Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 , Those are basic questions an acknowledgeable CIEC would ask and quantify before making a determination of facts. , you make it all sounds so sophisticated but what you have offered its basic knowledge for an EP. Don’t you think these would be ruled out before a sampling protocol would be established? EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:29 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Sharon, There is NO WAY to know if someone is sick from the elevated mold in the house or something else. Maybe the child is sick from mold in the school like mine was! Maybe he/she is sick from something else besides mold. Many times the problem is that the resident doesn't use an air filter in their AC. Or they don't clean the rugs. Or maybe their place is just nasty and was crawling with bugs so they sprayed pesticide everywhere including on the kids bedding to avoid being evicted for bugs. Whose fault is that? What if you told someone that mold in the house was making the child sick and the dad beat up the landlord and he lost an eye and kidney. And then you found out that the mold problem you thought was in the house was really in the step dad's house where the kid stays 95% of the time. No doubt there may be special cases where there is no doubt mold (especially Stachy) is making people sick. I would not give the test results out but I have told people they should evacuate and/or sue their landlord. But again I don't give them the test results. Open a wall and let people look.... anything but give out test results! Rosen, PH.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Hi , You post does not make sense to me. Maybe I am missing something, but it does not seem consistent. You wrote: " Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. " " ....and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. " So is it not your place to discuss illness or you advise the sensitive not to stay in the house or office? " But I don't give them any test results as that is not their property. " What if there was a sick child involved and you KNEW from the testing, the building was very sick. Do you have no duty to warn of what the results showed, because the test results are not their property? What if there was a very sick child involved and the physician was asking for the results to help determine or rule out what was in the child's environment that was making them ill. Then do you stick with the child's family has no right to the results because it is not their property? Sharon /Sharon, As someone that does quite a bit of work with people ill from mold ... I consider myself quite in tune with the potential for mold to cause illness. Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. If someone is not sensitive to mold, even quite high levels of mold will not affect them. I have found of course that massive levels of mold can effect almost anyone, but at those levels there will be quite a bit of visible mold and smells and it will be clear to everyone that there is a mold problem. If small children are involved, the aged, persons undergoing chemotherapy, chemically and/or mold sensitive people are involved and there is a potential elevated mold my personal approach is: Take off my mask and do the investigation without one. I am moderately mold sensitive. If I get irritated or my eyes burn I tell the occupants that my eyes are burning or I am not feeling well and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. But I don't give them any test results as that is not their property. If someone wants to sue for for may actions saying I got sick from the mold ... take a shot. That will not be an easy lawsuit in FLA. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books. com See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 , One of several of my requirments before I test (if I test), is that EVERYBODY gets the test results and ALL other information I develop. Without that agreement, I turn down the job. Carl Grimes Healthy Habitats LLC ----- > > Sharon, > > There is NO WAY to know if someone is sick from the elevated mold in > the house or something else. Maybe the child is sick from mold in > the school like mine was! Maybe he/she is sick from something else > besides mold. > > Many times the problem is that the residentdoesn't use an air filter > in their AC. Or they don't clean the rugs. Or maybe their place is > just nasty and was crawling with bugs so they sprayed pesticide > everywhere including on the kids bedding to avoid being evicted for > bugs. Whose fault is that? > > What if you told someone that mold in the house was making the child > sick and the dad beat up the landlord and he lost an eye and kidney. > And then you found out that the mold problem you thought was in the > house was really in the step dad's house where the kid stays 95% of > the time. > > No doubt there may be special cases where there is no doubt mold > (especially Stachy) is making people sick. I would not give the test > results out but I have told people they should evacuate and/or sue > their landlord. But again I don't give them the test results. Open > a wall and let people look.... anything but give out test results! > > Rosen, PH.D. > www.Mold-Books.com > > > > > > > > > > Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say > what? > > Hi , > > You post does not make sense to me. Maybe I am missing something, but > it does not seem consistent. > > You wrote: > " Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to > cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. " > " ....and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or > office. " > So is it not your place to discuss illness or you advise the > sensitive not to stay in the house or office? > " But I don't give them any test results as that is not their > property. " > What if there was a sick child involved and you KNEW from the > testing, the building was very sick. Do you have no duty to warn of > what the results showed, because the test results are not their > property? > What if there was a very sick child involved and the physician was > asking for the results to help determine or rule out what was in the > child's environment that was making them ill. Then do you stick with > the child's family has no right to the results because it is not > their property? > Sharon > > /Sharon, > > As someone that does quite a bit of work with people ill from mold > ... I consider myself quite in tune with the potential for mold to > cause illness. > > Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to > cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. > > If someone is not sensitive to mold, even quite high levels of mold > will not affect them. I have found of course that massive levels of > mold can effect almost anyone, but at those levels there will be > quite a bit of visible mold and smells and it will be clear to > everyone that there is a mold problem. > > If small children are involved, the aged, persons undergoing > chemotherapy, chemically and/or mold sensitive people are involved > and there is a potential elevated mold my personal approach is: > > Take off my mask and do the investigation without one. I am > moderately mold sensitive. If I get irritated or my eyes burn I tell > the occupants that my eyes are burning or I am not feeling well and > don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. > But I don't give them any test results as that is not their > property. If someone wants to sue for for may actions saying I got > sick from the mold ... take a shot. That will not be an easy lawsuit > in FLA. > > Rosen, Ph.D. > www.Mold-Books. com > > > > > > > > See what's free at AOL.com. > > > > > > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? > Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Bob, Are you serious? You are going to someone's school to rule out mold; and/or check a step dad's place; or assess dust mite feces; or insect parts; and/or contaminated AC ducts; and/or an earlier toilet overflow that left the carpet contaminated with toxic bacteria ... all for the $295 that these folks can pay you. In the real world with poorly trained assessors and limited funds ... no I don't think any of this is straightforward. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Hi , You post does not make sense to me. Maybe I am missing something, but it does not seem consistent. You wrote: "Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do." "....and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office." So is it not your place to discuss illness or you advise the sensitive not to stay in the house or office? "But I don't give them any test results as that is not their property." What if there was a sick child involved and you KNEW from the testing, the building was very sick. Do you have no duty to warn of what the results showed, because the test results are not their property? What if there was a very sick child involved and the physician was asking for the results to help determine or rule out what was in the child's environment that was making them ill. Then do you stick with the child's family has no right to the results because it is not their property? Sharon /Sharon, As someone that does quite a bit of work with people ill from mold ... I consider myself quite in tune with the potential for mold to cause illness. Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. If someone is not sensitive to mold, even quite high levels of mold will not affect them. I have found of course that massive levels of mold can effect almost anyone, but at those levels there will be quite a bit of visible mold and smells and it will be clear to everyone that there is a mold problem. If small children are involved, the aged, persons undergoing chemotherapy, chemically and/or mold sensitive people are involved and there is a potential elevated mold my personal approach is: Take off my mask and do the investigation without one. I am moderately mold sensitive. If I get irritated or my eyes burn I tell the occupants that my eyes are burning or I am not feeling well and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. But I don't give them any test results as that is not their property. If someone wants to sue for for may actions saying I got sick from the mold ... take a shot. That will not be an easy lawsuit in FLA. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books. com See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Carl, It has pretty much been established that testing is often inaccurate and is often not meaningful. I would not want to give everyone test results. What good would this do people? Even experienced consultants can oftentimes misinterpret test results especially when limited sampling is involved. How can a layman interpret test data? Do you only take jobs where you can charge, let's say, for samples in every location that IESO says to test in order to be reasonably confident that you can rule out mold? What about people that cannot afford expensive testing? Do you not test those homes? What about if you find no mold spores but there is a huge level of toxic mold fragments making someone sick but they cannot afford to pay for DNA analysis? What about if you test early in the day, but there is only high levels of mold in the house in the afternoon when the sun heats up and pressurizes the moldy attic and pushes the mold inside. When you go to a doctor and get 25 blood tests when you are very sick ... they don't give you the test results ... they tell you what is wrong. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say > what?> > Hi ,> > You post does not make sense to me. Maybe I am missing something, but > it does not seem consistent. > > You wrote:> "Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to > cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do."> "....and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or > office."> So is it not your place to discuss illness or you advise the > sensitive not to stay in the house or office?> "But I don't give them any test results as that is not their > property."> What if there was a sick child involved and you KNEW from the > testing, the building was very sick. Do you have no duty to warn of > what the results showed, because the test results are not their > property?> What if there was a very sick child involved and the physician was > asking for the results to help determine or rule out what was in the > child's environment that was making them ill. Then do you stick with > the child's family has no right to the results because it is not > their property? > Sharon> > /Sharon,> > As someone that does quite a bit of work with people ill from mold > ... I consider myself quite in tune with the potential for mold to > cause illness.> > Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to > cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do.> > If someone is not sensitive to mold, even quite high levels of mold > will not affect them. I have found of course that massive levels of > mold can effect almost anyone, but at those levels there will be > quite a bit of visible mold and smells and it will be clear to > everyone that there is a mold problem.> > If small children are involved, the aged, persons undergoing > chemotherapy, chemically and/or mold sensitive people are involved > and there is a potential elevated mold my personal approach is:> > Take off my mask and do the investigation without one. I am > moderately mold sensitive. If I get irritated or my eyes burn I tell > the occupants that my eyes are burning or I am not feeling well and > don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. > But I don't give them any test results as that is not their > property. If someone wants to sue for for may actions saying I got > sick from the mold .... take a shot. That will not be an easy lawsuit > in FLA.> > Rosen, Ph.D.> www.Mold-Books. com> > > > > > > > See what's free at AOL.com. > > > > > > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?> Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 Sharon, Got it. Fortunately much of my business does come from doctors who tell their patients they have mold related illness. And the first prescription is to get their house checked by Dr. Rosen. Sharon, I would never do any testing work for a school or nursing home or many other organizations as in many cases all they want is someone to NOT find mold. Down here virtually all the public schools have mold. All the nursing homes have mold. All mold sensitive kids and mold sensitive elderly have mold related illnesses. Not much can be done about it. Just make enough money to send your kids to private school and keep your parents out of nursing homes! As I mentioned, you can certainly advise someone regarding a sick environment without giving them test results that another party paid for. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Health.org Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? , "What if you told someone that mold in the house was making the child sick and the dad beat up the landlord and he lost an eye and kidney. And then you found out that the mold problem you thought was in the house was really in the step dad's house where the kid stays 95% of the time." I think this discussion is getting off track. No one is saying that IAQ pros should tell someone they are sick from a house, an office, or a space ship. One cannot concretely make that statement without more investigation and you all are not qualified to say that anyway. Schools, where some children are complaining of illness, was the beginning of this discussion. The gist of the discussion was, if an IAQ pro knows with reasonable certainty that an environment is not healthy for some of the school children, and this reasonable certainty based on testing confirming , which duty takes higher precedence? A fiduciary duty to the school district who has hired the pro - or a public safety duty to the child - who is exhibiting symptoms that are reasonably thought to be caused by moldy buildings? The question was, no matter who hired one, does one have a public health duty to warn when it is in the best interest of the public? The dilemma was, IF you warn, where are the doctors and the Health Depts to back you up? .....as says, so you "don't get your professional asses (PA's) sued" for watching out for the health of the public. And if you don't warn, do you run the risk of getting your PA's sued by the parents of the sick children? Its a tough one. In my own personal case, we received a six figure settlement from the testing company. I am just telling you all this personal info that I have not shared before, because I figured that number might make you think about this discussion a little harder. I am not certain it is coming thru to you that their are financial risks for you all both ways. This is just one more reason the IAQ industry should be fighting back against the unscientific not plausible crowd and be pushing to get the doctors properly trained to give proper advice over the matter. Giving health advice (or not) should not be falling on your shoulders... .and your PA's! Sharon See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Carl, , and Sharon: This is exactly my way of handling this matter as well. I mentioned in a previous post that I will not take a job unless I have aan agreement by all parties that the results of all sampling I collect will be shared with all parties. This has been true from the beginning of my career, and it has never failed me. Risk communication is a large part of the job. As has been pointed out by others, including , it is often not the mold that is the issue. It is often the lack of communication about the mold that results in the lawsuits, recrimination, and news articles. I have been involved with numerous cases where there are lawyers on both sides, defending their clients, and stating that the information is 'not discoverable' because my report is a 'work product' to the lawyer. I do not accept that, and I always say that, if you want my services, you have to accept my terms, namely, that all sampling results are shared. Don > > " Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to > > cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. " > > " ....and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or > > office. " > > So is it not your place to discuss illness or you advise the > > sensitive not to stay in the house or office? > > " But I don't give them any test results as that is not their > > property. " > > What if there was a sick child involved and you KNEW from the > > testing, the building was very sick. Do you have no duty to warn of > > what the results showed, because the test results are not their > > property? > > What if there was a very sick child involved and the physician was > > asking for the results to help determine or rule out what was in the > > child's environment that was making them ill. Then do you stick with > > the child's family has no right to the results because it is not > > their property? > > Sharon > > > > /Sharon, > > > > As someone that does quite a bit of work with people ill from mold > > ... I consider myself quite in tune with the potential for mold to > > cause illness. > > > > Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to > > cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. > > > > If someone is not sensitive to mold, even quite high levels of mold > > will not affect them. I have found of course that massive levels of > > mold can effect almost anyone, but at those levels there will be > > quite a bit of visible mold and smells and it will be clear to > > everyone that there is a mold problem. > > > > If small children are involved, the aged, persons undergoing > > chemotherapy, chemically and/or mold sensitive people are involved > > and there is a potential elevated mold my personal approach is: > > > > Take off my mask and do the investigation without one. I am > > moderately mold sensitive. If I get irritated or my eyes burn I tell > > the occupants that my eyes are burning or I am not feeling well and > > don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. > > But I don't give them any test results as that is not their > > property. If someone wants to sue for for may actions saying I got > > sick from the mold ... take a shot. That will not be an easy lawsuit > > in FLA. > > > > Rosen, Ph.D. > > www.Mold-Books. com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See what's free at AOL.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? > > Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Hi, Sharon: I do understand why you are perplexed about the session that is to be presented in Philadelphia at the AICHE. I am concerned as well, and offline you and I have had a e-mail exchange as to what is happening on this matter. Be that as it may, the question still remains whether or not any discussion at a scientific forum on 'alternative' views, particularly about mold, are legitimate topics. You mention that this session will be presenting 'junk' science, at least that is the term that the California judge used in relation to the work of Veritox and the 2000 and 2004 'critical reviews' written by Veritox's employees on mold. I can say that this is not a view shared by everyone in the scientific community, and that is why this discussion is ongoing. However, a vast majority of scientists do feel that there is an association between damp environments, mold growth and illness among the residents. The IOM report in 2004 discusses this in detail. It has been misquoted to say that the IOM supported the ACOEM/AAAAI position that mold does not cause illness. What it carefully says is that the research on mold exposure in homes has not been proven to cause illness to date, but that research is ongoing. Absence of proof does not equate to absence of illness. And it clearly states that there is an association between damp environments and respiratory diseases and allergic reactions. So the bottom line is that scientists may continue to debate this issue, but the position to be presented in the session in question is a 'rearguard' position that is not likely to prevail in the long run in the scientific community. We will continue to allow the discussion for the time being, but the position statements from AIHA are not written by these individuals. On disclosure of sampling results: as I have stated before, it is a vital part of any EC's job to come to an agreement on risk communication with all parties prior to the collection of any samples. Without that agreement, I will not accept the job. I think that it is as important as the responsibility to follow all current sampling methods. Risk communication is that important! Don > > " We have the full support of our organization for the positions we have > taken. I > also explained to you in other correspondence about the change in the > Code of Ethics that is taking place. I believe you indicated your > support of that. I think that AIHA as an organization, and its > members, have proven time and again that they are taking the correct > scientific position on mold and the potential for health effects. " > > > Yes, I believe that to be true for the most part and I do find the change in > the Code of Ethics to be for the benefit of the members and the public. But > as you noted prior, this particular session apparently was the subject of > much discussion among AIHA members. The way it came back into the chat, was that > I was using it as an example of the delimma you all face sometimes when you > have a fiduciary duty to one party and a public health duty to the other > party. And that you all's job would be much easier if there were physicians > properly trained to understand mold induced illnesses. > > I can pretty much guess that this session is going to say that symptoms > indicative of toxicity are not plausible to occur based on the teachings of ACOEM > and their non-sequitor leap from a rodent study to absence of symptoms > indicative of human toxicity. > > " Many professionals may disagree with the point of view, but in science, it > is encouraged that the viewpoints be discussed in a public forum, like a > conference, so that others can challenge the speakers on their points. " > > Yes. I think that is a good thing. Differing scientific schools of thought > should be discussed openly. But what I am having difficulty with, is that > something that is NOT science is going to be allowed to be presented like it is > science open for some debate. There is no debate on this one and to act like > there is only legitimizes it, like it has merit to be a valid position. > > The modeling theory is junk. EVERYONE knows its junk. It belongs in the > Journal of Irreproducible Results. I hear even the defense attorneys are not > citing this modeling theory to deduce absence of human illness anymore. So I am > having a hard time understanding why would these organizations allow it to > even be presented in the first place. I think AIHA is making some great progress > with the mold issue. But I am sorry, allowing this presentation just does > not seem ethical..or scientific to me. It seems more politically motivated > and is unnecessarily detrimental to the health of the public. With that said I > can't do anything about a conference of which I am not involved. But I hope > there is a lively debate on this one! > > Does that make sense as to why I am so perplexed that this is even being > presented within a scientific forum? > > Sharon > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 , You command what you believe your worth (if you are). I do not do an investigation for that amount b/c as you clearly stated $295.00 doesn’t do it. So if you only are offered $295 and as you stated you are unable to complete an assessment for that amount, than why are you doing the assessment? In fact if you are knowingly not doing the assessment correctly and still taking their $295 are you acting professionally? , I set an hourly rate (portal to portal). EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:18 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Bob, Are you serious? You are going to someone's school to rule out mold; and/or check a step dad's place; or assess dust mite feces; or insect parts; and/or contaminated AC ducts; and/or an earlier toilet overflow that left the carpet contaminated with toxic bacteria ... all for the $295 that these folks can pay you. In the real world with poorly trained assessors and limited funds ... no I don't think any of this is straightforward. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Hi , You post does not make sense to me. Maybe I am missing something, but it does not seem consistent. You wrote: " Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. " " ....and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. " So is it not your place to discuss illness or you advise the sensitive not to stay in the house or office? " But I don't give them any test results as that is not their property. " What if there was a sick child involved and you KNEW from the testing, the building was very sick. Do you have no duty to warn of what the results showed, because the test results are not their property? What if there was a very sick child involved and the physician was asking for the results to help determine or rule out what was in the child's environment that was making them ill. Then do you stick with the child's family has no right to the results because it is not their property? Sharon /Sharon, As someone that does quite a bit of work with people ill from mold .... I consider myself quite in tune with the potential for mold to cause illness. Making any statements about the potential for indoor mold growth to cause illness is certainly not for anyone in our profession to do. If someone is not sensitive to mold, even quite high levels of mold will not affect them. I have found of course that massive levels of mold can effect almost anyone, but at those levels there will be quite a bit of visible mold and smells and it will be clear to everyone that there is a mold problem. If small children are involved, the aged, persons undergoing chemotherapy, chemically and/or mold sensitive people are involved and there is a potential elevated mold my personal approach is: Take off my mask and do the investigation without one. I am moderately mold sensitive. If I get irritated or my eyes burn I tell the occupants that my eyes are burning or I am not feeling well and don't recommend that anyone sensitive stay in the house or office. But I don't give them any test results as that is not their property. If someone wants to sue for for may actions saying I got sick from the mold ... take a shot. That will not be an easy lawsuit in FLA. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books. com See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Don, The challenges of a system set up to report ethical violations such as with the AIHA are problematic. As you stated those that work in this industry (or any industry for that matter) do not want to turn one another in to any organization for violations. In addition if and when there is ever a formal complaint lodged against a fellow IH and found to be valid, would removal from membership prevent this person from continuing to perform inspections? I do not know of anyone outside of this industry that would even know about, let alone ask if a mold inspector is a member of AIHA. Taking away an IH's membership for ethical violations becomes meaningless. The public as a whole has no knowledge of what this membership even means. Your statement that AIHA is not in the disciplinary or enforcement business in regard to its members is part of the problem here. The problem being, that no one in this industry is in the business of holding IH's or otherwise accountable. If an IH has to choose between the health and safety of an occupant or their own financial gain, there is no incentive for the IH to choose anything other than their own financial interests. When you have an industry where one can take a 16-32 hour course and in a week be charging anywhere on average from $500-$2,500 for a 1 to 2 hour visit, you got a problem. And without any disciplinary measures set up to hold these individuals responsible, you got an even bigger problem. The quickie courses, the type of money made in this industry, along with the lack of accountability enables those with little integrity and or ethics to continue to do what they do. It is the occupants that are paying the price for this problem. And it is the reputation of this industry that is affected. A new code of ethics without a disciplinary system is a superficial veil to cover up the reality of nothing changing in this industry. To apply the same concept of a code of ethics without a disciplinary system in how we function in this society would mean disaster. Why should this be any different for this industry, especially given the types that are attracted into the field? Note that the definition of the term "credentialing" means proof of ability or trustworthiness. The organization responsible for credentialing these individuals has a responsibility, a fiduciary duty of sorts to the public especially to the occupant, to hold accountable those that are not fulfilling this role. To your industry, I say shame on you. I am in agreement with you on the points you make concerning CIH's. As you and I both know those that have spent years being college trained with a degree and or certificate/licensure program that involves a number of years of study, are generally far more vested in not risking their credentials. Indeed there seems to be far less reckless activity by a CIH, then by those that have taken a quickie course who have little to loose. This is especially so given the fact that it is the employer-client as the one that gets sued and not usually the IH. I am glad that you are working on cleaning up the EC side. The average person does not even have any idea of what the difference is between an CIE and CIH. To confuse matters more some EC's claim that since the CIH has not had any training in mold that they, the EC are the ones with the indoor residential experience that should be dealing with mold and not the CIH. This has been said to me a number of times and I have no idea whether this is true or not. I am still trying to navigate through the sea of confusion in the use of credentialing titles and requirements for these. In regard to medical data, this is quite different from mold sampling results. To attempt to take the issue of confidentiality of medical information supplied to you and compare it to the withholding of sampling results as taken by you, is a mistake. There are very strict specific laws pertaining to the confidentially and disclosure of medical information. There are no laws in place that specifically address disclosure of sampling results, which is exactly why your industry has been able to withhold these records irrespective of situations that can and do jeopardize the health and safety of the occupant. (Don, I use the terms "you" and "your" to be all encompassing to EPs) If those in this industry do not see the need to make major changes then nothing will change. If the voices in this industry that count are not willing to step out of their comfort zone enough to risk real change that would make a difference, nothing will have changed. The distrust of this industry will continue. The problematic reputation of this industry will remain. The band-aid approach will be used to try and stop a hemorrhage, a hemorrhage that is money in the bank for this industry. The question remains, is this industry capable of regulating itself? I think you know my answer. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME :I appreciate your kind remarks, and I do want you to know that I don't necessarily represent all IH's, or anything close to that. But I am willing to answer for myself, and what I have seen over the last 32 years of work. :)Second, you should be aware that there is an Ethics Complaint system in place for AIHA, and some of us are in the midst of utilizing it against certain labs. The ABIH has its' own mechanism for the removal of the title, CIH, which is mainly focussed around the individual's certification maintenance (CM) point total over a six year period. This is strictly an individual's responsibility to maintain. There are no corporate members for ABIH. Many CIH's have lost their designation by their failure to gather sufficient CM points in the six year time frame.What would I expect from a professional organization such as AIHA when it reviews an Ethics complaint, particularly against a corporate member? I would expect a thorough investigation regarding the complaint, and, if the complaint is proven, the appropriate 'action' to be taken. What might be that action? Non-renewal of membership, removal of logos from brochures and websites, and, if the corporation refuses to comply, legal action against the corporation.As you can imagine, this is a rare event for a variety of reasons. Generally, an Ethics complainant is a fellow CIH, and most individual CIH's are not willing to spend the time and energy to file a complaint, much less follow it up. Additionally, AIHA is not in the disciplinary and enforcement business with regards to its members. It is, at this point in time, fortunate to continue to have 10,000 members, given the ageing of the individual members (average age: 50+). It would require an particularly egregious breach of ethics for this type of complaint to be filed.Regarding disclosure: I really don't think that you will find many CIH's 'lurking in the shadows' regarding sampling results. If anything, these are the individuals that are standing up in front of the crowd answering questions about the results. Actions DO speak louder than words, and that is what I see my fellow CIH's doing on a daily basis.Now that doesn't mean that there aren't a few 'bad actors' out there! But I would surmise that the vast majority of the individuals that you are referring to are not CIH's, or any other accredited designation. They DO ruin the reputation of the profession, and, if you have reading some of the other posts regarding conflict of interest, you know that there is a group of us who are attempting to 'clean up' the industry, particularly the EC side.Regarding 'medical data': when I begin the questioning of the individuals who are affected by the indoor air quality conditions, including mold, in their workplace, it is often true that I receive a lot of information from the workers about their medical conditions. I have been provided with symptoms, medical reports, presciptions, diagnoses, etc. In some cases, the corporate doctor is also providing me with the medical records of the individuals in question. This 'medical data', although it may not be 'official' medical data, is in my mind confidential information. I certainly would not be at liberty to disclose this data, nor the air sampling data that may correlate with that individual's medical condition until this has been fully discussed with their physician and/or the medical director of the corporation.Start packing your bags! Actually, since over the last 32 years, I have worked throughout the US and Canada, you won't have to pack, you are already there! This is mainly because I make sure that my client knows, in advance BEFORE I take a single sample, what they will have to do with the data from the sampling. If a client does not wish to disclose the results, then I walk away. Strangely, that has happened only once that I remember, more than 20 years ago. Since OSHA's Hazard Communication Regulation went into effect in the 1980's, it has never come up as an issue. Remember: they call me, I don't call them. They want my services, and they will take them as I offer them.Now, OSHA does not apply to residences, but it certainly applies to school employees. For residents in a home, I ask the insurance company if I can send a copy of my report, and the insurance company always says 'Yes'. I have never had a client say 'No'. Again I make sure before I start that the client knows what will happen to the data once I receive it back from the lab. So it has never been a problem. :)Don "In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles > was > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial hygiene > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH)." > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical Principals, > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new changes, this means > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH announced there > will be no disciplinary system set in place.> > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted practice of > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to allow and support > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties that retain > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing to disclose > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, "the need to withhold" > for purposes of financial gain overrides "the need to know" for the health and > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder than their > words.> > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the employees > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > information'information'<WBR>, and its release with permission of t > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before the > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > with the work.> > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > Profession.> 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of related > information.> > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public.> 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive information > obtained in the course of professional or related activities unless: > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the information; > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of specific > information.> > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way of "medical data." > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and to what type of > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > D.Public Health and Safety> 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable.> 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > violations of legal and organizational professional requirements > > > > > > > Sharon:> > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial hygiene > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered during > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until very > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an outside > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 years. > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by the > corporations who are not consultants to the public.> > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make the > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, and > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to be > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation and > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the initial > situation.> The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it involves a public > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of disclosure for > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles was > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial hygiene > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the employees > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > information'information'<WBR>, and its release with permission of t > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before the > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > with the work.> > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We work > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > situation.> > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same manner. Don> > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client tell you > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you live. Let me know > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place to live. > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME> Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic FAIR USE NOTICE: See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 , I am glad that you brought up the issue of training for CIE's. I touched on this as part of my last post to Don and would like to expand upon this discussion in general. As it is, few if any outside of this industry know the difference between a CIH and a CIE. Let alone CIE, CIEC, CMI, CMR, CIA, IEP, EP, P.E, and so forth. As I believe it was Don that stated in another post, this area has changed greatly over the last 15 years. With all that is taking place today in our indoor environmental problems, the complications and the vast array of health conditions being associated with mycotoxin exposures, this industry needs to rethink qualifications. There is far too much at stake to not do this. It is disturbing to me that anyone can put on their mold inspector cap, advertise, and be called upon to assess situations where oftentimes there is much at stake for all parties involved, especially with the occupants health. I find it hard to believe that these 16-32 hour courses are even near sufficient for all that is required of an IH in this day and age. Few have any background in anything related to this field. These are the same individuals that the sick occupants are dependent upon to accurately and without bias assess their living space for health hazards. There is the expectation that IH's have integrity, ethics and expertise in their field. Considering many entered into this industry to make a quick and easy fast buck, why would the IH not turn down the lure of referrals in exchange for distorting facts and biasing their work? What other field do you know where anyone can take a 1 to 4 day course and the next week be earning anywhere on average of $500-$2000 per inspection? These courses are churning out far too many with little to no integrity and or skills to be doing this type of work. I am stunned that requirements to become an IH have not been consistently increasing as this industry has been growing and changing. If you consider all the parties involved that are placing their trust in the IH and just how much is at stake for each of these parties, the fact that it only takes a few days of training to do this type of work places everyone at risk. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME , I also am an advocate for sick people. However please recall how extensive has been the discussion about pitfalls with mold testing and trying to correlate with, much less prove, illness. There are very, very few consultants adequately trained in mold assessment to make such determinations. Remember that even CIE's and CIEC's have no formal training in mold assessment standards ... for example IESO sampling standards. CIE's and CIECs are not even required to understand IESO sampling standards nor does the CIE/CIEC certification test include even one question about IESO sampling standards. And IESO is part of he same merged organization that trains and certifies the CIE/CIEC mold consultants! So if the assessor follows no standards for testing ... how do you know what they are doing makes any sense. It often does not! Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states,"If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples."This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants "need to know" is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers "need to withhold from the occupant" is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the "tester." states," If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means." Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term "owner" in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: :I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree.Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful†because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion.Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary.On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, "bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com" <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QMEBe careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes Steve,It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007  What is also a serious problem, something discussed by several on this board in the past, is that a good IAQ Investigator must have many background skills or they will not be able to 'see' the problem(s) and will likely misread the need for solutions. Buildings are complex things that react to environments and occupants/custodial persons in complex ways. Until you know enough about how a building works you can easily (no malice intended) not see the way in which the building is getting into trouble. There are many other pollutants than mold (some more serious) and there are many different sensitivities in occupants. These variations make the need for an Investigator who has the ability to step back and 'picture' the behaviour of the building in the greater sense a mandatory skill - one that can be taught, but not in a few days. As a minimum the following skills should be within the general grasp of a good IAQ Investigator: 1 the building science of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (and how they interact, both as intended and in the real case being investigated); 2 the array of pollutants that are in buildings and how to identify what is a problem in the building under investigation; 3 the variability of occupant sensitivities, including specific groups and the particular occupants of the building in question; 4 the many clues of air, moisture and heat flows that contribute to moisture problems; 5 the need for measurements, and where to get reliable results when measurements are made; etc. When someone is sent into a building that is making someone sick and they only measure mold they could miss at least the following: a a carbon monoxide problem from poorly vented appliances (although the venting may only fail periodically); b a serious amplification of the mold reaction when the occupant become scrupulous and cleans with toxic cleaners every day; c the denial processes by the "Person of Power" over the real reactions of some of the other occupants; d the reality that few measurements mean what the investigator thinks that they mean. In Canada, CMHC (the federal housing agency) is training IAQ Investigators and they have to meet certain prerequisite prior training requirements before they get this particular training. Experience in housing construction and HVAC are requisites that are vital. I think that it is becoming time for this whole industry to look at just what is really needed in training. Many of the CIHs do not have building performance training and that is no longer acceptable. Few seem to understand the concept of high variability in occupant sensitivity, and what could you expect when most doctors (almost all?) do not even know what a mean, a median and a standard deviation mean, let alone how to interpret them for a given set of patients? This is very much necessary in an IAQ Investigator. We do not have to be experts in all areas, but we should be at least cognisant of the array of processes going on in the buildings that we investigate. Then, just maybe, we will be able to "see" the real overall picture and make the correct diagnosis. Jim H. White System Science Consulting Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states,"If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples."This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants "need to know" is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers "need to withhold from the occupant" is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the "tester." states," If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means." Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term "owner" in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: :I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree.Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful†because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion.Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary.On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, "bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com" <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QMEBe careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes Steve,It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , If I may bring some clarity to your concern, when took the CIE “REFRESHER” course it was just that a refresher course. Candidates were screened prior to being accepted into the refresher course. The course covered over 15 different disciplines. Thereafter one had to successfully challenge the test of knowledge one had prior to being granted the status of CIE. Did any get by, probable just like any other industry and in due time they will be found out. I found a snip of the requirements before on e may sit in on the refresher course for the CIE: 3. Prerequisites for CIE Status - Applicants must fulfill at least one of the following: A high school diploma or GED, plus: Either 5 years experience in a field related to the indoor air quality industry, or 2 years of college plus 3 years experience in a field related to the indoor air quality industry. Up to 4 years total of college may be substituted for the work experience on a 1 to 1 basis. In no case will a CIE have less than 1 year work experience in a field related to the indoor air quality industry. Today the AmIAQ brings more clarity and defines CIE expectations/requirements for the CIE designation are as follows: CIE: Council-certified Indoor Environmentalist The American IAQ Council offers the Council-certified Indoor Environmentalist (CIE) to individuals with expertise in the fundamental principles of indoor environmental quality. Objectives of the CIE Program To raise the standards of those engaged in indoor air quality testing, sampling, monitoring and consulting. To identify persons with acceptable knowledge of indoor air quality and the standards and regulations affecting Council-certified Indoor Environmentalists. To award special recognition to those indoor air quality professionals who have demonstrated verifiable field experience. Eligibility Applicants for the CIE certification must demonstrate academic- and experience-related eligibility. § Applicants must possess one of the following combinations of education and relevant field experience: A 2-year post-secondary degree or its equivalent (15 credit hours) in engineering, science, architecture, industrial hygiene or related field of science with a minimum of one (1) year of documented field experience conducting indoor air quality investigations. No degree, with at least two (2) years of documented field experience conducting indoor air quality investigations. (High school diploma or GED required.) The Required Body of Knowledge -- The effective practice of indoor air quality investigation requires knowledge of a variety of subjects, from current standards and building codes to HVAC system design, operation and maintenance. For certification purposes, the candidate for the CIE designation must demonstrate familiarity with the basic concepts and reference materials of the industry, such as those summarized in the following list. Hollace , Fungal Contamination: A Manual for Investigation, Remediation and Control (Jupiter, Fla: BECi, 2005) EPA, Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers (Washington: EPA, 1991) ASHRAE, Standard 55 – 2004: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy ASHRAE, Standard 62.1 – 2004: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality ASHRAE, Standard 62.2 – 2004: Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings Shirley J. Hansen and H. E. Burroughs, Managing Indoor Air Quality, 3rd ed. (Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc., 2004) The Required Skills -- A Council-certified Indoor Environmentalist (CIE) has demonstrated the following skills through a combination of documented experience, documented education and training and the successful completion of an examination process. IAQ Contaminants and Health Effects Apply scientific knowledge of indoor environmental contaminants and general knowledge of their potential health effects to the investigation of indoor environmental quality. The Built Environment Apply general knowledge of the design, construction and furnishing of the built environment to the investigation of indoor environmental quality. Understand common construction techniques and related technical drawings used in single family homes, multi-family residential buildings, commercial buildings and institutional facilities. Understand the sources, pathways and driving forces of condensation and humidity in indoor environments. Understand building materials and interior furniture and fixtures, their potential for offgassing and their ability to affect indoor environmental quality. HVAC Apply knowledge of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) principles, components and standards to the investigation of indoor environmental quality problems. Understand the HVAC system’s role in maintaining pressurization, ventilation and temperature of indoor environments, and its effects on indoor environmental quality. Understand diagnostic procedures used to evaluate HVAC systems including air test and balance, air filtration and static capability. Equipment Apply knowledge of the basic principles of operation and limitations of instruments used to obtain objective indoor environmental quality measurements, and analyze and interpret correctly the data gathered during an environmental investigation. Guidelines, Regulations & Standards Apply knowledge of occupational standards related to the maintenance and improvement of indoor environmental quality. Remediation Develop, manage, document and verify the correction of an indoor environmental quality problem. Apply current standards and guidelines of care relevant to improving indoor environmental quality, including containment, worker protection and project verification. Prepare all documents related to the successful completion of a project, including report of findings, project specification, documentation of practices and procedures, and verification plan. Conduct visual assessments and employ appropriate testing procedures to qualify and quantify indoor environmental quality conditions both before and after work. It is up to the public to reeducate themselves as we in this industry continue to do. Another issue which has not been brought up (I think) is that the public is always looking to get services cheaper all the time. And you get what you pay for. I present my billable cost up front and if they don’t like it, find another who will offer it cheaper but buyer-be-ware. I have spent too much on my education and I am not free so others can get rich. On the other hand, if your good and you are able to help them understand the difference between you and your supposed competition (there isn’t much) they will be willing to pay you your wages. So it’s not all the industries or the consultant’s fault, its society’s as well and they get what they pay for if they choose to take the cheap rout. None of us can help prevent them from going down that road. My continuing education continues to be costly and I know it and I will not diminish the need of staying ahead of the pack by reducing my billable cost. Besides, they call me I don’t call them so there must be some smart ones out there and that is who I would like to work for (those who understand the value of what we do and in the end can save them large amounts of money). So they can give it to the doctors (who some seem to have less of a clue) or give it to us and we can help by identifying the real cause and therefore help restore them back to a healthier life style. So what is their health worth? How many tell you they can’t afford your services and later you find they were in Hawaii and you can’t even afford to go on vacation (especially attorneys, doctors, or CEO’s)? Well, raise your rates and stick to them and take a vacation!!! I would rather work less hours and be more productive and alert than be so busy that I can’t think or go on vacation. And now those of you who have achieved the CIEC status, give yourself a raise (I did $25.00/hr and I get it with no trouble). All considered, the CIEC is even more restrictive and requires 40 CRC’s per two years. That is more than my wife’s license requirements for her mental health license CEU’s (32 ever 2 yrs). And as for the CIE to CIEC, one must meet the CIEC requirements before being granted the CIEC status. CIEC: Council-certified Indoor Environmental Consultant The American IAQ Council offers the Council-certified Indoor Environmental Consultant (CIEC) to individuals with expertise in the fundamental principles of indoor environmental quality. Objectives of the CIEC Program To raise the standards of those engaged in indoor air quality testing, sampling, monitoring and consulting. To identify persons with acceptable knowledge of indoor air quality and the standards and regulations affecting Council-certified Indoor Environmental Consultants. To award special recognition to those indoor air quality professionals who have demonstrated verifiable field experience. Eligibility § Applicants for the CIEC certification must demonstrate academic- and experience-related eligibility. § Applicants must possess one of the following combinations of eight (8) years education and relevant field experience: A 4-year post-secondary degree (30 credit hours) in engineering, science, architecture, industrial hygiene or related field of science with a minimum of four (4) years of documented field experience conducting indoor air quality investigations. A 2-year post-secondary degree (15 credit hours) in engineering, science, architecture, industrial hygiene or related field of science with a minimum of six (6) years of documented field experience conducting indoor air quality investigations. No degree, with at least eight (8) years of documented field experience conducting indoor air quality investigations. (High school diploma or GED required.) § Applicants must demonstrate experience in several areas of IAQ. Experience should include investigations, consulting and project management and/or report writing, and must come from at least three of the following five areas: Lead/Asbestos Microbial IH/Chemicals/Toxicology Building Sciences HVAC/Building Maintenance The Required Body of Knowledge -- The effective practice of indoor air quality investigation requires knowledge of a variety of subjects, from current standards and building codes to HVAC system design, operation and maintenance. For certification purposes, the candidate for the CIEC designation must demonstrate familiarity with the basic concepts and reference materials of the industry, such as those summarized in the following list. Hollace , Fungal Contamination: A Manual for Investigation, Remediation and Control (Jupiter, Fla: BECi, 2005) EPA, Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers (Washington: EPA, 1991) ASHRAE, Standard 55 – 2004: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy ASHRAE, Standard 62.1 – 2004: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality ASHRAE, Standard 62.2 – 2004: Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings Shirley J. Hansen and H. E. Burroughs, Managing Indoor Air Quality, 3rd ed. (Lilburn, GA: The Fairmont Press, Inc., 2004) The Required Skills -- A Council-certified Indoor Environmental Consultant (CIEC) has demonstrated the following skills through a combination of documented experience, documented education and training and the successful completion of an examination process. IAQ Contaminants and Health Effects Apply scientific knowledge of indoor environmental contaminants and general knowledge of their potential health effects to the investigation of indoor environmental quality. The Built Environment Apply general knowledge of the design, construction and furnishing of the built environment to the investigation of indoor environmental quality. Understand common construction techniques and related technical drawings used in single family homes, multi-family residential buildings, commercial buildings and institutional facilities. Understand the sources, pathways and driving forces of condensation and humidity in indoor environments. Understand building materials and interior furniture and fixtures, their potential for offgassing and their ability to affect indoor environmental quality. HVAC Apply knowledge of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) principles, components and standards to the investigation of indoor environmental quality problems. Understand the HVAC system’s role in maintaining pressurization, ventilation and temperature of indoor environments, and its effects on indoor environmental quality. Understand diagnostic procedures used to evaluate HVAC systems including air test and balance, air filtration and static capability. Equipment Apply knowledge of the basic principles of operation and limitations of instruments used to obtain objective indoor environmental quality measurements, and analyze and interpret correctly the data gathered during an environmental investigation. Guidelines, Regulations & Standards Apply knowledge of occupational standards related to the maintenance and improvement of indoor environmental quality. Remediation Develop, manage, document and verify the correction of an indoor environmental quality problem. Apply current standards and guidelines of care relevant to improving indoor environmental quality, including containment, worker protection and project verification. Prepare all documents related to the successful completion of a project, including report of findings, project specification, documentation of practices and procedures, and verification plan. Conduct visual assessments and employ appropriate testing procedures to qualify and quantify indoor environmental quality conditions both before and after work. So the test for the CIEC is a closed book test which when successfully challenged demonstrates confirms the candidate’s knowledge and understanding of the indoor environment and associated challenges. I think the standards are there its just letting the public understand it all and informing them they get what they pay for. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of bobbinsbiomed@... Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:34 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? , I am glad that you brought up the issue of training for CIE's. I touched on this as part of my last post to Don and would like to expand upon this discussion in general. As it is, few if any outside of this industry know the difference between a CIH and a CIE. Let alone CIE, CIEC, CMI, CMR, CIA, IEP, EP, P.E, and so forth. As I believe it was Don that stated in another post, this area has changed greatly over the last 15 years. With all that is taking place today in our indoor environmental problems, the complications and the vast array of health conditions being associated with mycotoxin exposures, this industry needs to rethink qualifications. There is far too much at stake to not do this. It is disturbing to me that anyone can put on their mold inspector cap, advertise, and be called upon to assess situations where oftentimes there is much at stake for all parties involved, especially with the occupants health. I find it hard to believe that these 16-32 hour courses are even near sufficient for all that is required of an IH in this day and age. Few have any background in anything related to this field. These are the same individuals that the sick occupants are dependent upon to accurately and without bias assess their living space for health hazards. There is the expectation that IH's have integrity, ethics and expertise in their field. Considering many entered into this industry to make a quick and easy fast buck, why would the IH not turn down the lure of referrals in exchange for distorting facts and biasing their work? What other field do you know where anyone can take a 1 to 4 day course and the next week be earning anywhere on average of $500-$2000 per inspection? These courses are churning out far too many with little to no integrity and or skills to be doing this type of work. I am stunned that requirements to become an IH have not been consistently increasing as this industry has been growing and changing. If you consider all the parties involved that are placing their trust in the IH and just how much is at stake for each of these parties, the fact that it only takes a few days of training to do this type of work places everyone at risk. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/30/2007 3:01:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, garyrosen72652 writes: , I also am an advocate for sick people. However please recall how extensive has been the discussion about pitfalls with mold testing and trying to correlate with, much less prove, illness. There are very, very few consultants adequately trained in mold assessment to make such determinations. Remember that even CIE's and CIEC's have no formal training in mold assessment standards ... for example IESO sampling standards. CIE's and CIECs are not even required to understand IESO sampling standards nor does the CIE/CIEC certification test include even one question about IESO sampling standards. And IESO is part of he same merged organization that trains and certifies the CIE/CIEC mold consultants! So if the assessor follows no standards for testing ... how do you know what they are doing makes any sense. It often does not! Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com ----- Original Message ---- From: " bobbinsbiomedaol " <bobbinsbiomedaol> To: iequality Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:06:28 PM Subject: Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states, " If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. " This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants " need to know " is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers " need to withhold from the occupant " is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the " tester. " states, " If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means. " Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term " owner " in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: : I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree. Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful” because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion. Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary. On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, " bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com " <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want. Steve Temes Steve, It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice. If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , In Florida we are (it appears) about to pass a mold licensing law that requires mold insurance from consultants and contractors along with additional training in water damage. At least in FLA, the state has decided that the industry has not properly trained or regulated its members and is now trying to step in. Are CIH's insured for the work they do? How about if they do mold work? Rosen, Ph.D., C.I.E.C. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Don, The challenges of a system set up to report ethical violations such as with the AIHA are problematic. As you stated those that work in this industry (or any industry for that matter) do not want to turn one another in to any organization for violations. In addition if and when there is ever a formal complaint lodged against a fellow IH and found to be valid, would removal from membership prevent this person from continuing to perform inspections? I do not know of anyone outside of this industry that would even know about, let alone ask if a mold inspector is a member of AIHA. Taking away an IH's membership for ethical violations becomes meaningless. The public as a whole has no knowledge of what this membership even means. Your statement that AIHA is not in the disciplinary or enforcement business in regard to its members is part of the problem here. The problem being, that no one in this industry is in the business of holding IH's or otherwise accountable. If an IH has to choose between the health and safety of an occupant or their own financial gain, there is no incentive for the IH to choose anything other than their own financial interests. When you have an industry where one can take a 16-32 hour course and in a week be charging anywhere on average from $500-$2,500 for a 1 to 2 hour visit, you got a problem. And without any disciplinary measures set up to hold these individuals responsible, you got an even bigger problem. The quickie courses, the type of money made in this industry, along with the lack of accountability enables those with little integrity and or ethics to continue to do what they do. It is the occupants that are paying the price for this problem. And it is the reputation of this industry that is affected. A new code of ethics without a disciplinary system is a superficial veil to cover up the reality of nothing changing in this industry. To apply the same concept of a code of ethics without a disciplinary system in how we function in this society would mean disaster. Why should this be any different for this industry, especially given the types that are attracted into the field? Note that the definition of the term "credentialing" means proof of ability or trustworthiness. The organization responsible for credentialing these individuals has a responsibility, a fiduciary duty of sorts to the public especially to the occupant, to hold accountable those that are not fulfilling this role. To your industry, I say shame on you. I am in agreement with you on the points you make concerning CIH's. As you and I both know those that have spent years being college trained with a degree and or certificate/ licensure program that involves a number of years of study, are generally far more vested in not risking their credentials. Indeed there seems to be far less reckless activity by a CIH, then by those that have taken a quickie course who have little to loose. This is especially so given the fact that it is the employer-client as the one that gets sued and not usually the IH. I am glad that you are working on cleaning up the EC side. The average person does not even have any idea of what the difference is between an CIE and CIH. To confuse matters more some EC's claim that since the CIH has not had any training in mold that they, the EC are the ones with the indoor residential experience that should be dealing with mold and not the CIH. This has been said to me a number of times and I have no idea whether this is true or not. I am still trying to navigate through the sea of confusion in the use of credentialing titles and requirements for these. In regard to medical data, this is quite different from mold sampling results. To attempt to take the issue of confidentiality of medical information supplied to you and compare it to the withholding of sampling results as taken by you, is a mistake. There are very strict specific laws pertaining to the confidentially and disclosure of medical information. There are no laws in place that specifically address disclosure of sampling results, which is exactly why your industry has been able to withhold these records irrespective of situations that can and do jeopardize the health and safety of the occupant. (Don, I use the terms "you" and "your" to be all encompassing to EPs) If those in this industry do not see the need to make major changes then nothing will change. If the voices in this industry that count are not willing to step out of their comfort zone enough to risk real change that would make a difference, nothing will have changed. The distrust of this industry will continue. The problematic reputation of this industry will remain. The band-aid approach will be used to try and stop a hemorrhage, a hemorrhage that is money in the bank for this industry. The question remains, is this industry capable of regulating itself? I think you know my answer. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/27/2007 1:00:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, donweek@.... com writes: :I appreciate your kind remarks, and I do want you to know that I don't necessarily represent all IH's, or anything close to that. But I am willing to answer for myself, and what I have seen over the last 32 years of work. :)Second, you should be aware that there is an Ethics Complaint system in place for AIHA, and some of us are in the midst of utilizing it against certain labs. The ABIH has its' own mechanism for the removal of the title, CIH, which is mainly focussed around the individual's certification maintenance (CM) point total over a six year period. This is strictly an individual's responsibility to maintain. There are no corporate members for ABIH. Many CIH's have lost their designation by their failure to gather sufficient CM points in the six year time frame.What would I expect from a professional organization such as AIHA when it reviews an Ethics complaint, particularly against a corporate member? I would expect a thorough investigation regarding the complaint, and, if the complaint is proven, the appropriate 'action' to be taken. What might be that action? Non-renewal of membership, removal of logos from brochures and websites, and, if the corporation refuses to comply, legal action against the corporation.As you can imagine, this is a rare event for a variety of reasons. Generally, an Ethics complainant is a fellow CIH, and most individual CIH's are not willing to spend the time and energy to file a complaint, much less follow it up. Additionally, AIHA is not in the disciplinary and enforcement business with regards to its members. It is, at this point in time, fortunate to continue to have 10,000 members, given the ageing of the individual members (average age: 50+). It would require an particularly egregious breach of ethics for this type of complaint to be filed.Regarding disclosure: I really don't think that you will find many CIH's 'lurking in the shadows' regarding sampling results. If anything, these are the individuals that are standing up in front of the crowd answering questions about the results. Actions DO speak louder than words, and that is what I see my fellow CIH's doing on a daily basis.Now that doesn't mean that there aren't a few 'bad actors' out there! But I would surmise that the vast majority of the individuals that you are referring to are not CIH's, or any other accredited designation. They DO ruin the reputation of the profession, and, if you have reading some of the other posts regarding conflict of interest, you know that there is a group of us who are attempting to 'clean up' the industry, particularly the EC side.Regarding 'medical data': when I begin the questioning of the individuals who are affected by the indoor air quality conditions, including mold, in their workplace, it is often true that I receive a lot of information from the workers about their medical conditions. I have been provided with symptoms, medical reports, presciptions, diagnoses, etc. In some cases, the corporate doctor is also providing me with the medical records of the individuals in question. This 'medical data', although it may not be 'official' medical data, is in my mind confidential information. I certainly would not be at liberty to disclose this data, nor the air sampling data that may correlate with that individual's medical condition until this has been fully discussed with their physician and/or the medical director of the corporation.Start packing your bags! Actually, since over the last 32 years, I have worked throughout the US and Canada, you won't have to pack, you are already there! This is mainly because I make sure that my client knows, in advance BEFORE I take a single sample, what they will have to do with the data from the sampling. If a client does not wish to disclose the results, then I walk away. Strangely, that has happened only once that I remember, more than 20 years ago. Since OSHA's Hazard Communication Regulation went into effect in the 1980's, it has never come up as an issue. Remember: they call me, I don't call them. They want my services, and they will take them as I offer them.Now, OSHA does not apply to residences, but it certainly applies to school employees. For residents in a home, I ask the insurance company if I can send a copy of my report, and the insurance company always says 'Yes'. I have never had a client say 'No'. Again I make sure before I start that the client knows what will happen to the data once I receive it back from the lab. So it has never been a problem. :)Don "In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles > was > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial hygiene > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH)." > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical Principals, > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new changes, this means > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH announced there > will be no disciplinary system set in place.> > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted practice of > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to allow and support > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties that retain > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing to disclose > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, "the need to withhold" > for purposes of financial gain overrides "the need to know" for the health and > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder than their > words.> > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the employees > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission of t > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before the > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > with the work.> > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > Profession.> 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of related > information.> > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public.> 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive information > obtained in the course of professional or related activities unless: > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the information; > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of specific > information.> > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way of "medical data." > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and to what type of > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > D.Public Health and Safety> 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable.> 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > violations of legal and organizational professional requirements > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > don.weekes@. .. writes:> > Sharon:> > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial hygiene > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered during > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until very > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an outside > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 years. > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by the > corporations who are not consultants to the public.> > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make the > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, and > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to be > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation and > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the initial > situation.> The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it involves a public > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of disclosure for > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles was > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial hygiene > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the employees > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission of t > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before the > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > with the work.> > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We work > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > situation.> > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same manner. Don> > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client tell you > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you live. Let me know > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place to live. > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME> Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic FAIR USE NOTICE: See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 said: "I find it hard to believe that these 16-32 hour courses are even near sufficient for all that is required of an IH in this day and age." They are not. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states,"If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples."This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants "need to know" is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers "need to withhold from the occupant" is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the "tester." states," If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means." Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term "owner" in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: :I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree.Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful” because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion.Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary.On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, "bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com" <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QMEBe careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes Steve,It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Bob, What does "field related" to IAQ mean. In my area almost all CIEs and CMRs were air duct cleaners. And still we are talking about a total of 4-5 days of formal training only. You can't learn about construction and HVAC in such a course. See Jim White earlier email about the knowledge requirement for an EC. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states,"If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples." This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants "need to know" is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers "need to withhold from the occupant" is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the "tester." states," If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means." Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term "owner" in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: :I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree.Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful” because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion.Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary.On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, "bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com" <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes Steve,It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Bob, What does "field related" to IAQ mean. In my area almost all CIEs and CMRs were air duct cleaners. And still we are talking about a total of 4-5 days of formal training only. You can't learn about construction and HVAC in such a course. See Jim White earlier email about the knowledge requirement for an EC. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states,"If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples." This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants "need to know" is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers "need to withhold from the occupant" is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the "tester." states," If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means." Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term "owner" in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: :I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree.Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful” because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion.Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary.On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, "bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com" <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes Steve,It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Bob, What does "field related" to IAQ mean. In my area almost all CIEs and CMRs were air duct cleaners. And still we are talking about a total of 4-5 days of formal training only. You can't learn about construction and HVAC in such a course. See Jim White earlier email about the knowledge requirement for an EC. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states,"If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples." This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants "need to know" is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers "need to withhold from the occupant" is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the "tester." states," If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means." Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term "owner" in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: :I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree.Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful” because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion.Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary.On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, "bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com" <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes Steve,It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 , I am not sure if you missed the point. The point was things have and are changing and more is required such as your Ph.D. or even look at the CIH changes. For one to achieve a doctorate degree today, they will be tested on even more than you were. The CIH test is now (as I understand it) adding in questions surrounding mold conditions. Likewise, as you can see the council is raising the bar as well. It’s an ever changing world and those who are able to change with it will survive. Never in the past has anyone in the IAQ industry ever achieved third party accreditation. Let’s give credit where credit is due. Like Chuck and others I am not exactly overly excited by what is going on but I am doing something about it. I am making my voice heard and I understand that a big ship must turn slowly. I Hope this helps. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:13 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Bob, What does " field related " to IAQ mean. In my area almost all CIEs and CMRs were air duct cleaners. And still we are talking about a total of 4-5 days of formal training only. You can't learn about construction and HVAC in such a course. See Jim White earlier email about the knowledge requirement for an EC. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? and Steve, Due to the complexity involved with public disclosures, and because of this very issue, I have attempted to narrow my discussions to residential occupants. I also have to say that I find the exploration of legal and ethical issues of disclosure pertaining to this industry, very interesting. I am in agreement that the party responsible [to the residential occupants] that retains the services of the IH has the ultimate responsibility to disclose. Given this, should the landlord who owns the building that has become infested with Stachy affecting the tenants living spaces, as well as their health, be free to disclose or not? And what of the tenants ranging in age from the elderly, to children and newborns? What is the ethical obligation of the IH retained by the owner who refuses to disclose sampling results, especially when the IH has knowledge of the medical conditions of those residents? Of course I do understand the reality of this being a business. If IHs were to go against the wishes of their client-employers in these types of situations most if not all would never be hired by defense again. This is why there needs to be laws set in place to protect not only the interest of the residential occupant, but that of the IH whose obligation should be to the preservation of health. states, " If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. " This would be great in an ideal world. However, this suggestion is to deny the adversarial system that exists both legally and otherwise whenever there are opposite interests involved. Again, when the occupants " need to know " is for the purpose of their own health and safety, and your client-employers " need to withhold from the occupant " is based upon financial gain, there is going to be conflict, dissension, disputes and lawsuits. The consultant in many situations knows full well what is taking place and why. If not, then the EC would be at the same level of the " tester. " states, " If there is a dispute then results can be discovered lawfully using current means. " Why should any residential occupant who is dealing with health issues have to be forced to seek out legal means to obtain test results that were taken from their own living space? And then what of the residential occupants who are not able to do this? And what of the resident that has no idea why their children have ended up with bouts of pneumonia, various infections, and chronic asthma, who do not even know to ask for the results? Sadly most residents do not even know to ask for the sampling results and all too often accept the false reassurance in being told that everything is OK. Both condo owners and tenants alike are often told that there is not a problem taking place and maintenance will be sent in to take care of any moldy areas. Now because of the liability to these very employees, remediation companies willing to do a superficial patch job are sometimes sent instead. In your reference to a law regarding disclosure presenting a conflict of interest for attorney-client privileged information or otherwise, sampling results should be disclosed well before this necessitates the intervention of any attorney. The withholding of sampling results for mold automatically creates a hostile relationship between the 2 parties. This often antagonizes the occupant which can result in lawsuits which otherwise could have been avoided. The opposing party to the resident, rolls the dice that the resident will not sue. I have written in the role of a writer and as an advocate for seniors, a series of articles following a lawsuit that took place at a retirement community revolving around disclosure issues. Though this did not pertain to mold, it does pertain to the fact that the withholding of information from residents can and does often result in lawsuits and complaints to legislators that otherwise could have been avoided. Community associations throughout California (as well as across the US) were so unwilling to be reasonable in their disclosure of the books and records, that 2 bills in California were enacted into law specifically making it illegal to withhold documents from residents who request them. All the efforts of powerful and moneyed lobbyists could not stop those 2 bills from moving forward. , I am not clear how you are referencing the term " owner " in regard to litigation. I am going to assume you are referring to landlords as the owner. My reference to occupants is in relationship to the resident which can include tenants, owners of condos as well as owners of single dwelling residential homes. In regard to your belief that justice will prevail in litigation for either the plaintiff (as the occupant) or defense, I have to disagree. Justice in these cases (especially for the individual tenant and condo owners) is not equal. The legal odds are most often stacked against an individual with mycotoxin exposure for many reasons. As everyone knows Sharon has been fighting hard for justice to take place in this area. Matter of fact from the gate everything is often stacked against the occupant sick from mold, which is the very reason a movement of advocates and activists alike developed. It is not so much the mold itself that victimizes the occupant but what transpires as a result of that mold. It is the very reason that this movement has been growing resulting in more public attention to what occupants with mold exposure have had to endure and why. And as far as the ramifications of life long health problems and how it is affecting peoples lives, I will leave that discussion for another time. Again, I can appreciate your statement that you have not been involved in a situation where sample results showing a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. However, your experience does not reflect the types of problems taking place in this industry today. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME In a message dated 4/25/2007 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, mgeyeratg1 (DOT) com writes: : I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree. Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished. If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/ actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the- vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful” because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/ injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion. Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary. On 4/24/07 2:30 PM, " bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com " <bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com> wrote: In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs (DOT) com writes: In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomed@ aol.com writes: Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/ remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want. Steve Temes Steve, It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice. If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/ IEPs that are retained by the occupants. The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested. There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations- duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME See what's free at AOL.com. Ahhh...imagining that irresistible " new car " smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 : Thank you for taking the time to post a well thought out and cogent reply. It is much appreciated! I understand what you are saying about self-regulation of an industry, and how it is important for our clients to trust the individual with the credential. It is a form of trust that no one should violate, and it is indeed unfortunate if it is true that the credential of CIH is no longer trusted by the public. I am not aware of any professional organization that has enforcement or disciplinary actions for conflict of interest against its members sufficient to meet the criteria you are espousing. Perhaps you can enlighten me of such an organization and what actions are taken. I am aware that lawyers are sometimes taken to court for this type of action, and are disbarred. But that would not be an 'action' by the ABA. The ABA would take away the lawyer's membership and all privileges. I really do believe that, legally, this is all that a professional organization can do. I really do not believe that a professional organization can take legal action over a conflict of interest against one of its members. Only the district attorneys in each county or state can do that. I don't this industry is any different in that respect than any other profession, including doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. I must respectally disagree with this statement: 'If an IH has to choose between the health and safety of an occupant or their own financial gain, there is no incentive for the IH to choose anything other than their own financial interests.' There is an indeed an incentive for an IH, and that is their inteegrity and good name. I learned a long time ago that the only thing that I have to 'sell' to my prospective clients is my word, and my good reputation. Without that, I, and any other IH, are nothing. For that matter, that is the only incentive that means anything in the long run. No one can get away from a 'poor' reputation and still, in the long run, perform this type of work. Your fellow IH's DO hold you accountable, and your work will dwindle without their support and recommendation. That is a form of discipline that hits in the pocketbook! This is my third time around on this type of mania, first being asbestos in the late 1980's, and the second was lead in the early 1990's. Things were as hectic then in those areas as it has been in mold for the last five years. Now the fields have settled into a more manageable pattern, as will the mold work in time. The problem, IMHO, is the education of the public as to who is qualified, and who is not, to perform this type of work. You are correct when you say that the mold industry does attract individuals who take a 'five day wonder' course and call themselves IH's. In many states, there is title protection laws, and the AIHA has been successful in many states in getting the state legislation to 'protect' the title, 'Industrial Hygienist'. If someone calls themselves by this type and has not the necessary credentials to be called that, then AIHA has requested that the state attorney general issue a cease and desist order. This has proven to be successful in many circumstances. I have recommended that IAQA and its affiliated organizations consider title protection for a select few titles (CIEC; CIE; CMI, etc.) that are well defined. I think that this is a start on the separation of the wheat from the chaff. You ask, is the industry capable of self-regulating itself? It is, as some many professsions have done in the past. Think about doctors before M.D's; lawyers before the bar exam became the standard; engineers before P.E's; nurses before R.N's. Even industrial hygienists before CIH's! All professions go through this process, and it takes time and effort on the part of the members of the profession to make the difference to distinguish themselves from the non-professional, and to educate the public as the meaning of the credential. I think that this profession has just started on this process. Don " In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical > Principles > > was > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > hygiene > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). " > > > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical > Principals, > > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new > changes, this means > > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH > announced there > > will be no disciplinary system set in place. > > > > > > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted practice > of > > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to > allow and support > > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties > that retain > > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing to > disclose > > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, " the need > to withhold " > > for purposes of financial gain overrides " the need to know " for > the health and > > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder > than their > > words. > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > employees > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of t > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > the > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > > with the work. > > > > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > > Profession. > > 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of > related > > information. > > > > > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public. > > 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive > information > > obtained in the course of professional or related activities > unless: > > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the > information; > > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of > specific > > information. > > > > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way of " medical > data. " > > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and to > what type of > > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > > > > > D.Public Health and Safety > > 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable. > > 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > > violations of legal and organizational professional requirements > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > don.weekes@ don.weeke > > > > Sharon: > > > > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial > hygiene > > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered > during > > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until very > > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an > outside > > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 > years. > > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by > the > > corporations who are not consultants to the public. > > > > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make the > > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > > state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, > and > > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to > be > > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > > management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation > and > > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the > initial > > situation. > > The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it involves > a public > > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of > disclosure for > > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles was > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > hygiene > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > employees > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of t > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > the > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > > with the work. > > > > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are > > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got > > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain > > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We work > > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > > situation. > > > > > > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same > manner. Don > > > > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling data > that shows > > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client > tell you > > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows a > hazardous > > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you > live. Let me know > > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place > to live. > > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME > > > > > > _Messages in this topic _ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG g2YXB0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwN > TA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMjM5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI EdHBjSWQ > DMTIyNDI-) (0) _Reply (via web post) _ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMT > cwNTA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMj > M5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-? act=reply & messageNum=12396) | _Start a new topic _ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI- ) > _Messages_ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y 0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZ nRyBH > NsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Files_ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) | > _Photos_ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnR yBHNsawNwaG > 90BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Links_ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQD > MTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) | _Polls_ > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF 9TAzk3MzU5Nz > E0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwb2xs cwRzdGlt > ZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Don, Thank you. I am encouraged that there is a system in place to deal with such actions. I really fee the AIHA needs to be more clear on C of I issues. Believe me they are out there and more than we would like to know. The more interaction one has the more one sees. This is one of the main reasons I am doing what I do. I do not care who I work for, only that each is truthful and fair. Let the chips fall where they fall and lets deal with what we have. EnviroBob From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Weekes Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:19 PM To: iequality Subject: Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Bob: Certainly the scenario you described reflects poorly on the PE who went about his business in that manner. I think that many CIH's and PE's work in this way due to their own preconceived notions about mold and its adverse health effects. It is a mind set that, unfortunately, some are unable to overcome. For CIH's, it is the ABIH (American Board of Industrial Hygienists) that awards the certification. All complaints would go that board (www.abih.org). I will say that a complaint should be very specific as to the nature of the disagreement, and whether or not the CIH violated the code of ethics. For PE's, the state of residence of the PE issues the professional engineer's license to practice. A complaint would go the state's licensing board, or the state attorney general. Again, I would recommend that the complaint be very specific as to the violation of ethics. As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, it is the reputation of the individual that will hurt a professional most, since that will hurt in the pocketbook. If a PE or a CIH is known as an individual who doesn't listen to all the facts but sticks to the original position of his client, no matter what, that will be broadcast far and wide soon enough! Eventually, business for the PE or CIH will dwindle, since no one will be able to trust that person's professional judgment. That may take a while, but it does happen. A CIH in Long Island was similar to your description below, and he was put out of business within five years. It does happen! Don " In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical > > Principles > > > was > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section > D > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but > I > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > hygiene > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). " > > > > > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical > > Principals, > > > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new > > changes, this means > > > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH > > announced there > > > will be no disciplinary system set in place. > > > > > > > > > > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted > practice > > of > > > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to > > allow and support > > > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties > > that retain > > > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing > to > > disclose > > > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, " the > need > > to withhold " > > > for purposes of financial gain overrides " the need to know " for > > the health and > > > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder > > than their > > > words. > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > employees > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of > t > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > think > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed > before > > the > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > be > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > proceeding > > > with the work. > > > > > > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > > > Profession. > > > 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > > > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of > > related > > > information. > > > > > > > > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public. > > > 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive > > information > > > obtained in the course of professional or related activities > > unless: > > > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > > > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the > > information; > > > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of > > specific > > > information. > > > > > > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way > of " medical > > data. " > > > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and > to > > what type of > > > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > > > > > > > > > D.Public Health and Safety > > > 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > > > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > > > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable. > > > 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > > > violations of legal and organizational professional requirements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > don.weekes@ don.weeke > > > > > > Sharon: > > > > > > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial > > hygiene > > > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered > > during > > > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until > very > > > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an > > outside > > > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 > > years. > > > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by > > the > > > corporations who are not consultants to the public. > > > > > > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > > > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make > the > > > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > > > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > > > state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, > > and > > > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to > > be > > > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > > > management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation > > and > > > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the > > initial > > > situation. > > > The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it > involves > > a public > > > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of > > disclosure for > > > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > > > > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles > was > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section > D > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but > I > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > hygiene > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > employees > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of > t > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > think > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed > before > > the > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > be > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > proceeding > > > with the work. > > > > > > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are > > > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got > > > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain > > > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > > > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We > work > > > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > > > situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > > > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > > > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > > > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same > > manner. Don > > > > > > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling data > > that shows > > > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client > > tell you > > > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows > a > > hazardous > > > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you > > live. Let me know > > > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place > > to live. > > > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > > > > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME > > > > > > > > > > > _Messages in this topic _ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > g2YXB0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwN > > > TA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMjM5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI > EdHBjSWQ > > DMTIyNDI-) (0) _Reply (via web post) _ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMT > > cwNTA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMj > > M5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-? > act=reply & messageNum=12396) | _Start a new topic _ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI- > ) > > _Messages_ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > 0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZ > nRyBH > > NsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Files_ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > > > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) > | > > _Photos_ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnR > yBHNsawNwaG > > 90BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Links_ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQD > > MTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) | > _Polls_ > > > (http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > 9TAzk3MzU5Nz > > > E0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwb2xs > cwRzdGlt > > ZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at > http://www.aol. <http://www.aol.com.> com. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Yes, , CIH's purchase E & O insurance, like everyone else. Don " In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical > Principles > > was > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > hygiene > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). " > > > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical > Principals, > > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new > changes, this means > > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH > announced there > > will be no disciplinary system set in place. > > > > > > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted practice > of > > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to > allow and support > > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties > that retain > > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing to > disclose > > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, " the need > to withhold " > > for purposes of financial gain overrides " the need to know " for > the health and > > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder > than their > > words. > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > employees > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission of t > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > the > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > > with the work. > > > > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > > Profession. > > 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of > related > > information. > > > > > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public. > > 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive > information > > obtained in the course of professional or related activities > unless: > > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the > information; > > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of > specific > > information. > > > > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way of " medical > data. " > > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and to > what type of > > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > > > > > D.Public Health and Safety > > 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable. > > 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > > violations of legal and organizational professional requirements > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > don.weekes@ .. writes: > > > > Sharon: > > > > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial > hygiene > > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered > during > > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until very > > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an > outside > > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 > years. > > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by > the > > corporations who are not consultants to the public. > > > > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make the > > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > > state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, > and > > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to > be > > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > > management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation > and > > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the > initial > > situation. > > The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it involves > a public > > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of > disclosure for > > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles was > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > hygiene > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > employees > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission of t > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > the > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > > with the work. > > > > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are > > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got > > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain > > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We work > > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > > situation. > > > > > > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same > manner. Don > > > > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling data > that shows > > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client > tell you > > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows a > hazardous > > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you > live. Let me know > > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place > to live. > > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME > > > > > Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > > > > See what's free at AOL.com. > > > __________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 Don, Rarely do mold consultants have E & O insurance. If CIHs are covered then they are in a higher classification than non-insured mold consultants. In FLA assuming the current bill passes, mold consultants without E & O will not be able to work in FLA. Rosen, Ph.D. www.Mold-Books.com Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what? Yes, , CIH's purchase E & O insurance, like everyone else. :)Don "In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical > Principles > > was > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > hygiene > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH)." > > > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical > Principals, > > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new > changes, this means > > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH > announced there > > will be no disciplinary system set in place.> > > > > > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted practice > of > > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to > allow and support > > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties > that retain > > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing to > disclose > > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, "the need > to withhold" > > for purposes of financial gain overrides "the need to know" for > the health and > > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder > than their > > words.> > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > employees > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission of t > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > the > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > > with the work.> > > > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > > Profession.> > 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of > related > > information.> > > > > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public.> > 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive > information > > obtained in the course of professional or related activities > unless: > > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the > information; > > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of > specific > > information.> > > > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way of "medical > data." > > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and to > what type of > > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > > > > > D.Public Health and Safety> > 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable.> > 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > > violations of legal and organizational professional requirements > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > don.weekes@ .. writes:> > > > Sharon:> > > > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial > hygiene > > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered > during > > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until very > > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an > outside > > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 > years. > > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by > the > > corporations who are not consultants to the public.> > > > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make the > > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > > state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, > and > > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to > be > > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > > management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation > and > > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the > initial > > situation.> > The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it involves > a public > > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of > disclosure for > > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles was > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > hygiene > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > employees > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission of t > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > the > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding > > with the work.> > > > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are > > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got > > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain > > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We work > > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > > situation.> > > > > > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same > manner. Don> > > > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling data > that shows > > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client > tell you > > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows a > hazardous > > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you > live. Let me know > > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place > to live. > > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME> > > > > Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic > FAIR USE NOTICE:> > > > > > > > > See what's free at AOL.com. > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Bob: In an earlier post to , I did print the proposed changes to the joint Code of Ethics to be acted upon at the AICHE in Philadelphia. I do think that this will make a difference in the way that AIHA and other IH organizations address their errant members. Don " In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical > > > Principles > > > > was > > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note > Section > > D > > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some > of > > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, > but > > I > > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > > hygiene > > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). " > > > > > > > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical > > > Principals, > > > > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new > > > changes, this means > > > > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH > > > announced there > > > > will be no disciplinary system set in place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted > > practice > > > of > > > > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to > > > allow and support > > > > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties > > > that retain > > > > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing > > to > > > disclose > > > > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, " the > > need > > > to withhold " > > > > for purposes of financial gain overrides " the need to know " for > > > the health and > > > > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder > > > than their > > > > words. > > > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > > employees > > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of > > t > > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > > think > > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed > > before > > > the > > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > > be > > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > > proceeding > > > > with the work. > > > > > > > > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > > > > Profession. > > > > 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > > > > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of > > > related > > > > information. > > > > > > > > > > > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public. > > > > 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive > > > information > > > > obtained in the course of professional or related activities > > > unless: > > > > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > > > > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the > > > information; > > > > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of > > > specific > > > > information. > > > > > > > > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way > > of " medical > > > data. " > > > > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and > > to > > > what type of > > > > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D.Public Health and Safety > > > > 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > > > > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > > > > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable. > > > > 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > > > > violations of legal and organizational professional > requirements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > don.weekes@ don.weeke > > > > > > > > Sharon: > > > > > > > > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial > > > hygiene > > > > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered > > > during > > > > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until > > very > > > > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an > > > outside > > > > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 > > > years. > > > > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed > by > > > the > > > > corporations who are not consultants to the public. > > > > > > > > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > > > > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make > > the > > > > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > > > > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > > > > state. I worked in many situations with public health > officials, > > > and > > > > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is > to > > > be > > > > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > > > > management, and making sure the data is accurate. > Misinformation > > > and > > > > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the > > > initial > > > > situation. > > > > The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it > > involves > > > a public > > > > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of > > > disclosure for > > > > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > > > > > > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles > > was > > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note > Section > > D > > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some > of > > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, > but > > I > > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > > hygiene > > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > > employees > > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of > > t > > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > > think > > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed > > before > > > the > > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > > be > > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > > proceeding > > > > with the work. > > > > > > > > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people > are > > > > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I > got > > > > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and > remain > > > > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > > > > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We > > work > > > > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > > > > situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > > > > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > > > > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > > > > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same > > > manner. Don > > > > > > > > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling > data > > > that shows > > > > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client > > > tell you > > > > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows > > a > > > hazardous > > > > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you > > > live. Let me know > > > > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place > > > to live. > > > > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > > > > > > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _Messages in this topic _ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > > g2YXB0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwN > > > > > > TA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMjM5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI > > EdHBjSWQ > > > DMTIyNDI-) (0) _Reply (via web post) _ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > > TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMT > > > cwNTA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMj > > > M5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-? > > act=reply & messageNum=12396) | _Start a new topic _ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > > TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > > > > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI- > > ) > > > _Messages_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > > > 0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZ > > nRyBH > > > NsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Files_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > > 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > > > > > > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) > > | > > > _Photos_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > > > F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnR > > yBHNsawNwaG > > > 90BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Links_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > > 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQD > > > MTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) | > > _Polls_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > > 9TAzk3MzU5Nz > > > > > > E0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwb2xs > > cwRzdGlt > > > ZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at > > http://www.aol. <http://www.aol. <http://www.aol.com.> com.> com. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 Bob: In an earlier post to , I did print the proposed changes to the joint Code of Ethics to be acted upon at the AICHE in Philadelphia. I do think that this will make a difference in the way that AIHA and other IH organizations address their errant members. Don " In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical > > > Principles > > > > was > > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note > Section > > D > > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some > of > > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, > but > > I > > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > > hygiene > > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). " > > > > > > > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical > > > Principals, > > > > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new > > > changes, this means > > > > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH > > > announced there > > > > will be no disciplinary system set in place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted > > practice > > > of > > > > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to > > > allow and support > > > > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties > > > that retain > > > > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing > > to > > > disclose > > > > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, " the > > need > > > to withhold " > > > > for purposes of financial gain overrides " the need to know " for > > > the health and > > > > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder > > > than their > > > > words. > > > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > > employees > > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of > > t > > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > > think > > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed > > before > > > the > > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > > be > > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > > proceeding > > > > with the work. > > > > > > > > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > > > > Profession. > > > > 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > > > > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of > > > related > > > > information. > > > > > > > > > > > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public. > > > > 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive > > > information > > > > obtained in the course of professional or related activities > > > unless: > > > > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > > > > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the > > > information; > > > > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of > > > specific > > > > information. > > > > > > > > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way > > of " medical > > > data. " > > > > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and > > to > > > what type of > > > > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > D.Public Health and Safety > > > > 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > > > > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > > > > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable. > > > > 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > > > > violations of legal and organizational professional > requirements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > > don.weekes@ don.weeke > > > > > > > > Sharon: > > > > > > > > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial > > > hygiene > > > > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered > > > during > > > > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until > > very > > > > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an > > > outside > > > > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 > > > years. > > > > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed > by > > > the > > > > corporations who are not consultants to the public. > > > > > > > > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > > > > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make > > the > > > > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > > > > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > > > > state. I worked in many situations with public health > officials, > > > and > > > > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is > to > > > be > > > > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > > > > management, and making sure the data is accurate. > Misinformation > > > and > > > > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the > > > initial > > > > situation. > > > > The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it > > involves > > > a public > > > > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of > > > disclosure for > > > > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > > > > > > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles > > was > > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note > Section > > D > > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some > of > > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, > but > > I > > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > > hygiene > > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > > employees > > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > > information' informa<WBR>, and its release with permission of > > t > > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > > think > > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed > > before > > > the > > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > > be > > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > > proceeding > > > > with the work. > > > > > > > > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people > are > > > > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I > got > > > > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and > remain > > > > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > > > > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We > > work > > > > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > > > > situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > > > > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > > > > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > > > > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same > > > manner. Don > > > > > > > > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling > data > > > that shows > > > > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client > > > tell you > > > > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows > > a > > > hazardous > > > > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you > > > live. Let me know > > > > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place > > > to live. > > > > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > > > > > > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _Messages in this topic _ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/message/12242;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZG > > g2YXB0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwN > > > > > > TA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMjM5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawN2dHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI > > EdHBjSWQ > > > DMTIyNDI-) (0) _Reply (via web post) _ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJydTAwM2ZhBF9 > > TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMT > > > cwNTA2MTE0NgRtc2dJZAMxMj > > > M5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx5BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-? > > act=reply & messageNum=12396) | _Start a new topic _ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZDQ5a2YyBF9 > > TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > > > > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI- > > ) > > > _Messages_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMm01N2Y > > > 0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZ > > nRyBH > > > NsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Files_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGFpaDMzBF > > 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdy > > > > > > cHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) > > | > > > _Photos_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNDMyaDIxB > > > F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnR > > yBHNsawNwaG > > > 90BHN0aW1lAzExNzc3MDQwMjI-) | _Links_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJndGh2am4yBF > > 9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQD > > > MTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) | > > _Polls_ > > > > > (http://groups. > > > <http://groups. > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > > > > yahoo.com/group/iequality/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGEzM3I4BF > > 9TAzk3MzU5Nz > > > > > > E0BGdycElkAzEyMzg3NDc1BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MTE0NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwb2xs > > cwRzdGlt > > > ZQMxMTc3NzA0MDIy) > > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at > > http://www.aol. <http://www.aol. <http://www.aol.com.> com.> com. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 2007 Report Share Posted May 4, 2007 I understand, . But I have had an opportunity to check with some of my CIH colleagues in Florida who are consultants, and they all indicated that they have E & O insurance through AIHA, which is a good program for any member of AIHA. If the mold bill passes, many of the CIH's in Florida expect an uptick in business because their insurance is already in place. Don " In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical > > Principles > > > was > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section > D > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but > I > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > hygiene > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). " > > > > > > First in regard to these new proposed changes to the Ethical > > Principals, > > > without a disciplinary system in place to enforce these new > > changes, this means > > > little. The organizations such as the board itself, the ABIH > > announced there > > > will be no disciplinary system set in place. > > > > > > > > > > > > Both section A3 and B4 reinforce the industries accepted practice > > of > > > withholding sampling results from occupants. This continues to > > allow and support > > > the industrial hygienist to lurk in the shadows of the parties > > that retain > > > their services, that are breaching fiduciary duties by refusing > to > > disclose > > > sampling results to the [residential] occupants. Sadly, " the need > > to withhold " > > > for purposes of financial gain overrides " the need to know " for > > the health and > > > safety of the occupant. Actions of this industry speak louder > > than their > > > words. > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > employees > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission > of t > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > think > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > > the > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > be > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > proceeding > > > with the work. > > > > > > -A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the > > > Profession. > > > 3. ate with professional associations and credentialing > > > organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of > > related > > > information. > > > > > > > > > B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public. > > > 4.Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive > > information > > > obtained in the course of professional or related activities > > unless: > > > the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or > > > governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the > > information; > > > or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of > > specific > > > information. > > > > > > I am not sure of what you are referring to in the way of " medical > > data. " > > > Could you tell me in what context this might be applicable and to > > what type of > > > data that might be involved with these new ethical codes? > > > > > > > > > > > > D.Public Health and Safety > > > 1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect > > > clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from > > > conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable. > > > 2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of > > > violations of legal and organizational professional requirements > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 4/25/2007 3:56:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > > don.weekes@ .. writes: > > > > > > Sharon: > > > > > > I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial > > hygiene > > > Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered > > during > > > an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until very > > > recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an > > outside > > > consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 > > years. > > > But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by > > the > > > corporations who are not consultants to the public. > > > > > > In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by > > > consultants are not public health officials. They do not make the > > > decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public > > > buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or > > > state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, > > and > > > they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to > > be > > > released to the public. It is about risk communication and > > > management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation > > and > > > miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the > > initial > > > situation. > > > The issue of disclosure does become more complex when it involves > > a public > > > building, which is why I have attempted to address the issue of > > disclosure for > > > now, in terms of residential occupants. > > > > > > In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles > was > > > made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section > D > > > on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of > > > your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but > I > > > expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial > > hygiene > > > organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH). > > > > > > Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the > > employees > > > and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive > > > information' information' <WBR>, and its release with permission > of t > > > may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I > think > > > that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before > > the > > > project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will > be > > > disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before > proceeding > > > with the work. > > > > > > Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are > > > exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got > > > into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain > > > healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a > > > single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We work > > > hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this > > > situation. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never had a client tell me directly not to > > > disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an > > > employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I > > > believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same > > manner. Don > > > > > > Have you ever been told indirectly not to disclose sampling data > > that shows > > > a hazardous exposure to an employee? Have you ever had a client > > tell you > > > directly or indirectly not to disclose sampling data that shows a > > hazardous > > > exposure to a resident? If not, I wanna move to where you > > live. Let me know > > > if I should start packing my bags. I am looking for a new place > > to live. > > > (Sorry Don, I could not resist this one.) > > > > > > Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME > > > > > > > > > Messages in this topic (0) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic > > FAIR USE NOTICE: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > See what's free at AOL.com. > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.