RE: Clearance Testing including Photomicrographs

[Guest guest]

,

You state: > .. but if

you don't cheat and the place is clean ..

That is the issue we are making , ho

determines if you are cheating and/or missed something unknowingly unless a

third party test?

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006

5:14 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Clearance

Testing including Photomicrographs

If anyone would like to see a recent set of clearance tests (that

include photomicrographs) that we performed acting as an IEP please email me

personally. A portion of the slide is photo-micrographed and we think this

adds a nice touch. We send these clearance test results to the clients.

They can understand such " data " .

Sampling for clearance purposes is not the be all and end all ... but

if you don't cheat and the place is clean ... the test results really can show

off your good work.

Rosen

Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

,

I have had very enjoyable and thought-provoking discussions with Bob s on

the subject. BTW, he cited studies about " normal fungal

ecology " whereas you just said, " In Canada where there are

basements and very tight buildings Normal

means there is some indoor mold growth. Normal

in Florida in

an air conditioned house is no mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned

house Normal

will be mold growth. " This is merely your unsubstantiated

opinion or assumption.

S520 says that an IEP must be able to identify Condition 1.

" IEP " and " Condition 1 " are both IICRC constructs defined

very poorly for practical application. When I wrote, " How about IEP-CERTIFIED

CONDITION 1? " as a term to replace " CERTIFIED MOLD FREE " ,

it was my sense of humor dominating the deeply cynical and jaded side of my

character. I wanted to point out how nebulous and vague (and funny, to

me) the term IEP-Certified Condition 1 actually would be (what/who qualifies as

an IEP, and what constitutes Condition 1?). It still beats the crap out

of CERTIFIED MOLD FREE.

Let's take a look at Condition 1, " normal fungal ecology " , starting

from Condition 3:

Condition 3 -- colonization of a

substrate, mold amplification

Condition 2 -- airborne or

formerly airborne (settled) contaminants which had disseminated from Condition

3 locations

Condition 1 -- anything else.

Those are your 3 choices. Pick one.

This is how I intend to identify Condition 1.

Post-remediation conditions had better be cleaner than Condition 1 because

after Condition 3 and Condition 2, the place ain't normal, by definition.

Thereafter it contains bioaerosols and microbial stuff that people can be

sensitive, or sensitized, to. You can't go backwards from Condition 3 or

2 until you've cleaned up the place. Once it has been cleaned, then it

can return to Condition 1.

Comments anyone?

Steve Temes

In a message dated 12/10/2006 11:48:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com writes:

Steve,

Bob s BobB@safety-

epa.com has just provided us some very interesting and useful perspective

on Normal.

Normal depends

on many factors. In Canada

where there are basements and very tight buildings Normal means there is some indoor mold

growth. Normal in Florida in an air conditioned house is no

mold growth. But in an older non-air conditioned house Normal will be mold growth.

The S520 leaves the definition to the professionals involved in the remediation

which is as it should be. Unfortunately Normal in schools throughout the country is

in many cases unhealthful. I don't think that is what they mean by Normal.

Rosen

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __