What's Wrong with Mold Labs [was PRV by using PCR]

[Guest guest]

Steve stated: "I think it stems from the rapid growth of the "mold testing industry" and that scientific terms are used by a lot of sales and marketing people with minimal science backgrounds who are trying to solicit business from people with no science backgrounds." They didn't just mess up the terms... (1) For the very first time in the history of commerical laboratory analysis, counting less than 5% of a non-homogeneous sample (tape-lift) without homogenization and reporting "quantitative data" from the analysis Some labs does this becaue their clients "ask". Not good enough of a reason to abandon your

professional judgements, is it? (2) Claiming counting rather fast through 100% of a sample (common spore trap) is better than carefully reading 25% of a sample, which has been using by microbiologists for hundreds of years. (3) Using middle school science fair experiment design (swabbing mold on agar plates without extraction/dilution) for professional mold laboratory analysis (4) Stating descriptions of "clinically isolated" fungi on reports of "environmental samples" (air, surface, dust, etc.). I am sure that Alternaria has been

found in patients with chronic hypertrophic sinusitis (or whatever that it) duirng the entire medical history. However, most indoor Alternaria spores comes from outdoor air. Are you suggesting that people don't go out and move inside of a sterile bubble just because you find one Alternaria spore in 75 L of indoor air? How do you justify the "risk" you suggestively printed on the report? (5) Reporting excessive significant figures (283,648 spores/m3? -> 280,000 spores/m3, please) on mold reports like no others among all testing industry (chemistry or microbiology). (6) Getting an accreditation for the whole lab and hiring unqualified analysts to perform

analysis under the "accreditation" - How come each person in your company need to get their own certifications (not getting one as the whole company)? The list goes on and on. I will just stop here. No wonder that you cannot get two labs to produce same results on replicate samples (Ok, sampling devices is another whole big issue). People can watch what you are doing during inspection and remediation, but you can't see what's going on inside the labs. Be afraid, be very afraid. Wei Tang QLab AirwaysEnv@...

wrote: In a message dated 12/18/2006 11:04:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, mgeyeratg1 writes: This has

been a beef with me and the labs I use for a very long time. Where the heck did “non-viable†come from?, and when are the labs going to get the terminology correct? Is there any light at the end of this tunnel?This has been a peeve of mine as well. And maybe I let too many things annoy me, but where did the term "culturable samples" come from? In all the "old school" reading and studying I have done on the subject of sampling for fungi, it was always referred to as "culture sampling" or using a "culture method". Only the viable spores that grew upon incubation were culturable -- not the sample, or the method. The samples, themselves, are not culturable. They are incubated. The method is a culture method. Only viable spores can be

culturable. Somehow, the term "culturable samples" has become the term the laboratories are all using for viable, or culture sampling methods.Not until very recently have I seen any use of the term "culturable samples" in scientific literature. I think it stems from the rapid growth of the "mold testing industry" and that scientific terms are used by a lot of sales and marketing people with minimal science backgrounds who are trying to solicit business from people with no science backgrounds.I don't see the light.Steve Temes Wei Tang, Ph.D. Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com