Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 An update for those interested - the other day I received a call from the relo company, wanting to hear my side of the story that they were getting secondhand from the seller. Since I wasn't being compensated in any way, I gave him my unvarnished opinion on the situation. Subsequently I heard from a remediation company that they had been hired to go ahead and clean/coat the offending area, with the proviso that they are not responsible for meeting any clearance criteria. The contractor also mentioned he had more time into this little project than it was worth in billable hours (I know the feeling). I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but apparently somebody is listening to reason...too bad reason wasn't involved a little earlier in the process. D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS Liesch Associates, Inc. Re: clearance woes In a message dated 3/3/2005 2:05:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, snk1955@... writes: No remediation company will touch it. No smart one will touch it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Mr Carlson, That's wonderful! So glad to hear your clients are on their way! Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Steve, Good job. I love a story with a happy ending. Sorry about the not being compensated part, though. Steve Temes An update for those interested - the other day I received a call from the relo company, wanting to hear my side of the story that they were getting secondhand from the seller. Since I wasn't being compensated in any way, I gave him my unvarnished opinion on the situation. Subsequently I heard from a remediation company that they had been hired to go ahead and clean/coat the offending area, with the proviso that they are not responsible for meeting any clearance criteria. The contractor also mentioned he had more time into this little project than it was worth in billable hours (I know the feeling). I don't know what went on behind the scenes, but apparently somebody is listening to reason...too bad reason wasn't involved a little earlier in the process. D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS Liesch Associates, Inc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 It is ridiculous that a moldy 2 x 4 in an attic should require such extensive measures to cover everyone from liability. But think about it. When these kinds of scenarios occur, they also make it more difficult for situations to be taken seriously when health risks are legitimate. Excellent point.....the inspector who cried mold. ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 It is ridiculous that a moldy 2 x 4 in an attic should require such extensive measures to cover everyone from liability. But think about it. When these kinds of scenarios occur, they also make it more difficult for situations to be taken seriously when health risks are legitimate.Excellent point.....the inspector who cried mold.ST Steve, Well put! Here is the irony of the situation: by being so freaked out about the potential financial liability of the "toxic mold issue", the genuine liability from the matter becomes much greater. Situations like the one Mr. Carlson had, make it understandable why many would think all this mold illness and steps to protect people are just a lot of hooey. But it is not. There are literally thousands of people across the US that a sick from mold exposure. You can't hardly pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV without seeing it. Many are our children that are being exposed in our underfunded schools. Some are gravely ill with respiratory problems and type III hypersensitivity immune disfuctions. Besides being ill, these people have a very difficult time finding viable treatment because our physicians are being told these illnesses are not real. It is intentionally being downplayed. The ACOEM Position paper that was based solely on a 24hr study in mice (Rao) and was then parlayed to be the end all be all gospel that mold does not cause these illnesses, is leaving many sick, unaware and unable to get treatment. It is a major part of the problem that is causing misinformation and contention. After it became the ACOEM position and was also immediately posted on the CDC site, it was then edited (eight words) and sold to the Manhattan Institute for $40K. From there, it went to the US Chamber of Commerce and on to the National Association of Realtors website stating “Thus, the notion that "toxic mold" is an insidious, secret "killer," as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim, is "junk science" unsupported by actual scientific study.†This is the same paper that get used to address concerned parent in schools, train AIHA members, defeat sick people in court cases, keep physicians in the dark, etc. It has been a very handy marketing tool for those who are more concerned about financial liability than the safety of their fellowman. So here is the REAL irony of the matter: When people are sick from mold exposure, the key to lessoning the severety of their illnesses is early diagnostics and treatment. By pretending these people are not sick in order to limit the financial liability caused by mold exposure, it makes it more difficult for them to find treatment. So their illnesses become greater and the accompanying financial liability of their illnesses also become greater. I think one of the key components to solve this problem is to get our physicians trained how to recognize, diagnose and treat mycotic illnesses. Then clean up the buildings and move on! Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2005 Report Share Posted March 6, 2005 I have a simple solution to this nonsense: 1) Tell everyone to get the insurance certificate for professional insurance before they let Deputy Dawg in their home. 2) Give the insurance certificate for Deputy Dawg's professional insurance to a really good personal injusry attorney hungry for his next meal. The insurance industry will clean-out the riff raff much faster than the government. After all, dumb risk is a potential sign of future litigation. forget all the initials. Unless you are actually in court giving an opinion, the insurance policy is all you need for a litmus test and dog collar Deputy Dawg. I had the same thing happen. 3M transferred a company attorney to Minnesota. A hack (I'm sorry I don't have a better name) was subcontracted by a firm form Texas who has a contract with the relocation company. The firm form Texas called and asked " If I was accusing them of malfeasance " ? I asked them how Cladosporium on a tapelift of a painted ceiling on a screened porch with no HVAC could be a problem that could cost the property owners thousands to fix. I asked them how ascospores in the attic detected by a tapelift could be a problem. Inpsecting real estate is the worst market. Being worse than the homeowner insurance industry market is like scraping the bottom of the barrel where undicovered life form lurk. I am going to go back and see if I can get the guy's name. Then, Steve, we can have some real fun. Sometimes you have to love to start trouble when it is well deserved. I have to wonder how many people get hosed and lose 10K to 20K on the sell of their house. Regards, Greg Weatherman aerobioLogical Solutions Inc. Arlington VA 22202 gw@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2005 Report Share Posted March 7, 2005 I have to wonder how many people get hosed and lose 10K to 20K on the sell of their house.Regards,Greg WeathermanaerobioLogical Solutions Inc.Arlington VA 22202 Am real estate agent. Can answer that question: Tons! The term for it is "stigma appraisal". In my market here in Southern Cal, $10K to $20K, can be the low end estimate of the diminished value! Sharon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 The very concept of air testing to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source and extent of mold growth has already been identified is...silly. All: Just a quick contractors perspective on pre-remediation air sampling. If no pre-remediation sampling is performed, how do you know what work is or is not required in areas where the mold is not visible? Further, if post-remediation sampling is performed, and elevated levels are found outside the work area, the automatic assumption is that the contractor blew containment and is on the hook for cleaning those areas as well. Who is to say that the levels were not elevated from the start? I have a case now where no pre-remediation sampling was performed. I can assure you that my mold contract will contain an indemnification and hold harmless clause for any elevated levels that might be found outside the prescribed work area. Cole, CR Sentry Construction Company, Inc. Macon, GA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 The very concept of air testing to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source and extent of mold growth has already been identified is...silly. All: Just a quick contractors perspective on pre-remediation air sampling. If no pre-remediation sampling is performed, how do you know what work is or is not required in areas where the mold is not visible? Further, if post-remediation sampling is performed, and elevated levels are found outside the work area, the automatic assumption is that the contractor blew containment and is on the hook for cleaning those areas as well. Who is to say that the levels were not elevated from the start? I have a case now where no pre-remediation sampling was performed. I can assure you that my mold contract will contain an indemnification and hold harmless clause for any elevated levels that might be found outside the prescribed work area. Cole, CR Sentry Construction Company, Inc. Macon, GA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 12, 2005 Report Share Posted March 12, 2005 Further, if post-remediation sampling is performed, and elevated levels are found outside the work area, the automatic assumption is that the ..... I agree. If one does not perform a pretest to be used as comparison against a post test, then competent remediators could be on the hook for a problem there was no way to determine was even there upfront. Conversely, if one does not perform a pretest to be used as a comparison against a post test, then INcompetent remediators, who actually don't know how to set up a containment, can more easily get away with their mistakes. Hard to prove when the air borne mold count has actually increased from a shoddy remediation. I hear there are alot of problems out here over this. Many competent remediators are getting nailed when they shouldn't be. Heard there are some going out of business from this issue. Some incompetent ones are getting away with murder. This situation seems to benefit those who don't know what they are doing, while punishing those who do! Sharon Kramer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 She did not inform the new owner but had no duty to do so under the real estate sale contract. The previous owner was dead, so no duty to inform could be established on the estate. She most certainly DID have a duty to disclose. I don't care what state you are in or if the contract specifically said anything about mold. A real estate agent has a duty to disclose all known facts that effect the value/habitability of a property. The problem is that she probably just didn't take it seriously. Real estate agents, by and large are also being fed much propaganda on the matter. They are being told mold does not cause these illnesses. People who complain are just money grubbing whiners out to get in the real estate agents' pockets. Below is the conclusion statement that is on the National Association of Realtors website regarding "Moldy Claims". It is adapted from the GlobalTox paper that was paid for by the Manhattan Institute ($40,000!). US Chamber of Commerce and exdeveloper, Congressman (R-CA) dispersed it to the real estate, mortgage and building industries associations in 2003. This paper is a version of the ACOEM Position Statement regarding mold. People should know that two of the authors of the ACOEM paper are principles in GlobalTox. GlobalTox makes a ton of money training AIHA, site inspections, Defense Litigation Support, etc. People should also know that this bogus piece of "work" is based solely on a single study in mice. It is extrapolated from research by Dr. Rao. Dr. Rao just co-authored a study called "Respiratory Morbidity in Office Workers in a Water Damaged Building" Am inclined to believe she may not agree with what the GlobalTox boys extrapolated from her work! So anyway, here's what the Realtors are being told: The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® Moldy Claims - ... Moldy Claims: The Junk Science of "Toxic" Mold. This report was sponsored by the US Chamber of Commerce. NAR is publishing this report with permission of the US ... http://www.realtor.org/GAPublic.nsf/Pages/moldyclaims?OpenDocument “…current scientific evidence does not support the idea that human health has been adversely affected by inhaled mold toxins in home, school, or office environments. Thus, the notion that "toxic mold" is an insidious, secret "killer," as so many media reports and trial lawyers would claim, is "junk science" unsupported by actual scientific study.†Pretty perverse, huh? This situation is what is driving the confusion and leaving us all open for greater liability while others (including children) are unknowingly being left in potentially dangerous indoor environments. But the good news is: The boys from GlobalTox are making a healthy living!! .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Sharon, You are so right. If you tell people you need to do pre remediation testing, they think you are just trying to increase your bill. The less expensive consultants use the line that there is no regulation that requires pre testing. Nothing in EPA, NYC etc. It really can make you look bad, when you are just trying to do things the right way. This additional testing also offers more information for the client to better characterize the environment of the building, if they have concerns about post remediation acceptability. I have seen a new tendency to avoid any testing by homeowners who are going to be selling their home in the future. This is because any test data can be interpreted by a potential buyer as showing mold in a home. These home owners just have home repair compaby replace the water damaged materials. This way, they don't have to claim the home ever had a mold problem. It is interesting to note all of the disclaimers about mold now in real estate sale agent papers. We were involved in a legal case where the agent clearly had known the townhome as a water leak history. She did not inform the new owner but had no duty to do so under the real estate sale contract. The previous owner was dead, so no duty to inform could be established on the estate. BOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 13, 2005 Report Share Posted March 13, 2005 Bob, To add to my prior post. WR Sharon Jury Finds "Toxic Mold" Harmed Oregon Family, Builder's Arbitration Clause Not Binding The case is a first in the Northwest to award personal injury damages to a family exposed to toxic mold in a newly built home. "This verdict is significant because it holds construction companies responsible when they negligently build sick buildings,... Press ReleaseWednesday - March 09, 2005 Oregon City, OR-A Clackamas County jury on Friday (March 4, 2005) held Adair Homes Inc. responsible for faulty construction practices that caused toxic mold to thrive inside and Haynes' new home in Sandy, Oregon. The jury also found Adair's negligence caused illness in Mrs. Haynes and the couple's two small children – , 6, and Liam, 4. The family experienced severe respiratory, digestive and cognitive impairment. One half of a million dollars was awarded to the injured family. The seven men, five women jury only took one day to overwhelmingly agree on this verdict. The case is a first in the Northwest to award damages for personal injury to a family exposed to mold in a newly built home. "This verdict is significant because it holds construction companies responsible when they negligently build sick buildings," said Vance, the family's attorney. Adair Homes, Inc. which builds hundreds of residences each year in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, built the house on the Hayne's five acres in early 2002. Four months after moving in and becoming ill, the family discovered rampant mold growth inside the walls of their new home. Dry wall and insulation were installed while the frame was wet from recent heavy rains. Evidence presented during the trial proved there was standing water in the wall cavities and the crawl space long after the construction was completed. This led to the growth of the toxigenic fungi. "You couldn"t have made the framing in that house more wet if you had sprayed it with a firehose," stated Vance. By the time the Haynes discovered the mold, it was too late. Mrs. Haynes and the children were exhibiting neurologic and immune system damage. Haynes reported the problem to Adair Homes, but the company refused to take responsibility. The family was forced to flee their new house in an effort to save the health of the mother and young sons. Two separate medical evaluations substantiated that both Haynes and her son, , had mold antibodies in their blood, indicative of dangerous exposure levels to mold. Numerous experts, including a fungal immunologist, an occupational therapist and a neuropsychologist testified concerning the Haynes children's developmental and sensory integration disorders that began shortly after moving into the Adair built home. The family's treating physicians and therapists agreed that Liam"s and "s medical needs from the mold exposure will continue for several years to come. "s teacher testified that he was placed in a special disabled room at school and may need to remain there until at least junior high school. She expects Liam to suffer the same fate. Amazingly, the Haynes family almost did not even get to tell their story to a jury. Adair, like many other commercial entities, utilizes an arbitration clause in its contract. That clause designates a specific preferred arbitration service. Adair uses Construction Arbitration Services, Inc., a company based far away from Adair's market, in Dallas, Texas. After the case was filed, Adair moved to stay the case pending arbitration and submitted an affidavit from the owner of the arbitration service, Marshall Lippman. The judge allowed the case to go to trial when the family's attorney showed that Lippman had submitted a false affidavit concealing the fact that he had been disbarred by the State of New York and Washington D.C. The disbarments occurred because Lippman had been found to have stolen funds from his clients. Dr.Bruce Kelman of GlobalTox,Inc, a Washington based environmental risk management company, testified as an expert witness for the defense, as he does in mold cases throughout the country. Upon viewing documents presented by the Hayne's attorney of Kelman's prior testimony from a case in Arizona, Dr. Kelman altered his under oath statements on the witness stand. He admitted the Manhattan Institute, a national political think-tank, paid GlobalTox $40,000 to write a position paper regarding the potential health risks of toxic mold exposure. Although much medical research finds otherwise, the controversial piece claims that it is not plausible the types of illnesses experienced by the Haynes family and reported by thousands from across the US, could be caused by "toxic mold" exposure in homes, schools or office buildings. In 2003, with the involvement of the US Chamber of Commerce and ex-developer, US Congressman (R-CA), the GlobalTox paper was disseminated to the real estate, mortgage and building industries'associations. A version of the Manhattan Institute commissioned piece may also be found as a position statement on the website of a United States medical policy-writing body, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Bob, It isn't just that there is no regulation requiring pre-testing. There are no requirements for post-remediation testing, either, in any of the guidelines -- just in Texas. Mold remediation covered by insurance these days typically has a $10,000 limit. Try to do pre- and post-remediation testing and pay a contractor to do the actual mold remediation within that budget. The testing is usually the first thing to get cut unless the homeowner wants to pay for it out of pocket. It is interesting to see what becomes reasonable and acceptable to a homeowner when they have to pay for any part of the remediation themselves. I have been involved in remediation projects where it became the homeowner's responsibility to surface clean the entire home outside of the work area because the mold removal aspects of the project exceeded the $10K insurance limit. Some homeowners will just "cash out" on the $10K limit and do the whole remediation themselves (with no testing) because they have no other option. I totally sympathize with Cole. A contractor cannot be held accountable for contamination outside of a remediation work area if it was not within the scope-of-work and no pre-testing was performed there. These liability concerns must be addressed in the remediation contract (or some other way) prior to the project. In most cases, removal of dust reservoirs and precision cleaning of surfaces outside of the contained work area should be adequate. Clearing the area with testing, which is often carpeted and furnished and full of clutter, can be difficult. Steve Temes If you tell people you need to do pre remediation testing, they think you are just trying to increase your bill. The less expensive consultants use the line that there is no regulation that requires pre testing. Nothing in EPA, NYC etc. It really can make you look bad, when you are just trying to do things the right way. This additional testing also offers more information for the client to better characterize the environment of the building, if they have concerns about post remediation acceptability. I have seen a new tendency to avoid any testing by homeowners who are going to be selling their home in the future. This is because any test data can be interpreted by a potential buyer as showing mold in a home. These home owners just have home repair compaby replace the water damaged materials. This way, they don't have to claim the home ever had a mold problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 14, 2005 Report Share Posted March 14, 2005 Keep in mind, my statement was regarding "air testing to determine the need for remediation" [emphasis added], in other words air sampling as a diagnostic tool used to justify remediation. That said, if I have specified air sampling as part of remediation clearance criteria, I most definitely will perform pre-remediation air sampling to determine baseline levels. D. Carlson, CIAQC, CMRS Liesch Associates, Inc. Re: clearance woes In a message dated 2/25/2005 11:54:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, steve.carlson@... writes: The very concept of air testing to determine the need for remediation, when the moisture source and extent of mold growth has already been identified is...silly. All: Just a quick contractors perspective on pre-remediation air sampling. If no pre-remediation sampling is performed, how do you know what work is or is not required in areas where the mold is not visible? Further, if post-remediation sampling is performed, and elevated levels are found outside the work area, the automatic assumption is that the contractor blew containment and is on the hook for cleaning those areas as well. Who is to say that the levels were not elevated from the start? I have a case now where no pre-remediation sampling was performed. I can assure you that my mold contract will contain an indemnification and hold harmless clause for any elevated levels that might be found outside the prescribed work area. Cole, CR Sentry Construction Company, Inc. Macon, GA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Hi Mark, Okay. Going for 500 words or less! Many a remediator has been called into court after a mold abatement. Sometimes, it is their incompetence that causes the problem. Sometimes, it's not. Pretesting compared against post testing can help verify the situation. Hypothetical: Say there is a house with a Level IV contamination area in a kitchen. Unbeknownst to all, there is also a problem in a bathroom. No pretest, competent remediator: The remediator does his job correctly, but upon completion the air quality tests are still unacceptable. The competent remediator gets blamed for cross-contaminating the air because he removed all the mold in the kitchen, but now the air count in the house is unacceptably high. Without the pretest, he has no way to prove that his efforts actually reduced the airborne mold spore count from what it was prior to the remediation. Pretest, competent remediator: It's high to begin with, but even though still unacceptable, verified as lower after remediation. Indicates the remediator did his job correctly, but maybe there is another problem in the house that needs to be investigated. No pretest, incompetent remediator: The remediator does his job incorrectly, upon completion the air quality tests are unacceptable. What were they before? Did he increase the problem or decrease it? The occupant has no prove that his incompetence actually worsened the problem. Pretest, incompetent remediator: One can actually verify that the airborne mold spore count was increased by the remediation process. That the containment area was not properly set up and allowed mold spores to be blown throughout the house. I guess what I am attempting to say is that pretests compared against post tests benefit COMPETENT remediators and occupants because by analyzing pre and post numbers, it verifies there has been an improvement from the remediation efforts. No pretesting only benefits INCOMPETENT remediators because it limits a key piece of information that would prove the incompetent remediator actually made the situation worse. So by not doing pretesting, many a good remediator is getting nailed for something that is not his fault. And many a bad remediator is skating from responsibility, free to go do it to some other family. Does my less than 500 words scenario make any sense? lol Sharon Kramer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Sharon, I’m not sure what cross contamination you are talking about. Maybe I don’t understand your question. The objective for the building is clean and dry, regardless what the levels were at the beginning. Remember, we are trying to eliminate the organisms that grow on water damaged building materials, not all organisms. If you have identified all sources of water damage, pre sampling should not be an issue (unless you use sampling to eliminate an area from the scope of work). Sampling is merely a tool, just like a moisture meter. (Although I personally think the moisture meter is the more important tool.) If you think that by sampling you are buying insurance, think again, unless you take enough samples to be statistically valid. To my knowledge, no one does that. I hope this clarifies the issue. If not, pose your question in another way and I’ll take another stab at it. Mark Doughty Re: clearance woes In a message dated 3/21/2005 10:57:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, deha@... writes: I have a different take on the pre-sampling issue. If the objective is to be clean and dry, what difference does it make if you take pre samples or not. Mostly, presamples will just confound the issue, especially if the results are different from what you are expecting (really a problem with people that don’t know how to interpret results- which in my opinion is most of the people doing consulting). Regarding testing in adjacent spaces, I think you either test or you clean. Mark Doughty Hi Mark, If one does not take air samples before remediation (of a mold problem large enough to warrant legitimate health concerns), then how is one to determine if the remediation efforts themselves caused or did not cause cross-contamination should the post remediation samples be unacceptable? WR Sharon Kramer FAIR 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 22, 2005 Report Share Posted March 22, 2005 Kudos to Sharon...pretest & postesting equal a means by which to measure results. Bob Hall, CIE County of Lexington Building Services Lexington, SC Re: clearance woes Hi Mark, Okay. Going for 500 words or less! Many a remediator has been called into court after a mold abatement. Sometimes, it is their incompetence that causes the problem. Sometimes, it's not. Pretesting compared against post testing can help verify the situation. Hypothetical: Say there is a house with a Level IV contamination area in a kitchen. Unbeknownst to all, there is also a problem in a bathroom. No pretest, competent remediator: The remediator does his job correctly, but upon completion the air quality tests are still unacceptable. The competent remediator gets blamed for cross-contaminating the air because he removed all the mold in the kitchen, but now the air count in the house is unacceptably high. Without the pretest, he has no way to prove that his efforts actually reduced the airborne mold spore count from what it was prior to the remediation. Pretest, competent remediator: It's high to begin with, but even though still unacceptable, verified as lower after remediation. Indicates the remediator did his job correctly, but maybe there is another problem in the house that needs to be investigated. No pretest, incompetent remediator: The remediator does his job incorrectly, upon completion the air quality tests are unacceptable. What were they before? Did he increase the problem or decrease it? The occupant has no prove that his incompetence actually worsened the problem. Pretest, incompetent remediator: One can actually verify that the airborne mold spore count was increased by the remediation process. That the containment area was not properly set up and allowed mold spores to be blown throughout the house. I guess what I am attempting to say is that pretests compared against post tests benefit COMPETENT remediators and occupants because by analyzing pre and post numbers, it verifies there has been an improvement from the remediation efforts. No pretesting only benefits INCOMPETENT remediators because it limits a key piece of information that would prove the incompetent remediator actually made the situation worse. So by not doing pretesting, many a good remediator is getting nailed for something that is not his fault. And many a bad remediator is skating from responsibility, free to go do it to some other family. Does my less than 500 words scenario make any sense? lol Sharon KramerFAIR 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 Mark, I agree and have similarly found that the people who insist upon testing the most usually know the least about what the results will actually mean. It takes a lot of experience to be able to interpret air sample results as well as to understand their limitations. This also means that the more new people there are getting into mold issues, the more people there will be who think it is important to test every which way. It's kinda funny that the most experienced professionals (those who have taken the most samples and interpreted the most data sets) often are the ones who recommend that testing not be performed (because it is not necessary to determine the appropriate course of corrective action) and then are dismissed as not knowing what they are doing. You just can't win. Steve Temes I find that the people that hold the greatest faith in testing are those that know the least about the difficulties associated with testing and what the results might mean. Testing is a tool, but should not be the end all. The further one moves out of the scientific community the more they tend to rely on “numbers†because they have been taught that science has a number for everything. Well, maybe it does, but what does that number mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 Sharon, Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess we are looking at the problem through two different sets of eyes, if you will. I am not a contractor, I’m a consultant so the time for me to determine the scope is during my investigation. I may or may not take samples during the investigation depending on who is paying for them and what they would like to achieve by their collection. More below Re: clearance woes Hi Mark, Okay. Going for 500 words or less! Many a remediator has been called into court after a mold abatement. Sometimes, it is their incompetence that causes the problem. Sometimes, it's not. Pretesting compared against post testing can help verify the situation. Hypothetical: Say there is a house with a Level IV contamination area in a kitchen. Unbeknownst to all, there is also a problem in a bathroom. No pretest, competent remediator: The remediator does his job correctly, but upon completion the air quality tests are still unacceptable. The competent remediator gets blamed for cross-contaminating the air because he removed all the mold in the kitchen, but now the air count in the house is unacceptably high. Without the pretest, he has no way to prove that his efforts actually reduced the airborne mold spore count from what it was prior to the remediation. Did the contractor put the work area under negative pressure and can he document it? Pretest, competent remediator: It's high to begin with, but even though still unacceptable, verified as lower after remediation. Indicates the remediator did his job correctly, but maybe there is another problem in the house that needs to be investigated. I’m not sure what high or low means. It seems that it is in the contractor’s best interest to investigate other sources of moisture when performing his task. No pretest, incompetent remediator: The remediator does his job incorrectly, upon completion the air quality tests are unacceptable. What were they before? Did he increase the problem or decrease it? The occupant has no prove that his incompetence actually worsened the problem. How do you protect against a consultant that doesn’t know if a test is high or low (whatever that is). One could test ‘til the cows come home and if the person making the determination is clueless, what good are all of the tests in the world? Pretest, incompetent remediator: One can actually verify that the airborne mold spore count was increased by the remediation process. That the containment area was not properly set up and allowed mold spores to be blown throughout the house. Better document that containment was set up properly and that negative pressure was maintained in the work area. If you can show this, it doesn’t really matter what the air tests results were. I guess what I am attempting to say is that pretests compared against post tests benefit COMPETENT remediators and occupants because by analyzing pre and post numbers, it verifies there has been an improvement from the remediation efforts. I’m afraid that I do not see how my taking presample would make someone a competent remediator. The remediator is competent or not based on their skills and their results, not by any tests that I or someone else might take. In the best of all possible worlds we would all have all of the information necessary to make good decisions all of the time. Unfortunately we do not live in that world. What are air tests anyway? They are an indirect way to measure the effects of water on a building. We could gather the same information with a moisture meter for a lot less money. Find the water, fix the leak, dry it up and clean the area. No pretesting only benefits INCOMPETENT remediators because it limits a key piece of information that would prove the incompetent remediator actually made the situation worse. I do not agree with this statement or the one above it as they both paint with a wide brush and really do not seem to be open to debate. BTW what is a competent occupant? So by not doing pretesting, many a good remediator is getting nailed for something that is not his fault. And many a bad remediator is skating from responsibility, free to go do it to some other family. Or maybe the good remediator needs to document what he actually did and learn where the pitfalls are to his continued success. Does my less than 500 words scenario make any sense? Lol I think I know why you think what you do, I just am not sure that I agree with your logic. I agree that there are times when a remediator will be asked to confine their activities to a small portion of a building. In that case they should have some protective language in their contract that delineates the work area and absolves them of responsibility beyond the work area. Typically, when I design a project all areas of a building will be cleaned unless it can be demonstrated that the problem has been isolated to a specific area. One last thought, I find that the people that hold the greatest faith in testing are those that know the least about the difficulties associated with testing and what the results might mean. Testing is a tool, but should not be the end all. The further one moves out of the scientific community the more they tend to rely on “numbers” because they have been taught that science has a number for everything. Well, maybe it does, but what does that number mean? It depends on your perspective. Thanks for your thoughts. Mark Doughty Sharon Kramer FAIR 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. 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.