Re: Re: building scientist?

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for your kind words. Let me know if it helps with the

contractor.

Carl

-----

> Thank you so much for this long, complete answer, I am both saving it

> to disk and paper copies- one to my sister- who is on medical leave

> for " stress " - another copy to my contractor- who says mold is

> everywhere- what can he do about it? I appreciate your imput

> immensley-- - In , " Carl E. Grimes "

> <grimes@h...> wrote: > > Angie, > > Short simple questions but they

> require some development to answer. > First some history and then

> explanation, in condensed layman terms. > > Building science is

> relatively new, especially within the past 5-6 > years or so. When man

> first sought shelter from the elements, he used > existing structures

> such as caves. Later he intentionally created a > " built structure, "

> which he later called a house. Built structures > for centuries have

> been designed and created with a variety of > philosophies, styles and

> materials as the available information, > needs and culture changed. >

> > We got pretty good at keeping the outdoors outside and the indoors >

> inside, reaching a peak of efficiency in the 70s. And that's when we >

> began noticing some problems that were inadvertantly caused by the >

> way houses were designed and built, the materials used, and even >

> where they were built. How to control moisture in Florida, for >

> example, is almost the opposite of how to controls it in Nevada. But >

> houses are just now beginning to be built according to climate. It is

> > the building scientists that are doing this type of work. See >

> www.buildingscience.com > > One of their concepts is that a " built

> structure " is a seperator > between the inside and the outside,

> especially for moisture. At the > same time, we don't want buildings

> to collect, accumulate and > condense moisture generated inside from

> our respiraton, cooking, > taking showers, etc. So when I do

> inspections and assessments, that > is one of several things I check.

> > > They also developed the concept that a " built structure, " while

> not > alive, isn't inert either. It has many characteristics of an >

> organism. The various systems that make up a " built structure " affect

> > each other. They should be designed, installed and maintained to

> stay > in " balance. " > > Moisture and mold problems are, in a sense,

> direct evidence that the > system is broken. The seperator isn't

> functioning properly to keep > the indoors a place where people thrive

> but mold, insects and vermin > don't. The ecology of the built

> structure has shifted away from human > habitation to one of pest

> habitation. > > As buildings become more intentionally designed, like

> those with > green building certifications or the EPA Energy Star, it

> will be > critical for inspectors to know what the intentional system

> of each > structure is so they can properly diagnose the problems and

> prescribe > a fix that doesn't break the system. This in one of

> several reasons > why current mold inspection and remediation

> practices aren't always > successful. Inspectors and remediators

> either don't understand the > system or they break it. When it's

> broken it disturbs our quiet > enjoyment. > > The history of

> industrial hygiene is much older than building science > and it was

> created only for the industrial workplace. The industrial > hygienist,

> at least in theory (but in fact for a Certified Industrial > Hygienist

> or CIH) is educated and trained to understand the issues > of the

> industrial workplace so people don't get hurt or sick on the > job and

> to analyze causes when they do. > > They have become quite good and

> very sophisticated at their > profession. Especially the ones that

> have been board certified by the > American Board of Industrial

> Hygiene (ABIH); receiving the > designation of Certified Industrial

> Hygienist (CIH). > > They have a code of ethics that says they do not

> practice, as a CIH, > outside of their expertise. That expertise is

> defined by the > knowledge base and exam required to become a CIH. It

> does not include > mold or non-industrial environments. > > They can

> do other work, like residential and mold, but while they > present

> themselves as a CIH. They should specify, according to their > code of

> ethics, that their residential and mold work, for example, is > being

> conducted under other training and experience and not as a CIH. > >

> Where do they get it? Until this month, the only training available >

> was by trade associations that wasn't necessarily good science or >

> good business. Many of the " certifications " could be purchased over >

> the Web for a fee without any training. So the CIHs can't be totally >

> faulted for violating their code of ethics. At least they had a >

> bacground of a credible education and board certification and wanted >

> to help. > > Note: Industrial hygienists (IH), on the other hand,

> are not CIHs and > anybody can claim to be one. Even you! They

> may not have any training > other than by the manufacturer of the

> ozonator, air filter or > chemicals they sell. They may be honest

> but they do not understand > the whole of the indoor

> environmental " system " and are usually not > aware of their

> limitations. (A key indicator of being educated rather > then

> just trained). There are some good IHs, but they are hard to >

> find. > > This is becoming a serious concern of the professional

> organization > for CIHs, the American Industrial Hygiene Association

> (AIHA). Right > now there is no remedy. We need their expertise but

> many don't have > appropriate training. The office, school and

> residential indoors > present a very different set of circumstances,

> methods and meaning > than industrial, and the standard procedures of

> the CIH don't > transfer well at all. The Foreword to the Bioaerosols

> book by ACGIH > clearly acknowledges this and offers a mea culpa. The

> direct > statement includes the phrase " we were wrong. " > > However,

> the recent unification of the IAQA, AmIAQ and IESO that I've >

> previously talked about holds some promise. The AmIAQ branch will be >

> an independent certification board, following the same accreditation >

> requirements (CESB) that is used for a CIH. HOWEVER, these >

> certifications will be for the non-industrial indoor environment, not

> > the industrial one. > > Training for the non-industrial indoors will

> be conducted by the > IAQA. Standards for the indoor environment will

> be written by IESO > with ANSI accreditation. > > Hopefully, to me

> anyway, those that want to work in the industrial > environments can

> become a CIH and those that want to work in the > home, school, office

> indoor environments can become a CIEC. Those > that want to work in

> both can have both. > > Now, the last question: " what is a limited

> fungal study. " > > This is both an brutally honest statement and also

> a sophisticated > way to CYA in case we miss something. Which we will

> because no one > has figured out just what a partial fungal study

> should investigate > and how to do it, let alone a " complete " one.

> Compare a " fungal > study " to a " health exam " by your doctor. There is

> no single test for > " health. " It depends on so many factors, most of

> which are unique to > that specific indivdual. > > Another way of

> understanding a " fungal study " is to compare it to > what the IHs and

> CIHs do in the industrial workplace. They identify a > suspected

> exposure based on building history, use, activities, > chemicals in

> use, etc etc and then test for that chemical or a family > of similar

> chemicals, for example, out of the 90,000 or so > possibilites. They

> don't test for " all chemicals " and there isn't one > anyway. Then they

> compare their results to a regulation or a law (a > few hundred of the

> 90,000+) and make a determination on whether or > not the permissible

> level is violated. > > Mold is very different. There are over 1.5

> million fungal species > (including the macro-fungi like mushrooms),

> about 120,000 of which > are micro-fungi (too small to see like mold).

> > > Visible mold is an oxymoron. By definition, mold is a micro-fungi,

> > too small to see. However, if it germinates and begins growing into

> a > " plant " called a colony, it MAY eventually get big enough to see.

> > Colonies are " mold growth " which is what many commonly equate with >

> " mold. " The problem is that if they can't see it then they believe it

> > doesn't exist. Actually, there can be zillions and zillions of >

> colonies (I know, I shouldn't exagerate!) none of which are visible. >

> > We don't have specific tests for specific species. > > NOTE: A

> process called PCR can do this but isn't widely used yet, it > is

> limited to which ones it can identify and it can't tell us how >

> much. > > **And there are absolutely no permisible exposure levels for

> mold** > > NYC and ACGIH published some suggestions in the early 90s

> but > withdrew them all by the mid 90s. Too many errors in

> collection, > analyzing and interpretation. Even if they had solid

> data, they don't > know what it means because each person is so

> different. The types of > effects (allergic, toxic, irritation, etc)

> are varied and the > reaction of the individual changes.

> Sensitization, for example, does > not follow the traditional Bell

> curve, which is the basis for almost > all of industrial hygiene. > >

> Finally, a limited fungal study usually uses a simplified collection >

> technique or techniques, maybe only air or only surface, and only one

> > or two types of growth media for culturable samples. Each growth >

> media will grow different molds. > > What a fungal study, limited or

> comprehensive, is NOT is an " exposure > study. " It only states what it

> finds with that technique in that > location at that time. It says

> absolutely nothing about your > exposure. > > Hey angie, next time ask

> a long, complicated question that can be > answered in one or two

> words, like " yes " or " no. " ;-) > > Carl Grimes > Healthy Habitats LLC

> > > ----- > > Hey Carl - What is a building scientist and how is that

> diff. than an > > industrial hygenist? Also, whats a limited fungal

> study? Thanks - > > angie >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAIR USE NOTICE:

>

>

>