Re: Po-Lab unleashes another horde of certified 1-day wonders

[Guest guest]

Wayne:

Oh so well put....i.e., How low can it go? Based on your experience, it is

going pretty low. And I share those experiences here in the west too.

However, speaking from Suzie-Q Homemaker's perspective, the $500 that these

home inspectors charge is still way too much. Reason: There is a big market

within the (dumb) general public who will only pay for a cheap, once-over

home inspection; and these home inspectors fill that niche. I know that you

and I will not touch a residential SFD inspection for real estate for less

than $1,000, and my bottom-line is higher. They are a hassle and they

represent significant risk. Regardless of how good a job we (you or I) do,

a reasonable fee is often not totally-commensurable with the total-effort

expended. However, the real estate and residential market wants a cheap,

third-party inspector, moreover, they demand it, and I commend these One-day

Wonders for becoming educated in mold, albeit a sloppy teaching job, wanting

to add a service. 'Tis better to have some sloppy training than no training

at all.

I too feel that many training providers are providing sloppy instruction; in

a rush to fill a training need/demand. 'Tis an area that I, in my strong

dislike of government bureaucracy, actually support regulation. What I find

more infuriating than the one-day wonders, is having to sit through a

" refresher " class with one-day wonders to receive my annual

" re-certification " while listening to instructors that have a

grade-school-level of experience compared to me. All because the annual

re-certification is required by law, e.g., Texas' mold regulations. I sit

there with one-day wonders who are enraptured with the instructor, while I

feel like hitting him/her repeatedly with spit-wads every time I hear an

egregious error or omission. I swear, some of these folks would look

tar-n-feathered if I had my way.

Bottom line....Kudos to the one-day wonders, regulate all instructors

similar to adult-education, and allow equivalent experience where it is due.

For what it is worth.....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

On 8/20/06 7:47 PM, " Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH "

wrote:

> CAVEAT EMPTOR!!

>

> They've done it again, this time in my backyard.

>

> Po-Lab and NACHI continue to promote and present a full-day sales

> pitch for collecting useless mold samples. It's a great way for Po-

> Lab to generate new sample submittals, and for NACHI to add one more

> meaningless " cert " to their own.

>

> One of my guys attended the recent class in Milwaukee, and received

> his certificate of attendance a few days ago. Included on the

> certificate was a gold foil sticker embossed with " Certified Mold

> Inspector " . We can't wait to add that to his business cards (not).

>

> The instructor has no qualifications whatsoever to be teaching

> anyone about microbial assessments. He described to the home

> inspectors in attendance a plan for sampling that was obviously

> intended to maximize the number of samples submitted to his lab,

> e.g., multiple swab samples of the same surface whenever the color

> varies.

>

> When the local NACHI prez first announced the course a few months

> ago, I voiced my concerns about the legitimacy of this program to

> the local home inspection community. The NACHI guy passed along a

> copy of my email criticisms, and to his credit, the instructor

> called me to discuss my perspective. He informed me that the course

> he offers is a " mold awareness seminar " , not a certification class.

> Apparently, he forgot. Yah, that's it, he forgot.

>

> During the seminar, the instructor made a staggering number of

> errors in describing the life cycle and physical characteristics of

> fungi. But of course, none of those in attendance (other than my

> associate) knew the difference. All that they were interested in

> was being able to offer some type of mold sampling as part of their

> home inspections. Just like leaded paint and radon, to them it's

> just another add-on service: another way to generate revenue.

>

> In the end, and Helen Homeowner are the ones who suffer, as

> another legion of 1-day wonders hits the street. After all, for

> and Helen, all " mold certifications " are the same, aren't

> they?

>

> There's gotta be a law...

>

> Wane

>

> <><><><><><><><><><><>

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

> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING

> " Real Professionals. Real Solutions "

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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.

>

[Guest guest]

Other points of concern with NACHI inspectors obtaining these Pro-Lab "certifications" and conducting sampling during the course of a general home inspection are (1) many home inspection insurance policies explicitly exclude "mold" related activities, and doing so is outside the scope of a general home inspection; and (2) a homeowner may agree to a prospective purchaser having a general home inspection and then unbeknownst to the property owner the home inspector may start taking samples during the course of the inspection, thereby potentially subjecting the homeowner to disclosure issues and other problems involving mold discovery without their consent for indoor environmental testing. Not to mention with one day of training there is a high risk for potentially insufficient or inaccurate sampling procedures.

When a home inspector discovers a potential electrical or plumbing problem, s/he make recommendations for having appropriate professional(s) conduct additional inspections, the same recommendation should be made for suspected mold or other indoor environmental issues.

And by the way, I received an email message from NACHI just yesterday with an offer for "Free NACHI Membership" with the purchase of software or some such thing so we'll likely see a lot more NACHI members too.

Amy Siedlecki

President

The Mold Reporters Inc.

Indoor Environmental Consultants

Po-Lab unleashes another horde of “certified” 1-day wonders

CAVEAT EMPTOR!!They've done it again, this time in my backyard. Po-Lab and NACHI continue to promote and present a full-day sales pitch for collecting useless mold samples. It's a great way for Po-Lab to generate new sample submittals, and for NACHI to add one more meaningless "cert" to their own. One of my guys attended the recent class in Milwaukee, and received his certificate of attendance a few days ago. Included on the certificate was a gold foil sticker embossed with "Certified Mold Inspector". We can't wait to add that to his business cards (not). The instructor has no qualifications whatsoever to be teaching anyone about microbial assessments. He described to the home inspectors in attendance a plan for sampling that was obviously intended to maximize the number of samples submitted to his lab, e.g., multiple swab samples of the same surface whenever the color varies. When the local NACHI prez first announced the course a few months ago, I voiced my concerns about the legitimacy of this program to the local home inspection community. The NACHI guy passed along a copy of my email criticisms, and to his credit, the instructor called me to discuss my perspective. He informed me that the course he offers is a "mold awareness seminar", not a certification class. Apparently, he forgot. Yah, that's it, he forgot. During the seminar, the instructor made a staggering number of errors in describing the life cycle and physical characteristics of fungi. But of course, none of those in attendance (other than my associate) knew the difference. All that they were interested in was being able to offer some type of mold sampling as part of their home inspections. Just like leaded paint and radon, to them it's just another add-on service: another way to generate revenue. In the end, and Helen Homeowner are the ones who suffer, as another legion of 1-day wonders hits the street. After all, for and Helen, all "mold certifications" are the same, aren't they? There's gotta be a law...Wane<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions" Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax mailto:wabmichaelsengineering 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

[Guest guest]

$500 vs. $1,000? We all have our own different business philosophies and niches. That's why some mold professionals charge half of what others charge. That's why some mold labs only charge half of what others charge. For most people here, you probably wouldn't hire half-priced employee, use half of the time to do your job, buy half-priced materials and offer your services in half-price. I agree that home owners don't really have places to get the information on certifications information. Being in the lab business, I have to say that there isn't much information to base on when choosing a mold lab either. Looking at accreditation, prices, reviews, etc. (labcomparisons.com) is a good start, but it's probably half of the homework that you need to do. Technical capability is very important because there is no standard

procedure. However, you won't find it in accreditation (QA), prices, or reviews (mostly customer service). It is usually behind the door and hard to get information unless you know someone in the management team. Wei Tang QLAB Geyer wrote: Wayne:Oh so well put....i.e., How low can it go? Based on your experience, it isgoing pretty low. And I share those experiences here in the west too.However, speaking

from Suzie-Q Homemaker's perspective, the $500 that thesehome inspectors charge is still way too much. Reason: There is a big marketwithin the (dumb) general public who will only pay for a cheap, once-overhome inspection; and these home inspectors fill that niche. I know that youand I will not touch a residential SFD inspection for real estate for lessthan $1,000, and my bottom-line is higher. They are a hassle and theyrepresent significant risk. Regardless of how good a job we (you or I) do,a reasonable fee is often not totally-commensurable with the total-effortexpended. However, the real estate and residential market wants a cheap,third-party inspector, moreover, they demand it, and I commend these One-dayWonders for becoming educated in mold, albeit a sloppy teaching job, wantingto add a service. 'Tis better to have some sloppy training than no trainingat all.I too feel that many training providers are

providing sloppy instruction; ina rush to fill a training need/demand. 'Tis an area that I, in my strongdislike of government bureaucracy, actually support regulation. What I findmore infuriating than the one-day wonders, is having to sit through a"refresher" class with one-day wonders to receive my annual"re-certification" while listening to instructors that have agrade-school-level of experience compared to me. All because the annualre-certification is required by law, e.g., Texas' mold regulations. I sitthere with one-day wonders who are enraptured with the instructor, while Ifeel like hitting him/her repeatedly with spit-wads every time I hear anegregious error or omission. I swear, some of these folks would looktar-n-feathered if I had my way.Bottom line....Kudos to the one-day wonders, regulate all instructorssimilar to adult-education, and allow equivalent experience where it is due.For what it is

worth.....-- Geyer, PE, CIH, CSPPresidentKERNTEC Industries, Inc.Bakersfield, Californiawww.kerntecindustries.comOn 8/20/06 7:47 PM, "Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH" <wabmichaelsengineering>wrote:> CAVEAT EMPTOR!!> > They've done it again, this time in my backyard.> > Po-Lab and NACHI continue to promote and present a full-day sales> pitch for collecting useless mold samples. It's a great way for Po-> Lab to generate new sample submittals, and for NACHI to add one more> meaningless "cert" to their own.> > One of my guys attended the recent class in Milwaukee, and received> his certificate of attendance a few days ago. Included on the> certificate was a gold foil sticker embossed with "Certified Mold> Inspector". We can't wait to add that to his business cards

(not).> > The instructor has no qualifications whatsoever to be teaching> anyone about microbial assessments. He described to the home> inspectors in attendance a plan for sampling that was obviously> intended to maximize the number of samples submitted to his lab,> e.g., multiple swab samples of the same surface whenever the color> varies. > > When the local NACHI prez first announced the course a few months> ago, I voiced my concerns about the legitimacy of this program to> the local home inspection community. The NACHI guy passed along a> copy of my email criticisms, and to his credit, the instructor> called me to discuss my perspective. He informed me that the course> he offers is a "mold awareness seminar", not a certification class.> Apparently, he forgot. Yah, that's it, he forgot.> > During the seminar, the instructor made a staggering number

of> errors in describing the life cycle and physical characteristics of> fungi. But of course, none of those in attendance (other than my> associate) knew the difference. All that they were interested in> was being able to offer some type of mold sampling as part of their> home inspections. Just like leaded paint and radon, to them it's> just another add-on service: another way to generate revenue.> > In the end, and Helen Homeowner are the ones who suffer, as> another legion of 1-day wonders hits the street. After all, for> and Helen, all "mold certifications" are the same, aren't> they? > > There's gotta be a law...> > Wane> > <><><><><><><><><><><>> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality> MICHAELS ENGINEERING>

"Real Professionals. Real Solutions"> > Phone , ext. 484> Cell > Fax > > mailto:wabmichaelsengineering> 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> > > > > > > > > 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.>

[Guest guest]

To all;

As a home inspector for 15 years ,a licensed hvac contractor for 36

years,a licensed builder for 21 years and a certified mold inspector

(not by pro lab) for 4 years i have seen my share of mold. I have taken

a few mold samples over the years,hopefully correct.What i dont

understand is the knock on home inspectors for wanting to learn more

about mold since it is in a lot of homes to a varying degree.What is

needed is a little guidance from the professionals like many on this

board.I like many home inspectors dont want to be in the mold business,

but i do want to help my clients as best i can so i try to learn as much

as possible about all aspects of a home and buildings which includes

mold. As a regular viewer of this board i appreciate much of what i

read. I am also a nachi member and they do have some of the very best

home inspectors in the country Thank you Mr Geyer and Mr Wei Tang for

understanding, Matt Berman

>

> > CAVEAT EMPTOR!!

> >

> > They've done it again, this time in my backyard.

> >

> > Po-Lab and NACHI continue to promote and present a full-day sales

> > pitch for collecting useless mold samples. It's a great way for Po-

> > Lab to generate new sample submittals, and for NACHI to add one more

> > meaningless " cert " to their own.

> >

> > One of my guys attended the recent class in Milwaukee, and received

> > his certificate of attendance a few days ago. Included on the

> > certificate was a gold foil sticker embossed with " Certified Mold

> > Inspector " . We can't wait to add that to his business cards (not).

> >

> > The instructor has no qualifications whatsoever to be teaching

> > anyone about microbial assessments. He described to the home

> > inspectors in attendance a plan for sampling that was obviously

> > intended to maximize the number of samples submitted to his lab,

> > e.g., multiple swab samples of the same surface whenever the color

> > varies.

> >

> > When the local NACHI prez first announced the course a few months

> > ago, I voiced my concerns about the legitimacy of this program to

> > the local home inspection community. The NACHI guy passed along a

> > copy of my email criticisms, and to his credit, the instructor

> > called me to discuss my perspective. He informed me that the course

> > he offers is a " mold awareness seminar " , not a certification class.

> > Apparently, he forgot. Yah, that's it, he forgot.

> >

> > During the seminar, the instructor made a staggering number of

> > errors in describing the life cycle and physical characteristics of

> > fungi. But of course, none of those in attendance (other than my

> > associate) knew the difference. All that they were interested in

> > was being able to offer some type of mold sampling as part of their

> > home inspections. Just like leaded paint and radon, to them it's

> > just another add-on service: another way to generate revenue.

> >

> > In the end, and Helen Homeowner are the ones who suffer, as

> > another legion of 1-day wonders hits the street. After all, for

> > and Helen, all " mold certifications " are the same, aren't

> > they?

> >

> > There's gotta be a law...

> >

> > Wane

> >

> > <><><><><><><><><><><>

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

> > Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

> > MICHAELS ENGINEERING

> > " Real Professionals. Real Solutions "

> >

> > 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

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > 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.

> >

[Guest guest]

Matt: Thanks for jumping in. I certainly respect and appreciate

your perspective.

What gets some of us riled up is the following:

1. To the general public, all " mold certifications " look alike.

You're certified, I'm certified, but is there a difference between

us? Unless we're both really honest with them, you and I look the

same to and Helen Homeowner. In my experience, a

considerable fraction of home inspectors out there lack the ethical

compass that you display. They refuse to acknowledge the

difference, and in fact, make every effort to obfuscate the facts.

To further appreciate my perspective, please read through the

article that I authored for the July 2004 issue of " Wisconsin

Builder " magazine, here:

http://www.wibuilder.com/hatsoff/construction-corner.html

2. You stated: " What i dont understand is the knock on home

inspectors for wanting to learn more about mold… "

Learning more about mold is not the issue, and again, I applaud your

efforts. But to hold oneself out as an expert, or as possessing

specialized knowledge about water damage and microbial growth

equivalent to that of me and my staff, is an entirely different

matter. Yet that is precisely what's being done by some (many?) of

your colleagues, especially those holding the NACHI/Po-Lab CMI.

You also stated: " I like many home inspectors dont want to be in

the mold business… "

In that case, to whom do you refer clients when you encounter

a " mold-like substance " ? I'm pretty sure that you have a network of

specialists to whom you refer clients with specific concerns --

e.g., structural, electrical, masonry, HVAC, roofing -- when you

spot something amiss during an inspection. Why not add a qualified

environmental consultant to that list? Doing so doesn't have to be

a deal-breaker. Our Residential Mold Inspection program, for

example, was originally developed to serve as a complement to a

traditional home inspection, and our " Phase I " assessment costs less

than $400 – roughly the price of a home inspection.

See: http://www.michaelsengineering.com/Residential%20Mold%

20Inspections.htm

I hope this helps to clarify my position.

Best regards,

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

MICHAELS ENGINEERING

" Real Professionals. Real Solutions "

La Crosse, Twin Cities, Milwaukee

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

> >

> > $500 vs. $1,000?

> >

[Guest guest]

, you wrote:

" 'Tis better to have some sloppy training than no trainingat all."

I strongly disagree, sloppy training by those who don't know better is the reason we have the mold knowledge problem. Those who learned it wrong from someone who learned it wrong from someone who learned it wrong in the first place. We have a whole industry full of people with a pedigree of errors and misinformation. If you don't believe this, just survey a bunch of insurance adjusters, agents, home inspectors, and water restoration technicians who 'do mold'. You'll hear trained people spew error after error. And remember, these are the professionals the public listens to and trusts.

Tis better to have to call a real expert than learn from a one-day wonder with half-baked knowledge.

Was it Will or Wil the Bard who said "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

ArmourArmour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

[Guest guest]

> > >

> > > $500 vs. $1,000?

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Well written , I couldn't agree with you more...The one day wonders are the ones keeping us busy fixing there mistakes..

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of healthyhouse@...Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:52 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Po-Lab unleashes another horde of certified 1-day wonders

, you wrote:

" 'Tis better to have some sloppy training than no trainingat all."

I strongly disagree, sloppy training by those who don't know better is the reason we have the mold knowledge problem. Those who learned it wrong from someone who learned it wrong from someone who learned it wrong in the first place. We have a whole industry full of people with a pedigree of errors and misinformation. If you don't believe this, just survey a bunch of insurance adjusters, agents, home inspectors, and water restoration technicians who 'do mold'. You'll hear trained people spew error after error. And remember, these are the professionals the public listens to and trusts.

Tis better to have to call a real expert than learn from a one-day wonder with half-baked knowledge.

Was it Will or Wil the Bard who said "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"?

ArmourArmour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

[Guest guest]

This joins those great sayings that indicate great doom such as :

" Bell Curve Casualty "

" Hey, watch THIS "

that is the statement you just made:

" Pedigree in errors and misinformation "

Classic!

Kinda of like the M*A*S*H statement:

" Lounge Lizards at war "

or

" Mold Inspectors seeking *unintelligent life* "

" Maybe you wanna start breaking those prozacs in half from now on

out "

[Guest guest]

"The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do." - Captain Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean" Can you sleep at night knowing that you gave bogus certifications/training to bogus inspectors to do bogus inspections to rip off home owners (or endanger their health) just to make money? Can you feel good about yourself to support those bogus companies with your paying business? Can you feel ok not to file complaints of those companies with their unethical business practices, which is (or should be) a violation of the Membership Code of Ethics, to the organizations that you both belong to? Can you feel right to accept their money and help them grow their business by advertising their business in your newspaper or trade

show? We can wait for someone to pick out the bad apples, or we can do it ourselves. Wei Tang QLAB Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLAB5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLABusa.com

[Guest guest]

Here is one that came to my attention yesterday. I know nothing of this company and cannot say whether they are good, bad or ugly.

My mother-in-law is 86 years old, has slight dementia, but can still read. I wonder if I could get her certified as a "mold consultant" or "mold specialist" under some of these professional mold investigation classes? What is a five day course? Is that over the net?

Sharon

Mold certification :

....Mold Investigation Get Certified - CIE . Want to become Mold Environmental Inspector !!! Call us now at 1- . Next class - call us or e-mail us for details ( five days course) ... ...Mold Remediation ...Mold Consultant ...Mold Specialist For more details, call , send us a fax or email us info@...

[Guest guest]

Wei,

Very well said!

Does it

really do any good to complain?

Yes! Only

if you're complaining to someone who can do something about your complaint.

We often complain to each other as a way of getting things off our chest.

But if we want to get results we have to go to the person, place or thing that

can give us the results.

I have an

associate who complains so much about everything that when I see her I cringe

because I know there's a complaint headed in my direction as soon as we speak.

Lately I

haven't seen her because the complaining she was doing, did her more good than

she expected.

She was

dismissed from the cause of all the complaints, and now she's happy. At

least she appears to be.

So the

next time someone is complaining to you, whether its family, friends or

co-workers, ask them a few questions:

1. Are

they complaining just for the sake of complaining?

2. Are

they complaining for results?

If they're

complaining just to get it off their chest, you have the choice to be a

lending ear, or leave.

If they're

complaining for results, then try and help them find the help they need.

Remember,

complaining is only good if you take the complaint to the source that gives results.

Just hope you can live with those results.

Found on Zelda.com

Bob Hall

From: iequality

[mailto:iequality ] On Behalf

Of Wei Tang

Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006

1:09 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Po-Lab

unleashes another horde of certified 1-day wonders

" The only rules that really matter

are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do. " - Captain Jack

Sparrow, " Pirates of the Caribbean "

Can you sleep at night knowing that you gave bogus certifications/training

to bogus inspectors to do bogus inspections to rip off home owners (or endanger

their health) just to make money?

Can you feel good about yourself to support those bogus companies with your

paying business?

Can you feel ok not to file complaints of those companies with their

unethical business practices, which is (or should be) a violation of the

Membership Code of Ethics, to the organizations that you both belong

to?

Can you feel right to accept their money and help them grow their

business by advertising their business in your news paper or trade show?

We can wait for someone to pick out the

bad apples, or we can do it ourselves.

Wei Tang

QLAB

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLAB

5 Drive

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

www.QLABusa.com

[Guest guest]

THANK YOU Doctor! IF some of you remember several months ago I was

addressing this very same issue of *ehtics*. I am glad that we see

eye to eye on this Doctor Tang. That was something I was advocating

the IAQA, AIHA, and AHIH, as well as others need to do. Additionally

are the PE, PG, and Registered Archeticts, ETC. that have done rather

bad things need to be stripped, or have revoked their License,

Professinal status, certification.

THere is a story developing were a CIH and PE did willing and

knowingly scew the sampling process and misrepresented what the data

was indicating for a favorable position for a developer and State

Regulatory agency.

These are the prople I am talking about. Last time I btought this up

Tony took it as my denegrating ALL CIHs, PEs etc, which is NOT THE

CASE I am advocating.

Our industry needs to revoke any certification and license where these

breeches of ethics and protocol are so aggresious.

Dana

" We can wait for someone to pick out the bad apples, or we can do it

ourselves. "

>

> Wei Tang

> QLAB

>

>

>

> Wei Tang, Ph.D.

> Lab Director

[Guest guest]

Hello Wei,

It takes time and money. And it is not all that easy. A good lawyer could pursue "truth in advertizing", but where do you draw the line, Who wants to put up the $$ to do it? The EPA indoor air program could get more involved, but they already have information out for review and they have guidance for comsummers for evaluating contractors and consultants. Lazy consumers often get ripped off. Nothing new about it.

Bradley Harr MS,CMC,CHMMSr. Environmental ScientistSummit Environmental, Inc.bdharr@...

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:09 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Po-Lab unleashes another horde of certified 1-day wonders

"The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do." - Captain Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean"

Can you sleep at night knowing that you gave bogus certifications/training to bogus inspectors to do bogus inspections to rip off home owners (or endanger their health) just to make money?

Can you feel good about yourself to support those bogus companies with your paying business?

Can you feel ok not to file complaints of those companies with their unethical business practices, which is (or should be) a violation of the Membership Code of Ethics, to the organizations that you both belong to?

Can you feel right to accept their money and help them grow their business by advertising their business in your news paper or trade show?

We can wait for someone to pick out the bad apples, or we can do it ourselves.

Wei Tang

QLAB

Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director

QLAB5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLABusa.com

[Guest guest]

Dr. Tang,

Your writings are getting wiser by the day!

What kind of organizations would like to keep a bunch of "bad apples" as their members?

I could name one that comes to mind quite easily, but will refrain.

AIHA Code of Ethics:

http://www.aiha.org/1documents/1memapp_web.pdf

Cannon 3 of the AIHA Code of Ethics. I think this one gets breached more often than not.

The duty to the client takes precedence over the safety of the occupant. It took me a long time to understand that if one does not put the duty to the client first in these matters, then they will have no opportunity to even have input into the safety of the occupant. You can't go to bat, if you have been thrown out of the ball park.

Sharon

[Guest guest]

When people join a professinoal organization, they have to agree to their Code of Ethics in order to be a member. If you advestise a class which is unqualified to certify people to do mold inspection as a "mold certification class", and you actually give out certifications. It's dishonest. The organization has the right to terminate their membership. What kind of organizations would like to keep a bunch of "bad apples" as their members? Giving out bogus certifications to confuse the general public with the professional level offered by CIH, CIE, etc. will hurt not only the professional organizations they belong to but also the whole industry. AIHA Code of Ethics: http://www.aiha.org/1documents/1memapp_web.pdf IAQA Code of Ethics: http://www.iaqa.org/pdf/2006_membership_application.doc Wei Tang QLAB Brad Harr wrote: Hello Wei, It takes time and money. And it is not all that easy. A good lawyer

could pursue "truth in advertizing", but where do you draw the line, Who wants to put up the $$ to do it? The EPA indoor air program could get more involved, but they already have information out for review and they have guidance for comsummers for evaluating contractors and consultants. Lazy consumers often get ripped off. Nothing new about it. Bradley Harr MS,CMC,CHMMSr. Environmental ScientistSummit Environmental, Inc.bdharrsummitenviroinc -----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Wei TangSent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:09 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Po-Lab unleashes

another horde of certified 1-day wonders "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do." - Captain Jack Sparrow, "Pirates of the Caribbean" Can you sleep at night knowing that you gave bogus certifications/training to bogus inspectors to do bogus inspections to rip off home owners (or endanger their health) just to make money? Can you feel good about yourself to support those bogus companies with your paying business? Can you feel ok not to file complaints of those companies with their unethical business practices, which is (or should be) a violation of the Membership Code of Ethics, to the organizations that you both belong to? Can you feel right to accept their money

and help them grow their business by advertising their business in your news paper or trade show? We can wait for someone to pick out the bad apples, or we can do it ourselves. Wei Tang QLAB Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLAB5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLABusa.com Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLAB5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ

08003www.QLABusa.com

[Guest guest]

Dana and group,

> Last time I btought this up

> (name) took it as my denegrating ALL CIHs, PEs etc, which is NOT

> THE CASE I am advocating.

At the risk of again raising an issue of which I was the focal point

of attack, first, what determines the area of competence within which

a certified individual can ethically perform work? Second, what can

they do which is representative of that certification? Or should the

additional work be conducted under the auspices of the additional

certification, designation or training?

Specifically, it is my position that a PE, for example, is not

inherently qualified to perform a mold investigation without training

from an additional source and therefore should not use his PE

certification/license as his authority to conduct that mold

investigation. Likewise, a CIH is not inherently qualified to

ethically perform a residential investigation. Although many CIHs

have additional training and experience for such work they should not

perform the work solely as a CIH, but rather under the the auspices

of the authority responsible for the additional

training/certification which is outside of that required to obtain

the CIH.

To keep this fair and balanced so I cannot be accused of dividing the

industry by picking only on a venerable profession, What functions

are a CIAQ, CIE, CMR, CRMI, PE or (my favorite) NASCAR qualified

to ethically perform within the authority of the structure that

grants them their specific certification? Are any certifications

universal in scope or do all have limitations? A drivers license is

not universal because it doesn't allow driving a commercial truck, a

motorcycle or racing at Talladega (even if your name is Ricky Bobby).

An MD, for example, is generally qualified to practice medicine but

is limited to his training, academy accreditation and/or gov't

license. A brain surgeon is not inherently, ethically or legally

allowed to perform heart surgery, put a cast on a broken leg or

universally perform all other medical tasks.

There should be an equivalent structure regarding, at a minimum,

regulatory vs habitability issues of the built environment. The

closest I can see, and this is a stretch, is the current debate

between a real estate pre-purchase inspection and an IAQ inspection

during the real estate inspection process.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> THANK YOU Doctor! IF some of you remember several months ago I was

> addressing this very same issue of *ehtics*. I am glad that we see

> eye to eye on this Doctor Tang. That was something I was advocating

> the IAQA, AIHA, and AHIH, as well as others need to do. Additionally

> are the PE, PG, and Registered Archeticts, ETC. that have done rather

> bad things need to be stripped, or have revoked their License,

> Professinal status, certification.

>

> THere is a story developing were a CIH and PE did willing and

> knowingly scew the sampling process and misrepresented what the data

> was indicating for a favorable position for a developer and State

> Regulatory agency.

>

> These are the prople I am talking about. Last time I btought this up

> Tony took it as my denegrating ALL CIHs, PEs etc, which is NOT THE

> CASE I am advocating.

>

> Our industry needs to revoke any certification and license where these

> breeches of ethics and protocol are so aggresious.

>

> Dana

>

>

> " We can wait for someone to pick out the bad apples, or we can do it

> ourselves. " > > Wei Tang > QLAB > > > > Wei Tang, Ph.D. >

> Lab Director

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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.

[Guest guest]

Dana Said:"These are the prople I am talking about. Last time I btought this upTony took it as my denegrating ALL CIHs, PEs etc, which is NOT THECASE I am advocating."

Question 1: Were you advocatng it then? [Note: this is not intended to be an agressive statement]

Comment 1: I believe you made a generalized statement then and I believe I was justified in correcting it.

"Our industry needs to revoke any certification and license where thesebreeches of ethics and protocol are so aggresious (sic).Dana"

Comment 2: Agreed.

Here in Indiana, a revocation action (last year) against a PE required that Engineer write a letter describing the ethics violation, the ethics rule, how it applied, how he was wrong and he had to send a copy to all the PEs in Indiana.

Sound like a start?

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 DanaSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:47 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Po-Lab unleashes another horde of certified 1-day wondersTHANK YOU Doctor! IF some of you remember several months ago I wasaddressing this very same issue of *ehtics*. I am glad that we seeeye to eye on this Doctor Tang. That was something I was advocatingthe IAQA, AIHA, and AHIH, as well as others need to do. Additionallyare the PE, PG, and Registered Archeticts, ETC. that have done ratherbad things need to be stripped, or have revoked their License,Professinal status, certification. THere is a story developing were a CIH and PE did willing andknowingly scew the sampling process and misrepresented what the datawas indicating for a favorable position for a developer and StateRegulatory agency.These are the prople I am talking about. Last time I btought this upTony took it as my denegrating ALL CIHs, PEs etc, which is NOT THECASE I am advocating. Our industry needs to revoke any certification and license where thesebreeches of ethics and protocol are so aggresious.Dana"We can wait for someone to pick out the bad apples, or we can do itourselves."> > Wei Tang> QLAB> >>> Wei Tang, Ph.D.> Lab DirectorFAIR 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.

[Guest guest]

Wiser than the "inherent wisdom" of a Ph.D.? (Carl, you forgot this one.) I just speak my mind and I am sure many others feel the same way too. Yes, Carl, we all need to learn new things along the way after we get our degree/certification. Mold identification is not something that I was so eager to learn when I was in school. Even a Ph.D. in mycology from a prestigious university doesn't warrant an expertise in fungal identification. A diploma is just a license to learn. Wei Tang QLAB snk1955@... wrote: Dr. Tang, Your writings are getting wiser by the day! What kind of organizations would like to keep a bunch of "bad apples" as their members? I could name one that comes to mind quite easily, but will refrain. AIHA Code of Ethics: http://www.aiha.org/1documents/1memapp_web.pdf Cannon 3 of the AIHA Code of Ethics. I think this one gets breached more often than not. The duty to the client takes precedence over the safety of the occupant. It took me a long time to understand that if one does not put the duty to the client first in these matters, then they will have no opportunity to even have input into the safety of the occupant. You can't go to bat, if you have been thrown out of the ball park. Sharon Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLAB5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLABusa.com

[Guest guest]

Wei:

My attorney also says:

"Just because you can keep score well, doesn't mean you can play the game well."

However, this is usually when we talk about accountants.

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 Wei TangSent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:07 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Re: Po-Lab unleashes another horde of certified 1-day wonders

Wiser than the "inherent wisdom" of a Ph.D.? (Carl, you forgot this one.) I just speak my mind and I am sure many others feel the same way too.

Yes, Carl, we all need to learn new things along the way after we get our degree/certification. Mold identification is not something that I was so eager to learn when I was in school. Even a Ph.D. in mycology from a prestigious university doesn't warrant an expertise in fungal identification. A diploma is just a license to learn.

Wei Tang

QLAB

snk1955@... wrote:

Dr. Tang,

Your writings are getting wiser by the day!

What kind of organizations would like to keep a bunch of "bad apples" as their members?

I could name one that comes to mind quite easily, but will refrain.

AIHA Code of Ethics:

http://www.aiha.org/1documents/1memapp_web.pdf

Cannon 3 of the AIHA Code of Ethics. I think this one gets breached more often than not.

The duty to the client takes precedence over the safety of the occupant. It took me a long time to understand that if one does not put the duty to the client first in these matters, then they will have no opportunity to even have input into the safety of the occupant. You can't go to bat, if you have been thrown out of the ball park.

Sharon

Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director

QLAB5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLABusa.com

[Guest guest]

Wei,

Oh, man! Will I ever get this right so I can quit apologizing? Sorry

I left the PhDs out. Oh, and don't forget the DrPHs. And PLEASE

include the IRL, CHAMP and Formula 1 along with NASCAR.

(go-karts anyone?)

As your response implies, two topics are being confused. One topic is

expanding our knowledge base beyond the minimum required for a

certification and the other is learning a second (perhaps related)

knowledge base. The problem arises when one claims the authority of

the first while acting under the second.

As most of you know, I am adamantly in favor of learning more, both

" inside the box " and " outside the box. " Just don't mislead by

confusing the boxes. Change the word " box " to " shell " and couldn't

that be called a credentials " shell game? " Now you see it, now you

don't. Which " certification " am I... (pause)

Now!

No, now.

Which is worse, a shell game or a 1 day wonder? One should know

better but the other most likely won't.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> Wiser thanthe " inherent wisdom " of a Ph.D.? (Carl, you forgot this

> one.) I just speak my mind and I am sure many others feel the same way

> too.

>

> Yes, Carl, we all need to learn new things along the way after we get

> our degree/certification. Mold identification is not something thatI

> was so eager to learn when I was in school. Even a Ph.D. in mycology

> from a prestigious university doesn't warrant an expertise in fungal

> identification. A diploma is just a license to learn.

>

> Wei Tang

> QLAB

>

>

> snk1955@... wrote:

> Dr. Tang,

>

> Your writings are getting wiser by the day!

> http://www.aiha.org/1documents/1memapp_web.pdf

> Cannon 3 of the AIHA Code of Ethics. I think this one gets breached

> more often than not.

>

> The duty to the client takes precedence over the safety of the

> occupant. It took me a long time to understand that if one does not

> put the duty to the client first in these matters, then they will have

> no opportunity to even have input into the safety of the occupant. You

> can't go to bat, if you have been thrown out of the ball park.

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Wei Tang, Ph.D.

> Lab Director

> <

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sharron,

As a professional IH, with an advanced degree (I'm not certifiable, only a master of science!)

you do not interpret correctly Cannon 3 of the AIHA Code of Ethics. You paraphrase:

"The duty to the client takes precedence over the safety of the occupant."

That is not what it says and more important, not what it intends to mean. From AIHA Canons of Ethical Conduct, I quote:

"3. Keep confidential personal (ie., medical records, exposure measurements) and business (i.e., contractual, proprietary) information obtained during the exercise of IH activities, except when required by law or overriding health and safety considerations."

This is very different than what you just wrote. If circumstances dictate, an IH should reveal safety concerns when the occupant is at substantial risk. Of course, it should be revealed first to the client. In fact, they typically want to correct the problem, that's why they hire an IH. It only gets sticky when the client doesn't want to do what is right to correct the problem.

One is reminded in the Objective of the Canons that the IH's "PRIMARY mission (is to) PROTECT the health and well-being of working people and the public", and hence, by direct extension when exerting one's professional IH abilities, to protect any and all occupants affected directly or indirectly by our scope of work, regardless of the client's wishes.

Armour, M.S.Armour Applied Science, LLCGreen Building Healthy BuildingCleveland, OH

[Guest guest]

Wei Tang said:

"Yes, Carl, we all need to learn new things along the way after we get our degree/certification. Mold identification is not something that I was so eager to learn when I was in school. Even a Ph.D. in mycology from a prestigious university doesn't warrant an expertise in fungal identification. A diploma is just a license to learn. "

Thank you Wei! I've been saying this in different ways on this list for at least three years. May I add: "The highest valued mold certification (which ever one that is?) is just a license to learn. You continue to learn with field and lab experience. This is the only valid road to expertise!!!!!!!!"

Miles Athey, PhD

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Thanks for the reply, but I am not really following what you are saying that I misinterpretted. Let me ask you a couple of questions to help better clarify for me:

As a professional IH, with an advanced degree (I'm not certifiable, only a master of science!) you do not interpret correctly Cannon 3 of the AIHA Code of Ethics. You paraphrase:

"The duty to the client takes precedence over the safety of the occupant."

That is not what it says and more important, not what it intends to mean. From AIHA Canons of Ethical Conduct, I quote:

"3. Keep confidential personal (ie., medical records, exposure measurements) and business (i.e., contractual, proprietary) information obtained during the exercise of IH activities, except when required by law or overriding health and safety considerations."

Can you site for me what law requires you to override your confidentiality to the client when the occupant health and safety is of the utmost importance? I am not aware of such a law that would require you to warn the tenants of the dangerous environment they are living within. And how do you do this, when this situation occurs? If the tenant asks to see the testing results, do you give those results to the tenant?

What if the tenant's child has developed ABPA and the doctors are wanting to understand if the child has been exposed to an amount of aspergillus anywhere that could be the cause of the problem? (Say the doctor needs it to write a note that the child should not be in the building.) Do you give the tenant/occupant/school child this information to share with their doctor, even though it could prove to increase the liability for the building owner aka the client that hired you? The one that you have a "confidential personal (ie., medical records, exposure measurements) and business (i.e., contractual, proprietary) information" relation with?

This is very different than what you just wrote. If circumstances dictate, an IH should reveal safety concerns when the occupant is at substantial risk. Of course, it should be revealed first to the client.

So what if your client does not want you to reveal this safety risk to the occupant. Do you abide by your client's wishes or do you tell the tenant of the risk? What "circumstances dictate"?

In fact, they typically want to correct the problem, that's why they hire an IH. It only gets sticky when the client doesn't want to do what is right to correct the problem.

Right. So what takes ethical precedence in a sticky situation? Duty to the client or duty to the health and safety of the tenant/occupant? And how do you implement the option that you have chosen as your ethical precedence?

One is reminded in the Objective of the Canons that the IH's "PRIMARY mission (is to) PROTECT the health and well-being of working people and the public", and hence, by direct extension when exerting one's professional IH abilities, to protect any and all occupants affected directly or indirectly by our scope of work, regardless of the client's wishes.

I can site for you NUMEROUS school situations where children/teachers had been sick and the client (school district) refused to release the results of testings to the sick children/teacher. Are you saying it is your ethical duty to release these to the sick children/teacher? Because I am not aware of any cases where this has happened without the permisssion of the school district client. I am aware of many where those who are concerned of the health and safety from the matter were not only denied access to the testing info, but were denied the ability to test on their own.

Say you have a long going relationship with a particular insurance company. You do mold investigations for them all the time. And you know that if you warn the tenants of the health risk (which is hard to do sometimes because you all are not physicians - but that is a totally different catch twenty-two) you will most likely receive no more work from that insurer.

So what's ethical in that situation? To warn the tenant and receive no more work? Or not warn the tenant and let the shoddy one day wonders take over all the insurance work, where not only will the tenant not be warned, but all buildings will pass with flying colors.

That's what I meant by "Ya can't go to bat if you have been thrown out of the ball park".

Does that make sense?

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Carl, I can see that I was mixing topics a little bit. I think it's all parts of a life long journey of learning. The way I see it, it's like building a house. (a) The foundation: (school, degree) You build your basic knowledge and skills by going to school (K-12, college, professional, grad school). ( Basic building structure: (working experiences, formal training, certification) You start to learn actual working skills and acquire real world experiences on the job. You might get a certification for a recognized level of professionalism. © Add-ons: garage, deck, patio, storage shed, etc. (course, seminar) You might go to a class, attend a seminar, etc. to improve yourself. It would be right to build a foundation, then a house, then

add-ons as needed along the way. "One day wonder" is like selling a storage shed as a house. A "good" storage shed (one day course/seminar) is nice to have if you have a house, but it can't be used and called as a house (certification) by itself. "Shell game" is like implying that every house have a garage and selling a house without a garage as it has one. If your house need a garage, you should build one. I have seen some people in positions that are suppose to know (or learn) how to do basic microbial assessment, but they have the knowledge less than what a one-day seminar can give you. And yet, their job title (or certification) somehow give them the authority to do so. After building a garage, patio, and a deck to go with your house, whether or not to get another certification to show that you have

those, I think that's another debatable issue. In some situations, it's probably a good idea. Wei Tang QLAB "Carl E. Grimes" wrote: Wei,Oh, man! Will I ever get this right so I can quit apologizing? Sorry I left the PhDs out. Oh, and don't forget the DrPHs. And PLEASE include the IRL, CHAMP and Formula 1 along with NASCAR. (go-karts anyone?)As your response implies, two topics are being confused. One topic is

expanding our knowledge base beyond the minimum required for a certification and the other is learning a second (perhaps related) knowledge base. The problem arises when one claims the authority of the first while acting under the second. As most of you know, I am adamantly in favor of learning more, both "inside the box" and "outside the box." Just don't mislead by confusing the boxes. Change the word "box" to "shell" and couldn't that be called a credentials "shell game?" Now you see it, now you don't. Which "certification" am I... (pause)Now!No, now.Which is worse, a shell game or a 1 day wonder? One should know better but the other most likely won't.Carl GrimesHealthy Habitats LLC-----> Wiser thanthe "inherent wisdom"of a Ph.D.? (Carl, you forgot this> one.) I just speak my mind and I am sure many others feel the same way> too. > > Yes, Carl, we

all need to learn new things along the way after we get> our degree/certification. Mold identification is not something thatI> was so eager to learn when I was in school. Even a Ph.D. in mycology> from a prestigious university doesn't warrant an expertise in fungal> identification. A diploma is just a license to learn. > > Wei Tang> QLAB> > > snk1955aol wrote:> Dr. Tang, > > Your writings are getting wiser by the day!> http://www.aiha.org/1documents/1memapp_web.pdf> Cannon 3 of the AIHA Code of Ethics. I think this one gets breached> more often than not. > > The duty to the client takes precedence over the safety of the > occupant. It took me a long time to understand that if one does not> put the duty to

the client first in these matters, then they will have> no opportunity to even have input into the safety of the occupant. You> can't go to bat, if you have been thrown out of the ball park.> > Sharon> > > > > > > > > Wei Tang, Ph.D.> Lab Director> < > > 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. > > > > >