and media focus on this topic have generated a cycle of public fear about electromagnetic fields. The enviro-scare cycle, in my opinion, derives from periodic surges of journalist and media attention to studies of the carcinogenic effect of exposure to electromagnetic fields. For example, there was considerable media attention to Werth's observation that living along the Denver Colorado power line right-of-way caused an EMF exposure which appeared to cause (or correlate with) a "doubling of the probability of childhood leukemia" for children living along the right-of-way of this overhead power transmission facility.

The concern for possible carcinogenic or "cancer-causing" effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields at the frequency and strength generated by power transmission lines has been studied for some time. Some contemporary research (by epidemiologist Nancy Werth, the "Denver Study") suggested a possible (but in fact small) correlation between exposure to 60 cycle electromagnetic fields (EMF) and the occurrence of leukemia in children. Her study found that the occurrence of childhood leukemia in the Denver Colorado area tended to cluster along and follow the path of a power distribution line which passed through a portion of the city. (I've already mentioned the "study of studies" and the important Swedish study above.)

Stating risk this way ("doubling the risk of childhood leukemia from power transmission line EMF exposure") is understandably frightening to parents, particularly those unfamiliar with statistics and the mathematics of risk assessment. As I will amplify below, if an exposure doubles a number which is at the start infinitesimally small, say 1 chance in 10,000, then the doubled number is still infinitesimally small, say 2 in 10,000. A careful reading of the Werth study or an interview with Werth herself would almost certainly yield a more cautious opinion about the level of risk than that generated by a public reading of news reports.

But this analysis is not comforting to everyone. The more broad topic of public fear and assessment of the level tolerable health risk has been widely discussed, and has as a component, the individual's assessment of the level of control that s/he has over the risk. So people who smoke, an act which creates a far greater health risk than power transmission lines, assess that risk as more moderate because they have a sensation of being able to "choose their poison."

My own field measurements of EMF levels at residential properties or at specific locations within buildings have found a wide range of levels of exposure to building occupants. Remarkably, I've found that local ambient EMF levels in built-up residential areas are often quite close to the (rather low) reaction threshold discussed in the Werth and other studies, even where no obvious overhead electric power transmission facility is involved.

However when no large transmission facility is present, the strength of the EMF drops much more rapidly with distance from the (smaller) sources of such fields. The implications of this observation and its accuracy merit further discussion and research since there could be small local sources in buildings which also affect occupants. Some examples are listed later in this paper. Both the difficulties of measuring actual EMF exposure and the current level of knowledge about the health effects of EMF bear thoughtful discussion, some of which I address in this paper.

Because various parties have conflicting interests, research and advice on this topic have been confusing. The interested parties include building owners and sellers, realtors, home buyers, power transmission companies, journalists, and scientists or researchers who themselves are supported by various funding sources. A new study of studies which tests for correlation between the interests of each funding source and the results of studies performed would be a helpful test of conflicting opinions on this topic.

Understanding Levels of Absolute Cancer Risk from Levels of Electromagnetic Field Exposure

Determining actual health risks from EMF exposure is complex. Not all experts agree about the danger. However a growing body of articles and studies suggests that there may be health risks at EMF levels as low as 2 milligauss, probably depending on many variables including length of exposure in the field, actual field strength during the exposure period, person's age, body mass, general health and perhaps genetic predisposition or vulnerability to cancer. While debate continues, it remains possible that in some instances there are some hazards from EMF.

To date I know of no Federal nor State accepted standard for allowable exposure to EMF. My information is based on our understanding of current literature on this topic. When set, standards for acceptable levels of EMF exposure may then be higher or lower than 2 milligauss.

Measurements at the same site can vary widely because of variations in the load on the electric transmission facility and because of other variabilities discussed at my Suggested EMF Measurement Procedures and Measurement Variability Paper. Measurements also vary widely if a standard procedure is not followed. Very often EMF levels are not constant at all locations on a property. Using a procedure which may reduce this problem, I report measurements made at a series of standard locations and sometimes also at locations of special interest. I have made this procedure available to other professionals and I invite critique, feedback, and suggestions.

For currently popular concerns, economic risks to property owners remain even if there is no demonstrable health hazard. I call the cycle of increasing, peaking, then declining consumer fear "enviro-scare." The economic impact on property owners of these topics depends on this cycle.

One of my EMF measuring equipment manufacturers reports the following: " Magnetic radiation readings of 1 milligauss and less are considered below those which were shown to increase the level of leukemia in several medical epidemiological studies in the greater Denver area."

"Readings in the 1 to 3 milliGauss range were found to double the leukemia rate in children in the Denver studies." "Some epidemiological studies indicate a higher than normal incidence of cancer, including leukemia and brain tumors, among children and adults living or working close to power lines." Time Magazine, July 17, 1989. "Dr. Savitz mentioned 2 milliGauss as the level at which cancer is produced in children. In the home of these people, I have measured 10 to 12 milliGauss, depending on how much current is flowing down the line." House of Representatives, 100th Congress.

I (DJ Friedman) have regularly found background levels of .5 to 1 milliGauss at residential properties, and higher levels in urban environments.

Telling a prospective buyer or home owner that "Exposure of your child to a 2 milligauss field can double his risk of childhood leukemia." is frightening. The statement may be true, but stated alone, this admonition lacks a very important perspective. An informed viewpoint is very important for every environmental hazard. Let's review again the opening statement about "doubling cancer risk."

At the risk levels discussed in the Werth study, "doubling the risk of childhood leukemia" means increasing the chances from about 1 in 10,000 to 2 in 10,000. In either case, the risk is extremely low -- much less than the risks posed by a large number of much more common hazards to which people are exposed daily.

Importance of Identifying and Prioritizing Cancer & Other Health & Safety Risks

Cancer Risk from Lawn Herbicides is Greater than from Electromagnetic Fields

A Friday, March 26 editorial in the New York Poughkeepsie Journal, "Don't mix kids and chemicals." The editorial mentions a 1987 National Cancer institute study which "... found that children who lived in homes where lawn chemicals were applied were six times more likely to develop leukemia."

In other words, your lawn may be more dangerous than a 2 mg EMF. Based on current research, EMF may be near the bottom of risks to children. [In fact one wonders if some of the leukemia cases reported for children living along a power line right of way might have been influenced less by the EMF than by the strong herbicides commonly used by power companies to hold down brush growth under the power lines. Readers might review the Agent Orange issue affecting veterans of the Viet Nam war, for example.]

While this and any health hazard may change as new data is developed, consumers who are concerned with the health of their children should consider all risks and should, when worrying about individual ones such as EMR, keep them in perspective. If ones objective is to stay healthy and alive, a rational approach identifies and responds to risks first by identifying the most-significant ones and making sure that those concerns have been addressed.

Measuring Electromagnetic Field EMF Exposure Levels

Hiring Someone to Measure Electromagnetic Field Strengths

If a building owner or occupant is concerned about EMF levels at a property, the local power company may be willing to perform site measurements at no charge.

Independent experts provide thorough site profiles for fees ranging from $500. to $1,000. and include extensive consulting which helps protect realtors from future liabilities and can calm inappropriately frightened buyers or sellers.

Explicit, competent, documented measurements are more reliable than unsubstantiated opinions based on visual observation and fear. No one should be cavalier about children's health, but keeping risks in perspective serves everyone and helps assure that parents focus on the big risks first.

Making Your Own Electromagnetic Field Strength EMF Measurements

If you're simply curious about finding and measuring local EMF strengths around a home, an alternative might be to simply purchase an inexpensive electromagnetic field strength measuring device. But before dashing about recording numbers, it is important to understand both the peculiarities of EMF field strength meters and the peculiarities of the size, shape, pattern, and time variation of electromagnetic fields themselves.

Suggestions for using some sample EMF measuring instruments and a discussion of the sources of error and variation in EMF measurements are discussed in more detail at my EMF Procedures Paper located at this website.

What is "Enviro-Scare" and What Public Fear About Environmental Hazards Mean to Building Owners

I coined the term "Enviro-Scare" in the 1980's to describe the cyclic growth then decline of consumer fear about various environmental issues. As I indicated at the introduction, the graph depicts the varying level of public fear or "Enviro-Scare" for a given environmental concern. This pattern also occurs for many other public anxieties.

"Enviro-scare" generally increases, peaks, and then diminishes over time. The level of fear in an enviro-scare curve is mapped on the chart's vertical axis, increasing from the chart bottom towards its top. Time is mapped on the horizontal axis, increasing from left to right.

The phases of the enviro-scare cycle: increasing fear, peak fear, and declining fear map the curve's up-slope, peak, and declining slope. This behavior can be represented by a normal curve. At its right end the curve approaches zero (no fear) but never quite reaches it.

Predictability: The level of Enviro-Scare (ES), or consumer concern, moves in a predictable pattern: increasing fear, peak, then declining fear. What is significant is that the level of public fear follows this pattern based on mediate attention and a public perception of risk, rather than on the actual risk of a particular hazard.

Thus both genuinely dangerous conditions and those which are really insignificant both follow the ES cycle. This pattern of human response to frightening conditions has been documented in other fields, such as public fear of crime waves, and in another form, public enthusiasm for particular products - the "Dutch Tulip Mania" at the turn of the last century or the "pet rock" come to mind. The two colors and two different curve slopes in the illustration here simply portray two different enviro-scare topics, one of which increases faster and reaches a higher level of concern than another.

Having worked with building owners and buyers for quite some time, I've personally observed the "enviro-scare" cycle across a variety of environmental hazards, some real and important and some at least eventually considered probably insignificant. My statements below about the current level of enviro-scare on each topic discussed are simply my opinion based on contact with home owners, buyers, and Building inspectors in U.S. More scientific surveys could certainly be designed and conducted.

Enviro-Scare about Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation - UFFI and Cancer

This foam insulation was a popular insulation retrofit product used in the 1970's. As an expanding foam insulation it was mixed on-site and pumped into building wall or other cavities in older buildings which were not previously insulated. Some research suggested that formaldehyde out gassing from the insulation formed a significant cancer risk. The level of formaldehyde that out gassed from UFFI depended in part on how the foam product was mixed at the site, and not all building insulation projects using this substance produced the same level of formaldehyde. Eventually, additional study suggested that the initial cancer risk from formaldehyde was not supported, at least in this application.

More interesting to me was the observation that perhaps largely because this insulation formed an open-celled foam, even if there were high initial formaldehyde out gassing levels, after months or at most a few years, even careful measurements were unable to detect any levels of ongoing formaldehyde out gassing from this material. Only people hypersensitive to chemicals seem to have any remaining reaction to this material, and even in that case a study of such reactions is complicated by the observation that higher levels of formaldehyde out gassing from building products occurs from some furniture padding and from some glues or finishes used in chipboard based cabinets or subflooring.

Yet at the peak of the UFFI enviro-scare, and exacerbated by inconsistent advice offered by government and private health experts, some buildings were sold at a significant discount to allow for extensive gutting, cleaning, and re-insulating of building cavities. Inspecting several such projects it was interesting to note that the one real defect of this insulation product was that depending on how it was mixed, it shrank after installation, leaving gaps of no actual insulation at the top and sides of wall cavities - it wasn't the perfect insulating seal that was promised, but it was not the carcinogen that was feared.

The current level of public fear of UFFI is quite low, but because some people are either hyper sensitive to chemicals in their environment, or because others have a very high level of concern for any environmental or possible environmental issue, consumer concern for this issue has not fallen to zero.

Enviro-Scare about Asbestos pipe insulation in buildings and asbestosis

Asbestos, a natural mineral fiber mined from the ground includes very small fibers which, if inhaled, can form a possible cause of lung cancer, in particular mesothelioma.

There is no doubt that exposure to high levels of airborne asbestos has been demonstrated to be a serious health hazard (John Mansville's class action lawsuit). At the peak of the asbestos enviro-scare, very costly asbestos abatement projects were performed. After many cases of inadvertent cross-contamination of building areas by asbestos stirred-up during removal, a careful discipline for asbestos abatement was developed as well as training and licensing requirements.

Current "best-advice" for asbestos pipe insulation in buildings is to leave it alone unless it is in poor condition (falling off) or it is in a location subject to mechanical damage and release in an occupied area. That's because it was discovered that the asbestos level in buildings was worse from it being disturbed than if it were left alone. The current level of public enviro-scare about asbestos has diminished significantly, but as with UFFI, not to zero.

Enviro-Scare about Radon gas in buildings and lung cancer

Radon, a radioactive but odorless and colorless gas occurs naturally in the soil in some areas. Radon has been associated with lung cancer among people exposed to high levels such as those working in mines. This data was extrapolated to suggest a possible lung cancer risk if radon reached high levels in residential buildings, into which it might seep from soils below. Because the radon level in a building varies widely over time, the US EPA suggested that homes with radon above 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) based on a short term (typically 4-day) test should perform additional longer-term study to see what the actual annual average exposure is. Here's where things got sticky.

Some homeowners are employed by companies requiring that they move to a new city from time to time. Some such employees are offered relocation assistance including the purchase of their present home so as to free-up their investment to purchase a new property. Independent "relocation companies" formed to handle this transaction and to actually carry the older home in their property inventory until it could be sold.

Because the relocation companies didn't want to risk discovering that they were holding a high-radon home that might require a $2000-$2500 (typically) repair, these firms took the position that any home (being offered to the relocation plan service) having a screening-test radon level of 4 pCi/L (or above) must be remediated before they would accept the property.

This position converted the EPA's recommendation for further testing into a requirement that thousands of homes at or close to 4 pCi/L of radon must be remediated. The actual risk to a building occupant from radon at this level is practically nil. Put it this way: if you breathe radon-contaminated air at 4 pCi/L for 18 hours a day for 70 years, then if you get lung cancer at the end of that period, only then, at that exposure level, could you say that the radon may have caused the lung cancer. Contracting lung cancer before then would be indistinguishable from the general risk level in the population.

Now to be fair, radon risk increases exponentially at higher levels, and is perhaps 80 times greater for people who smoke cigarettes. But in effect, thousands of homes were "remediated" at a level of radon of or close to 4 pCi/L without having demonstrated an actual health risk. The current level of public enviro-scare about radon is low but not zero, most-likely because of increased familiarity with the issues and because the remediation cost is less than for UFFI and asbestos.

Enviro-Scare about Lead in building Paint or Water Supply Piping and Neurological or other health risks

Lead in Paint

Lead in paint is likely to be a real risk in buildings, especially to children. The actual risk depends on the dose: the actual level of lead consumed. Building conditions which increase the risk of lead paint ingestion include the location of surfaces where lead paint was used, the condition of the surface, activities which release lead-dust such as certain types of cleaning, sliding window sashes up and down, and building renovation work.

Lead was used as paint in buildings in the U.S. up to 1978, so unless a pre-1978 building has no painted surfaces it's reasonable to assume that lead paint is present. Thus superficial testing for the "presence/absence" of lead paint is not a step I'd recommend, though for appropriate cases I do recommend a lead survey by a qualified expert.

Lead enviro-scare has generated an industry selling "lead tests" for paint, often based on rather unreliable chemical swabs. A trained expert, using an x-ray inferometer, can sample the appropriate building surfaces at a property and will prepare a document describing the important risks and should prepare a lead abatement plan if action is needed. Some U.S. states such as Massachusetts require lead abatement in buildings at the time of property transfer.

Because any pre-1978 painted building is likely to have lead paint on some surfaces, homes for sale and with this enviro-scare hazard are not particularly stigmatized (from a property valuation concern for lead paint) since most homes of similar age have the same paint concerns. The result is a flatter enviro-scare curve, with its right-hand tail leveling out higher above zero. The current level of enviro-scare about lead in paint is moderate and probably stable.

Lead in Water

Sources of lead in drinking water include several items:

• lead in the actual drinking water source - uncommon in most areas, possible, and detected by water supply testing.
• lead in water supply piping, street mains, or the service lateral from street to building - common in buildings built before 1950 especially in the Northeastern United States. The amount of lead in water piped through lead lines is a function of the total amount of lead piping, the aggressiveness or corrosivity of the water supply (regulated for public water supplies), and the length of time that water sits idle in the pipe, thus dissolving lead into itself. Thus the highest lead in water reading would be obtained in a test which collected water which has sat in the lead lines for some period of dis-use, such as overnight. Lead in such a sample is likely to be many times greater than the amount of lead in a water sample collected after the lines have been flushed out.
• lead in water which sat idle in a well pump whose internal parts included lead-containing brass. The water volume resting in an idle pump cavity is so minuscule that the lead hazard from this source is most-likely so low as to not bear consideration, though when first discovered this source generated its own 18-month enviro-scare about lead in well pump parts.
• lead in water supply piping from lead-bearing copper pipe solder. The level of lead from this source will follow a pattern discussed above for actual lead piping, though one would expect it to be at a much lower level.

The current level of enviro-scare about lead in water piping is moderate and probably stable.

Enviro-Scare about Electromagnetic Field EMF Exposure and cancer

I've discussed this item at length in this paper. The current level of enviro-scare about EMF exposure is quite low but not zero, as with asbestos and UFFI. I discuss this topic further at Electromagnetic Field Measurement Procedures.

Enviro-Scare about Toxic or Allergenic Mold in Buildings

I have had more to say on this and on mycophobia than should be repeated here. There are both legitimate and imagined hazards associated with mold and allergens in buildings. Public concern with "black mold" is perhaps confusing since some of the most problematic molds in buildings are not dark in color and in fact can be a bit difficult to see (Aspergillus sp. and Penicillium sp. for example.) Readers should see The Mold Information Center: What to Do About Mold in Buildings, When and How to Inspect for Mold, Clean Up Mold, or Avoid Mold Problems. The toxic or "black mold" enviro-scare level is currently past the peak of consumer concern but is no less than mid-slope on the declining side of the curve.

Enviro-Scare about Fiberglass insulation fragments in building air and cancer

The enviro-scare curve for this topic appears to be flatter and more drawn-out than the topics listed above. As with the electromagnetic field EMF cancer risk topic discussed above, there are various parties with conflicting interests, all sponsoring research on this topic. My own field investigations find that fiberglass particles are quite common in indoor air. Some research argues that fiberglass particles are larger than and less dangerous than asbestos. However many small fiberglass particles may be in indoor air but may be below the threshold of some common measurement methods. See FIBERGLASS HAZARDS in buildings.

Phases of Enviro-Scare and Effects on Property Value

If a building owner wants to sell the property, the impact of the presence of an environmental issue on the real estate transaction depends on the time, or point in the fear cycle, at which the property is being marketed. The time until a property moves from phase I to phase II is extremely difficult to predict. However it may be easier to detect phase III, the beginning of decline in consumer fear.

Properties on the "up-slope" of the ES curve, phase II, face declining market value or increasing time on the market unless a price adjustment is made. The opposite is true of properties on the "down-slope" or phases III and IV. This concept may be useful in advising home buyers and sellers concerning the economic impact of the presence of various controversial health or environmental issues at a given property.

Use links at the left of each page to navigate this document or to view other topics at this website. Green links show where you are in our document or website.

More expert information on this topic

More Information on Building Diagnostic Inspections and Repairs

• Electric Power Lines, Electromagnetic Fields, Cancer Risk, & "Enviro-Scare" - The Normal Curve Cycle of Public Fear About Environmental Issues - online document by DF
• A Procedure for Measuring EMF electromagnetic fields online document by DF
• Electromagnetic Fields in the Workplace good NIOSH document, links to other NIOSH docs.
• Consumer Product Safety Commission, 800-638-CPSC.
• US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, TSCA Assistance Office (TS-799), 800-424-9065 or 202-554-1404.
• "Evaluation of Potential Carcinogenicity of Electromagnetic Fields," EPA Report #EPA/600/6-90/005B October 1990. EPA: 513/569-7562.
• "Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields" background paper, prepared as part of OTA's assessment of "Electric Power Wheeling and Dealing: Technological Considerations for Increasing Competition," prepared for OTA by Indira Nair, M. Granger Morgan, H. Keith Florig, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
• "Biological Effects of Power Line Fields," New York State Powerline Project. Scientific Advisory Board Final Report, July 1, 1987.
• "Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Fields," Environmental Health Criteria 35. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1984.
• "Electric and Magnetic Fields at Extremely Low Frequencies: Interactions with Biological Systems. In: Non ionizing Radiation Protection, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 1987.
• "Electric and Magnetic Fields from 60 Hertz Electric Power: What do we know about possible health risks?," Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 1989.
• "Electromagnetic Fields Are Being Scrutinized for Linkage to Cancer," Sandra Blakeslee, New York Times, Medical Science section, April 2, 1991.
• Environmental Concerns in Buildings, hazards: allergens, asbestos, brownfields, - above ground or buried oil storage tanks, - A Procedure for Measuring EMF electromagnetic fields, - Electric Power Lines, Electromagnetic Fields, Cancer Risk, & "Enviro-Scare" - The Normal Curve Cycle of Public Fear of Environmental Issues - toxic gases & odors, IAQ, lead paint, - toxic mold inspections, - mold test kits - how to send a mold sample to our lab using an inexpensive and superior method - radon, sick buildings, UFFI (urea formaldehyde foam insulation), - sewage septic backup contamination testing & cleanup - water testing for bacteria, lead, etc.

InspectAPedia.com - Home Page - Building Inspection, Diagnosis, & Repair, Environmental Inspection & Testing - Research Website

The Mold Information Center: What to Do About Mold in Buildings, When and How to Inspect for Mold, Clean Up Mold, or Avoid Mold Problems

Use this simple, economical mold test kit by following our instructions on how to collect and mail mold samples to our lab

Environmental Inspection, Testing, & Diagnosis On-Site IAQ, Gas, Air Testing, Mold Investigation, Sick Building Diagnosis, Lab Services, & Remediation Plan Preparation - indoor air quality testing, problem source determination, supporting lab work, written remediation plan addressing removal of environmental and other hazards and prevention of their recurrence.

Home Inspection Construction Consulting Services & advice for home buyers

Contact Daniel Friedman for website content suggestions or for fee-paid consulting

	Enter your search termsSubmit search form
	Search InspectAPedia.com

05/09/2008 - 10/25/2005 www.inspect-ny.com/emf/EnviroScare.htm © 2008 - 2005 Daniel Friedman All Rights Reserved