Re: Re: Witholding mold sampling results

July 9, 2007

The mold sampling industry (unfortunately) opposes this rule because they

feel that then their clients would do far less mold sampling.

The sampling results represent a red herring of sorts to building owners and

often, they will do a lot of bad things to prevent people from knowing how

screwed up a situation is. I know this from personal experience.

The mold sampling industry have a moral code that (I THINK, I may not be

right) states that the first duty of mold samplers is to whoever signed

their check and they need to give those results to them and prevent others

from getting them if permission to share them is not forthcoming from the

client.

What this really means is that for the forseeable future, if you want

testing done that you can rely on, you need to have it done yourself. The

other party quite possibly has done multiple rounds of testing and are only

showing you the results they want you to see. For that reason, you would

seem ALWAYS need to do your own. Out of pocket.

'Spore Trap' results are also notoriously inaccurate, and tape lift or bulk

samples also rely on where the samples were taken. There is no law

concerning on what surface they must be taken or whether that surface should

be the cleanest or the dirtiest surface there. It can even have been

recently cleaned.

There dont seem to be any laws concerning sampling at all, just

recommendations like the one by EPA that they not be used for clearance

testing, just discovering if a problem exists. (because of the MANY false

negatives, but FEW false positives)

If you do mold testing (and not toxin testing) I am starting to think QPCR

must be the most accurate - that is, if enough dust can be found..

On 7/8/07, salzberglver3 <salzberglver3@...> wrote:

>

> I totally agree with . Not only should the mold samplings be

> turned over (even if they are done incorrectly with all windows

> open),but so should the court subpoenaed maintenance reports in

> worker's comp. cases. I'm into year three of my WC case and just

> recently got the 10,000 pages of documentation. I now have a clear

> picture of the environmental hazards I was working in for 15 years. It

> would have been nice to hand those details over to my first

> toxicologist and subsequent doctors so they could have made their

> health assessments more easily and accurately. Future legal reform

> must include the compelling of employers/landlords/etc. to turn over

> the tests and documentation within the first month of having a

> worker/tenant, etc. becoming ill.

>

July 9, 2007

LiveSimply,

I disagree with your statement that " The mold sampling industry have

a moral code ... "

They aren't that organized. Each has their own belief.

Ethical issues are rampant. A duty to only who pays them is the

worst.

If anything, this is an immoral code.

The rest I basically agree with.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> The mold sampling industry (unfortunately) opposes this rule because they

> feel that then their clients would do far less mold sampling.

>

> The sampling results represent a red herring of sorts to building owners and

> often, they will do a lot of bad things to prevent people from knowing how

> screwed up a situation is. I know this from personal experience.

>

> The mold sampling industry have a moral code that (I THINK, I may not be

> right) states that the first duty of mold samplers is to whoever signed

> their check and they need to give those results to them and prevent others

> from getting them if permission to share them is not forthcoming from the

> client.

>

> What this really means is that for the forseeable future, if you want

> testing done that you can rely on, you need to have it done yourself. The

> other party quite possibly has done multiple rounds of testing and are only

> showing you the results they want you to see. For that reason, you would

> seem ALWAYS need to do your own. Out of pocket.

>

> 'Spore Trap' results are also notoriously inaccurate, and tape lift or bulk

> samples also rely on where the samples were taken. There is no law

> concerning on what surface they must be taken or whether that surface should

> be the cleanest or the dirtiest surface there. It can even have been

> recently cleaned.

>

> There dont seem to be any laws concerning sampling at all, just

> recommendations like the one by EPA that they not be used for clearance

> testing, just discovering if a problem exists. (because of the MANY false

> negatives, but FEW false positives)

>

> If you do mold testing (and not toxin testing) I am starting to think QPCR

> must be the most accurate - that is, if enough dust can be found..

>

> On 7/8/07, salzberglver3 <salzberglver3@...> wrote:

> >

> > I totally agree with . Not only should the mold samplings be

> > turned over (even if they are done incorrectly with all windows

> > open),but so should the court subpoenaed maintenance reports in

> > worker's comp. cases. I'm into year three of my WC case and just

> > recently got the 10,000 pages of documentation. I now have a clear

> > picture of the environmental hazards I was working in for 15 years. It

> > would have been nice to hand those details over to my first

> > toxicologist and subsequent doctors so they could have made their

> > health assessments more easily and accurately. Future legal reform

> > must include the compelling of employers/landlords/etc. to turn over

> > the tests and documentation within the first month of having a

> > worker/tenant, etc. becoming ill.

> >

>

July 12, 2007

Carl, LiveSimply

Far too many of us have personally experienced a situation whereby mold

sampling results were withheld from us, myself included. It is my hope that

all

of our experiences as victims to this practice will help forge the way for

change to take place.

B.

In a message dated 7/9/2007 10:27:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

grimes@... writes: