Specialist or Gereralist?

[Iaqforum Deuitch]

Originally Posted by dchew

If you decide to expand outside general home inspection, you better be qualified to do the work. Having a piece of hardware does not qualify you as specialist or expert in the field.

Personally, if you call yourself an expert in mold detection, I'd expect that you would have a college advance degree in biology or microbiology with a specialty in the growth of spores, etc. My wife spend 8 years in college studying how spores are used as biological indicators in the medical equipment/supply sterilization industry.

Quite right. As a microbiologist, I have reviewed many reports from inspectors who do not have a background in the biological sciences at any level. Additionally I have a mycology research lab where I routinely perform investigations into the growth of fungi inside and outside the IAQ arena. The view of mold is quite different with mycologists than the general public for many reasons. Many microbiologists, CIH's, and others with specialized education often get requests to perform expert reviews of existing mold reports. These reports are frequently forwarded by lawyers for clients who have hired mold inspectors who misrepresent their qualifications, experience, and claim that certifications are types of licenses.

There is a need for home inspectors to inspect for mold. I think that this is completely valid provided the inspector does not exaggerate their expertise level. As visual generalists, home inspectors (correct me if I am wrong), are not supposed to provide expert opinions where they do not have expertise, but recommend that an expert be consulted for further review. Many of the reports I have reviewed say exactly this.

The mold and indoor air quality industry cannot be fully covered by any one field of expertise. There is a need for engineers, microbiologists, structural experts, HVAC professionals and others. Equally flawed are scientists who try to make structural determinations without commensurate expertise. I have seen CIH reports with structural determinations that I believe are are really bad. Also, very few CIH's appear to have advanced education specifically in microbiology and mycology. Many are brilliant chemists or engineers.

Bringing opinions of people of diverse expertise is part of our philosophy at the Indoor Air Quality Forum (www.iaqforum.net). My belief is that if you are not comfortable making a claim of expertise in court, you should not be making it to the general public. Education is the key, and anyone involved in the IAQ arena should try to gain some knowledge in each of the areas of knowledge which are involved in IAQ investigations. Anyone here is welcome to chime in over at our forum to contribute their thoughts and expertise for the betterment of all. Additionaly, we are always glad to answer questions related to microbiology and mycology in our "ask the microbiologist" section.

Thanks.

Jeff Deuitch
Microbiologist
Administrator, The Indoor Air Quality Forum
www.iaqforum.net

[Gregory A. Liebig]

Originally Posted by Iaqforum Deuitch

There is a need for home inspectors to inspect for mold. I think that this is completely valid provided the inspector does not exaggerate their expertise level. As visual generalists, home inspectors (correct me if I am wrong), are not supposed to provide expert opinions where they do not have expertise, but recommend that an expert be consulted for further review. Many of the reports I have reviewed say exactly this.

The problem is further complicated by the offer to purchase in Wisconsin. I had an inspection within the last couple of weeks that has "something" growing on the attic sheathing. Even if I was qualified at the time to take a sample, I could not unless one of two things happed.

1. The buyer drafted the offer to purchase using Addendum A to include a testing contingency as part of the home purchase including what SPECIFIC test(s) the buyer would want as part of the offer... or....
2. An ammendment would have to be signed by both the buyer and seller to allow a SPECIFIC test to take place.

IMO, if the seller does not agree to any testing and the buyer did not specify a specific test the buyer has no recourse.

[Iaqforum Deuitch]

Originally Posted by gliebig

The problem is further complicated by the offer to purchase in Wisconsin. I had an inspection within the last couple of weeks that has "something" growing on the attic sheathing. Even if I was qualified at the time to take a sample, I could not unless one of two things happed.

1. The buyer drafted the offer to purchase using Addendum A to include a testing contingency as part of the home purchase including what SPECIFIC test(s) the buyer would want as part of the offer... or....
2. An ammendment would have to be signed by both the buyer and seller to allow a SPECIFIC test to take place.

IMO, if the seller does not agree to any testing and the buyer did not specify a specific test the buyer has no recourse.

If I read you right, the buyer is establishing sampling protocols. Maybe I do not quite have the handle on this. If I were involved in the process I would certainly not do a test for the buyer where the buyer is establishing DQO's for the purposes of evaluating risks. In the establishment of DQO's it should be the investigator's decision and not the buyer's or the seller's in my opinion. Otherwise you may be going to court to explain why you were not to blame when the deal goes bad and the house becomes stigmatized (perhaps unfairly). Sometimes best to turn work down. Just my opinion.

Thanks for the reply.


Jeff Deuitch
Microbiologist
Administrator, The Indoor Air Quality Forum
www.iaqforum.net
Palmetto, FL

[Gregory A. Liebig]

Originally Posted by Iaqforum Deuitch

If I read you right, the buyer is establishing sampling protocols.

In Wisconsin, the buyer must include a right to test as part of the original offer. That means if they wish a radon test, they need to specify a radon test as part of the original offer. If they wish a mold spore test, then they need to specify that test as part of the original offer and so on.

In the case mentioned earlier, there was no evidence from the open houses, walk-throughs with their Realtor of any potential IAQ issues and there may be none at this time. During the inspection, the buyer followed me into the attic where there was some "black stuff" noticed on the underside of the sheathing in about 3 locations each approximately 12 square feet. They asked me my opinion and I couldn't give them one because I'm not qualified to do so. Is it a defect? Maybe if it's a health issue. Structurally the sheathing was in good shape on the day of inspection.

They wrote an ammendment to their original offer to purchase to include sampling of this "black stuff" by a qualified specialist and the seller refused. They have no recourse because they did not specify any testing in the original offer.

In other words, because they did not specify a testing contingency for mold, even if I was qualified to have the suspect material tested I would not have been able to take a sample.

I don't know if that makes it any more clear. If not, let me know.

[Iaqforum Deuitch]

Originally Posted by gliebig

In Wisconsin, the buyer must include a right to test as part of the original offer. That means if they wish a radon test, they need to specify a radon test as part of the original offer. If they wish a mold spore test, then they need to specify that test as part of the original offer and so on.

In the case mentioned earlier, there was no evidence from the open houses, walk-throughs with their Realtor of any potential IAQ issues and there may be none at this time. During the inspection, the buyer followed me into the attic where there was some "black stuff" noticed on the underside of the sheathing in about 3 locations each approximately 12 square feet. They asked me my opinion and I couldn't give them one because I'm not qualified to do so. Is it a defect? Maybe if it's a health issue. Structurally the sheathing was in good shape on the day of inspection.

They wrote an ammendment to their original offer to purchase to include sampling of this "black stuff" by a qualified specialist and the seller refused. They have no recourse because they did not specify any testing in the original offer.

In other words, because they did not specify a testing contingency for mold, even if I was qualified to have the suspect material tested I would not have been able to take a sample.

I don't know if that makes it any more clear. If not, let me know.

OK, now I understand.

Jeff Deuitch
Microbiologist
Administrator, The Indoor Air Quality Form
www.iaqforum.net
Palmetto, FL