The Department of Senior Affairs is a community leader who, in partnership with others, involves seniors and people of all ages in creating a community that enhances everyone’s quality of life by providing opportunities to achieve their potential, share their wisdom, maintain their independence, and live in dignity.
– City of Albuquerque (CoA) Department of Senior Affairs (DSA) Mission Statement
I spent four years working at Manzano Mesa. In that time, I developed powerful, meaningful relationships with the children and seniors I worked with.
On Wednesday, I met with a reporter from KRQE. Marissa Lucero agreed to push forward on a story that is near to my heart.
This past summer has been one of the most difficult periods in my life, physically, mentally, and emotionally. I can’t imagine what it would be like for one of the youngsters that I became friends with to endure the same thing that I’m going through.
I am not driven by a lust for wealth, or for a “free ride.” I’m driven by a sense of injustice, and I will do what I can to bring that injustice to light.
On June 22, 2015, after all of the City’s initial denial about the state of the Center, a mold test was finally performed at Manzano Mesa Multigenerational Center. Yes, after releasing a memo that said it makes more sense to not do a mold test, and instead put the money towards the repairs, the Department decided to have the building tested after all. The results of this test were not immediately shared with the employees of the center, much less the general public.
I learned that the DSA had a meeting at Manzano Mesa intended only for employees of the center. As far as I know, the results of the mold test were not shared with the public. Although they are a matter of public record, the Department would rather that you put in a formal records request to view the test, than release the results.
Why would the department make the results so difficult to get a hold of? I mean, the DSA’s Assistant Director, Anthony Romero, has gone on the record saying “the center never put anyone’s health at risk.” According to KRQE’s Marissa Lucero, “while admitting to there being a positive finding of mold growth in the facility, Romero said the mold test showed it wasn’t enough to harm or hurt anyone.” That part is true. But if the mold test is so absolutely exonerating, why not celebrate that news with a press release or a party?
Maybe it’s because they don’t want anybody to look to closely at the mold test itself.
Mr. Romero is correct: the test shows there isn’t enough mold in the air to harm anyone. But that becomes a little bit of an issue if the test shows very little at all.
After much teeth pulling with a DSA records keeper, I finally managed to get a hold of the results.
The results of the test are purposely obfuscating. You’re not supposed to know what a normal level of mold is, but the test assures you that anything below 0.8% mold content is not dangerous. Because there are no EPA standards, we’ll go ahead and accept this.
I want to be clear: just because I’ve been researching mold and mold testing for 3 months does not, by any means, make me an expert. However, I have been taught my entire life to think critically, be skeptical, and ask questions. So put on your critical thinking caps, folks, because this one’s a doozy.
Manzano Mesa’s testing was done by a firm called CERL Inc. Two representatives from CERL are reportedly involved with Manzano Mesa’s test: Mike Curtis, the President of CERL, and Lynsey Bernard, the agent who performed the mold tests at Manzano Mesa.
Ms. Bernard performs two types of tests. One is a surface test, making direct contact with water damaged drywall. The second is a “settled dust test,” meant to test the air quality of the particular room in question. We are supposed to accept these tests as valid (Dr. Shoemaker would not accept them). After all, we’re not experts, and the EPA has no standards when it comes to mold.
The WHO released a report in 2009 saying that “air sampling for more than 15 minutes is often not possible, since air concentrations usually vary a great deal over time.” In other words, the air sample is only good for the 15 minute block in which it is taken. In fact, “the few studies in which repeated measurements were made of fungi in air or in settled dust showed considerable temporal variation in concentrations, even over short periods.” The WHO recommends that “27–36 samples should be taken per house.” Manzano Mesa is a lot bigger than a house, and Ms. Bernard has taken 10 samples, and reported the results of 9.
Even if we accept CERL’s test methodology as valid, the problem is that Ms. Bernard does not test the air quality in the areas where she found problems with mold growth. Either these areas are not tested, or CERL has chosen to not share those results.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Here’s a screenshot of the tests Ms. Bernard reports having done:
Now, since these are jumbled, and the difference between a “surface” and a “settled dust” test is not delineated, I made a table of my own. Putting aside whatever the “archived” test means, my table includes each of the 9 tests that was done, organized by room at the center. For juxtaposition, I made a clear split between areas where Ms. Bernard performed a surface drywall test, and where Ms. Bernard performed an air quality dust test. I also included rooms at the center that appear to have not been tested.
A critical look at where and how the tests were done is telling. It should be noted that only one room had both the drywall and the air quality tested. The drywall in the manager’s office tested positive for mold at a “colony level presence,” while the dust on the monitor of the manager’s computer tested at a 0.11%, a level far below the 0.8% red-flag cutoff.
I take issue with the monitor’s dust test for two reasons. Number one, maybe I’m just a cleanly person, but I have dusted my monitor in the past month or so. In fact, I dust my monitor pretty regularly, and I’m sure a lot of people do too. Secondly, I know for a fact (which would be corroborated by employees at Manzano Mesa, including the manager himself) that the computer spent a good deal of time under trash bags, so that the falling ceiling wouldn’t damage the computer. The logical conclusion is that, for better or worse, using the monitor as a bastion of settled dust is far different than using the tops of fire alarms, like Ms. Bernard uses in Rooms 4 and 5. Ms. Bernard should have taken more care to use at least a similar surface for her settled dust sample in the manager’s office, and even more care to use one that actually collects dust.
In every other problem area in the center, namely, the gym closet and kitchen, where mold was found at “colony presence” and “too numerous to count,” Ms. Bernard does not perform an air quality test. Additionally, Ms. Bernard has chosen not to do tests in populated areas of the center where there were known leaks. In the main office, there were leaks above the ID-making station, and in the staff break room. There were leaks in the lobby, the east hallway, Room 3, the fitness room, and the gymnasium itself. None of these rooms had their drywall or their air quality tested.
Once again, I’ll admit that it’s possible that Ms. Bernard did test these areas. But if she did, she is choosing to omit the results from her official report. This raises an even bigger question: why were the results omitted?
The point is, we don’t know. How can we be sure, by a preponderance of the evidence (or even beyond a reasonable doubt, for that matter), that there are not mold spores in the air in the gym closet, or near the kitchen? The point is that we can’t. The red boxes on the above table far outnumber the green ones. And each of those red boxes represents a huge question mark.
I don’t point this out to knock or discredit Ms. Bernard in any way. I’m merely trying to point out that there are gaping holes in the mold tests. For the DSA to tell us that the mold tests show safe levels is one thing; but for the DSA to claim that the mold tests are the Gospel, that they tell us 100% that the center is incontrovertibly safe, that’s an entirely different question.
After all of this analysis, what are the takeaways from the mold test that DSA Assistant Director Anthony Romero and other figureheads in the DSA swear by?
Let’s start with what we know:
- Rooms 4 and 5 are safe. That’s good for the Before and After School program, and for patrons who do Yoga.
- There is mold in the Men’s restroom in the gym, but it is a normal level.
That’s about it. Now let’s summarize our red flags:
- The WHO recommends that, if air or dust sampling is used, it is done 27-36 times, at different times of day, and in multiple locations, and that’s for a house. CERL performs 10 samples in a building much bigger than a house.
- There is mold in the Gym Closet and in the Kitchen. We don’t know if it’s airborne.
- There is mold in the manager’s office. The dust sample taken there was done using poor and inconsistent standards.
- Ultimately, we don’t know if there is mold in a vast majority of the rooms, because no test was performed.
So the big question: Is the center safe? Is it safe for our chiildren, for our parents and grandparents? Is it safe for the employees?
The answer: we just don’t know.
That’s a good enough answer for me.
tim.is.a.dinosaur 