RE: Letter to the Editor - IE Connections

March 30, 2006

Give me break – you want to

talk liable – take a look at the lies IE connections prints on a regular

basis – especially other trade groups.

Letter to the

Editor - IE Connections

Importance: High

Glenn, Steve:

Please publish the following in next month's issue of IE Connections. I realize it's over

the 300 word limit (it's about 360 words), but I respectfully request that you

print the entire piece.

-----------------------------------

Carl Grimes has done it again. I've pretty much

had my fill of his continued bashing of Certified Industrial Hygienists

(CIHs).

His March column reflects a lack of journalistic

responsibility, and in my estimation, crosses the line into libel. If

Carl is going to be allowed to write this column, he needs to be held

accountable for his " facts " . I realize that his column appears

on the editorial page, but that doesn't give one license to create an alternate

universe.

In his latest rant, " Top Ten Pet Peeves " ,

he once again takes aim at the venerable profession of industrial

hygiene. It's too bad he isn't willing to present the truth about the

ABIH Code of Ethics. There's really no excuse, as it's out there for everyone

to see: http://www.abih.org/general/codeofethics.html

Under Peeve #9: Area of Competence, Grimes states

that: " The code of ethics for CIHs...specifically binds them to

operating within their competence.... " And yes, that's true -- see

Canon of Ethical Conduct No. 5. But then, inexplicably, Carl goes on to

say: " ...as determined by the educational materials and exam questions

required to obtain their certification. " Where does he get

this line of nonsense?

Here's what the official ABIH Interpretive Guidelines

say about Canon No. 5: " Industrial Hygienists should undertake to perform

services only when qualified by education, training or experience in the

specific technical fields involved, unless sufficient assistance is provided by

qualified associates, consultants or employees. "

There is nothing in this guideline that's even

remotely like Grimes' claim.

Why would anyone take it upon themselves to redefine

the rules for a group of professionals with long-standing, valid ties to

studies of the indoor environment? This is 'sour grapes' -- pure and

simple.

Finally, for anyone to suggest that IHs are somehow

limited to industrial/manufacturing environments because of the word

" industrial " in their job title is ludicrous, a gross

distortion. Hygienists are occupational health and safety professionals,

whether that workplace is a hospital, a public school, an office building, or a

residential setting.

I strongly suggest that readers take the time to find

out what industrial hygienists really do, and who they are. You could

start here: http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html

--------------------------------------

BTW, Carl, when using the title 'Certified Industrial

Hygienist', please use it properly -- make sure it's capitalized. Just as

in the title 'Professional Engineer', it's a designation that we've worked very

hard to earn. Those who've earned these distinctions are weary of your

continued disrespect, and I for one, will no longer tolerate your use of this

column as a bully pulpit for (what certainly appears to be) a deliberate

campaign of misinformation.

--------------------------------------

Sincerely,

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Director, Air Quality Services

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

" Real Professionals. Real

Solutions "

811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

PO Box 2377

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@...

On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more

fun? "

- Graham

NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential

information. Use and further disclosure of the information by the recipient

must be consistent with applicable laws, regulations and agreements. If you received

this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; delete the e-mail; and do not

use, disclose or store the information it contains.

March 30, 2006

As a historical perspective on the supposed narrow focus of IHs only in the industrial area, consider the following:

The US Public Health Service's first major investigation of Donora, PA in 1948 for an air pollution episode that killed 21 citizens was done by industrial hygienists - unfortunately it was directed by an attorney.

The DOT Hazmat classifications come from the 1940's Industrial Hygiene Quarterly.

Many of the health physicists under study grants ca. WWII were IHs.

The CIH old timers (Ed Baier [started in 1940s], Pete Breysse [started in 1940s], Clayton (deceased), etc.) all worked on IAQ. Heck, Breysse did noise exposures in schools in the 1960s, CO in homes in the 1970s-1990s, and formaldehyde in homes the 1970s and 1980s. [A good first-hand description of how IHs were IEQ investigators and Community health investigators and the like before IEQ was a term one can listen to Breysse and Baier at the 1994 AIHA Conference] Baier was with the state of PA and NIOSH (before it was NIOSH) and OSHA. Breyssee was with the State of Washington supposedly in occupational health work but did investigations of noise, CO, HCHO, even a recreational motor boat accident.

The CIH designation used to have an air pollution discipline and a tox discipline and an IAQ discipline.

The CIH exam has community exposure and indoor air quality questions.

The AIHA published several Community Exposure Limits (late 1960s) before the EPA was created.

The best bacteria data published that I have found was by IHs in the AIHA J in 1969, followed by the 1940s and 1950s in IH Quarterly.

Tony

........................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement.

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wane A. BakerSent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:55 PMTo: IAQGLENN@...; Sauer (IECnews@...)Cc: Carl E. Grimes; iequality Subject: Letter to the Editor - IE ConnectionsImportance: High

Glenn, Steve:

Please publish the following in next month's issue of IE Connections. I realize it's over the 300 word limit (it's about 360 words), but I respectfully request that you print the entire piece.

-----------------------------------

Carl Grimes has done it again. I've pretty much had my fill of his continued bashing of Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs).

His March column reflects a lack of journalistic responsibility, and in my estimation, crosses the line into libel. If Carl is going to be allowed to write this column, he needs to be held accountable for his "facts". I realize that his column appears on the editorial page, but that doesn't give one license to create an alternate universe.

In his latest rant, "Top Ten Pet Peeves", he once again takes aim at the venerable profession of industrial hygiene. It's too bad he isn't willing to present the truth about the ABIH Code of Ethics. There's really no excuse, as it's out there for everyone to see: http://www.abih.org/general/codeofethics.html

Under Peeve #9: Area of Competence, Grimes states that: "The code of ethics for CIHs...specifically binds them to operating within their competence...." And yes, that's true -- see Canon of Ethical Conduct No. 5. But then, inexplicably, Carl goes on to say: "...as determined by the educational materials and exam questions required to obtain their certification." Where does he get this line of nonsense?

Here's what the official ABIH Interpretive Guidelines say about Canon No. 5: "Industrial Hygienists should undertake to perform services only when qualified by education, training or experience in the specific technical fields involved, unless sufficient assistance is provided by qualified associates, consultants or employees."

There is nothing in this guideline that's even remotely like Grimes' claim.

Why would anyone take it upon themselves to redefine the rules for a group of professionals with long-standing, valid ties to studies of the indoor environment? This is 'sour grapes' -- pure and simple.

Finally, for anyone to suggest that IHs are somehow limited to industrial/manufacturing environments because of the word "industrial" in their job title is ludicrous, a gross distortion. Hygienists are occupational health and safety professionals, whether that workplace is a hospital, a public school, an office building, or a residential setting.

I strongly suggest that readers take the time to find out what industrial hygienists really do, and who they are. You could start here: http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html

--------------------------------------

BTW, Carl, when using the title 'Certified Industrial Hygienist', please use it properly -- make sure it's capitalized. Just as in the title 'Professional Engineer', it's a designation that we've worked very hard to earn. Those who've earned these distinctions are weary of your continued disrespect, and I for one, will no longer tolerate your use of this column as a bully pulpit for (what certainly appears to be) a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

--------------------------------------

Sincerely,

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIHDirector, Air Quality ServicesMICHAELS ENGINEERING INC."Real Professionals. Real Solutions"811 Monitor Street, Suite 100PO Box 2377La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602 Phone , ext. 484Cell Fax mailto:wab@...On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?"- Graham NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information. Use and further disclosure of the information by the recipient must be consistent with applicable laws, regulations and agreements. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; delete the e-mail; and do not use, disclose or store the information it contains.

March 30, 2006

Wane,

I'm sorry you took such strong personal offense to my opinions as

expressed in my " opinion column " in IE Connections. We know each

other from this group and from having met in Orlando, so rest assured

that my comments were not directed specifically at you.

I'm not quite sure I understand why you chose to involve this group.

I didn't anticipate that but I'm glad, now, that you did. This way

the discussion, since there is now surely to be one, can immediately

begin instead of smoldering until the May issue of IE Connections

arrives. My hope is that our process will be reasoned and

professional with a goal of clarifying our issues and increasing our

cooperative effectiveness to the industry, our professions and our

clients.

And what better place to clarify positions and ideas than with this

group which includes some of the best and most diverse experts

available. This group includes CIH, PE, DrPH, PhD, MD, CIE, CMR,

CIAQP, NASCAR (smile!), consultants, contractors, restorers, carpet

cleaners, remediators and even IPC - interested private citizens and

APC - affected private citizens.

I'll save the several specific points you addressed for another time

because I want to focus on clarifying that I am not anti-CIH and am

certainly not against the superb training, education and experience

requirements to even qualify to sit for the exam. I'm not sour about

that and I love grapes! (Except wine, but that's another story).

CIHs are valuable and much needed. Their contributions are

inmeasurable. And I'm certain many of you could provide much better

support for that argument than I can.

My pet peeve with CIHs -- which I may be guilty of not being as clear

as I should be, but which I certainly want to remedy now -- is when

they act outside of their expertise as a CIH and still use the CIH

accreditation as their authority to do so.

This would be no different, but certainly less obvious, than a CIH

installing plumbing, acting as a general contractor on a construction

site or performing the duties of the CFO of a corporation and

claiming their CIH accreditation qualifies and authorizes them to do

so. That doesn't mean they are prohibited from performing those

functions, just not as a CIH.

For an example that is less obvious, a CIH could assess mold in

residential buildings, write a scope of work, oversee the project and

provide independent closure to the job. But what part of residential

mold assessment (whose occupants are not workers so this isn't

occupational) is inherent in being a CIH? What part is inherent,

instead, with other forms of expertise? Certified, accredited yet or

not?

Part of the misconception occurs when other authorities such as

insurance adjustors and attorneys behave as pretenders by insisting

and/or requiring a CIH simply because they are a CIH and discounting

specifically appropriate training, education and experience of a non-

CIH. Regardless of the CIH's qualifications or lack thereof for the

situation at hand.

I've been in courses, conferences, meetings, depositions and on the

witness stand when this argument has been made. And NEVER, at least

in my experience, has the CIH corrected the misconception and/or

misapplication of their expertise and authority. They have always

allowed it to continue. Maybe some of you have stood up to the

pretenders. If so, I apologize to you and I applaud you!

While individual CIHs perhaps can't be blamed for starting this,

shouldn't they be held culpable for their acts of omission that

allows it to persist? For not standing up to the unfounded claims of

the " authorities? " Are they perhaps leaning on the actions of some of

the organizations representing CIHs? Some have a history of actively

lobbying legislative bodies on the state and national levels to write

legislation to blanket qualify all CIHs AND exclude all others.

So why am I picking on CIHs instead of the more blatant that have

little training, inadequate experience and misguided education from

certification mills and manufacturer's product programs?

As professionals, CIHs should know better, and as well eductated as

they are required to be, they should know what they don't know. That

is part of what being educated means. Standing against the wrong use

of their expertise is part of what being a professional means.

Many of the others mentioned above don't know what they don't know so

there's nothing to be gained by attempting a discussion. The only

ones worse are the " True Believers " of Multi Level Marketing fame.

(Geez, I hope there are none of those on this group. I'll be in even

deeper... trouble!)

So what are the boundaries of a CIH? (and others). Help me out here.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Glenn, Steve:

>

> Please publish the following in next month's issue of IE Connections.

> I realize it's over the 300 word limit (it's about 360 words), but I

> respectfully request that you print the entire piece.

>

> -----------------------------------

>

> Carl Grimes has done it again. I've pretty much had my fill of his

> continued bashing of Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs).

>

> His March column reflects a lack of journalistic responsibility, and

> in my estimation, crosses the line into libel. If Carl is going to be

> allowed to write this column, he needs to be held accountable for his

> " facts " . I realize that his column appears on the editorial page, but

> that doesn't give one license to create an alternate universe.

>

> In his latest rant, " Top Ten Pet Peeves " , he once again takes aim at

> the venerable profession of industrial hygiene. It's too bad he isn't

> willing to present the truth about the ABIH Code of Ethics. There's

> really no excuse, as it's out there for everyone to see:

> http://www.abih.org/general/codeofethics.html

> <http://www.abih.org/general/codeofethics.html>

>

> Under Peeve #9: Area of Competence, Grimes states that: " The code of

> ethics for CIHs...specifically binds them to operating within their

> competence.... " And yes, that's true -- see Canon of Ethical Conduct

> No. 5. But then, inexplicably, Carl goes on to say: " ...as determined

> by the educational materials and exam questions required to obtain

> their certification. " Where does he get this line of nonsense?

>

> Here's what the official ABIH Interpretive Guidelines say about Canon

> No. 5: " Industrial Hygienists should undertake to perform services

> only when qualified by education, training or experience in the

> specific technical fields involved, unless sufficient assistance is

> provided by qualified associates, consultants or employees. "

>

> There is nothing in this guideline that's even remotely like Grimes'

> claim.

>

> Why would anyone take it upon themselves to redefine the rules for a

> group of professionals with long-standing, valid ties to studies of

> the indoor environment? This is 'sour grapes' -- pure and simple.

>

> Finally, for anyone to suggest that IHs are somehow limited to

> industrial/manufacturing environments because of the word " industrial "

> in their job title is ludicrous, a gross distortion. Hygienists are

> occupational health and safety professionals, whether that workplace

> is a hospital, a public school, an office building, or a residential

> setting.

>

> I strongly suggest that readers take the time to find out what

> industrial hygienists really do, and who they are. You could start

> here: http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html

> <http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html>

>

> --------------------------------------

>

> BTW, Carl, when using the title 'Certified Industrial Hygienist',

> please use it properly -- make sure it's capitalized. Just as in the

> title 'Professional Engineer', it's a designation that we've worked

> very hard to earn. Those who've earned these distinctions are weary

> of your continued disrespect, and I for one, will no longer tolerate

> your use of this column as a bully pulpit for (what certainly appears

> to be) a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

>

> --------------------------------------

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

> Director, Air Quality Services

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

> " Real Professionals. Real Solutions "

> 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100

> PO Box 2377

> La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

> Phone , ext. 484

> Cell

> Fax

> mailto:wab@...

> On the web at:

> http://www.michaelsengineering.com

> <http://www.michaelsengineering.com/> " To love what you do and feel

> that it matters - how could anything be more fun? " - Graham

> NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential

> information. Use and further disclosure of the information by the

> recipient must be consistent with applicable laws, regulations and

> agreements. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the

> sender; delete the e-mail; and do not use, disclose or store the

> information it contains.

>

March 30, 2006

Bill,

I agree with you in part in your complaint

with the Carl Crimes article.

In reviewing the article before I

commented on this chat room, Carl does have some good points and I

believe he has run into the same concerns I do about a few CIH’s. I hope you agree that some CIH’s

pose them self as the ultimate authority in directing and clearing [gaining

closure] on microbial problems in buildings, and if you are not a CIH, you are

less qualified and your sampling strategy to analysis interpretation should be

questioned.

I am not a CIH, but I took university

level courses taught by CIH’s, PE’s and Ph.D.’s, and past all

the quizzes that comply with the CIH testing program, however, I could not sit

for the test because I do not have a science degree. For the past 25 years, I

have been a student of many of the writers of the ACGIH Bioaerosol: Assessment

and Control book. I am on IICRC,

ASTM and several other standards committees; and I taught a university level mold

remediation and bioaerosol interpretation semester course

that had CIH’s, PE’s, microbiologists and environmental litigation

attorneys in the class.

I outline some of my credentials,

including 20 years of expert witness testimony, because a few CIH’s in the

microbial remediation industry tout them self as the only reliable type of expert

in the environmental remediation industry. This isn’t true and attorney’s

questioning a few CIH’s in depositions found they never have gone through

any form of microbial assessment and remediation class and certification, let

alone attending laboratory classes interpreting microbial values. I feel these

individuals fall short of the Codes of Ethics and Canons established for CIH’s.

What do you say?

Moffett, CHMM,

REA, etc.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Emma Chastain

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006

7:14 PM

To: iequality

Subject: RE: Letter to

the Editor - IE Connections

Give me break – you want to

talk liable – take a look at the lies IE connections prints on a regular

basis – especially other trade groups.

Letter to the

Editor - IE Connections

Importance: High

Glenn, Steve:

Please publish the following in next month's issue of IE Connections. I realize it's over

the 300 word limit (it's about 360 words), but I respectfully request that you

print the entire piece.

-----------------------------------

Carl Grimes has done it again. I've pretty much

had my fill of his continued bashing of Certified Industrial Hygienists

(CIHs).

His March column reflects a lack of journalistic

responsibility, and in my estimation, crosses the line into libel. If

Carl is going to be allowed to write this column, he needs to be held

accountable for his " facts " . I realize that his column appears

on the editorial page, but that doesn't give one license to create an alternate

universe.

In his latest rant, " Top Ten Pet Peeves " ,

he once again takes aim at the venerable profession of industrial

hygiene. It's too bad he isn't willing to present the truth about the

ABIH Code of Ethics. There's really no excuse, as it's out there for

everyone to see: http://www.abih.org/general/codeofethics.html

Under Peeve #9: Area of Competence, Grimes states

that: " The code of ethics for CIHs...specifically binds them to

operating within their competence.... " And yes, that's true -- see

Canon of Ethical Conduct No. 5. But then, inexplicably, Carl goes on to say:

" ...as determined by the educational materials and exam questions required

to obtain their certification. " Where does he get this line of

nonsense?

Here's what the official ABIH Interpretive Guidelines

say about Canon No. 5: " Industrial Hygienists should undertake to perform

services only when qualified by education, training or experience in the

specific technical fields involved, unless sufficient assistance is provided by

qualified associates, consultants or employees. "

There is nothing in this guideline that's even

remotely like Grimes' claim.

Why would anyone take it upon themselves to redefine

the rules for a group of professionals with long-standing, valid ties to

studies of the indoor environment? This is 'sour grapes' -- pure and simple.

Finally, for anyone to suggest that IHs are somehow

limited to industrial/manufacturing environments because of the word

" industrial " in their job title is ludicrous, a gross

distortion. Hygienists are occupational health and safety professionals,

whether that workplace is a hospital, a public school, an office building, or a

residential setting.

I strongly suggest that readers take the time to find

out what industrial hygienists really do, and who they are. You could

start here: http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html

--------------------------------------

BTW, Carl, when using the title 'Certified Industrial

Hygienist', please use it properly -- make sure it's capitalized. Just as

in the title 'Professional Engineer', it's a designation that we've worked very

hard to earn. Those who've earned these distinctions are weary of your

continued disrespect, and I for one, will no longer tolerate your use of this

column as a bully pulpit for (what certainly appears to be) a deliberate

campaign of misinformation.

--------------------------------------

Sincerely,

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Director, Air Quality Services

MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.

" Real Professionals. Real

Solutions "

811

Monitor Street, Suite 100

PO

Box 2377

La Crosse,

Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@...

On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more

fun? "

- Graham

NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information.

Use and further disclosure of the information by the recipient must be

consistent with applicable laws, regulations and agreements. If you received

this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; delete the e-mail; and do not

use, disclose or store the information it contains.

March 31, 2006

"The code of ethics for CIHs...specifically binds them to operating within their competence...." And yes, that's true -- see Canon of Ethical Conduct No. 5. But then, inexplicably, Carl goes on to say: "...as determined by the educational materials and exam questions required to obtain their certification." Where does he get this line of nonsense?

Here's what the official ABIH Interpretive Guidelines say about Canon No. 5: "Industrial Hygienists should undertake to perform services only when qualified by education, training or experience in the specific technical fields involved, unless sufficient assistance is provided by qualified associates, consultants or employees."

I, for one, would like to hear what the ABIH, itself, has to say about their certification being considered a "mold qualification". If there is any "bullying" (and behind the scenes lobbying) being done, it is being done by AIHA who claim CIH superiority in the field of microbial consulting without ensuring any specific related training at all. Many CIHs are exceptionally good, but it isn't because of their certification. It is because they have educated themselves.

A lot of CIHs are a little loose when it come to Canon No. 5. They are loose cannons. Examples abound.

Remember the IEQ subspecialty certification? Evidently the ABIH didn't feel its diplomates were especially qualified to do IAQ work without further training. The membership wasn't interested and the cert is no longer offered. They were already CIHs. What more did they need?

Steve Temes

March 31, 2006

Wane, Tony, Carl & Steve,

I'm going to step out on a limb here and (believe it or not) try to

mediate this discussion just a little.

I think that, in context, ALL of your points are valid. I lean a bit toward

Steve's expressd opinions and Carl's clarified opinions however, as a

result of my own personal experiences.

Wane, I had great respect for you and your professional abilities in the

IAQ field BEFORE you added the " C " to your IH qualifications. And I

don't hold the " C " against you! (wink).

My personal experiences have more often than not paralled those

expressed by Carl & Steve's, which of course has bred some feelings

of resentment, that less experienced (sometimes NO experience), less

capable individual has been awarded a job simply because of THE " C " .

That the ignorance of insurance companies, judges, attorneys and

corporate safety managers has summarily rejected MY experience and

qualifications because I don't have the coveted, sometimes

misrepresented and often misunderstood " C " , or that my highly

experienced, capable and qualified opinions and testimony often

carries less weight than the individual's with The " C " .

It too often becomes a contest of who has the " C " rather than objective

evaluation of evidence and more a matter of credentials than who is

REALLY qualified and experienced. That's wrong, no matter which

side of the fence you're on. Isn't that really what all the noise about

certifications on this board has been for the past several years? Isn't it

kind of on the same par with racial profiling, only it's professional

profiling? And the biggest problem I have with the situation is that if

the " C " doesn't have the specific training and experience that would

render them TRULY qualified, then MUM is the word. They perpetuate

the ignorance, misinformation and misunderstanding. As though

they're better than everyone else. BS to that.

One of the individuals involved in our profession is a young lady who

posts to this board, who previous to her own nightmarish experiences

with mold in her home, had NO qualifications, experience or expertise

in our field. She passionately busted her butt, and continues to do so,

and is, IMHO an extremely knowledgeable and capable professional in

our industry, who is completely self-educated. She doesn't HAVE to

rely on a " C " from ABIH, or from any other organization to know her

stuff. THAT is something and someone I truly respect. Working and

paying your dues, not relying on entitlement.

There are good and bad in all professions...I know some highly

qualifeid CIH's who do the same work as I do. They have my respect.

Not because they have the " C " but because they have everything else

that it takes. Isn't that what it SHOULD be about?

My son has a PhD in chemistry and is a toxicologist. Pretty impressive

credentials. I sometimes consult with him on my projects. I get the

family discount, he doesn't charge me. But MOST importantly, if he

doesn't KNOW the answer to something I'm asking him about, he

ADMITS it!! Isn't that what we should all be about, instead of

PRETENDING to know about that which we are clueless?

Let's not let this turn into Harley's vs. Rice Burners, power vs. sail

boats. It's not, and shouldn't be about " C " 's and non " C " s. It should

only be about who is truly capable.

One last opinion. If ABIH is truly concerned about their credibility, why

not allow someone such as myself, with over 21years experience in the

environmental industry, study for and sit for the " C " exam? Why not

include sub-specialty designations in their " C " program? I don't have

the B.S. (in this case Bacheor of Science) sheepskin, so my 21 years

of experience means NOTHING to them? The other side of that coin

is that their " C " doesn't impress me either. Not unless they're truly

capable.

The credible cert organizations of our industry had the same initial

perspective, but enlightment came to them, and they eventually

allowed substitution of experience for educational requirements. So

now I'm a CIAQP instead of a CIAQT and a CIAQC instead of a CIAQI.

Am I REALLY more qualified becaue of the letter designations?

NOPE! But my true abilities are acknowledged by alternative means.

Let's all try to stay on the same side of the fence here, folks.

Cheers to all who are qualified.

Chuck Reaney, CIAQetc.

_____________________________________________

Alpha Environmental, Inc.

Indoor Air Quality & Environmental Consulting

624 W. St. s Dr.

Media, PA 19063

Phone: Fax:

_____________________________________________

March 31, 2006

Hi Carl:

I agree, in essence, with 'most everything in your reply. I haven't

the time nor the inclination to formulate on point-by-point

response. I believe my position was made clear.

your 'apology' falls well short: " I'm sorry that YOU took personal

offense... " is simply deflecting your culpability. what you need to

confess to everyone in this industry, CIH or not, is: " hey, I messed

up -- sorry about that " .

please stop making up imaginary rules for others, and presenting

them as facts.

finally, the IAQA's movement toward unification is one critical

aspect of what finally drew me into that fold. as active as you are

in the association, why would you choose to take such a divisive

stance? the IAQA unites and Grimes divides; this makes no sense at

all.

enough said.

Wane

>

> Wane,

>

> I'm sorry you took such strong personal offense to my opinions as

> expressed in my " opinion column " in IE Connections. We know each

> other from this group and from having met in Orlando, so rest

assured

> that my comments were not directed specifically at you.

>

> I'm not quite sure I understand why you chose to involve this

group.

> I didn't anticipate that but I'm glad, now, that you did. This way

> the discussion, since there is now surely to be one, can

immediately

> begin instead of smoldering until the May issue of IE Connections

> arrives. My hope is that our process will be reasoned and

> professional with a goal of clarifying our issues and increasing

our

> cooperative effectiveness to the industry, our professions and our

> clients.

>

> And what better place to clarify positions and ideas than with

this

> group which includes some of the best and most diverse experts

> available. This group includes CIH, PE, DrPH, PhD, MD, CIE, CMR,

> CIAQP, NASCAR (smile!), consultants, contractors, restorers,

carpet

> cleaners, remediators and even IPC - interested private citizens

and

> APC - affected private citizens.

>

> I'll save the several specific points you addressed for another

time

> because I want to focus on clarifying that I am not anti-CIH and

am

> certainly not against the superb training, education and

experience

> requirements to even qualify to sit for the exam. I'm not sour

about

> that and I love grapes! (Except wine, but that's another story).

>

> CIHs are valuable and much needed. Their contributions are

> inmeasurable. And I'm certain many of you could provide much

better

> support for that argument than I can.

>

> My pet peeve with CIHs -- which I may be guilty of not being as

clear

> as I should be, but which I certainly want to remedy now -- is

when

> they act outside of their expertise as a CIH and still use the CIH

> accreditation as their authority to do so.

>

> This would be no different, but certainly less obvious, than a CIH

> installing plumbing, acting as a general contractor on a

construction

> site or performing the duties of the CFO of a corporation and

> claiming their CIH accreditation qualifies and authorizes them to

do

> so. That doesn't mean they are prohibited from performing those

> functions, just not as a CIH.

>

> For an example that is less obvious, a CIH could assess mold in

> residential buildings, write a scope of work, oversee the project

and

> provide independent closure to the job. But what part of

residential

> mold assessment (whose occupants are not workers so this isn't

> occupational) is inherent in being a CIH? What part is inherent,

> instead, with other forms of expertise? Certified, accredited yet

or

> not?

>

> Part of the misconception occurs when other authorities such as

> insurance adjustors and attorneys behave as pretenders by

insisting

> and/or requiring a CIH simply because they are a CIH and

discounting

> specifically appropriate training, education and experience of a

non-

> CIH. Regardless of the CIH's qualifications or lack thereof for

the

> situation at hand.

>

> I've been in courses, conferences, meetings, depositions and on

the

> witness stand when this argument has been made. And NEVER, at

least

> in my experience, has the CIH corrected the misconception and/or

> misapplication of their expertise and authority. They have always

> allowed it to continue. Maybe some of you have stood up to the

> pretenders. If so, I apologize to you and I applaud you!

>

> While individual CIHs perhaps can't be blamed for starting this,

> shouldn't they be held culpable for their acts of omission that

> allows it to persist? For not standing up to the unfounded claims

of

> the " authorities? " Are they perhaps leaning on the actions of some

of

> the organizations representing CIHs? Some have a history of

actively

> lobbying legislative bodies on the state and national levels to

write

> legislation to blanket qualify all CIHs AND exclude all others.

>

> So why am I picking on CIHs instead of the more blatant that have

> little training, inadequate experience and misguided education

from

> certification mills and manufacturer's product programs?

>

> As professionals, CIHs should know better, and as well eductated

as

> they are required to be, they should know what they don't know.

That

> is part of what being educated means. Standing against the wrong

use

> of their expertise is part of what being a professional means.

>

> Many of the others mentioned above don't know what they don't know

so

> there's nothing to be gained by attempting a discussion. The only

> ones worse are the " True Believers " of Multi Level Marketing

fame.

> (Geez, I hope there are none of those on this group. I'll be in

even

> deeper... trouble!)

>

> So what are the boundaries of a CIH? (and others). Help me out

here.

>

> Carl Grimes

> Healthy Habitats LLC

>

March 31, 2006

As for area of expertise for CIHs currently:http://www.abih.org/certified/examinees/contentdomain.htmlAs for ABIH history (through 1966) see:http://www.abih.org/general/history.htmlWhich starts: The Industrial Hygiene Section of the American Public Health Association, now known as the Occupational Health Section, was established in 1914.Name changes have been reviewed with an understanding of the broadening of the field. The toxicology aspects never materialized and the DABT went to the SOT folks; the air polution aspects went to Air Poll Control Association (now AWMA), and so on; but IHs (including non-CIHs) have a broad-based training that allows the ability to spread into other areas. I believe the Lindoor Air Quality aspect never fully developed because those who were CIHs practising in the area already had enough standing that it was supplementary and not of significant worth for the aggravation.Acting with Comptenancy, however, cannot be legislated or even taught very well. I will agree that because one is a CIH does not make them a mold expert or even comptent in the field revolving around that. There are a few CIHs I will NOT recommend for any work, let alone mold, and I'm reviewing datas from 3 CIHs reports on the same mold case and there are pretty poor. Despite that, the minimum understanding on average is better with the breadth of background requirement - not perfect or best but reasonable.

Quick Question: how many IAQA certified folks practise their profession well??

Tony.......................................................................... "Tony" Havics, CHMM, CIH, PEpH2, LLCPO Box 34140Indianapolis, IN 46234 cell90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%â„ This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this statement. Re: Letter to the Editor - IE ConnectionsWane,I'm sorry you took such strong personal offense to my opinions asexpressed in my "opinion column" in IE Connections. We know eachother from this group and from having met in Orlando, so rest assuredthat my comments were not directed specifically at you.I'm not quite sure I understand why you chose to involve this group.I didn't anticipate that but I'm glad, now, that you did. This waythe discussion, since there is now surely to be one, can immediatelybegin instead of smoldering until the May issue of IE Connectionsarrives. My hope is that our process will be reasoned andprofessional with a goal of clarifying our issues and increasing ourcooperative effectiveness to the industry, our professions and ourclients.And what better place to clarify positions and ideas than with thisgroup which includes some of the best and most diverse expertsavailable. This group includes CIH, PE, DrPH, PhD, MD, CIE, CMR,CIAQP, NASCAR (smile!), consultants, contractors, restorers, carpetcleaners, remediators and even IPC - interested private citizens andAPC - affected private citizens.I'll save the several specific points you addressed for another timebecause I want to focus on clarifying that I am not anti-CIH and amcertainly not against the superb training, education and experiencerequirements to even qualify to sit for the exam. I'm not sour aboutthat and I love grapes! (Except wine, but that's another story).CIHs are valuable and much needed. Their contributions areinmeasurable. And I'm certain many of you could provide much bettersupport for that argument than I can.My pet peeve with CIHs -- which I may be guilty of not being as clearas I should be, but which I certainly want to remedy now -- is whenthey act outside of their expertise as a CIH and still use the CIHaccreditation as their authority to do so.This would be no different, but certainly less obvious, than a CIHinstalling plumbing, acting as a general contractor on a constructionsite or performing the duties of the CFO of a corporation andclaiming their CIH accreditation qualifies and authorizes them to doso. That doesn't mean they are prohibited from performing thosefunctions, just not as a CIH. For an example that is less obvious, a CIH could assess mold inresidential buildings, write a scope of work, oversee the project andprovide independent closure to the job. But what part of residentialmold assessment (whose occupants are not workers so this isn'toccupational) is inherent in being a CIH? What part is inherent,instead, with other forms of expertise? Certified, accredited yet ornot? Part of the misconception occurs when other authorities such asinsurance adjustors and attorneys behave as pretenders by insistingand/or requiring a CIH simply because they are a CIH and discountingspecifically appropriate training, education and experience of a non- CIH. Regardless of the CIH's qualifications or lack thereof for thesituation at hand.I've been in courses, conferences, meetings, depositions and on thewitness stand when this argument has been made. And NEVER, at leastin my experience, has the CIH corrected the misconception and/ormisapplication of their expertise and authority. They have alwaysallowed it to continue. Maybe some of you have stood up to thepretenders. If so, I apologize to you and I applaud you!While individual CIHs perhaps can't be blamed for starting this,shouldn't they be held culpable for their acts of omission thatallows it to persist? For not standing up to the unfounded claims ofthe "authorities?" Are they perhaps leaning on the actions of some ofthe organizations representing CIHs? Some have a history of activelylobbying legislative bodies on the state and national levels to writelegislation to blanket qualify all CIHs AND exclude all others.So why am I picking on CIHs instead of the more blatant that havelittle training, inadequate experience and misguided education fromcertification mills and manufacturer's product programs?As professionals, CIHs should know better, and as well eductated asthey are required to be, they should know what they don't know. Thatis part of what being educated means. Standing against the wrong useof their expertise is part of what being a professional means.Many of the others mentioned above don't know what they don't know sothere's nothing to be gained by attempting a discussion. The onlyones worse are the "True Believers" of Multi Level Marketing fame. (Geez, I hope there are none of those on this group. I'll be in evendeeper... trouble!)So what are the boundaries of a CIH? (and others). Help me out here. Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC-----> Glenn, Steve:>> Please publish the following in next month's issue of IE Connections.> I realize it's over the 300 word limit (it's about 360 words), but I> respectfully request that you print the entire piece. >> ----------------------------------->> Carl Grimes has done it again. I've pretty much had my fill of his> continued bashing of Certified Industrial Hygienists (CIHs).>> His March column reflects a lack of journalistic responsibility, and> in my estimation, crosses the line into libel. If Carl is going to be> allowed to write this column, he needs to be held accountable for his> "facts". I realize that his column appears on the editorial page, but> that doesn't give one license to create an alternate universe.>> In his latest rant, "Top Ten Pet Peeves", he once again takes aim at> the venerable profession of industrial hygiene. It's too bad he isn't> willing to present the truth about the ABIH Code of Ethics. There's> really no excuse, as it's out there for everyone to see:> http://www.abih.org/general/codeofethics.html> <http://www.abih.org/general/codeofethics.html>>> Under Peeve #9: Area of Competence, Grimes states that: "The code of> ethics for CIHs...specifically binds them to operating within their> competence...." And yes, that's true -- see Canon of Ethical Conduct> No. 5. But then, inexplicably, Carl goes on to say: "...as determined> by the educational materials and exam questions required to obtain> their certification." Where does he get this line of nonsense? >> Here's what the official ABIH Interpretive Guidelines say about Canon> No. 5: "Industrial Hygienists should undertake to perform services> only when qualified by education, training or experience in the> specific technical fields involved, unless sufficient assistance is> provided by qualified associates, consultants or employees." >> There is nothing in this guideline that's even remotely like Grimes'> claim.>>> Why would anyone take it upon themselves to redefine the rules for a> group of professionals with long-standing, valid ties to studies of> the indoor environment? This is 'sour grapes' -- pure and simple.>> Finally, for anyone to suggest that IHs are somehow limited to> industrial/manufacturing environments because of the word "industrial"> in their job title is ludicrous, a gross distortion. Hygienists are> occupational health and safety professionals, whether that workplace> is a hospital, a public school, an office building, or a residential> setting. >> I strongly suggest that readers take the time to find out what> industrial hygienists really do, and who they are. You could start> here: http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html> <http://www.abih.org/general/cihcaih.html>>> -------------------------------------->> BTW, Carl, when using the title 'Certified Industrial Hygienist',> please use it properly -- make sure it's capitalized. Just as in the> title 'Professional Engineer', it's a designation that we've worked> very hard to earn. Those who've earned these distinctions are weary> of your continued disrespect, and I for one, will no longer tolerate> your use of this column as a bully pulpit for (what certainly appears> to be) a deliberate campaign of misinformation. >> -------------------------------------->> Sincerely,>> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH> Director, Air Quality Services> MICHAELS ENGINEERING INC.> "Real Professionals. Real Solutions"> 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100> PO Box 2377> La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602> Phone , ext. 484> Cell > Fax > mailto:wab@...> On the web at:> http://www.michaelsengineering.com> <http://www.michaelsengineering.com/> "To love what you do and feel> that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" - Graham> NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential> information. Use and further disclosure of the information by the> recipient must be consistent with applicable laws, regulations and> agreements. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the> sender; delete the e-mail; and do not use, disclose or store the> information it contains.>>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.

March 31, 2006

Re: The CIH Squabble Question

How many CIHs does it take to screw in a

light bulb?

I donâ€™t have an answer â€¦ just wondering

if this might clarify things a bit.

N. Walsh

Louisiana State University

Health & Safety Officer

twalsh@...

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On Behalf

Of Tony Havics

Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 11:31

AM

To: iequality

Cc: Lynn C O'Donnell

Subject: RE: Letter to

the Editor - IE Connections

As for area of expertise for CIHs currently:

http://www.abih.org/certified/examinees/contentdomain.html

As for ABIH history (through 1966) see:

http://www.abih.org/general/history.html

Which starts: The Industrial Hygiene

Section of the American Public Health Association, now known as the

Occupational Health Section, was established in 1914.

Name changes have been reviewed with an understanding of the broadening of the

field. The toxicology aspects never materialized and the DABT went to the

SOT folks; the air polution aspects went to Air Poll Control Association (now

AWMA), and so on; but IHs (including non-CIHs) have a broad-based training that

allows the ability to spread into other areas. I believe the Lindoor Air

Quality aspect never fully developed because those who were CIHs practising in

the area already had enough standing that it was supplementary and not of

significant worth for the aggravation.

Acting with Comptenancy, however, cannot be legislated or even taught very

well. I will agree that because one is a CIH does not make them a

mold expert or even comptent in the field revolving around that. There

are a few CIHs I will NOT recommend for any work, let alone mold, and I'm

reviewing datas from 3 CIHs reports on the same mold case and there are pretty

poor. Despite that, the minimum understanding on average is better with

the breadth of background requirement - not perfect or best but reasonable.

Quick Question: how many IAQA certified

folks practise their profession well??

Tony

...........................................................................

" Tony " Havics, CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to place the decimal point...any

consultant can give you the other 10%â„

This message is from pH2. This message and any attachments may contain legally

privileged or confidential information, and are intended only for the

individual or entity identified above as the addressee. If you are not the

addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are not

authorized to read, copy, or distribute this message and any attachments, and

we ask that you please delete this message and attachments (including all

copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by phone at .

Delivery of this message and any attachments to any person other than the

intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive confidentiality or a

privilege. All personal messages express views only of the sender, which are

not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or distributed without this

statement.

Re: Letter to the Editor - IE Connections

Wane,

I'm sorry you took such strong personal offense to my opinions as

expressed in my " opinion column " in IE Connections. We know each

other from this group and from having met in Orlando, so rest assured

that my comments were not directed specifically at you.

I'm not quite sure I understand why you chose to involve this group.

I didn't anticipate that but I'm glad, now, that you did. This way

the discussion, since there is now surely to be one, can immediately

begin instead of smoldering until the May issue of IE Connections

arrives. My hope is that our process will be reasoned and

professional with a goal of clarifying our issues and increasing our

cooperative effectiveness to the industry, our professions and our

clients.

And what better place to clarify positions and ideas than with this

group which includes some of the best and most diverse experts

available. This group includes CIH, PE, DrPH, PhD, MD, CIE, CMR,

CIAQP, NASCAR (smile!), consultants, contractors, restorers, carpet

cleaners, remediators and even IPC - interested private citizens and

APC - affected private citizens.

I'll save the several specific points you addressed for another time

because I want to focus on clarifying that I am not anti-CIH and am

certainly not against the superb training, education and experience

requirements to even qualify to sit for the exam. I'm not sour about

that and I love grapes! (Except wine, but that's another story).

CIHs are valuable and much needed. Their contributions are

inmeasurable. And I'm certain many of you could provide much better

support for that argument than I can.

My pet peeve with CIHs -- which I may be guilty of not being as clear

as I should be, but which I certainly want to remedy now -- is when

they act outside of their expertise as a CIH and still use the CIH

accreditation as their authority to do so.

This would be no different, but certainly less obvious, than a CIH

installing plumbing, acting as a general contractor on a construction

site or performing the duties of the CFO of a corporation and

claiming their CIH accreditation qualifies and authorizes them to do

so. That doesn't mean they are prohibited from performing those

functions, just not as a CIH.

For an example that is less obvious, a CIH could assess mold in

residential buildings, write a scope of work, oversee the project and

provide independent closure to the job. But what part of residential

mold assessment (whose occupants are not workers so this isn't

occupational) is inherent in being a CIH? What part is inherent,

instead, with other forms of expertise? Certified, accredited yet or

not?

Part of the misconception occurs when other authorities such as

insurance adjustors and attorneys behave as pretenders by insisting

and/or requiring a CIH simply because they are a CIH and discounting

specifically appropriate training, education and experience of a non- CIH.

Regardless of the CIH's qualifications or lack thereof for the