Thread: where is the moisture at this shower stall

Hi Guys:

I inspected this house which had not been inhabited over a month. I was wondering where came the moisture at this shower stall.

Thank you for any thought of yours.

Similar Threads:

• MOISTURE DETECTION STICK
• needed a breeze in the shower
• Is dry rot progressive in absence of moisture?
• Window in combo bath/shower area
• Flow restrictors affect shower temps - Chicago Daily Herald

Originally Posted by Peter Louis

Hi Guys:

I inspected this house which had not been inhabited over a month. I was wondering where came the moisture at this shower stall.

Thank you for any thought of yours.

.
What's over the shower?
* AC drain line,pan, Water heater, Roof leak ?
.

nothing on the top. this is on the top story.

Your last photo shows the trapped moisture in the drywall.

This is a poorly constructed ceramic tile shower stall that has failed, with the typical symptoms we see when the water gets behind the tile. Even if vacant for 2 or 3 months, where's the water going to go?

Dom.

The first two are probably the metal corner bead under the rock. I have the same tester, and it will definitely do that if you are on top of the corner bead. On the last pic, if you push through the wall board into the metal, it will do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson

The first two are probably the metal corner bead under the rock. I have the same tester, and it will definitely do that if you are on top of the corner bead. On the last pic, if you push through the wall board into the metal, it will do the same thing.

What Jim said. I've experienced the same with my meter which is the same make and model. I've also gotten false readings on moisture stained ceiling tiles when there is a foil faced insulation sheet above the tiles.

Originally Posted by Jim Robinson

The first two are probably the metal corner bead under the rock. I have the same tester, and it will definitely do that if you are on top of the corner bead. On the last pic, if you push through the wall board into the metal, it will do the same thing.

I agree totally. Although I've not tried it, I wonder if Concrete backer board will give the same false reads as concrete?

Peter, are you performing a standard "Visual" home inspection? If so I was wondering why you are using a moisture meter? Was there visible signs of moisture damage on the walls or anywhere else. What if you got a false reading as suggested in the other threads, and down the road, your buyer starts tearing out tile and there is nothing there? (You are going to get a very angry phone call). And what about the small holes you just punctured in the wall of a house that your client does not own yet? I personally don't use a moisture meter when doing a visual home inspection for these very reasons. Now being hired by the property "owner" to do some investigation on some moisture damage would be another story.

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

I personally don't use a moisture meter when doing a visual home inspection for these very reasons.

EVERY home inspector should own one or more GOOD moisture meters and USE THEM during home inspections.

The use of "tools" helps with the home inspection.

The old adage "a home inspection is a VISUAL inspection" was true back in the 1970s, but once home inspectors "came of age" and started doing more and increasing their knowledge, the "visual inspection" went out the window with the dirty bath water.

Ken, please list the tools you do use during a home inspection and then think about if you are still doing a "visual" inspection - do you use:
- a ladder
- a flashlight
- a screw driver
- a probe
- a 3-light outlet tester (or one of the better ones)
- a (name your tool)

If you use ANY tool, you are not doing a "visual" home inspection, so the best thing to do is to stop trying to kid yourself that you are and start doing what other home inspectors are doing - all home inspectors (yourself included if you any tool) are doing "beyond a visual" home inspection.

I knew an inspector, one of the first home inspectors in Florida, who would verify a suspected 'wet wall' by seeing if a tissue would stick to it or pick up any dampness from the wall - was he doing a strictly "visual" inspection? Nope, he was using whatever "tools" he had at his disposal.

Just to clarify - the mythical "visual home inspection" is just that ... a "myth". It never existed.

I must agree with Mr, Peck. We really have never done "visual" inspections. A simple receptacle tester or a two foot step ladder are "tools" and inspectors have been using them since the flood.

We are way beyond showing up at inspections without moisture meter, IR camera, assorted ladders, screwdriver, and various tools of our trade. Home buyer and Realtors have come to expect a home inspector to have these tools available.

Inspectors using these "tools" to provide a quality inspection, at least in my area, are the ones working.
The guys with a flashlight and a receptacle tester are the ones crying the blues about lack of work

Quote "If you use ANY tool, you are not doing a "visual" home inspection, so the best thing to do is to stop trying to kid yourself that you are and start doing what other home inspectors are doing - all home inspectors (yourself included if you any tool) are doing "beyond a visual" home inspection."


Wow you really go for the throat Mr. Peck. I was asking PETER if he had seen visual evidence of moisture present like staining or drywall damage, etc, that made him get out the ol' moisture meter for some verification. I do somewhat agree that we need to use various tools at our disposal, but to start probing around shower stalls trying to dig up some readings when there is no visible evidence there or a reason to do so, to me is beyond the scope of the inspection. And where do you stop? If you are doing it around the shower with no visible evidence of problems, then you also should be probing around toilets, kitchens, under all sinks, laundry rooms, ceilings and even all exterior walls. Doing that would take all day or longer to do an inspection. When I review my "Standard Residential Inspection Agreement" with my client, I read that the "Inspection is performed in accordance with the Standards of Practice of the California Real Estate Inspection Association" and briefly review those standards along with the Exceptions and Exclusions. Those standards exclude "Examination beyond the scope.....which may require disassembly, specialized knowledge, special equipment, measuring, calculating....exploratory probing..etc". If we throw out the Standards of Practice, then we have nothing, it's chaos and everyone is on their own. Do we now carry shovels to dig around the foundation to verify the depth of footings, or a garden hose to start water testing windows for leaks. Where does it stop unless we have Standards. Every profession has standards to base their actions by, the home inspection business is no different.

By the way I would consider my brain, eyes, nose and ears to also be "tools", tools to perform a inspection that does not require "any action which may result in damage to the property or injury to the inspector".

I may be new to posting in the Inspection News but I am not new to the business. If I "start doing what other inspectors are doing" I'm in trouble because there are more inexperienced, incompetent ones out there than there are real professionals.

Ken, This topic has been discussed many times on InspectionNews.

The SOP is a starting point, not the end all, be all of inspecting. Most SOPs state you must inspect a "representative sample" of repetative items like windows, receptacles, shingles, etc. SOPs also state that inspectors are free to provide more comprehensive inspections if they choose.

There is a common myth that if you somehow exceed the barest minimun of the SOP that you are opening yourself up legally. No one has ever been able to provide any court cases where that has been proven.

Using tools like mositure meters around high probablility areas to find luking issues is different than checking every square inch of an entire home. Using moisture meters around toilets and showers is very common, even when there are no other visible indicators. Anytime a home is more than 20yrs old, it is very likely the toilet wax seal has failed and there is water damage. Even if not readily visible, high probability. Same is true around exterior door thresholds and showers. An extra 5-10 minutes checking bathrooms helps reduce callbacks.

It is not chaos to ensure a quality inspection for your client. Along the same lines, mull this statement over. The codes are not a lofty goal to reach but rather the very worst house you can build legally.

[quote=Bruce Ramsey;174383]Ken, This topic has been discussed many times on InspectionNews.

Thank you Bruce for your intelligent reply. I appreciate your calm explanation of your position. Alothough I am new to InspectionNews, I do read many forums and so many replys are confrontational and critical. My reply to Peters question was in no way meant to do either. Perhaps inspection standards are different on the east coast. Although I do not use a moisture detector on a regular basis, I have when I see evidence to warrent it. I used to use it on every inspection when I was a newbie many years ago, along with other electronic devices, but I found they created more problems that it uncovered. After sitting through numerouse seminars, trainings and CREIA meetings discussing these and similar issues, it always came to the fact that, the closer you stay to the SOP's, the safer you are. And again if we do not use these standards and stay within the guidelines, than why have them. I guess it comes down to a personal business decision. I adhere very closely to the SOP's and in 17 years and thousands of inspections I have never once had a claim against me in court.
But thanks for your advice, maybe I will wipe the dust of the old moisture detector and use it more often. If we are too proud to admit that we may be wrong or could use some adjustment to our thinking, then we are setting ourselves up for a crash.
KS

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

Wow you really go for the throat Mr. Peck. I was asking PETER if he had seen visual evidence of moisture present like staining or drywall damage, etc, that made him get out the ol' moisture meter for some verification.

Ken,

That's not what you asked - why are you trying to change what you said?

My response was right on the money for what you said:

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

Peter, are you performing a standard "Visual" home inspection? If so I was wondering why you are using a moisture meter?

You questioned using a moisture meter during a "visual" home inspection, so I questioned what the heck you were thinking and put forth evidence of why NO HOME INSPECTION IS A "VISUAL" INSPECTION.

Seems that you did not like my response and are now trying to change what you said - but it is there in black and white for all of us to read.

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

And again if we do not use these standards and stay within the guidelines, than why have them. I guess it comes down to a personal business decision. I adhere very closely to the SOP's ....
KS

SOPs ensure that even the worst inspector has some minimum that he has to meet. They create a baseline for some inspectors to cling to.

Challenge yourself to do the best you can for your clients. Only you can decide how to define your best. Is it the best within a given time frame? The best using a particular list of tools? The best at a certain price point? The best with your current education? Maybe is just being better than the $199 wonders.

The ASHI, NAHI, Nachi, CREIA and most state SOPs are fairly similar. Some require a bit more here or there but overall not huge differences.

Like any group of people, there are the nerds, the jocks, the popular, and the fringe. Stick around and figure out which is who. You will quickly learn who to pay attention to and who to tune out. Your ideas will be challenged. Be forewarned that many here frequently quote International Residential Code and the NEC as the basis for their decisions. Anything else is usually considered folklore and unsubstantiated myth. Spirited discussion is encouraged. Speak your mind while staying away from name calling and you will do fine.

That's not what you asked - why are you trying to change what you said?

Jerry, this is what he said

Was there visible signs of moisture damage on the walls or anywhere else.

You questioned using a moisture meter during a "visual" home inspection,

No he didn't, he asked if there was any evidence of staining that would lead him to believe that using a MM was needed. (paraphrased)

I thought his response to the OP was reasonable

BTW
Which is it?

...a home inspection is a VISUAL inspection" was true back in the 1970s

...the mythical "visual home inspection" is just that ... a "myth". It never existed.

You see, when you quote what someone said, it does not always mean what you quoted.

Rick Cantrell,

I agree wholeheartedly with absoultely everything you presented in your most recent post.

Well done.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

I thought his response to the OP was reasonable

Rick,

I'll take may 40 lashes with a wet noodle like a man and go back to my corner ...

However, I will also stand by the fact that the "visual" home inspection is a myth, just like back in the old days I commented on - if you are doing a "visual" inspection and you pick up a tissue to 'verify' suspected moisture, you are no longer doing a "visual" inspection.

Now I'll go back to my corner.

If one sticks to the standards and the standards only and does not deviate from them in any way, that inspection will leave a lot out that and likely result in some call backs from unhappy clients.

Ken is right. Don't use your pin meter on somebody elses drywall. Watch out for metal under the surface. Take readings in several areas and look for a pattern that matches a moisture issue.

Thank you guys I appreciate your valuable input. Rick is correct, I was mainly wondering if there was any visible signs of water damage (which prompted him to whip out the old meter).
I see the "visual" term I used is quite controversial and depends on one's interpretation. The SOP's on the other hand defines our guidlines quite clearly. I still believe however if we deviate too far from what is stated in our Inspection Agreement contract, which our cients have agreed to and signed, then we have no foundation to fall back on if someone has a complaint. So where does the use of "Specialized knowledge, special equipment, measuring, probing, etc" stop? Should we also have in our tool bags HVAC manifold gauges to find out what is the pressure of the refrigerant is if the air is not cold enough? Are we to also calculate air flow out of each register, if it seems the flow is weak? No, we defer to a specialist. So if we see moisture damage, we note it in the report and defer to a specialist. However, if we state there is moisture in a wall (moisture meter false reading?) when there is no visible sign of it, and we call it out and now a destructive investigation turns up nothing, who pays for the damage and repairs? It all could be avoided if we go back to our SOP's. That's why our fine CREIA, ASHI, NACHI, etc, associations went to all that work to put them in print and why they are on our contracts. So it is a fine line we walk to give our clients the best possible inspection without getting ourselves into trouble doing things we shouldn't be doing (according to the STANDARDS), in my humble opinion.
Thanks again for your input and for refining our profession.

Ken,

Here are a few corrections to your presumptions:


[quote=Ken Schaumann;174468]The SOP's on the other hand defines our guidlines quite clearly.[/quote[

The SoPs only define the MINIMUM that needs to be done.

The SoPs do not define or address any maximum one may do.

then we have no foundation to fall back on if someone has a complaint.

The contract is stating the minimum you are agreeing to do for your client.

It all could be avoided if we go back to our SOP's. That's why our fine CREIA, ASHI, NACHI, etc, associations went to all that work to put them in print and why they are on our contracts. So it is a fine line we walk to give our clients the best possible inspection without getting ourselves into trouble doing things we shouldn't be doing (according to the STANDARDS)

None of those standard of practice state what you should not do, only the minimum you are required to do.

There is no fine line to walk, follow the SoP and meet the MINIMUM they REQUIRE you to do, and then do as much more as you feel will help your client and what you feel comfortable doing for your particular business model.

There are plenty of WalMarts out there, and, yes, they do get a lot of business. There are also plenty of "better" stores out there and they are doing okay too (most of them), some are doing exceptionally well, while others are failing, which indicates that it is their "service" (that is what makes them exceptional) does not meet the needs or desires of the clients they are catering to.

I'm not saying that you are required to do more than the minimum, i.e., you are not required to do more than the SoP, however, I suspect that most home inspectors in most markets exceed their SoP by quite a bit, and by doing so, they set "the standard" for that area.

It is a choice we all make - are we like "WalMart", or a couple of notches better like "Target", or something even better? It is your personal choice to make for your business ... just remember, though, that SoPs are MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, and that they do not state "things we shouldn't be doing".

Originally Posted by Phil Houck

I must agree with Mr, Peck. We really have never done "visual" inspections. A simple receptacle tester or a two foot step ladder are "tools" and inspectors have been using them since the flood.

We are way beyond showing up at inspections without moisture meter, IR camera, assorted ladders, screwdriver, and various tools of our trade. Home buyer and Realtors have come to expect a home inspector to have these tools available.

Inspectors using these "tools" to provide a quality inspection, at least in my area, are the ones working.
The guys with a flashlight and a receptacle tester are the ones crying the blues about lack of work

IR camera

Don't think so. This is an extra and should always be an extra. The camera could be a small fortune. The classes and continuing ed is a small fortune. The liability *could* be a small fortune. If you are using an IR camera on every inspection you should be charging an extra for it. If you are using an IR camera you better be scanning and taking pictures of every wall and ceiling or you will eat it someday. If you are using an IR camera and not charging for it then you are cheapening and not adding to the inspection industry. Some differ with this logic. Think of the implications. Prices tight as they are for home inspections and then someone goes in and throws in a free IR inspection of the home. They throw in a free WDI report on the home. Both of those have their own liabilities. WDI or termite inspection and report usually in most states require a licence and insurance and extra paper work and accounting.

So many people continue to add more and more and more work and technology to the Home Inspection industry and not charging for it. They are telling all future clients that the Home Inspection business is really not worth much in and of itself.

The day of adding more and more to Home Inspection should have died a very long time ago. All home inspectors adding more and more free services do and are cheapening the value of a home inspection and then turn back on the rest of the home inspection industry that they are just adding value for their clients.

Charge for it. If you are then forget this post. If you are not charging for these extra technologies, schooling and services than you should rethink what you are doing. I see so many inspectors adding more services and still walking out of the home in the same amount of time it takes to do a good home inspection. They run faster and faster and work harder and harder and spend more and more money to ........ make the same thing or less. Absolutely ridiculous.

I had a potential client call me for an inspection in Plano TX yesterday. He had already called a couple of inspectors and received quotes from them and what they are doing in the inspection process.

One company has two guys on the team. They are doing the home inspection, termite inspection, they use an IR camera at the inspection and they will even do mold tests if necessary and only charge the man for the actual testing and not the sample taking. This was a 2000 square foot home in Plano that sell for a decent amount of money. They are doing the entire inspection for 270.00 dollars.

They should be brought down to the town square and flogged. They are certainly cheapening the Home inspection business. If one thinks they are just adding value for their client then they should be brought down to the town square and flogged as well.

Sorry for the rant but it is getting stupid out there and the summer is just coming to an end. I wonder what they do inspections for in the winter

[quote=Ted Menelly;175537]IR camera

Don't think so. This is an extra and should always be an extra. The camera could be a small fortune. The classes and continuing ed is a small fortune. The liability *could* be a small fortune. If you are using an IR camera on every inspection you should be charging an extra for it. If you are using an IR camera you better be scanning and taking pictures of every wall and ceiling or you will eat it someday. If you are using an IR camera and not charging for it then you are cheapening and not adding to the inspection industry.

I usually don't agree with too much of Ted's rants, but this one I do and is kind of along the point I was making about using specialized electronic equipment that requires much training and experience, in a typical home inspection. By the way Jerry, I don't think a step ladder, a flashlight, a screw driver or a receptacle tester requires alot of training. And where did I or anyone state you couldn't use those basic tools? Again where will it stop for using those specialized devices and some moisture meters are pretty technical, save the two prong tester.
I agree with Ted that if we are going to go to that next level of inspecting, then we better darn well specify in our contract that this testing is beyond the normal inspection, and there is an extra charge for it and have some "minimum" SOP in using that specialized equipment. Where are your limits stated?
I never said we do not at times go above the minimum standard, I was stating where do we stop? Shouldn't we all be inspecting according to the same rules?

Still trying to make a point of why Peter was using a moisture meter on a vacant house; was there VISIBLE evidence of moisture or damage that made him want to verify that moisture with an electronic device? Or was he just playing around with a new cool tool to impress the realtor (and may not have the experience or training to know how to use it?).

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

Still trying to make a point of why Peter was using a moisture meter on a vacant house;

Seriously?
So, how long was it vacant? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month?

A failed shower wall would still be damp. We have thousands of vacant homes here in Florida, and I will typically meter all of them, regardless of whomever is or isn't present at the time. Ceramic tile shower stalls are a constant source of failure in our area, but maybe you have better tile craftsman in your neck of the woods.

Just a thought, your mileage may vary...

Dom.

[quote]

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

Seriously?
So, how long was it vacant? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month?

He stated 1 month

A failed shower wall would still be damp. We have thousands of vacant homes here in Florida, and I will typically meter all of them, regardless of whomever is or isn't present at the time. Ceramic tile shower stalls are a constant source of failure in our area,

I guess here in Dry So-Cal moisture is just not that big of an issue, unless there is a leaky pipe, in which case you can usually SEE the evidence. Greenboard tile showers (tile applied straight onto drywall) are a problem, but they are few around here.

No one has still commented. especially Peter the original poster, on whether there was VISIBLE evidence of moisture damage, prior to putting a meter on the wall. Why go trying to dig up a problem where it probably doesn't exist. And again, what if you get a false positive reading and a destructive investigation comes up with nothing? Better get your check book out. Why do it is my question, if there is no VISIBLE evidence? It makes no sense. It's like using thermal imaging devices, why go so far out on a limb unless you are highly trained and certified and are CHARGING EXTRA for this special inspection.
And Jerry, I so disagree with you. We are doing a limited visual inspection. Most of us state right in our contracts "..reached, entered, or viewed, without difficulty or requiring any action that will result in damage to the property or injury to the inspector", or something similar.
Here is some good advice from an Inspection Attorney.. The Home Inspector Lawyer: Thoughts on Thermal Imaging Devices and Visual Inspections

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

No one has still commented. especially Peter the original poster, on whether there was VISIBLE evidence of moisture damage, prior to putting a meter on the wall. Why go trying to dig up a problem where it probably doesn't exist.

So you never used an outlet tester without "seeing" an issue first?

Again, you must have amazing tile showers that never fail. If you start using a meter on all your tile showers, you'll know in short order what readings are normal, and which aren't.

Its only a tool, and the tool operator makes the judgment.

Dom.

[quote=Dom D'Agostino;175621][quote]

So you never used an outlet tester without "seeing" an issue first?

Bad comparison Dom.

What happens when tile and walls are torn out and little or no moisture is present. Who picks up the tab for your bad call? Why do you call out moisture if you don't see physical, visible evidence? I guess you guys on the east coast do things differently than we do. Read the Inspector's Lawyer blog I gave a link to on my last post. He worded it better than me.

Ken, FYI, Peter L. is a relative newbie, wanting to learn, so give him a break, eh?
I agree, if the shower has not been used recently, the tile backing will more or less dry out, so the moisture meter won't indicate a problem. I will still check in the typical places, and look for loose tiles. One place was keeping me busy with issues. When the client arrived, he showed me a loose tile he'd pulled off the wall on a prior visit. The old drywall behind it was kind of dry, but black with mold.

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

What happens when tile and walls are torn out and little or no moisture is present. Who picks up the tab for your bad call? .

Who said the walls were torn out?

I know how to read a meter, and I know the shower stalls in my area. I can tell before and after testing, "what's up".

I have no issue calling it out if its there.

Again, your mileage may vary.

Dom.

Dom (and others)

A tiled shower can, and many times will, have water (moisture) behind the tile, and there is nothing wrong. A moisture barrier is attached to the studs (to keep moisture away from the framing), then the cement board over the barrier (sometimes drywall was used), then the tile.
TILE IS NOT WATERPROOF, that is why the moisture barrier is installed next to the studs. If the tile was waterproof then regular drywall could be used, because it would not get wet.
It is normal for moisture to be behind the tile,
Since it is normal for moisture to be behind tile, then what is the point of using a MM to check for moisture.
Maybe this is why you say "Ceramic tile shower stalls are a constant source of failure in our area".
Maybe the moisture meter you have can detect when the barrier is bad, or maybe your just that good, but a normal MM is not able to determine which side of the moisture barrier the moisture is on.

I know how to read a meter, and I know the shower stalls in my area. I can tell before and after testing, "what's up".

Since you can tell "what's up" before testing, why do you need to test?
Can you teach me that?

I have no issue calling it out if its there.

As I pointed out earlier, moisture will many times be behind the tile, so you call them all out?
I wonder how many times you have needlessly called out that you found moisture in the shower wall.

Tile is NOT Waterproof
"A common misconception about tile and grout is that they are waterproof. Once you install tile in your shower you have a big waterproof box that will last forever. Ummm, no.

Tile and stone (as well as grout) will actually retain water"

As I said, water gets behind the tile and into the backer. Why are you using a MM to check for moisture in a tiled shower?
If your meter indicates the moisture is present, so what.
The MM will not detect moisture in the studs, through the tile, backer, and moisture barrier. So what are you checking for?

As I said, water gets behind the tile and into the backer. Why are you using a MM to check for moisture in a tiled shower?

If your meter indicates the moisture is present, so what.

THANK YOU RICK. I was beginning to think there was no one out there with any common sense.
As to Dom's recent comment, I was stating a hypothetical situation, a "what if" the buyer or seller had the shower was demo'ed due to the inspector's calling out moisture with no VISIBLE evidence damage and upon opening it up no damage was there? Oh well, I can't explain it any clearer.

Sorry John I wasn't getting on Peter's case. I was just trying to get an answer about any visible damage and trying to make a point? Didn't mean to come across as confrontational. Keep up the good work.

I wonder how many times you have needlessly called out that you found moisture in the shower wall

Never. Using a meter and reporting a particular condition are 2 different issues.

Since you can tell "what's up" before testing, why do you need to test?
Can you teach me that?

I see no reason to try. Not being a smart a$$, just don't feel like bickering about something so basic in our market.

You inspect your way, I'll do it my way.

I have a "Live And Let Live" policy.

I'm not here to change the world or to change your mind.

Thanks for the exchange.

Dom.

Originally Posted by Ken Schaumann

And Jerry, I so disagree with you.

That's a rather obvious understatement ... I certainly don't mind you being wrong as you so insist on being.

We are doing a limited visual inspection. Most of us state right in our contracts "..reached, entered, or viewed, without difficulty or requiring any action that will result in damage to the property or injury to the inspector", or something similar.

It does not matter what one states in their contact, it matters what one does.

What's that old line, "A rose is a rose is a rose.", and "That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." ... except in this case it would still stink the same - just because you CALL IT a "visual" or a "limited visual" inspection does not mead that what you ACTUALLY DO is a "visual" or a "limited visual" inspection.

As soon as you pull out ANY "tool" which helps you FIND THINGS YOU DID NOT or could not "SEE" means you are no longer doing that mythical "visual home inspection".

You SMELLED that mildew? That is BEYOND "visual". You really need to think about what you are saying.

1vi·su·al adj \ˈvi-zhə-wəl, -zhəl; ˈvizh-wəl\
Definition of VISUAL
1: of, relating to, or used in vision <visual organs>
2: attained or maintained by sight <visual impressions>
3: visible <visual objects>
4: producing mental images : vivid
5: done or executed by sight only <visual navigation>
6: of, relating to, or employing visual aids
— vi·su·al·ly \ˈvi-zhə-wə-lē, -zhə-lē; ˈvizh-wə-lē\ adverb
See visual defined for English-language learners »
See visual defined for kids »
Examples of VISUAL
color, shape, and other visual attributes
She appreciates the visual arts such as painting and film.
Maps are a visual tool for learning.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

IR camera

Don't think so. This is an extra and should always be an extra. The camera could be a small fortune. The classes and continuing ed is a small fortune. The liability *could* be a small fortune. If you are using an IR camera on every inspection you should be charging an extra for it. If you are using an IR camera you better be scanning and taking pictures of every wall and ceiling or you will eat it someday. If you are using an IR camera and not charging for it then you are cheapening and not adding to the inspection industry. Some differ with this logic.

Ted,

I agree with you, but I would like to comment on your observations on tools. The tools we use today have improved through the years. As someone commented earlier, in the "old days" one inspector used tissue paper to check for moisture---now there are electronic moisture sensors that do the same job---but better. Tool improvement for all trades has improved through the years, not only HI's. To say not to use a tool because it is expensive, but would make your job easier, is non-productive. I'm sure the carpenter will pick up a power saw first, not the hand saw.

I agree, however, that if using a tool for a complete "special" inspection (Example: IR Camera) is fundamentally different that your normal or current inspection---the client should clearly pay for that "extra." But, if you suspect moisture, and have the tool that can assist you in that determination---but don't use it because it it expensive... you are shooting yourself in the foot. Tools, no mater what kind, are there to make the job easier.

But, if you see a problem that by use of a special tool or procedure could provide an answer, and is a cost item----I suggest talk it over with the client. If they say no---you are covered. The special tests should be covered in your contract, and any exceptions should be mentioned. I personally feel that using a moisture sensor in a shower area to help you make a determination, as an example, is part of your inspection----just using a "newer" tool from your bag (or carry a lot of tissues.)

Rich

Common use (misuse) of a Moisture Meter

In this video the inspector can SEE the leak in the ceiling, and the home owner told him about the leak.
Great detective work using the MM.
Video #12: MOISTURE METER TEST - YouTube


This video is showing how a MM can detect moisture in a shower wallAs I pointed out, there is nothing wrong with moisture in in a tiled shower wall.
Moisture Detection - YouTube


the inspector uses a MM AND an IR camera Of course he points out that he can see that the wood is swollen.
Home Inspection Moisture Tools - YouTube

There was no need to use a MM in any of these videos.The inspector learned nothing he did not already know.

Stop sugar coating it Rick, tell us how you really feel about moisture meters .

Seriously, it's a useful tool for more than bathrooms, but like everything we use on the job, the interpretation by the tool operator is key.

Dom.

Seriously, it's a useful tool for more than bathrooms, but like everything we use on the job, the interpretation by the tool operator is key.

I can agree with that
However the OP and this discussion was about using a MM in shower stalls. Using a MM in a shower is inappropriate use of this tool.
Thats what I was pointing out.

Glad to see your still talking to me.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Common use (misuse) of a Moisture Meter

In this video the inspector can SEE the leak in the ceiling, and the home owner told him about the leak.
Great detective work using the MM.
Video #12: MOISTURE METER TEST - YouTube

There was no need to use a MM in any of these videos.The inspector learned nothing he did not already know.

"There was no need to use a MM in any of these videos.The inspector learned nothing he did not already know."

I disagree.

I only viewed the first video and there was no misuse or other infraction related to the moisture meter.

The inspector learned things he did not know, such as I am sure he was expecting to find moisture there as moisture having been there is rather evident, and was even advised so by the homeowner, but ... there was no elevated moisture reading when he checked it.

That means that the leak, IF still active, is an intermittent leak and that the drywall has dried out to about the same moisture reading as the previously checked interior wall area.

Okay, "and that the drywall has dried out", which, by the way, also happens to the substrate behind shower walls, depending on the substrate and how long since the shower walls have had any water on them.

As such IT IS ENTIRELY appropriate to test for moisture in shower walls under appropriate conditions.

Dismissing the use of a moisture meter without more information than we were given is no better than saying the moisture meter should always be used.

But NOT using a moisture meter on a home inspection ... there is no basis for those types of statements.

"There was no need to use a MM in any of these videos.The inspector learned nothing he did not already know."

I disagree.

I'm not surprised

I only viewed the first video and there was no misuse or other infraction related to the moisture meter.

I concede, the first video is not a MISUSE of a MM, "needless" is how I described it.

The inspector learned things he did not know, such as I am sure he was expecting to find moisture there as moisture having been there is rather evident, and was even advised so by the homeowner, but ... there was no elevated moisture reading when he checked it.

OK, the inspector learned it (the ceiling) was dry, big deal.
I suppose that since it's dry he will not need to report anything.
IMO Dry or wet, using the MM changes nothing, same call.

That means that the leak, IF still active, is an intermittent leak and that the drywall has dried out to about the same moisture reading as the previously checked interior wall area.

Or has been repaired, or not rained hard enough to leak, or someone put a bucket under the leak ( You do remember someone posted a photo of this one time).

Okay, "and that the drywall has dried out", which, by the way, also happens to the substrate behind shower walls, depending on the substrate and how long since the shower walls have had any water on them.

Correct.
What I said is, if a tiled shower indicates moisture in the wall, SO WHAT, it is not an indication of a problem and gives no useful information.

As such IT IS ENTIRELY appropriate to test for moisture in shower walls under appropriate conditions.

So, can you share with us under what conditions that would be?
I mean a condition that could not be detected by normal observation by an even modestly experienced inspector.

Dismissing the use of a moisture meter without more information than we were given is no better than saying the moisture meter should always be used.

The information is moisture in the wall of a tiled shower.

But NOT using a moisture meter on a home inspection ... there is no basis for those types of statements

That is not what I said, EVER.
The OP and this discussion has been about using a MM on a tiled shower.
I did introduce a video showing someone needlessly using a MM on a ceiling stain. I included that video only because I thought it was laughable for him to use a MM on THAT stain.

Jerry
Your big on following the manufactures instructions.
Maybe you can provide an instruction manual that shows a real life practical use for a MM testing a tiled shower wall.

The third photo of the original post shows what may be interpreted as visible moisture damage, which would be adequate rationale for testing the area with a moisture meter. Construction materials can retain moisture for long periods of time, particularly if the home is not occupied. Heating and cooling tend to remove moisture from homes. When these systems are not in operation, moisture will not migrate out of the structure as quickly.

The third photo of the original post shows what may be interpreted as visible moisture damage,

I agree with that

which would be adequate rationale for testing the area with a moisture meter.

Why do you need to test it?
If the MM indicates the wall is wet, you already knew that.
What if it indicates the wall is dry, what will you report?
Wet or dry, report it the same.
So what did the using the MM do?

Construction materials can retain moisture for long periods of time, particularly if the home is not occupied. Heating and cooling tend to remove moisture from homes. When these systems are not in operation, moisture will not migrate out of the structure as quickly.

What does that mean, and what does it have to do with using a MM to test for moisture in a shower wall?
Statements like that just cloud the issue.
I'm not trying to bust anyones chops.
I just trying to point out that using a MM to detect moisture in a tiled shower wall does not , will not give you any useful information.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

But NOT using a moisture meter on a home inspection ... there is no basis for those types of statements.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

That is not what I said, EVER.

That was not commenting on "your" comments, but on the comments of another who has stated that several times.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Maybe you can provide an instruction manual that shows a real life practical use for a MM testing a tiled shower wall.

I'll see what I can find, back in the early to mid-1990's there were (maybe still are) moisture meters which were being touted by the manufacturers for use on shower walls as they did not read surface moisture but read approximately 1/2" to 3/4" deep into the wall.

I bought one and still have it (but never did use it much as it was not as good as (in my opinion) my Tramex, and I doubt it has even been used 20 times, and 10 of those times was probably trying to figure out if I wasted my 300 bucks (I did, in my opinion).

The following are not the ones I have, but are more advanced models based on the one I have (from what I've heard over the years as improvements were made and one company bought another company, etc).

For your reading enjoyment:
GE Protimeter Surveymaster Moisture Meter | Moisture Meters | Instrumart
Click on the manual link:
http://www.instrumart.com/assets/108...ter_Manual.pdf
From Page 4 (red highlighting is mine)
"

The Search mode may also be used as an alternative to Measure mode when it is impractical or undesirable to push electrode pins into surfaces. For example, consider taking moisture readings behind ceramic tiles in shower cubicles or in walls covered by quality wallpapers where pinholes would not be acceptable.

"

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

I just trying to point out that using a MM to detect moisture in a tiled shower wall does not , will not give you any useful information.

I disagree (but I've been known to disagree now and then ).

Let's say you are checking the shower and the meter ticks up higher than on an inside gypsum board wall (which you would expect) and stays there pretty much all around the shower - that indicated to you that there are no leaks in that shower.

Now, though, let's presume that the moisture ticks up, and up, and up, below a window - that is a good indication that there is a leak at the window area, and I specifically chose that word as it may well be a leak from the tiled or marble sill area and not the window itself which may be leaking.

Similarly, if the meter ticks up, and up, and up, below the shower controls, it is a good indication of something leaking inside that wall - it could be leaking in around escutcheons, or it could be a leak in the valve or piping.

But to just say that it "will not give you any useful information" is patently incorrect. I may not give you and useful information, but it may well give someone else useful information.

Maybe you can provide an instruction manual that shows a real life practical use for a MM testing a tiled shower wall.

I did not say a MM does not work, I said (implied) WHAT GOOD IS IT to test a tiled shower?
A tiled shower may or may not have moisture behind it. Either way, does not make a difference.
Moisture in a tiled shower wall is not an indication that there is a problem.
Is there something wrong with that statement.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

I did not say a MM does not work, I said (implied) WHAT GOOD IS IT to test a tiled shower?
A tiled shower may or may not have moisture behind it. Either way, does not make a difference.
Moisture in a tiled shower wall is not an indication that there is a problem.
Is there something wrong with that statement.

I will give you the benefit of not having read my post #45 above your post #46 as you were probably typing while I was typing and posting based on the time of my post and your post, but I believe you will find that I answered BOTH of your questions (DEMANDS): 1) that an installation instructions addresses that use (note to Rick - Jerry did that); 2) what the moisture meter could possibly tell you (note to Rick - Jerry did that too).

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Why do you need to test it? If the MM indicates the wall is wet, you already knew that. What if it indicates the wall is dry, what will you report?
Wet or dry, report it the same. So what did the using the MM do? What does that mean, and what does it have to do with using a MM to test for moisture in a shower wall? Statements like that just cloud the issue. I'm not trying to bust anyones chops. I just trying to point out that using a MM to detect moisture in a tiled shower wall does not , will not give you any useful information.

You don't. You didn't KNOW that, you suspected that. Observations. Not recommended. Provided empirical evidence to support a hypothesis. Figure it out. Really? Good. Wrong; it provides empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, which is reportable and defensible.

As I was typing, the screen closed.
Where the Heck did my 20 minute post go?

It was brilliant.
Take my word for it.

Jerry
I'll reply tomorrow morning.
I've been at at family reunion all day, I'm tired and want to go to bed.
Thank you and Goodnight

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

As I was typing, the screen closed.
Where the Heck did my 20 minute post go?

Same has previously happened to me after typing for 14 paragraphs.
Type it in Notepad (or similar) first and Paste it over.

Dom.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

As I was typing, the screen closed.
Where the Heck did my 20 minute post go?

It was brilliant.
Take my word for it.

Originally Posted by Dom D'Agostino

Same has previously happened to me after typing for 14 paragraphs.
Type it in Notepad (or similar) first and Paste it over.

Dom.

Same thing here too.

I just re-type it as it lets me re-word what I was saying, sometimes I don't remember all that I was saying (must not have been that important, then) but I get to improve on the way I was saying what I was saying - but it is aggravating when that happens.

First lets review what has been said that lead to this discussion.
Statements (post #25) were made that moisture in a tiled shower wall is an indication of a failed tile shower wall.

In post #31 I pointed out that water behind the tile is not an indication of a failed wall.
At this time, this statement has not been challenged, and I stand by it.
I also said that it is normal and not an indication of a problem, for moisture to be in the tiled wall.
What followed was (I presume) Jerry describing under what conditions a tiled wall could have moisture in it and not be "normal",
and it could/would be an indication of a problem.

Jerry has given 2 conditions.(post #45)

The first condition is where the shower has a window, no moisture is detected anywhere in the shower except under the window.
Suggesting that water is entering the wall through or around the window.
The second condition is no moisture is detected in the shower except under the shower control.
Suggesting that water pipes are leaking and/or the control valves are leaking.
In each condition the premise is:
Moisture is detected in the wall
Moisture did not come from a normally expected source (taking a shower)
That under these conditions, using a MM will indicate that a problem exist.

Jerry is partially correct, under these conditions, moisture under the tile may not be a normal condition and could be an indication of other problems.
However, both of these conditions have a serious weakness.
Both conditions could be due to a number of condition other than what is suggested, such as:
Cracked, thin, or porous grout in these areas.
Since both conditions can exist without there being other problems (leaking window or valves), you have not eliminated normal use of the shower as the source of the moisture.
Also both conditions have a more reliable method to detect for these problems.
If a window is the source of the moisture an examination of the window, trim, and caulking would be more accurate and reliably.
If the control valves are leaking, evidence of the leaking can be seen at the valve and on the tile.
Each condition could be found by even a modestly experienced inspector using ordinary observation, and less subject to misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

In post #31 I pointed out that water behind the tile is not an indication of a failed wall.
At this time, this statement has not been challenged, and I stand by it.

That statement of and by itself, which is as it stands, is, as I pointed out, incorrect, and I provided two conditions showing WHY it was incorrect.

'You' did not qualify your statement, and without any qualifying descriptions, such as the moisture is the same all over, the statement is incorrect.

I also said that it is normal and not an indication of a problem, for moisture to be in the tiled wall.

And again I provided scenarios which indicate that your simple statement needs clarification, otherwise it is incorrect as it stands.

However, both of these conditions have a serious weakness.
Both conditions could be due to a number of condition other than what is suggested, such as:
Cracked, thin, or porous grout in these areas.
Since both conditions can exist without there being other problems (leaking window or valves), you have not eliminated normal use of the shower as the source of the moisture.
Also both conditions have a more reliable method to detect for these problems.

Now you are beginning to understand why clarification conditions are necessary instead of just making simple statements.

However, in response to the above:
- Grout IS porous.
- Grout CRACKS, within the grout and between the grout and the tile.
- Grout is THIN (for regular bathroom wall tile).

As such, the moisture level in the wall should not be greatly affected by those things are those things are, presumably, present.

If a window is the source of the moisture an examination of the window, trim, and caulking would be more accurate and reliably.

That answer can only come from inexperience in seeing the ways windows in showers can leak.

If the control valves are leaking, evidence of the leaking can be seen at the valve and on the tile.

Same with this answer.

All one needs to do is to open a few shower walls up for repair/rebuilding and one quickly understands that what I am describing is quite common.

Rick, you are going further and further out on that limb in trying to defend your unconditional statement, and the limb you are on is getting thinner the further out you go.

you will find that I answered BOTH of your questions (DEMANDS)

Sorry if I sounded that way.
Sometimes (many times) what I perceive I wrote is not what some one else perceives I wrote.


Oh yeah
Thanks Dom and Jerry for the tip.

It seems you agree with Dom in saying if moisture is detected in a tiled shower wall, then that wall has failed.

I have shown that water does get behind the tile, and that water behind the tile is not an indication of a failed wall.

Please explain that to me why you think moisture in a tiled shower wall is a indication of a failed wall.

I also said that it is normal and not an indication of a problem, for moisture to be in the tiled wall.
What followed was (I presume) Jerry describing under what conditions a tiled wall could have moisture in it and not be "normal",
and it could/would be an indication of a problem.

Did I not give a fair assessment?

That answer can only come from inexperience

I concede that I have less experience than you
But rather than say it, why not explain what you think so that I, along with others will gain from your experience.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

I concede that I have less experience than you

I'm not saying that you have less experience than me, only that you are steadfastly standing by a statement which is not defensible as you stated it - and you said "and I stand by it.", so all I can do it go with what you say about yourself, and that if you had the experience I described with shower walls (while remodeling, while repairing new work done so poorly it had to be repaired/replaced within the one year warranty, and during home inspections), you would be open to understanding what I was presenting.

But rather than say it, why not explain what you think so that I, along with others will gain from your experience.

I did explain a couple of scenarios of why it is useful and practical to use a moisture meter in a tiled shower wall, but you did not accept them. There are many other scenarios which could also be detected similarly to what I stated, but your stance of standing by your statement does not indicate that you are open to what others are saying.

When using a moisture meter, its use is all "relative", as in 'this similarly constructed area shows this %, but this area shows this much greater %.

The first challenge is to eliminate the 'noise' stuff, such as is the higher reading corner bead, metal nail protector plates in the wall, furring strips, foil backed insulation, etc., then the next challenge is to determine what might possibly be in the wall which could cause the differences in the % readings.

I just gave a couple of examples, which you promptly disregarded.

Jerry
First you implied that I said not to use a MM on a home inspection.
"But NOT using a moisture meter on a home inspection ... there is no basis for those types of statements."
I never said or even implied that.
You were being misleading.

Then you say that I'm inexperienced
"can only come from inexperience "
Which I concede, compared to you I am, but I am not inexperienced.

Then you said I disregarded your examples
"I just gave a couple of examples, which you promptly disregarded."
Disregard:
1. To pay no attention or heed to; ignore.
2. To treat without proper respect or attentiveness
disregarded - definition of disregarded by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
I think I addressed your examples fairly, truthfully, and fully.
I most certainly did not ignore them, or you.

To restate the original issue
Some (at least one, likely many more) inspectors report the tiled shower wall has failed. when moisture is detected in that wall.
I said and believe this is a false assumption.
I was not trying to embarrass anyone or to make them look bad (OK I did get a little pointed).
I was trying to show that:
#1; Tile is not waterproof, under normal conditions, moisture can and will be behind the tile.
If #1 is true the conclusion is:
#2; That finding moisture behind the tile is not sufficient reason to report the shower wall as failed.

I further concluded that:
#3 Since under normal conditions, moisture can be behind the tile, using a MM in a tiled shower is needless.
(I say needless, since moisture can be present under normal conditions. having moisture present is not evidence that the moisture came from other than a normally expected source)

For this part of the discussion Please limit the discussion to;
Reporting a shower wall as failed because a MM detected moisture in the tiled shower wall.
Once an understanding has been established on this, perhaps other areas can be explored.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

It seems you agree with Dom in saying if moisture is detected in a tiled shower wall, then that wall has failed.

I hate to jump back into this thread, but I didn't state that. Excessive moisture can indicate a failed wall. What's excessive? Start scanning each one and you'll know.

I will scan the wall and add the results to the overall assessment. You will learn after scanning countless tiled enclosures which ones have ";normal" moisture, and which ones have saturated wallboard (green, blue, or regular wallboard, makes no difference).

I will gladly bring you (or any other inspector) on some ride-alongs if you're ever in Orlando. It's easier to see than to explain on a BB.

Dom.

Dom
I did not say "Excessive"

"I hate to jump back into this thread"
I understand.
There are likely some who agree with you,
and maybe even some who agree with me.
Either way, it is better for all if there is an understanding if not an agreement on this.

And thanks for the invite.
Will I be staying with you, or are you going to get me a room?

Below was added in edit
Dom
I misread your last post.
You are saying you report if there is excessive moisture, instead of just moisture.
Is that correct?

Maybe I missed it somewhere amongst the 62 previous posts on this thread, but can someone tell me the band and model # of this famed moisture meter being used. I wanna get one just to stir the pot!

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

Below was added in edit
Dom
I misread your last post.
You are saying you report if there is excessive moisture, instead of just moisture.
Is that correct?

" yes ".

(with qualifiers...)

Originally Posted by Greg Subick

Maybe I missed it somewhere amongst the 62 previous posts on this thread, but can someone tell me the band and model # of this famed moisture meter being used. I wanna get one just to stir the pot!

I do not know the brand but the model is:
BR549