Re: Re: Was Particle Counting for Mold

[Guest guest]

Are you kidding me? I’m

sorry because I know I’m not being nice, but geez…

All houses (and buildings) should be

built tight – for energy usage, building performance, etc. They

should be under a slight positive pressure – houses should blow, not

suck. Mold should NEVER be “growing” indoors.

Ever. Its job in nature is to decompose organic matter – it will

eat your house. That being said, there will ALWAYS be mold spores in

normal indoor environments – unless of course you live in a bubble.

What scares me the most is that you act

is if you know everything, and are dead wrong on some very serious issues.

I know you’ve co-authored a bunch of books with Dr. Schaller, the

psychiatrist who likes to collect money from drug companies, but perhaps

instead of posting for a few days, you should go into the archives of this list

serve and do some much needed homework. I can’t even imagine my

world if I had held onto my same opinions and beliefs when I first got into

this industry. Thank god for my mentors…

Also, I would like you to answer my

questions asked twice now. Your resume’ doesn’t.

Stacey Champion

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

Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006

12:06 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:

Particle Counting for Mold

Steve,

Bob s BobBsafety-epa

has just provided us some very interesting and useful perspective on Normal. Normal depends on many

factors. In Canada

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

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

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

The S520 leaves the definition to the professionals involved in the

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

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

Rosen

Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

Bob/Ma.,

I think you lack a good sense of humor and are a lousy lurker.

It wasn't that long ago that I offered my opinion about the definition of

Condition 1 in S520. It defines a concept, that there is such a thing as

normal fungal ecology and that no environment is MOLD FREE (certified or not).

It is not a working definition, meaning that it is useless in the field.

Any definition of " a condition " that doesn't permit you to identify

whether that condition exists or not is an inadequate definition.

I tried to offer this comment as a public reviewer of the document but when I

followed the instructions to comment (e-mail to Larry ), I never received

the necessary forms, or anything -- after two attempts. Not cool.

Not ANSI.

As far as RMI (pay attention to Henry, Bob), I don't consider the microbial

content of the dust from a vacuum cleaner bag to be reliably representative of

anything.

You asked,

Steve Temes

In a message dated 12/9/2006 11:45:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Bob@EnvironmentalAi rTechs.com writes:

Steve,

I believe the “Condition 1” (according to the S520) means a normal

ecology.

What is a normal ecology

and under what conditions is a normal ecology? I do not know b/c everything is

relative and/or subjective. I think we would need some comparisons as like what

the EPA ERMI rating is attempting to establish. What do you think?

Bob/Ma.

How about IEP-CERTIFIED CONDITION 1?

I have no idea what this would mean, but IICRC should like it.

ST

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

You missed something. I had said earler that Normal was no mold growth. But I was informed that ... in Canada "unfortunately" Normal is typically some mold growth inside homes. Please go back and re-read the previous messages.

As I said earlier ... Normal to me is the absense of mold growth. But my normal is just my perspective and this differs in Canada.

Rosen

Re: Re: Particle Counting for Mold

Bob/Ma.,I think you lack a good sense of humor and are a lousy lurker.It wasn't that long ago that I offered my opinion about the definition of Condition 1 in S520. It defines a concept, that there is such a thing as normal fungal ecology and that no environment is MOLD FREE (certified or not). It is not a working definition, meaning that it is useless in the field. Any definition of "a condition" that doesn't permit you to identify whether that condition exists or not is an inadequate definition.I tried to offer this comment as a public reviewer of the document but when I followed the instructions to comment (e-mail to Larry ), I never received the necessary forms, or anything -- after two attempts. Not cool. Not ANSI.As far as RMI (pay attention to Henry, Bob), I don't consider the microbial content of the dust from a vacuum cleaner

bag to be reliably representative of anything.You asked,Steve TemesIn a message dated 12/9/2006 11:45:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bob@EnvironmentalAi rTechs.com writes:

Steve,

I believe the “Condition 1” (according to the S520) means a normal ecology.

What is a normal ecology and under what conditions is a normal ecology? I do not know b/c everything is relative and/or subjective. I think we would need some comparisons as like what the EPA ERMI rating is attempting to establish. What do you think?Bob/Ma.

How about IEP-CERTIFIED CONDITION 1?I have no idea what this would mean, but IICRC should like it.ST

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __