My home had some flooding recently (from a burst hose connected to a tap, but I'm not sure that's relevant), and in the process of rectifying the situation, a few things were told to me. I'd like some clarification around these statements, and maybe have some misunderstanding on my part cleared up.
- If the carpet's underlay, and the subfloor are not dried correctly, in a timely manner, there is a risk of mould growing.
- If mould grows in the carpet, spores will be released, and the mould will start growing everywhere, even in places that are not damp. Even if the underlay is dried too late, mould will still grow.
I feel like this leads to a contradiction. I've got a couple of ideas in my head.
- The mould grows in the carpet when it is damp, because there are already mould spores in the carpet, and the moisture "activates" them. But this would imply that the spores still would not grow in other places that are not damp, which contradicts what I was told. I'd also be curious as to how the spores got there in the first place.
- Mould can grow spontaneously in damp places, without mould spores. This sounds quite ludicrous to me, unless perhaps dampness somehow attracts spores, or small animals and insects that carry spores and deposit them. Then once the mould grows in the damp place, spores are released, and because of their proximity, they then grow on other surfaces, despite the lack of moisture. But it requires the dampness to bring the spores in the first place.