Guest guest Posted September 25, 2005 Report Share Posted September 25, 2005 Here is another interesting question. What would this group consider to be fraud, when it comes to claiming mold contamination? For example, A sample of some FG insulation in an old building. The lab reports 10 spores/g, Clado 3 spore Pen/asp/g 1 spore/g Stachy It this contamination or normal spore levels for its age. Is recommending removal of all insulation fraud? Or Open uninsulated plywood on an exterior wall in a basement. A few spots of mold less than 3/8 inch diameter? NO OTHER SAMPLING. Is this sufficient to call for a whole house remediation with removal of all siding and replacement of all exterior plywood? Or Sampling inside of a home during winter. Pen/asp levels are higher than outside but counts /less than 100 s/m3. Is this sufficient data to claim mold contamination, requiring further extensive and expensive testing? Or A mold " consultant " claims that some mold make carcinogens. Implying, mold exposure is a risk for cancer. Scientific 'fraud' has been making the news lately. Some scientists have cooked the data to get more funding. I am not aware of case law regarding scientific fraud or fraudulent claims? Just what constituents a " Fraudulent claim " ? Anyone got any insight into this area? This is probably something we should all be thinking about when we write reports. BOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Your question is probably one for the lawyers. All of the scenarios you listed are examples of junk science and/or non-scientific analysis. Is it fraud, ignorance or something else? All of these examples are things I, as a consultant, commonly come across in the Northeast. At the very least, I think its unethical. If its fraud its definitely unethical and if its ignorance its unethical because the person is practicing in an area in which they are inadequately schooled and they should know better. I guess something can only be labeled as fraud if it can be proven in court that there was an intent to deceive. Fraud can be a difficult thing to prove. Just my opinion, Jim Detwiler Re: Fraud Here is another interesting question.What would this group consider to be fraud, when it comes to claiming mold contamination?For example,A sample of some FG insulation in an old building.The lab reports 10 spores/g, Clado3 spore Pen/asp/g1 spore/g StachyIt this contamination or normal spore levels for its age. Is recommending removal of all insulation fraud?OrOpen uninsulated plywood on an exterior wall in a basement. A few spots of mold less than 3/8 inch diameter? NO OTHER SAMPLING.Is this sufficient to call for a whole house remediation with removal of all siding and replacement of all exterior plywood?OrSampling inside of a home during winter. Pen/asp levels are higher than outside but counts /less than 100 s/m3.Is this sufficient data to claim mold contamination, requiring further extensive and expensive testing?OrA mold "consultant" claims that some mold make carcinogens. Implying, mold exposure is a risk for cancer.Scientific 'fraud' has been making the news lately. Some scientists have cooked the data to get more funding.I am not aware of case law regarding scientific fraud or fraudulent claims? Just what constituents a "Fraudulent claim"?Anyone got any insight into this area? This is probably something we should all be thinking about when we write reports.BOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 Bob.... most interesting questions.... Here's my comments for the discussion... Re: Fraud Here is another interesting question.What would this group consider to be fraud, when it comes to claiming mold contamination? ### By mold contamination do you mean mold presence? I'm believing the term "contamination" requires a definition... a standard. I certainly believe it unethical to term a condition as contaminated when there is no firm standard as to acceptable levels. Whether it be fraud would depend on definitions of fraud within state law. For example,A sample of some FG insulation in an old building.The lab reports 10 spores/g, Clado3 spore Pen/asp/g1 spore/g StachyIt this contamination or normal spore levels for its age. Is recommending removal of all insulation fraud? ### When would recommending a mastectomy to a women with a spot of cancer be considered fraud?? In the removal of insulation who decides how much insulation is to be removed? Is it the consultant who found the mold through sampling or is it the insulation technicians who install the product? If we agree remediation requires all "contaminated" or dampened insulation be replaced who decides which or how much insulation that is? It may be cheaper and faster to simply replace everything than pay a professional inspector to stand by and give a judgment on each section of insulation. OrOpen uninsulated plywood on an exterior wall in a basement. A few spots of mold less than 3/8 inch diameter? NO OTHER SAMPLING. ### I'd like to believe such might not be fraud but inexperience by one not knowing how to adequately sample.Is this sufficient to call for a whole house remediation with removal of all siding and replacement of all exterior plywood? ### It sounds like the homeowner is doing business with a siding salesman and not a mold inspector. In land a home improvement contractor has been required to have a $5000 bond. If a siding salesman attempts to sell a job using mold as a purpose the home owner should have the presence of mind to "get" a second opinion from a mold inspector who I'd expect would lean to avoiding such expense unless absolutely necessary. If a professional mold inspector misleads the homeowner that would in my opinion be a fraud.OrSampling inside of a home during winter. Pen/asp levels are higher than outside but counts /less than 100 s/m3.Is this sufficient data to claim mold contamination, requiring further extensive and expensive testing? ### What initially was the purpose of the sampling? Was it for asthma or allergy problems?? I'm believing if a resident has a breathing complaint air sampling may be justified. However I'd first recommend air filtration or purification be tested. OrA mold "consultant" claims that some mold make carcinogens. Implying, mold exposure is a risk for cancer. ### And is this not true?? Is this not the fact now believed by many?Scientific 'fraud' has been making the news lately. Some scientists have cooked the data to get more funding. ### Yes, but I think that was educational fraud within the university community. Commercial fraud where one sells a product with lies is handled with routinely.I am not aware of case law regarding scientific fraud or fraudulent claims? Just what constituents a "Fraudulent claim"?### I'm believing a fraudulent claim is simply a statement known to be not true made for profit. Again, the complete definition of a fraud is a subject of state law. Anyone got any insight into this area? This is probably something we should all be thinking about when we write reports. ### I'd like to think that making an honest mistake is not fraud. However a professional is expected to have an appropriate level of knowledge and experience and here an honest mistake may be more of a malpractice. BOB Ken from land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2005 Report Share Posted September 27, 2005 One day . . . two doctors billing themselves as " Indoor Air Quality Experts " were hired by an office (or rather by the building owners) due to many months of occupants complaining of smelling natural gas and chemical odors presumably resulting in 75% of the employees getting headaches, migraines, nausea, lung infections, light headedness, etc. These " experts " did a simple building walk through then tested the building by doing three tape lifts - yes, tape lifts. They concluded there was a bit of fiber glass in the office environment, wrote their exit report and left. NO air quality testing. NO mold testing. NO inquiries as to the chemicals being discharged from the xray developing downstairs directly into the HVAC system - not vented to the outdoors. No testing of the combustion of the HVAC system itself. NOTHING. Gee, I wonder if that might be considered fraud . . . ? A person can only wonder. Starr Connelly > Here is another interesting question. > > What would this group consider to be fraud, when it comes to claiming > mold contamination? > > For example, > > A sample of some FG insulation in an old building. > > The lab reports 10 spores/g, Clado > > 3 spore Pen/asp/g > > 1 spore/g Stachy > > It this contamination or normal spore levels for its age. Is > recommending removal of all insulation fraud? > > Or > > Open uninsulated plywood on an exterior wall in a basement. A few > spots of mold less than 3/8 inch diameter? NO OTHER SAMPLING. > > Is this sufficient to call for a whole house remediation with removal > of all siding and replacement of all exterior plywood? > > > Or > > Sampling inside of a home during winter. Pen/asp levels are higher > than outside but counts /less than 100 s/m3. > > Is this sufficient data to claim mold contamination, requiring further > extensive and expensive testing? > > Or > > A mold " consultant " claims that some mold make carcinogens. Implying, > mold exposure is a risk for cancer. > > > Scientific 'fraud' has been making the news lately. Some scientists > have cooked the data to get more funding. > > I am not aware of case law regarding scientific fraud or fraudulent > claims? Just what constituents a " Fraudulent claim " ? > > > > Anyone got any insight into this area? This is probably something we > should all be thinking about when we write reports. > > BOB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 2005 Report Share Posted September 28, 2005 Bob; ASTM D22 and E50 (both have mold related standards/work items) did meet in Reno. Both committees will be meeting this October in Dallas, Texas. D22 has a newly formed Sub D22.08 - Mold. Two task groups were formed and each developed a list of work items for development. Task Group 1 - Laboratory Issues; Task Group 2 - Sample Collection Issues. E50 passed " WK1892 Standard Guide for Readily Observable Mold and Conditions Conducive to Mold in Commercial Building: Baseline Survey Process " at the Reno Meeting (I tried like h**l to get 's Rules to work for Good rather than Evil...). There is a Work Item from D22.05 about Building Inspections. I have not seen a recent draft. Also, E30.05 Engineering has a Guideline that (last informed) has been put to SubCommittee and Main Committee vote simultaneously. Those votes will reviewed and finalized during that Committee's Meeting next February. If anyone would like to have information on ASTM, joining and being a part of these Committees, let me know - or you can go to the ASTM website www.astm.org -n -- because full disclosure is often better than full monty -- Thank You, n K. Armstrong, MSPH, CIH President Armstrong Forensic Laboratory, Inc. 330 Loch'n Green Trail Arlington, Texas 76012 CIH@... On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:05:02 -0500, Bob s wrote: > Jim, Starr, > > Thanks for your posts. My question brings to mind that ASTM was supposed > to get a committee together to develop some standard guideline in > microbial assessment of buildings. Darryl was on that committee and they > met in Reno. > > Have not heard much about the results. > > However, IESO does have some basic recommendations on the minimum number > of samples to take IESO 2210. And it requires a " significant " difference > between comparative samples for any conclusions. " Significant " meaning an > order of magnitude difference per AIHA bioaerosols. > > Is this minimal due diligence? > > > BOB > > > > > > 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.