Brian,
Next time I meet someone who suffers from mold alergies I’ll tell them that the government has not set any danger levels yet and to quit sneezing.
Jeff:
The PA Association of REALTORs is proposing legislation that would prohibit a buyer from getting out of an executed sales agreement using mold as an excuse without both an inspection report and a lab report.
Nick,
What I am saying is not whether the problem is severe or not but whether a problem exists at all and that cannot be determined by two samples inside compared to an outside “control”. Either number could be anywhere in the normal distribution for that day and neither has anything to do with the other in this case(single time point measurements.)
Nick
If you’d read Caoimhín P. Connell’s post’s EVERY HOME WILL TEST POSITIVE…](*,)
Not some…ALL…](*,)
I didn’t need to read any of his posts to know that, but apparently you need to…!
So to get out of Real Estate deal whether the home has anything out of the ordinary or not, just have it tested for mold, it will have mold confirmation in the test results guaranteed 100%
Maybe I should jump on the band wagon and start another company for people who have a good home inspection but still don’t want the home, have it tested for mold, you’re out of the contract…hmmmmm…sounds like ripping people off again…I’ll stick to my regular 15 different types of inspections instead.
I do not believe I have a fiduciary responsability to the client Nick. In fact it is in my best interest if my client never buys a house. That being said, my job is to report on the condition of the house on the day I am there. Mold is a secondary condition directly relating to moisture. Find the moisture, fined the mold.
The problem as I see it with the “Alchemy” of mold testing is
- It increases my E&O. (Hmmm why is that)
- It is a very litigious area to operate in. (Did I mention higher E&O?)
- Little science to back up my increased risk.
- I do not want to meet some Irish Bastard with a better education and larger vocabulary in court as an adversary.
Now that’s funny!
Well, I’ll pray that piece of junk doesn’t pass, and I don’t pray often.
Also, proposed legislation is not the same as the law.
These folks need educated on basic scientific principles.
Most people that suffer from alergies that cause sneezing, at least out west, do not consider them “Dangerous” Nick. Maybe “flatlanders” are a weaker lot. 
</IMG>
They aren’t stopping there, I just talked to my partner in PA. REALTORs want to make it impossible to get out of a sales agreement based on an inspection report. They are trying PA first.
If paperwork is needed then one might get a surface swab and send it away for speciation(might also be outside time limitations on a real estate deal) on visible mold. Otherwise, only a detailed investigation as described above with numerous time points and and understanding of the limits of the testing as well as an in depth analysis of the data procured may reveal an otherwise non visible mold problem.
It would mean that our reports woudl less useful as negotiating tools for our clients… less useful… less valuable… maybe less desired.
Again, educated needed.
They must be in a strong sellers market. Why not just take the inspection contingency out of the contract?
From an Expert.[/FONT]
I will be fighting any such proposed legislation but you have to realize that REALTORs write the standard forms used in a real estate transaction, so they really don’t need a law to be passed. They regularly change the standard forms at NAR.
These are interesting posts, but most are diversions from the real crux behind Nick’s original post.
That post links to a statement by Dr Shane. “…millions of homes across America have hidden water leaks that are promoting mold growth…”
Many are fast to cite sources arguing that mold testing should not be conducted as part of an initial assessment. Of course not, someone already SUSPECTED there was a problem – that is why they called the investigator in the first place.
But initial assessment of a problem home is not the testing Dr Shane is promoting. He is promoting screening as a preventative measure for a problem that may be hidden. Can anyone here cite a reliable source that has taken a stand against screening? I have heard of none.
I have heard of other mold experts who are for general screening during home inspections, Dr. Ritchie Shoemaker author of “Mold Warriors” being one.
Unlike Mr. Connell or Dr Shane, both of whom have dogs in this fight, Dr Shoemaker has no ulterior motive and may genuinely been seen as an advocate for the consumer.
Mold screening is not foolproof, but if there is an elevated level between an interior and an exterior air sample, it would be grounds for further evaluation.
Frankly, screening is a groundbreaking idea, and one that deserves serious consideration. We may argue over protocols, standards, etc. but that should be expected with a new idea. But, is the idea of screening valid? That should be the real argument, IMHO.
Re: Mould and testing
Please Note: This user is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with NACHI.
Hi Gents –
Good comments.
Mr. DeForrest, let me address your comments first since it is exactly the things that you said in your post that would be the rope by which I would hang you in court and demonstrate that your services constituted gross negligence. Imagine that your report cost the seller to loose an important sale (or other claims), and now they are going to sue you for their damages claming gross professional negligence, and gross incompetence. They hire me as a rebuttal witness. As it turns out, I defeat you in court without ever having to even visit the subject property. I demonstrate that your report alone destroys your credibility, and demonstrates gross incompetence.
Here’s is how I would do it: (Everyone should know that the following is a DEMONSTRATION ONLY and that DeForrest Home Inspections is in no way involved in litigation or that the following example is actually meant to impugn the good reputation of DeForrest Home Inspections.)
Rebuttal witness writes:
“We have reviewed the DeForrest Home Inspections report, and we have found several fundamental errors and omissions which render the DeForrest Home Inspections report fatally flawed in its nature and unusable. Nowhere in the DeForrest Home Inspections report were we able to locate where the inspector applied standard mandatory data quality objectives in the collection of their data. The collection of the data is far outside accepted science, and the premise of the data lacks scientific acceptability and therefore the work does not appear to meet the standards set by Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir. 1923).
It is an established and industry accepted fact that particle migration (such as spores) is mainly influenced by particle properties, ventilation conditions and airflow patterns. (1) Particle concentrations in general, (2) and spore concentrations in particular within a structure exhibit large spatial variations which tend to be compartmentalized within a given space. Furthermore, it is a well established and a common industrial hygiene precept that short term samples such as those collected by the DeForrest Home Inspections personnel exhibit large temporal variations. (3) Generally, the geometric standard deviation of interday and intraday airborne concentrations lie between 1.2 and 2.5 geometric standard deviations. (4) These large variations are similar to those seen by other authors, specific to airborne mould concentrations. (5)(6)(7). However, the DeForrest Home Inspections report entirely failed to provide a statement on confidence, error and/or precision regarding their data (see Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 113 S.Ct. 2728, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469, 482-485 (1993)), rendering the samples and data, and, ultimately, the analysis, meaningless.
Classic air sampling strategy indicates that reasonable confidence in estimating an average ambient airborne concentration is achieved when at least 70% of the exposure time is measured,( 8 ) and states that random grab samples are the least desirable technique for estimating the average exposure. (9) Yet we note that DeForrest Home Inspections used exclusively single random grab samples whose total sampling time was less than 1% of the anticipated exposure time. Thus the sampling design error in the DeForrest Home Inspections was uncharacterized and resulted in huge uncertainties in the reported results.
Other foundational and scientifically accepted classic air sampling references (10)(11) have estimated that for each daily study period (expressed as 8 hours), between eight and eleven random grab samples are needed to obtain adequate confidence in the average airborne concentration estimate. As it is, DeForrest Home Inspections only collected five indoor samples and five outdoor samples which cannot provide adequate confidence in estimating the spore concentration in the subject property. Essentially, DeForrest Home Inspections failed to use accepted scientific protocols and instead, they guessed the spore concentrations at the expense of the homeowner.
Based on our review, the lack of DQOs in the sampling performed by the DeForrest Home Inspections demonstrates the way DeForrest Home Inspections artificially increased the cost of their services and lent a pretence of credibility by puffing up their report with Latin names and exotic numbers, without providing any actual valid data. (At this point, I would probably provide a three or four page discussion on DQOs, and how without DQOS, one has numbers, but no data, and how you violotated about six different ASTM standards).
We have found that the DeForrest Home Inspections report relied exclusively on myths and misconceptions regarding moulds in the home. The report indicates the inspector lacked any real knowledge and had no factual basis for making their conclusions, and that their conclusions were unsupported by scientific fact. For example, in their report, DeForrest Home Inspections repeated an often quoted, but entirely false premise that:
But if the levels are higher inside than the outside there might be a problem.
This false premise has become the hallmark of the charlatan and the untrained “mould inspector” who collects indoor and outdoor samples without any understanding of sampling theory of aerobiology. It is entirely untrue that counts higher indoors than outdoors in anyway indicates a problem, and we have noted that DeForrest Home Inspections did not provide any valid scientific references or peer reviewed scientific literature to support their false claims that “…if the levels are higher inside than the outside there might be a problem.”
For a start, nowhere in the DeForrest Home Inspections report do we find a qualitative or quantitative statement regarding the outdoor vs. indoor coupling. As such, DeForrest Home Inspections has entirely ignored the fact that on the day of their visit, opposing windows in the subject property were open, and their “elevated” indoor counts were actually outdoor counts, and not representative of the indoor concentrations at all.
It is well known that non-problematic houses may have significantly higher indoor spore counts than outdoors. For example, in the graphic below,
( (http://www.forensic-applications.com/)(At this point, I would probable provide a discussion on how the IESO documents are in stark contradiction to decades old ASTM standards on sampling protocols).Visible mold should be tested*…” but does not provide a reference for this assertion that is not held or supported by any recognized body of experts. *Independent labs will examine the tests and determine if remediation should take place.*In fact, no legitimate independent laboratory, following BMPs would ever determine if remediation should take place. The role of a independent laboratory is exclusively to identify and quantify samples without interpretation. Unless a laboratory has visited the site, performed an industry accepted inspection complete with the identification of moisture intrusion issues, such a laboratory would be entirely incapable of determining the need for remediation. It is exclusively the role of Finally,
If the water meter is running and all the water is off, you have a leak. Why do the screening again?
Post Dr. Shoemakers findings please.
Dale
And Dr. Shane is not an expert?