Mould and testing

[Raymond N. Newman]

(1) Because the display lacks of prudent data like time(frame),
equipment used etc.
(2) check statistics 101 and you will agree that your are using random data
(3) my sarcastic me forgot the 'not'

Hope you curiosity is satisfied

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Hello Mr. Newman:

Actually, no, my curiosity has actually only now risen to an higher level by your answer, since your answermakes further unsupported statements but doesn’t answer my question.

Checking “statistics 101” merely confirms that the data are anything but random, and so using "statistics 101," perhaps you would be kind enough to demonstrate for me here on this board, empirically why the data are random. It should be easy for you to show the calculations that support your argument - after all it is just "statistics 101." To aid you in your calculations, I have provided you with the pertinent raw data for your demonstration at http://forensic-applications.com/mis...aNACHIpost.doc

Also, perhaps you can explain why the sampling methods etc. would be of any statistical importance, if, as you contend, the data are random. I’m sure that someone familiar with “statistics 101” would understand the difference between systematic error and random error, yes? And if the data were random as you believe, then the sampling methods would be of little consequence, since the methods wouild introduce systematic error and not random error, right?

Finally, what makes you think that a time frame is a dependant variable for the data in the first place, and second why would the lack thereof constitute “unscientific data” even if it was? Perhaps you could provide an example. Again, for your example, I have provided you with the sampling dates. Does this now magically make the data “scientific?”

You rationale is not making much sense to me. Perhaps you could shed more light on the matter.

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

[Raymond N. Newman]

An interesting quest but I do not need any data to proof that the data is random.



If the measurement result X(1) is taken and if we know that X(2) would take a different value if we measured again and there is no influence from X(1) to X(2) and visa versa we are dealing with random data. This is also valid if X(1), X(2) are calculated values from multiple measurements at time t1,t2.

This does not mean that the sampling method would be of little consequences. And systematic errors and random errors are not exclusive to each other and yes depend on the sampling methods.

The well written argument above was just purely justified with data clutter and deserve nothing more than an unscientific declaration since the conclusion of and the observations itself ought to be reproducible for the uninvolved third party.

[Caoimhín P. Connell]

Mr. Newman:

Thank you for your response. Your reply was certainly very interesting, and, I think, speak volumes of your superior understanding of statistics and possibly mathematics in general.

As a side note, when I presented this same data in a lecture to a body of internationally renown scientists and mycological researchers attending the ASTM International Standards Symposium at the University of Colorado a few months ago, none of the eminent scientists from any of the universities, laboratories or governmental entities represented seemed to possess your astute sense of existentialism statistics, and, like me, they entirely failed to catch the fatal flaws in my data.

Perhaps you would be interested in addressing our humble committee and help explain your newly invented mathematical ideas. I’m sure we would gain some interesting perspectives from your well thought out, albeit confusing, explanations.

Kind regards,

Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist

(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
Pro 12:15

[Raymond N. Newman]

New to you, eh, that's what I thought, and I do not know what you presented at the University, I can only refer to your case demonstration above.
If it was excactly the same as you demonstated here without further details than that is another sad example for our education system.

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Caoimhín has pretty good credentials as an Industrial Hygienist, Raymond. Just out of curiosity, what in your background qualifies you to disagree with him on this subject?

[tszczepanski]

Please allow me to recap:

Perform an inspection and observe what looks like mold growth, although we can't say it is unless it's tested. But experts say it doesn't need to be tested because mold is everywhere. We see small visible signs of what probably is mold, but don't know how far it's spread (could be huge?). We recommend contacting an expert, knowing there is none because there are no standards (ASTM, ASHRAE, etc. can't agree to what they are experts on, because they are afraid to get sued). Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the sale of the home.

Should the extent of reporting on mold during a home inspection consist of only providing known information and suggestions from bodies like EPA & CDC?

It may explicitly stated that mold is not part of the home inspection, but curiosity got to me. Put yourself in the place of the potential home buyer; how would you determine what tests are needed, who would perform them, and how would you get the straight skinny on this issue to decide whether you'd buy the home?

Thanks

[Raymond N. Newman]

Originally Posted by kshepard

Caoimhín has pretty good credentials as an Industrial Hygienist, Raymond. Just out of curiosity, what in your background qualifies you to disagree with him on this subject?

Just to make it clear, I do not necessarily disagree with his findings as an expert on this matter, they have usually a high probability to be founded and documented very well, and his postings and publications contain very helpful and educational information for interested parties.
I am criticizing the misleading way of data display to support the conclusion in the above case example, which I found to be without substance and that is based on 10+ years of DOE experience.

[Kenton H. Shepard, CMI]

Originally Posted by tszczepanski

Please allow me to recap:

Should the extent of reporting on mold during a home inspection consist of only providing known information and suggestions from bodies like EPA & CDC?

Thanks

To me this is the crux of the question, Thomas. It boils down to the clint thinking "I have to decide whether to spend money on mold sampling or not. Should I believe the companies who make money sampling mold and tell me I should, or the organizations that don't make money from mold sampling and tell me that it's a waste of money?"

Obviously there are homes with moisture problems in which mold grows like crazy and the problem needs to be taken care of. Remediation is not the question. Sampling is the question, and it all comes down to the nature of the danger from mold exposure.

The way I understand it is... The nature of the danger from mold is High concentrations of mold spores in indoor air which may have adverse effects on the health of the very young or old, those with lung disease, damaged immune systems or allergies.

Not...

Toxic compounds from mold fungi will infect you and make you ill.

Since mold sampling is a contoversial issue, when trying to understand whether or not mold samping is a waste of time and money, I tend to listen more to those organizations that have nothing to gain from mold samping and are mostly concerned with human health (like the EPA and the CDC) than those that make their living in businesses connected to mold sampling and will go out of business if people stop performing mold sampling.

[tszczepanski]

Thanks Kenton,

So you are suggesting for home inspectors to stay away from the mold issue entirely? If so, then I agree, we should not even give any advice on whether mold should be sampled or not, simply refer the clients to EPA and CDC. Personally, if I were a client, I feel the information there is of no help in determining the specific problems in the home I was about to purchase. The information there is general and gives no specifics (I know, I know, there are no specifics!).
However, what I understand is that only specific types of mold can produce those nasty mycotoxins (correct?). Or perhaps some folks may be allergic to other specific types of molds. Wouldn't sampling identify those types and give the client additional information to aid their decision? And even though it is a "snapshot in time" of the home we are inspecting, isn't the entire inspection a "snapshot in time"?
The point I was trying to make is the buyer is deciding whether to buy this home or not. We report on what we see at the time. If comments about mold are included, they should be made with correct basis in fact.
Mold cannot be present without water (correct?). Leakage, condensation, etc. are defects and must be repaired. On a typical leak we comment that it should be repaired and hopefully damages caused by the leak. Wouldn't it stand to follow that those damages may include large mold growth? I, for one, would like to know how the experts would go about getting that information if they were purchasing the home and had only a few days to make their decision. Would they accept the "least desireable" method to screen any problems, ask to hold up the transaction for months to have tyvek clad scientists and instruments in the house, or are they just happy they haven't gotten sick?

Hmmmm....(I don't know)....

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by tszczepanski

Wouldn't it stand to follow that those damages may include large mold growth? I, for one, would like to know how the experts would go about getting that information if they were purchasing the home and had only a few days to make their decision.

I think that we need to emphasize, especially amongst ourselves, that home inspectors are "generalists". We examine a home and report what we find to our clients...including the presence of organic substances that may be consistant with mold. Just as we do with electrical or plumbing issues, we recommend further evaluation and repair (if necessary) by an industry expert.

Whether it be mold in the attic or an issue in the service panel, it is not our job (nor is it in our best interest or the interest of our client) to prescribe or recommend solutions.

We have vendors that would disagree with this and I'm also certain that any inspector who has invested in this auxilliary service would also disagree...but the analysis of mold is not a part of the SOP. It is distinct and seperate from a home inspection. It is a separate service and should be addressed as such for it to make any sense in discussions such as this, IMO.

[Raymond N. Newman]

James, I think everybody agrees that it is a separate service and it is up to each individual inspection company to decide which auxiliary services around a home inspection they offer. Whatever deviates from the SOP should be charged for, for their own protection. If environmental services like radon, mold, termite or extra services like low-e checks of glazing.

Going back to mold and if you find any, as a service provider you need to make the call if it makes sense to do further testing and as you can see above there are risks you take, but I do not think they are greater or lesser than with any other services you provide as long as you continuously educate yourself.

If I would find a small patch of mold-like substance on a bathroom wall or below the kitchen sink, careful cleaning can take care of the problem before it grows into a bigger one and thats what I recommend, the same way I recommend them to clean gutters out if they are full of leafs.

[Darrenwj]

I am new to the HI industry and just recently joined NACHI. I am curious if there is a proper way to present the client with the option to test mold and not misrepresent the test. What is the professional opinion on this?

These forums are great! I am trying to get organized to start inspecting and NACHI has been a big help.

[Darrenwj]

How come I don't show up as member when I post?

[tszczepanski]

Darren,

I would like to warn you, there are many self-appointed experts on this message board.

Take this mold issue. It's not really a a part of home inspections, because we are generalists, yet it merits discussion from time to time. Why is that? And why does NACHI "partner" with Pro-Lab and indorse their training, products, etc.? When I contacted Nick Gromicko, he seemed to brush off the matter because he never took a mold course and referred me to this message board for answers. So far, not much luck from the experts. Seems like when the questions require thought, we become generalists.

I do believe mold testing is separate from standard home inspection requirements. However it is nonetheless an inspection service that can be provided by qualified(???) persons. Just like probing, we don't do it unless we see signs that may indicate a problem (home inspection is a visual record). I would hope mold testing falls under similar criteria and is not being provided to rip people off. As far as the type of scientific testing and what the results are used for, I'm still confused but am researching it away from this message board.