Gerald Nunn wrote:

Recently an older house in my town has come up for sale. The house was
orginally built in 1864 but was completely gutted and renovated in 2004
except for the basement and the attic/roof. The quality of the renovations
are stunning and the lot size of the house is very good. The asking price
was very good for a house in this condition so my wife and I visited and
then subsequently put in an offer on the place that was accepted.

We then went through the process of arranging a formal home inspection at
which point the inspector turned up evidence of mold in the attic. The mold
appears as small spots on the attic rafters and appears to be fairly
uniformly spread from two feet up from the attic floor to the roof. The
contamination appears to be surface only and has not penetrated deeply. In
other words, it's not a carpet but spots here and there.
snip
The whole area of "mold" as being something to worry about has been
created by the legal profession which really needs something new to sue
for. They are using scare tactics and are trying to get legislation
passed against a situation which is completely natural. And of course
there a whole service industry has appeared to service the perceived
need to "de-mold" a house and it's not a cheap operation.

You can never get rid of all mold. It is in the air, on the walls, all
around the cleanest of houses. To worry about it makes as much sense
as worrying about "dirt".

You might get your family tested to see if anybody is abnormally
sensitive to molds. Many persons, swayed by current hype, _think_ they
are. Scientific tests will tell the truth.

As for "Certified" personnel, ask, "Certified by whom?". Check with
your state Division of Registration. This office licenses those
professions that need it -- doctors, dentists, building contractors,
embalmers, ... Outside of this, anybody can "certify" anybody else.
But it _consider the source_!