Bathroom refurbishment

Question

Hello,

Our new landlord would like to completely refurbish our bathroom (built in 1970). He wants to put in new tiles, take out the bathtub and build in a wider shower.

Since our son is already chronically colonized with PSA, we are worried
1) that even with protective foil on the door, aspergillus, mould spores or the like will remain in the air for some time; and
2) that due to the work on the water pipes (breaking them off or putting in new ones), the PSA biofilm will be “broken open” and the risk of infection with new PSA strains will become very high.

Would it be sufficient if our son would go on vaccation without us for one week so that we can clean daily and flush the water pipes thoroughly?

Would it be possible to object to this refurbishment (which is done only for cosmetic reasons), pointing to the CF?

Many thanks for your advice.

Answer

Dear questioner,

(1) It is true that construction work and the resulting dust formation can lead to an increased level of mould fungus (or spores, respectively) in the room air. The most important counter measure against this is consistent dust protection (partition walls, covers, cleanliness, ventilation), which can effectively prevent or at least significantly minimize dust/mould exposure. It is difficult, however, to tell how severe the exposure will eventually be in an individual case (amount of fungus, fungus types vs. consistent protective measures).

The health risk most of all depends on the susceptibility of exposed persons and on the extent and duration of the exposure. The most effective measure to prevent potential health implications is protection from exposure (staying away from the source). That said, the practical question would be whether the refurbishment could not be planned accordingly (e.g. during a vacation). Your question whether it is possible to object to the refurbishment is of a more legal character, and I am therefore unable to answer it. You could consult a legal expert at your CF clinic or patient organization instead, if available. [Translator’s note: this last sentence was added to substitute legal contact information given in the original answer pertaining to Germany only.]

(2) I consider the risk of exposure to new strands of P. aeruginosa due to the renewal of pipes (e.g. through release from “existing” or “dormant” biofilms) not relevant. If there really are P. aeruginosa biofilms in the piping, the bacteria can always get to the tapping point, since there are always some germs floating off of biofilms. Regardless of whether the pipes are old or new, it is above all important to avoid stagnation with a resulting accumulation of bacteria or building of biofilms at the aerators (through descaling, cleaning).

Kind regards
M. Hogardt

15.05.2012