RE: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

February 15, 2007

Wane,

All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them?

I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced.

From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators "tend" to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again.

so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") .

and yes, the AIHA PRV document presents a very nice summary of the qualifications that a competent and capable Environmental Consultant (EC) must possess. which is precisely the reason, "WAR", that you really must stop doing both. stop giving Stacey a hard time; it's obvious that folks like you lack 90% of the qualifications for doing my job.

contrary to your continued claims, we actually save our clients lots of $$ because without an EC, the remediation contractor is going to cover his butt by taking out much more material than is actually needed, and/or by applying ridiculous quantities of biocides/disinfecta nts, and/or by "encapsulating" everything that does crawl away first. we don't expand the scope, we define and refine it. we don't write ridiculously long Scope of Work documents, full of boilerplate. we get to the point.

according to you, there is not a truly qualified, experienced EC in all of Florida that can do what we do, and do it better than you.

as usual, you are "WAR".

<sigh>

<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100 PO Box 2377 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax

mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com

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

>> Stacey,> > As stated in S520, when as a remediation contractor I feel I need the help of an IEP on a job I retain the IEP. On most jobs I don't need them. The homeowner and/or insurance provider rarely want to pay for them. Clients feel that consultants try to make the job more complex by taking unecessary measurements, and writing large reports filled with boilerplate but usually not explaining in an easy to understand way what needs to be done.> > I am not going to use them just because I am told (contrary to S520) that if I don't there is some sort of conflict of interest. Using a third party IEP also does not shelter the remediaton contractor from liability.> > I am not anti-consultant. I'm a C.I.E.C. and proud of it. Again I just don't think that because someone takes a 3-4 day course they are a Professional Consultant. In

Appendix 2 of the AIHA Guideline 3- 2004 there is "Guidance on Minimum Qualifications and Professional Competencies" for conducting mold assessments and post-remediation verification. Based on the AIHA definition only a few percent of the people claiming to be consultants have the min qualifications to be considered a consultant. >

Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

February 15, 2007

Sir,

You way are off base in your comments. IICRC is not a contractor's organization and the standards were written by industry professionals (consultants, health professionals and contractors).

ge

I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again.

so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") .

and yes, the AIHA PRV document presents a very nice summary of the qualifications that a competent and capable Environmental Consultant (EC) must possess. which is precisely the reason, "WAR", that you really must stop doing both. stop giving Stacey a hard time; it's obvious that folks like you lack 90% of the qualifications for doing my job.

contrary to your continued claims, we actually save our clients lots of $$ because without an EC, the remediation contractor is going to cover his butt by taking out much more material than is actually needed, and/or by applying ridiculous quantities of biocides/disinfectants, and/or by "encapsulating" everything that does crawl away first. we don't expand the scope, we define and refine it. we don't write ridiculously long Scope of Work documents, full of boilerplate. we get to the point.

according to you, there is not a truly qualified, experienced EC in all of Florida that can do what we do, and do it better than you.

as usual, you are "WAR".

<sigh>

<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100 PO Box 2377 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

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

>> Stacey,> > As stated in S520, when as a remediation contractor I feel I need the help of an IEP on a job I retain the IEP. On most jobs I don't need them. The homeowner and/or insurance provider rarely want to pay for them. Clients feel that consultants try to make the job more complex by taking unecessary measurements, and writing large reports filled with boilerplate but usually not explaining in an easy to understand way what needs to be done.> > I am not going to use them just because I am told (contrary to S520) that if I don't there is some sort of conflict of interest. Using a third party IEP also does not shelter the remediaton contractor from liability.> > I am not anti-consultant. I'm a C.I.E.C. and proud of it. Again I just don't think that because someone takes a 3-4 day course they are a Professional Consultant. In Appendix 2 of the AIHA Guideline 3- 2004 there is "Guidance on Minimum Qualifications and Professional Competencies" for conducting mold assessments and post-remediation verification. Based on the AIHA definition only a few percent of the people claiming to be consultants have the min qualifications to be considered a consultant. >

February 16, 2007

Sir,

I know Wane was trashing me that IICRC is a contractor organization. It is. It has no programs or certifications for consultants. However, if you look at the contributors at the front of the S520 book you can certainly tell that consultants had a heavy if not majority influence on the content.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

Sir,

You way are off base in your comments. IICRC is not a contractor's organization and the standards were written by industry professionals (consultants, health professionals and contractors) .

ge

In a message dated 02/15/07 14:04:16 Eastern Standard Time, wab@michaelsenginee ring.com writes:

I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again.

so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") .

and yes, the AIHA PRV document presents a very nice summary of the qualifications that a competent and capable Environmental Consultant (EC) must possess. which is precisely the reason, "WAR", that you really must stop doing both. stop giving Stacey a hard time; it's obvious that folks like you lack 90% of the qualifications for doing my job.

contrary to your continued claims, we actually save our clients lots of $$ because without an EC, the remediation contractor is going to cover his butt by taking out much more material than is actually needed, and/or by applying ridiculous quantities of biocides/disinfecta nts, and/or by "encapsulating" everything that does crawl away first. we don't expand the scope, we define and refine it. we don't write ridiculously long Scope of Work documents, full of boilerplate. we get to the point.

according to you, there is not a truly qualified, experienced EC in all of Florida that can do what we do, and do it better than you.

as usual, you are "WAR".

<sigh>

<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100 PO Box 2377 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax

mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com

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

>> Stacey,> > As stated in S520, when as a remediation contractor I feel I need the help of an IEP on a job I retain the IEP. On most jobs I don't need them. The homeowner and/or insurance provider rarely want to pay for them. Clients feel that consultants try to make the job more complex by taking unecessary measurements, and writing large reports filled with boilerplate but usually not explaining in an easy to understand way what needs to be done.> > I am not going to use them just because I am told (contrary to S520) that if I don't there is some sort of conflict of interest. Using a third party IEP also does not shelter the remediaton contractor from liability.> > I am not anti-consultant. I'm a C.I.E.C. and proud of it. Again I just don't think that because someone takes a 3-4 day course they are a Professional Consultant. In

Appendix 2 of the AIHA Guideline 3- 2004 there is "Guidance on Minimum Qualifications and Professional Competencies" for conducting mold assessments and post-remediation verification. Based on the AIHA definition only a few percent of the people claiming to be consultants have the min qualifications to be considered a consultant. >

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debatein the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.

February 16, 2007

Sir,

I know Wane was trashing me that IICRC is a contractor organization. It is. It has no programs or certifications for consultants. However, if you look at the contributors at the front of the S520 book you can certainly tell that consultants had a heavy if not majority influence on the content.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

Sir,

You way are off base in your comments. IICRC is not a contractor's organization and the standards were written by industry professionals (consultants, health professionals and contractors) .

ge

In a message dated 02/15/07 14:04:16 Eastern Standard Time, wab@michaelsenginee ring.com writes:

I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again.

so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") .

and yes, the AIHA PRV document presents a very nice summary of the qualifications that a competent and capable Environmental Consultant (EC) must possess. which is precisely the reason, "WAR", that you really must stop doing both. stop giving Stacey a hard time; it's obvious that folks like you lack 90% of the qualifications for doing my job.

contrary to your continued claims, we actually save our clients lots of $$ because without an EC, the remediation contractor is going to cover his butt by taking out much more material than is actually needed, and/or by applying ridiculous quantities of biocides/disinfecta nts, and/or by "encapsulating" everything that does crawl away first. we don't expand the scope, we define and refine it. we don't write ridiculously long Scope of Work documents, full of boilerplate. we get to the point.

according to you, there is not a truly qualified, experienced EC in all of Florida that can do what we do, and do it better than you.

as usual, you are "WAR".

<sigh>

<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100 PO Box 2377 La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602

Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax

mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com

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

>> Stacey,> > As stated in S520, when as a remediation contractor I feel I need the help of an IEP on a job I retain the IEP. On most jobs I don't need them. The homeowner and/or insurance provider rarely want to pay for them. Clients feel that consultants try to make the job more complex by taking unecessary measurements, and writing large reports filled with boilerplate but usually not explaining in an easy to understand way what needs to be done.> > I am not going to use them just because I am told (contrary to S520) that if I don't there is some sort of conflict of interest. Using a third party IEP also does not shelter the remediaton contractor from liability.> > I am not anti-consultant. I'm a C.I.E.C. and proud of it. Again I just don't think that because someone takes a 3-4 day course they are a Professional Consultant. In

Appendix 2 of the AIHA Guideline 3- 2004 there is "Guidance on Minimum Qualifications and Professional Competencies" for conducting mold assessments and post-remediation verification. Based on the AIHA definition only a few percent of the people claiming to be consultants have the min qualifications to be considered a consultant. >

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debatein the Yahoo! Answers Food Drink Q&A.

February 16, 2007

(Sir?!? ge, following our recent off-list communications, what's with the "sir"?)

I made precisely the same observation in a prior post to this list, maybe 2 months ago (you can check the archives). I find it very odd that you would object this time around.

To be clear, I'll say it again: the S520 was written [primarily] BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION. How can you possibly deny this?

Of course the IICRC is a contractor's organization! And of course, the S520 was written for remediation contractors. How many members ("registrants") work purely as Environmental Consultants? How many ECs hold an IICRC credential?

I'm expressly prohibited from quoting the new S520 verbatim, but (paraphrased) both it and the first edition (Dec 03) clearly state: This document is written….for mold remediation companies and workers….

There's certainly nothing wrong with the work of the IICRC. My impression is that it's a good group, a true asset to this industry. In fact, our specs for remediation work place a greater weighting on contractor credentials from a certain few, select organizations. And one of those is the IICRC. (Based on this thread, perhaps it's time to revisit that provision.)

From their website:

"The IICRC serves as an independent, non-profit certification body which works to set and promote high standards and ethics, and to advance communication and technical proficiency within the inspection, cleaning and restoration service industry. The following eighteen certification courses are currently available for instruction through IICRC-approved schools by IICRC-approved instructors: "

§ Applied Microbial Remediation Technician (AMRT)

§ Applied Structural Drying Technician (ASD)

§ Carpet Cleaning Technician (CCT)

§ Carpet Repair & Reinstallation Technician (RRT)

§ Commercial Carpet Maintenance Technician (CMT)

§ Color Repair Technician (CRT)

§ Fire and Smoke Damage Restoration Technician (SRT)

§ Floor Care (Hard Surfaces) Technician (FCT)

§ Health and Safety Technician (HST)

§ Leather Cleaning Technician (LCT)

§ Odor Control Technician (OCT)

§ Rug Cleaning Technician (RCT)

§ Stone, Masonry and Ceramic Tile Cleaning Technician (SMT)

§ Upholstery and Fabric Cleaning Technician (UFT)

§ Water Damage Restoration Technician (WRT)

§ Introduction to Substrate Subfloor Inspection (ISSI)

§ Marble and Stone Inspector (MSI)

§ Carpet Inspector (SCI)

There is not a single program listed above that would further inform my role as an Environmental Consultant, as a Professional Engineer and Certified Industrial Hygienist, as an IEQ professional.

Sure, volunteers from various disciplines took part in its creation and revision. But for to suggest that "…consultants had a heavy if not majority influence on the content…" is ludicrous. Pretty typical, but ludicrous still.

My initial objection – and the crux of this thread – is that holding up the S520 as THE source of industry guidance, THE industry standard of care, and more to the point, THE justification for claiming that it's up to THE CONTRACTOR to decide if an Environmental Consultant should be involved in a given project, is pure masculine bovine scat.

We've come to expect this from "WAR", but not from you ge.

Wane

>> Sir,> > I know Wane was trashing me that IICRC is a contractor organization. It is. It has no programs or certifications for consultants. However, if you look at the contributors at the front of the S520 book you can certainly tell that consultants had a heavy if not majority influence on the content. > > Rosen> > > Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]> > Sir,> > You way are off base in your comments. IICRC is not a contractor's organization and the standards were written by industry professionals (consultants, health professionals and contractors) . > > ge > > In a message dated 02/15/07 14:04:16 Eastern Standard Time, wab@michaelsenginee ring.com writes:> I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again. > so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") .

February 16, 2007

(Sir?!? ge, following our recent off-list communications, what's with the "sir"?)

I made precisely the same observation in a prior post to this list, maybe 2 months ago (you can check the archives). I find it very odd that you would object this time around.

To be clear, I'll say it again: the S520 was written [primarily] BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION. How can you possibly deny this?

Of course the IICRC is a contractor's organization! And of course, the S520 was written for remediation contractors. How many members ("registrants") work purely as Environmental Consultants? How many ECs hold an IICRC credential?

I'm expressly prohibited from quoting the new S520 verbatim, but (paraphrased) both it and the first edition (Dec 03) clearly state: This document is written….for mold remediation companies and workers….

There's certainly nothing wrong with the work of the IICRC. My impression is that it's a good group, a true asset to this industry. In fact, our specs for remediation work place a greater weighting on contractor credentials from a certain few, select organizations. And one of those is the IICRC. (Based on this thread, perhaps it's time to revisit that provision.)

From their website:

"The IICRC serves as an independent, non-profit certification body which works to set and promote high standards and ethics, and to advance communication and technical proficiency within the inspection, cleaning and restoration service industry. The following eighteen certification courses are currently available for instruction through IICRC-approved schools by IICRC-approved instructors: "

§ Applied Microbial Remediation Technician (AMRT)

§ Applied Structural Drying Technician (ASD)

§ Carpet Cleaning Technician (CCT)

§ Carpet Repair & Reinstallation Technician (RRT)

§ Commercial Carpet Maintenance Technician (CMT)

§ Color Repair Technician (CRT)

§ Fire and Smoke Damage Restoration Technician (SRT)

§ Floor Care (Hard Surfaces) Technician (FCT)

§ Health and Safety Technician (HST)

§ Leather Cleaning Technician (LCT)

§ Odor Control Technician (OCT)

§ Rug Cleaning Technician (RCT)

§ Stone, Masonry and Ceramic Tile Cleaning Technician (SMT)

§ Upholstery and Fabric Cleaning Technician (UFT)

§ Water Damage Restoration Technician (WRT)

§ Introduction to Substrate Subfloor Inspection (ISSI)

§ Marble and Stone Inspector (MSI)

§ Carpet Inspector (SCI)

There is not a single program listed above that would further inform my role as an Environmental Consultant, as a Professional Engineer and Certified Industrial Hygienist, as an IEQ professional.

Sure, volunteers from various disciplines took part in its creation and revision. But for to suggest that "…consultants had a heavy if not majority influence on the content…" is ludicrous. Pretty typical, but ludicrous still.

My initial objection – and the crux of this thread – is that holding up the S520 as THE source of industry guidance, THE industry standard of care, and more to the point, THE justification for claiming that it's up to THE CONTRACTOR to decide if an Environmental Consultant should be involved in a given project, is pure masculine bovine scat.

We've come to expect this from "WAR", but not from you ge.

Wane

>> Sir,> > I know Wane was trashing me that IICRC is a contractor organization. It is. It has no programs or certifications for consultants. However, if you look at the contributors at the front of the S520 book you can certainly tell that consultants had a heavy if not majority influence on the content. > > Rosen> > > Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]> > Sir,> > You way are off base in your comments. IICRC is not a contractor's organization and the standards were written by industry professionals (consultants, health professionals and contractors) . > > ge > > In a message dated 02/15/07 14:04:16 Eastern Standard Time, wab@michaelsenginee ring.com writes:> I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again. > so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") .

February 19, 2007

: I forgot. You're always right. Except when you're WAR.

You may have your clients bamboozled, but let's be honest: you've only been in THIS line of work a few years, and you're simply not qualified to do my job. You ignore straightforward questions from this list, and pile on the rhetoric when you do choose to reply.

The construction experience argument is getting real old. Face it, knowledge of building(s) is only one aspect of what it takes to be a good Environmental Consultant. For example, let's go back to the AIHA PRV document for a moment.

First, I find it utterly fascinating that you'll slam IHs in one sentence, but then cite an AIHA reference in the next -- if it appears to support your point of view. So is AIHA Guideline 3-2004 an authoritative reference or not? Do hygienists have a place in this line of work, or not? You can't have it both ways! And where is the equivalent set of requirements for conducting mold assessments in your favorite document, the S520? Golly gee, it's not there -- because the S520 wasn't written for ECs, it was written for contractors.

Per the AIHA guide, 'building science' is only one of eight (1 of 8) areas of study required to serve as the EC for "...conducting mold assessments and post-remediation verification..." Yet, that's precisely what you're doing. What makes you "above the law"?

It's important for everyone to realize that construction experience is not the same as an understanding of building science. It's as much about thermodynamics, psychrometrics, heat and mass transfer as it is knowing how to plumb a wall. Many of the greatest building scientists in the world have never driven a 16-penny nail, let alone framed a wall or hung 'rock.

Give it a rest.

>> Wane,> > All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them? > > I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced. > > From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators "tend" to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs.> > Rosen> www.Mold-Books.com> > > > Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]> > I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again. > so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") . > and yes, the AIHA PRV document presents a very nice summary of the qualifications that a competent and capable Environmental Consultant (EC) must possess. which is precisely the reason, "WAR", that you really must stop doing both. stop giving Stacey a hard time; it's obvious that folks like you lack 90% of the qualifications for doing my job. > contrary to your continued claims, we actually save our clients lots of $$ because without an EC, the remediation contractor is going to cover his butt by taking out much more material than is actually needed, and/or by applying ridiculous quantities of biocides/disinfecta nts, and/or by "encapsulating" everything that does crawl away first. we don't expand the scope, we define and refine it. we don't write ridiculously long Scope of Work documents, full of boilerplate. we get to the point. > according to you, there is not a truly qualified, experienced EC in all of Florida that can do what we do, and do it better than you. > as usual, you are "WAR". > <sigh>> <><><><><><><><><><><> > Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH > Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality > MICHAELS ENGINEERING> "Real Professionals. Real Solutions." > 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100 > PO Box 2377 > La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602 > Phone , ext. 484 > Cell > Fax > mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com > On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com > "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" > - Graham

February 19, 2007

Wane said ...

"It's important for everyone to realize that construction experience is not the same as an understanding of building science. It's as much about thermodynamics, psychrometrics, heat and mass transfer as it is knowing how to plumb a wall."

Yup Wane. You got me there. Remediators need to know a lot about mass transfer and thermodynamics when they clean mold out of homes.

Rosen, Ph.D.

www.Mold-Books.com

'

Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]> > I had to get away from this list for a while, and already I'm reminded why. here we go again. > so, because the S520, written BY CONTRACTORS FOR CONTRACTORS and published by a CONTRACTOR'S ORGANIZATION, sez that it's YOUR CHOICE, we're all supposed to just follow along. guess again (that's "GAG") . > and yes, the AIHA PRV document presents a very nice summary of the qualifications that a competent and capable Environmental Consultant (EC) must possess. which is precisely the reason, "WAR", that you really must stop doing both. stop giving Stacey a hard time; it's obvious that folks like you lack 90% of the qualifications for doing my job. > contrary to your continued claims, we actually save our clients lots of $$ because without an EC, the remediation contractor is going

to cover his butt by taking out much more material than is actually needed, and/or by applying ridiculous quantities of biocides/disinfecta nts, and/or by "encapsulating" everything that does crawl away first. we don't expand the scope, we define and refine it. we don't write ridiculously long Scope of Work documents, full of boilerplate. we get to the point. > according to you, there is not a truly qualified, experienced EC in all of Florida that can do what we do, and do it better than you. > as usual, you are "WAR". > <sigh>> <><><><><><><><><><><> > Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH > Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality > MICHAELS ENGINEERING> "Real Professionals. Real Solutions." > 811 Monitor Street, Suite 100 > PO Box 2377 > La Crosse, Wisconsin 54602 > Phone , ext. 484 > Cell > Fax

> mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com > On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com > "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" > - Graham

Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

February 20, 2007

,There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe that is the whole point.

Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage, would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?

Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or demolished and replaced. To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick.

Wane,

All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them?

I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced.

From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators " tend " to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

February 21, 2007

LiveSimply,

To put this even more simply ...

The insurance adjuster never know how to adjust for mold. That is to be expected because they have (as a rule) no mold training. If we as remediation contractors do the estimate in Xactimate and explain the nature and extent of the problem, we can quite often do the job 100% properly within the funds provided by the insurance providers. If we can't do the job 100% we don't take the job. We get about 25%-30% of the insurance jobs we quote. (And we get 50% or higher of the R.E. jobs we quote for comparison.)

Insurance adjusters are not great at estimating the size of the job. And they often underestimate the costs involved. However, many consultants are as bad or worse in estimating the scope of the work ... usually they overestimate the amount of work to be done.

Doing more than needs to be done DOES NOT improve the quality of the job.

There are many things that we have learned that help us reduce costs and at the same time improve quality.

It would be very useful to have a discussion of techniques that can reduce costs and improve quality.

For instance dry sanding wood costs 3x or more than other methods of mold removal with no benefit.

For instance there are mold remediation techniques to minimize the need for post-remediation inspection and therefore reduce the cost of consultants.

For instance, a high powered Wet Vac with a drywall filter bag can be placed outside and a long extension used to allow cleaning of contaminated indoor areas. This is much, much cheaper, faster, safer than a HEPA Vac which in our experience never work well. 99.97% at .3 micron does not remove the billions and billions of mold fragments produced during remediation expecially when dry methods are used such as sanding or blasting.

I can go on and on. Rather than bitch about not getting enough insurance money to get the job done right, we should all be considering approaches to improve productivity that do not reduce quality and that allow us to get more work.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

LiveSimply:You just don’t get it do you. is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate to improve people’s health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT! And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that is going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal obligations – the insurance company’s legal obligations. Quit bashing because he is working within parameters set by the insurance companies. If you feel so compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down to Florida where works and donate to each and every remediation effort he performs in order to improve the health of the people there. You would be a Saint!

I imagine can spend your money just as well as he spends the insurance company’s money. He sure isn’t going to donate any of his own. And if you are not willing to donate, then start complaining to the insurance companies that they are not improving people’s health; instead of that he is not doing enuff. Moreover, all insurance has limits of coverage based on premiums paid. If the insured is not willing to pay higher premiums for high levels of coverage, then the responsibility needs to be shared between the insured and the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative comments to are misguided and not well placed. Your fire-damage analogy proves you don’t get it, i.e., if an insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage, then the insurer is only going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a service within specified bounds set by others. He does not have

to be, nor is he expected to be, a Saint.Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!On 2/20/07 8:08 AM, "LiveSimply" <quackadillian@ gmail.com> wrote:

,There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe that is the whole point. Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage, would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or demolished and replaced. To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick.

Wane, All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them? I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced. >From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators "tend" to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs. Rosenwww.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold- Books.com>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

February 21, 2007

, I understand completely what you are saying but do you understand what I am saying?I don't want people to work for free. Thats not what i was talking about. But there are certain patterns of dysfunction happening and they are happening because of miscommunications. These jobs are being represented often as being fixed when they really aren't.Thats what is really problematic.What is really needed is for the scope of these jobs to be better defined and what the final result is expected to be. Different people's expectations are completely different, clearly.

We could argue about things until we are blue in the face but you know and I know that when people have been made sick by mold they then after that need to live in surroundings that have much less mold than what I assume you and the others discussing this meant by 'pre loss conditions'. (A few people here had the courage to bring that up, thank you.)

Often, a bad mold situation is the result of years of 'deferred maintenance'. Lets use an analogy that may fit the worst of these situations.. when a band aid is put on a gaping wound, it doesn't stick. To get to the main point for me - when people get sick it is often impossible for them to move back into these supposedly remediated buildings. What that tells me is that there needs to be a better way of communicating what the end goal is and whether it has been achieved. Thats not happening now and I think that there is an effort coming from a lot of sectors to obscure and muddy the situation rather than clarify it.

Many people here, yourself included, represent yourselves as being professionals but we still have no CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS way of determining whether these jobs have been clearly done.. some way that can be codified in laws, for example. The goal being defining whether people will get sick in a space..

People here don't talk about that and what could be done to represent the situation honestly so that whatever needs to be done to get the right kind of things done to make spaces habitable is done and also make sure that people are paid appropriately for their work. (or lack of it)

LiveSimply:

You just don't get it do you. is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate to improve people's health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT! And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that is going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal obligations – the insurance company's legal obligations. Quit bashing because he is working within parameters set by the insurance companies. If you feel so compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down to Florida where works and donate to each and every remediation effort he performs in order to improve the health of the people there. You would be a Saint! I imagine can spend your money just as well as he spends the insurance company's money. He sure isn't going to donate any of his own. And if you are not willing to donate, then start complaining to the insurance companies that they are not improving people's health; instead of that he is not doing enuff. Moreover, all insurance has limits of coverage based on premiums paid. If the insured is not willing to pay higher premiums for high levels of coverage, then the responsibility needs to be shared between the insured and the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative comments to are misguided and not well placed. Your fire-damage analogy proves you don't get it, i.e., if an insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage, then the insurer is only going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a service within specified bounds set by others. He does not have to be, nor is he expected to be, a Saint.

Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!

On 2/20/07 8:08 AM, " LiveSimply " <quackadilliangmail> wrote:

,

There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe that is the whole point.

Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage, would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?

Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or demolished and replaced.

To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick.

On 2/15/07, gary rosen <garyrosen72652> wrote:

Wane,

All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them?

I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced.

>From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators " tend " to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com <http://www.Mold-Books.com>

Messages in this topic (50)

Reply (via web post)

|

Start a new topic

Messages |

Files |

Photos |

Links |

Polls

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.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)

Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest

| Switch format to Traditional

Visit Your Group |

Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use |

Unsubscribe

February 21, 2007

and others,

In my advanced mold

remediation seminar that includes estimating mold-damaged projects, one of the

issues we discuss involves what a restorer first sees when they inspect a mold-damaged

property, and anticipates finding the cause of loss and hidden damage.

The contractor’s inspection

of visual damage sets the foundation for their contract. This

visual foundation of water damage facts and how to remediate them can be

agreed too by the adjuster and building owner without too much discussion.

Also, what is discussed with all parties is the potential presence of

hidden damage that cannot be seen. (What do we do when hidden damage becomes identified, but it is outside the scope of work of

the visually apparent water/mold damage?)

A meeting of the minds of

the adjuster and property owner discusses potential hidden water/mold damage issues,

and when present, what will be expected of the

contractor to fulfill his or her obligation to remediate the entire water/mold

damaged claim?

, in not straying too

a field from your Xactimate pricing issue and ensuring the qualified contractor

gets their fair share of remediation work, may I suggest:

(1)

Stipulate

in your contract, the scope of work including containment, remediation and

cleanup is based on visual water and mold damage only, and that if

(2)

Stipulate

that once hidden water and mold damage is discovered at the time building

materials are open; the need to identify and expose all hidden damage will be documented

and billed on a “time and material” basis as outlined in Xactimate.

The response from my

students and seminar recipients using this decision logic approach, they say it

is the most professional process management procedure they have come up with for

dealing with baseline costs and how to manage hidden damage when they become

apparent.

The key is (keeping all

parties informed at all times) about what you are doing and what you found.

Meaning, you were either able to stay within a cost-estimate budget and you are

a hero; or you had to increase the discovery and remediation work based upon

hidden conditions that initially were not under your ability to control and identify,

where you remain being a good guy.

Moffett

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007

10:58 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Here we

go again [was: Insurance cap...]

LiveSimply,

To put this even more simply ...

The insurance adjuster never know how to adjust for mold.

That is to be expected because they have (as a rule) no mold

training. If we as remediation contractors do the estimate in

Xactimate and explain the nature and extent of the problem, we can quite often

do the job 100% properly within the funds provided by the insurance

providers. If we can't do the job 100% we don't take the job. We

get about 25%-30% of the insurance jobs we quote. (And we get 50% or higher of

the R.E. jobs we quote for comparison.)

Insurance adjusters are not great at estimating the size

of the job. And they often underestimate the costs involved.

However, many consultants are as bad or worse in estimating the scope of the

work ... usually they overestimate the amount of work to be done.

Doing more than needs to be done DOES NOT improve the quality

of the job.

There are many things that we have learned that help us

reduce costs and at the same time improve quality.

It would be very useful to have a discussion of techniques

that can reduce costs and improve quality.

For instance dry sanding wood

costs 3x or more than other methods of mold removal with no benefit.

For instance there are mold

remediation techniques to minimize the need for post-remediation

inspection and therefore reduce the cost of consultants.

For instance, a high powered

Wet Vac with a drywall filter bag can be placed outside and a long

extension used to allow cleaning of contaminated indoor areas. This

is much, much cheaper, faster, safer than a HEPA Vac which in our

experience never work well. 99.97% at .3 micron does not remove the

billions and billions of mold fragments produced during remediation

expecially when dry methods are used such as sanding or blasting.

I can go on and on. Rather than bitch about not getting

enough insurance money to get the job done right, we should all be considering

approaches to improve productivity that do not reduce quality and that allow us

to get more work.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

LiveSimply:

You just don’t get it do you.

is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance

companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate

to improve people’s health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT!

And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are

the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that

is going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal

obligations – the insurance company’s legal obligations. Quit

bashing

because he is working within parameters set by the insurance companies.

If you feel so compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down

to Florida where works and donate to each and every

remediation effort he performs in order to improve the health of the people

there. You would be a Saint! I imagine can spend your money just as well as he

spends the insurance company’s money. He sure isn’t going to

donate any of his own. And if you are not willing to donate, then start

complaining to the insurance companies that they are not improving

people’s health; instead of that he is not doing enuff.

Moreover, all insurance has limits of coverage based on premiums paid.

If the insured is not willing to pay higher premiums for high levels of

coverage, then the responsibility needs to be shared between the insured and

the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative

comments to

are misguided and not well placed. Your fire-damage analogy proves you

don’t get it, i.e., if an insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage,

then the insurer is only going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a

service within specified bounds set by others. He does not have to be,

nor is he expected to be, a Saint.

Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second

place!

On 2/20/07 8:08 AM, " LiveSimply " <quackadillian@ gmail.com>

wrote:

,

There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve

people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two

different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different

words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe

that is the whole point.

Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also

bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage,

would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?

Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or

demolished and replaced.

To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick.

On 2/15/07, gary

rosen <garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Wane,

All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance

companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for

IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to

overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them?

I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs

if the remediator is inexperienced.

>From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators " tend " to

have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have

construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't

add much except extra costs.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold-

Books.com>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find

a flick in no time

with theYahoo!

Search movie showtime shortcut.

February 21, 2007

LiveSimply:

Granted. I hear what you are saying. But consider this. Property insurance is “property” insurance, for the sake of being redundant. It is not health insurance. Moreover, all insurance has limits of liability and limits of coverage, and those limits are based on premiums paid. No one wants an event to occur that would necessitate calling their insurance company to make a claim, because that event is, more often than not, a loss. Insurance is not necessarily designed to make someone or some property 100% whole without some contribution from the insured. This contribution comes in several forms, e.g., deductibles, low limits, exclusions of coverage, caps, etc. How does the insured reduce the contribution?.....he/she pays higher premiums...another form of contribution! Taking myself for example, I pay the minimum level of property insurance premium for property damage because I am gambling that I will have no claim. I built my home to withstand an 8.0 earthquake (and I sit on a block of rock bordered by three significant faults), I have a fire-proof exterior (and I live in a high fire-hazard area), the home is on a slope (side of a mountain really) so the chance of flooding is nil, and if anything happens, it is probably my own fault (or one of my kids) and I will rebuild. On the other hand, I pay significant premiums for car insurance because my wife and I seem to attract the un-insured illegal immigrant driver that is so prevalent here in California, and we have had 7 significant no-fault car accidents in 20 years, including one that nearly killed me. I HAVE needed my car insurance and I personally found out what it is like when there is insufficient coverage to pay a claim. This said, I clearly understand how a person (or family) can become hypersensitive to biologicals (e.g., mold) in their home and need more than a customary remediation effort; the type of effort that costs a significant sum. However, this is not what most “property” insurance policies are designed to do, i.e., make the insured 110% whole and damn-near sterilize their home to a better than pre-loss condition. Now....it IS possible to get this type of insurance, before the loss, but the premiums are substantial. And most folks just do not believe that they will ever need such coverage nor are they willing to pay the premium for this coverage. It is their gamble! Hence, herein lies the issue.....When people’s health is compromised due to a water event and resulting biological bloom in their dwelling unit, making that dwelling unit unsuitable for their habitation, they cry for help. Moreover, many often accuse the insurance company of not doing enuff to make their dwelling unit livable to their changed condition, i.e., hypersensitivity. I am not being crass, I am pointing out an issue, a problem, a dilemma, i.e., typical “property” insurance is not designed nor is it capable of rectifying this situation for the now hypersensitive. It is only designed to restore the structure to a pre-loss condition based on average, typical and common suitability standards. Not higher than average standards; regardless of the health of the occupants, both pre- or post-loss. Improving occupant health is not part of a property insurance policy requirement. I have empathy and compassion for those hypersensitive folks that can no longer live in their dwelling unit. It is heartbreaking at times. For me, it is especially difficult when kids are harmed. But I do not fault the insurance companies for it......UNLESS the occupant paid the premiums for coverage that the insurance company is now weaseling out of. Then I get pissed.

For what it is worth....

, I understand completely what you are saying but do you understand what I am saying?

I don't want people to work for free. Thats not what i was talking about.

But there are certain patterns of dysfunction happening and they are happening because of miscommunications.

These jobs are being represented often as being fixed when they really aren't.

Thats what is really problematic.

What is really needed is for the scope of these jobs to be better defined and what the final result is expected to be. Different people's expectations are completely different, clearly.

We could argue about things until we are blue in the face but you know and I know that when people have been made sick by mold they then after that need to live in surroundings that have much less mold than what I assume you and the others discussing this meant by 'pre loss conditions'. (A few people here had the courage to bring that up, thank you.)

Often, a bad mold situation is the result of years of 'deferred maintenance'. Lets use an analogy that may fit the worst of these situations.. when a band aid is put on a gaping wound, it doesn't stick.

To get to the main point for me - when people get sick it is often impossible for them to move back into these supposedly remediated buildings. What that tells me is that there needs to be a better way of communicating what the end goal is and whether it has been achieved. Thats not happening now and I think that there is an effort coming from a lot of sectors to obscure and muddy the situation rather than clarify it.

Many people here, yourself included, represent yourselves as being professionals but we still have no CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS way of determining whether these jobs have been clearly done.. some way that can be codified in laws, for example. The goal being defining whether people will get sick in a space..

People here don't talk about that and what could be done to represent the situation honestly so that whatever needs to be done to get the right kind of things done to make spaces habitable is done and also make sure that people are paid appropriately for their work. (or lack of it)

LiveSimply:

You just don't get it do you. is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate to improve people's health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT! And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that is going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal obligations – the insurance company's legal obligations. Quit bashing because he is working within parameters set by the insurance companies. If you feel so compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down to Florida where works and donate to each and every remediation effort he performs in order to improve the health of the people there. You would be a Saint! I imagine can spend your money just as well as he spends the insurance company's money. He sure isn't going to donate any of his own. And if you are not willing to donate, then start complaining to the insurance companies that they are not improving people's health; instead of that he is not doing enuff. Moreover, all insurance has limits of coverage based on premiums paid. If the insured is not willing to pay higher premiums for high levels of coverage, then the responsibility needs to be shared between the insured and the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative comments to are misguided and not well placed. Your fire-damage analogy proves you don't get it, i.e., if an insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage, then the insurer is only going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a service within specified bounds set by others. He does not have to be, nor is he expected to be, a Saint.

Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!

February 21, 2007

" There are many things that we have learned that help us reduce

costs and at the same time improve quality. " - Rosen

What - like duct taping a shop vac to a ladder to dry out a ceiling

cavity that's been doused with " Zep " ???

Give me a break...

-Stacey Champion

Even a little dog can piss on a big building.

>

> Wane,

>

> All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then

the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they

rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the

insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to

overcharge them?

>

> I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on

larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced.

>

> >From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators " tend " to

have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have

construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs

don't add much except extra costs.

>

> Rosen

> www.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold- Books.com>

>

_____________________________________________________________________

_______________

> TV dinner still cooling?

> Check out " Tonight's Picks " on Yahoo! TV.

> http://tv.yahoo.com/

>

February 22, 2007

Some very good points; as an industry matures it is often possible to do better for less than we originally used to do. Also, having a good estimate, with plenty of necessary detail and no obvious padding, can get you many a job.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

LiveSimply:You just don’t get it do you. is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate to improve people’s health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT! And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that is going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal obligations – the insurance company’s legal obligations. Quit bashing because he is working within parameters set by the insurance companies. If you feel so compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down to Florida where works and donate to each and every remediation effort he performs in order to improve the health of the people there. You would be a Saint! I imagine can spend your money just as well as he spends the insurance company’s money. He sure isn’t going to donate any of his own. And if you are not willing to donate, then start complaining to the insurance companies that they are not improving people’s health; instead of that he is not doing enuff. Moreover, all insurance has limits of coverage based on premiums paid. If the insured is not willing to pay higher premiums for high levels of coverage, then the responsibility needs to be shared between the insured and the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative comments to are misguided and not well placed. Your fire-damage analogy proves you don’t get it, i.e., if an insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage, then the insurer is only going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a service within specified bounds set by others. He does not have to be, nor is he expected to be, a Saint.Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!On 2/20/07 8:08 AM, "LiveSimply" <quackadillian@ gmail.com> wrote:

,There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe that is the whole point. Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage, would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or demolished and replaced. To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick.

Wane, All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them? I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced. >From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators "tend" to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs. Rosenwww.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold- Books.com>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no timewith theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

February 22, 2007

A lot of people don't realize that for older people, being forced to move out of an affordable apartment - often with nowhere else to go, kills them. It literally kills people.I don't know if any of you read the LA papers but there has been a series of news stories there detailing the NIGHTMARES faced by older people who got sick (often briefly) then were evicted from their apartments while they were sick. then when they got better enough to be discharged they were literally put out on Skid Row with nothing but hospital clothing or their personal belongings in bags.. In San Francisco, a rent controlled apartment has to be a 'principal place of residence' and one of the ways to get people to move ito another place is by allowing it to become so contaminated that they are forced to move. 'temporarily' Our landlord did this in a number of ways. Once they knew it was making me sick, they got very excited.

The minute that the refugees rent another apartment that is not a hotel (typically $160-300/day) their real landlord is at the Rent Board saying that they can raise the rent when they come back because their apartment is no longer their principal place of residence. So when a building is FIXED it has to REALLY be fixed. All this game playing may be fun for insurance companies and big property owners but it is literally KILLING POOR PEOPLE.. and breaking apart families when they can no longer afford to live in a place with four walls and a roof in the city where, for example, they may have jobs.

February 22, 2007

And don't say move to the suburbs because there is no housing for poor

people in the suburbs. Often these older people don'thave cars, they

don't have drivers licenses. They often don't have family.

I suppose they could offshore their care like Schwarznegger is trying

to do with prisons. Do you think China would give us a quantity rate

on taking care of our huddled poor in say, Inner Mongolia?

Oh the 'magic of the marketplace', right?

(I probably should not have brought this up to you because I didn't

want to give you ideas)

February 22, 2007

,

Sounds like good advice.

On small jobs I fix bid the work and take the risk. I get a lot more business that way. If there is more hidden mold than I thought ... which happens 10% of the time ... I don't make money on that job. But clients prefer to go with someone that gives a fixed bid. Someones you can make a little more money with a fixed bid price.

We do not have that great of a relationship with insurance providers here in FLA. They may agree to something but later not pay. Happens all the time.

Therefore .... on larger jobs my preference is to do the job in phases. Phase I would be exploratory which would be a fixed price. The next phase would be the remediation and reconstruction work which would also be fix priced.

If I can get work that is open ended I bid it exactly as you say. But I don't like to do that type of open ended work on a larger size insurance claim because I am concerned about getting screwed by the system.

I would assume that mold contractors with affiliations / preferred status with insurance providers would have a closer relationship with the insurance providers and therefore do more open ended type of work just as you suggest.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

LiveSimply:You just don’t get it do you. is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate to improve people’s health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT! And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that is going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal obligations – the insurance company’s legal obligations. Quit bashing because he is working within parameters set by the insurance companies. If you feel so compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down to Florida where works and donate to each and every remediation effort he performs in order to improve the health of the people there. You would be a

Saint! I imagine can spend your money just as well as he spends the insurance company’s money. He sure isn’t going to donate any of his own. And if you are not willing to donate, then start complaining to the insurance companies that they are not improving people’s health; instead of that he is not doing enuff. Moreover, all insurance has limits of coverage based on premiums paid. If the insured is not willing to pay higher premiums for high levels of coverage, then the responsibility needs to be shared between the insured and the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative comments to are misguided and not well placed. Your fire-damage analogy proves you don’t get it, i.e., if an insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage, then the insurer is only going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a service within specified bounds set by others. He does

not have to be, nor is he expected to be, a Saint.Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!On 2/20/07 8:08 AM, "LiveSimply" <quackadillian@ gmail.com> wrote:

,There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe that is the whole point. Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage, would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or demolished and replaced. To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick. On 2/15/07, gary rosen

<garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Wane, All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them? I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced. >From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators "tend" to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs. Rosenwww.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold- Books.com>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no timewith theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

February 22, 2007

Stacey,

Have you taken the IICRC ASD training on drying out wall cavities? When you do, then you will be able to comprehend the value of drying out wall cavities before mold forms. It is much cheaper than yanking out the wall after it is full of mold.

When you take the IICRC WRT training you will know that S500 recommends that flooded materials be sprayed with disinfectant to reduce the growth of microbials.

I fully support proper drying techniques that prevent mold growth.

Rosen IICRC WRT, ASD, AMRT

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

"There are many things that we have learned that help us reduce costs and at the same time improve quality." - RosenWhat - like duct taping a shop vac to a ladder to dry out a ceiling cavity that's been doused with "Zep"???Give me a break... -Stacey ChampionEven a little dog can piss on a big building.> > > > > > Wane,> > All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them? > > I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced. > >

>From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators "tend" to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs. > > Rosen> www.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold- Books.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _____________ ___> TV dinner still cooling? > Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.> http://tv.yahoo. com/>

Never miss an email again!Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

February 22, 2007

Jim,

Yes Jim every job teaches us something and we are continually improving our efficiency. We just bought a GRACO MarkIV that sprays drywall mud like paint to help with the finishing.

Back to the issue of quotes ... the detailed quotes cost money and they allow competitors that can't figure out the job to more easily compete with you if the owner gives out your bid to others.

Whenever possible we give very short quotes with no useful information in it for competitors. If the contractor likes out price we often have to break down the quote for the insurance company... but that is usually after contractor award.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

LiveSimply:You just don’t get it do you. is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate to improve people’s health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT! And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that is going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal obligations – the insurance company’s legal obligations. Quit bashing because he is working within parameters set by the insurance companies. If you feel so compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down to Florida where works and donate to each and every remediation effort he performs in order to improve the health of the people there. You would be a Saint!

I imagine can spend your money just as well as he spends the insurance company’s money. He sure isn’t going to donate any of his own. And if you are not willing to donate, then start complaining to the insurance companies that they are not improving people’s health; instead of that he is not doing enuff. Moreover, all insurance has limits of coverage based on premiums paid. If the insured is not willing to pay higher premiums for high levels of coverage, then the responsibility needs to be shared between the insured and the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative comments to are misguided and not well placed. Your fire-damage analogy proves you don’t get it, i.e., if an insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage, then the insurer is only going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a service within specified bounds set by others. He does not have

to be, nor is he expected to be, a Saint.Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second place!On 2/20/07 8:08 AM, "LiveSimply" <quackadillian@ gmail.com> wrote:

,There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe that is the whole point. Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage, would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or demolished and replaced. To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick.

Wane, All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them? I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced. >From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators "tend" to have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't add much except extra costs. Rosenwww.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold- Books.com>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no timewith theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected to friends.

February 22, 2007

I'm sorry, I should clarify that this was me snapping (I'm sorry that

I got mad, its not for his last post but its for some of the things

he's said previously) at .

The point that I was trying to make is that when poor people rent and

they complain about mold, more often than not the 'solution' that they

often fight for months or even years to get is no solution at all, for

them.

If they haven't moved already, obviously they will have to move

regardless of whether there is anyplace for them to go or not. If they

end up like me then they are so sick that they can't live in many

other places either.

And they can't work in many workplaces.

Look, let me spell it out just the last few days worth..I know that

for me myself and I am in my 40s, too young for this, I can't go into

many places without getting ill. A few days my wife and I went

shopping for cheap - very cheap - GPS units because we both are not

doing well reading maps or finding places.. something I used to be

really good at - that ability is now literally gone.. fried..

whatever..

So we went into some of these big office supply stores and I

immediately got a splitting headache. The result of this is that I

stay at home and don't go out that much because unless the destination

is outdoors, I know that in many places I will get sick and I do. So I

avoid them unless its necessary.

What the hell are people like me supposed to do when (if?) we recover

enough to start looking for jobs?

So please excuse me for getting angry.. but I think we really need

some EFFECTIVE way of TESTING AND CERTIFYING WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT

PLACES ARE ACTUALLY REMEDIATED AND WE NEED TO CODIFY THAT INTO LAW...

Then when you folks accept a job you will have a defined goal and you

will have to price your services to reflect its true cost. If that

means that insurance rates will have to go up so be it. By all

accounts insurance companies have been raking in record profits, even

with Katrina etc. so I don't think that they will be impacted that

much.. The net result will be the purchasers of insurance will have to

do better maintenance rather that rely on insurance companies to bail

them out of situations that are frequently and emphatically their

fault.

if you don't maintain a building, you have problems.

>

> Oh the 'magic of the marketplace', right?

>

> (I probably should not have brought this up to you because I didn't

> want to give you ideas)

>

February 22, 2007

Quack,

It is not that simple. I'm doing a small remediation job for a woman that has cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy. She was never sensitive to mold but now is. She is of modest means but not poor. She wants a mold free house. This means like new. This costs money.

I was there to remove and replace part of her front wall which was water damaged. (Insurance paid her about 2x what I charged.)

While there doing the remediation work I cut open her AC ducts. They were 25 year old rigid duct and were quite nasty. Her shag carpets are 15 years old. I explained that for her house to be like new (mold free) she would need new ducts as the current ducts cannot be cleaned. And she would need new carpet as the current carpet is way beyond cleaning.

She has decided to have this work done. When done we will go back in and clean and test and provide a like new home for her.

This is looking at the mold and allergen problems from a "whole house" point of view. You can't just fix a wall and then as part of that work and with some extensive testing somehow make the house like new. Often there needs to be big money spent on AC duct replacement, new carpet, mold remediation and sometimes replacing old fabric furniture and curtains etc.

Poor people cannot afford this. What they can do is rip out the old carpet and open their windows to keep their homes well ventillated. In third world countries there is no increase in asthma or cases of mold illnesses since there is no AC and homes are open to the fresh outside air.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

I'm sorry, I should clarify that this was me snapping (I'm sorry thatI got mad, its not for his last post but its for some of the thingshe's said previously) at .The point that I was trying to make is that when poor people rent andthey complain about mold, more often than not the 'solution' that theyoften fight for months or even years to get is no solution at all, forthem.If they haven't moved already, obviously they will have to moveregardless of whether there is anyplace for them to go or not. If theyend up like me then they are so sick that they can't live in manyother places either.And they can't work in many workplaces.Look, let me spell it out just the last few days worth..I know thatfor me myself and I am in my 40s, too young for this, I can't go intomany places without getting ill. A few days my wife and I wentshopping for cheap - very cheap - GPS units because we both are

notdoing well reading maps or finding places.. something I used to bereally good at - that ability is now literally gone.. fried..whatever..So we went into some of these big office supply stores and Iimmediately got a splitting headache. The result of this is that Istay at home and don't go out that much because unless the destinationis outdoors, I know that in many places I will get sick and I do. So Iavoid them unless its necessary.What the hell are people like me supposed to do when (if?) we recoverenough to start looking for jobs?So please excuse me for getting angry.. but I think we really needsome EFFECTIVE way of TESTING AND CERTIFYING WITHOUT A DOUBT THATPLACES ARE ACTUALLY REMEDIATED AND WE NEED TO CODIFY THAT INTO LAW...Then when you folks accept a job you will have a defined goal and youwill have to price your services to reflect its true cost. If thatmeans that insurance rates will

have to go up so be it. By allaccounts insurance companies have been raking in record profits, evenwith Katrina etc. so I don't think that they will be impacted thatmuch.. The net result will be the purchasers of insurance will have todo better maintenance rather that rely on insurance companies to bailthem out of situations that are frequently and emphatically theirfault.if you don't maintain a building, you have problems.>> Oh the 'magic of the marketplace' , right?>> (I probably should not have brought this up to you because I didn't> want to give you ideas)>

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

February 22, 2007

,

In the real world a break down is always requested.

This is due for comparison purposes. Otherwise the customer does not know what

they are getting other than potentially scammed.

I have been doing work that includes insurance

companies and they “ALWAYS” want it broken down before any

agreement is offered. Are you sure you do work for the insurance industry? My experience

is they NEVER award project without knowing what is included. Too many

contractors have added in stuff later on in the process (PLEASE don’t respond

with “You don’t do that and they think you are the best

contractor/consultant out there).

On the other hand if you are really close and

in with the adjuster (or unethical) that may be another issue. I have heard of

those situations.

Bob/Ma.

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

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007

1:11 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Here we

go again [was: Insurance cap...]

Jim,

Yes Jim every job teaches us something and we are

continually improving our efficiency. We just bought a GRACO MarkIV that

sprays drywall mud like paint to help with the finishing.

Back to the issue of quotes ... the detailed quotes cost

money and they allow competitors that can't figure out the job to more easily

compete with you if the owner gives out your bid to others.

Whenever possible we give very short quotes with no

useful information in it for competitors. If the contractor likes out

price we often have to break down the quote for the insurance company... but

that is usually after contractor award.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

LiveSimply:

You just don’t get it do you.

is performing remediation within a budget allowed/specified by insurance

companies. I imagine he would do just what you advocate, i.e., remediate

to improve people’s health.....IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT!

And if no one is going to pay for it, and the only monies available are

the fees that the insurance company is offering/paying, then that is all that is

going to be spent; and that includes remediation to placate legal obligations

– the insurance company’s legal obligations. Quit bashing because he is

working within parameters set by the insurance companies. If you feel so

compelled that more needs to be done/spent, then go down to Florida

where

works and donate to each and every remediation effort he performs in order to

improve the health of the people there. You would be a Saint! I

imagine

can spend your money just as well as he spends the insurance company’s

money. He sure isn’t going to donate any of his own. And if

you are not willing to donate, then start complaining to the insurance

companies that they are not improving people’s health; instead of

that he is not doing enuff. Moreover, all insurance has limits of

coverage based on premiums paid. If the insured is not willing to pay

higher premiums for high levels of coverage, then the responsibility needs to

be shared between the insured and the insurer. (Pay peanuts, expect

monkeys.) IMHO...Your negative comments to are misguided and not well placed.

Your fire-damage analogy proves you don’t get it, i.e., if an

insured had only $10K in coverage for fire damage, then the insurer is only

going to pay $10K for fire damage; no more. is providing a service within specified

bounds set by others. He does not have to be, nor is he expected to be, a

Saint.

Money does not buy happiness, but it is way ahead of whatever is in second

place!

On 2/20/07 8:08 AM, " LiveSimply " <quackadillian@ gmail.com>

wrote:

,

There is a very real disconnect going on here from remediation to improve

people's health and remediation to placate legal obligations. They are two

different goals and they should be identified as such by the use of different

words. Otherwise it gets confusing for the poor commoners like myself. Or maybe

that is the whole point.

Basing these cleanups' scope on the amount of insurance money available is also

bad reasoning. If your house burned down but you only had $10,000 coverage,

would you only do a $10,000 'repair'?

Often, buildings need to be gutted so they can actually be cleaned fully. Or

demolished and replaced.

To do anything else is deceptive because the repair won't stick.

On 2/15/07, gary

rosen <garyrosen72652@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Wane,

All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then the insurance

companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they rarely want to pay for

IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the insurance companies like to

overpay by hiring remediators to overcharge them?

I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on larger jobs

if the remediator is inexperienced.

>From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators " tend " to

have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have

construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs don't

add much except extra costs.

Rosen

www.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold-

Books.com>

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time

with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.

Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo!

Mail for Mobile and

always

stay connected to friends.

February 22, 2007

,

I would like you to please tell us how to

dry a wall that has been subjected to large amounts of water and you never get or

encounter mold in a wall cavity. Please give us a few different assembly scenarios.

Help Stacey and all of us understand how diverse wall and ceiling assemblies or

substrates can impact the drying process. Do you treat them any differently?

And are you able to keep those costs at

the amount the insurance company chooses to pay out as well? Or do you just do

as most and only charge for 3 days and take out the equipment?

, I ask

these questions because you stat to Stacey: then you will be able to comprehend the value of

drying out wall cavities before mold forms.

No accredited drying school will support

that statement. What makes you think the wall cavities are mold free at the

time of the water loss? i.e. are all environments mold-free prior to water

damage? How long does it take for microbial incubation and/or proliferation to

occur?

Is a wall cavity an environment? How do

you know mold hasn’t already formed in the wall cavity? Is everything you

deal with linear? Are there any conditions to which you encounter that you recognize

as non-linear? The best answer I have heard over the years is “it depends”.

Everything is subjective to its environment (before and after you get there).

Stacey, I am going to try that duct tape and

ladder trick.

Wane, are you out there?

Chuck, help me! I have fallen and cant get

up.

Bob/Ma.

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

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007

1:05 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: Here

we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

Stacey,

Have you taken the IICRC ASD training on drying out wall

cavities? When you do, then you will be able to comprehend the value of drying

out wall cavities before mold forms. It is much cheaper than yanking out the

wall after it is full of mold.

When you take the IICRC WRT training you will know that

S500 recommends that flooded materials be sprayed with disinfectant to reduce

the growth of microbials.

I fully support proper drying techniques that prevent mold

growth.

Rosen IICRC WRT, ASD, AMRT

www.Mold-Books.com

Re: Here we go again [was: Insurance cap...]

" There are many things that we have learned that

help us reduce

costs and at the same time improve quality. " - Rosen

What - like duct taping a shop vac to a ladder to dry out a ceiling

cavity that's been doused with " Zep " ???

Give me a break...

-Stacey Champion

Even a little dog can piss on a big building.

>

> Wane,

>

> All I can say is that if IEPs in general saved people money then

the insurance companies would want to pay for IEPs, but instead they

rarely want to pay for IEPs to write protocols. Does that mean the

insurance companies like to overpay by hiring remediators to

overcharge them?

>

> I have no doubt that a qualified IEP can be very cost effective on

larger jobs if the remediator is inexperienced.

>

> >From my point of view, in our area the mold remediators

" tend " to

have more experience than IEPs. Why because the remediators have

construction experience and the IEPs have little to nonet. So IEPs

don't add much except extra costs.

>

> Rosen

> www.Mold-Books. com <http://www.Mold-

Books.com>

>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

____________ ___

> TV dinner still cooling?

> Check out " Tonight's Picks " on Yahoo! TV.

> http://tv.yahoo. com/

>

Never

miss an email again!

Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.

Check it out.

February 22, 2007

Quack,

I recognize you affections and give you my

ear. I hear you loud and clear. It’s easier for us when we don’t live

under the confines that you suffer. And we are trying to help those we are

able. Not all of us believe as some do and not all of us are in it ONLY for the

money; although we need some to pay our bills in order to keep helping others.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of LiveSimply

Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007

1:47 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Here we

go again [was: Insurance cap...]

I'm

sorry, I should clarify that this was me snapping (I'm sorry that