Mold like substance;

[daniel nantell]

When you find a mold like substance, who would you refer further evaluation to, a mold specialist .thanks

[A.D. Miller]

DN: A mycologist or microbiologist.

[Raymond Wand]

Why bother having it tested, get rid of it and correct the problem which has caused it - water.

[Jerry Peck]

When you find a mold like substance, who would you refer further evaluation to, a mold specialist .thanks


Why bother having it tested, get rid of it and correct the problem which has caused it - water.

Correct.

And refer them to this website: Mould Testing, Ponzi Schemes and Snake Oil (http://forensic-applications.com/moulds/sampling.html)

[Scott Patterson]

When you find a mold like substance, who would you refer further evaluation to, a mold specialist .thanks

Well I have never found a "mold like substance", but I have found mould.

Just call it what it is. Just my opinion and pardon me if I step on a few toes but, If you can not ID a substance as being mold then you might want to study up on it a little more.

When I find mould in a home, I tell my clients that I found some mould at X location. I then tell them what I think is the cause and that it needs to be corrected and the mould cleaned up per the EPA guidelines. If it is real bad, say it is covering a good part of a room or the house, I tell them that a contractor who specializes in mould remediation will need to take care of the clean-up.

I never recommend testing to see if a home has mould. It is down right silly and is a waste of money.

And Yes, I use the international spelling for Mould.

[Raymond Wand]

Hey Dan

Pro-Lab Ontario called me a couple of months ago trying to sell their wares. I asked how they got my number and the salesman said from Not A Certifying Home Inspector membership list. Thats when I had to take 1/2 an hour out of my schedule to explain things to him. You know all on the up and up of course, but in the end I did tell them to lose my number.

My cheese has mold on it should I send it off to Pro-Lab? :D Maybe they can make grilled cheese sandwhiches! :p Hmmmm grilled cheeze sandwhices... hmmmm.

[John Kogel]

Find a lab in your town that tests for mold. Decide for yourself if you want to take the samples yourself, and get paid to handle them for your client.
If the client wants to know the species they should, and likely will somehow, get that info.

First, though, I would get educated if I wasn't as smart as all the guys that post here. :):)

[Raymond Wand]

Why test? Follow CMHC guidelines, and keep it simple for you and your client. ;)

[Chris Vick]

I have to agree with Mr. Patterson as far as; I also believe it is a waste of money. However I do conduct the inspections if client just insist and then I conduct them at cost for them. The guidelines are basically if there is 16% moisture and RH of roughly 60% there is a good chance it is mould minus those it is difficult for mould to thrive. That is not to say that the numbers may be lower as this is just a guide. Most of my inspections are air quality or environmental testing for allergies etc… Due to my experiences I am hesitant to call mould as such without a test. This is due to my experience with litigation and the fact that there are many substances, funguses that can grow in and around a home that are not such. Spending a lot of time testifying in the legal system one should always buffer their response to prevent liability concerns. To blatantly identify a substance as mould can be costly since you just put yourself in a difficult situation. Should they have it tested and it does not come back as such, you have cost them potentially thousands of dollars. So next question is, who is going to pay? Should you choose to conduct testing use a well known lab that will meet your state requirements and they will be prepared to testify should it come to that. Your best response is to refer clients to EPA website for them to educate themselves on mould and what it is and as important what it is not. People’s ignorance breeds fear and litigation. Don’t get caught up in the argument give facts not guesses.

[John Kogel]

Why test? Follow CMHC guidelines, and keep it simple for you and your client. ;)If the client wants to know the species of mould, that is why tests are used. I don't do this myself, I am simply saying it has some merit for people who need to know to be able to help them decide if the home is livable.:D

[Jerry Peck]

If the client wants to know the species of mould, that is why tests are used. I don't do this myself, I am simply saying it has some merit for people who need to know to be able to help them decide if the home is livable.:D


At the risk of repeating myself ... knowing the species of mould does NOTHING to help them determine if the home is livable or not.

Going to a doctor and being tested for allergies, including types of mould, and finding out they are allergic to SPECIFIC TYPES OF MOULD ... that is their first step to try to determine ANYTHING regarding mould in the home.

Everything else is not needed until there is a positive allergic reaction to a specific type of mould, THEN one can test the mould to find out if it is, or is not, that SPECIFIC TYPE of mould, if not, they are not allergic to it.

[Scott Patterson]

I have to agree with Mr. Patterson as far as; I also believe it is a waste of money. However I do conduct the inspections if client just insist and then I conduct them at cost for them. The guidelines are basically if there is 16% moisture and RH of roughly 60% there is a good chance it is mould minus those it is difficult for mould to thrive. That is not to say that the numbers may be lower as this is just a guide. Most of my inspections are air quality or environmental testing for allergies etc… Due to my experiences I am hesitant to call mould as such without a test. This is due to my experience with litigation and the fact that there are many substances, funguses that can grow in and around a home that are not such. Spending a lot of time testifying in the legal system one should always buffer their response to prevent liability concerns. To blatantly identify a substance as mould can be costly since you just put yourself in a difficult situation. Should they have it tested and it does not come back as such, you have cost them potentially thousands of dollars. So next question is, who is going to pay? Should you choose to conduct testing use a well known lab that will meet your state requirements and they will be prepared to testify should it come to that. Your best response is to refer clients to EPA website for them to educate themselves on mould and what it is and as important what it is not. People’s ignorance breeds fear and litigation. Don’t get caught up in the argument give facts not guesses.

Chris, are you from Spring Hill, TN??

[Mike Truss Guy]

When you find a mold like substance, who would you refer further evaluation to, a mold specialist .thanks

I joke when I eat at buffets that I comsume many food-like substances. :p