(ed:..this refers to the great meth-con – where homeowners/landlords were conned by unscrupulous ‘meth-experts’/bullshit ‘contamination-levels’/scaremongering/moral-panic- to fork out huge amounts of money – for meth-decontamination-exercises that were unwarranted..
they were ripped off..
and i am surprised they are not angrier..and demanding answers/their money back from these hucksters/grifters/con-men ‘meth-experts’..)
Massey University environmental chemistry senior lecturer Nick Kim believes that almost all cases where meth has been detected is residue – like that which is left on the wall when someone smokes tobacco.
In those cases it is well down the low end of the risk spectrum.
He thinks black mould poses more health risk than meth.
‘The risk associated with traces of the meth on walls?
I would put them at the same level as risks associated with traces of fly spray or environmental tobacco smoke.
They are low and unquantifiable in reality.
You can’t really attach a health risk to it – so you can’t say above this level this harm is going to occur.
“Whereas black mould?
That is known to cause health effects.
Mould can give off volatile organic compounds which people can inhale – so unlike meth on a wall – which you would have to touch in the first place and then it has to be absorbed through the skin or transferred to the mouth – even then the traces are absolutely tiny.
‘With mould potentially – if there is a lot of it – people could get ill.
They could inhale spores – could inhale organic compounds coming off the mould.
Admittedly some types of mould are worse than others.
‘But cold damp houses or even warm damp houses where mould might grow – mould would definitely be more of a risk in my mind than traces of meth’.
(ed:..is this still bubbling away below the surface – or are those who were conned quite relaxed about that gouging they have received from these grifting ‘meth-experts’..?..)