GAO calls for collaboration on indoor mold guidance.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Agreed, James. Agreed.

Once someone sets a true standard level, folks like you and I can stop the debating and concentrate on conformance.

Gentlemen:
IMHO, your experience in the HI field and HI litigation is sorrowfully not being heeded since everyone and their dog want to be an HI. The fact that many are being enticed into becoming quickly "certified" and offering other services is, in many cases, a grasp at attempting to make a meager living from their newly chosen profession!!

[Nick Gromicko]

The actual performance of a mold test itself is quite simple. The difficulty with setting a standard mold level is the fact that, unlike radon, a little mold can grow to an enormous problem within 10 days.

Mold problems have to be looked at holistically. Mold tests should only be performed by home inspectors. Home inspectors understand roof leaks, construction, drainage, plumbing leaks, gutters, downspouts, sump pumps, ventillation, EIFS, flashing, vapor barriers, insulation, etc. That is why membership in InterNACHI is a pre-requisite of IAC2 certification www.IAC2.org

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The actual performance of a mold test itself is quite simple. The difficulty with setting a standard mold level is the fact that, unlike radon, a little mold can grow to an enormous problem within 10 days.

A quote I use on my website:

Why Air Sampling Results Are Undependable
By Jim H. White, Former senior researcher at CMHC

"The problem with most air sample methodologies is that they take a "snapshot" of a highly variable measurement. Several studies have shown that the number of viable spores in a building, at a given location, varies by orders of magnitude over a few days to weeks. This is due to changes in weather (and the way air moves through the building), changes in colony condition (moisture and food availability, energy available for sporulation, and so on), etc. Sampling outcomes are also highly dependent on the specific location of the sampling, especially if the mould is growing."

Mold problems have to be looked at holistically. Mold tests should only be performed by home inspectors. Home inspectors understand roof leaks, construction, drainage, plumbing leaks, gutters, downspouts, sump pumps, ventillation, etc. That is why membership in InterNACHI is a pre-requisite of IAC2 certification www.IAC2.org

The Doctor is "IN" all day!!!

That logic is crap!!

SPIN!!! SPIN!!! SPIN!!! We got to sell those mold tests!!!!

[Nick Gromicko]

It appears Mr. White agrees with me 100%.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gromicko

It appears Mr. White agrees with me 100%.

You obviously have reading or comprehension problems!!!

[Nick Gromicko]

Well then Brian, let me prove you wrong:

Nick said in post #17:

The difficulty with setting a standard mold level is the fact that, unlike radon, a little mold can grow to an enormous problem within 10 days.

Mr. White says:

The problem with most air sample methodologies is that they take a "snapshot" of a highly variable measurement. Several studies have shown that the number of viable spores in a building, at a given location, varies by orders of magnitude over a few days to weeks.

Like I said, sounds like he agreew with me 100%.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Well then Brian, let me prove you wrong:

Nick said in post #17:

Mr. White says:

Like I said, sounds like he agreew with me 100%.

Now Nick, compare the bolded subjects of the two paragraphs. Notice that they are truly different.

The difficulty with setting a standard mold level* is the fact that, unlike radon, a little mold can grow to an enormous problem within 10 days.
(Or it can die off due to moisture source drying up and sporulation declines, give a false negative that there was a mould bloom at all 10 days ago!!)
Oh!! by the way, radon levels in houses can vary over a period of time. That's why a 6 month sample period when the house is closed down for cool/winter weather would be the best time to sample.


The problem with most air sample methodologies is that they take a "snapshot" of a highly variable measurement. Several studies have shown that the number of viable spores in a building, at a given location, varies by orders of magnitude over a few days to weeks.
Also: The difficulty with setting a standard mold level: If you can't get a truly representative sample or measurement of a parameter, setting any levels (even if possible) for that parameter is useless!!


*The difficulty with setting a standard mold level is: testing is showing that individuals differ in their reactions to mould and some appear that they are barely or not affected by moulds. So how can we set a general standard for the population? It may be that reactions to mould by some non-asthmatic/breathing impaired individuals is more of an allergic reaction similar to milk, shellfish, wheat, peanuts, etc. and is an individual trait/genetic weakness.

[Nick Gromicko]

Though radon levels vary over time (obviously)... radon doesn't grow over time.

[Joe Farsetta]

Brian,

You wrote:

That's why a 6 month sample period when the house is closed down for cool/winter weather would be the best time to sample.

As a certified Radon Measurement Specialist, I can tell you that your statement is actually incorrect. A 12-month test is most accurate. A long-term carbon electret detector can do it, or an old-fashioned alpha-track detector also fits the bill.

[Nick Gromicko]

The point isn't accuracy. Radon tests, at high levels where one cares about accuracy, are very accurate. Too accurate actually, much like measuring your waist line in thousanths of an inch. In other words the radon levels fluctuate more than the error in the tests.

The difference between mold and radon is that mold can grow. Radon levels can only fluctuate.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

Brian,

You wrote:



As a certified Radon Measurement Specialist, I can tell you that your statement is actually incorrect. A 12-month test is most accurate. A long-term carbon electret detector can do it, or an old-fashioned alpha-track detector also fits the bill.

Yes, a 12 month test would be more accurate but is it required? What is the standard you work from?

I guess things have changed a bit since I was doing this type of work in 1986-7. but we, in Canada, were doing a 6 month test using the alpa track detector method.

My quote:
"Oh!! by the way, radon levels in houses can vary over a period of time. That's why a 6 month sample period when the house is closed down for cool/winter weather would be the best time to sample."

From a current EPA measurement protocol on their website:

"2.4.2 Short-Term and Long-Term Follow-Up Testing
Follow-up testing should be conducted in the same location as the first measurement (see

Section 2.2).
A follow-up test can be conducted with either a short-term or long-term measurement device. Longterm
tests (> 90 days) will produce a reading that is more likely to represent the home's year-round
average radon level than a short-term test."

Why doesn't the EPA require the longer, more accurate test?

[Joe Farsetta]

Because they are not practical as it pertains to a real estate transaction, where time is of the essence.

This is the reason that dual passive devises must be used, set side by side, for a minimum or 48 hours for a short term test. A single active devide may also be used (like a CRM), but, agan, for a minimum of 48 hours.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by Frank Cece

Can you tell us all about your extensive knowledge in this field dude?

Franky Baby:

You're too late to the table!!

I started working with environmentally sensitive persons in 1986-7, was doing IAQ work in that period, set up and managed an IAQ/TAB division for an engineering firm in 1990, am recommended by a local environmental clinic (based on the original set up in Dallas by Dr. William Rea in 1965). I was selling/ installing HRV's in 1981 and very high efficiency HEPA/ thick activated charcoal/potassium permanganate absorbant filters in 1985. I do healthy house consulting.

And besides reading a lot in IAQ, etc, I took my cues on mould from two of the best mould people in North America, Harriet Burge, Harvard School of Public Health (whom I had some long talks with), and J David Miller,
(Professor of Biochemistry, Carleton
NSERC Industrial Research Chair- Fungal Toxins & Allergens
Visiting Scientist- Air Health Effects- Health Canada)
from whom I took some early training.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by gromicko

The point isn't accuracy. Radon tests, at high levels where one cares about accuracy, are very accurate. Too accurate actually, much like measuring your waist line in thousanths of an inch. In other words the radon levels fluctuate more than the error in the tests.

The difference between mold and radon is that mold can grow. Radon levels can only fluctuate.

You keep re-iterating that mold can grow. Everyone knows this and it was not the disputed point/s!!

[Nick Gromicko]

Brian writes:

Why doesn't the EPA require the longer, more accurate test?

Uh, your question incorrectly assumes a longer test is more accurate.

The purpose of the long term test isn't to acquire greater accuracy, but rather to gather data over longer periods of time (because as I said in a previous post, radon levels fluctuate). Short term charcoal tests can't test over long periods of time for 2 reasons: The first is that the charcoal doesn't absorb radon, it adsorbs radon (releases as well as collects). Much of the radon it captures in the beginning of the test is gone at the end of the test (and so short term radon tests are biased toward the end of the test). The other is that radon has a short 1/2 life. So the radon the charcoal captures is 1/2 gone after 3.8 days and 3/4ths gone after 7 days.

Most long test kits are actually a less accurate technology but we trade accuaracy for the ability to integrate over long periods of time.

E-Perm electrets are both very accurate and can integrate over long periods of time but only if the electret is fully charged and the radon levels aren't particularly high (so that you don't run out of charge before the end of the test). Consumers can't perform electret tests like they can alpha track though.