Dissecting Biohazard Cleanup: Understanding the Process and Reducing Risk

By Tim Reifsteck | October 22, 2013

  • October 22, 2013 at 4:13 pm
    Notsofast says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 2

    Not so fast, not all of your so called facts are inline. The sales story is just that a story. Show your facts and science behind the life of spilled blood and how a ground/sewer water back up is any less a biohazard then spilled bood. They are one in the same and blackwater is harder to deal with. Where is the science to tear up wood floors or drywall? Its all about PPE and dilution with the proper cleaning agent and time. As a retired military biohazard expert, blood is low on the list of hazards.

    • April 8, 2015 at 4:10 pm
      Nate Berg says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 2

      I have to disagree with your statement that BBP are low on the list. A sewer backup is very dangerous but most fecal born illnesses are ineffective once they are dry unlike some BBP and airborne illnesses. TB can be active for 5 months outside of the human body.

      My issue in this industry is that a few biohazard companies ruin the reputation of legit companies.

  • October 31, 2013 at 9:36 pm
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Shouldn’t articles of this sort be clearly noted as Advertisements?

    We’ve all read the horror stories about restoration companies that
    spread mold throughout a home rather than containing it in one room. I know of a case where a plumber sawed a concrete slab without sealing off the area, and that exposed the whole home to fine powder that got into everything. I’d expect a biohazard situation to be evaluated based on how containable the fluids are,
    where they are, what materials require normal cleaning v special cleaning, and what if any agents are present that pose the risk of
    a) illness via contamination, or b) discomfort via smell.

    I agree with the idea that worker safety is extremely important, but, my impression from Notsofast’s comments is: there really ought
    to be some solid science behind the work, as opposed to a tremendous amount of fear mongering justifying an equal amount of over charges. I’d like to know why the rotted deer meat house can not still be properly remediated now as opposed to buying the people a new home?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *