Arizona, one day mold cert

[dbucknavich]

Any chance on the one day mold certification making a tour stop in the desert?

[cvowell]

I talked to Doug at Prolab earlier this week, he will be in Phoenix on July 14th to do a mold class.

Watch the AZ NAchi web site for the location and times.

http://az.nachi.org/arizona/

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by dbucknavich

Any chance on the one day mold certification making a tour stop in the desert?

Make sure your E&O is current!.....bad, bad, move.

Dylan, you will find only a licensed hygienist can identify bi-organic growth in Arizona (especially in a court of law).

A friend of mine is being sued by Met-Life for the mishandling of a mold case in Phoenix. He said he was "certified"....Met-Life says he ain't.... ..I agree with Met-Life.

[Dale Duffy]

I highly recommend reading ALL of Caoimhín P. Connell, Forensic Industrial Hygienist threads before even thinking about doing Mould Testing.



Re: Mold test
Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Good morning, Gents-

Great comments. Mr. Warner, regarding the ESA you say: “Their material and education clearly state that it is widely accepted to provide indoor and outdoor samples in order for the lab to make a comparison of the levels and indicate elevated interior counts or not.”

That may be, but just because a brand new (formed only three years ago), small, local, obscure, training company with an handful of employees suddenly says “Do it this way” doesn’t wipe away decades and decades of procedures and methods that have been developed and validated by hundreds of international professionals. There are dozens of self-proclaimed commercial entities that are publishing “standards” that carry no weight whatever, and are not used by real experts; the IESO “standard” is a good example. On the other hand, there are real standards organizations such as ANSI, ASTM, ASHRAE, NFPA and others that put out real standards; additionally, there are standard texts that are “bibles” for air sampling that have been around for decades, I have included some of those references at the end of this post. IMHO, until one has read and understood at least these, one should not be taking samples.

If what ESA is teaching is blatently wrong (which you claim), what recourse do we have to rectify our erroneous teachings.

The ESA is at liberty to teach whatever they want. They can teach that one spore per cubic meter of air is extremely dangerous, and any building that contains a single mould spore should be evacuated and burned to the ground. (That may sound silly, but one of the bigger CMI courses employ a kook who used to teach that very thing).

ESA is claiming that Certified IHs are part of their team. Again the word "certified".

Certification in industrial hygiene is merely a club, not a statement of competency in industrial hygiene. For example, last year when I testified before the Colorado Department of Health regarding an upcoming regulation, the Board Explicitly stated: “If you restrict assessments to Certified Industrial Hygienists, the board WILL reject the regulation since ABIH certification is NOT a stamp of competence in industrial hygiene, or anything else for that matter.” Just last week, I taught the Biosafety section for ABIH certification. I was followed by a CIH, MPH, CSP, who came right out and told the attendees that if they think their certification would make them competent Industrial Hygienists, then they should leave the room, since, he stated, some of the most incompetant industrial hygienists he ever met were CIHs. Certification USED to mean something, now, it’s just a club. This is not a new argument, see my discussion in the AIHA Journal June, 1998, ( http://www.aiha.org/TheAcademy/html/june98.htm).


Hello Mr. Bennett:

Taken some one on in court is not what it is about.
Of course not, and I never stated as such. Indeed, I don’t generally sue people. However, incompetence frequently leads one to court, am I am hired by “the other side” to provide valid scientifically sound rebuttals. Maintaining the highest degree of competency for the benefit of one’s client is what it’s all about.

Question --- Did your test show mold -- Yes or No
Which test? I have performed several thousands over the last 18 years, in hundreds of houses, from Bakersfield to Boston, and Montana to Bucerias, Mexico. Regardless, ALL mould tests “show mold” as you would put it; it’s only a matter of detection limits. ALL houses, ALL HOUSES, contain moulds. ALL HOUSES contain Stachybotrys atra, ALL HOUSES contain the Aspergilli and Penicillia, ALL HOUSES contain the Cladosporia. So if your only data quality objective is to determine if the “test shows mould” then I want to be your lab, since I can charge you lots of $$$$ and only ever have to produce one report to cover all your samples. (Wanna buy a bridge?)

Question --- Can the test be done again and get the same results --Yes or No
Which test?

Question --- Is the level high enough to be a health issue
Which level, and what kind of health effect in what kind of person are you referring?

Question --- Would you live there
Where?

Should all the people selling "mold home test kits" like Home Depot etc be take out of the business??
They should be sued.

NOW WHAT??
I think I already answered that question. The practices and procedures for good sampling, based on sound sampling theory have been around for decades and decades. Just use those (I've listed a couple of standard references below); this may be new to the home inspection industry, but it isn’t anything new to microbiologists or Industrial Hygienists; who have been doing this since I was in diapers (and when I was born, there were only 48 States in America!).

If the public is to receive a service to keep them safe it has to be affordable and available.
And it is. I love it when someone calls me up and asks me over the phone to interpret their “mould test” and before I do it, I predict their results without ever having seen the lab result; and I do it for free (how affordable is that?). And them point out to them the fact that if someone could guess their lab results, sight unseen, why did they waste their money collecting a sample?

One Inspector in Florida is ready to do a school -- He has been doing Mold for a few years -- we are talking a lot of $$ and we are talking a lot of kids going to that school --- So help us out here.
I have been helping out; that is why I take the time to make these posts. If you would like to hire me, then please let me know. At $95 per hour, and $200 per hour for legal cases, I’m very reasonable.

BTW a home owner should have the same AFFORIDABLE information.
They do. To my knowledge, it costs nothing to read my posts here, or my web sites, or indeed, download thousands of legitimate academic papers and documents (see the references below).

----- Radon testing - lead testing -- CO2 -- testing --- Smoke testing -- Sound testing -- Temperature testing etc. is all off the shelf --
Is it? I am paid a lot of money to perform sound/noise monitoring. I performed work for the FBI on the Oklahoma City bombing case. As I remember, my tests were extremely complex, and required a very high level of understanding in the physics of sound and physiology. Radon testing is, for you, off the shelf, because you do not interpret the data; as I have discussed on this board in the past, virtually ALL of your “radon” readings are wrong, but you cannot get in trouble for it IF you have followed the US EPA protocols, since the EPA established those DQOs and interpretive tables, and a “certified” radon person, merely follows the cook-book instructions. In my case, as an ex Radiation Safety Officer, (who used to teach radiation toxicology to workers at the Rocky Flats Nuclear facility and having performed Radiation Endangerment Audits for Sandia National Labs), I am held to a slightly higher standard, and therefore, I NEVER follow the EPA protocols, since they are not valid (for reasons I have already described in earlier posts). As far as testing other items, such as CO2, of CO, or radon, or anything- everything I said about mould holds true for those as well- sampling theory doesn’t change just because the contaminant changes! (What a concept!)

I really want to tell them that I can not test for mold and no one else can either.
Tell them as you please, however, testing for mould can be done, and can be done correctly, and has been done for decades following valid, sound, tenable sampling theory using properly established DQOs to perform hypothesis testing. All of which seems to be ignored by the vast majority of those who are conducting "mould testing."

You see I too understand that testing without very controlled conditions, which we do not have, can be very far in the green at one point and then in the red a short time later.
I don’t see that at all. We DO have very controlled conditions, and I use them all the time to perform scientifically sound testing, producing very tenable results, and I have been doing so for years.

Give us a real simple reason to get out of the business.
I don’t want you out of the business, I just don’t want to see you in court getting sued for following myths and misconceptions and the ESA nonsense instead of doing things the right way. I want you to understand what you are and are not doing, so that you can provide a useful service to your clients instead of just running around willy-nilly collecting useless samples that are misinterpreted 99.9% of the time.

Remember our test can be reproduced -- even if not exactly but probably within normal testing tolerance to say that a building is a hazard or not.
No it can’t. And it you can, then you are REALLY screwing it up.

PLEASE your LOW LEVEL thoughts -- remember we see you as the expert and at this time do not want to challenge you --- but I am thinking
Based on my experience, most HIs are not low-level thinkers; they are highly technical, highly educated professionals who are keen to know the facts, and avoid the pitfalls of misconception. I have met a lot of you guys in the field, and I love ya, Man! And that is why I share this technical info on your chatboard, instead of waiting till you get sued and then sneak up and pounce.

Thanks for the great input!

What a great day to be alive! Cheers,
Caoimhín 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

Sampling References:

Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, US DHEW, PHS, CDC, National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health, 1977

Cox and Wathes, Bioaerosols Handbook, Lewis Publishers, 1995 (ISBN 0-87371-615-9)

Wells WF, Airborne Contagion and Air Hygiene, Harvard University Press, 1955

Cadle RD, The Measurement of Airborne Particles, Wiley Publishers, 1975 (ISBN 0-471-12910-0)

ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, 1995 (There is an ancillary discussion put out by the US DoC, NIST called “American National Standard for Expressing Uncertainty--U.S. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997” that can be obtained from NIST, free of charge.)

NIOSH/NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, publication 94-113, 4th Ed. with Appendices

http://nachi.org/forum/image.php?u=1...ine=1136214147Caoimhín P. Connell vbmenu_register("postmenu_45175", true);
New User
Location: Colorado
Posts: 31


Re: Mold test
Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Hello Gents!

Great questions.

Mr. Warner asks:

How can one quantify healthy home counts to unhealthy home counts period?

Answer: One must develop a priori data quality objectives and then use those to distinguish between “healthy” and “unhealthy.” In the absence of data quality objectives, one has numbers, not results, and certainly not data.

Mr. Warner asks:

Even your data has changed as noted. From 15% to 13% probability is a rather large difference mathematically.


Good question, for a start, my data didn’t change. And the references to the 15% and the 13% are, in fact exactly the same statement. Lookit- the first part of the statement “…with indoor concentrations exceeding 900 counts/m3 less than 15% of the time…” is a generalization, and the second part (in the foot note) “…MVUE to be 394 counts/m3 with a 13% probability of a single random sample exceeding 900 counts/m3…” is the precise form of the first statement. They actually are saying the same thing. (By the way, "lookit" isn't a real word...)

In any event, regarding airborne mould counts, a difference of 15% vs. 13% would be statistically meaningless since mould counts are not just lognormally distributed, but classic industrial hygiene shows us that interday and intraday variations range from a GSD of 1.2 to 2.5; which for a mean value of say, 5,000 spores/m3 would span the range of a low of 315 spores/m3 and an high of 1.5 million. Which is normal.

How can the word "usually" be used in any scientific approach? "Usually" denotes uncertainty as is the root disagreement with any mold sampling and accepted "healthy" levels.

Good question. REAL science (as you call it) is EXACTLY a discussion of uncertainty, and indeed, the quantification of uncertainty. We call it “precision” and distinguish it from “accuracy” (one or two or three mould samples being neither).

The reason my data stand up in court is EXACTLY because I not only understand the uncertainty, (since I purposely find the uncertainty) but also because I articulate that uncertainty in my reports.

Scientifically, it either is or it isn't, not usually is or is not. Is this a hypothesis you are currently testing, or accepted theory for indoor home health?

Not true. When dealing with samples, there is no sample that is definitively "true" or "not true." There is no sample, whatever, that is devoid of uncertainty. The issues I’m discussing here are not “hypotheses” neither are they “hypothetical statements” rather they represent good science. And so, yes, it is accepted and has been accepted for centuries, it is known as “the scientific method” wherein we establish an hypothesis, then we test the hypothesis pursuant to properly laid out questions and limits. When you take an air sample for mould, using the more common techniques, there is virtually no ligitimate probability that the count you received as "data" is the actual mean count for that house.

ESA's accepted and taught standards are being used as a "general rule" as well.

I’m sorry, I don’t know who the ESA is. I certainly know that genuine national consensus standards support these findings.

I agree that comparison of samples taken inside and outside may not be a quality comparison, but it is a starting point.

Actually, its not a starting point at all, since it has been long known to be incorrect. It’s rather like saying you’re going to compare the indoor results with the mould results collected from the inside of your Grandmother’s ’57 Desoto since "it’s someplace to start." If the comparison has absolutely no foundation, it’s not a good place to start, especially where there are much better places to start (many of which have already been published).

Are your findings of 500 to 900 count/m3 accepted industry standard? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want more than an "I'm right and your wrong" discussion since from your website even you are unsure of healthy limits.

The findings described are not subject to "approval" or "non-approval," per se since they are objective finding, and the confidence intervals are reported. So, my statement is rather like saying “Most cars will get somewhere between 5 mpg and 75 mpg.” And then providing 10,000 measurements to support the contention. However, currently my airborne mould database has well over 10,000 observations. I will be presenting a paper on the subject at the upcoming ASTM International Symposium on Mould this summer, if you’re interested. You can judge for yourself by the reception the paper receives whether the data are "approved" or not (but in all honesty, most of the experts assembled for the symposium will be bored to tears, since they already know all this. I was merely asked to present the data since I'm a member of the committee writing the standard, and some clarification was requested). However, all of this has already been beaten to death in sampling theory books that are almost (almost) older than I am.

Mr. Bishop asks:

“You mean if i swab something and it comes back as mold and then i do and air test and find mold at levels that prolab says is too high, it is not WRONG?”

On the contrary, it’s not only wrong, its meaningless. Not because it is from Pro-Lab, but because of how it’s been collected, and upon which foundation has it been collected, and according to which DQOs it's been collected. Pro-lab doesn’t necessarily put out any more or less meaningful results than any other lab – The inherent meaning doesn’t come from the analysis or the lab, it comes from YOU, the collector. YOU are the sole interpreter of the data, and you will ultimately, if it goes to court, will be responsible for defending the data. In my case, my DQOs are such that I already know if the lab has made a mistake when I receive my results, and I have frequently returned lab results and asked the analyzing lab to rerun the samples until they get the "right" results.

(Hmmm... how could he do that?) Easy, that is exactly why one has a QA/QC programme. If you are relying on the lab to tell you what the results mean, then you will fail miserably if you get sued, and you are facing even a mediocre industrial hygeinist or microbiologist in court.

When I defeat home inspectors and “certified” mould inspectors in court, I usually do so based on the methods employed by the person who collected the sample, and very rarely don’t even have to bother addressing the validity of the analytical report (although I did just that last week in a IAQ case).

Indeed, the result you receive is wrong for perhaps no other reason than because it IS meaningless. After all, how can something without meaning be correct? For example, take the following statement: “The average American has 273.” Is the statement “right” or “wrong?” Taken in a vacuum, it’s neither, since we haven’t specified to what the number refers. Until the “thing” quantified is identified, we can’t know if the statement is true or false. Similarly, with a swab or an air sample, it too is only a value with no limits, quantification or inherent meaning.

How am i suppose to do mould/mold testing then?

Answer: Easy. Simply follow the procedures that have been established for many decades based on good science and sound sampling theory. 1) Establish an hypothesis to be tested. 2) Establish proper a priori data quality objectives. 3) Perform the sampling in such a manner that it will meet the DQOs. That's what I do (and thousands of other industrial hygienists across the planet), and that is why in almost 19 years of defending my data in court, I haven’t lost – and why whenever I’m hired to rebut the data of others who haven’t done the above always have lost.

Just some food for thoughts.

Cheers,
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
www.forensic-applications.com

[Stephen F. Myers]

Originally Posted by dbucknavich

Any chance on the one day mold certification making a tour stop in the desert?

Why is it the same people who wouldn't go to a one day 'structural integrity' certification course will waste money at a one day mold certification class?