Recomendation for Mold, Radon [Archive] - InspectionNews

View Full Version : Recomendation for Mold, Radon

Tom Phillips

12-23-2008, 01:57 PM

Hello all
Wondered if I could get your thoughts on classes to become a certified inspector in the above.
Thanks in advance, Merry Christmas and Happy holidays to all!!

Tom

JORY LANNES

12-23-2008, 04:06 PM

I have "run the numbers" as to break even, revenue stream and referral income to outplace
Mold,Lead and Radon. I was ready to get certified in all three areas. I found that I was $'s ahead referring out the business rather than,buying/leasing the equipment,tracking the jobs,paying for the state licenses (Illinois) and having dead time retrieving the equipment.

Rick Bunzel

01-01-2009, 05:13 PM

I wouldn't touch the mold and have not had a requested for lead testing in many years. However when I was in Colorado I was doing Radon testing with my Sun Nuclear boxes on 40% of my inspections. Cost was very little - EPA was clear on what was good vs. bad etc. Today I would probably charge $150 per test. Scheduling pickups was probably the toughest part but my wife was my partner and I got her into the drop-offs and pickups.

Take a class, get certified and go for it.

//Rick

Tom Phillips

01-01-2009, 05:46 PM

ThanksRick
Any suggestions for a good certification class for radon?

Ron Bibler

01-01-2009, 09:40 PM

If your inspection schedule is full then you can convert them into
ad-on service like mold, radon, Infrared camera. termite inspection.
but if your slow. then i would work on getting the inspection up and going.
then do the ad-on

Best

Ron

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-02-2009, 10:43 AM

Good morning, Tom:

There are no legitimate certifications for mould inspections. All such certifications currently out there are either useless or bogus (and those are the good ones).

Virtually NONE of the legitimate mould experts who are knowledgeable in indoor moulds and mycology have been through a “certified mould inspector” class.

Finally, we have never seen a legitimate mould report from a “certified mould inspector.” Every such report to date was completely erroneous, based on myth and junk science and the author of the report was discredited as a charlatan or a technically incompetent consultant. This is because all of the certification classes are taught by people who either have no legitimate knowledge of the subject or are conducted by a Lab that tells the students to collect lots of (useless) samples so they can increase their own revenues. (Legitimate mould inspectors seldom, if ever, collect samples or perform mould tests).

If you are reasonably competent in the identification of moisture intrusion, you are already a competent “mould inspector.” Stick to the basics, and you will be a better mould inspector than any of those who pretend they are competent because they are certified.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Terry Howell

01-02-2009, 11:12 AM

Tom
If you will drop me a note at thowell@radalink.com I will be happy to get you the information on training for certification.
Terry

Benjamin Gromicko

01-02-2009, 11:28 AM

Hello all
Wondered if I could get your thoughts on classes to become a certified inspector in the above.
Thanks in advance, Merry Christmas and Happy holidays to all!!

Tom

MOLD: I produced a 12CE training video at Become IAC2 Mold Certified - InterNACHI (http://www.nachi.org/videomoldcourse.htm)

Includes:
FREE first year membership to InterNACHI (International Association of Certified Home Inspectors InterNACHI (http://www.internachi.org), $289 value),
FREE membership to IAC2 (International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants, International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants | Home (http://www.IAC2.org), $75 value),
FREE Pocket HG mold inspection software from HomeGauge.com ($299 value), and
FREE Mold Course Book (pp. 167, pdf, downloadable, included with the course, $50 value).

Dr. Shane, chief mycologist of Pro-Lab, is a guest instructor.

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-02-2009, 11:56 AM

Benjamin Gromicko

01-02-2009, 12:18 PM

....
If you are reasonably competent in the identification of moisture intrusion, you are already a competent â€œmould inspector.â€ Stick to the basics, and you will be a better mould inspector than any of those who pretend they are competent because they are certified......
I agree.
That's why I produced a training course on Inspecting Moisture Intrusion. Free. No cost.
check out InterNACHI's free, comprehensive, online Moisture Intrusion Inspection Course. - InterNACHI (http://www.nachi.org/moisturecourse.htm)
Dont' get "certified" in mold without taking a moisture course.

Raymond Wand

01-02-2009, 12:43 PM

As CaoimhÃ*n so admirably points out mould testing is an overhyped, bull crap service, that some in the industry have turned into a money making biz by fear mongering and scare tatics.

Having taken the Indoor Air Quality Course offered by CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation) their teachings are not to test for mould, but rather to find the problems creating the mould, remedy the conditions and remove the contaminated materials. Simple.

Thanks Caoimhin its always so refreshing to read your informative posts.

Happy New Year.

Nick Ostrowski

01-02-2009, 01:46 PM

Whether you agree with mold testing or not, mold is a concern for many home buyers and there are many stories about mold in homes to fuel the fire of a mold-fearing buyer.

The unfortunate fact of the matter when it comes to home sales is that in order for mold in a home to become a negotiable item (money off the price of the house or repairs made as a condition of the sale), it must be proved to be mold (at least it's like that around here). And if removal of mold damaged materials in a house gets into the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars, many people want to see definitive test results before they'll agree to do anything.

When I see what I suspect to be mold, I tell my buyers I am fairly certain that the fuzzy growth we see is most likely some mold/fungal growth. However, since I am not a rolling laboratory, I cannot definitively say aloud or in my report it is mold. I must say "substance noted on underside of roof sheathing throughout attic that appears to possibly be mold/fungal growth - have substance tested and removed if proven to be mold and all repairs/replacements made as needed to damaged materials". That is where testing comes in to confirm what we suspect.

It would be nice if we could just call it as we see it and everybody took our professional word for it. But in a world where lawyers shape the way we report defects, we have to play by their rules to keep our butts out of court. Out of all the fees that add up in the course of the sale of a house, home inspection fees are low. It doesn't take much to completely wipe out the fee we earn for a home inspection if somebody chooses to sue us for using the wrong verbiage or not recommending further testing.

Raymond Wand

01-02-2009, 02:21 PM

I thought this would be of interest.

Citation:
Derosa v. Horning et al

Date: 20011130

2001 BCSC 1670

Docket:

27485

Registry: Kamloops

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

stella derosa

plaintiff

AND:

MARY HORNING ALSO KNOWN AS MARY SKRYPNYK, BILL SUTHERLAND CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS “THE WOOD SHOPPE HOME INSPECTION SERVICE” AND THE WOOD SHOPPE HOME INSPECTION SERVICE, THE OWNERS STRATA PLAN NO. KAS1430, CMI MANAGEMENT LIMITED CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS “SHERIDAN REALTY”, SUTTON GROUP – WESTWIN REALTY LTD., AND SUZANNE GOODELL

DEFENDANTS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HUNTER

Counsel for the Plaintiff

J. M. Drayton

Counsel for the Defendant, Mary Horning

D. E. McCabe

Counsel for the Defendants, Bill Sutherland c.o.b. as the Wood Shoppe Home Inspection Service and the Wood Shoppe Home Inspection Service

J. Vamplew

Counsel for the Defendants, Sutton Group – Westwin Realty Ltd. and Suzanne Goodell

A. Rhodes

Counsel for the Defendants, the Owners of Strata Plan No. KAS1430 and CMI Management Limited c.o.b. as Sheridan Realty

J. Hodes

Date and Place of Hearing:

August 8 & October 11, 2001

Kamloops, BC

[1]All defendants apply under Rule 18A for an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.

[2]The defendant Mary Horning (“Mrs. Horning”) died on December 28, 2000. The executrix of her estate is her daughter Helen Kashluba. Mrs. Horning was the former owner of a condominium, being unit 6 – 1876 Tranquille Road, part of Strata Lot KAS 1430, a strata complex known as Kirman Mews located on the North Shore in the City of Kamloops.

[3]Kirman Mews consists of two buildings each containing ground floor units which have basements together with upper floor units which are single level apartments. Unit 6 (“the property”) is a ground floor unit consisting of a main living area on the ground floor, and an unfinished basement.

[4]Mrs. Horning moved into this property in or around January 1995. On March 14, 1997, she listed the property for sale and in April of that year sold it to the plaintiff Stella Derosa (“Ms. Derosa”). At the time of sale Mrs. Horning was 79 years of age.

[5]Ms. Derosa filed her statement of claim on July 23, 1999. She sues the Horning Estate alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation and negligence, claiming that Mrs. Horning failed to disclose a water leakage into the basement of Unit 6 and the presence of mould in the basement. Ms. Derosa claims that on viewing the property before purchase she advised Mrs. Horning and the defendant realtor, Ms. Goodell, that she had asthma, respiratory sensitivity, and a severe allergy to mould and moisture related toxins.

[6]Ms. Derosa also claims that Mrs. Horning failed to inform her of the presence of liquid containing feces and noxious gases on the property and of the high level of noise heard inside this property.

[7]Ms. Derosa claims that Mrs. Horning is in breach of contract or in breach of warranty in that Mrs. Horning stated in the Property Disclosure Statement that she was not aware of any moisture or water problems in the basement of the property.

[8]Ms. Derosa has a history of suffering from a number of allergies, asthma and mould problems over 25 years. Her allergies to mould have resulted in time off from work from time to time since 1972. In the late 1970s and early 1980s she began missing work because of allergies to paint fumes and because of asthma attacks. In the early 1980s she began missing work because of allergies to new file folders at her place of work. In the early 1990s she began missing work caused by allergies to mould.

[9]Ms. Derosa inspected the property on four occasions, all before April 15, 1997, the date of closing. Those inspections occurred on or about March 15th, on or about March 16th, on March 19th, and on another occasion shortly before the closing date.

[10]Ms. Derosa decided to contract for a home inspection prior to committing to purchase the property and retained the services of the defendant Bill Sutherland, carrying on business as “The Wood Shop Home Inspection Service” (“Sutherland”). Mr. Sutherland inspected the property on his own and later on March 19, 1997 (but before preparing his report), went through the property with Ms. Derosa, including the basement.

[11]Ms. Derosa claims that Sutherland was negligent in failing to adequately conduct a home inspection of the property, in particular that he failed to notify Ms. Derosa of cracks in the basement and foundation and of the presence of water leaks and mould and moisture in the basement area and of the presence of liquid containing feces and noxious gases, and that he failed to tell Ms. Derosa of the ability of liquid containing feces and noxious gas to enter the property.

[12]Ms. Derosa says she saw a “black spot” on the concrete basement floor when she went through the basement with Mr. Sutherland and that she asked Mr. Sutherland about it and told him, “If that is mould, I cannot live here.” Mr. Sutherland had no recollection of a black spot or patch on the basement floor nor of Ms. Derosa questioning him about that nor of her making this comment to him. Ms. Derosa said that Mr. Sutherland attended again at the condominium although she could not recall the date. Mr. Sutherland said this was on January 12, 1998. She said he told her then, as a result of using a moisture meter on that occasion, that there was moisture in the walls of the basement. He denies this, saying as well that she was not in the basement when he did this testing. He said he found no moisture in the walls and denies telling her that. He says he told her that the moisture meter indicated there was no moisture. He also said he saw no black patches on the basement floor on January 12, 1998. Ms. Derosa relies on photographs which she says were taken in November 1997 and later in March 1998 and perhaps at other times, and which she says show spots or stains on the basement floor. This conflict in evidence between Ms. Derosa and Mr. Sutherland might in other circumstances create problems with regard to resolution of the issues on an 18A application. I am satisfied, however, that this conflict need not be resolved on this application because of my conclusion that Ms. Derosa has not proved, on a balance of probabilities, that there was mould in the condominium other than in the soil in the plants located on the main floor. Those plants were put there by Ms. Derosa.

[13]Ms. Derosa claims that water leaked into the basement of the property on other occasions after she purchased, and that mould grew from the moisture causing her health problems. She claims that “The Owners Strata Plan No. KAS 1430” (“the Owners”) and the Owner’s agent, CMI Management Limited, carrying on business as Sheridan Realty (“Sheridan”) were negligent in carrying out their duty to Ms. Derosa and thus breached their duty of care causing her to suffer damage. Sheridan’s duties as agents for the owners included the day-to-day operation of Kirman Mews, building maintenance and bylaw enforcement.

[14]The first such incident claimed by Ms. Derosa to have occurred was in May 1997, one month after Ms. Derosa took possession of the property. The storm sewer lines backed up, causing water to enter some of the basements of the ground floor units, including the basement of Unit 6, particularly the area at the foot of the basement stairs. Sheridan arranged for the flushing of the storm sewers to correct the water backup problem.

[15]There was no further contact from Ms. Derosa to Sheridan regarding water egress until October 24, 1997, when Ms. Derosa reported a leak in the basement of Unit 6 along the back wall of the basement. On the same day Sheridan’s maintenance person, Mr. Moulds, inspected Unit 6 and found no water in the basement.

[16]On November 6th Ms. Derosa again contacted Sheridan to report a water leak in her basement. On November 7th Mona and Chris Murray, the principals of Sheridan, inspected Ms. Derosa’s basement. They found numerous plastic flowers, ribbons, craft materials, styrofoam and other materials in the basement, as well as more than 50 live potted plants on the main floor which they said covered “what seemed to be every available surface”. There was some evidence that Ms. Derosa was growing these plants to give to patients at an extended care facility. Ms. Derosa denied having so many plants in this property at this time.

[17]The only crack observed by the Murrays on November 7th was one small crack on the west wall of the basement which Mona Murray described as a hairline crack. The bylaws of the Strata Corporation provided that Ms. Derosa, as the owner of Unit 6, was responsible for the maintenance of the interior of the unit and that the Strata Corporation was responsible for the exterior portions of the buildings. Even though maintenance and repair of the interior of the unit was Ms. Derosa’s responsibility, Sheridan instructed the maintenance person, Mr. Moulds, to repair this crack with a common basement crack sealant, and he did so on November 13th. On the same day, Sheridan advised Ms. Derosa in writing that if she experienced further leaks, she should tell Sheridan, who would then have the crack repaired by excavating outside her unit at the expense of Sheridan’s principals, namely the owners under the strata plan.

[18]On November 18th, Ms. Derosa advised Sheridan again that her unit was leaking. On November 21st Mona Murray attended at Unit 6 with a civil engineer and a structural engineer to inspect and assess the cracks in Ms. Derosa’s basement. They found a small odorless amount of water on the floor at the bottom of the west wall. They also noted on that date the presence of all of the various materials and house plants which were observed by the Murrays on November 7th in Ms. Derosa’s condominium.

[19]Meanwhile, on November 18, 1997, unknown to Sheridan, Ms. Derosa obtained the services of Alf’s Concrete to excavate outside her unit and repair from the outside. Without Sheridan’s knowledge, Alf’s Concrete effected the repairs on the foundation outside Unit 6. Sheridan received no further complaints from Ms. Derosa relating to water leakage in her unit and Sheridan therefore invites the court to conclude that thereafter there were no more leaks into her unit.

[20]There was also an allegation that Ms. Derosa complained on a number of occasions in 1997 and 1998 (after the date of purchase) of noise emanating from units around her unit and evidence of efforts by Sheridan to assess those complaints and communicate Ms. Derosa’s concerns to the occupants of those units. Ms. Derosa seeks damages against Sheridan arising out of this noise complaint but I have concluded that she has not made out this claim against Sheridan on any basis.

[21]Ms. Derosa claims that she told the defendants Sutton Group – Westwin Realty Ltd. and Suzanne Goodell (who I will refer to collectively as “Goodell”) of her allergies, that Goodell represented that there was no mould or moisture on the property, alternately that Goodell knew or ought to have known that moisture and mould were present in the property and that in fact moisture and mould were present in the property.

[22]Ms. Derosa further claims that Goodell should have known that she would rely on Ms. Goodell’s representations that there were no moisture or mould problems on the property thereby inducing her into purchasing the property. As well, Ms. Derosa claims that Ms. Goodell ought to have been aware of the liquid containing feces or noxious gases or the ability of liquid containing feces or noxious gases to enter the property, that Ms. Goodell failed to disclose this to Ms. Derosa and that if she had been told about it, she would not have purchased this property. Ms. Derosa claims that Ms. Goodell represented, on behalf of Mrs. Horning, that very little noise would be heard from inside the property when in fact, Ms. Derosa claims, there were high volumes of noise and that these representations were also relied upon by her.

[23]Ms. Rhodes, on behalf of Goodell, submits that Ms. Derosa has not established on a balance of probabilities that the condominium contained mould and says that there is no evidence that liquid containing feces or noxious gases were on the property nor that they had the ability to enter the property or ever entered the property, and that there is no evidence of noise of any consequence and no evidence that Ms. Goodell made any representation with respect to noise.

[24]Ms. Derosa claims that she had no knowledge of possible leaks of water into the basement prior to purchase. The defendants claim she did. It is not necessary for me to make a finding on this conflict in view of the conclusion I have reached that Ms. Derosa has failed to prove the presence of mould at the time of sale or thereafter as alleged against Sheridan. However it seems clear, and I have concluded so, that Ms. Derosa had to be aware on March 22, 1997, (before the sale completed) that there was a concern by the strata owners about possible water leaks into the basements because she acknowledges this on the “Contract Amendment Form” which she signed on that date. That amendment form referred to Mrs. Horning having agreed to pay an additional assessment of $300 in accordance with a Special Resolution of the strata owners of that date which addressed the question of the possibility of further water seepage in the basement units. I have concluded that Ms. Derosa must have read this material before signing the “Contract Amendment Form” on March 22, 1997, and thus been aware of the ongoing investigation into the possibility of further water seepage into basement units. This does not of course establish that there was water seepage nor the presence of mould.

The Claim Against the Vendor.
[25]Ms. Derosa claims that Mrs. Horning was aware of the condition of the property which gives rise to the cause of action, that these were latent defects known to Mrs. Horning at all relevant times which by their nature could not be ascertained by Ms. Derosa, even by inspection of the property before purchase. As I understand the argument put on behalf of Ms. Derosa, she is not alleging a patent defect, nor that Mrs. Horning has misled her by attempting to alleviate her suspicions. In any event, I find no evidence that there was a patent defect nor any evidence that Mrs. Horning did anything inappropriate to mislead Ms. Derosa as to the condition of the property.

[26]The law with reference to the obligations of a Vendor with regard to latent defects was summarized by me by reference to other case authority in Eberts v. Aitchison, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1501 (Q.L.) (B.C.S.C.) at para. 20:
The legal distinction between patent and latent defects was referred to by Edwards J. in Anderson v. Kibzey, [1996] B.C.J. No. 3008 (8 October 1996) 22662 Kamloops (S.C.B.C.) at p.3:

In addition the words of Leggett J. in Davis v. Stinka, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1256 (15 May 1995) S1135 Campbell River (S.C.B.C.) at p. 10 are useful. He said:
The B.C. Real Estate Law Guide, paragraph 1820 on p. 954, sets forth the general law as follows:
The general law relating to the disclosure of facts by the vendor is still that of caveat emptor - let the purchaser beware. Defects are regarded as being of two kinds – latent or patent. Patent defects are those that can be discovered by inspection on ordinary vigilance on the part of the purchaser and with respect to them the ordinary rule is caveat emptor. Latent defects are those which would not be revealed by any inquiry which a purchaser is in a position to make before entering the contract. The vendor is thus under no obligation to disclose patent defects. It is up to the purchaser to ascertain them either by inspection or inquiry. By the same token the vendor must not act so as to mislead the purchaser or allay his suspicions....
And at para. 22:

A vendor can be found liable for latent defects if he fraudulently or negligently misrepresents the condition of the property, but where the vendor acts with honest intent, this necessarily negates any fraud....
And at para. 24:
In 44601 B.C. Ltd. v. Ashcroft (Village), [1998] B.C.J. No. 1964 (B.C.S.C.) Burnyeat J. said at para. 45:
Where a vendor knows of the latent defect but fails to disclose that latent defect to a prospective purchaser, the vendor may be held liable for fraudulent misrepresentation: Rowley v. Isley, [1951] 3 D.L.R. 766 (B.C.S.C.)....

[27]The law with regard to negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of warranty has been cited by counsel, but in view of my findings of fact, which I will now turn to, it is unnecessary to refer to those legal principles.

[28]Ms. Derosa inspected the property on at least four occasions before closing and before the “subject to” clauses were removed by her, and found no evidence of a water leakage into the basement, nor of mould or liquid containing feces or noxious gases anywhere on the property. She did, however, claim to see a “black spot” to which I have referred. She retained the defendant, Mr. Sutherland, to conduct an examination of the interior of the premises and he found no evidence of these materials. On one occasion he inspected the property with Ms. Derosa.

[29]When the real estate agent, Ms. Goodell, attended the property, she also found no evidence of moisture or dampness in the basement. Mrs. Horning’s listing agent, Michel Peron, inspected the premises before Ms. Derosa. He found no evidence of water, moisture or moulds, and stated that the inside of the premises did not smell musty. Mrs. Horning’s daughter, Mrs. Kashluba, estimated that she was in her mother’s basement on at least four occasions during the time that Mrs. Horning resided there and helped her mother move her belongings out of the basement in April 1997. She saw no evidence of water, moisture or mould. Mrs. Horning’s son, Don Horning, said that he stored his own belongings in his mother’s basement for approximately two years in cardboard boxes and that when he removed them in 1997, there was no damage to the contents nor any mould present in these boxes. He estimated that he was in his mother’s basement on at least forty occasions during the time that she resided there.

[30]Both Mrs. Kashluba and Don Horning said that they never saw mould or moisture in any part of the premises, nor did they smell any odors of the nature alleged by Ms. Derosa, nor did they ever see any liquid containing feces or smell noxious gases on these premises. They said as well that their mother never spoke to them of the presence of mould or moisture or odours of the nature alleged by Ms. Derosa of liquid containing feces or noxious gases. Ms. Derosa conceded in her examination for discovery that she has never noticed the presence of liquid containing feces in the premises.

[31] There was one occasion on November 21, 1997, some months after the purchase was completed, where what was described as a small odorless amount of water was observed by the Murrays, on the floor of the basement at the bottom of the west wall.

[32]As to the allegation of excessive noise, I have concluded that Ms. Derosa did not make the absence of excessive noise a condition of purchase, and in any event has not proved the existence of excessive noise on any occasions which she alleges.

The PHH Environmental Opinion Report Commissioned for the Plaintiff.

[33]This report is dated September 22, 1999, and relates to an investigation of the property conducted by this company on August 18, 1999, more than two years after the date of purchase. This document contains the following:
1.0 INTRODUCTION
...
1.2 Scope of Work
The scope of work comprised a visual examination of readily accessible surfaces, as well as collection of air, dust and bulk samples.
...
4.0 METHODOLOGY
A visual examination was made of readily accessible surfaces in the basement of the building. In order for mold to amplify in a building there must be a nutrient source and sufficient surface moisture to allow recovery of enzymes exuded to digest the nutrient.
A dust sample was collected from the floor, and air samples were collected from the basement, lounge and the ambient outside air using a Reuter Centrifugal Systems Biotest sampler. Prolific mold growth was evident on the soil in plant pots in the lounge and a bulk soil sample was collected.
...
5.0 OBSERVATIONS
Ms De Rosa reported chronic symptoms including sinus problems, catarrh, wheezing and sleep difficulties. These symptoms are amongst those associated with mold exposure, though they are non-specific and may also result from a number of other causes. Ms De Rosa reported that a few hours after leaving the building these symptoms would diminish, and would return almost immediately following re-entry. Ms De Rosa had not occupied the property for a considerable time prior to this investigation.

Ms De Rosa reported that there had been a history of water seepage into the basement of the building. Historic gutter and drainage defects were reported at the rear of the building. At the time of inspection concrete walls and floors in the basement appeared dry, though examination of the upper four feet of wall surface was not possible due to drywall paneling.

There was some evidence of cracking in the floor, though it was not possible to visually determine whether cracking was surficial or it might allow ingress of groundwater. Some staining was evident on the floor, but insufficient visible mold growth was found in the stained area to allow the collection of a bulk sample.

[34]The report of PHH Environmental which is entitled “Mold Investigation” commences with an “Executive Summary”. The Executive Summary contains the following:

From the results of the investigation, PHH Environmental Limited concludes:
1. A single colony of Aspergillus Versicolor was evident in the basement air sample.
2. A single colony of Aspergillus Versicolor in the basement air sample without confirmatory visual identification or bulk sampling is inconclusive, but may be indicative of a building amplification site. Further air and surface sampling would be required to determine whether the presence of this species was a result of amplification or was merely coincidental.
3. Trichoderma hamatum was recovered from the soil sample collected in the lounge. Trichoderma species are commonly found in soil and produce antibiotics that are toxic to humans. This species was not evident in the air sample in the lounge.
4. Fungal growth is common in soil in plant pots in buildings, but should not be confused with fungal amplification in building materials. If mycotoxic fungi present in soil become airborne they can produce adverse health effects, but the problem may be simply remedied by the removal or re-potting of the plant.
5. The results of this investigation reflect conditions at the time of the investigation. They do not necessarily reflect conditions that occurred throughout the period of Ms De Rosa’s occupation of the property.

Based on the conclusions and observations, PHH Environmental Limited recommends:
1. Further air and surface sampling should be carried out to determine whether the presence of Aspergillus Versicolor was a result of amplification or was merely coincidental.
2. Care should be taken to ensure that soil fungi are not allowed to amplify to the extent that they become airborne in significant numbers. For the exquisitely sensitive individual even low levels of airborne fungal spores can cause adverse reactions, in which case all soil should be removed from the indoor environment.

[35]This report refers to PHH having taken samples from soil present in “the lounge”. I understand “the lounge” to be part of the main floor of Ms. Derosa’s condominium.

[36]The report of PHH is not helpful to Ms. Derosa. This report is inconclusive even as to circumstances existing on August 18, 1999, and tells us nothing of the condition of this property in the months of March and April 1997, over two years before. There is as well some evidence that her health complaints may very well be the result of the presence of mould in potted plants observed in the premises in early November 1997 by Ms. Murray, a principal of Sheridan. My understanding is that the PHH soil samples were taken from plants on the main floor.

[37]Dr. Arkinstall provided an opinion report to plaintiff’s counsel dated November 16, 2000. Dr. Arkinstall is a consulting physician in Respiratory Medicine and Allergy and has been engaged in that practice in Kelowna since 1973.

[38]He saw Ms. Derosa on January 25, 1999, and on February 17, in March, on June 9, on September 13, and on November 25 of that year. He had not seen her after November 25, 1999, when he wrote this report, although she was scheduled to be seen by him on November 27, 2000.

[39]Dr. Arkinstall stated in his report that on her first visit allergy tests were performed which showed her to be reactive to a number of antigens, particularly trees, grasses, weeds, animals and house dust. He made no mention of moulds at that time.

[40]Ms. Derosa told Dr. Arkinstall on her first visit that there was “considerable mould” in the property. At page 3 of his report to Mr. Drayton he said:
ii From the history I have obtained, and from the evidence you have supplied, I believe Ms. Derosa’s symptoms were markedly aggravated and her severe status asthmaticus was precipitated by exposure to her condominium. The most likely factor in the condominium was the mold she described.

[41]Dr. Arkinstall therefore, in concluding there was mould present in the property, relied on the history provided by Ms. Derosa and her conclusion that there was mould in the property. He relied also on the report of PHH Environmental Limited, and a report by “Roto-Rooter”. Roto-Rooter’s “report” is not before the court and I have concluded that is so because it does not qualify as an expert’s report if it indeed contains any opinion on the subject of mould. As well there was a suggestion in argument that the Roto Rooter report related to unit 3, not unit 6.

[42]The PHH report is, as I have said, inconclusive as to the presence of mould in the property, either at the date of inspection by PHH or at the time of purchase. The only information which Dr. Arkinstall had as to the presence of mould in the premises is from Ms. Derosa herself, which is not supported by the evidence or any expert qualifications on her part.

[43]I cannot rely on Dr. Arkinstall’s opinion that mould was present in the property at the time of purchase. In any case, it is not appropriate for Dr. Arkinstall to express such an opinion. He simply assumes the presence of mould which he is entitled to do for purposes of his medical opinion. It is obvious that Ms. Derosa was in considerable medical difficulty when first seen by Dr. Arkinstall. I refer to page 2 of his report and his reference to that first visit which occurred on January 25, 1999:

On examination, she was extremely short of breath. She had even had difficulty even (sic) carrying on a conversation of any extent. She had a constant cough and minimal exercise provoked severe physical distress.

Her breath sounds showed a marked inspiratory and expiratory wheeze consistent with asthma. She was moderately obese; however, certainly not to the extent of causing significant health problems. When I saw her in my office, I felt it was unsafe for her to return to Kamloops. She had actually come from Kamloops on the bus. She was therefore admitted from my office to the Kelowna General Hospital where she was treated until February 4th.

In hospital, she was treated with aggressive, intravenous and other therapies. Her chest and upper airways slowly cleared. At the time of discharge, she was still showing a marked reduction in her expiratory flow rates. She was discharged on inhaled corticosteroids, oral and inhaled bronchodilators. She was also put on multiple therapies with a decongestant and an inhaled corticosteroid for her nasal symptoms.

[44]The issue is not whether Ms. Derosa is allergic to moulds, rather it is whether mould was present in the property at the time of purchase. The onus of proof is upon Ms. Derosa on a balance of probabilities. I find that she has not met that onus.

[45]In particular, I find that the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that there was moisture, mould, water leakage, fecal matter, and/or noxious fumes present in the property at the time of purchase, nor for that matter at a later date. There may have been mould in the soil of the potted plants, but the plants were placed there by Ms. Derosa, not the defendants. It follows that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between the conduct of the defendants and Ms. Derosa’s medical complaints. As well, Ms. Derosa has not made out her claim that there was “excessive noise” in the condominium unit.

[46]With further reference to the claim against Sheridan, I find that the Strata Corporation through its agent Sheridan did all it could reasonably have done in the circumstances, which was to enforce the bylaws, and maintain or repair the common property of the complex.

[47]Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed as against all defendants. The defendants will have their costs at Scale 3.

"R.B. Hunter, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.B. Hunter

Timothy M. Barr

01-02-2009, 04:56 PM

I do both mold and radon Radon pays for itself (Licensing and equipment)
Mold not much call for it.
Last mold sampling I did, the house had two bad kinds mold growing in wash room which caused a 7month girl to have respirtory problems. I made a few dollars but the satifaction that the little girl is doing great now is worth a lot. Out of this I did get two other inspection from their family The family did correct the problem. With out my help they might not have found out the problem. My lab results were taken to their doctor and the little girl was tested for those molds
My two cents worth

Mark Northrup

01-02-2009, 05:22 PM

Scott Patterson

01-02-2009, 05:46 PM

IMO and that of many other folks as you can see; home inspectors who take an 8 hour course or an online course should not be testing for mold. Testing for mold is only taking money from your client and gives them little to no useful information. A one day wonder course written by a lab or sponsored by a lab is kind of on the self serving side, don't you think!

Why test when you see or smell mold? No reason at all! Mold testing is akin to selling Snake Oil.....! So when the report comes back with MOLD, then what? Just what do you tell your clients?

Just take care of the moisture and follow the EPA guidelines for cleaning. Or if you want, hire a professional abatement contractor.

Even the labs, or I should say the respectable labs do not recommend blind mold testing. Blind testing is just testing the house to see if it has mold, even if you can't see, smell or find a program.

Sorry to be so down on mold testing by home inspectors who do not have the proper credentialing to back up the service they are offering. If you are offering mold testing then you should be able to council your clients and also be able to write a proper abatement plan. You are doing the home inspection profession a disservice by selling a service that is prompted by fear and is not needed!

Oh, and I have been involved in moisture and mold problems in structures for about ten years. I Co-Owned a company that did nothing but test and write abatement plans for commercial and residental structures. We had two environmental engineers and a biochemist on staff who were more than qualified to do this work. I have around 300+ hours of class room in related education and over 400 projects under my belt and I still will not test for mold on my own.

As for a Certifed Mold Inspector, this is about as good as a Certifed Master Inspector. Just who is doing the certification, what type of re-certification testing and education is required, who certified the folks that are doing the certification! We just don't have any such of a real third party certification! All these are just "Certificate" programs. This means that you get a paper certificate, it is not the same as a certification! They are also called Certification Mills, akin to a Diploma Mill

OK off of Soap Box!

DDMG Charter Member!

Mark Northrup

01-02-2009, 09:05 PM

Tom:

The post by Benjemen Gromiko is a perfect case in point, and underscores the validity of my comments.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

IMO and that of many other folks as you can see; home inspectors who take an 8 hour course or an online course should not be testing for mold. Testing for mold is only taking money from your client and gives them little to no useful information. A one day wonder course written by a lab or sponsored by a lab is kind of on the self serving side, don't you think!

Why test when you see or smell mold? No reason at all! Mold testing is akin to selling Snake Oil.....! So when the report comes back with MOLD, then what? Just what do you tell your clients?

Just take care of the moisture and follow the EPA guidelines for cleaning. Or if you want, hire a professional abatement contractor.

Even the labs, or I should say the respectable labs do not recommend blind mold testing. Blind testing is just testing the house to see if it has mold, even if you can't see, smell or find a program.

Sorry to be so down on mold testing by home inspectors who do not have the proper credentialing to back up the service they are offering. If you are offering mold testing then you should be able to council your clients and also be able to write a proper abatement plan. You are doing the home inspection profession a disservice by selling a service that is prompted by fear and is not needed!

Oh, and I have been involved in moisture and mold problems in structures for about ten years. I Co-Owned a company that did nothing but test and write abatement plans for commercial and residental structures. We had two environmental engineers and a biochemist on staff who were more than qualified to do this work. I have around 300+ hours of class room in related education and over 400 projects under my belt and I still will not test for mold on my own.

As for a Certifed Mold Inspector, this is about as good as a Certifed Master Inspector. Just who is doing the certification, what type of re-certification testing and education is required, who certified the folks that are doing the certification! We just don't have any such of a real third party certification! All these are just "Certificate" programs. This means that you get a paper certificate, it is not the same as a certification! They are also called Certification Mills, akin to a Diploma Mill

OK off of Soap Box!

DDMG Charter Member!

I'm sorry Scott but selling snake oil I believe is the other side. I have done many inspections where possible mold was called out and a remediation service came in and Bid $20,000 or more to fix the problem. To the unsuspecting homeowner that is a horror by a snake oil salesman. What was even better is that with that special price tag no warranty was ever made that the mold would not return.

The structure was a townhouse and what was even funnier was that a contractor came and bid to remove the roof and replace the sheeting, trusses, drywall, insulation and install a new roof for around $10,000. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the homeowner would go for the lower price. The problem was ventilation and a bathroom fan ducting to the attic.

On another one I found possible mold in the crawlspace. A remediation service came in and said that it would be cheaper to tear down the house than correct the mold problem. Tell me that didnâ€™t scare the home owner and the insurance company. The Owners had lived there 17 years. And the problem was ventilation.

And all these high priced inflated remediation service's help to raise the insurance industries cost of doing business therefore raising all of our insurance costs. Thatâ€™s why the home owners are scared into horror because of the outrageous high priced remediation services that donâ€™t need to test to correct the problem.
And that is why most insurance companies will not include policies for mold or similar related problems. If someone has a good knowledge of inspecting for moisture problems then they should be able to point out what would correct the problem and testing for mold just confirms this at a reasonable cost to the client. And insurance costs donâ€™t go up.

I have never in 20 years of dealing with home construction have ever seen a Mold Remediation business cost of service being cheaper than a licensed bonded contractor replacing the same items and most of the time the contractor will provide a warranty for their work.

As for my credentials I have 1000â€™s of hours of education and hands training in many different countries on home inspection, building industry and the aerospace industry. I own my own business. I have preformed 1000â€™s of home inspections. Pest and rot inspections. I have managed lumber yards and wholesale companies for the building industry. I have sold, installed or repaired just about everything that goes into a house. I have held a top secret clearance(SBI) with the military and have worked on the F-117A Stealth Fighter and many others. I have helped re-write Technical orders for military aircraft. I have fought for the freedom of the United States in foreign wars and I am proud to be a American that is free to chose the profession I want. I have been licensed and inspected in two different states Illinois and Oregon for home inspection. I Have passed several state and professional home associations Inspections exams with flying colors.

I have dealt with many Structural engineers that will tell you because it works on paper it will work in the real world. The world trade towers will disprove that theory.
they were made to withstand a direct hit from a airplane. However they forgot to tell the metal beams with the falling off fire proofing that they werenâ€™t supposed to fail.

With the many hours of knowledge in the mold industry do you have many hours in the home structure, outside building envelope, dissimilar metals, or flashing details to just name a few. I have talked with 30 year home builders that have been doing flashing wrong for many of those years but it never leaked and caused a problem so they kept doing it that way. Until a lawsuit or a claim came against them.
So again Knowledge is power if used in the right way. Other than that it is a book sitting on a shelf. I respect your profession. All that Iâ€™m asking is that you respect ours.
House 2 Home LLC.
Mark Northrup

Jack Feldmann

01-02-2009, 09:23 PM

"I have managed lumber yards and wholesale companies for the building industry. I have sold, installed or repaired just about everything that goes into a house. I have held a top secret clearance(SBI) with the military and have worked on the F-117A Stealth Fighter and many others. I have helped re-write Technical orders for military aircraft. I have fought for the freedom of the United States in foreign wars and I am proud to be a American that is free to chose the profession I want."

WTF?????? What does this ramble have to do with anything related to the mold conversation? I once touched a U2 spy plane, and saw the B1 fly over. So what?

By the way, The University of Tennessee offers extension classes that include one 6 hour class and at the end you will be CERTIFIED in mold inspection

Mark Northrup

01-02-2009, 09:37 PM

Raymond Wand

01-03-2009, 08:12 AM

It seems CaoimhÃ*n has struck a chord with some. Good! Its important that the bull about mould and its remediation are brought to the forefront to instill just what a snow job mould testing and remediation have turned into.

Scott Patterson

01-03-2009, 08:13 AM

[COLOR=black][[/FONT]
So again Knowledge is power if used in the right way. Other than that it is a book sitting on a shelf. I respect your profession. All that I’m asking is that you respect ours.
House 2 Home LLC.
Mark Northrup

Hi Mark,

I do respect the IAQ and related professions, heck I was part of it for about eight years. The largest issue I have would be with the home inspector who has taken the "7" hour or one day class and thinks that they know everything about mold. Then next would be the labs that promote such training and testing. This is what is hurting the IAQ profession.

Mark, you alone should understand this with the 1000's of education hours you have and the 1000's of home inspections you have done. This is an indication that you have been doing this for many, many years. Why don't you state any of this on your website? Be proud of your accomplishments and services you offer.

Curious though? On Active Rain, you state that you have been a home inspector since March 2004. OCHI# 933 CCB# 181057. How does one get 1000's of inspections and 1000's of hours of education in only 3 1/2 years? I guess it is possible....

Jerry McCarthy

01-03-2009, 09:42 AM

Scott boxed it up and Jack nailed the lid on. After spending 7 hours or 7 days in training anyone who thinks theyâ€™re qualified to inspect buildings or mold are living in a fantasy world. These folks not only present a danger to the public interest, but diminish the reputation of the people who have actually spent the time and money for a proper education in these highly skilled areas.

Mark Northrup

01-03-2009, 11:11 AM

Hi Mark,

I do respect the IAQ and related professions, heck I was part of it for about eight years. The largest issue I have would be with the home inspector who has taken the "7" hour or one day class and thinks that they know everything about mold. Then next would be the labs that promote such training and testing. This is what is hurting the IAQ profession.

Mark, you alone should understand this with the 1000's of education hours you have and the 1000's of home inspections you have done. This is an indication that you have been doing this for many, many years. Why don't you state any of this on your website? Be proud of your accomplishments and services you offer.

Curious though? On Active Rain, you state that you have been a home inspector since March 2004. OCHI# 933 CCB# 181057. How does one get 1000's of inspections and 1000's of hours of education in only 3 1/2 years? I guess it is possible....

Good morning Scott
I started Inspecting in Illinois In March 2004 as a home inspector. My license number 050.0001680 in case you want to check. My education started in 1985. I on average due about 350 full home inspections a year. I worked for a national franchise for some time that kept me busy most of the time until it sold. The new owner was a nightmare. I did safety of flight inspections for 11 years for the military. I have done years of jobsite inspections for contractors to help identify any problems or defects in Engineered flooring and roof systems.
Having a home inspector or anybody that is not properly trained to do ANY TYPE OF INSPECTION not knowing what they are doing IS VERY DANGEROUS. There are a lot of people that bring discredit to this industry and many others due to their lack of Knowledge. I take my profession very serious and bring that to the public.
I do not like to brag. I listed my accomplishments to prove a point not bring glory to myself. I feel that doing mold samples can bring a positive approach to the mold horror that is out there and limit the liability that so many consumers choose to pursue. My suggestion is that instead of putting down another profession for trying to make a difference. It would be better to offer a positive avenue to pursue more training to meet the expectations of Mr. Connell. There are many home inspectors that get a bad rap from Licensed electricianâ€™s, plumberâ€™s, Forensic Industrial Hygienistâ€™s or others because they say that the inspector should of seen that or should not be doing that.
I can not count the times that a Contractor has short cut a job to save money and passed it on to the unsuspecting consumer. That is why we have a profession.
Nuff Said

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-03-2009, 11:52 AM

Good morning, Gents:

Comments to Nick, Timothy, and Mark:

Whether you agree with mold testing or not, mold is a concern for many home buyers and there are many stories about mold in homes to fuel the fire of a mold-fearing buyer.

For a start, the premise “Whether you agree with mold testing or not…” to my knowledge, there is no such controversy. The controversy revolves around the appropriateness of testing, the types of testing, when testing is needed, how it should be done and by whom.

The unfortunate fact of the matter when it comes to home sales is that in order for mold in a home to become a negotiable item (money off the price of the house or repairs made as a condition of the sale), it must be proved to be mold…

And unfortunately, your tests are not actually doing what you think they are doing, and the level of “proof” provided by the “testing” is a spoof, and legitimate verification can be provided to the client by a legitimate inspector by just looking at it. If the inspector needs to test it, then they are NOT a legitimate inspector, and they clearly lack technical expertise – thus the need to perform a bogus test.

The US CDC recommends against such tests.
The State of California recommends against such tests.
The US EPA recommends against such tests.
The AIHA recommends against such tests.
The ACGIH recommends against such tests.
The State of Illinois recommends against such tests.
The State of Colorado recommends against such tests.
The State of New York recommends against such tests.

And if removal of mold damaged materials in a house gets into the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars, many people want to see definitive test results before they'll agree to do anything.

Again, unfortunately, a legitimate mould inspector can do that without testing, and none of the “mould tests” available can to what you think they are doing.

“…have substance tested and removed if proven to be mold and all repairs/replacements made as needed to damaged materials".

Why? What you have just postulated is insanity.

Why not also say things like “…have substance tested and removed if proven to be dirty and all repairs/replacements made as needed to damaged materials". There is no foundation for your recommendation, and your testing does NOT confirm if removal or repairs are required, you just want to think they do.

“That is where testing comes in to confirm what we suspect.”

But Nick, it doesn’t confirm anything – again, since you don’t know what the tests mean, you just believe the test are confirmatory.

It would be nice if we could just call it as we see it and everybody took our professional word for it. But in a world where lawyers shape the way we report defects, we have to play by their rules to keep our butts out of court.

The problem is, that such bogus testing is EXACTLY what will land you in court when a legitimate inspector points out that your testing was bogus, and therefore the decision based on the bogus testing were foundationless.

“It doesn't take much to completely wipe out the fee we earn for a home inspection if somebody chooses to sue us for using the wrong verbiage or not recommending further testing.”

How about recommend following accepted guidelines instead of making up guidelines?

Timothy:

Last mold sampling I did, the house had two bad kinds mold growing in wash room…

Timothy- I will openly challenge your report here in public, and I will openly state that your "mold sampling" was completely useless and meaningless. If you would like to take the challenge, send me the report, and I will issue a critical review of the work.

This is the kind of nonsense toxic mould boloney that can give you a bad name. Tell us, Timothy, what exactly is “bad kinds of mold”? Where have you obtained such silliness? I think your comments underscore the level of technical incompetence provided by “toxic mould” consultants who clearly have no knowledge of mould. The “bad kind” indeed … Good Lord.

“…which caused a 7 month girl to have respirtory problems.”

Coming from someone who can’t even spell “respiratory” correctly, and who speaks of "bad kind of mold," you think that now you are an epidemiologist or a pathologist? You CANNOT support your argument that the “bad kind of mold” caused anything – you are so far outside of your area of expertise, it borders on criminal. Look, I'm not attacking your spelling - I am saying that you, professionally, clearly lack any technical competency in moulds, and epidemiology.

The family did correct the problem. With out my help they might not have found out the problem. My lab results were taken to their doctor and the little girl was tested for those molds- My two cents worth

If that is what you were paid, Timothy, for your services, then I agree the family got exactly what they paid for.

Mark asks:

“Why do you feel a need to put down someone's way of making a living.”

Mark, so you are saying that anyone who cheats someone or lies to someone of rips off someone, for a living, we should just tolerate it and say “Aw shucks, that’s how he makes a living!”

“What fees do you charge?”
For what?

“Do you you correct the problems you note.”

No, I am a scientist, I don’t fix anything.

“Do you charge 1,000 of dollars for your services to someone that cannot afford them that does need them.”

No, why do you ask?

Were you a straight A student in college and a expert in your profession to be able to put down someone else providing a honest service to the general public.

It is not an honest service, Mark – that’s the point. – It is cheating people by collecting money for unnecessary services, and then, like Timothy, telling them things about which he clearly has no technical competency and that he cannot support.

“A certified mold inspector will most likely charge less and get the same result.”

That is because being a “certified mould inspector” is no evidence of legitimate knowledge in mould inspections. ANYONE can be a certified mould inspector, without any training or possess and knowledge of mould, by simply sitting down at their computer and printing out their certificate and the VIOLA! - They are a “certified mould inspector.” Frankly, I don’t know of ANY legitimate mould experts that are “certified mould inspectors” and I similarly don’t know of any “certified mould inspectors” that are legitimate mould experts.

Here, do you want to see what happens to “certified mould experts” who collect bogus samples? Follow the following link for a public domain document to see what a mould expert does to the technically incompetent (posted on the web by someone else):

http://inspection-perfection.com/main/pdf/critical%20review%20test%20results.pdf

“…but i am sick and tired of so called professionals putting down other professions.”

And I am sick and tired of one-day mould wonders pretending to be mould experts by collecting useless samples and taking people’s money in exchange for meaningless data.

If a plumber decides to perform a medical operation on woman’s intestines after taking a one-day class on digestion, that should be allowed? And the medical profession should not “put down another profession?”

Mark, your posts are full of subjective hyperbole and rhetoric, and your second post in the thread is just plain bizarre and indicates to me that you are very confused indeed, and I’m sure you are a nice guy, but you’re not helping your clients if you are collecting mould samples.

I don’t normally agree with Scott – but we are on the same page on this one.

Finally, the courses offered by Mr. Gromicko are not recognized anywhere as authoritative – and most of the folks with whom I have spoken and who have taken the course think the courses were a waste of time.

Similarly, the International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants has no international authoritative recognition.

Feel free to pursue the topic Gents –

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Raymond Wand

01-03-2009, 12:06 PM

CaoimhÃ*n, I think the court case above aptly assists in demonstrating your points from a legal perspective and from a mould testing pov. Particularly The PHH Environmental Opinion Report Commissioned for the Plaintiff as in the above court case.

MaMa Mount

01-03-2009, 12:14 PM

After reading all of this reminds me of why I don't claim to be an expert on anything. One question. Is it mould or mold?:o

Scott Patterson

01-03-2009, 12:17 PM

Good morning Scott
I started Inspecting in Illinois In March 2004 as a home inspector. My license number 050.0001680 in case you want to check. My education started in 1985. I on average due about 350 full home inspections a year. I worked for a national franchise for some time that kept me busy most of the time until it sold. The new owner was a nightmare. I did safety of flight inspections for 11 years for the military. I have done years of jobsite inspections for contractors to help identify any problems or defects in Engineered flooring and roof systems.
Having a home inspector or anybody that is not properly trained to do ANY TYPE OF INSPECTION not knowing what they are doing IS VERY DANGEROUS. There are a lot of people that bring discredit to this industry and many others due to their lack of Knowledge. I take my profession very serious and bring that to the public.
I do not like to brag. I listed my accomplishments to prove a point not bring glory to myself. I feel that doing mold samples can bring a positive approach to the mold horror that is out there and limit the liability that so many consumers choose to pursue. My suggestion is that instead of putting down another profession for trying to make a difference. It would be better to offer a positive avenue to pursue more training to meet the expectations of Mr. Connell. There are many home inspectors that get a bad rap from Licensed electricianâ€™s, plumberâ€™s, Forensic Industrial Hygienistâ€™s or others because they say that the inspector should of seen that or should not be doing that.
I can not count the times that a Contractor has short cut a job to save money and passed it on to the unsuspecting consumer. That is why we have a profession.
Nuff Said

Hi Mark,

Thanks for clearing it up.;)

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-03-2009, 12:51 PM

Hiya â€“ MaMa:

Couple of points: First, when I purchase an home, I always hire my favorite Home Inspector. Because Home Inspectors are experts in the field of home inspection. Thatâ€™s why I would never do my own home inspection, because I am not technically competent to do an home inspectioin; Iâ€™m a bloody scientist for God's sake â€“ what would I know about home inspections? Ergo â€“ call in the REAL experts â€“ you guys.

Along those lines, most of the Home Inspectors I know are quite sufficiently competent to perform mould/moisture assessments at an adequate level for their clients without any â€œmould training,â€ and without ANY kind of sampling. If an higher level of consultation is needed (questions about toxicology, mycology, microbiology, patho-fizzy-ology, epidemiology, (or other ologies) or human exposure assessments, etc), then they refer the work to me. In truth, in well over 99% of those calls, after a brief discussion with the client, they are satisfied with their home inspectorâ€™s assessment, and realize that there is no need for my services.

Next: â€œMouldâ€ vs. â€œmold.â€ I operate in an international capacity and I am on several ASTM International committees. There is a drive to use international spelling protocols in international standards, which I support. â€œMoldâ€ is exclusively American English â€“ â€œMouldâ€ is the internationally accepted standardized spelling used everywhere except the U.S.

I am first and foremost an American and I love this beautiful country â€“ so itâ€™s not a putdown of any kind, itâ€™s just standardization.

Hello Raymond:
I painfully read the court doc. Based on the limited info in the doc, you are correct, and it appears that PHH did bogus sampling and look where it got them and their client.

Last: By the way, my comment about Scott Patterson â€“ I actually think Scott appears to be a pretty stand-up and technically acute and technically competent professional, we certainly disagree about the radon thing in particular â€“ But I would use him in an heartbeat to do an Home Inspection.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

B.T.W. - patho-fizzy-ology is the study of the effects beer has on the body. :D

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Raymond Wand

01-03-2009, 01:18 PM

Ma Ma Mount

Mould is the Canadian spelling.

Nick Ostrowski

01-03-2009, 01:29 PM

Caoimhín, I don't do the testing. If you think I have my back up because I test and I'm standing up for mold testing, I do not test. All I tried to do was present the way we as home inspectors need to approach things. And if you feel that "What I have just postulated is insanity" regarding the verbiage I use in my reports of the suspected presence of mold, then call me insane. It keeps me out of court and keeps me from getting sued. That is what matters to me.

What do you recommend we tell our clients when we point out fuzzy growth all over the ceiling in their basement Caoimhín? Are we to just tell them "it's mold, get rid of it"? What do then say when the sellers asks us if we can prove it is mold? Do we tell them testing is a spoof and insanity and that they should follow "accepted guidelines instead of made up guidelines"? What do we tell them when they say "I'm not doing or paying for anything until somebody can prove to me that stuff is mold"? Do we refer them back to these "accepted guidelines" and tell them to get over it? Where can we find one of these legitimate mold inspectors who can convince them it is mold without testing? Can we give them your number so you can set them straight?

It may be cut and dry to you Caoimhín but try convincing home buyers and sellers of your feelings after they've been inundated with stories of mold problems for years and their minds are already made up about mold before they even know if there is a mold issue in the house.

If you can provide some actual guidance that can assist us in doing our jobs better, great. Pompous putdowns from your keyboard I can do without. I don't doubt you know what you're talking about Caoimhín but the holier-than-thou attitude isn't needed.

Here's a little question for you Caoimhín. I saw this inside a crawlspace of a house I inspected this past fall. This is one of multiple ceiling joist bays in the crawlspace that looked like this. What would you tell the buyer and seller about this? What am I supposed to say in my report about this? Any help you can pass along would be appreciated. After all, I don't want my clients to view me as insane.

Jerry Peck

01-03-2009, 02:10 PM

Why do you feel a need to put down someone's way of making a living.

I don't normally Write a post like this but i am sick and tired of so called professionals putting down other professions..

Mark,

I have a question for you:

Do you have a disdain for robbers (of any kind, bank robbers, grocery store robber, those who rob mini-marts, etc.)?

I am sure you do. They prey on others, taking money from others.

CaoimhÃ*n, and many others, including myself, have those same thoughts and disdain for mold inspectors who claim to be certified and rip off those they steal money for without providing a legitimate service in return for.

The difference between mold inspectors and bank robbers is that robbing banks is against the law, stealing money from unsuspecting folks is also against the law, however, there is a loophole in that mold inspections are not specifically addressed in that law.

"Why do you feel a need to put down someone's way of making a living."

Answer: Because it is the right thing to do - to expose thieves for what they are.

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-03-2009, 03:49 PM

Hello All:

Hello especially Nick â€“ My apologies of my last post â€“ I got a little passionate and came across poorly, so I do apologize to you in particular.

I have just seen arguments similar to yours fall flat on their face upon challenge. But you raise some very good questions ... so here ya goâ€¦

Scenario Number 1
â€œWhat do you recommend we tell our clients when we point out fuzzy growth all over the ceiling in their basement CaoimhÃ*n?â€

Answer:

CaoimhÃ*n
Hi, Mrs. Smith, Geeze! Look at all that fuzzy stuff growing all over your ceiling. You know what that is?

Mrs. Smith:
It kinda looks like mould. (No moss growing on Mrs. Smith).

CaoimhÃ*n
Thatâ€™s right Mrs. Smith, and that means there is a moisture problem that needs to be addressed. So letâ€™s start figuring out where that moisture is coming from.

Mrs. Smith:
Arenâ€™t you going to test it?

CaoimhÃ*n:
No.

Mrs. Smith:
But what if itâ€™s toxic mould?

CaoimhÃ*n
There's no such thing. That was a creation of sensationalist journalists.

Mrs. Smith:
But how do you know its mould?

CaoimhÃ*n:
Mrs. Smith, even you looked at it and you could tell it was mould, it really is that easy. Iâ€™m an expert, and like you, I know its mould, but because Iâ€™m an expert, I can tell you itâ€™s a mix of colonies of Penicillia, Aspergilli, with a smattering of Cladosporium. But you know what? Knowing what kind of mould is present doesnâ€™t change the nature of the problem. The problem is moisture, not what kind of mould is present, so we still need to figure out whereâ€™s the water's coming from â€“ the mould is just a good visual marker for moisture intrusion. We are not going to alter our decision making process on finding the moisture problem based on the genus and/or species of mould present, so knowing the genus or species is unimportant, so why waste money on it? So, now, about that moisture problemâ€¦

Mrs. Smith:
But what about the concentrations?

CaoimhÃ*n:
Oh â€¦ well letâ€™s see â€¦ I t looks like itâ€™s about four feet by six feet, so â€¦ thatâ€™s about 24 square feet of mould growth. Now, about that moisture problemâ€¦

Mrs. Smith:
I'm not doing or paying for anything until somebody can prove to me that stuff is mold?

CaoimhÃ*n:
Really? You mean to tell me that you are willing to leave that big 24 square foot patch of ugly brown and green fuzzy stuff on your ceiling if itâ€™s NOT mould?

Mrs. Smith:
Well, no I still want it gone, â€¦ butâ€¦

CaoimhÃ*n:
OK, good, now, about that moisture problemâ€¦

Mrs. Smith:
But that nice young man who was here earlier took lots of tape samples and swab samples and air samples; thatâ€™s gonna cost me a fortune!

CaoimhÃ*n
Yes, I know Mâ€™am. He was a NACHI home inspector who went through the ProLab â€œcertified mould inspectorâ€ class â€“ now, about that moisture problemâ€¦

End of scenario Number 1

Question:
Do we refer them back to these "accepted guidelines" and tell them to get over it?

Answer:
If you wish. Not in so many words, but you can say things like:

Well, Mrs. Smith, actually, the US EPA, the US Centers for Disease Control, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and other legitimate professional groups of scientist have demonstrate that sampling is a complete waste of money; and besides, collecting a sample wont prove anything, because if we collect other ceiling samples we will still find mould even if there is no water intrusion problem â€“ mould spores are ubiquitous. Additionally, the AIHA Green Book that came out in 2008, says that legitimate mould inspectors can adequately identify mould growth just by looking at it.

Question:
If you can provide some actual guidance that can assist us in doing our jobs better, great.

Answer:
Sure â€“ Give them good information and educate your client. Iâ€™m sure you do that all the time â€“ itâ€™s what you do. So tell your clients the truth about mould, I do it all the time â€“ as I said, about 99% of all mould jobs that come into my office end with the first phone call because the caller is no longer frightened and they realize they donâ€™t need my services. Read my posts, and my pages and look up the references, and read those. Or just refer the project to a consulting microbiologist if you really think its a problem.

Question:
Where can we find one of these legitimate mold inspectors who can convince them it is mold without testing? Can we give them your number so you can set them straight?

Answer:
Sure. Or have them call Scott Patterson - he seems to have a good handle on the issue. In fact, many of my references are from home inspector's who just give out my name - the caller is often times looking for confirmation of what the home inspector has told them - Since they may have received BAD information from BAD home inspectors who colected samples and told them science fiction hooror stories about "the bad kinds of mold."

Scenario Number 2:
Here's a little question for you CaoimhÃ*n. I saw this inside a crawlspace of a house I inspected this past fall. This is one of multiple ceiling joist bays in the crawlspace that looked like this. What would you tell the buyer and seller about this? What am I supposed to say in my report about this? Any help you can pass along would be appreciated. After all, I don't want my clients to view me as insane.

Inspection report:
During my visit, I observed common ordinary mould on the surfaces of the floor decking the crawlspace. The presence of the mould did not indicate a problem, its presence was insignificant and unremarkable. No further action needed.

Nick -
It really is that easy.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Ron Bibler

01-03-2009, 05:11 PM

Caoimhín:
Excellent post... I must say that is the best information on the subject of mold and moisture I have ever read. I'm a Licensed Branch #3 structural pest control building inspector in Calif. I have been inspecting for some 30 years and I have alway look at mold the same way I just never had the facts to put it the way you just did.
Very Very Good. Thank you! I do have just a few Q. what about the method of infected material removal ? All the equipment, set up, fans and Mask. Is this a wast of time? I'm 54 years young and I have been working with infected mold material starting at 15 years old. every thing from black mold, to fungus infected and damage timbers to sheet rock, floors, kitchen cabinets and never did i ever put on a mask.
If we had a fungus damage floor I just cut the thing open and remove all the damage wood just as fast as my saw would cut. So we see the state licensed mold contractor to remove infected sheet rock and drive up the cost of what should only be 1/2 days work at about $ 600.00 $ 800.00 for 2 guys in to a $ 7,000.00 job how do they do that?

Best

Ron

Rick Hurst

01-03-2009, 05:25 PM

Ron,

Being in the PC business I figured you'd wear a mask for everything.

rick

Ron Bibler

01-03-2009, 05:36 PM

Rick thats the first time I have look at what my head stone could look like. Not bad. http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0041-0810-2505-4156_TN.jpg (http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0041-0810-2505-4156.html)

Only when im putting down the Chems.

Best

Ron

Scott Patterson

01-03-2009, 05:51 PM

The question of what to call mold/mould is not all that difficult. I have been in this profession since 1995 and have been a litigation consultant and expert witness for about he past eight years. When I started doing litigation consulting it was due to EIFS. Plenty of moisture and mold! In the 100+ times that I appeared in court or for depositions, it was never successfully challenged when I called mold/mould out on a wall or whatever.

Call it what it is and you will be fine. And don't go telling me that it could be soot on the wall. As an educated home inspector you need to be able to tell when you are looking at mold or soot.

Dan Harris

01-03-2009, 06:02 PM

MOLD: I produced a 12CE training video at Become IAC2 Mold Certified - InterNACHI (http://www.nachi.org/videomoldcourse.htm)

Includes:
FREE first year membership to InterNACHI (International Association of Certified Home Inspectors InterNACHI (http://www.internachi.org), $289 value),
FREE membership to IAC2 (International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants, International Association of Certified Indoor Air Consultants | Home (http://www.IAC2.org), $75 value),
FREE Pocket HG mold inspection software from HomeGauge.com ($299 value), and
FREE Mold Course Book (pp. 167, pdf, downloadable, included with the course, $50 value).

Dr. Shane, chief mycologist of Pro-Lab, is a guest instructor.

Sounds like a heck of a deal.
Lets see if I send gromicko $$499 to get mold certified, I get certified and $723 worth of free stuff.
Glad this isn't offered in the mall, my wife would be sure to buy me it, even if she didn't know what it was, or didn't know if I needed it. :)
Hmmm.. I've always believed one doesn't get something for free, what's the catch??

Ron Bibler

01-03-2009, 06:18 PM

If you saw some blue/green fuzz on an orange would you eat it?

A little kid understands that...

Best

Ron

Raymond Wand

01-03-2009, 06:18 PM

Hey Dan,

Pro Lab has been calling me soliciting work. Things must be very slow if they are calling me! :D

Happy New Year!

Rick Hurst

01-03-2009, 08:20 PM

Raymond,

They must call me at least once a month. They don't seem to realize what "remove my name" from a call list either.

rick

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-04-2009, 12:06 PM

Hi Gents!

Question: what about the method of infected material removal ? All the equipment, set up, fans and Mask. Is this a waste of time?

Answer: No â€“ it depends on the totality of the circumstances. In some cases, no fans are needed, no critical barriers, no PPE (respirators, gloves, suits, etc), and no other controls. In some cases, negative pressure enclosures are prudent with critical barriers, and respiratory protection. An Industrial Hygienist will address each projectâ€™s requirements on its own merits â€“ Remediation companies on the other hand, just seem to always require suits and masks etc, even if there is no good reason.

Where I specify specific protocols to be used by the remediation contractor, I never interfere with their policies â€“ if they want to suit up and go in on SCBAs and Level A suits, I donâ€™t care; but I will advise the client not to pay for unnecessary actions â€“ and those contractors who include such practices probably price themselves out of the project.

Many of the newer Industrial Hygienists lack a basic understanding of the tenets of â€œRecognition, Evaluation, Anticipation and Controlâ€ the foundation of classic hazard analysis for my profession. As a result, many seem to just automatically require Level C PPE for no apparent reason except that is what they see being done, and so mindlessly ape the decision.

A few years ago, on another professional board I criticized an OSHA officer for doing precisely that (it may surprise some here that I am as critical of my colleagues who perform bad work as anyone else â€“ Iâ€™m an equal opportunity critic). If you are interested, the post, which made a bit of a splash at the time, is available here

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/Respiratorsandmould.pdf

and the discussion criticizes the brainless decisions to place people into SCBAs or full face APRs for simple mould remediation projects.

I too have seen mould remediators put in $15,000 bids for a $500 job, because $14,500 of that is in useless, unnecessary expenses (HEPA fans, critical barriers, etc). The contractors argue two things:

1) Itâ€™s required by OSHA and
2) Its standard industry practice.

I counterargue two things:

1) No it isnâ€™t and,
2) No it isnâ€™t.

Amazing to see the contractors back off and give a $500 bid, when they see me tell the client to just go down the road and hire â€œJoe the Handymanâ€ to do the job. Joe can do, do it safely, do it right, do it legally and do it within a reasonable cost without bamboozeling the poor homeowner. In most states, thank God, that is not only legal, that is in fact prudent.

It may come as no surprise that a lot of mould remediation companies donâ€™t like me. But then, a lot of them were asbestos abatement companies and they didnâ€™t like me then either â€“ but for precisely the opposite reasons.

Lastly â€“ It is surprising that although I use a ProLabs report as an excellent example of extremely poor quality and inappropriate reporting, they even try to solicit my business!

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Dan Harris

01-04-2009, 02:14 PM

Hey Dan,

Pro Lab has been calling me soliciting work. Things must be very slow if they are calling me! :D

Happy New Year!

Hi Ray.
Me too, almost weekly, until I informed them , [about 6 mo ago] I will never do business with them, or any other vender that has any type of business relationship with ole nicky.

Ron Bibler

01-04-2009, 04:24 PM

CaoimhÃ*n. I was at your web site today very nice all the information I need.

Q. How do I address a local Industrial Hygienist to address each projectâ€™s requirements on its own merits...

Q. Or how do i find out if he is on the correct side of this issue of mould or if he thinks each job is a 15K ? complete mould job?

And may i use some of the information in this post and info on your web site to inform my people on how mould should be address. As i have inspectors in my area that sell mould testing and that they are certified mould inspectors. I never was on this band wagon of mould testing.
If your have an orange and it has a blue/green fuzz on it. don't eat it!

I see homes in my area just north of San Francisco that have been sitting and mould is on most of the walls... So this information you have posted is just what my people need to known.

Thanks please reply.

Best

Ron

Ted Menelly

01-04-2009, 04:32 PM

Raymond Wand

01-04-2009, 04:38 PM

Every home has mould, always have and always will.

Ron Bibler

01-04-2009, 04:59 PM

Thanks Ted and Ray we understand the how to and the why. Its the inspectors that sell the testing and the miss-information on mould that the buyers and sellers are getting.

remove and replace and correct the moisture no big deal there.

but give buyers and sellers the correct information and don't jack with there heads.

Best

Ron

Patrick McCaffery

01-05-2009, 05:20 AM

Hi Tom,
I took my Radon testing through a company called Radalink. I use thier equipment and have found that they are a very customer focused company.
Radalink is out of Atlanta, but they do training in various locations. Go to thier website and see what they have to offer.

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-05-2009, 06:41 AM

Good morning, Ron!

Q. How do I address a local Industrial Hygienist to address each projectâ€™s requirements on its own merits...

A: First find a REAL Industrial Hygienist. We have now encountered a plethora of bogus consultants claiming to be Industrial Hygienists, but who otherwise have no knowledge of Industrial Hygiene. Like any other consultant, vet them, and ask them questions. Find out are they members of the AIHA, if they are thatâ€™s a good start. If they tell you they are a â€œCertifiedâ€ Industrial Hygienist, that does not necessarily indicate they are a real Industrial Hygienist â€“ it just means they joined a club.

Q. Or how do i find out if he is on the correct side of this issue of mould or if he thinks each job is a 15K ? complete mould job?

A: Sad to say, I have provided testimony against various legitimate Industrial Hygienists on a number issues, and in each case, the opposing IH lost. Again, just vet them, just because someone is a legitimate industrial hygienist doesnâ€™t mean they are practicing in a their area of expertise â€“ We are not allowed to, but thereâ€™s bad apples in every profession.

Q: And may i use some of the information in this post and info on your web site to inform my people on how mould should be address.

A: Of course. Just include a standard reference for the source. I sometimes get a little miffed when I see whole sections of my writings appear in magazines claiming to be written by someone else. Especially when it appear in a litigation case, where in one case an attorney provided me with a â€œgreat articleâ€ some guy had written on ghosting he found in a mag, and I explained to him that it was great work alright â€“ much of it was lifted out of my report that I had written and the supposed â€œauthorâ€ was one of the consultants on site at the time.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Jess Alvarez

01-05-2009, 07:59 AM

" Inspection report (http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/autolink.php?id=5&script=showthread&forumid=22):
During my visit, I observed common ordinary mould on the surfaces of the floor decking the crawlspace. The presence of the mould did not indicate a problem, its presence was insignificant and unremarkable. No further action needed.

Nick -
It really is that easy."

No further action needed????

Mould growth in a crawlspace does not indicate a moisture problem? . . . When does presence of mould become sigificant or remarkable?

Jess

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-05-2009, 05:30 PM

Hello Jess –

Read my post carefully and you will see that what you have interpreted is far beyond what I said. However, having said that, the presence of the mould on those surfaces does not necessarily indicate a moisture problem. The mould on the surfaces indicates that those surfaces at one time were wet – perhaps 20 years ago, and they have now been dry for the last 20 years- you can't say otherwise from a photo.

However, I will use the opportunity of your post to expand on your question a little.

Question:
When does mould growth indicate a problem?

Answer:
When you can define “problem” and then articulate why the observed condition meets the definition.

For example: "Fungal presence becomes a “fungal problem” when the presence falls into one of four categories:

1) The fungus constitutes an health hazard
2) The fungus compromises structural integrity
3) The fungus compromises aesthetic qualities
4) The fungus compromises market value"

The four categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and each exhibits a continuum of severity which must be considered during any assessment. Where a mould is present that does not meet one of these criteria, we refer to the presence of the mould as “inconsequential.”

The first two categories may be evaluated objectively, but the last two are subjective in nature. As an Industrial Hygienist, I address the first three issues. The fourth category is subjective, irrational, and, therefore, outside the scope of an objective assessment.

If the presence of the fungi does not fit into one of these four categories, then, in my opinion, one does not have a mould problem, and therefore, no remediation is necessary. If on the other hand, the fungi do fit into one of these categories, a remediation plan commensurate with that category and commensurate with the severity of the category should be developed.

In this case, as presented exclusively from a photo, there is nothing in the photo that indicates a mould problem:

Human Exposure
It is inconceivable that the mould could possibly present an health issue – if for no other reason, an elevated exposure scenario is completely beyond the realm of rational thought, or sound science. So we can scratch the first category since the presence of mould in the photo doesn’t meet that criteria. If you think I’m wrong, then challenge the position with facts.

Structural Integrity
The mould has not compromised the structural integrity of the material. Therefore, it doesn’t meet that criteria either.

Aesthetics
The mould occurs in a cruddy, dirty, crawlspace that looks like a normal cruddy dirty crawlspace – if aesthetics were an issue, the homeowner would have already cleaned out the cobwebs, and painted the timbers (with a nice bright coat of paint -possibly a nice baby blue with some white trim for accentuating the highlights of a good crawlspace). Or not. Therefore, since aesthetics are clearly not an issue in this crawlspace, the mould could not have degraded that quality and so that criteria too has not been met.

Marketability
Since none of the above criteria have been met, what is drawback of leaving the mould in place and how could it possibly hurt the value of the home, when it's presence is placed into inteligent perspective by a knowledgeable professional Home Inspector. Mould is present in EVERY crawlspace in the country. To argue otherwise is to be an idiot (I'm not calling anyone an idiot, I'm saying that to argue the alternative is an idiot's argument).

Finally, since the photo was the exclusive source of info – I will stipulate this: 1) The house was built in 1980, during which time, the materials were wet, and mould grew for a short period of time as the wood dried out; 2) the mould stopped growing in 1981; 3) moisture readings at the time the photos were taken indicated dry conditions.

I worked with the information available to me. The concept, however, is not entirely academic, and a practical example of this very idea is
demonstrated starting on page 33 (Silverton Unit Page 33) in the document which I referenced above in http://inspection-perfection.com/main/pdf/critical%20review%20test%20results.pdf

Alternatively, there is the "toxic mould" kook’s rationale for identifying a problem which goes something like this:

:eek: OH MY GAWD!!! THERE’S MOULD IN THE CRAWLSPACE!! EVACUATE THE HOUSE!! CALL IN THE REMEDIATORS!!! PUT EVERYONE IN RESPIRATORS!!! LOCK UP YOUR DAUGHTERS!! SUE SOMEBODY!! FOR GAWD SAKE, DON’T JUST STAND THERE – SUE SOMEBODY!!! :eek:

I just happen to like the standard industry practice approach better than the toxic mould kook approach; it’s less embarrassing.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

John Arnold

01-05-2009, 06:01 PM

"Well, Mrs. Smith, actually, the US EPA,..., and other legitimate professional groups of scientist have demonstrate that sampling is a complete waste of money..."

The US EPA would be the same outfit that recommends "Fix your home if you have a radon level of 4 pCi/L or more.", yes?
I'm just saying. Are they creditable, or not?

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-05-2009, 09:28 PM

Well done, John:

Question:
The US EPA would be the same outfit that recommends "Fix your home if you have a radon level of 4 pCi/L or more.", yes? I'm just saying. Are they creditable, or not?

Answer:
Not really. Like everything else in life â€“ theyâ€™re useful. Take the good with the bad.

Donâ€™t forget even NIOSH (Federal Government), for whom I otherwise have great respect, in their original respiratory selection guideline, came out with the idiotic statement that if the partial pressure of oxygen in a work environment should drop below 148 mmHg that employee SHALL be fitted with an SCBA. They forgot that that if followed, every man, woman, and child in Denver, Colorado (down to the paper boy â€“ and every bank teller, grocery clerk and car sales man) would have been required to wear SCBA breathing apparatus - because even NIOSH forgot to recognize that in Denver, our normal ppO2 is only 131 mmHg! Ooops! Trust the EPA? Not likely â€“ they are useful, thatâ€™s all.

Well caught John, well caught!

Just as side note, I used to be a chemist with a US E.P.A. CLP laboratory running S.A.S. and R.A.S. analysis - the EPA QA/QC protocol drove me nuts then, as well as now!

But, sure, we all do what we have to do, eh?

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Nick Ostrowski

01-05-2009, 09:47 PM

Thanks for the clarification Caoimhín. No hard feelings.

I honestly don't tell my clients anything vastly different than you regarding where the mold comes from and what causes it. Moisture, food source, and proper temperatures breed mold. Moisture is the real culprit and needs to go. Keep a dehumidifier in the basement and let it run non-stop. But I do and will continue to advise my clients to get rid of the mold. And if the only way they can get a seller to agree to it is to have it tested, then they won't really have a choice unless they want to employ the services of an industrial hygenist or scientist like yourself to sway the sellers. They may choose to move out of the house in a few years and any known issues that they choose to live with can and probably will create headaches and obstacles for them when they turn around to sell the house. Take care of it now or take care of it later.

The funny thing about the whole "toxic mold" thing is that there are numerous everyday items that are toxic. Not to everybody, just to some people. For example, I can eat peanut butter and peanuts until it's coming out my ears and I can't eat another bite. But let little Suzy with her peanut allergy in the same room with a peanut shell or let her stand downwind of a PBJ sandwich and it's off to the emergency room for her.

Certain vitamins are toxic to the human body is high concentrations. Growing up, my parents basement got mold and mildew growth in it due to high humidity and leaky concrete block walls. And I never had allergies or experienced any ill effects from it while growing up in that house. Somebody else however may walk in start having a runny nose and watery eyes in 10 minutes.

As for this "Inspection report: During my visit, I observed common ordinary mould on the surfaces of the floor decking the crawlspace. The presence of the mould did not indicate a problem, its presence was insignificant and unremarkable. No further action needed."..............I can't say I would ever feel comfortable using this verbiage in my report.

Call it mold outright verbally and in writing? Sure, I've done that.........before I was advised to write up suspected mold findings differently if I wanted to stay out of trouble. But I could just see my E&O provider shuddering if I said in my report "The presence of the mould did not indicate a problem, its presence was insignificant and unremarkable. No further action needed". The statement seems contadictory because the presence of mold does indicate a problem........a moisture problem. Maybe a past problem but just that fact that the mold is there is a current problem in the eyes of many buyers and seller.

Ron Bibler

01-05-2009, 10:18 PM

The state of Calif came out some time back with new wording for all Branch #3 Inspector Regarding Fungus infection. If the timber moisture content was noted below 20% the fungus could be noted and no further recommendation required. What:eek:. yup that is correct. Now to the state of Calif. we had one element of life and life being (fungus) and that element was water. control the water/moisture and you have removed one of the 4 elements of life.

Best

Ron

Ted Menelly

01-05-2009, 10:27 PM

I inspected a home last week where the wood shingle roof was leaking and the closet in the center bedroom had black colored mold on the walls and ceilings. My advise to her when she said what do you think of the mold in this closet? Yup, the drywall is sagged on the ceiling and there is mold on the ceiling, walls carpet and trim. I told her to have a contractor remove the drywall, insulation, carpet (after fixing the roof) , have the interior of the walls, studs attic area cleaned of mold and put it all back together.

I did not say who specifically should do the work. I did not mention a mold remediation company. Yes I told her , "yup, it sure does look like mold to me and should be removed" I mentioned a contractor for the job. She asked what a mold removal company would cost and I told her that it would be in the thousands. I did not tell her not to use a remediation company or to use one. I also told her I was not a mold inspector or mold professional of any kind. Whether I did or not I am not afraid to look at mold and say it is mold. What kind? I do not know. I always love the question "should we have it removed". Well, it stinks, its ugly, some folks are alergic, some folks get down right sick. Do you want to hang clothes in there? Do you want to smell it? Do you want to find out if you get sick from it? Yes mam. Have it removed and cleaned up and most of all fix the roof first. Yes I do not hold back on whether a roof needs replacement either. If its bad or leaking, it has to go.

Now if the contrractor that I mentioned (none in particular) gives more advise or different advise at least she has a couple of opinions. If he recommends a remediation company and she decides to go that root, good for her but it will be there decision.

Mark Northrup

01-05-2009, 10:42 PM

.

Mark,

I have a question for you:

Do you have a disdain for robbers (of any kind, bank robbers, grocery store robber, those who rob mini-marts, etc.)?

I am sure you do. They prey on others, taking money from others.

CaoimhÃ*n, and many others, including myself, have those same thoughts and disdain for mold inspectors who claim to be certified and rip off those they steal money for without providing a legitimate service in return for.

The difference between mold inspectors and bank robbers is that robbing banks is against the law, stealing money from unsuspecting folks is also against the law, however, there is a loophole in that mold inspections are not specifically addressed in that law.

"Why do you feel a need to put down someone's way of making a living."

Answer: Because it is the right thing to do - to expose thieves for what they are.

Mr. Jerry Peck
Of course I can't stand for robbers. But I don't take what someone on hear is saying at face value until I know a little more about them.. Are they trust worthy. There have been a couple of scams like the 4 mil house that the inspector got sued for but he was sure happy he had E& O insurance. Only to find out he was a hoax. I just want to know why some one is calling someone a spade. A spade is a spade. I have not done any mold or Mould testing. But have been looking into it lately. I am glad I posted here because I found out allot of answers. When I talk to clients I want to be a professional talking not a bag of wind. So I need to find out both sides. My desire for mold inspecting is not to provide snake oil but to provide a service that is greatly needed. Solving the moisture problem. And really it should be called Mold/Moisture inspection. But I still have some questions about swab or tape samples. what if the mold is of the toxic type stated by the EPA. Should a test be offered if the client wants to find out. What if there are young children or elderly adults living in the house. Should they continue to live in the house why all this is going on. Is there any danger of them becoming sick. I realize that if there is mold in the house it need to be removed. That is why there is no need for testing. But some government offices are stating that there are toxic issues.

We all know that if you have a good enough lawyer you will win. Look at O. J. Simpson. But I have always been taught to stay away from mold as a home inspector because of the litigation. Looking online there are lots and lots of Mold lawsuits in the U. S. A. Frivolous probably and some fat can lawyer is getting rich off of Hype about toxic mold. No need to worry I am not a Snake oil salesman. But I need proof of why something is the way it is. Thanks for posting This turned out to be a wonderful thread.
Mark Northrup
House 2 Home LLC.

Tom Phillips

01-06-2009, 03:48 AM

WOW, I feel like I got an education. Thanks to all for the info. That's why I love to visit this board, never a dull moment here!
I opened the can, so I guess the worms are on me!

Tom

Ron Bibler

01-06-2009, 08:10 AM

Its not over yethttp://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0515-0810-0317-0616_TN.jpg (http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0515-0810-0317-0616.html)

Best

Ron

Raymond Wand

01-06-2009, 08:50 AM

I realize that if there is mold in the house it need to be removed.

Thats the problem, not all moulds are toxic or cause harm. As stated before every house has mould, always will, and not all moulds will need to be removed. What needs to be addressed are the issues which create the conditions for bad mould to exist in sufficient quantities to create potential threats to health.

Ron Bibler

01-06-2009, 09:16 AM

I have been Inspecting and working in and around every type of mold for over 30 years every day and have never had a reaction to any mold
even Stachybotrys atra. With no reports from my industry of inspectors and workers that remove water/mold damaged material from homes and buildings, no one has ever reported a reaction to any molds. this includes home owners and their children. My Insurance company and worker's comp. has never issued any reports on any molds. Nor has the CA State Structural Pest Control Board ever issued any information on molds.
If something is toxic must it not be toxic to all and not just a few or 1 out of 100K?

Best

Ron

Scott Sauer

01-06-2009, 11:09 AM

Unbelievable, 60 posts and only one person half-heartedly answered the question. So, first of all if you intend to enter the Indoor Air Quality industry you should probably start at the epa.gov website to begin your education for free.

EPA Mold Course - 200 pages and a prety good intro.

A Brief Guide to Mold, Moisture and your home -
A good resourse to pass off to the client for minor moisture issues with a national hot line for IAQ questions.

Mold Remediation in Schools and Comercial Buildings -
This will give you a minimum understanding of what should be remediated. However, don't even think you're ready to comment on what mold should or should not be remediated yet.

After reading these free guides produced by the EPA, if you are still interested, then the costly education can begin. However, you should understand that becoming proficient in the mold industry will take real effort and is much more difficult than being a proficient Home Inspector. It will likely cost you thousands of dollars in lost referral sources, as well. However, when you become proficient many of your referral sources will never go anywhere else. That's why I have not had to advertise for nearly a year and as a single inspector made well over six figures in just my fourth full year of inspecting.

Next on the list is to learn a sampling standard such as that provided by the IESO. It may not be a true industry accepted standard but it's the best we have at the current time. You may need help with data review so joining a network such as the one provide by respircareanalytical.com.
Mike Buettner can be helpful to new inspectors, as he is an available resource for questions and data review to help with the breakin process. He is a Council recognized trainer for the CRMI course.

Vist the following website for certification information - IAQCouncil.org. The initial certification you are interested in is the Council-Certified Residential Mold Inspector (CRMI). The organization is a non-for-profit group which is a plus. At least this certification is recognized by the Council of Engineering and Scientific Specialty Bards (CESB). CESB-accredited programs that you may recognize include the Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHNN).

Whether the scientists agree with this program or not isn't relevant. The point is you have to start someplace and as you can tell by the posts the scientists aren't willing to help you. Your leaders in the inspection industry appear to be somewhat uneducated. They may be able to do and say things because they do have the experience of thousands of inspections under thier belts and may be able to stay out of trouble. But for most inspectors making comments such as the ones I have seen on this board are absurd. I have been involved with a number of complaints where the Realtor or the Inspector got it completely wrong. I'm sure you understand you don't want to be commenting on whether the mold is common, uncommon, toxic, should be or should not be remediated. If you get it wrong it can easily cost you tens of thousands of dollars. Send it to the experts like you do with everything else.

Next on the list is to move to the following website - IICRC.org. The Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration currently has the S500 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Water Damage Restoration and the S520 Standard and Reference Guide for Professional Mold Remediation. These are the only water and mold standards that carry the Approved American National Standard stamp ANSI. A working knowledge of these standards coupled with your inspection skills will put you above 90 percent of the mold professionals in the field and that includes remediation contractors. However, as I said earlier it's not an easy thing to accomplish and takes considerable time and effort.

The certifications are Water Restoration Technician (WRT)- The Water Damage Restoration Technician course is designed to teach restoration personnel that perform remediation work to give them a better concept of water damage, itâ€™s effects and techniques for the drying-down of structures. This course will give residential and commercial maintenance personnel the background to understand the procedures necessary to deal with water losses, sewer backflows, and contamination such as mold.

Then the Applied Microbial Remediation Technician (AMRT) - The Applied Microbial Remediation Technician course covers mold and sewage remediation techniques to individuals engaged in property management, property restoration, IEQ investigations or other related professions. Emphasis will be placed on teaching mold and sewage remediation techniques to individuals who will perform these procedures in the field. Course graduates will be adequately equipped to perform remediation services, while protecting the health and safety of workers and occupants.

Council-Certified Microbial Remediator (CMR) may be substituted for the AMRT found at IAQCouncil.org. This course examination has an advertised pass rate of only 45%. Is recognized by the CEBS and works with the IICRC S520 and other highly recognized remediation standards. In my opinion it may be more valuable than the AMRT, as it does look at the remediation project from the supervisors eyes. When I took the course it was a five day class which covered a number of the most recognized guidlines. However, you have to have field experience before obtaining this certification whereas the AMRT you do not.

After obtaining the CRMI, WRT, AMRT or CMR you will be well armed to be an industry leader in the field. However, you will need mentors to help you gain the field experience necessary to take over and challenge the work the contractors are doing.

Question answered. Now to those of you who do not agree, please post some valuable information as to what certifications are available that may be of some value to those of us who wish to become more educated.

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-06-2009, 11:23 AM

Good morning, All:

If something is toxic must it not be toxic to all and not just a few or 1 out of 100K?

No â€“ hereâ€™s why. Hereâ€™s a basic course in toxicology. The rest of this post is going to bore a lot of folks â€“ so skip this post if youâ€™re not interested.

When we speak of a â€œtoxicâ€ material, we speak of the inherent ability of a material to upset â€œhomeostasisâ€ (i.e. interfere with some physiological function); The toxicity of a material is independent of the dose received. Thus we say that cyanide is toxic â€“ ignoring the fact that our own bodies naturally produce cyanide.

The degree of upset is based on the dose received â€“ and dose is defined as mass of material received per unit body weight per day (usually expressed as mg/kg/day).

If the interference is a beneficial effect, then we call it a â€œtherapeutic doseâ€ and if the interference is detrimental, then we call it a â€œtoxic dose.â€ The significance of the detriment is dose-dependent and can range from insignificant to death.

For many compounds (alcohol, carbon monoxide, oxygen, etc), all humans will respond in a manner that is approximately estimable, and the response to a given end point typically exhibits a Gaussian distribution.

http://forensic-applications.com/misc/chart01.gif

However, we donâ€™t all respond to an insult the same way; our race, for example has an huge impact on out physiological response â€“ take alcohol, for example â€“ the graphic below represents stylized responses to booze for three races.

http://forensic-applications.com/misc/curvesbyrace.gif

When we plot out the log of the dose of an insult, we see a recurring shape of curve called a â€œsigmoidâ€ and on the sigmoid there is a certain point in the dose response curve that is linear. In the chart below it is between about 20 and 25 mg/kg/day.

http://forensic-applications.com/misc/chart03.gif

The slope of the linear portion of the dose response curve tells us how â€œdangerousâ€ the material is, since the slope speaks to the issue of â€œmargin of errorâ€ or â€œsafety.â€ In the next chart insult A is more â€œdangerousâ€ to handle than insult B, since with B, one goes from no significant effect to an â€œOh Sh!t!â€ situation in a very small range of dose received. Whereas for insult A, it takes a much large dose range to cover the same level of concern.

http://forensic-applications.com/misc/chart08.gif

The location of the sigmoid on the total dose scale, speaks to the inherent toxicity of the material â€“ curves further to the left, are more toxic, since smaller doses are required to bring about equal end-points.

http://forensic-applications.com/misc/chart06.gif

So different people respond to toxic materials in different ways, and at different (albeit predictable) dose ranges.

Now, as Nick pointed out, what about little Suzy eating a peanut and getting rushed off to the hospital? Some people have an immunological response to an â€œepitopeâ€ on commonly encountered materials (mould, peanuts, milt, wheat, pollen, etc), wherein the response is â€œthreshold-dependentâ€ but not dose-dependent. That is the dose received must be greater than a triggering threshold, but the degree of the deleterious effect is not increased with increasing dose.

That is the primary response to moulds â€“ allergies. However, people with allergies are always allergic to a specific mould, not just when itâ€™s in their house. Therefore, when someone says â€“ â€œOh, I feel much better when I go outside.â€, we can effectively rule out moulds, since even in houses with mould problems, the exposure to moulds is LOWER indoors than out.

Folks are at liberty to advice their clients in any way they want (even give them bad advice). In my case, I try to give my clients the best advice available, not just cookie-cutter advice. And the best advice available usually is incumbent on the circumstances at hand, and will change with changing circumstances.

So in some cases, I recommend removal, in some cases I recommend paint, in some cases I recommend they just leave it alone and get on with life and worry about more important issues.

Regarding the mould in the photo â€“ I have seen similar crawlspaces that are over 70 years old, and the mould on the timbers were similarly 70 years old, and the crawlspaces have been dry for the last 69 years â€“ there is no conceivable reason to panic over that mould or recommend removal â€“ none. Does the mould indicate a moisture problem? No. Does it indicate a moisture problem in the past? No. It just indicates the timbers were sufficiently wet at some point for a sufficient length of time to facilitate an insignificant and inconsequential bloom of mould â€“ thatâ€™s all.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-06-2009, 11:56 AM

Good morning, Scott:

Next on the list is to learn a sampling standard such as that provided by the IESO. It may not be a true industry accepted standard but it's the best we have at the current time.

You are right, it is not a standard. You are wrong it is NOT “the best we have at the current time” in fact it is one of the worst guides being use in the field and people who do use it are going to get blasted (and rightly so) for using junk science. Instead, why not just use REAL accepted industrial standards that have been around for decades?

He is a Council recognized trainer for the CRMI course.

The CRMI course is laughable and CMI’s are laughable and have put out the worst mould inspection reports I have ever reviewed.

Whether the scientists agree with this program or not isn't relevant.

Not true, because if it is challenged by legitimate scientists when you report goes to court, then it gets thrown out and you get disqualified as an expert. You had better bone up on your reading regarding the Frye and Daubert challenges.

The point is you have to start someplace …

Why not start by using accepted practices instead of junk science and rip-offs?

…and as you can tell by the posts the scientists aren't willing to help you.

Perhaps you just don’t understand what is being said?

Now regarding the quality of your “certifications,” In this thread, I’ve used one of our actual reports that appeared on the web in the last few weeks wherein one of our clients published our report in an unsecured area of the web, thereby making the report freely available to the general public.

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/criticalreviewtestresults.pdf

The report was a standard “Critical Review” we performed on work by an individual identified by the American Indoor Air Quality Council as one of its members. The work by the AIAQC member exhibited the kind of gross technical incompetence that I have come to associate with each member of the AIAQC whose work I have reviewed. I have not seen any AIAQC member perform an adequate or scientifically based “mould inspection.” I have seen them produce junk and rip-off their clients by claiming that it was “standard industry practice” (without mentioning which industry - the "toxic mould kook" industry perhaps?).

Essentially, as seems to be the standard procedure of the certified mould inspector, the consultant collected useless indefinable and uniterpretable samples and then made unsupported claims based on the meaningless “results.”

My argument stands – This consultant is precisely what I typically see coming from members of the AIAQC – it’s hype, it’s mythologically based, it lacks science, it lacks precision, it lacks accuracy, it lacks support, it lacks legitimacy, it lacks definition, it lacks credibility, and it lacks relevancy. No wonder it is not generally considered an authoritative or credible “certificate.”

Let's look at another one of your colleagues, one of your peers, someone who shares your certificates: In the second example, the “CIE, CMR” (“certified” individual), is Mr. Tal Moore, who has produced some remarkable discussions on mould and identified himself as a CIE, CMR. These designations are, I believe, are issued by the AIAQC. Here is a copy of some of Mr. Moore’s very interesting writings regarding indoor mould (Folks, I’m not making this stuff up):

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/floridamouldad.pdf

Here's some more...

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/MooreSilentkillerarticle.pdf

If, after reading that stuff, you want to be like Scott and Mr. Moore you are welcome to it.

Here is another interesting document about Mr. Moore outlining what the courts seem to think about him:

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/Kookyguycourtdecision.pdf

I would call your attention to page four of the April, 2006 document by the Fourth Judicial District, Court of Appeal for State of Florida, wherein Mr. Moore’s “Expert Witness” is also listed as a member of the AIAQC and of whom the court noted:

“Dugay (sic) does not have a college degree or a resume. He testified that 0.5% of his work is testing for mold contamination and he relies on industrial hygienists to do mold testing. Dugay (sic) stated that he spent approximately one hour reviewing the case at the time of the trial. He never visited the Chodorows’ (plaintiff) home or saw pictures or videos of the home. He did not review any test results or documents, nor did he conduct any tests, before forming his opinion.”

DuGuay supported Moore in the placement of allegedly useless equipment and diametrically opposed the opinion of Dr. Ron Huggins, CIH, MPH of whom the courts observed:

“Dr. Huggins has a B.S. in Biology, an M.S. in Environmental Biology, an M.P.H. in Environmental Health/Industrial Hygiene, and a Ph.D. in Industrial Hygiene/Toxicology. He has an extensive background and career in assessing air quality and evaluating damage due to water intrusion and mold.”

It is interesting to note that Dr. Huggins, a lowly scientist, is not a CRI, or CMI, or CMRI, or CME, or any of the meaningless bits of mould remediation industry's alphabet soup.

Disturbingly, during the testimony, DuGuay was initially seen on equally footing with Dr. Huggins. (Well, after all, DuGuay IS a member of the AIAQC and therefore obviously an expert, right? It is my understanding, based on Moore’s representations, that he too, at the time, was a member of the AIAQC. Now it’s possible I’m incorrect and Moore used the designations without authority and was not an AIAQC member; I would like to know if the “CIE” and/or “CMR” designations are used by other than the AIAQC, and I would like to know if this “certified” mould guy was in fact a member of the AIAQC when he wrote this rubbish.

Just trawl the web and look at various sites of members of the AIAQC; you will be appalled at the wide reaching lack of technical competence exhibited in the writings. Although, I’m sure there are several out there somewhere, I failed to find a single web site that identified themselves as members of the AIAQC and also provided sound indoor mould related information devoid of hype and/or myth. What I saw was bunk.

Now, mind you, I’m not entirely complaining about bunk – after all, bunk from your certified members keeps me in business. If it were not for the bunk peddlers, I would have far too much nonbillable time on my hands for comfort, and my mortgage holder would then become nervous (not to mention my wife).

However, if we are not careful, we will find ourselves in the position where Dr. Huggins found himself: A court room environment where bunk competes on equal footing with legitimate science and objective facts; and the bunk peddlers will be indistinguishable in the eyes of the consumer (and possibly the trier of fact) from the legitimate, knowledgeable, scientists. Apparently, that has already happened in Maryland.

Sorry to say Scott – you are a junk peddler, and keep poor bed fellows - just look at the quality of the work of your colleagues.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Ron Bibler

01-06-2009, 12:44 PM

CaoimhÃ*n. Thanks for the information...

Is there or is ther not any Toxic moulds?

Best

Ron

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-06-2009, 02:49 PM

Hi Ron:

There is no such thing as â€œtoxic moulds.â€

I think what happened was journalists, pressing for a good yarn, took a legitimate, similar sounding term, and turned it around for the purposes of sensationalism, and the term â€œtoxic mouldâ€ was born about ten years ago.

Many fungi produce byproducts that they use to fend off infection, ward off other invading fungi and Bacteria and help to give them an ecological edge on their surrounding competitors. Those byproducts are called â€œmycotoxinsâ€ and the fungi that produce notable mycotoxins are sometimes referred to as â€œtoxigenic fungi.â€

One of the most notable mycotoxins that almost everyone has heard of is penicillin. However your chances of getting enough of the toxin penicillin into your blood to cure an illness by just being in an house full of Aspergillus notatum is just a miserably slim as getting enough of the other kinds of mycotoxins in your blood to make you sick.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Ron Bibler

01-06-2009, 04:41 PM

Caoimhín.

Thanks for the sound information. Now that I have your contact information I will send my Buyers and sellers to your web site for sound advise on there new homes that may have condition that need further attention then I give.
I did call up my local Industrial Hygienist (Chip) We went over information that you and I have talk about. He is for the most part on the same page as you are. But i did get some reserve from him. I think he may not want to stick his head out for fear of getting it chop off by some law firm.

Thanks for the education on mould.

It been a pleasure to correspond with you about mold.

Best

Ron Bibler

Ted Menelly

01-06-2009, 07:47 PM

Raymond Wand

01-06-2009, 09:27 PM

You will never get rid of all the mould, and to think so is folly. What about the mould spores that fill the air? What will you do with those? Sneeze, wheez, cough. :rolleyes:

Ron Bibler

01-06-2009, 10:38 PM

Some one of these posts or several stated that not all mold has to be removed.

Sorry, get it gone. You want to live in and around mold, any mold? I think not. Take care of the moisture problem. Clean up the mold or remove item covered in mold. Live in a clean healthy world. Yes all homes have mold. No matter what expert on here says mold is not a problem or those that say it does not have to be removed, Fooey.

Your all nuts. I see mold in my living space or outside my living space and I get rid of it.

Gee. I have never been bit by a black widow (or have I) but I am not going to let one bite me and then sit around and see what affect it may have!

Please folks. If there is mold it has to go away and of course the cause for it.

Does there really need to have a further discussion over it?

Well, I do like interesting discusiion.

Lets see. I will fix the moisture problem and then just sit there for a day, week, month to see if the mold goes away or if it will have an affect.

Uh oh, gotta go, I feel a sneeze coming on. Gotta get the windex out and clean that mildewy looking stuff up.

If you can see it like on and interior wall then is cosmetic. yes fix it.
As CaoimhÃ*n posted.
Aesthetics
The mould occurs in a cruddy, dirty, crawlspace that looks like a normal cruddy dirty crawlspace â€“ if aesthetics were an issue, the homeowner would have already cleaned out the cobwebs, and painted the timbers (with a nice bright coat of paint -possibly a nice baby blue with some white trim for accentuating the highlights of a good crawlspace). Or not. Therefore, since aesthetics are clearly not an issue in this crawlspace, the mould could have degraded that quality and so that criteria too has not been met.

Best

Ron

Ron Bibler

01-06-2009, 10:39 PM

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-07-2009, 08:31 AM

Erratum:

In the referenced post, the sentence

â€œTherefore, since aesthetics are clearly not an issue in this crawlspace, the mould could have degraded that quality and so that criteria too has not been met.â€

should have read:

â€œTherefore, since aesthetics are clearly not an issue in this crawlspace, the mould could not have degraded that quality and so that criteria too has not been met.â€

I edited the original post to correct the typo.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Ted Menelly

01-07-2009, 09:38 AM

If you can see it like on and interior wall then is cosmetic. yes fix it.
As CaoimhÃ*n posted.
Aesthetics
The mold occurs in a cruddy, dirty, crawlspace that looks like a normal cruddy dirty crawlspace â€“ if aesthetics were an issue, the homeowner would have already cleaned out the cobwebs, and painted the timbers (with a nice bright coat of paint -possibly a nice baby blue with some white trim for accentuating the highlights of a good crawlspace). Or not. Therefore, since aesthetics are clearly not an issue in this crawlspace, the mold could have degraded that quality and so that criteria too has not been met.

Best

Ron

As you very well know Ron, mold is alive. Yes you can get rid of moisture in a home but in a crawl it will more than likely will not happen.

How many times have you seen brown rot or white rot. Polite way of saying mold. The living mold eats into the wood. It deteriorates the wood fibers. In can and most likely will cause future concerns.

At the least A quick wire brushing and some timbor will do the trick. It should be removed.

Mold is certainly not gold. It is an organism that is going to reek some kind of havoc some where.

As you say. You, from what you know of, have never had a problem with all the molds you ran into. Me either. Well, maybe a little sneezing from that musky damp moldy, mildewy thing but I believe that has been it. Another fact is I do not live in and around mold. Now if my crawl space had some kind, any kind of mold growth, would I have problems? Don't know. Don't have a crawl anyway.

You mentioned in one of your posts that you inspected a home that had mold on every wall. Personally, I have been around construction all my life. That would not have been the first home that I told a client that the drywall should all be removed and the insulation in the attic as well.

If there is that much of a mold problem in a home it is time for a gut and rehab.

Just my opinion. I may have not used all the highly technical terms in my post but, oh well, said well enough to get my opinion across.

I have said in many posts before.

Keep it simple stupid .

Ron Bibler

01-07-2009, 09:56 AM

As you very well know Ron, mold is alive. Yes you can get rid of moisture in a home but in a crawl it will more than likely will not happen.

How many times have you seen brown rot or white rot. Polite way of saying mold. The living mold eats into the wood. It deteriorates the wood fibers. In can and most likely will cause future concerns.

At the least A quick wire brushing and some timbor will do the trick. It should be removed.

Mold is certainly not gold. It is an organism that is going to reek some kind of havoc some where.

As you say. You, from what you know of, have never had a problem with all the molds you ran into. Me either. Well, maybe a little sneezing from that musky damp moldy, mildewy thing but I believe that has been it. Another fact is I do not live in and around mold. Now if my crawl space had some kind, any kind of mold growth, would I have problems? Don't know. Don't have a crawl anyway.

You mentioned in one of your posts that you inspected a home that had mold on every wall. Personally, I have been around construction all my life. That would not have been the first home that I told a client that the drywall should all be removed and the insulation in the attic as well.

If there is that much of a mold problem in a home it is time for a gut and rehab.

Just my opinion. I may have not used all the highly technical terms in my post but, oh well, said well enough to get my opinion across.

I have said in many posts before.

Keep it simple stupid .

Ted we are on the same page. if the wall is all black yes remove it and dry out the wall voids and fix the moisture.

The point that you should look at is the air all around you is full of mold. you are breathing this suff now. and theres is nothing you can do
about:eek: thats a fact. inside and out side.

Best

Ron

Ted Menelly

01-07-2009, 10:00 AM

Ted we are on the same page. if the wall is all black yes remove it and dry out the wall voids and fix the moisture.

The point that you should look at is the air all around you is full of mold. you are breathing this suff now. and theres is nothing you can do
about:eek: thats a fact. inside and out side.

Best

Ron

Yeah but limited. I don't let my wall get moldy or have mold growing benieth my feet in large quantities. Mold, pollen, dust mights, all a fact of life but we can limit there intrusiveness (is that a word)

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-07-2009, 10:26 AM

Ron Bibler

01-07-2009, 10:44 AM

Good morning, Gents:

Finally, just as a reminder there is NO correlation between the mould in oneâ€™s house and the spore concentrations one is breathing; that is one of the silly myths propogated by guys like Scott Sauer and other CMR/CMIs who otherwise don't really know much about mould.

Some of the MOULDIEST houses also have some of the LOWEST airborne spore counts. There is a good reason for that. The net result is that it is not appropriate to presume that just because someone has visible mould growing in their home, they must necessarily be breathing higher concentrations of mould spores â€“ it just doesnâ€™t work that way.

That was in fact, one of the errors which fatally flawed several of the earlier scientific studies on human exposures, wherein the researchers (who should have known better) make the unsupported assumption. The net result was that the assumption, which was false, killed the validity of their studies.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Caoimhin. Can you go just a bit more on what the mould is doing when its one a wall as to what the spores are doing in the air. If I understand correctly we don" need to get our head out of joint over some black stuff on the wall.

So if we start to remove the Sheetrock then do we need to protection like a dust mask? other the just for dust but not for mould spores.

At what point will we need to suit up and do the has-mat thing for mould removal?

Best

Ron

Mark Northrup

01-07-2009, 10:58 AM

Good morning, Gents: (Ted and Ron):

I actually think you are pretty much both on the same page, and take a reasonable approach.

However, Ted, just some points of clarification on rots. Most of the moulds (indeed, virtually all of the moulds), under discussion here do not degrade wood to the extent of compromising structural integrity - they are superficial blooms only. The fungi that degrade wood are macrofungi and are not really a part of the mould discussion.

Therefore, arguing that one needs to remove moulds from timbers so the mould wonâ€™t degrade the structural integrity of the timber is not really a valid argument.

Finally, just as a reminder there is NO correlation between the mould in oneâ€™s house and the spore concentrations one is breathing; that is one of the silly myths propogated by guys like Scott Sauer and other CMR/CMIs who otherwise don't really know much about mould.

Some of the MOULDIEST houses also have some of the LOWEST airborne spore counts. There is a good reason for that. The net result is that it is not appropriate to presume that just because someone has visible mould growing in their home, they must necessarily be breathing higher concentrations of mould spores â€“ it just doesnâ€™t work that way.

That was in fact, one of the errors which fatally flawed several of the earlier scientific studies on human exposures, wherein the researchers (who should have known better) make the unsupported assumption. The net result was that the assumption, which was false, killed the validity of their studies.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG
Mr. Connell
good morning i sent you a private post i hope you got it. One Question that i have is. If mould grows indoors and is alowed to continue to grow. then my understanding it multiplies in number. Like if you leave something in the fridge it will get bigger and nastier the longer you leave it. So if more mould spores enter the air. one is to deduct that the count in the air would increase. If not then 1. where do the spores go. Do they die or are they MIA(Missing In Action). I understand in a house doors/ windows are opened and closed. But with house being built more draft proof indoor air quality is decreasing. Formaldhyde from carpets, Voc's from paint. 2. Or is it that there is no way of positively testing the spore count. And then we don't know if there is a increase in spore count numbers or not.:cool:

Ted Menelly

01-07-2009, 01:08 PM

Good morning, Gents: (Ted and Ron):

I actually think you are pretty much both on the same page, and take a reasonable approach.

However, Ted, just some points of clarification on rots. Most of the moulds (indeed, virtually all of the moulds), under discussion here do not degrade wood to the extent of compromising structural integrity - they are superficial blooms only. The fungi that degrade wood are macrofungi and are not really a part of the mould discussion.

Therefore, arguing that one needs to remove moulds from timbers so the mould wonâ€™t degrade the structural integrity of the timber is not really a valid argument.

Finally, just as a reminder there is NO correlation between the mould in oneâ€™s house and the spore concentrations one is breathing; that is one of the silly myths propogated by guys like Scott Sauer and other CMR/CMIs who otherwise don't really know much about mould.

Some of the MOULDIEST houses also have some of the LOWEST airborne spore counts. There is a good reason for that. The net result is that it is not appropriate to presume that just because someone has visible mould growing in their home, they must necessarily be breathing higher concentrations of mould spores â€“ it just doesnâ€™t work that way.

That was in fact, one of the errors which fatally flawed several of the earlier scientific studies on human exposures, wherein the researchers (who should have known better) make the unsupported assumption. The net result was that the assumption, which was false, killed the validity of their studies.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

I thank you for that. But as you seem to have missed my point or the whole point I will state again.

I did not use any technical names for any mold as not a professional I would not. As for all mold should be removed???? Well, YEAH. It does not matter what concentrates one is or is not sucking in. Its the damp mildewy, moldy, stinkin, dirty thing from the moisture that is the root of it and depending on the non technically named mold it is. Why screw around with it. Where ever there is mold in, under, on top of, or inside of your home it needs to go.

In short. If there is mold it needs to go away. If the mold is the brown or white rot in some crawls or elsewhere it needs to go. If it is some black or green or white or pink, blue or purple mold of any sort in any home, anywhere in the home, it has to go.

Can't get much more simple than that.

MOLD = GO If excessive mold throughout the home = Rehab

If the home is completely saturated with mold, in under, over and thru = demolish, start over.

Ron Bibler

01-07-2009, 02:50 PM

[quote=Ted Menelly;67559] Its the damp mildewy, moldy, stinkin, dirty thing from the moisture that is the root of it http://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0015-0604-0811-1253_TN.jpg (http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0015-0604-0811-1253.html)quote]

Pewwwww that stainks!

Best

Ron

Scott Sauer

01-07-2009, 03:42 PM

Did anyone bother to read the disclaimers at the bottom of each of the scientists post?

Are you kidding me? Those of you who are seriously considering using the narratives the scientists suggest, need to go back to inspection report writing 101. This subject is, so far, outside of your standard of practice which the scientist clearly does not understand. Statements such as "ordinary mold, did not indicate a problem, presence is insignificant and unremarkable" are well outside of your job scope. My guess is your insurance is not going to protect you when you get it wrong. You do not likely have protection for statements you make about environmental issues. Therefore, you will be reviewing your limits of liability statements hidden in the fine pint of your contracts in hopes that it will protect you from the statements you just made. My guess is it's about 50/50, as your job is to take on liability for a fee. This is not a place you want to be so stop the nonsense.

Come on folks use some common sense. If an electrician said you were not competent to evaluate the electrical system with your limited knowledge would you not be up in arms? It's no different here. As a mold inspector it's not your job to be the scientific specialist. It's your job to do a visual assessment and make recommendations based on your findings. You send the job to an investigator, a remediation contractor or a scientist. Probably not the scientist because nobody in Real Estate wants to pay their outlandish fees.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm busy. I don't have time to sit around all day and answer posts on this thread. It appears as if the scientist doesn't have nearly as many billable hours as I do. Now pardon me, I have to get back to work.

Respectfully submitted,

Scott Sauer, CRMI, CMR, CIAQT, MIES, WRT
Council-Certified Residential Mold Inspector â€“ American Indoor Air Quality Council
Council-Certified Microbial Remediator - American Indoor Air Quality Council
Certified Indoor Air Quality Technician â€“ Environmental Solutions Association
Master Indoor Environmental Specialist - Environmental Solutions Association
Water Restoration Technician â€“ Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration

Advanced Structural Inspections, LLC

Jerry Peck

01-07-2009, 05:54 PM

Scott Patterson

01-08-2009, 09:21 AM

This is the other Scott or Scott P!

I'm still a firm believer in this little ditty:

If you see mold, smell mold then you have mold! No need to test for it! Stop the moisture that is feeding it, read what the EPA has to say about it and if it needs further action do so and go on with life.

Once the moisture is stopped and the cleaning is done then and only then would I even think about testing and then I'm still skeptical about it.

This thread will not stop the folks (home inspectors) who are now testing for mold. What it might do is to enlighten those who have grandeur's of making a supplemental income from it. It might also help some homeowners to better understand that folks will take their money for a service that really does little for them.

I rank mold testing by home inspectors right up with septic tank dye testing! And I would bet that many of those who are doing septic dye testing are also testing for mold! They both accomplish the same thing. They allow the inspector to charge for a service that is basically worthless to their client and provides useless information.

Caoimhín, would be my choice for any environmental issue or question that I might have. He knows his stuff (even though we have different views on radon) and I would not hesitate to use him as an expert. Most important is that he has the important credentials to support his views and opinions.

Charter DDMG member

Ron Bibler

01-08-2009, 09:44 AM

This is the other Scott or Scott P!

I'm still a firm believer in this little ditty:

If you see mold, smell mold then you have mold! No need to test for it! Stop the moisture that is feeding it, read what the EPA has to say about it and if it needs further action do so and go on with life.

Once the moisture is stopped and the cleaning is done then and only then would I even think about testing and then I'm still skeptical about it.

This thread will not stop the folks (home inspectors) who are now testing for mold. What it might do is to enlighten those who have grandeur's of making a supplemental income from it. It might also help some homeowners to better understand that folks will take their money for a service that really does little for them.

I rank mold testing by home inspectors right up with septic tank dye testing! And I would bet that many of those who are doing septic dye testing are also testing for mold! The both accomplish the same thing. They allow the inspector to charge for a service that is basically worthless to their client and provides useless information.

Now thats a little stinkerhttp://images.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_TN/0041-0807-1106-3243_TN.jpg (http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_pages/0041-0807-1106-3243.html)

Best

Ron

Jerry Peck

01-08-2009, 11:59 AM

I'm still a firm believer in this little ditty:

If you see mold, smell mold then you have mold! No need to test for it! Stop the moisture that is feeding it, read what the EPA has to say about it and if it needs further action do so and go on with life.

Yep. Agree with that.

I am also a DDMG Charter Member.

I rank mold testing by home inspectors right up with septic tank dye testing! And I would bet that many of those who are doing septic dye testing are also testing for mold! The both accomplish the same thing. They allow the inspector to charge for a service that is basically worthless to their client and provides useless information.

Precisely my thoughts too.

Just one more useless test that they get to steal money from their clients by doing. :eek:

CaoimhÃ*n, would be my choice for any environmental issue or question that I might have. He knows his stuff (even though we have different views on radon) and I would not hesitate to use him as an expert. Most important is that he has the important credentials to support his views and opinions.

Dang, Scott, I'm agreeing with everything you say in that post, this too. :D

For those who do not know, DDMG stands for "Don't Do Mold Group", informally formed many years ago on the ASHI board (that's how long ago it was formed, when *I* was participating in the ASHI board :eek: ).

Scott Sauer

01-08-2009, 12:28 PM

Scenario Number 2:
Here's a little question for you CaoimhÃ*n. I saw this inside a crawlspace of a house I inspected this past fall. This is one of multiple ceiling joist bays in the crawlspace that looked like this. What would you tell the buyer and seller about this? What am I supposed to say in my report about this? Any help you can pass along would be appreciated. After all, I don't want my clients to view me as insane.

Inspection report:
During my visit, I observed common ordinary mould on the surfaces of the floor decking the crawlspace. The presence of the mould did not indicate a problem, its presence was insignificant and unremarkable. No further action needed.

Nick -
It really is that easy.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

To write this item up as CaoimhÃ*n has suggested, would violate some state laws. I imagine it's well outside of the American Society of Home Inspectors Standard of Practice, which many you rely on to protect you. Using this written narrative will likely fall under the realm of environmental consulting, which you are not likely to be covered for with your basic home inspector insurance coverage. The mere fact that CaoimhÃ*n would offer such advice with total disregard to state laws or your SOPs is unprofessional at best and puts you on notice.

You had better be careful when taking advice from a self-proclaimed expert on a thread meant for home inspectors. Be sure you take time and read his disclaimers at the bottom of his post.

By the way - I don't remember making any remarks as to when you should or should not be testing, so stop making assumptions about how I conduct my business. You certainly are not in a position to know what my professional opinion is on this subject.

Nevada State Law:

NAC 645D.470 Prohibited acts. A certified inspector shall not, while making an inspection:

8. Determine the presence or absence of any suspected adverse environmental condition or hazardous substance, including, but not limited to, toxins, molds and other fungi, carcinogens, radon, noise or contaminants, unless he is licensed or certified to make such inspections and determinations.

Respectfully submitted,

Scott Sauer

Jerry Peck

01-08-2009, 12:32 PM

I imagine it's well outside of the American Society of Home Inspectors Standard of Practice, which many you rely on to protect you.

The SoP is used to establish a MINIMUM level of what is to be done, NOT a "good", "better", or "best" level to work at.

The SoP is similar to a code, it simply establishes THE MINIMUM one MUST DO.

Jerry Peck

01-08-2009, 12:38 PM

Nevada State Law:

NAC 645D.470 Prohibited acts. A certified inspector shall not, while making an inspection:

8. Determine the presence or absence of any suspected adverse environmental condition or hazardous substance, including, but not limited to, toxins, molds and other fungi, carcinogens, radon, noise or contaminants, unless he is licensed or certified to make such inspections and determinations.

"unless he is licensed or certified to make such inspections and determinations"

"Certified" or "licensed" by whom? Does the state law state the "by whom" that "certification" or "licensing" is by?

If not, anyone can "certify" themselves (why one would want to is beyond me, but that would be within the law, unless there is another state law covering that) and thus, once they certify themselves as being certified to do so, they may now, legally with the State of Nevada behind them, do so.

Isn't that about as silly as obtaining some meaningless 3-hour, 8-hour, 1-day, 3-day, 1-week, etc., course? Of course it is, and it is about as meaningless too.

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-09-2009, 10:35 AM

Good morning, Gents!

Mark - I did receive your private message- Thanks!

Moulds versus Invasive Fungi
When the common moulds we encounter in indoor environments is growing on a wall or timbers, etc, the filaments of growth are spreading out over the surface of the material in a superficial manner. But the invasion is really just a surface bloom â€“ and the mould cannot reasonably compromise the structural integrity of the timber.

When a truly invasive fungi, such as Serpula lacrymans (a brown rot) or Phanerochaete chrysosporium (a white rot) invades the wood, the degradation is deep and can quickly compromise the structural integrity of the wooden member.

Spores in the Air versus Surface Blooms
It has long been known that there is no correlation between airborne spore counts and the actual amount of growth of mould in a building. This is a myth propagated by â€œcertified mould inspectorsâ€ as justification for finding hidden mould (i.e. increase their fees at the expense of the frightened homeowner).

To begin with, the concentration of spores in the air is very dynamic under virtually all circumstance any way. And since the spore counts are wildly rising and falling inside an house all the time, it is difficult to make any kind of correlation with much of anything (including outdoor spores counts â€“ another myth propagated by guys like Mr. Sauer who follow the IESO guidelines, wherein bogus indoor outdoor comparisons are the norm.)

Even for houses that are â€œdraft proofâ€ as Mark called it, the normal passive indoor/outdoor infiltration/exfiltration rate is between 3 and 5 air changes per hour. Some of my normal IAQ studies is to calculate what that rate is, and then use it to determine whatâ€™s going on in the building regarding other contaminants.

Some of the largest indoor blooms I have observed are also from houses with quite normal airborne spore counts â€“ This is because as the organism is growing, it is in a mad dash to use its resources to colonize more surface area â€“ thus increase the resources available to it â€“ it is actively combating other organisms for the same turf. As such, it doesnâ€™t want to waste its resources in reproductive activities, and so the mould is not actively producing spores. Since the organisms are not producing those spores, there are no undue sources for spores and the airborne spore counts remain normal in the presence of an ever increasing visible vegetative mass.

As conditions change, and the fungus is threatened or stressed, then it can change gears and start producing mould spores.

Similarly, it has to be noted that high counts of airborne mould spores does not necessarily mean there are â€œhidden sourcesâ€ of moulds. In one case, a â€œmould inspectorâ€ contacted me for help. He had been hired to do a mould assessment at a small airport â€“ so naturally being a certified mould inspector, he did what only untrained mould inspectors do â€“ he started to collect a lot of samples. His air samples were very high, and included unusually large concentrations of Stachybotrys atra (the boogey-man for the CMI/CMR and other poorly trained inspectors). I donâ€™t recal the actual numbers, but the indoor counts were on the order of 10,000 s/m3 and the Stachy in the profile was on the order of 700 to 1,000 s/m3. But he was in a tizzy cuz he couldnâ€™t find the mould!

So I showed up on site, and within three seconds of entering the building, I found the mould. Stacked in the main hallway were standard sheets of drywall. I asked our mould inspector if the sheets of drywall had been loaded into the building or otherwise handled on the day he had performed his sampling â€“ â€œYesâ€ he tells me. Mystery solved.

The surface of normal regular every day drywall is LOADED with mould spores, especially Stachybotrys atra. If people are handling drywall, the airborne spore concentrations can be through the roof!

Finally, on this subject, Markâ€™s question is really valid:

Or is it that there is no way of positively testing the spore count. And then we don't know if there is a increase in spore count numbers or not.

You are correct â€“ there is NO WAY of positively testing the spore count, and NONE of the CRMI/CMI/CMR/CIAQ (alphabet whatevers) guys running around willy-nilly â€œtestingâ€ the air actually know what the spore count is. It is for this reason that samples should only be collected pursuant to a priori data quality objectives, and the results interpreted exclusively within the context of those DQOs.

So if we start to remove the Sheetrock then do we need to protection like a dust mask? other the just for dust but not for mould spores. At what point will we need to suit up and do the has-mat thing for mould removal?

Answer: See my post above (post #41). However, consider this, there are scores and scores of jobs out there that incur massively higher levels of human exposures to moulds than mould remediation, and yet, none of those employees or employers give a second thought about respiratory protection. Perfect example, yesterday I was assessing two different properties for methamphetamine contamination. In one of those properties, when I arrived, there was a furnace inspector down in the crawlspace. The crawler was littered with old newspapers which over the last 40 years had gone through various wet and dry cycles. I couldnâ€™t help but consider his normal microflora exposures would be on the order of MILLIONS of spores per cubic meter. Naturally, and appropriately, his primary health concerns involved confined spaces, bumping his head and CO.

Other occupations and preoccupations wherein one can expect extremely high airborne spore exposures, probably higher than mould remediation employees) but would never consider using respirators include: Lifeguards at the beach, farmers, ranchers, sailors, gardeners, greenhouse employees, virtually all occupations and humans at latitudes between 30Â°N and 30Â°S, and the list goes on.

Removing All Mould
Of course not. For a start, itâ€™s impossible. Removal of any mould should be commensurate with the circumstances of its presence. Anybody who tells a client they should always remove visible mould is doing their client a disservice.

Another story: I was involved in a construction defect case involving 76 newly constructed houses. Each of the houses had mould (Duh!). And the mould inspector scared the willies out of the new owners by what â€¦ by collecting samples and spinning yarns about â€œtoxic mouldsâ€ â€¦ especially in the crawlspaces.

He advised the homeowners to remediate the mould in their crawlspaces. Only one homeowner took his stupid advise and spent $36,000 â€œremediatingâ€ the mould in her crawler. She brought in the moon suits with HEPA filters, and decon showers, and critical barriers and the whole nine yards. It was hysterically funny, I was down there while these guys were sanding the floor joists. At the end of the project, the genius mould inspector collected more air samples â€“ guess what? The counts were higher than before. So he collected more samples; higher again. So he collected even more samples, even higher still. Since the mould inspector, like other certified mould inspectors, didnâ€™t actually know much about mould he was at a loss to explain the situation to a, now very angry, homeowner.

Of course in the end, she had the cleanest crawler in the state, but it still contained billions of mould spores like every other crawlspace in the state. NOTHING was achaived by "remediating" the mould in her crawler. So, I respectfully disagree with Ted, with the notion that presence of mould automatically means you have to try and remove it. Instead, any removal should be for a specific articulable reason, (such as the four categories I mentioned above).

Finally â€“ Mr. Sauer, I visited your web site where I see the following:

The bronchial tubes lead directly into the lungs where they divide into many smaller tubes that connect to tiny sacs called alveoli. Alveoli are the most sensitive part of the lung. The average adultâ€™s lungs contain about 600 million of these spongy, air-filled sacs that are surrounded by capillaries. Mold spores can be small enough to enter these sacs. They are recognized as a foreign material and are attacked. As the spores are destroyed, the mycotoxins contained within them are then released causing an allergic response.

Very funny â€“ and very wrong.

Mr. Sauer also presents one of his reports on his site which contains a section on mould that is rife with bad information. For example, it states that mildews are â€œbenignâ€ (something that will come as a shocking surprise to millions of farmers and plant pathologists). Mr. Sauer also makes it clear in his report that he is NOT an expert in mould related issues! Huh?

Mr. Sauerâ€™s statements indicate that he doesn't know much about mould, mycotoxins, or physiology. I suppose this is some of the bogus misinformation he received as part of his training. Also, his discussions are full of contradictions in that on the one hand he dislikes the involvement of Industrial Hygienists (because we expose him for what he is), and yet he references the US EPA and the CDC which advises the American Public to consult with Industrial Hygienists (not WRT/CMRI/CMI/ACB/DRTs/NMO/PQR/XYZz).

Folks, as Professional Home Inspectors, you are not only adequately qualified to consult on indoor mould related issues without the CMI/CRM whatever designations, you are in fact BETTER QULIFIED than these guys, because you havenâ€™t been spoon-fed a lot of misinformation, bad information, and technically incorrect information like they have.

Anyone of you who have read and understood my many posts on mould related issues have received more and better training in indoor moulds than CMI/CRMIs or whatever. Accordingly, if any one of you wants to contact me, I will happily hand out for FREE, certifications certifying you as â€œCertified Mould Inspectorsâ€ and then you too, can compete on equal footing with misinformed mould inspectors like Scott Sauer.

Scott is just upset, since he apparently spent a lot of money on certificates that are not only useless and meaningless, but actually represent that he has received poor training that includes misinformation. His own posts here and his own website demonstrate that nicely.

If anyone has a mould report by a CMI/CRMI or whatever that actually is technically competent, send it to me, and I will happily review it.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell, NBI
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Ron Bibler

01-09-2009, 11:25 AM

CaoimhÃ*n. that was the best L.O.L. I a ling time...

Yes please may i have one of your â€œCertified Mould Inspectorsâ€ Certs.

Please post it in your reply to this board.

Please put my correct name on it ( Daffy Duck )

Thanks :D

Best

Ron

CaoimhÃn P. Connell

01-09-2009, 11:43 AM

Here you go, Brother!

Here is your official â€œCertified Mould Inspectorâ€ certificate, Ron!

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/CertificateofRecognition.pdf

It is sad to say, but this certificate actually legally allows you to call yourself as such, and promote yourself as such in all but two State (to my knowledge).

You now have exactly what other certified mould inspectors have â€“ a certificate. Sort of like what the Wizard did to The Lion and Tinman in Oz.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

Ron Bibler

01-09-2009, 01:25 PM

Here you go, Brother!

Here is your official â€œCertified Mould Inspectorâ€ certificate, Ron!

http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/CertificateofRecognition.pdf

It is sad to say, but this certificate actually legally allows you to call yourself as such, and promote yourself as such in all but two State (to my knowledge).

You now have exactly what other certified mould inspectors have â€“ a certificate. Sort of like what the Wizard did to The Lion and Tin man in Oz.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene (http://www.forensic-applications.com)

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG

That is so Cool... L.O.L. My wife will be home soon and I'm going to show her certificate. That will should be good for a nice dinner...

Thanks

L.O.L

Ron

Scott Patterson

01-09-2009, 01:29 PM

The mold & bug business is going to the dogs! This just popped up and is right down the road from me. Mold & Bed Bugs Control Tennessee (http://www.doginspectors.com/)

Enjoy!

Ed Reynolds

01-09-2009, 05:15 PM

Thanks for a very eye-opening discussion on one of the least understood or most misunderstood topics plaguing homeowners today.

Mr. Connell knows his stuff very well!

And then to hear that the world is going to the dogs, literally, at least in Tennessee!:eek:

Just when you thought you heard of everything...mold (mould)-sniffing dogs?

Good grief Charlie Brown!

Reminds of an an old saying by P.T. Barnum...There's a sucker bron every minute. How true. How sad.:(

Thanks for the lively discussion!

Raymond Wand

01-09-2009, 05:21 PM

Hi Ed,

Unfortunately its not only mould that is hyped, its also abestos, IR scans, Radon, Energy audits,.... you name it you can be sure you know who will package it as the latest health issue, market it as need, certify the inspectors with a simple online course, and promote the information and dissemination of information to suite the marketing plan.

Cheers,

Steve Reilly

01-09-2009, 05:25 PM

Was it one of her dogs that passed the Nachi test?

Ron Bibler

01-09-2009, 06:13 PM

The mold & bug business is going to the dogs! This just popped up and is right down the road from me. Mold & Bed Bugs Control Tennessee (http://www.doginspectors.com/)

Enjoy!

Do you think they can find Fleeshttp://www.archive.org/serve/Felix_FindsOut_NoAudio/Felix_FindsOut_NoAudio.gifhttp://www.bigpawsonly.com/dog-images/fleas.jpg
Best

Ron