Thread: New Mould Sampling Myths Page

Good evening, Gents!

For those who may be interested, I have assembled a discussion on mould testing and sampling myths. The page is located at: Mould Testing, Ponzi Schemes and Snake Oil

The info is more or less the issues I have presented in various discussions here. As usual, not everyone on this forum will like what I have said, and others will find it useful. I will be cleaning it up in the days to come, and any criticisms good or bad, are welcome!

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

Similar Threads:

• those yellow page phone calls
• World Health Org and Mould
• Bogus Mould legislation
• Creating an email page
• Table of Contents on the Cover Page?

CaoimhÃ*n,

Very good, and thank you.

Thanks for the information. Quite honestly, I have not read the entire page but I did read enough to know just your description is over my head.
I will make the link available to folks looking for information or testing.

Thanks for the helpful information!

Now for some constructive criticism . . . Correct spelling says a lot. In the USA, I believe it's spelled "mold." I think "mould" might be used in Great Britan.

Originally Posted by John Jeffries

Thanks for the helpful information!

Now for some constructive criticism . . . Correct spelling says a lot. In the USA, I believe it's spelled "mold." I think "mould" might be used in Great Britan.

.
John,

Mr. Connell produces his work for the International as well as Nation community and is well aware of the proper spelling of his subject matter.
* Great Britain.

Originally Posted by John Jeffries

Thanks for the helpful information!

Now for some constructive criticism . . . Correct spelling says a lot. In the USA, I believe it's spelled "mold." I think "mould" might be used in Great Britan.

Actually "Mould" is the proper and the recognized international use in the scientific world.

Billy - For your information, I see is that his location is "Colorado." The last time I checked, "Colorado" is in the USA and in this nation it's spelled "mold" and not "mould." The connection makes sense for my post.

The distinction is clearly outlined in the Merrium Webster dictionary. I checked it before posting.

He also asked for any criticism. I thanked him for his work and then gave him the little that I could offer. Otherwise, the text of his work speaks for itself, as far as I can tell.

If his audience is the general US public or the vast majority of any economic or social sectors in the the US, the spelling will present itself as a glaring error. It will reflect poorly on the document, even if it's otherwise unjustified.

If his audience is some European community, which would accept the spelling, that distinction wasn't made apparent. It's true for his post, the part of the web document I have read and the web address that doesn't denote some foreign url origination or audience intention.

Again, it's still "mold" in the US. Should I have the opportunity to receive any domestic real estate-related document in the future, which spells it any other way, I will still view it as wrong and cause me to read the remainder of the document with a more critical eye. It is reflective on the author and his document.

It may seem unfair, but any author should know their audience and write to their conventions. Otheriwse, their document may be unfairly judged and their work inappropriately dismissed.

For the part of the document I read, it didn't seem to me that the document was written for anything but a US audience. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I've seen so far. As such, I would still see "mold" as being the proper spelling for the audience.

Regards,

Originally Posted by John Jeffries

Billy - For your information, I see is that his location is "Colorado." The last time I checked, "Colorado" is in the USA and in this nation it's spelled "mold" and not "mould." The connection makes sense for my post.

The distinction is clearly outlined in the Merrium Webster dictionary. I checked it before posting.

He also asked for any criticism. I thanked him for his work and then gave him the little that I could offer. Otherwise, the text of his work speaks for itself, as far as I can tell.

If his audience is the general US public or the vast majority of any economic or social sectors in the the US, the spelling will present itself as a glaring error. It will reflect poorly on the document, even if it's otherwise unjustified.

If his audience is some European community, which would accept the spelling, that distinction wasn't made apparent. It's true for his post, the part of the web document I have read and the web address that doesn't denote some foreign url origination or audience intention.

Again, it's still "mold" in the US. Should I have the opportunity to receive any domestic real estate-related document in the future, which spells it any other way, I will still view it as wrong and cause me to read the remainder of the document with a more critical eye. It is reflective on the author and his document.

It may seem unfair, but any author should know their audience and write to their conventions. Otheriwse, their document may be unfairly judged and their work inappropriately dismissed.

For the part of the document I read, it didn't seem to me that the document was written for anything but a US audience. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I've seen so far. As such, I would still see "mold" as being the proper spelling for the audience.

Regards,

.
John,

For your Information.

Glad You checked your own Spelling before Posting. ( although not completely )

Scott Patterson explained the why.

Now look up Forensic Industrial Hygienist ( hopefully before you review The plaintiffs expert Witness List.)

Mr. Connell is gracious enough to share some of his opinions and papers here .

His primary audience is Legal & Scientific thus ( mould ) .
.

In Canada, its spelled - Mould.

Ok guys, you win! I stand corrected for the scientific arena, although I will remain attesting that it is incorrect for the vast majority of the US population, both professional and generic.

MOST of the opposing statements were to the point. I appreciate it. It's good to learn something in a constructive and professional manner rather than read computer-shielded bravado and sarcasm.

So, "mould is gould"?!

Originally Posted by John Arnold

So, "mould is gould"?!

. . .

Originally Posted by John Arnold

So, "mould is gould"?!

.
Yep as well as...
.

Mr Connell, Just finished reading your article. I found it to be very informative and useful. Thank you for sharing.

great article and info from you as usual--your the best

charlie

Hi All, good article and mould info...in case you don't know it Radon my special intertest has no colour until frozen !

By the way we are finding some 226Ra in the recently tested drywall samples. Highest so far 0.332 pCi/g Is this enough for an indoor radon problem given the large areas of sheetrock ?? don't know yet

Bill

William Levy

Associated Radon Services

wlevy@radonserv.com

Originally Posted by William Levy

Hi All, good article and mould info...in case you don't know it Radon my special intertest has no colour until frozen !

By the way we are finding some 226Ra in the recently tested drywall samples. Highest so far 0.332 pCi/g Is this enough for an indoor radon problem given the large areas of sheetrock ?? don't know yet

Bill

William Levy

Associated Radon Services

wlevy@radonserv.com

I am sure you will more than likely mention it while selling your radon inspection services. You will be so busy you will have to hire ten new inspectors. The radon, mold, chinese drywall gold.

Just kidding. Well, maybe a little serious.

Yep, Even though I went to one of the Lab/Distributor classes and have sampling gear available, I talk people out of general mold testing. They're usually want a quantitative result like Radon's 4.0 pCi/L. There was one case where I did not have to do much convincing; Between the client's first visit and the mold inspection, the selling agent had someone come in and "Kilz" over the lower 4 feet of the basement walls. Took care of that problem!

Hello Gents-

Thanks for the comments. My Boss and I heavily modified the discussion on Monday morning, and we expanded the “accuracy� section. Alas, Jeff, we maintained the international spelling of mould, since the filamentous fungi is known as “mould� everywhere, and in every English speaking country, except the US.

Since we work in an international arena, and our web discussions are of interest and viewed by readers all across the globe, and the US is in a very small minority in the spelling, we have kept the spelling to reflect the most generally accepted spelling.

If someone were to read the discussion, but discount it because they thought one word was repeatedly misspelled, then it is not likely that the discussion would have been any benefit to that person anyway, regardless of spelling.

Mould is Gould; THAT was funny – whoever said it.

William Levy says “By the way we are finding some 226Ra in the recently tested drywall samples. Highest so far 0.332 pCi/g Is this enough for an indoor radon problem given the large areas of sheetrock ?? don't know yet�

Yes, William, we do know – No William it is not a problem, and indeed, 0.3 pCi/g is an EXTREMELY small amount. And by the way, I got a kick out of the use of three significant digits in your post (0.332). If you were to look at the data, you would probably find a standard deviation of 20 or higher, therefore the first significant digit is not reliable much less the last two. In any event even if it were 500 pCi/g, it still wouldn’t be an issue (my goodness, a glass of milk runs at about 1,200 pCi/g!)

Considering for a moment that the average person reading this post has about 150 grams of potassium in their body right now. William, as you sit and read this, if you are a normal human, YOU are irradiating 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of K40, (that equates to about 4,400 radioactive disintegrations per second) … so ask your colleagues to step away from you if you love them.

Remember, not one study to date, NOT ONE, has demonstrated that radon as seen in homes has been able to demonstrate that it increases the risk of cancer one iota – and remember too, that the US EPA found that as radon concentrations in a home go up, the cancer risk goes DOWN.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

Hello Gents-

Thanks for the comments. My Boss and I heavily modified the discussion on Monday morning, and we expanded the “accuracy� section. Alas, Jeff, we maintained the international spelling of mould, since the filamentous fungi is known as “mould� everywhere, and in every English speaking country, except the US.

Since we work in an international arena, and our web discussions are of interest and viewed by readers all across the globe, and the US is in a very small minority in the spelling, we have kept the spelling to reflect the most generally accepted spelling.

If someone were to read the discussion, but discount it because they thought one word was repeatedly misspelled, then it is not likely that the discussion would have been any benefit to that person anyway, regardless of spelling.

Mould is Gould; THAT was funny – whoever said it.

William Levy says “By the way we are finding some 226Ra in the recently tested drywall samples. Highest so far 0.332 pCi/g Is this enough for an indoor radon problem given the large areas of sheetrock ?? don't know yet�

Yes, William, we do know – No William it is not a problem, and indeed, 0.3 pCi/g is an EXTREMELY small amount. And by the way, I got a kick out of the use of three significant digits in your post (0.332). If you were to look at the data, you would probably find a standard deviation of 20 or higher, therefore the first significant digit is not reliable much less the last two. In any event even if it were 500 pCi/g, it still wouldn’t be an issue (my goodness, a glass of milk runs at about 1,200 pCi/g!)

Considering for a moment that the average person reading this post has about 150 grams of potassium in their body right now. William, as you sit and read this, if you are a normal human, YOU are irradiating 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of K40, (that equates to about 4,400 radioactive disintegrations per second) … so ask your colleagues to step away from you if you love them.

Remember, not one study to date, NOT ONE, has demonstrated that radon as seen in homes increases the risk of cancer one iota – and remember too, that the US EPA found that as radon concentrations in a home go up, the cancer risk goes DOWN.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

Don't ask me why my post appears twice. I don't know nuthin' 'bout pooters.

CPC

Originally Posted by CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell

...

Mould is Gould; THAT was funny – whoever said it.

...

Thank you.
Thank you very much.

Originally Posted by CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell

Hello Gents-

Thanks for the comments. My Boss and I heavily modified the discussion on Monday morning, and we expanded the “accuracy� section. Alas, Jeff, we maintained the international spelling of mould, since the filamentous fungi is known as “mould� everywhere, and in every English speaking country, except the US.

Since we work in an international arena, and our web discussions are of interest and viewed by readers all across the globe, and the US is in a very small minority in the spelling, we have kept the spelling to reflect the most generally accepted spelling.

If someone were to read the discussion, but discount it because they thought one word was repeatedly misspelled, then it is not likely that the discussion would have been any benefit to that person anyway, regardless of spelling.

Mould is Gould; THAT was funny – whoever said it.

William Levy says “By the way we are finding some 226Ra in the recently tested drywall samples. Highest so far 0.332 pCi/g Is this enough for an indoor radon problem given the large areas of sheetrock ?? don't know yet�

Yes, William, we do know – No William it is not a problem, and indeed, 0.3 pCi/g is an EXTREMELY small amount. And by the way, I got a kick out of the use of three significant digits in your post (0.332). If you were to look at the data, you would probably find a standard deviation of 20 or higher, therefore the first significant digit is not reliable much less the last two. In any event even if it were 500 pCi/g, it still wouldn’t be an issue (my goodness, a glass of milk runs at about 1,200 pCi/g!)

Considering for a moment that the average person reading this post has about 150 grams of potassium in their body right now. William, as you sit and read this, if you are a normal human, YOU are irradiating 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of K40, (that equates to about 4,400 radioactive disintegrations per second) … so ask your colleagues to step away from you if you love them.

Remember, not one study to date, NOT ONE, has demonstrated that radon as seen in homes increases the risk of cancer one iota – and remember too, that the US EPA found that as radon concentrations in a home go up, the cancer risk goes DOWN.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

CPC: Excellent information and long overdue. Hope you do not mind my sending all clients to your site.

a bit of correction required,

This is a recent post on the radsafe radiation site concerning Mr Connell response to my posting concerning 226 radium fraction emanating radon..it seem he may be a bit mouldy on his radiation and radon facts. I wait for his reference to the EPA publication that states lung cancer risk decreases with increased indoor radon levels. Also be careful with milk containing 1200 pCi/g of 226 Ra as you may need an NRC license to drink it the EPA action level for site cleaned soil is 5.0 pCi/g of 226Ra.

Bill

This is not the first time Mr. Connell has ran loose with the facts nor is it the first time he has used ridicule rather than accurate facts. Allow me to point out some of the mistruths he used in his post. I am serving on an national standards committee that is looking into ways to defend nuclear power and nuclear medicine, with one of the ideas being to develop a website for journalists, giving some basic information about radiation in layman terms. Just as well write something that explains the potassium issue and get some expert feedback.

Mr. Connell wrote : "(my goodness, a glass f (sic) milk runs at about 1,200 pCi/g!)"

I am finding that 1.5 to 1.3 pCi/g is the potassium level of milk or 332 to 285 pCi/serving. So Mr. Connell is off by a factor of 3.6 to 4.2 so far. If Mr. Connell is correct on the 150 grams of potassium in the human body (I think that is a bit low) only 0.012% will be K40, the balance being stable (non radioactive) potassium 41 and 39. That would be .018 grams of radioactive pottasium.

"YOU are irradiating 4,400 Bq (120,000 pCi) of K40,..."

Okay, 4,400 Bq can also be expressed as 120 nCi, and and if we are going to trivalize trillionths of a curie, we ought to trivalize billionths of a curie as well.

A small home will have 4,000 square feet of drywall, or 166 cubic feet. The a typical male human body has around 2.5 cubic feet, or 66 times less than the drywall in a small home. If this is natural gypsum drywall, 15 mBq/g (0.4 pCi/g), the 160 cubic feet of drywall has over 3,000,000 grams and is putting off 46,267,200 mBq from the uranium content alone. If this is by product gypsum, figure 573,713,280 mBq coming from the drywall. If you include the potassium and thorium content, multiply those figures by 1.3 to 11.4 depending upon drywal type. So ask your colleagues to live out in a field you if you love them.

And what effect will the half life have when comparing potassium 40 to radon? K40 has a half life of of 1.250×109 years. Radon half life is 3.8 days, which would you rather have inside your body given equal amounts? Would you rather have a stable Argon 40 daughter product in your body or would you rather have Po 218, Pb 214, Bi 214, and the rest of Radon progeny?
My point, besides showing Mr. Connells sloppy facts, is that added to the ridicule of William's post, the assumption that there was a standard deviation of 20 (would that not put this result below the minimum detection levels?), and the statement that .3 pCi/g is an "extremely" small amount, all point to an attempt to mislead the public. Mr Connell was quite skillful in leading the discusion from radon in building materials to potassium in the human body.

"Remember, not one study to date, NOT ONE, has demonstrated that radon as seen in homes has been able to demonstrate that it increases the risk of cancer one iota – and remember too, that the US EPA found that as radon concentrations in a home go up, the cancer risk goes DOWN."

I would think that many on this list server or the Iowa Radon Professionals list server would beg to differ on the radon facts. And someone please explain why the EPA spends so much effort on radon education if increasing radon levels are good for humans?

ALARA requires that we lower even insignificant doses if practical, especially if it can be done at little additional cost or trouble. Knee jerk reactions to radiation being mentioned hardly serves ALARA purposes. Nor does it help to further confuse the public on radiation issues. A honest discussion of the facts is better than ridiculing those you disagree with nor should one compare an innocuous material with a dangerous one.
A few references for Steven Dapra.
http://www.bloodindex.net/minerals.php
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4992595/potassium-element
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
--- On Wed, 4/29/09, radsafe-request@radlab.nl <radsafe-request@radlab.nl> wrote:


William Levy
Associated Radon Services
Saving Lives By Reducing Radon in Florida

Associated Radon Services | Certified Radon Analytical Laboratory | Radon From Granite Testing | Radon Testing | Apartment Radon Testing Specialists | Building Material Radon Emanation and Soil Radium testing | Radium-226 | condo radon testing | e-pe wlwvy@radonserv.com

I find it comical that those who have a financial link (like labs) to radon have a different view.

Caoimh&#237;n and I do not always see I to eye on radon, but I have learned to respect his opinions and research as being truthful and helpful.

FYI, a quick Google of Mr Steven Dapra also shows that many of his opines are disputed by his peers as well. He was even awarded the Quantum Spin Doctor award NMSR's Best and Worst of the Year Awards

I think I already saw this one back in the late 50s:

The Clash of the Mould Men from the Planet Radon!

3-D glasses required.

Scott,

Is you personal position different than your web site ? it seem to be pro radon testing ? for a fee ?

Bill
William Levy
Associated Radon Services
Associated Radon Services | Certified Radon Analytical Laboratory | Radon From Granite Testing | Radon Testing | Apartment Radon Testing Specialists | Building Material Radon Emanation and Soil Radium testing | Radium-226 | condo radon testing | e-pe

The EPA recommends that all homes should be tested in Middle Tennessee.
Radon is the number one leading cause of lung cancer in Non-Smoker's and the second leading cause of lung cancer in the country.

Originally Posted by William Levy

Scott,

Is you personal position different than your web site ? it seem to be pro radon testing ? for a fee ?

Bill
William Levy
Associated Radon Services
Associated Radon Services | Certified Radon Analytical Laboratory | Radon From Granite Testing | Radon Testing | Apartment Radon Testing Specialists | Building Material Radon Emanation and Soil Radium testing | Radium-226 | condo radon testing | e-pe

The EPA recommends that all homes should be tested in Middle Tennessee.
Radon is the number one leading cause of lung cancer in Non-Smoker's and the second leading cause of lung cancer in the country.

Nope, my personal opinion is not any different, I go with what the EPA says. I'm not a scientist only a lowly home inspector who knows how to test for radon in homes. My clients ask for testing and I provide it.

As I said; Caoimh&#237;n and I do not always see I to eye on radon, but I have learned to respect his opinions and research as being truthful and helpful. All that I have to go by is what the EPA has stated. Kind of like mould testing. If the EPA established guidelines and spore levels I might consider testing for mould. But they won't, can't so I don't!

Hi Bill –

I don’t think you have been reading any technical posts on radon. I’m not sure who sent you your email, but I think they too are a little confused, and the reference to Iowa is actually referencing a particular joker who is known more for his fabrications than his science.

However, how do you reconcile the fact the EPA has stated that as the radon concentrations go up in a residence, the cancer rate goes down?

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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.

As an active radon professional I follow the radon risk related information flow as well as maintain membership in AARST and most available certifications by NEHA- NRPP and FL DOH in the radon field.

You again make the statement:

However, how do you reconcile the fact the EPA has stated that as the radon concentrations go up in a residence, the cancer rate goes down?

I do not see yo make any referance to an EPA document or published article by EPA or other accepted study source. The email response to you post is by Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com> and in the on line radsafe posting board toradsafe@radlab.nl

I don't expect to change your view on radon related risk but will challange your authority as an radon expert in giving opinions to the home inspection industry that read these postings.

Bill

William Levy
ASSOCIATED RADON SERVICES

Hi Bill!

You say:
I do not see yo make any referance to an EPA document or published article by EPA or other accepted study source.

That’s because you don’t follow the radon discussions and, frankly, you don’t know much about radon. I actually have provided several references to back up what I say on this board, including referencing the EPA documents which clearly state that they have never found ANY support for their position, and where the EPA admits that when radon goes up, cancer rates go down.

Here's a link to that thread in particular:
SLRDs vs. Radon measurements - The Inspector's Journal Forums

Additionally, if you want authoritative references I have dozens listed on my web discussions:

Radon: Risk and Reality
and
Radon: Truth vs. myth

In turn, I will challenge you (or your buddy) to find one, just ONE, just ONE measly study that has measured the levels of radon in an home and found a positive correlation with lung cancer, devoid of confounders. Bill – find JUST ONE valid study. Goodness, that’s not too much to ask.

Yes, I’m familiar with your certifications, I’ve been through the certification process – it’s pitched at a seventh grade level of education. (I’m the only person I know who aced the EPA exam! What was your score?). But my opinions aren’t based a couple of EPA classes, rather it’s based on twenty years experience in radiation toxicology and epidemiology and16 years experience as a Radiation Safety Officer.

Maybe you should actually read some of the EPA studies instead of the little public service pamphlets they give you. You will find references to those documents through the above links.

I don't mean to pick on you, Brother - I know you mean well, and I'm sure you are a solid and decent guy who thinks he's helping folks - and that's a good thing. But the reality is that your services are built on an house of cards, that have been rejected by legitimate scientists for decades.

Cheers!
Caoimh&#237;n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

Hi All on this thread,

I need to make a correction concerning the authorship of my post copy of a RadSafe posting. The post attributed to Steven Dapra was in fact by Al see al@solidsurfacealliance.org

this is copy of todays email from Mr Dapra:

I most emphatically did *not* write the e-mail "response" on RADSAFE to Connell. That post ("response") came from the Al character I mentioned above. Read the post again, and you will find it is from Al. Please, please, please, make a post to the mould sampling page expressly stating that I *did not* write that "response" to Connell.
I thank you profusely for your prompt cooperation in this. Please send me an e-mail if you have any questions. I will comment on Connell's claims about pico Curies in milk, and etc., at a later time.
Sincerely yours,
Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com
- Show quoted text -

At 10:40 AM 5/2/09 -0400, you wrote:
Steve Dapra

Sorry for the confusion and error on the post,
\


Bill
William Levy
ASSOCIATED RADON SERVICES
5136 SE Orange St. Stuart, FL 34997
800-741-0629 772-219-4334
Fax 772-287-1341
Associated Radon Services | Certified Radon Analytical Laboratory | Radon From Granite Testing | Radon Testing | Apartment Radon Testing Specialists | Building Material Radon Emanation and Soil Radium testing | Radium-226 | condo radon testing | e-pe wlevy@radonserv.com

Thats okay, Bill. Those radsafe posts usually have multiple tags and names where they are bounced back and forth. It does get confusing.

Steven Dapra is a real looney, and did win that Spin Doctor award. He appears to live in New Mexico, might be driving a garbage truck, and is definitely a religious nut of some kind. He also likes to argue about radiation and radon, despite getting his ears pinned back by radiation experts on radsafe a few times. The latest was when he parroted Mr. Connell's comment about 3 pCi/g being a small amount of radiation.

But we were talking about Mr. Connell's claims, not Steven's.

Ever notice how Mr. Connell loves to quote himself but rarely provides a link to an actual EPA source? My guess is that he has dug a hole so deep that he must continue to defend his ignorance using any means necessary, thus the refusal to actually provide links to EPA documents. In short, on this topic, Mr Connell is a complete and utter fraud, depending upon the lazyness of readers to escape detection. Coupled with a heaping of ridicule, he attempts to avoid the hard questions about his "facts".
Mr. Connell stated that his information comes from 2002, well here is a 2003 EP paper titled "EPA Assessment of Risks from Radon in Homes" that was published in 2003 and is currently posted at the EPA website:

http://www.epa.gov/radon/pdfs/402-r-03-003.pdf

Read the entire thing if you have the time, it is interesting, but I copied the results and conclusions below. A few minutes reading will prove that Mr. Connell is completely wrong about the EPA's position on radon risk. All that is left is to determine why Mr. Connell continues to lie to this group.

Results . Based on its analysis, EPA estimates that out of a total of 146,400 lung cancer deaths nationanlly in 1995, 21,100 (14.4&#37 were radon related........................ The estimated risks from lifetime exposure at the 4 pCi/L action level are: 2.3% for the entire population, 4.1% for ES, and 0.73% for NS. A monte Carlo uncertainty analysis that accounts for only those factors that can be quanitified without relying too heavily onexpert opinion indicates that estimates for the U.S. population and ES may be accurate to within factors of about 2 or 3.

Conclusions. The effects of radon and cigarette smoking are synergistic, so that smokers are at a higher risk from radon. Consequently, if projected reductions in the U.S. smokingrates hold up, some decrease in radon-induced lung cancers is expected, concomitant with decreases in lung cancer generally; nevertheless, it is anticipated that indoor radon will remain an important public health problem, contributing to thousands of lung cancer deaths annually.

Mr. Connell does provide quotes from the EPA document above, yet he refuses to put those quotes in context by explaining the EPA paper takes all of the relevant studies both pro and con, then explains why they rejected those studies that Mr. Connels relies upon.

Basically Mr. Connell is standing against a crowd, with the vast majority of radon experts and radiation experts agreeing with Bill Levy. Mr. Connell keeps asking for "valid" studies to prove Bill's point yet he refuses to aknowledge that BEIR IV, VI, and BEIR VII provide numerous stuides that validate radon risk, NTL, and LET radiation as true health hazards.

In short, Mr. Connell has absolutely zero credibility on this topic.

Good morning, Gents:

Let’s see if we can get through the noise of the nutty pot-bangers and return to the subject of this thread: Mould sampling myths.

In the past, human exposure and environmental assessment samples were collected and interpreted by professionals with proficiency in those fields following standardized sampling protocols and interpretation protocols. With the advent of the indoor mould craze, a plethora of instant mould experts started collecting samples using non-standard and meaningless protocols and mostly relied on insupportable interpretations.

Within the Home Inspection industry, we have mostly seen Home Inspectors relying on the laboratory to interpret their results – in spite of warnings from the AIHA, ACGIH, EPA and the CDC that this is inappropriate. NACHI certified inspectors, in particular have announced with pride that they let ProLabs interpret their data which has resulted in many grossly misinterpreted data and unsupported conclusions about houses. In our experience, we have NEVER seen a single ProLabs interpretation that was appropriate - not one - ever.

For approximately 10 years FACTs personnel have stated very clearly that the Laboratory is the LEAST capable entity for data interpretation. Yesterday, we received with interest the following circular from EMSL Analytical Inc., a laboratory involved in spore trap analysis and other type of indoor mould analysis, we have reproduced it here in its entirety:

Should You Trust a Laboratory to Interpret Your Mold Results?

Indoor air quality as a scientific discipline is evolving as our knowledge of the subject increases. We know that sample results for fungi and fungal spores are highly variable even under the most controlled sampling conditions. Given the complexity of interpreting your results, can you really rely on a lab doing this for you?

Here are some reasons not to:

1. Laboratory results by themselves should not be used alone to form the basis of your data interpretation. Visual inspection of the site, site location and nearby land use, understanding the site history, identifying indoor micro-climates, and interviews with affected occupants should play a major role in your result interpretation.

2. Fungal counts have spatial, geographic, local land use, seasonal and diurnal variability just to name a few. This variability can be orders of magnitude different in samples that are taken a few minutes apart! An interpretation of your samples that is based on subjective, un-validated internal criteria developed by a laboratory is a great way to make incorrect conclusions!

3. We know that different sampling devices result in different collection efficiencies that depend on the spore size. This variation is significant when comparing sampling devices. These collection efficiency differences are not taken into account by labs offering this type of data interpretation! What are you really getting? The sole purpose of a laboratory is to provide you with independent, objective, and scientifically defensible data.

Labs that offer you “statistical data interpretation�, a score, or tell you whether your samples have elevated mold levels are jeopardizing your reputation and exposing you to professional liability. No one can afford that kind of service.

Think EMSL, an Independent Testing Laboratory that you can rely on!

Yours Truly,

EMSL Analytical, Inc.


Hats off to EMSL! If you collect samples, send them to EMSL, since they help you establish your credibility.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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
Being new to the industry, I am trying to be as competitive as possible with the services I offer. Most of the HI in my area offer mold testing/air sampling, but don't seem to have any qualifications. I read the information on the link you provided and found it very interesting. It inspired me to look into some training in this field. My question to you: Are the courses online to become a CMI legitimate? Or are they just more companies selling B.S.? The website I am looking at is MICRO — Certified Mold Inspector (CMI) They claim their course will teach me how to properly inspect for mold as well as how and when to perform air sampling/mold testing. It also says I will be able to interpret the findings of said testing. What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks
Bryan

Originally Posted by Bryan D. Carlson

Being new to the industry, I am trying to be as competitive as possible with the services I offer. Most of the HI in my area offer mold testing/air sampling, but don't seem to have any qualifications. I read the information on the link you provided and found it very interesting. It inspired me to look into some training in this field.

Bryan,

You say you read CaoimhÃ*n's linked information at: Mould Testing, Ponzi Schemes and Snake Oil ?

Did you read the 4 questions and answers he posted?

1) Is sampling necessary?

2) What do the sample results mean?

3) Are my sample results high?

4) Are my sample results valid?


These are some of the common questions we receive from home owners and facility managers regarding the results of mould (mold) testing. The short answers are:

1) Almost never.

2) Probably nothing.

3) The results are probably uniterpretable.

4) Generally, “No.�

Instead of bilking your clients like your competition is, start educating them with the CaoimhÃ*n's information.

You would be surprised how well received "free information" is, especially when it is not trying to sell a useless bill of goods which does nothing.

I do find this funny that with all the information provided on the site and others and Mr CaoimhÃ*n. That I still see an inspector in my area offering mold testing. This need some kind of a standard that all H.I. take part in or we will get a bad name in the market place...

Any thing to make a buck...

Best

Ron

Thanks Ron and Jerry, That is what I was thinking too. I just hope I don't enrage the locals. I would hate to be tarred and feathered this early in the game.

Originally Posted by Bryan D. Carlson

Thanks Ron and Jerry, That is what I was thinking too. I just hope I don't enrage the locals. I would hate to be tarred and feathered this early in the game.

If YOU POST THE TRUTH... They will thank you for it.Iave put together an emal with information that I got off of CaoimhÃ*n web site. and sent that out to Real Estate agents all over my area and had one of the best replys i have had in a long time. Direct them to his web site so they can get the information directley from him.
P.S. If you ask CaoimhÃ*n I think He will give you his consent he gave it to me. the only thing is you should state that this is his information and not yours. Give him his due. He is the man...

Best

Ron

Hi Bryon,

Maybe the locals you might enrage are not the ones you want to work with or have an association with. I was getting pressure from a realtor who deals with foreclosures to become a CMI and I would get the majority if not all of there inspections on the home and mold. This agency deals with 80% of the listed foreclosures in my county (Rural Colorado). I did my research and caught onto CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell's information and investigated further into it. I came to the conclusion that sampling or testing for mold is not necessary and if mold is suspected it should be mitigated. The next time I walked into this agent’s office he had asked "So do you offer mold testing now"? I do not I replied and engaged him on why I do not believe that testing is necessary. A bomb went off and papers went flying as he yelled how mold testing was an absolute necessary if suspected mold is found and how poor my inspections are based solely on this conversation. A dismissal of the conversation was close at hand and I walked out thinking this guy was an A** ***E. Mr. Connell's information has been passed along to other agents and clients and has a great reception to this information. The client is grateful for this comprehensive information and helps the agent give concise actions to take if mold is suspected. Not 1 deal has fell through for the agents that have the correct information and know how to work with it, these are the agents that do most of the high end properties and perform the best in there field. Having this association I do more inspections on up kept properties and have less liability on those inspections. I can give a rats *** about what other HI's think.

For what its worth!

Originally Posted by Bryan D. Carlson

Thanks Ron and Jerry, That is what I was thinking too. I just hope I don't enrage the locals. I would hate to be tarred and feathered this early in the game.

BC: If you are not drawing flack, you are not over the target. It is never too early in the game to be over the target.

The upsetting part of all this, Last week I had a customer contact me about mould testing. So I say "Sure we do mold testing", I then go online and order the air sampling pump. 4 days later I come across Mr.Connell's post, too late the air sampling kit already shipped. The company will take the pump back minus shipping X2.

live and learn gentlemen

Bryan
Carlson Inspection services

Two examples of what I called mold (mould) this past month. I have no qualms about calling it out. No test required here. Hey, the basement specimen came with bleach.

The powers that be in the State of Texas have said this at:

Mold Program: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The red, bold, italicized and underline text is of my doing.

Real Estate Inspections

Question: Is a real estate inspector licensed in Texas required to have a Texas mold license to collect air or visible spore samples to determine the presence of mold? Such activity is “mold assessment� as defined in §295.302(22) for which a license is usually required. Must he send the samples to a DSHS-licensed lab?
Answer: Yes, a real estate inspector must be licensed as a mold assessment technician or consultant to collect air or visible spore samples to determine the presence of mold. This requirement is supported by both the rules of the department and Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC). The inspector must send the samples to a licensed lab for analysis. A real estate inspector does not need a mold license to visually observe and note the presence of mold.
The department’s rules require a license to conduct mold assessment, which includes the collection of a mold sample. (§295. 311(a), §295.312(b) and §295.302(22)(C). The exemption for commercial or residential real estate inspections under §295.303(a)(1)(C) does not exempt the inspector from the mold license requirement because mold sampling is not part of a real estate inspection in Texas. See TREC Standards of Practice, 22 TAC §535.227(a)(5), (b)(2)(H) and (3)(B). Section 535.227(b)(2)(H) requires a real estate inspector to comply with any other law or license necessary to perform an inspection or service other than that required by the real estate standards of practice which exclude laboratory or scientific evaluation or testing. See §535.227(a)(5). A licensed technician or consultant who collects samples must send them to a lab licensed by DSHS to analyze mold samples. §§295.311(f)(3), 295.312(f)(9).

I believe this to be unmitigated BS, regardless who said it. 535.227 states in part that you are not required to inspect something you do not feel qualified to inspect. Since I am neither a mycologist nor a microbiologist, I cannot speak to what is or is not mold. So then, I might mention that there is the appearance of a mold-like substance here or there, but will never state that there is mold anywhere.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

but will never state that there is mold anywhere.

Aaron,

Wimp.

EVERYONE KNOWS ... and it is agreed and acknowledged ... that there is mold EVERYWHERE.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Aaron,

Wimp.

EVERYONE KNOWS ... and it is agreed and acknowledged ... that there is mold EVERYWHERE.

JP: Mold pimp!

BC: If you are not drawing flack, you are not over the target.

Good one Aaron! Spoken like a true Texan!

Good info. Funny dialog. Thanks guys!

Originally Posted by CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell

Hi Bill!

You say:
I do not see yo make any referance to an EPA document or published article by EPA or other accepted study source.

That’s because you don’t follow the radon discussions and, frankly, you don’t know much about radon. I actually have provided several references to back up what I say on this board, including referencing the EPA documents which clearly state that they have never found ANY support for their position, and where the EPA admits that when radon goes up, cancer rates go down.

Here's a link to that thread in particular:
SLRDs vs. Radon measurements - The Inspector's Journal Forums

Additionally, if you want authoritative references I have dozens listed on my web discussions:

Radon: Risk and Reality
and
Radon: Truth vs. myth

In turn, I will challenge you (or your buddy) to find one, just ONE, just ONE measly study that has measured the levels of radon in an home and found a positive correlation with lung cancer, devoid of confounders. Bill – find JUST ONE valid study. Goodness, that’s not too much to ask.

Yes, I’m familiar with your certifications, I’ve been through the certification process – it’s pitched at a seventh grade level of education. (I’m the only person I know who aced the EPA exam! What was your score?). But my opinions aren’t based a couple of EPA classes, rather it’s based on twenty years experience in radiation toxicology and epidemiology and16 years experience as a Radiation Safety Officer.

Maybe you should actually read some of the EPA studies instead of the little public service pamphlets they give you. You will find references to those documents through the above links.

I don't mean to pick on you, Brother - I know you mean well, and I'm sure you are a solid and decent guy who thinks he's helping folks - and that's a good thing. But the reality is that your services are built on an house of cards, that have been rejected by legitimate scientists for decades.

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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 went to the Inspector's Journal link - Hmm - you provide references to your own work. A bit of circular logic don't you think.

As to a conversation with one government bureaucrat - it doesn't mean much. The #1 object of a career government employee is to CYA. Do not say or do anything, as an individual, that might be taken out of context or used against you. Stick to committee (pack) output to avoid taking responsibility as an individual.

Taking one conversation and extracting a few statements that support your position is exactly why the EPA person was sitting there more interested in not saying something "wrong" than actually providing useful information.

Originally Posted by CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell

Good evening, Gents!

For those who may be interested, I have assembled a discussion on mould testing and sampling myths. The page is located at: Mould Testing, Ponzi Schemes and Snake Oil

The info is more or less the issues I have presented in various discussions here. As usual, not everyone on this forum will like what I have said, and others will find it useful. I will be cleaning it up in the days to come, and any criticisms good or bad, are welcome!

Cheers!
CaoimhÃ*n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Industrial Hygiene

(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

Yes I know this is an old post.

I got another mold testing flyer today trying to sell me a
"Air -O-Cell 50 pack thingies for $199.

Bio-Pump Plus thingie for $699.00

or a Basic Mold Sampling kit for $299.
and $20.00 per sample.

The 1st person I thought about CaoimhÃ*n and his posts, and found this one.

I have no desire to do any kind of testing, but I have to ask, if I bought and used this stuff , charged the custmomer a couple hundred dollars for the testing. what happens if I find out from the lab there is mold in a home?

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Yes I know this is an old post.

I got another mold testing flyer today trying to sell me a
"Air -O-Cell 50 pack thingies for $199.

Bio-Pump Plus thingie for $699.00

or a Basic Mold Sampling kit for $299.
and $20.00 per sample.

The 1st person I thought about CaoimhÃ*n and his posts, and found this one.

I have no desire to do any kind of testing, but I have to ask, if I bought and used this stuff , charged the custmomer a couple hundred dollars for the testing. what happens if I find out from the lab there is mold in a home?

Give them a copy of the report. It doesn't mean much anyway. You could jump on the "mold is gold" wagon and get into the mold remediation field. Learn the words, " BLACK MOLD", use them freely, buy some spray stuff, and make a bunch of money.

Back when I was testing, I only had ONE house that a very high mold count. But, testing wasn't necessary to know that. The house had electric baseboard heaters. I had to get down on my arms and knees to read the data plates. My arms were black when I got up. The house stunk like mold, there was visible mold on the walls and baseboards. The house was an old tar paper shack built on a swampy area, someone had added vinyl siding on the exterior. The crawlspace had standing water (something to do with the low flat swampy land I think.). But for some reason the owner ( a flipper) was adamant to have it tested.

I stopped mold testing a couple of years ago largely because I spent too much time explaining to people that except in rare cases, testing was expensive and wasn't very useful. If there was a real health issue with the air in the house, they should contact an Industrial Hygienist not somebody like me. I'm a really poor business person I guess.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Yes I know this is an old post.

I got another mold testing flyer today trying to sell me a
"Air -O-Cell 50 pack thingies for $199.

Bio-Pump Plus thingie for $699.00

or a Basic Mold Sampling kit for $299.
and $20.00 per sample.

The 1st person I thought about CaoimhÃ*n and his posts, and found this one.

I have no desire to do any kind of testing, but I have to ask, if I bought and used this stuff , charged the custmomer a couple hundred dollars for the testing. what happens if I find out from the lab there is mold in a home?

"Air -O-Cell 50 pack thingies for $199" = Expensive Tampons
Bio-Pump Plus thingie for $699.00 = Breast pump
Basic Mold Sampling kit for $299. = Pregnancy tester

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

"Air -O-Cell 50 pack thingies for $199" = Expensive Tampons
Bio-Pump Plus thingie for $699.00 = Breast pump
Basic Mold Sampling kit for $299. = Pregnancy tester

Now that's funny.

I got my mold testing kit a few years back and it paid for itself in a single job (townhouse development with 15 units left unfinished - got wet). Since then I tend to talk people out of testing (for all of the reasons CaoimhÃ*n lists) and go right into moisture assessment.

Had one recently; called to follow up on an out-of-town relo inspector. He called out fuzzy efflorescence as possible mold. The seller called me and I told him it wasn't and he insisted that I sample it. Cha-ching!

Just another tool in the kit.

That is a long read, but good stuff.

It seems to me, that Mr. Connell's critics tend to get shrill as they try to poke holes in his arguments.

I posted in the wrong thread so I deleted this post