Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what?

[Guest guest]

,

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.

[Guest guest]

,

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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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.

>

[Guest guest]

,

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

,

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.

[Guest guest]



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.

[Guest guest]

,

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.

[Guest guest]

,

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

,

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.

[Guest guest]

:

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.

>

[Guest guest]

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.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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.

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

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. > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __>

[Guest guest]

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.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

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.

> >

> >

> > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __

> >