Anybody using Pro-Labs out of Florida?

Originally Posted By: kjones
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



After reading these posts and replies, I have to say I don’t have a positive feeling about enviro testing.


Mr. Connell points out that he debunks HI reports in court on a regular basis, do to their bad collection methods or labs interpretation. I believe he stated he has never seen a good report, and if I'm reading him correctly, he has set up conditions for collection and lab reporting that are acceptable by him if interpreted only by a Forensic Industrial Hygienist, like himself, or other like trained and educated person.

As an HI I'm trained to look for problems. If I see an questionable electrical problem, I point this out, but recommend that a electrician be called in to assess. I am not a trained electrician.

The other day a client wanted his water tested for several things. I went over to our local board of health, purchased their bottles, followed their collection instructions and their lab returned a report that showed tested levels as compared to EPA recommended levels. I didn't attempt to interpret, the client was happy.

I think I would do a disservice to not offer some sort of structured testing and reporting - that is what most of my clients are asking for. They don't want a real costly test done, unless it is required. As the first line they just
want to know is could there be a problem.

I think if I do offer testing, it will require a new contract only for testing, with a clearly worded and statement on what the testing is and isn't.


Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



So Caoimh?n, 1000 colony forming units is a smaller number than 5000 colony forming units, correct.


Is the data not useful as the CFU's are not identified as mold or mold spores? Or is it something else?

BK


--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Originally Posted By: rwand
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



In Canada CMHC (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corportation - A Federal Governement Agency) has set a SOP for Indoor Air Quaility Investigations. Their protocol is look, assess, and find and remediate conditions which promote bad IAQ, such as moulds, mildews, basement leakage, pets, plants, buidling materials, et ceteras, and forget about extensive testing or testing of any kind is frowned on, and remediate conditions by removal of same, and finding the source of the conditions. To me this is the best approach, CMHC’s thinking that if you have mould in a residence you already have a problem. They (CMHC) feel this is the best approach and leave lab testing to qualified and educated people.


This whole discussion is similar in my thinking to crime scene investigation such as the screw ups associated with O.J. Simpson case and the sampling and contaminations issues that were revealed. You had better know what protocols to follow, and proper testing methods. You can't learn stuff like this from experience or collecting swabs, you have to have the education and technical training to do so properly in my opinion. While I have done IAQ assessments to CMHC protocols I would not and have not ever become involved in collecting and reporting on mould issues, et ceteras.
Sometimes a little information and little practical experience can get one in a lot of trouble, especially in such a litigious society. Not to mention the fact that very few if any insures will provide coverage for mould related items both home owner insurance and professional E&O. At least in Canada.

Lets also remember many people will be predisposed and show all kinds of symptoms, while others have no symptoms, it is a real guessing game and the courts are leary of awarding settlements with unproven and speculation based evidence, they like cold hard proof from what I have read.

Fwiw.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


--
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905

http://www.raymondwand.ca
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (R.H.I.)

Originally Posted By: Caoimh?n P. Connell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hello Gents-


I?m glad to see folks open for discussion. My objective in these posts is to broaden the picture a bit, in the hope of clarification.

But first, I completely agree with Mr. Wand, and the CMHC protocol as he describes it to the extent that far too much time and financial resources are spent on sampling. Earlier this year, I was an expert witness on an IAQ issue wherein the building owner spent (if I remember correctly) half a million dollars in IAQ investigations; most of that money was spent on useless sampling by individuals with no competency in such sampling. I solved the IAQ puzzle, and I think my total fee was around $6,000 or so. Very often, IAQ issues can be solved without collecting a single sample. (I think I discuss this at www.forensic-applications.com/iaq/iaq.html)

Next ? Mr. Kelly ? Remember, I have a long history as a lecturer, so I can be prone to agitate thought before just giving the answer. Look closely: I didn?t ask which value was a larger number, I asked which sample result indicated a greater mould contaminant level in the carpet; 5,000 CFUs/g or 1,000 CFUs/g; (if you want, you can select any genus or genera you choose, and plug that into the equation, but you would still be wrong if you said that the result of 5,000 CFUs/g indicated a worse problem than 1,000 CFUs/g).

So for those HIs who perform mould sampling in houses, and who follow these posts, step forward. If microbial sampling and interpreting microbial data is easy, then explain why I?m wrong. These are common units used by the majority of microbial labs, and the values are very much in the realm of possibility. Pretend your project ended up in litigation and now you have to defend the data ? pretend that you had collected the two samples from two different carpets, and you declared one carpet (5,000 CFUs/g) more contaminated than the second carpet (1,000 CFUs/g); and I?m the rebuttal witness about to take the stand and point out that the data show exactly the opposite. What the heck am I likely to say about your data that could possibly support my position? Surely, you're on solid ground... right?

Give it a shot.

Cheers!
Caoimh?n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG



Originally Posted By: rwand
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi firstly I am not sure how you pronounce your first name, no disrepect but could you spell it phonetically for us Caoimh?n?


I think inspectors wishing to do IAQ should strive to follow CMHC guidelines. I took their 3 day course and it was very interesting. Inspectors wishing so could also be qualified by doing three full inspections to CMHC guidelines for review by peers. I submitted one report and passed, but realized that there was no interest by John Q. Public who did not want to pay a very minimum $400 for such a review and report so I ceased trying to become a name on a list of such qualified personnel. Nor did many of the public seem to put a loved ones health before the cost. So I opted out of being on a qualified list by CMHC. I have not in recent memory been queried by people asking for an such an inspection.

Does any association or Federal or State body have similiar IAQ protocols such as CMHC? That may be the best solution for inspectors wanting to enter this field. Personally I think sampling has been over hyped.

Thank you Caoimh?n for your enlightenment. Good posts, you obviously know a thing or two about your field and thanks for sharing.

Cheers
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


--
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905

http://www.raymondwand.ca
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (R.H.I.)

Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I to took the three day course with CMHC.


I also took another course with a private organization .


One scientist said one thing .


Another scientist said a different thing .


I decided I did not have near the knowledge to get involved with disagreeing with either one .


If I was on the other side in court I would be the looser .


No way do I want to be involved with a court case .


I write Hard talk soft and recommend they get immediate further evaluation by qualified personal.


I could care less if they do or don’t ,I just make sure I Cover myself.


I am a generalist in many things but I am not an expert in any thing .


I report what I see tell what I feel and make most clients very happy.


In most cases I do not have to recommend further evaluation but if I am not sure I DO!.


Roy Cooke sr … RHI…



Roy Cooke Sr.


http://Royshomeinspection.com

Originally Posted By: rwand
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



For anyone interested you can search the CMHC website at


http://www.cmhc.ca/en/search/search_001.cfm


Type in "Indoor Air Quality"

Of particular interest - item four from search result titled;
Should You Test the Air in Your Home for Mold?
or here is the link...
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/burema/gesein/abhose/abhose_085.cfm

Quote:
Ensure that the investigator has the proper testing equipment and follows sampling methods of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. If your investigator isn?t able to sample the air in your house, ask the investigator to recommend someone who can do the sampling. This individual, not the laboratory, interprets the results.


Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


--
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905

http://www.raymondwand.ca
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (R.H.I.)

Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Caoimh?n P. Connell wrote:
Next ? Mr. Kelly ? Remember, I have a long history as a lecturer, so I can be prone to agitate thought before just giving the answer. Look closely: I didn?t ask which value was a larger number, I asked which sample result indicated a greater mould contaminant level in the carpet; 5,000 CFUs/g or 1,000 CFUs/g; (if you want, you can select any genus or genera you choose, and plug that into the equation, but you would still be wrong if you said that the result of 5,000 CFUs/g indicated a worse problem than 1,000 CFUs/g).




Would or Could?

Man you are a long winsded devil. I am getting very sleepy. I am still waiting for you to tell us how long wood has been exposed to water.

Ok so one has more spores than the other it could be for many reasons, and just because there are more spores does not mean more mold. And if there is more mold that does not mean that people will be affected adversely.

Am I getting close.


--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Originally Posted By: rwand
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Wood exposed to water and mould growth? I am no expert but…


That would be dependent on several factors.
1. Temperature - colder it gets dormancy, warmer reactivation until high temp begins to kill spores.
2. Water characteristics
3. Type of wood
4. Constant contact with water or intermittent
5. Mold/rot can start with as little as 16% moisture if other conditions are right.

Do I win a prize. I do stand to be corrected on the above info too. I sure there are other mitigating circumstances that would factor in.

Cheers
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


--
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905

http://www.raymondwand.ca
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (R.H.I.)

Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Excellent Ray, you win the prize



“I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused”-Elvis Costello

Originally Posted By: rwand
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Of course if wood is completely submerged that is a different story. I know there are companies salvaging old growth timbers from bottoms of lakes in Canada that sunk during harvesting when they would float the trees on rivers and lakes to the saw mills. The lumber is sought after because of its age and size. Cold deep water has less oxygen, thus preserving same, no deterioration on wood that sunk over 100 years ago. You can’t get the same with salt water. That is why old sailing ships and schooners sunk in the Great Lakes are in very good shape even though they are very, very old wood.


But I digress.... ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


--
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905

http://www.raymondwand.ca
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (R.H.I.)

Originally Posted By: Caoimh?n P. Connell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Gents ?


OK here?s the scoop- There are a number of ways this could pan out where a lab result of 5,000 CFU/g indicates a lower mould concentration than 1,000 CFUs/g. But, I?m only going to select two scenarios (long-windedness notwithstanding). Importantly, I would like to repeat something I said on May 2, on this board ( http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/viewtopic.php?t=10216 ) regarding data quality objectives (DQOs) which was: ?Without DQOs, you don?t have data, you have numbers or names on a lab report that possibly CANNOT be interpreted by anyone, since ?data? has no intrinsic meaning outside of a priori decision criteria.? Such is the case here.

The units of expression, a CFU/g is a unit that is used for the convenience of the lab, not necessarily for that of the consultant or, in this case even meaningful, since the unit is missing tons of information not included in the report (possibly not even provided to the lab, known by the lab, or even known by the ?mould inspector.?)

Here is how this pans out; two carpets were sampled in exactly the same manner with exactly the same proper sampling and collection equipment, and submitted to a reputable lab for analysis.

Carpet #1 is in a brand new model house, in which no family has ever lived, and with brand new carpets, and no history of water damage and no mould problem. Sampling parameters: Sample area = 12 inches by 12 inches, sample result =5,000 CFUs/g. The lab, in order to report the value, must weigh the material collected in the sample, thus providing the denominator of the unit. In this case, the cassette contained 0.01 grams of vacuumed material (which is about right for a brand new carpet).

Carpet #2 is from a ten year old family home with dogs, cats, kids spilling food and real people living real lives. Sampling parameters: Sample area = 12 inches by 12 inches, sample result =1,000 CFUs/g. In this case, the cassette contained 0.35 grams of vacuumed material, which is about right since Dad didn?t have time to run the vacuum cleaner last Saturday.

We look at our DQOs and determine what is the question that is being asked? Which is ?Which carpet is most heavily contaminated with mould?? But the answer being given by the lab is to the question ?Which amount of removable debris contains the most mould?? That is a different question and does not meet one of our DQOs.

So our first step is to convert the reported lab units into a number that will speak to our question; that number is CFU density in the carpet, which is expressed as ?CFU/g/area of carpet (in square centimeters, cm2)? which algebraically becomes CFU/cm2 and which expresses the amount of mould in the carpet per gram of material removed per unit of area sampled.

In this example, Carpet #1 with 5,000 CFUs/g = 0.05 CFU/cm2; and Carpet #2 with 1,000 CFUs/g is equal to 0.38 CFU/cm2. NOW we have two sample results which can be compared with each other. As you can see 0.38 is much greater than 0.05 even though it came from a sample that had a lower result reported by the lab. Now we take our numbers and determine the final answer to our question.

Both of the carpets measure 12 feet by 20 feet. Carpet #1 (5,000 CFUs/g) contains an estimated total fungal loading of only 12,000 viable spores; while Carpet #2 (1,000 CFUs/g) contains an estimated total fungal loading of 84,000 viable spores; seven times more contaminated than the carpet that contained 5,000 CFUs/g.

Now, which sample result indicates more contamination? Answer 1,000 CFU/g ? OBVIOUSLY! (The poor home inspector buries face in hands and weeps gently in the back of the court room, as the two million dollar law suit against him inches just a little closer to reality?)

Here is the second scenario:

The lab tells you, the HI, that you need at least half a gram of material for them to analyze the sample. So in Carpet #1, being a brand new carpet, in order to get the requisite 0.5 grams, you have to sample a carpet area of 60 inches by 120 inches (It?s a pig! Trust me, I?ve had to do it!) But in the Smith residence, (you know, dogs, cats, kids), you only need to sample an area of 14 inches by 15 inches to get the half a gram of debris needed by the lab.

Now, in each case, you have the same amount of vacuum debris, 0.5 grams, but in one case you had to sample 50 square feet (the nice new clean carpet) to get it, and in the other case you only had to sample 1.5 square feet to get the sample. But now there is a disparity in areas, so, again, we convert the units into density, and we see that the results still come out the same, and the nice clean never walked on carpet contains 5,000 CFUs/g, and the dirty mould infested carpet contains 1,000 CFUs/g.

A person, like myself, who makes a living out of collecting samples, and interpreting lab data, and then defending that data in court, won?t get tripped up or fooled into thinking that 5,000 is greater contamination than 1,000 because we use our DQOs to guide us, and the intermediate numbers are not the answer to the question; often they aren?t the answer to ANY question? they're just numbers! However, other consultants who think interpreting a lab result is as easy as assuming the higher value means more and the lower value means less ? meets me in court, and looses their shirt (and their reputation) and possibly some finances along the way.

By the way ? these are just two examples of why 5,000 is less than 1,000 ? there are others even when one has accounted for debris and area. This is just the tip of the industrial hygiene ice burg that will sink a ?certified mould inspector? or other untrained mould "expert" every time. These aren?t tricks, these are the realities of the expertise of sampling (for anything).

By the way these same concepts just came up in a case that had nothing to do with mould - a bunch of engineers, who had no competency in sampling tried to interpret chemical concentrations in air based on the lab report. Unfortunately, they lacked the technical expertise to understand the conversion of a nanogram per liter of air into a part per million- it is likely that their firm is going to have to part with several hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, based on my report, all because they were engineers pretending to be industrial hygienists investigating indoor air quality issues.

I hope this sheds some light on issue. By the way, I didn?t even touch on sampling error, (which is one of my fortes), and could even sink a PhD CIH ? and which did, in a real life trial, because even being a CIH is no axiomatic badge to competency in microbial issues (and the PhD didn't help her one bit).

Again ? my bottom line ? if one didn?t know all this before, and one can?t anticipate the other scenarios to which I alluded, its my humble opinion that one should not be out pretending they are performing mould sampling and/or mould assessments, and they shouldn?t be pretending they are interpreting data.

Enlightenment before agreement.

Cheers!
Caoimh?n P. Connell
www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG



Originally Posted By: kjones
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
I to took the three day course with CMHC.
I also took another course with a private organization .
One scientist said one thing .
Another scientist said a different thing .
I decided I did not have near the knowledge to get involved with disagreeing with either one .
If I was on the other side in court I would be the looser .
No way do I want to be involved with a court case .
I write Hard talk soft and recommend they get immediate further evaluation by qualified personal.
I could care less if they do or don't ,I just make sure I Cover myself.
I am a generalist in many things but I am not an expert in any thing .
I report what I see tell what I feel and make most clients very happy.
In most cases I do not have to recommend further evaluation but if I am not sure I DO!.


This doen't tell me if you offer sampleing for mold, lead, Radon etc. Do you or don't you?


Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Caoimh?n P. Connell wrote:
Gents ?

In this example, Carpet #1 with 5,000 CFUs/g = 0.05 CFU/cm2; and Carpet #2 with 1,000 CFUs/g is equal to 0.38 CFU/cm2. NOW we have two sample results which can be compared with each other. As you can see 0.38 is much greater than 0.05 even though it came from a sample that had a lower result reported by the lab. Now we take our numbers and determine the final answer to our question.

Both of the carpets measure 12 feet by 20 feet. Carpet #1 (5,000 CFUs/g) contains an estimated total fungal loading of only 12,000 viable spores; while Carpet #2 (1,000 CFUs/g) contains an estimated total fungal loading of 84,000 viable spores; seven times more contaminated than the carpet that contained 5,000 CFUs/g.


]


This where you lost me. Same area of sample so area cancels out?
Same units of measure or in this case CFU's/g (Colony forming units per gram) so they cancel out?
So how did you get to .38 and .05?


--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Originally Posted By: rwand
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It apparently would take a minimum of 8 sweeps with a beater bar vacuum to remove dirt from carpeting. Carpeting is a no no for environmentally sensitive people. Again why would you test carpeting when it is a proven fact it is a breeding ground, and entrapement pad for dirt, dander, odours?


If you have client who is seeking guidance and advice regarding IAQ the best advice you could offer is for them to get rid of the carpeting and install ceramic or hardwood. Carpeting also off gases.

No homeowner will be able to put all these test procedures and results in perspective. However they can comprehend that materials in houses can and will most certainly affect their health. It would most certainly seem that liability is less offering practical solutions and dealing with the source than offering laboratory testing that by all appearances is very complicated in understanding and explaining.

![icon_idea.gif](upload://6VKizmOm2U7YYmfXNtFW4XTwFVy.gif) You can charge the same price for IAQ testing under CMHC guidelines as you can for testing and reporting and have more satisfactory results and have a lot less liability if any. Something to think about.

Would anyone care for me to post an IAQ report carried out under CMHC guidelines? If so I can post a link here?

Cheers,
Raymond Wand
Alton, ON


--
The value of experience is not in seeing much,
but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905

http://www.raymondwand.ca
NACHI Member
Registered Home Inspector (R.H.I.)

Originally Posted By: Caoimh?n P. Connell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mr. Jones: I disagree with most of what you said, but it?s off-topic. Perhaps you could start a new thread.


Mr. Kelly ?

No, the areas don?t ?cancel out? I just used the same sized carpets and the same sized sample areas to make the thinking process a little easier. And the units of measurement don?t ?cancel out? either?

Look, here?s the math for the first scenario which is normalized for area:

Carpet #1:
1) Area sampled: 12?X12? (929 cm2)
2) Weight of removed debris: 0.01g
3) Lab Result: 5,000 CFU/g
4) Absolute CFUs in sample: (5,000 CFU/g X 0.01g= 50 CFUs)
5) CFUs/area (Absolute CFUs/sampled area cm2): 50 CFUs/929 cm2= 0.053 CFU/cm2
6) Total area of carpet:12 feet X 20 feet = 240 ft2 = 222967 cm2
7) Total CFUs in carpet = 0.053 CFU/cm2*222967 cm2= 12,000 CFU

Carpet #2:
1) Area sampled: 12?X12? (929 cm2)
2) Weight of removed debris: 0.35g
3) Lab Result: 1,000 CFU/g
4) Absolute CFUs in sample: (1,000 CFU/g X 0.35g= 350 CFUs)
5) CFUs/area (Absolute CFUs/sampled area cm2): 350 CFUs/929 cm2= 0.377 CFU/cm2
6) Total area of carpet:12 feet X 20 feet = 240 ft2 = 222967 cm2
7) Total CFUs in carpet = 0.377 CFU/cm2*222967 cm2= 84,000 CFU

The math for the second scenario, which is normalized for weight, is similar, but the result is the same:

Carpet #1:
1) Area sampled: 60?X120? (46452 cm2)
2) Weight of removed debris: 0.5g
3) Lab Result: 5,000 CFU/g
4) Absolute CFUs in sample: (5,000 CFU/g X 0.5g= 2,500 CFUs)
5) CFUs/area (Absolute CFUs/sampled area cm2): 2,500 CFUs/46452 cm2= 0.053 CFU/cm2
6) Total area of carpet:12 feet X 20 feet = 240 ft2 = 222967 cm2
7) Total CFUs in carpet = 0.053 CFU/cm2*222967 cm2= 12,000 CFU

Carpet #2:
1) Area sampled: approx. 14?X15? (1327 cm2)
2) Weight of removed debris: 0.5g
3) Lab Result: 1,000 CFU/g
4) Absolute CFUs in sample: (1,000 CFU/g X 0.5g= 500 CFUs)
5) CFUs/area (Absolute CFUs/sampled area cm2): 500 CFUs/1327 cm2= 0.377 CFU/cm2
6) Total area of carpet:12 feet X 20 feet = 240 ft2 = 222967 cm2
7) Total CFUs in carpet = 0.377 CFU/cm2*222967 cm2= 84,000 CFU

Ergo: Carpet with 1,000 CFU/g has more mould than carpet with 5,000 CFU/g (Industrial Hygiene 101). I hope that clarifies.

Cheers, on this beautiful Saturday morning , as I get ready for work.

Caoimh?n P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

AMDG



Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



kjones wrote:
Quote:
I to took the three day course with CMHC.
I also took another course with a private organization .
One scientist said one thing .
Another scientist said a different thing .
I decided I did not have near the knowledge to get involved with disagreeing with either one .
If I was on the other side in court I would be the looser .
No way do I want to be involved with a court case .
I write Hard talk soft and recommend they get immediate further evaluation by qualified personal.
I could care less if they do or don't ,I just make sure I Cover myself.
I am a generalist in many things but I am not an expert in any thing .
I report what I see tell what I feel and make most clients very happy.
In most cases I do not have to recommend further evaluation but if I am not sure I DO!.


This doen't tell me if you offer sampleing for mold, lead, Radon etc. Do you or don't you?


I do not do either.


--
Roy Cooke Sr.

http://Royshomeinspection.com

Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



that the cfu/g measurement told the story, I did not think that that I would have to factor out the weight of the sample and the size of the sample area, I just assumed that was done in the sampleing plan/procedure. Once again shame on me.


It is interesting that the cfu number from the lab is not broken down further, why is that?


--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello

Originally Posted By: kmcmahon
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It would then make sense to have a standardized test area of say 12"x12" or so the results can be more easily interpreted. Apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.


That's what ASTM does.


--
Wisconsin Home Inspection, ABC Home Inspection LLC

Search the directory for a Wisconsin Home Inspector

Originally Posted By: bkelly2
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Quote:
Monty Python-Holy Grail



--
"I used to be disgusted, Now I try to Be amused"-Elvis Costello