Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2006 Report Share Posted January 21, 2006 Wow THANKS very much! This is really helpful, I appreciate the time you took to make it clear. So glad it helped someone else here too. angie -- Sick Librarian at dot Com http://pagewebberink.com/~angie/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.