But your point is well taken.
Yes, its all about perceptions. Whenever the media and trial lawyers get together, I get nervous. They nearly destroyed the nuclear power industry, mostly through fear-mongering. They really know how to whip up public opinion (look at the global-warming and Kyoto fiascos, not to mention NBC blowing up Chevy trucks) with scant scientific evidence. The best way to pretrain a jury is to saturate the news with a "problem" prior to any trials.
My goal here is to temper the argument - to make sure that freepers know that while the mold issue is a real problem, it isn't nearly as widespread as the media in some areas make it out to be. (Strangely, the media here has never jumped on the mold bandwagon - the only mold mentioned here is the jello-mold in the food section).
As you may have noticed, I'm trying to temper it myself.
Except that I think the mold problems, present or future, are more widespread than the media has cottoned onto. A recent study I read showed that about 20% of brand-new structures have significant mold problems before being occupied. Another claims that 50-80% of recently-built structures will eventually develop serious mold problems unless major modifications are done.
My "tempering" is aimed at keeping the medical effects in perspective and realizing that almost all structures can be remediated, even if at a significant cost.
BTW, I appreciate your attempts to be even-handed, rather than shouting that it's all a plot of the evil lawyers.
Not that some of the hype isn't exactly that!