Guest guest Posted July 21, 2011 Report Share Posted July 21, 2011 Re: Digest 3059 - 2a. Another CIH Story - 2d. Re: Another CIH Story Bob stated: " CIHs are supposed to have a code of ethics and a degree of professionalism in their work. " And " Ethics are irrelevant. All that counts is making money. The more money the more right/acceptable the behavior is. " So I have a couple questions, as I'm curious about a few things from others' perspective: 1. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (see i-iii below, and each case should be considered separately) to use a substandard certification or degree to imply they have a better set of credentials than the norm, e.g., Professional Industrial Hygienist (PIH) [requires no exam vs a CIH] or a PhD from a degree mill [one that is not accredited or lost accreditation]? Examples of that someone: i. Health Professional (credentialed or not) ii. CIH or PE iii. Contractor (mold, asbestos, haz waste, etc.) 2. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (i-iii above) to promote a product, process, book, paper, etc. where the person has a vested monetary interest without stating that interest when they recommend it in an open forum? Tony ....................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 Avon IN 46123 www.ph2llc.com off fax cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM) This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2011 Report Share Posted July 22, 2011 Tony,You bring up some excellent points. I also would like to know what others think about these questions.I see spellings of "Mold" as "Mould" from some people and I am sure that they do not understand the nuance(s) of the spellings. Yes, "mould" is the proper way to spell it (not just the european way), butit is spelled "mold" in the US because this is how it historically has been spelled. Spelling it "mould" just adds to confusion and unnecessary words. It is also so very uninteresting to debate this so please, nobody get into a debate about it (unless you can show the paper explaining it). I taught the difference at McCrone Research several years ago, and passed out the reference to hundreds of students. But still, it is a non-starter. But I divert.I watched and listened in horror at a meeting a couple of years ago when a moderator was holding up a somebodies self-published book and telling everyone to "please use this book". Mind you, it was not the person who wrote the self-published book, but it is another example of someone who is holding up as a standard (without peer review and full disclosure) and doesn't understand what they were asking people to do. Besides being completely conflicted as a moderator and pushing a product, this person didn't, and still doesn't, have a clue about what they are doing in the IAQ business.I have seen and read plenty of self-published books and pamphlets and find them 1) mostly with large gaps in logic, 2) short on facts, 3) large on orthographical errors, etc. Things a publisher and peer reviewing would eliminate.Some of these self-publishers even call themselves "Dr. so and so". What? Have we diluted the standards so much that we no longer can distinguish, or care about, credentials and real scholarship? Scholarship that is evaluated in the wide open. I think that the idea of scholarship is sometimes lost in discussions because people have strong opinion(s).I once had a court case where I had to evaluate a well known "Dr. XXX"'s data and writings. I had seen this person's mold work and heard them speak at one time and things did not add up. There were things that didn't make sense in the way they said things and how they presented data. I did some investigation and......... Degree (PhD) from a diploma mill in California (online university)! It al made sense to me then. It was easy to get that person's data thrown out of the case. But the damage had been done. Another ersatz credential in the IAQ industry had struck again.To answer your questions directly, and emphatically: "YIKES!" should resound through this group with the questions you have posed.Please no one on this list take my comments as elitist or in any way besmirching the IQ of anybody else. Let's address the questions directly.Lastly, I realize that this is a nascent industry and nobody was trained in the early years to do what they were being asked to do. Everyone came from a different walk of life to help answer questions in IAQ.What I think, Tony, you are asking are simple questions to address.Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (see i-iii below, and eachcase should be considered separately) to use a substandard certification ordegree to imply they have a better set of credentials than the norm, e.g.,Professional Industrial Hygienist (PIH) [requires no exam vs a CIH] or a PhDfrom a degree mill [one that is not accredited or lost accreditation]?ANSWER: It is at least disingenuous, if not downright dishonest to use these forms of credentials, specially without full disclosure.2. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (i-iii above) to promote aproduct, process, book, paper, etc. where the person has a vested monetaryinterest without stating that interest when they recommend it in an openforum?ANSWER: Absolutely unethical to do the forging. For instance, I no longer teach pollen and mold identification at the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology because I work for a commercial entity that identifies these things. The AAAAI decided to completely distance themselves from teachers that had any commercial interests in what they were teaching. This was after years of having to disclose those potential conflicts.Actually, the IAQA, and others have NO such disclaimers for speakers at meetings and symposia. They should.Lastly, while at McCrone Research, I gave away all published materials and photo CDs of pollen and mold, for 10 years. Because I had a commercial interest, that is teaching for a fee, I could not ethically justify selling any of it. I do note that my photo CD pictures are all over the web and in publications without credit to me. Is that ethical or even courteous? But I diverge again.Looking forward to direct comments addressing you two questions! Shane Re: Digest 3059 - 2a. Another CIH Story - 2d. Re: Another CIH Story Bob stated: "CIHs are supposed to have a code of ethics and a degree of professionalism in their work." And "Ethics are irrelevant. All that counts is making money. The more money the more right/acceptable the behavior is." So I have a couple questions, as I'm curious about a few things from others' perspective: 1. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (see i-iii below, and each case should be considered separately) to use a substandard certification or degree to imply they have a better set of credentials than the norm, e.g., Professional Industrial Hygienist (PIH) [requires no exam vs a CIH] or a PhD from a degree mill [one that is not accredited or lost accreditation]? Examples of that someone: i. Health Professional (credentialed or not) ii. CIH or PE iii. Contractor (mold, asbestos, haz waste, etc.) 2. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (i-iii above) to promote a product, process, book, paper, etc. where the person has a vested monetary interest without stating that interest when they recommend it in an open forum? Tony ....................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 Avon IN 46123 www.ph2llc.com off fax cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM) This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 Mr. Havics, Since you opened the door to specific questions regarding ethics, also carrying it beyond the boundaries of CIH behavior and questions, I have a few questions for you. Pertaining to a project (theoretical, of course) involving substantial microbial remediation in an occupied building where there are occupants known to have health issues, do you feel it is ethical for a Consultant to: 1. Staff a project manager position with someone totally inexperienced in microbial remediation who has no experience in performing as a project manager on a sizable job, replacing the person whose credentials were submitted to the Client for approval of qualifications for the PM role almost immediately subsequent to the project commencement? (The person whose credentials were submitted had significant experience and expertise in both contractor and consultant/PM roles and responsibilities over many years, including numerous similar projects). 2. Staff a microscopist position with responsibilities that include evaluating and making decisions pertaining to areas being suitable for reoccupancy, with someone who has zero experience as a microscopist, after only 4 days of "training"? 3. Fail to provide specific instructions to the initial PM regarding the expectations and requirements of the Consultant after specifically being asked to do so, then citing non-compliance with certain "policies" as reasons to replace them? 4. Immediately upon commencement of the project (actually the day BEFORE commencement), cut off all project related communications with the PM, and instead communicating solely with the person sent under the pretense of providing assistance to the PM in a technicians role (the same inexperienced individual who replaced the PM)? 5. Allowing the "tech" to overrule the PM and to establish site specific policies and procedures, including their insisting in performance of evaluation of the proper functioning of the contractor's equipment in a manner which was highly erroneous, resulting in two lost days for which the PM was blamed. 6. Allowing and supporting the "tech" to establish a policy that the PM was not permitted to communicate with the contractor regarding the contractor's procedures, including obvious deficiencies in establishing and maintaining industry standard pressure differentials between work areas and occupied areas. 7. Among other things, refusing to pay the PM (an amount in the tens of thousands of dollars) for the two weeks of time worked (extremely long hours and 6 day weeks) and for associated expenses, subsequent to the discharge of the PM, and holding funds previously due until the former PM signed a SECOND non-disclosure agreement. 8. Sanctioning the behavior of the "tech" in mutual efforts with the contractor in not disclosing to the PM, a concern expressed by the Client regarding the presence of visible surface particulates in an administrative area and the tech and contractor failing to take action to evaluate and identify the particulates and report the findings to the Client? 9. To finally terminate the PM (which had been obvious was going to happen due to the above described demeanor of the Consultant) because when the PM became aware of the concerns pertaining to the surface particulates, he DID take immediate action to evaluate and identify the particulates and DID report the results to the Client? (The particulates turned out to NOT be microbial in nature, which was confirmed by another tech (who really was a tech) who was also on site). Again, these concerns had not been addressed by the "tech" and the contractor for three days prior to the PM being made aware of the situation by the Client. Perhaps the most substantial absurdity is the fact that the above represents only a partial list of the atrocious behavior of this individual, who continues to perform in the industry under the guise, and behind s smokescreen of being a highly credentialed, well-respected and upstanding Consultant. On a comparative scale to the perceived ethical violations that you listed, how serious do you feel the above behavior is? On an ethical basis? A professional basis? A moral basis? A legal basis? If any, which provisions of the ABIH Code of Ethics do you feel may have been violated by this behavior, assuming that the Consultant involved is a CIH? Does the former PM (who had never worked for this Consultant before, therefore having no basis upon which to suspect anything other than that public persona of this Consultant was genuine) have an ethical responsibility to file an ethics violation report with ABIH? With any other authorities? To disclose and make known who this individual is to the profession, to the public, in order to warn others of the true nature of this individual so that they may be forewarned about the possible pitfalls of entering into any business relationship with them? I am most interested to receive the benefit of your perspectives on this, as you seem to have definite opinions on what may and may not constitute questionable ethical behavior. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Chuck Reaney CIH Bashing & Ethics Re: Digest 3059 - 2a. Another CIH Story - 2d. Re: Another CIH StoryBob stated:"CIHs are supposed to have a code of ethics and a degree of professionalismin their work."And"Ethics are irrelevant. All that counts is making money. The more moneythe moreright/acceptable the behavior is."So I have a couple questions, as I'm curious about a few things from others'perspective:1. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (see i-iii below, and eachcase should be considered separately) to use a substandard certification ordegree to imply they have a better set of credentials than the norm, e.g.,Professional Industrial Hygienist (PIH) [requires no exam vs a CIH] or a PhDfrom a degree mill [one that is not accredited or lost accreditation]?Examples of that someone:i. Health Professional (credentialed or not)ii. CIH or PEiii. Contractor (mold, asbestos, haz waste, etc.)2. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (i-iii above) to promote aproduct, process, book, paper, etc. where the person has a vested monetaryinterest without stating that interest when they recommend it in an openforum?Tony...................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 AvonIN 46123 www.ph2llc.com(317) 718-7020 off fax cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...anyconsultant can give you the other 10%(SM)This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may containlegally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only forthe individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are notthe addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, youare not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and anyattachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments(including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at. Delivery of this message and any attachments to any personother than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waiveconfidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only ofthe sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied ordistributed without this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2011 Report Share Posted July 27, 2011 To: Chuck in specific, and others in general.... Pertaining to Chuck’s “theoretical of course”....sounds like a very specific project with a very specific individual in mind. A “bad apple” indeed. No argument there. CIHs and Civil Engineers aside (since Wane continually seems to be continually denigrating all Civil Engineers as the scourge of the earth)... One can always find “bad apples” in any profession, be it CIHs, mechanical engineers, doctors, attorneys, accountants, etc. Even law enforcement is not immune to bad apples in their midst. For one to take an example of a bad apple and use it to denigrate a profession is without merit...that is, assuming the profession strives for excellence. This said, there is one profession in our society that fails miserably in the quest for excellence....politicians. I don’t care how it is spelled, in my opinion, politicians and puke, rhyme and are synonymous. But I digress. In my opinion, if 95% of the professionals within a profession are doing an admirable job, and 4% are trying but are stupid, and 1% are bad apples....that’s not too bad! It is admirable within the profession. While one may say, or hope, or argue, that the profession should have 100% stellar performance, I say to you....Dream on! Human nature is not that perfect and will never be 100% perfect. I challenge anyone to show me that greater than 1% of the CIH’s, engineers, doctors, attorneys, accountants, law enforcement, etc., are bad apple, turnips, turds, or whatever, and I will eat my hat (which, for purposes of this post, is a straw hat). I honestly believe that most professions are doing an admirable job of policing their profession; albeit, we all can find examples of bad apples...as Chuck has posted. Let’s not denigrate a profession solely due to a few bad apples or miss-applied opinions, it does the others striving for excellence no favors. For what it is worth, and wearing my straw hat.... Mr. Havics, Since you opened the door to specific questions regarding ethics, also carrying it beyond the boundaries of CIH behavior and questions, I have a few questions for you. Pertaining to a project (theoretical, of course) involving substantial microbial remediation in an occupied building where there are occupants known to have health issues, do you feel it is ethical for a Consultant to: 1. Staff a project manager position with someone totally inexperienced in microbial remediation who has no experience in performing as a project manager on a sizable job, replacing the person whose credentials were submitted to the Client for approval of qualifications for the PM role almost immediately subsequent to the project commencement? (The person whose credentials were submitted had significant experience and expertise in both contractor and consultant/PM roles and responsibilities over many years, including numerous similar projects). 2. Staff a microscopist position with responsibilities that include evaluating and making decisions pertaining to areas being suitable for reoccupancy, with someone who has zero experience as a microscopist, after only 4 days of " training " ? 3. Fail to provide specific instructions to the initial PM regarding the expectations and requirements of the Consultant after specifically being asked to do so, then citing non-compliance with certain " policies " as reasons to replace them? 4. Immediately upon commencement of the project (actually the day BEFORE commencement), cut off all project related communications with the PM, and instead communicating solely with the person sent under the pretense of providing assistance to the PM in a technicians role (the same inexperienced individual who replaced the PM)? 5. Allowing the " tech " to overrule the PM and to establish site specific policies and procedures, including their insisting in performance of evaluation of the proper functioning of the contractor's equipment in a manner which was highly erroneous, resulting in two lost days for which the PM was blamed. 6. Allowing and supporting the " tech " to establish a policy that the PM was not permitted to communicate with the contractor regarding the contractor's procedures, including obvious deficiencies in establishing and maintaining industry standard pressure differentials between work areas and occupied areas. 7. Among other things, refusing to pay the PM (an amount in the tens of thousands of dollars) for the two weeks of time worked (extremely long hours and 6 day weeks) and for associated expenses, subsequent to the discharge of the PM, and holding funds previously due until the former PM signed a SECOND non-disclosure agreement. 8. Sanctioning the behavior of the " tech " in mutual efforts with the contractor in not disclosing to the PM, a concern expressed by the Client regarding the presence of visible surface particulates in an administrative area and the tech and contractor failing to take action to evaluate and identify the particulates and report the findings to the Client? 9. To finally terminate the PM (which had been obvious was going to happen due to the above described demeanor of the Consultant) because when the PM became aware of the concerns pertaining to the surface particulates, he DID take immediate action to evaluate and identify the particulates and DID report the results to the Client? (The particulates turned out to NOT be microbial in nature, which was confirmed by another tech (who really was a tech) who was also on site). Again, these concerns had not been addressed by the " tech " and the contractor for three days prior to the PM being made aware of the situation by the Client. Perhaps the most substantial absurdity is the fact that the above represents only a partial list of the atrocious behavior of this individual, who continues to perform in the industry under the guise, and behind s smokescreen of being a highly credentialed, well-respected and upstanding Consultant. On a comparative scale to the perceived ethical violations that you listed, how serious do you feel the above behavior is? On an ethical basis? A professional basis? A moral basis? A legal basis? If any, which provisions of the ABIH Code of Ethics do you feel may have been violated by this behavior, assuming that the Consultant involved is a CIH? Does the former PM (who had never worked for this Consultant before, therefore having no basis upon which to suspect anything other than that public persona of this Consultant was genuine) have an ethical responsibility to file an ethics violation report with ABIH? With any other authorities? To disclose and make known who this individual is to the profession, to the public, in order to warn others of the true nature of this individual so that they may be forewarned about the possible pitfalls of entering into any business relationship with them? I am most interested to receive the benefit of your perspectives on this, as you seem to have definite opinions on what may and may not constitute questionable ethical behavior. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Chuck Reaney CIH Bashing & Ethics Re: Digest 3059 - 2a. Another CIH Story - 2d. Re: Another CIH Story Bob stated: " CIHs are supposed to have a code of ethics and a degree of professionalism in their work. " And " Ethics are irrelevant. All that counts is making money. The more money the more right/acceptable the behavior is. " So I have a couple questions, as I'm curious about a few things from others' perspective: 1. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (see i-iii below, and each case should be considered separately) to use a substandard certification or degree to imply they have a better set of credentials than the norm, e.g., Professional Industrial Hygienist (PIH) [requires no exam vs a CIH] or a PhD from a degree mill [one that is not accredited or lost accreditation]? Examples of that someone: i. Health Professional (credentialed or not) ii. CIH or PE iii. Contractor (mold, asbestos, haz waste, etc.) 2. Do ya'll find it unethical for someone (i-iii above) to promote a product, process, book, paper, etc. where the person has a vested monetary interest without stating that interest when they recommend it in an open forum? Tony ....................................................................... " Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE pH2, LLC 5250 E US 36, Suite 830 Avon IN 46123 www.ph2llc.com off fax cell 90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM) This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 What a bizarre comment! "CIHs and Civil Engineers aside (since Wane continually seems to be continually denigrating all Civil Engineers as the scourge of the earth)..." Continually? The scourge of the Earth? Continually? Really? As do you, , I have a problem with people pretending to be what they are not. I don't have a particular problem with civil engineers or agricultural engineers or any other type of engineer. The exception would be when they hide behind their "P.E.", claiming expertise in subject areas that lie outside the domain of their engineering discipline, or when the story of their academic path dodges and shifts depending on the facts presented. Wane <><><><><><><><><><><>Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIHDivision Manager, Senior Consultant MICHAELS ENGINEERINGSt. , La Crosse, Madison Phone Cell Fax mailto:wab@...On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?"- Graham Please see my LinkedIn Public Profile, here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wanebaker >> To: Chuck in specific, and others in general....> > Pertaining to Chuck¹s ³theoretical of course²....sounds like a very specific> project with a very specific individual in mind. A ³bad apple² indeed. No> argument there.> > CIHs and Civil Engineers aside (since Wane continually seems to be> continually denigrating all Civil Engineers as the scourge of the earth)...> > One can always find ³bad apples² in any profession, be it CIHs, mechanical> engineers, doctors, attorneys, accountants, etc. Even law enforcement is> not immune to bad apples in their midst. For one to take an example of a> bad apple and use it to denigrate a profession is without merit...that is,> assuming the profession strives for excellence. This said, there is one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Wane, others, This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere summary of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society. It concerns expertise and ability. I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited. How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the realm of the " engineer " . How is it that I can find and prove flaws in engineer's reports or opinion? I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the specifics, and am intelligent. As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue, the medical doctor who solves an engineering problem. It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a problem. Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted with someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing to do is simply prove them wrong. The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of those who merely claim to know what they are talking about! Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones confusing the public. How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by schooling? by initials after a last name? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Great questions, . I worked very hard to earn my licensure as an engineer, and perhaps harder in some ways to become a CIH. But based on your experience, whether it’s my credentials, those of Dr. Thrasher, or your own, apparently it’s all meaningless. So how does the public differentiate the pretenders from the real pros among us? I’m sincerely hoping that you have the answer. Wane <><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Senior Consultant MICHAELS ENGINEERING St. , La Crosse, Madison Phone Cell Fax mailto:wab@... On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com " To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun? " - Graham Please see my LinkedIn Public Profile, here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wanebaker Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics Posted by: " " scottarmour@... scottarmour@... Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:51 am (PDT) Wane, others, This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere summary of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society. It concerns expertise and ability. I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited. How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the realm of the " engineer " . How is it that I can find and prove flaws in engineer's reports or opinion? I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the specifics, and am intelligent. As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue, the medical doctor who solves an engineering problem. It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a problem. Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted with someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing to do is simply prove them wrong. The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of those who merely claim to know what they are talking about! Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones confusing the public. How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by schooling? by initials after a last name? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 The importance of the Bacteria in damp indoor environments has not been lost on all of us. A wonderful paper was published nearly 10 years ago on the inflammatory and cytotoxic potential of bacteria. Huttunen, K., et al (2003) “Production of Proinflammatory Mediators by Indoor Air Bacteria and Fungal Spores in Mouse and Human Cell Lines”, Environmental Health Perspectives, 111:85-92 In technical seminars presented to various groups beginning in 2005, here’s how I’ve summarized portions of their findings: Excerpts: (sorry, but these are copied and pasted directly from my powerpoint slides; I hope the formatting doesn’t get all dorked up.) “Currently it is not known which components of the microbial flora are most harmful to occupants of moldy buildings.” “Our working hypothesis is that bacteria…are also important in causing inflammatory and cytotoxic response.” The inflammatory potency decreased in the order: Pseudomonas fluorescens > Streptomyces californicus > Bacillus cereus > Stachybotrys chartarum > Aspergillus versicolor > Penicillium spinulosum The cytotoxic potency decreased in the order: Pseudomonas fluorescens > Stachybotrys chartarum > Streptomyces californicus > Aspergillus versicolor > Bacillus cereus > Penicillium spinulosum In summary: “…bacterial species need to be considered as causative agents for adverse inflammatory effects in water-damaged buildings.” Fascinating and critically important stuff! Wane <><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Senior Consultant MICHAELS ENGINEERING St. , La Crosse, Madison Phone Cell Fax mailto:wab@... On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com " To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun? " - Graham Please see my LinkedIn Public Profile, here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wanebaker Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics Posted by: " Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D. " toxicologist1@... Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:01 pm (PDT) Thank you Sharon. My messages are to open the eyes and minds to the role of Gram negative and positive bacteria in water damaged buildings. According to various officials at EPA and also Dr. Johanning, it is recognized that bacteria and their toxins have taken a back seat to mold and mycotoxins. The latest paper Taubel et al clearly points this out. In addition, Dr. Fisk and his group at Lawrence Livermore Lab have through meta-analysis and published papers clearly point to upper and lower respiratory infections occur in occupants of water-damaged buildings. All one has do is go to Pubmed and begin a literature search for one subject, e.g. bacterial and fungal secondary metabolites or water-damaged buildings and respiratory disease to open ones eyes and minds to the interactions that are probably occurring in these environments. We have much to learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Hi, all: I want just to correct one erroneous statement made here, that the AIHA Green Book 'is not an AIHA document, but a book by others that AIHA sells.' The Green Book is in fact an AIHA publication, solicited by the AIHA Board of Directors in 2003, and completed by the AIHA IEQ and Biosafety Committees in 2008 with assistance from over 50 world renowned experts in this field who spupplied chapters and reviewed the text. The book is published by AIHA, and the BOD approved it before it was published. There is no question that it is an AIHA publication, with full AIHA approval. This book was recognized by the AIHA Publications Committee in 2008 as a 'Best Seller', an annual AIHA Publications Award. As one of the editors of the book along with Dr. and Brad Prezant, I fully am aware of the 'bashing' that this book has sometimes taken in the past and the present. I accept that others may have different opinions than the ones expressed in the book. However, this disagreement with the book is not the same as saying that this is not an AIHA document. This is not correct. Don > > > Wane, others, > > This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere summary of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society. > > It concerns expertise and ability. > > I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited. > > How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the realm of the " engineer " . How is it that I can find and prove flaws in engineer's reports or opinion? > > I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the specifics, and am intelligent. > > As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue, the medical doctor who solves an engineering problem. > > It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a problem. > > Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted with someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing to do is simply prove them wrong. > > The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of those who merely claim to know what they are talking about! > > Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones confusing the public. > > How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by schooling? by initials after a last name? > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Dr. Thrasher I am celebrating (bemoaning) my 40th year as a residential and commercial builder and I am a past President of two separate NAHB chapters. I wish I had a dollar for every mold presentation that I have endured and a nickle for every time I hear an industry " expert " talk about toxigenic black mold. I think I could retire... Through the years, I have spoken with several noted toxicologists about the true dangers associated with mold damaged buildings. Most seem to downplay the whole toxic/pathogenic discussion. However, you are the second professional witness type that seems to exasperate the potential dangers. I have been through hundreds of HUD and Section 8 properties. I have yet to find too many that were not filthy and/or water and mold damaged. I have been in hundreds of water and mold damaged office buildings. But what I do not see a lot of are health complaints beyond eye, nose, and throat irritation. My question is, if mold and bacteria exposure was so potentially dangerous, why are we not seeing more medical cases? Are really sick people who are exposed to these conditions only kidding themselves that they are healthy? Or are our doctors that ignorant not to be able to see someone is really sick? There just does not seem to be much correlation between exposure and medical diagnosis. Or to be more blunt, where the are all the bodies? Thanks, Will > > > ** > > > > > > ** > > Jack, I sincerely apologize to you that I suggested you join this board > > made up of professional IAQ " good guys " to help others become more aware > > and > > to be able to discuss that bacteria also appears to be playing a role in > > the > > synergistic causes of illness from WDB. I am sorry if this aided to cause > > gossip mongering. > > > > Some seem baffled as to what causes the ACOEM mold statement to still be > > able to be used by the defense in mold litigation -- when it has been > > scientifically discredited many times over, including by the Federal GAO > > and > > WHO. > > > > A large part of the answer is, " they " don't need to trash the " good > > guys " to continue to sell doubt of causation when the " good guys " will do > > it > > for them. > > > > C'mon guys! Attack a thought. Attack a concept. Prove your point. > > Unless > > you can PROVE motivation is dishonorable and words are known to be > > false; don't attack each others' character or assume and assign motivation > > for the other person's words. > > > > You are killin' us by aiding doubt of causation of illness from WDB to be > > able to flourish by character assassinating each other -- who are on the > > same side of trying to advance the science. > > > > Cut it out, guys. No matter what kind of degree one may or may not have, > > gossip is hurtful and harms us all. > > > > WR, > > Sharon > > > > > > In a message dated 8/10/2011 9:42:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > toxicologist1@... writes: > > > > : very appropriate. Apparently there are certain individuals who > > would > > rather bash than seek the truth. > > Below is an example of what I am referring to > > > > I have tried to communicate with Jack before in another forum. I am trying > > to get him to actually be scientific. I totally resent his academic > > bullying > > tactics and responses that amount to " look it up for yourself " . > > > > I am 'guessing' that he isn't getting paid to provide information or do > > research and therefore, figures listees are capable of doing their own > > research....as when you testify, as you know, you have to have the science > > behind your statements??? > > > > He won't/can't answer a direct question. Even though he works for the > > " good > > > > guys " , I view him as a plaintiff expert blowhard. He is a big phony in my > > book. > > > > Trust me he is so far removed from being a phony you have no idea. HE is > > the real deal in every aspect. > > > > Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D. > > Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist > > www.drthrasher.org > > toxicologist1@... > > > > Cell: > > > > Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC > > Trauma Specialist > > sandracrawley@... > > > > - Cell > > > > This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered > > privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this > > message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is strictly > > prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of this > > message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. If > > you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to > > advise > > > > the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any > > copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance. > > > > Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics > > > > Wane, others, > > This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere > > summary > > of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society. > > It concerns expertise and ability. > > I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited. > > How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the realm > > of > > the " engineer " . How is it that I can find and prove flaws in engineer's > > reports or opinion? > > I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the specifics, > > and > > > > am intelligent. > > As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue, the > > medical doctor who solves an engineering problem. > > It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a problem. > > Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted with > > someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing to do > > is simply prove them wrong. > > The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of those > > who > > > > merely claim to know what they are talking about! > > Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones > > confusing > > > > the public. > > How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by schooling? by > > initials after a last name? > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sincerely, > Bob Hawley, CEICC, CIEC, CMC, CMCA, CSDS, CMRS, CETC, CSL (MA), ADI-II > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------------------- > Environmental AirTechs > IAQ Consulting/Investigations Dept. > Southwick Massachusetts 01077 > email: Bob@... > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Dr. Thrasher: Thank you for your reply and the links. If I understand you correctly, the mortality number of those exposed to water and mold damage building is lost within background noise - i.e. natural death rates. And the number of documented building related illnesses cases is also measurably insignificant. This falls within many of the informal studies that have been conducted within the building owners and property managers community. This group is a very large cross section of commercial and multi-family building owners and managers across the nation. The data collected does not support a sky is falling attitude towards water damaged buildings and diagnosable illnesses. In fact, there have been very few cases through the years that were linked to building exposure. And many investigators questioned the links. While I certainly do not discount the research and I certainly believe people can become quite sick living in filth, I only see few instances where otherwise healthy people have become chronically ill directly related from workplace exposure. (Radon and industrial toxin and chemical exposure being the exception). Are we on the same page? Will > > > > > ** > > > > > > > > > ** > > > Jack, I sincerely apologize to you that I suggested you join this board > > > made up of professional IAQ " good guys " to help others become more aware > > > and > > > to be able to discuss that bacteria also appears to be playing a role in > > > the > > > synergistic causes of illness from WDB. I am sorry if this aided to > > > cause > > > gossip mongering. > > > > > > Some seem baffled as to what causes the ACOEM mold statement to still be > > > able to be used by the defense in mold litigation -- when it has been > > > scientifically discredited many times over, including by the Federal GAO > > > and > > > WHO. > > > > > > A large part of the answer is, " they " don't need to trash the " good > > > guys " to continue to sell doubt of causation when the " good guys " will > > > do > > > it > > > for them. > > > > > > C'mon guys! Attack a thought. Attack a concept. Prove your point. > > > Unless > > > you can PROVE motivation is dishonorable and words are known to be > > > false; don't attack each others' character or assume and assign > > > motivation > > > for the other person's words. > > > > > > You are killin' us by aiding doubt of causation of illness from WDB to > > > be > > > able to flourish by character assassinating each other -- who are on the > > > same side of trying to advance the science. > > > > > > Cut it out, guys. No matter what kind of degree one may or may not > > > have, > > > gossip is hurtful and harms us all. > > > > > > WR, > > > Sharon > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 8/10/2011 9:42:07 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > > > toxicologist1@ writes: > > > > > > : very appropriate. Apparently there are certain individuals who > > > would > > > rather bash than seek the truth. > > > Below is an example of what I am referring to > > > > > > I have tried to communicate with Jack before in another forum. I am > > > trying > > > to get him to actually be scientific. I totally resent his academic > > > bullying > > > tactics and responses that amount to " look it up for yourself " . > > > > > > I am 'guessing' that he isn't getting paid to provide information or do > > > research and therefore, figures listees are capable of doing their own > > > research....as when you testify, as you know, you have to have the > > > science > > > behind your statements??? > > > > > > He won't/can't answer a direct question. Even though he works for the > > > " good > > > > > > guys " , I view him as a plaintiff expert blowhard. He is a big phony in > > > my > > > book. > > > > > > Trust me he is so far removed from being a phony you have no idea. HE is > > > the real deal in every aspect. > > > > > > Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Ph.D. > > > Toxicologist/Immunotoxicologist/Fetaltoxicologist > > > www.drthrasher.org > > > toxicologist1@ > > > > > > Cell: > > > > > > Lee Crawley, M.ED., LADC > > > Trauma Specialist > > > sandracrawley@ > > > > > > - Cell > > > > > > This message and any attachments forwarded with it is to be considered > > > privileged and confidential. The forwarding or redistribution of this > > > message (and any attachments) without my prior written consent is > > > strictly > > > prohibited and may violate privacy laws. Once the intended purpose of > > > this > > > message has been served, please destroy the original message contents. > > > If > > > you have received this message in error, please reply immediately to > > > advise > > > > > > the sender of the miscommunication and then delete the message and any > > > copies you have printed. Thank you in advance for your compliance. > > > > > > Re: CIH Bashing & Ethics > > > > > > Wane, others, > > > This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere > > > summary > > > of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society. > > > It concerns expertise and ability. > > > I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited. > > > How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the > > > realm > > > of > > > the " engineer " . How is it that I can find and prove flaws in engineer's > > > reports or opinion? > > > I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the specifics, > > > and > > > > > > am intelligent. > > > As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue, the > > > medical doctor who solves an engineering problem. > > > It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a problem. > > > Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted with > > > someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing to > > > do > > > is simply prove them wrong. > > > The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of those > > > who > > > > > > merely claim to know what they are talking about! > > > Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones > > > confusing > > > > > > the public. > > > How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by schooling? > > > by > > > initials after a last name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sincerely, > > Bob Hawley, CEICC, CIEC, CMC, CMCA, CSDS, CMRS, CETC, CSL (MA), ADI-II > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ --------------------- > > Environmental AirTechs > > IAQ Consulting/Investigations Dept. > > Southwick Massachusetts 01077 > > email: Bob@ > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Hi, Bob: Sorry to have to correct you again, but the Green Book was a book solicited by the AIHA Board of Directors to the IEQ and Biosafety Committees, requesting that these AIHA Committees direct their resources and personnel to writing and editting this book. Therefore, it is indeed the work of the members of these two Committees with the support and contributions of other well known scientists and practitioners in the fields of microbiology, mycology, industrial hygiene, and aerobiology. Sure, 'anyone can submit their book to AIHA to publish.' But most of these books are not published by AIHA. Most are rejected by the Publications Committee with the technical review assistance of the Technical Committees of AIHA. In general, these books are not considered to be up to the high standards set by AIHA for its publications. When AIHA published a book, it is considered to be an AIHA publication, through and through. The Green Book was indeed 'different' in that the Board of Directors directly solicited this publication from two of AIHA's Technical Committees. The usual practice is that a Committee will submit a publication for consideration of the Board of Directors and the Publications Committee. That is why you see the headings you listed below on other publications. In this case, the book was edited by three individuals (, Weekes, and Prezant), but the authorship was split by Section and Chapter, as listed at the beginning of each of the eighteen Sections. Many of these authors are members of the two AIHA Technical Committees. The Green Book's content was first reviewed by an outside group of experts, then reviewed internally by the members of the two Committees, reviewed by a Technical Editor, reviewed by the members of the Publications Committee, and then reviewed and approved by the AIHA Board of Directors. This was indeed a long and arduous process that took over five years to complete. It resulted in an AIHA publication that has been in the Top Ten AIHA publications for the past three years. Bob: I am not sure what is your point in this matter. This book is an AIHA publication as written and editted by members of the two AIHA Technical Committees with other experts in the field, as solicited by the AIHA BOD. That really should put to rest whether or not the Green Book is an AIHA publication, as stated on its cover. Don > > > > > > > Wane, others, > > > > This discussion has troubled me for some time. It actually is a mere summary of the problem throughout our industry, ney, our society. > > > > It concerns expertise and ability. > > > > I am not an engineer, neither trained nor schooled nor accredited. > > > > How is it then that I often can provide solutions that are from the realm of the " engineer " . How is it that I can find and prove flaws in engineer's reports or opinion? > > > > I have experience, knowledge of the basics, knowledge of the specifics, and am intelligent. > > > > As are many others. The civil engineer who solves a health issue, the medical doctor who solves an engineering problem. > > > > It doesn't require credentialed or Labeled expertise to solve a problem. > > > > Of course, the argument gets difficult when I am the one confronted with someone not of my ilk claiming to know better than I! The easy thing to do is simply prove them wrong. > > > > The real problem is the arrogance, the audacity, the pretense, of those who merely claim to know what they are talking about! > > > > Those are the people that are the true problem, they are the ones confusing the public. > > > > How does one find the truth? By accreditation? by label? by schooling? by initials after a last name? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.