- , Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation, Mycotoxicosis

[Guest guest]

,

My apologies for being slow to the response, I don't always have

time to read every email right away. In fact I found yours while

on a plane to Atlanta. Henry's backyard! -- Unfortunately, Henry,

a visit will have to wait for IAQA in Nashville. (Shameless plug!

Hope to see all of you at the IEQuality reception.)

Thank you for your agreement with my points plus confirming your

controversial reputation while at the same time offering your

humble admission to learning from some of us (or them, anyway). It

takes diverse talents to perform successfully as a professional

and we all have different teaching and learning styles.

So here are some responses to your questions modeled after your

preferred style - All in serious fun, not meanness or with rancor

or as " wedge " issues (but somewhat at your expense) but hopefully

in a way that encourages those with a different preferred style to

stop lurking.

> But let me ask....How many structures do you work on that >

> don’t have problems?

How many people call for help if they don't have a problem with

their structures? Seems like this is a set-up.

However, let me quickly add that although I am in the business of

inspecting, assessing, overseeing, verifying, occasionally testing

and otherwise consulting on building associated concerns (the vast

majority), not all buildings I work with have problems. Also, I

provide preventive consulting for both present structures and

those in various stages of planning and construction.

I love finding a building with no occupant complaints so I can

learn more about what reportedly works vs mere claims that they

work.

> How many clients do you have that don’t have problems or

> health claims?

Same answer as above, just substitute " people " for " buildings. "

Now, let me ask you, how many people have you worked with? Don't

include the general population of a structure; just those you

personally engage.

1. Those that hire you.

2. Occupants as a group.

3. As small groups.

4. As an individual.

I would guess (but not presume):

All of 1. Few of 2. Almost none of 3. Zero of 4.

> None I presume.

Why do you presume that? Or anything? What do you know about me?

Do you think me stupid or so naïve as to not realize I'm working

with a sub-group? And that a sub-group is not representative of

the group? If they were representative then they would be a member

of the group and not the sub.

As a matter of fact, I specifically and publicly position myself

as an expert for those situations when conventional, traditional,

acceptable and all other methods (except illegal) fail to resolve

occupant complaints with built structures. Give me the jobs you

can't solve. I'll have a greater chance of success than you

because I'll first learn what you did and then will deliberately

not repeat what didn't work.

To continue the repetition in the face of the lack of results,

like most of this and other industries do, is what is stupid and

naïve. To then blame those that continue to complain because they

can't match your professional expertise and precise use of a

technical vocabulary is rude at best and an abuse of authority at

worst. Well, maybe malpractice is worse. I'll have to check the

definitions and case law before I make that judgement.

> You and many of the other mold

> practitioners only work on problem, symptomatic structures with

> clients alleging harm/injury.

Mold practitioner? What makes you think I limit my work to just

mold? And what, prey tell, do you mean by practioner? BTW, is

there a certification for " practitioner? " Will I have to take a

test or just send money? Let's see: Certified indoor airborne

toxic mold inspector-sampler for definitive and authoritative

judgements practitioner: CIATMISDAJP. That even beats my NASCR

certificate by twice the number of letters plus one!

But seriously, next thing I know, you'll presume I'm out to wage

revenge on the " establishment " because I'm a mold victim. Fact

is, mold can be a problem for me but it was, and is, relatively

minor compared to other enviornmental exposure sources that

influenced my medical history as governed by my genetic patterns

as dictated by medical and societal norms until I quit acting like

a weak and sick sheep blindly obeying the experts even when they

failed until I consciously made a choice to grow up a begin making

my own choices with results verified or not by changes in

complaints and improved health as indicated by greater activity

more frequently but not in a vengeful or complusive way. (Except

for long, run-on sentences).

Or is that just a fancy euphemism for " psychosomatic? " Maybe the

Big Tobacco people can answer that one. <Sharon is grinning, I'll

bet.>

Why do you describe buildings as " symptomatic and problem, " but

you don't describe clients in a similar neutral manner? Instead,

you use the prejudicial description of " alleging harm/injury? " I

think I detect a bit of a bias here. Do you prefer buildings more

than people?

> Don’t let this sub-set of all

> buildings cloud your perspective of construction and/or

> construction

> assemblies.

I think this statement is more telling about you than of me or

others in this group. The discussion started with the claim that

" mold in cavities caused " occupant exposure problems and your

emphatic disagreement.

I don't think anybody is saying that problem buildings are in any

way representative of the way all other buildings are designed and

constructed. Problem buildings certainly aren't representative of

non-problem buildings. (?) Is that circular? Tautological? Or " by

definition? "

....except homes quickly built during a construction frenzy.

....or with inexperienced cheap labor when skilled craftsmen are

available.

....or when financing is inadequate so shortcuts MUST be taken.

....or infrastructure can be literally covered up by the finish.

....or some are uneducated and not properly trained so they install

window flashing backwards on a $4 million house and the supervisor

doesn't know better when it is pointed out to him.

....or they are just human and even the best of us make mistakes.

Other than that, I think the building industry does a " bang up "

job with the buildings that don't have problems.

You know? Writing this was much more fun than trying to be

diplomatic, scientifically precise, carefully professional and oh

so erudite. I may just continue this style for awhile and create a

new certification for The hell with facts because I will do my job

the way I prefer because I can out argue you and fool the others.

HWFBIWDMJWIPBICOAYFO. Even better than the whimpy CIATMISDAJP.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Carl:

>

> Agreed. I have no opinion contrary to any of your statements.

>

> But let me ask....How many structures do you work on that don’t

> have

> problems? How many clients do you have that don’t have problems

> or

> health claims? None I presume. You and many of the other mold

> practitioners only work on problem, symptomatic structures with

> clients alleging harm/injury. Don’t let this sub-set of all

> buildings cloud your perspective of construction and/or

> construction

> assemblies. I have remodeled and/or demolished a lot of existing

> structures that

> had wall/floor cavities which were black with mold, yet no one

> knew it

> and it was not affecting the occupants therein. What does this

> mean....sometimes the biomass in wall cavities does not affect

> the

> occupied space or the occupants. It could be that the occupants

> therein were not hypersensitive, or that the pathway was not well

> developed, or.... There are many factors. In my opinion, almost

> all

> structures with hollow cavity wall systems have some level of

> biomass

> in their wall cavities (especially in the southeast), and only a

> sub-

> set of these become problematic. However, this sub-set does not

> support the denigration of construction means, methods, and

> materials

> I so often hear from persons who have never built anything in

> their

> life. It is unwarranted and without foundation.

>

> I never stated that hollow-cavity wall assemblies are constructed

> so

> tight that they hold a vacuum. Nor do I support the contention

> that

> they leak like swiss cheese. These are but the extremes and we

> all can

> find examples to support either side of this spectrum. The norm

> is

> somewhere in between. You add-in operation, use, maintenance, and

> location of the structure, and performance weaknesses begin to

> become

> apparent. For example, it is quite apparent that OSB sheeting

> under a

> stapled asphalt roof membrane is not appropriate in locations

> with

> hurricanes. However, the same assembly performs real well here in

> the

> southwest and it is used quite often here because of the lower

> cost of

> assembly, thereby making the cost of construction less and the

> cost of

> ownership less. We all need to remember that affordable housing

> is

> important, VERY important! While everyone may want a well- built,

> custom home designed by a competent designer that specifies only

> the

> best in materi What started this thread was the news brief posted

> herein that stated that six persons litigated for benefits

> because of

> mold present in a wall cavity in their office. I took exception

> to the

> foundation of their claim, based on the brief, and suspected that

> there was more to the claim than presented in the brief because

> of the

> lack of a well- developed pathway. I created a firestorm with my

> comment. Tis not the first time I have been labeled:

> controversial. In

> fact, it happened just two weeks ago at a vapor intrusion

> conference

> in a room full of good scientists who were bastardizing

> construction

> terminology and making overly-broad conclusions regarding the

> permeability of foundations based on the study of a small sub-set

> of

> detached SFDs with basements. I feel this dialog is good. It

> caused me to think and consider the

> alternative....and get my head out of the box, if only for a

> brief

> period.

>

> Regards,

> -- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

> President

> KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

> Bakersfield, California

> www.kerntecindustries.com

>

>

>

>

> On 9/29/06 12:33 PM, " Carl E. Grimes "

> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> ,

>

> I, too, usually agree with you, but not in this case.

>

> I have yet to see a building that was so air tight that you

> could

> pull and hold a vacuum (unless designed specifically for

> it). I have yet to see a building where air pathways were

> filtered

> with HEPA media or equivalent.

>

> The biomass of mold is not the only component of mold that

> occupants may be exposed to. Fine particulate and molecular

> components abound.

>

> Mold is not the only micro-organism that amplifies in damp

> spaces. Bacteria may be more prevalent and of more concern.

>

> I have many many clients that when biomass was removed from

> habitable spaces continued to react until the biomass was

> also

> removed from the interstitial spaces.

>

> Maybe it wasn't strictly or only the mold, but " something "

> was

> there; the removal of which made the difference between

> habitable

> and not habitable.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

> > -------------- Original message ----------------------

> > From: Geyer <mgeyer@...

> <mailto:mgeyer%40atg1.com>

> > > > For what it is worth.... > > > > I understand that the

> hubbub of this thread is the admissibility of > >

> Shoemaker’s

> testimony. However, what I find appalling is the > >

> statement in

> this brief that....six employees sought benefits after > >

> mold

> was discovered in a wall cavity at their office. If this is

> > >

> true, what BS! Wall cavities are un-occupied interstitial

> spaces

> > > within a structure. Moreover, there are few, if any,

> structures > > that don’t have mold spores in their

> interstitial spaces, and there > > is plenty of data and

> research

> to show that biomass in wall cavities > > does not

> significantly

> affect the occupied space; even if the cavity > > is black

> with

> hyphae and spores. If the mold was present in the > >

> occupied

> space, I would be more sympathetic to the claims of the > >

> plaintiffs, because I for one believe inhaled biomass causes

> harm

> – > > some more and some less. But mold in a wall

> cavity.....

> What a > > bunch of bull. There must be more to this case

> than

> the brief as > > written by Courtroom News. The pathway to

> exposure is just not well > > developed. > > > > -- > >

>

> Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP > > President > > KERNTEC Industries,

> Inc. >

> > Bakersfield, California > > www.kerntecindustries.com > >

> > > >

This message sent using Spam Arrest Confirmed Delivery!Visit http://www.spamarrest.com/ and Take Control of Your Inbox®