World Health Organization says mold is a health hazard. That ends the argument IMHO.

[Nick Gromicko]

Joe, we all (here at the office) read your article you posted and can't find anything in there that supports your contention that taking 2 outdoor samples is "at odds" with taking 1.

We (at the office) all agree that taking only 1 outdoor sample is "at odds" with taking 2, but not the reverse as if you take 2, you have in fact taken at least 1.

Please highlight the portion of your article that you thinks supports your view.

[Nick Gromicko]

You're telling us that you do not promote mold sampling?

Routine sampling? On a regular basis for no reason? No. What purpose would that serve? Routine by definition would not be for a real estate transaction I presume.

[Michael Larson]

The spin meister has arrived.

[Nick Gromicko]

Where is the spin in that? It's straight from the EPA.

[Joe Farsetta]

One thing I have learned through the years is that when you have your mind made up about something, you will spin things until the cows come home.

I will not debate you with regard to this topic amy more... or at least not for the next few days.

My friend, you have spun this into a joke. You need to distance yourself from those who profit from the processing of mold samples.

Until that day comes, your views will be skewed in the direction they curently are.

You seek a specific reference, which states that only one is specified. I dont know if you or others have reading comprehension problems, but whan a health care facility that is concerned about dying patients adopts a protocol which calls for but one outdoor sample... technically they can take 2 or 3 or 20 outside. It doesnt matter because you have NOTHING to benchmark those samples against. One is adequate, because unless there is a specific reason for taking more, you are only charging for something that cannot be justified by any "protocol" other than your own.

Next protocol you will mandate is taking a sample to the left or a pile of dog poop and another to the right. And dont forget the take sample...

Credibility is what's at issue. We're in a no-spin zone.

[Nick Gromicko]

technically they can take 2 or 3 or 20 outside. It doesnt matter because you have NOTHING to benchmark those samples against.

The outdoor samples are the benchmarks. They establish the base from which the indoor samples are compared.

[rbibler]

This issue is beyond this NACHI Board. Others are looking at it. I for one have been on the opposing side of all mould testing, sampling and just taking money from home buyers that trust me to give them good sound information about there homes. I send out news letter to a list of agents and hold office meeting on this and other subjects in my area.

I explain to my buyers and sellers that there is no such thing as TOXIC Molds when I find a wall that has water damage with black mold in it that they need to remove and replace that area and correct the moisture condition.

Our reputations are on the line.

If I hit them with a $ 500.00 test or what ever you guys charge that provides no better information then look theres is a small black spot on the wall. thats a moisture problem and needs to be fix.

My 3o plus years as an inspector is at odds with some other inspectors in my area that do mold testing...

I for one do not want this issue to damage any NACHI Inspectors reputations.

But I think as this information gets around and buyers get informed this issue just may hurt some.

Best

Ron

[Joe Farsetta]

Two mold samples are absolutely meaningless. Do you avarage the two samples to establish the benchmark? With two samples, either based on a questionable positioning, what do the results show?

[Nick Gromicko]

Read the definitive book on Mold Inspections.

I sent you a free copy today Joe.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Nick,

How can you and Mr. Connell read the same document and draw such different conclusions?

Invite him over here to debate his and your claims.

Mr. Connell makes money by helping lawyer's sue home inspectors who are just trying to help their client.

Mr. Connell bad, Nick good

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

This is what the EPA states...

The IICRC S520 states different. Who to believe, a government agency a good twenty years behind (I believe their scientist's still wear pocket protectors) and when their building in Washington D.C. around June 2006 (not sure about the exact date) flooded, they performed air testing after cleanup; or the top mold experts in the country?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Read the definitive book on Mold Inspections.

I sent you a free copy today Joe.

Joe is right on this one, Nick.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Mr. Connell makes money by helping lawyer's sue home inspectors who are just trying to help their client.

Mr. Connell bad, Nick good

I'm with you and Nick, James.

Mr. Braun runs a serious and well respected mold testing and remediation service in Missouri and is the only person in this state, IMO, qualified to perform an inspection.

Connell was, at one time, a respected scientist....but he has drank the Kool-Aid and has fallen into the Ray Wand world of hyperbolic generalizations regarding members of NACHI and has soiled his reputation. His opinions are tainted and are fabricated in order to fit his new agenda. Too bad.

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Nick,
You are not correct on routine sampling either, it is for basic real estate transcations . That is why Prolab sells the Z-5 to home inspectors with only 25 liters per cubic meter intake, and sells an Air-O-Cell with 150 liters per cubic meter intake to Indoor Environmental Professionals.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

His opinions are tainted and are fabricated in order to fit his new agenda. Too bad.

I've seen you emploly similar tactics.

Too bad.