Re: AIHA and the CIH

[Guest guest]

I joined the AIHA a few years ago for one main reason, to get E & O

insurance. AIHA is an old, large, powerful association. I also buy

books and other publications through AIHA. I'm not a CIH and one

does not need to be to join. But the AIHA really shocked me. I did

not expect the association to lobby individual States to draft

exclusionistic CIH-favoring language into mold legislation.

The AIHA has fostered the misrepresentation that for mold, one

really should hire a CIH. And some individuals seem to believe

this, probably due to self-interests, or self-importance.

Granted, the proliferation of quick and dirty certifications for

mold is as disgusting as it is damaging, and as American as the Pet

Rock. And those on this list who have posted opinions that a CIH

certificate is about the best certificate for mold consulting are

right. But only to the extent that there really are no professional

organizations that are offering true professional-level

certification for the mold industry. Therefore, isn't the CIH the

only certificate that comes close?

I must point out that a consumer has more choices than to choose

between a 3-Day Wonder and a CIH. They actually must choose between

an experienced investigator with a proven track record versus a

slick sales pitch puffed up with fancy initials and poorly

understood certifications. And this could include the CIH

certificate.

Most of the CIH's I've worked with are excellent at what they do.

Although I have observed they don't walk in lock-step. The range of

beliefs regarding the hazards of mold is just as wide among CIH's as

among the rest of the environmental consulting professions. Why?

Could this be due to differing levels of training or knowledge?

It's simply incorrect to assume the CIH has an intrinsic level of

experience and skill that is unique to CIH's; when in fact they are

all over the board in those regards, just like everyone else,

although they do have a relatively high baseline. And this baseline

should not be overlooked. Just how useful is the CIH baseline to

certain specific areas of practice such as mold in indoor

environments?

Please, consider how many other professions include the biological

sciences, evaluating environments in relation to human health, and

give a significant variety of enriching experience in investigative

processes to the participants. Let's make a list of all the

professions that have a place in evaluating structures for mold

problems. Could the list fit on one page?

What does the CIH certificate guarantee a consumer and how does that

relate to a guarantee about the skill set needed for biologicals?

So why, why, why is the AIHA point of view (or lobbying efforts) so

exclusionistic in favor of the CIH certificate? Hasn't the AIHA

turned its back on all its non-CIH members? Can anyone with insight

answer this?

Gerber

[Guest guest]

OK, let's drop the " great CIH debate " and focus for a moment on a few

of the larger issues. I agree with much you've offered, Mr. Tibbs,

but would also ask this group to consider the following:

1. Certainly, having been with NASA means nothing when it comes to

this type of work. Sounds impressive, probably looks good on a

resume, but really means zilch.

2. Current studies of " building science " generally define it as an

amalgam of engineering and architecture. A true building scientist

understands not only the practical aspects of current (and historic)

construction methods, but is also able to apply the theories of heat

and mass transfer -- and other engineering concepts -- to the

resultant structure. (A firm understanding of building science forms

the basis of my work as an expert witness in construction defect

litigation on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants.)

3. A qualified building scientist has a full command of

psychrometrics as it oftentimes drives the moisture problems that

result in microbial proliferation.

Here are a couple of good questions to ask someone who claims to be a

building scientist: " What are the differences between specific

humidity, humidity ratio and absolute humidity? " and similarly: " In

what units are these metrics expressed? " A truly qualified building

scientist will know the answers without hesitation because moisture

in construction is so critically important.

4. Rather than simply gross numbers of projects, an equally important

indicator of experience may be the square footage of facilities one

has investigated. Conducting some type of assessment of several

thousand 1200 sq ft single family homes wouldn't mean a lot when

asked to investigate a 30-story hotel or 750,000 sq ft technical

college building.

I can't say that I've had 4000 projects/clients (that's one complete

project every other working day for 30 years; no vacations, no sick

days, no time off) nor would I like to (Hhhmmm, sounds an awful lot

like home inspections). I'd much rather have repeat business with

the same select few clients, and the challenge of tackling complex

projects that can take weeks to complete. That's why my signature

block includes the Graham quote.

5. Very few clients can afford a team of experts, so it's vitally

important to be a " technical generalist " in this line of work.

Structural, masonry and light frame construction experience; a

command of HVAC/R system design, construction and operation;

knowledge of heat and mass transfer – they're all important. And if

you decide it's also important to gather samples as an indicator of

occupant exposure to chemical, microbial or physical agents, the most

qualified professional will be the industrial hygienist on your

team.

So perhaps I've come full circle: hygienists became involved in this

field, and rightfully so, when the issues focused on human health

effects, routes of exposure, sampling protocols, working with

analytical labs, and developing a meaningful interpretation of the

lab data. That's what IHs have been doing for scores of years.

6. Most consumers, and especially home owners, do NOT know the

difference between one self-proclaimed expert and the next. They

rely A GREAT DEAL on official-sounding certifications and the

peculiar initials after one's name. And let's face it, a " certified

mold investigator " really sounds good when you have mold and you want

to hire someone that's " certified " .

Heck, a " certified residential hygienist " just HAS TO BE better when

working in a residential setting than a " certified industrial

hygienist " , right? Why would I want to invite an INDUSTRIAL

hygienist into my RESIDENTIAL situation? That's the line of

reasoning being applied by blue collar " Joes " and pinstripe " phs "

every day. We've all seen it....

This continuing debate actually has very little to do with ego. It's

far more a matter of striving for accurate representation when

describing the types of services that a given professional (or

technician or whatever) is capable of providing.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH, RPIH

Director, Air Quality Services

" Bad air gets you down "

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

PO Box 2377

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484

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

> The CIH debate seems to go on and on. I have the greatest respect

> for CIH's and have worked with many. In the dabate over the

> expertise of a CIH, I have worked with some very experienced CIH's

> from NASA, etc. that admittedly have no experience with mold

issues.

> I have also worked with CIH's that have little, if any

understanding

> of building science or HVAC systems. This is why I believe that a

> multi-disciplined team of experts work best when IAQ problems

> arise.I personally believe, after performing over 4000 projects

> involving construction defects, building science, environmental

> issues and mold that ego is what drives many of these

conversations.

> The best way to judge who is best for a particular circumstance,

one

> should first look at the project and second, look at the success

> rate of the technician. Having over 4000 past clients and having

> never been litigated against speaks for itself. I am not a CIH, but

> I have been involved in building, IAQ, building management, HVAC

> system diagnosis for almost 30 years. I believe the best in the

> field are those professionals that understand the problem and

> understand their own limitations. Most consumers are intelligent

> enough not to judge a professional by the letters after their name.

> Experience and success rate are the best barometers of performance.

> Especially in new fields such as mold. I personally think that the

> mold problem was selectively inherited by the IH community when in

> reality, it is a building science and construction defect issue.

>

> jmho

>

> Al Tibbs, CIAQT

[Guest guest]

I have been a non CIH member of the AIHA since 1999. Their offices

are near Washington DC in Fairfax County, VA. I can tell you the

Washington DC area has many CIHs. It always amazed me how very few

of them would give mold the time of day. They had other areas of

interest like ergonomics or reviewing MSDSs for anything

questionable.

I went to some of the local AIHA chapter dinners. I remember one in

particular where asthma was the focus (2001?). Never once did the

AAAI nurse say one word about mold as a trigger for asthma (even

though the EPA had this fact on their website). There were less than

5 in the crowd who had done any sampling and only 2 who were known

for IAQ investigations. The other side of the coin is these

professionals network and learn.

So, I have mixed emotions with this organization. On one hand, they

have insulted me (the non CIH). I think CIHs and anyone elso for

that matter should have to pass a closed book test and get E & O

insurance.

If I feel I'm involved with a situation out of my area of knowledge,

I refer customers to that type of person. I don't claim to sample

for chemicals. I refere customers to a CIH I have known since 1998.

He has stated most of his peers are not interested in mold as an IAQ

issue. This is how he gets his business.

On the other hand, they have networking for continuing education and

professional development. This means they should know more so they

can pass a closed book test. No pass; No play (its a Texas thing).

I am waiting to see if the AIHA is going to become pawns for special

interests groups headed by the veil of defense knowledge

called " Global Tox " .

Before anyone gets mad, you need to get some items very clear:

1) The home is the biggest investment made by the average person in

America during his or her lifetime.

2) New home sales are a leading economic indicator for America.

3) Homes are built with materials that support growth more than

buildings. The jobs have lower budgets and require more time with

customers.

4) Office Buildings are easy since they are built better with steel

and stone. Remove the wallboard, ceiling tiles and carpet - just like

they do with new tenants. Call a PE with HVAC experience like Wane

Baker to correct the HVAC.

5) I defy anyone to show me any metropolitan area where more than 5

to 10 CIH's will investigate homes themselves. If this has changed,

how many of them have more than 1 year of investigations under their

belts and will still investigate homes? Of that very few, how many

get good results (end complaints by solving the problem)?

How are the very few going to tackle such a large problem? Why do we

waste out time with putting a CIH on a pedestal? They can't handle

the load. But, we could do the American thing. We could exclude homes

from the awful rules requiring a CIH so American families can go

bankrupt with their dream homes and their children can go work for

Mcs rather than go to college. Look at your IRC & IBC building

codes for historical precedents for exclusions. The office buildings

will be saved by the CIHs.

I could end my AIHA membership in protest (like the French). I won't

do this because I don't have eggs, flour and rotten produce to throw

at the AIHA. I would rather stick around and go to a conference one

day to ask some very embarassing questions among the peers. My first

one would be, " Why do you only work for insurance companies or office

buildings " ?

" Go on, take the money and run, oh yeah......... "

Regards,

Greg Weatherman, CRP

" certified rational person "

Aerobiological Solutions Inc.

Arlington VA 22202

gw@...

**************************************************

> I joined the AIHA a few years ago for one main reason, to get E & O

> insurance. AIHA is an old, large, powerful association. I also

buy

> books and other publications through AIHA. I'm not a CIH and one

> does not need to be to join. But the AIHA really shocked me. I

did

> not expect the association to lobby individual States to draft

> exclusionistic CIH-favoring language into mold legislation.

>

> The AIHA has fostered the misrepresentation that for mold, one

> really should hire a CIH. And some individuals seem to believe

> this, probably due to self-interests, or self-importance.

>

> Granted, the proliferation of quick and dirty certifications for

> mold is as disgusting as it is damaging, and as American as the Pet

> Rock. And those on this list who have posted opinions that a CIH

> certificate is about the best certificate for mold consulting are

> right. But only to the extent that there really are no

professional

> organizations that are offering true professional-level

> certification for the mold industry. Therefore, isn't the CIH the

> only certificate that comes close?

>

> I must point out that a consumer has more choices than to choose

> between a 3-Day Wonder and a CIH. They actually must choose

between

> an experienced investigator with a proven track record versus a

> slick sales pitch puffed up with fancy initials and poorly

> understood certifications. And this could include the CIH

> certificate.

>

> Most of the CIH's I've worked with are excellent at what they do.

> Although I have observed they don't walk in lock-step. The range

of

> beliefs regarding the hazards of mold is just as wide among CIH's

as

> among the rest of the environmental consulting professions. Why?

> Could this be due to differing levels of training or knowledge?

>

> It's simply incorrect to assume the CIH has an intrinsic level of

> experience and skill that is unique to CIH's; when in fact they are

> all over the board in those regards, just like everyone else,

> although they do have a relatively high baseline. And this

baseline

> should not be overlooked. Just how useful is the CIH baseline to

> certain specific areas of practice such as mold in indoor

> environments?

>

> Please, consider how many other professions include the biological

> sciences, evaluating environments in relation to human health, and

> give a significant variety of enriching experience in investigative

> processes to the participants. Let's make a list of all the

> professions that have a place in evaluating structures for mold

> problems. Could the list fit on one page?

>

> What does the CIH certificate guarantee a consumer and how does

that

> relate to a guarantee about the skill set needed for biologicals?

>

> So why, why, why is the AIHA point of view (or lobbying efforts) so

> exclusionistic in favor of the CIH certificate? Hasn't the AIHA

> turned its back on all its non-CIH members? Can anyone with

insight

> answer this?

>

> Gerber

[Guest guest]

Dear Group,

I am not sure I have a ton of insight on this but I would like to take a stab at Mr. Gerber's question. If what says is true,

So why, why, why is the AIHA point of view (or lobbying efforts) so exclusionistic in favor of the CIH certificate?

If AIHA is into lobbying, then they obviously have some political affiliates, interests and motivations. If AIHA and there affiliates, can show the importance of CIHs then JUST CIHs will generally get the large government contracts to "remediate" specific situations (usually the higher dollar ones). If CIHs become the exclusive agents to handle these issues then the governement pawns can pass these bids along to their affiliates to perform these jobs and thus land these LARGE profitable contracts. Their are a variety of special interests this could provide for all parties. Unfortuently, not all CIH's will benefit from such contacts but those with the "ins" can and will. Its just sad to see how this can detract from the more knowledgable CIHs and those who are just as knowledgable, if not more, but don't hold the CIH credential.

I think you hit it on the head in your second paragraph,

And some individuals seem to believe this, probably due to self-interests, or self-importance.

Add special interests and greed to the list.

Thanks for your insight.

Shane.

Re: AIHA and the CIH

I joined the AIHA a few years ago for one main reason, to get E & O insurance. AIHA is an old, large, powerful association. I also buy books and other publications through AIHA. I'm not a CIH and one does not need to be to join. But the AIHA really shocked me. I did not expect the association to lobby individual States to draft exclusionistic CIH-favoring language into mold legislation.The AIHA has fostered the misrepresentation that for mold, one really should hire a CIH. And some individuals seem to believe this, probably due to self-interests, or self-importance.Granted, the proliferation of quick and dirty certifications for mold is as disgusting as it is damaging, and as American as the Pet Rock. And those on this list who have posted opinions that a CIH certificate is about the best certificate for mold consulting are right. But only to the extent that there really are no professional organizations that are offering true professional-level certification for the mold industry. Therefore, isn't the CIH the only certificate that comes close? I must point out that a consumer has more choices than to choose between a 3-Day Wonder and a CIH. They actually must choose between an experienced investigator with a proven track record versus a slick sales pitch puffed up with fancy initials and poorly understood certifications. And this could include the CIH certificate.Most of the CIH's I've worked with are excellent at what they do. Although I have observed they don't walk in lock-step. The range of beliefs regarding the hazards of mold is just as wide among CIH's as among the rest of the environmental consulting professions. Why? Could this be due to differing levels of training or knowledge?It's simply incorrect to assume the CIH has an intrinsic level of experience and skill that is unique to CIH's; when in fact they are all over the board in those regards, just like everyone else, although they do have a relatively high baseline. And this baseline should not be overlooked. Just how useful is the CIH baseline to certain specific areas of practice such as mold in indoor environments?Please, consider how many other professions include the biological sciences, evaluating environments in relation to human health, and give a significant variety of enriching experience in investigative processes to the participants. Let's make a list of all the professions that have a place in evaluating structures for mold problems. Could the list fit on one page?What does the CIH certificate guarantee a consumer and how does that relate to a guarantee about the skill set needed for biologicals? So why, why, why is the AIHA point of view (or lobbying efforts) so exclusionistic in favor of the CIH certificate? Hasn't the AIHA turned its back on all its non-CIH members? Can anyone with insight answer this? GerberFAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.