Re: FW: HUD Mold Form

[Guest guest]

Thanks Tony,

I have mixed feelings about the AIHA with regard to mold consulting. They are clearly more interested in title protection and convincing political entities that "the CIH" is most qualified professional to perform mold assessments than they are in actually addressing assessment protocol and best practices. Most CIH's today passed a comprehensive exam that contained NO questions about microbial assessment and remediation. In fact, the only "mold training" most CIH's have actually received is by attending conferences -- the very type of 3-day program (not even a training course) that the AIHA in its letter to HUD considers to be inadequate. They are certainly not ahead of the curve when it comes to mold knowledge. Consider the 2001 Microbial Growth Task Force document in which OTHER organizations' published guidelines were evaluated and AIHA offered no guidelines of its own (and still hasn't, three years later).

I have been performing IAQ and microbial assessments for over 14 years. At my local AIHA section meetings 12 years ago, I was the only one in a room full of CIH's who was performing IAQ and mold consulting services. I was a real curiosity to them at the time, when, you might recall, many IH's didn't believe in "sick buildings". Market demand has pulled these very same people into the IAQ and mold business and while, as a group, they most certainly have the best background to become competent in this work, the CIH training itself does not guarantee it.

The AIHA had better do more than say "our members are most qualified". They had better start developing standards and best practices so that everyone is on the same page and using the same science-based health risk and post-remediation evaluation methods if they are going to claim that their members, based upon their organization's training and (presently non-existent) guidelines, have superior qualifications.

Again, thanks for forwarding the letter. It says as much about the real interests of the AIHA as the mold form says about HUD's interests. Their positions are thinly veiled. Both organizations should be considering mold as a real public health issue, not primarily as a liability issue or a business opportunity.

Sincerely,

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

A. I'll agree that CIHs may not be as experienced as necessary (I know a number I wouldn't hire), but

1. they have a greater breadth of background work and knowledge (including parallel work - asbestos, lead, tox, community exposures, air pollution, etc.)

2. should be able to get up to speed quicker

3. have a code of ethics

B. We (AIHA) should procduce a basic guideline for types of work and instruction and training required.

C. We should push ABIH to add some mold aspects.

D. It's still a question of risk management - and using a CIH has less risk than an overnight wonder. Engineers have a minimum that does not guarantee good work product either. We accept failure every day and must try to minimize it. CIHs and PEs and MDs are certified to PRACTICE it doesn't say to be perfect.

Tony

..................................................

"Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2

5450 N. Lafayette Road

Indianapolis, IN 46254

Office:

Fax:

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.

-----Original Message-----From: AIRWAYSENV@... Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:28 AMTo: iequality Cc: ATRIPPLER@...; ph2@...Subject: Re: FW: HUD Mold Form Thanks Tony,I have mixed feelings about the AIHA with regard to mold consulting. They are clearly more interested in title protection and convincing political entities that "the CIH" is most qualified professional to perform mold assessments than they are in actually addressing assessment protocol and best practices. Most CIH's today passed a comprehensive exam that contained NO questions about microbial assessment and remediation. In fact, the only "mold training" most CIH's have actually received is by attending conferences -- the very type of 3-day program (not even a training course) that the AIHA in its letter to HUD considers to be inadequate. They are certainly not ahead of the curve when it comes to mold knowledge. Consider the 2001 Microbial Growth Task Force document in which OTHER organizations' published guidelines were evaluated and AIHA offered no guidelines of its own (and still hasn't, three years later).I have been performing IAQ and microbial assessments for over 14 years. At my local AIHA section meetings 12 years ago, I was the only one in a room full of CIH's who was performing IAQ and mold consulting services. I was a real curiosity to them at the time, when, you might recall, many IH's didn't believe in "sick buildings". Market demand has pulled these very same people into the IAQ and mold business and while, as a group, they most certainly have the best background to become competent in this work, the CIH training itself does not guarantee it.The AIHA had better do more than say "our members are most qualified". They had better start developing standards and best practices so that everyone is on the same page and using the same science-based health risk and post-remediation evaluation methods if they are going to claim that their members, based upon their organization's training and (presently non-existent) guidelines, have superior qualifications.Again, thanks for forwarding the letter. It says as much about the real interests of the AIHA as the mold form says about HUD's interests. Their positions are thinly veiled. Both organizations should be considering mold as a real public health issue, not primarily as a liability issue or a business opportunity.Sincerely,Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

A. I too agree that not all CIHs have the necessary experience for mold issues, but

1. Wrong -- CIH doesn't indicate a greater breadth; there are plenty of IHs (not designated as CIHs) that have just as much experience and knowledge thank you

2. Wrong -- CIH designation doesn't make someone smarter -- just means they took and passed a test

3. Wrong -- CIH designation doesn't mean that only CIHs have ethics and IHs don't

B. OK

C. OK

D. Not necessarily true. Again, just because someone has the certification doesn't make them better than someone without. And comparing CIHs to MDs is a large stretch. MDs have to go to years of schooling, residencies, etc. CIHs only need to pay $800 and take a test.

I am insulted by your statements.

Adam J. Pratt NOT A CIH, Just a lowly IH

-----Original Message-----From: Tony Havics Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:01 PMTo: iequality ; AIRWAYSENV@...Cc: C. Rock; ATRIPPLER@...Subject: RE: FW: HUD Mold Form

A. I'll agree that CIHs may not be as experienced as necessary (I know a number I wouldn't hire), but

1. they have a greater breadth of background work and knowledge (including parallel work - asbestos, lead, tox, community exposures, air pollution, etc.)

2. should be able to get up to speed quicker

3. have a code of ethics

B. We (AIHA) should procduce a basic guideline for types of work and instruction and training required.

C. We should push ABIH to add some mold aspects.

D. It's still a question of risk management - and using a CIH has less risk than an overnight wonder. Engineers have a minimum that does not guarantee good work product either. We accept failure every day and must try to minimize it. CIHs and PEs and MDs are certified to PRACTICE it doesn't say to be perfect.

Tony

..................................................

"Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2

5450 N. Lafayette Road

Indianapolis, IN 46254

Office:

Fax:

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.

-----Original Message-----From: AIRWAYSENV@... Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:28 AMTo: iequality Cc: ATRIPPLER@...; ph2@...Subject: Re: FW: HUD Mold Form Thanks Tony,I have mixed feelings about the AIHA with regard to mold consulting. They are clearly more interested in title protection and convincing political entities that "the CIH" is most qualified professional to perform mold assessments than they are in actually addressing assessment protocol and best practices. Most CIH's today passed a comprehensive exam that contained NO questions about microbial assessment and remediation. In fact, the only "mold training" most CIH's have actually received is by attending conferences -- the very type of 3-day program (not even a training course) that the AIHA in its letter to HUD considers to be inadequate. They are certainly not ahead of the curve when it comes to mold knowledge. Consider the 2001 Microbial Growth Task Force document in which OTHER organizations' published guidelines were evaluated and AIHA offered no guidelines of its own (and still hasn't, three years later).I have been performing IAQ and microbial assessments for over 14 years. At my local AIHA section meetings 12 years ago, I was the only one in a room full of CIH's who was performing IAQ and mold consulting services. I was a real curiosity to them at the time, when, you might recall, many IH's didn't believe in "sick buildings". Market demand has pulled these very same people into the IAQ and mold business and while, as a group, they most certainly have the best background to become competent in this work, the CIH training itself does not guarantee it.The AIHA had better do more than say "our members are most qualified". They had better start developing standards and best practices so that everyone is on the same page and using the same science-based health risk and post-remediation evaluation methods if they are going to claim that their members, based upon their organization's training and (presently non-existent) guidelines, have superior qualifications.Again, thanks for forwarding the letter. It says as much about the real interests of the AIHA as the mold form says about HUD's interests. Their positions are thinly veiled. Both organizations should be considering mold as a real public health issue, not primarily as a liability issue or a business opportunity.Sincerely,Steve TemesFAIR 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.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for your statements Steve. I too remember back in 1994, when I left a Co-op Ed position with J & J to go work for -Bader Environmental doing IAQ and mold work. When asked by the J & J IHs I was working with at the time what it was I was going to be doing with TBE, I told them IAQ work, and they seemed curious themselves.

Now 10 years later, still performing IAQ and mold work, but now for my 3rd company, I am still amazed by how many people don't fully grasp the work we do. Also, it continues to befuddle me how just because someone is designated as a CIH they are better and smarter than myself (or others like me) who has not had the opportunity or desire to become a CIH. To me the CIH designation, though great when trying to advance in your career, doesn't mean anything when it comes to evaluating one's knowledge and experience. Yes, I may get my CIH someday, but only when it becomes absolutely necessary for my career. Otherwise, right now, I will stay a lowly IH with no initials after my name. The lacking of the CIH does not make any of my papers, articles, or projects any less valid.

I agree that the 3-day wonders are hurting the industry, but every industry faces similar obstacles. I also agree that it is amazing how the AIHA has done nothing to support the mold industry by presenting guidance. I, as a matter of fact, have allowed my AIHA local membership lapse because I was not getting any benefit from the meetings (social events).

I will now go back to offering my clients best practice, due diligence, and great service. Thanks for the chance to speak my mind.

Adam J. Pratt Project Manager BEM Systems, Inc. 100 Passaic Avenue Chatham, NJ 07928 x144 apratt@...

-----Original Message-----From: AirwaysEnv@... Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 12:28 PMTo: iequality Cc: ATRIPPLER@...; ph2@...Subject: Re: FW: HUD Mold FormThanks Tony,I have mixed feelings about the AIHA with regard to mold consulting. They are clearly more interested in title protection and convincing political entities that "the CIH" is most qualified professional to perform mold assessments than they are in actually addressing assessment protocol and best practices. Most CIH's today passed a comprehensive exam that contained NO questions about microbial assessment and remediation. In fact, the only "mold training" most CIH's have actually received is by attending conferences -- the very type of 3-day program (not even a training course) that the AIHA in its letter to HUD considers to be inadequate. They are certainly not ahead of the curve when it comes to mold knowledge. Consider the 2001 Microbial Growth Task Force document in which OTHER organizations' published guidelines were evaluated and AIHA offered no guidelines of its own (and still hasn't, three years later).I have been performing IAQ and microbial assessments for over 14 years. At my local AIHA section meetings 12 years ago, I was the only one in a room full of CIH's who was performing IAQ and mold consulting services. I was a real curiosity to them at the time, when, you might recall, many IH's didn't believe in "sick buildings". Market demand has pulled these very same people into the IAQ and mold business and while, as a group, they most certainly have the best background to become competent in this work, the CIH training itself does not guarantee it.The AIHA had better do more than say "our members are most qualified". They had better start developing standards and best practices so that everyone is on the same page and using the same science-based health risk and post-remediation evaluation methods if they are going to claim that their members, based upon their organization's training and (presently non-existent) guidelines, have superior qualifications.Again, thanks for forwarding the letter. It says as much about the real interests of the AIHA as the mold form says about HUD's interests. Their positions are thinly veiled. Both organizations should be considering mold as a real public health issue, not primarily as a liability issue or a business opportunity.Sincerely,Steve TemesFAIR 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.