Mr Braun, I have no fight with you. I was merely asking Mr. Connell for clarification of his statement.
Doug
Give me a location to find them Like I did for you
(“y[size=2][FONT=Verdana]ou can find just a few at the bottom of this
web site http://www.forensic-applications.com/ .”)…[/size][/FONT]
[size=2][FONT=Arial]…Cookie
[/size][/FONT]
I do not know of any studies that are published on the internet. I will need to send you them in hard copy. I will ask my Indrustrial Hygenist, who is certified in mold, if he has some emailable.
Sorry, Dplummer I must of misread your post.
Membership Application (Step 1 of 3)
Please follow the on screen instructions and click the Submit Form button upon completion.
NOTE: Please allow 48 HOURS before accessing your online benefits in order for ACGIH® to process your application. If you need your membership number after the 48 hours, please contact Member Services at memberservices@acgih.org or 513-742-2020.
If you do not wish to submit online, click here to print a PDF of the membership application.
Stars (
https://www.acgih.org/images/RequiredFieldStar.gif
) indicate required fields.
https://www.acgih.org/images/RequiredFieldStar.gif
Member Type: (To see the descriptions of the different member types, click here.)
Individual Memberships:
Regular Member: ($175.00)
Associate Member: ($175.00)
I guess I will pass they want money for all the stuff I looked at . Thanks for you thoughts … Cookie
I know the term “toxic mould” is not accurate. But Stachybotrys Chartarum is toxigenic in that it produces mycotoxins which can be hazardous to health. The moulds in them selfs are not toxic or poisonous. But to us layman it’s a toxic mould. Is there a difference between mould & mildew? Ah ,the debate continues eh? Let’s split hairs. Cheers!
Doug
I would love to read some positive information on MOULDs .
I see too many might be could be and maybe.
Facts are what I am looking for .Do not seem to be any!
…Thanks… Cookie
There is really no solid facts either way. I have seen it and experienced personally. If you know somebody that has similar symptoms to mold toxification and the doctors can not find the cause just plead with them to live their home or business for a few days. Usually their symptoms will disappear. It is hard for me to believe that they just happen to get better just when they left their usual environment.
I know plenty of families who whole lives have been shattered or at least set back. I have not seen any cases personally where a person’s life every came back to normal. If you are ever overexposed to mold (similar to a chemical exposure) you will be sensitive to that mold for a long time, if not the rest of your life. Some of my clients have to take shots because of this. They carry around a kit that kind of reminds me of a bee sting kit for people who are allergic to bees. Their doctors tell them to always carry it around just in case they have a bad reaction, it can be life threatening.
I did not believe mold was all that big of a problem until after I got my certifications and people started to ask me for their help. It tears my heart out to see their suffering. I probably go to the extreme sometimes with the cleanup, but I do not want to take the chance my actions or anybody else’s could hurt the health of innocent people. They rely on us to protect them so making sure the the air is totally clean and there is no visible mold is essential. I guess until you experience personally it is hard to understand.
Hello Gents!
Just following up.
Doug, you are correct about Stachybotrys being toxigenic, as opposed to being “toxic.” The term “toxic mould” is not a scientific term, nor a mycological term, or even a medical term, it is a a term that was created by media headline writers to sensationalize what is otherwise a very mundane, innocuous, and boring occurence. When people talk about “toxic mould” that is one of the first signs they are not trained in mould related issues; the second sign is they perform “tests.” When you throw in “certified mould inspector” who talks of “toxic mould” and then performs “tests” now you have entered the realm of “snake-oil sales man.”
Regarding the organizations named by Mr. Braun, it’s one thing to say, “I would recommend you read some publications by…” and it is another thing entirely to actually provide specifics and then actually read those same publications before you reference them. It is clear from his posts, that Mr. Braun has never actually read any publications from the organizations he referenced otherwise he would find that none of our publications actually support his weird and whacky opinions about mould.
I happen to be a member of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (indeed, I am an author of a recent AIHA publication). So I would be keen if Mr. Braun could actually provide a specific reference that he thinks we have that supports his nutty positions on mould. I also recommend that he read one of the publications by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists titled “Air Sampling Instruments – 8th Edition (ISBN 1-882417-08-7), especially Macher’s chapter Sampling airborne microorganisms and aeroallergens though he won’t like what is said since it was written by a bunch of “frauds” just like me, and who hold the same technical and supportable scientific positions that I do.
But let’s look at some of the other organizations Mr. Braun referenced, and see what they say, because I suspect that Mr. Braun has never actually read any of the publications he thinks he has recommended. We’ll start with his reference to the New York Department of Health. The *Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environment **(*prepared by the New York City Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental & Occupational Disease Epidemiology) addresses “toxic moulds” thusly:
There are only a limited number of documented cases of health problems from indoor exposure to fungi.
O.K. I agree. The New York City Department of Health addresses air monitoring thusly:
Air sampling for fungi should not be part of a routine assessment. This is because decisions about appropriate remediation strategies can usually be made on the basis of a visual inspection. In addition, air-sampling methods for some fungi are prone to false negative results and therefore cannot be used to definitively rule out contamination.
Well, O.K. I agree also with that statement.
Funny how Mr. Braun didn’t reference the US Government, Centers for Disease Control (1) from the Mold Work Group, where in its section “Chapter 2: Assessing Exposure to Mold” the CDC states :
Sampling for mold is **not **part of a routine building assessment. In most cases appropriate decisions concerning remediation and need for personal protection equipment (PPE) can be made solely on the basis of visual inspection.(sic)
As a general rule, sampling for indoor moulds is usually routinely performed by poorly trained instant “mould consultants” who, like Mr. Braun, are otherwise entirely unfamiliar with mould. They use “mould tests” as a way to dupe the homeowner ($$$) and provide perceived instant credibility to their ervice $ince they can produce a very real laboratory report as a way to “puff up” their ervice with lot of fancy Latin name$ and number$, but providing little real data. (Of course, they get to puff up their invoice from the poor homeowner whom they duped into the te$t in the fir$t place).
In fact, laboratory reports have no intrinsic value outside of the context of the expertise of the sample collector and the sample collector’s a priori data quality objectives (DQOs). The US Centers for Disease Control recognized the frivolity of sampling during mould assessments when it stated (1).
Other than in a controlled, limited, research setting, sampling for biological agents in the environment cannot be meaningfully interpreted and would not significantly affect relevant decisions regarding remediation, reoccupancy, handling or disposal of waste and debris, worker protection or safety, or public health.
Of course, it is possible that Mr. Braun knows a lot more than all those frauds at the US Centers for Disease control, but I find it odd that Mr. Braun similarly didn’t reference the frauds over at the US Environmental Protection Agency who recommend AGAINST sampling in their publication “Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings” except in unusual circumstances and then only by a legitimate scientist, such as a qualified Industrial Hygienist, and only if the Industrial Hygienist has established proper sampling data quality objectives.
The EPA stated:
Is sampling for mold needed? In most cases, if visible mold growth is present, sampling is unnecessary.
The EPA warns:
Sampling for mold should be conducted by professionals with specific experience in designing mold sampling protocols, sampling methods, and interpretation of results.
and that;
Sample analysis should follow analytical methods recommended by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), or other professional guidelines.
and;
Inadequate sample plans may generate misleading, confusing, and useless results.
and;
For someone without experience, sampling results will be difficult to interpret. Experience in interpretation of results is essential.
**
Finally the EPA says:
Sampling should be done only after developing a sampling plan that includes a confirmable theory regarding suspected mold sources and routes of exposure. Figure out what you think is happening and how to prove or disprove it before you sample!
OK, not “finally” because the US EPA also says:
Keep in mind that air sampling for mold provides information only for the moment in time in which the sampling occurred, much like a snapshot. Air sampling will reveal, when properly done, what was in the air at the moment when the sample was taken. For someone without experience, sampling results will be difficult to interpret. Experience in interpretation of results is essential.
So let’s look at a simple protocol for sampling for indoor fungi. Let’s turn to another bunch of frauds who Mr. Braun similarly didn’t reference; they are called the US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute for Safety and Health (a notoriously shady bunch, no doubt). In Chapter J - Sampling and Characterization of Bioaerosols; in the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM®), 4th ed. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 94-113 (August, 1994), 1st Supplement Publication 96-135, 2nd Supplement Publication 98-119, 3rd Supplement 2003-154, we find the following protocol for properly assessing fungi in the air (after the development of proper sampling plan mentioned by the EPA):
Select at least three sites, one each to represent complaint area, a noncomplaint area and outdoors.
*In turn at each site, sample simultaneously for fungi, mesophilic bacteria, and thermophilic actinomycetes. *
Before moving to the next site, repeat twice to obtain triplicate, consecutive samples.
Collect another complete set of samples and blanks on the next day.
Therefore, at the end of the sampling period, the consultant would have collected six samples for fungi, mesophilic Bacteria, and thermophilic actinomycetes from the study area, six samples of the same from an indoor control area and six samples from the outside for a total of 54 samples collected for one single “test.” I can assure you that Mr. Braun is not only not doing this, Mr. Braun has demonstrated that he would lack the technical competence to be the Industrial Hygienist’s technician and even calibrate the equipment.
By the way, speaking of Industrial Hygienists, Mr. Braun referenced his certified Industrial Hygienist, the ABIH doesn’t have a mould certification. And so if his industrial hygienist to whom he alludes is certified, then it is with a goofy “three-day wonder” certificate. By the way, I do not know of a single Industrial Hygienist who would dare to obtain a “Certified Mould Inspector” certificate since such a certificate would actually degrade the Industrial Hygienist’s credibility.
Here is another organization of frauds Mr. Braun overlooked, the International Union of Toxicology who held their International Congress of Toxicology meeting in Montreal, Canada in July of this year. The opening line from one of the presentations given during that meeting of internationally recognized toxicologists, representing the global scientific and medical opinion in such matters was: (3)
Despite* the findings of learned bodies, there continue to be concerns throughout North America and Northern Europe about mycotoxins from mold spores in indoor environments.*
In general, as scientists, we are not mystified about the health effects of moulds so much as mystified about the public’s continued irrational fear of indoor moulds, despite of the vast, overwhelming, knowledge that has placed those risks into perspective, and have concluded that those fears are unfounded. We recognize, however that some people, such as Mr. Braun, require that the population remain terrified with nonsensical and fabricated horror stories about “toxic mould” to make their money. Gosh, if Mr. Braun’s clients found out there was no such thing as “toxic mould” they would realize they don’t need him or his “tests” and then think of all the money he would lose!
By the way, Mr. Braun references the “Indoor Environmental Standards Organization.” the IESO is not a recognized standards authority, and does not establish national consensus standards. The “standards” published by this organization are not considered to be scientifically valid, and do not carry any weight in legitimate discussion amongst bone fide indoor environmental quality experts.
Essentially, the IESO “standards” were initially developed a couple of years ago by a particular laboratory in an effort to promote sales. The IESO “standards” such as the IESO 2210 are mostly myth-based procedures devoid of any actual scientific merit, and lacking any credibility. For example, the “standards” make a central point of using outdoor airborne mould levels as comparison to sample indoor levels. However, this is an example of argumentum ad populum in the light of state-of-knowledge; essentially IESO makes the case that “since everyone else seems to be doing it, it must be correct.” (hardly a scientific position!) Especially since it has long been known, that there is no correlation whatsoever between indoor and outdoor spore concentrations in the circumstances under discussion, and investigators who practice indoor/outdoor comparisons are usually goofy “certified mould investigators,” and other generalists who lack any particular scientific training, who lack a knowledge of sampling theory and who lack any knowledge in aerobiology.
By comparison, bone fide national consensus standards organizations would include ASHRAE, ANSI and The ASTM International. These organizations publish “technically exhaustive” standards that are consensus criteria developed by hundreds of professionals across the globe over the course of many years and that may even carry weight of law.
The promulgation of true standards is an arduous process involving literally hundreds of experts. For example, the ASTM International Indoor Air Quality Committee (of which I am a member) has been engaged in the promulgation of an indoor mould assessment standard for over four years and we still haven’t completed it. The process involves the vetting of the language and the science by a broad spectrum of scientists, medical personnel, engineers, public policy experts, and others before the standard will see the light of day. Ultimately, an entire ASTM standard could be held up on the opposition of just one expert, until consensus is achieved or the objection is shown to be unsupported by sound science. By contrast, the entire IESO was formed in 2002, and the “standard” was instantly published without review by any other organization or expert anywhere on the planet
Even the IESO indicates it’s own lack of technical merit in it’s own standards. IESO 2210, explicitly states, in it’s own language, that the standard is not technically exhaustive, and should only be used to determine if an appropriate specialist (e.g. an Industrial Hygienist) is required for further investigation. Indeed, the IESO 2210 clearly states:
7.0 Applicability and Limitations
7.3 The results and recommendations made by the inspector relative to this standard are not a warranty, surety, or guarantee of any nature or kind.
By this statement, the IESO is explicitly and honestly telling the world that the standard carries no weight.
However, current international ASTM Standards, such as ASTM Standard E 2418–06 “Standard Guide for Readily Observable Mold and Conditions Conducive to Mold in Commercial Buildings: Baseline Survey Process”), and standards underdevelopment for the assessment of indoor moulds in buildings, specifically exclude all sampling during mould inspections; thus reflecting current thought. (By the way, I was instrumental in the promulgation of E2418-06 and wrote some of the language contained in the standard.)
I am also on the ASTM International D22 Committee (Indoor Air Quality) and I will let you know how we are doing in the next couple of months. BUT, in the mean time, I can tell you that the pending international guidelines which will be titled: [FONT=TTA2032BC8t00]GUIDE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF FUNGAL GROWTH IN BUILDINGS*,* which reflects state-of-the-art and standard industry practices, and is being developed by an international committee of recognized indoor mould experts, air sampling (even properly conducted air sampling) and bulk sampling is discouraged and is considered by the cognizant community as superfluous and misleading. (You can find out why in my article*: *Mold Rush: A Commentary, EH&S Solutions, Nov/Dec 2003).[/FONT]
Frankly, (and secretly), I hope Mr. Braun continues to scare money out of his clients with his nonsense, because, I make a lot of my money representing those same homeowners when they sue the Brauns’ of the world in malpractice / malfeasance claims. My job is to discredit the pseudoscientists and their rubbish “toxic mould” nonsense and help the homeowner get back some of the damage and injury caused by these people. (I also happen to be rather good at it.)
Cheers! And watch out for those “toxic spores”!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Braun Certified Fraud,
Certified Mould Inspector,
Certified Bottom Feeder
(also President of the Cranky Old Chemist’s Society)
[FONT=Times New Roman][size=3]References:
-
The CDC Mold Work Group, National Center for Environmental Health, National Center for Infectious Diseases, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, October 2005
-
EPA 402-K-01-001 March 2001 (updated 6/25/01)
-
Chan CY, Robbins CR, Fallah P, Hardin BD, Kelman BJ, Risk From Inhaled Mycotoxins From Mold-Infested Produce, IUTOX ICT—Montreal, Canada (July 15-19, 2007) Abstract #PT6.105
[/size][/FONT]
The opinions & humor 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 fun only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others. And when I die, I hope my Gaurdian Angle knows that I was only funnin’.
AMDG
Caoimhin,
Please do not dilute your certainties regarding mold with your guesses as to Mr. Braun’s intent behind his statements.
I truly believe that he genuinely embraces, with deep emotion and conviction, the points he has made in this thread.
While I am very anxious to read your usually well-founded and scientific responses, your shots at him are distracting.
Ready to take my challenge?
Are do you think that if you fail you will be found out to be the fraud that you are?
James Bushart–
If a man, in the full light of day, sells a service, under the false impression to his clients that he is an expert or otherwise proficient in the service he is selling, when in fact he is not so proficient, it is fraud.
I see victims of fraud all the time, and I dislike it, and its practitioners. The supposed good intentions of swindlers are not an excuse for the act of swindling.
I calls em’ as I sees em. To do less would be a disservice to my clients, and the public in general.
I have already stated that Mr. Braun may be a very nice guy. But having said that, nice guys don’t take money from people to perform services for which they have no proficiency.
Kind regards.
Caoimhín
Are you willing to put your money where your long engated mouth is? Take my challenge.
You have already admitted that you are a bottom feeder that makes money off of helping sue inspectors. Will taking my challenge hurt your career? There is nothing worse than lawyers except an IH that makes his living working with lawyersto sue inspectors.
Well, let’s see the challenge. Why waste time looking for a response. Just post your questions so we all know what to look forward to…
It is at the bottom of Post #39.
If anybody wants to talk to some of my clients about how mold has affected their once normal lives. They will be glad to talk to you.
Also there is a local mold support group probably in your area you can visit. I know some of my clients belong to the one in Jefferson City/Columbia area. I can find out the name if somebody wants to go to a meeting. I believe they are nation wide like MADD. I wish I could remember the name. Remembering names is not one of my strong points.
Mr. Braun:
Many people over the years have made challenges similar to yours about having me stay in a “contaminated” house. I have accepted every one of those challenges. In the end, the challenger entirely failed to make good on their challenge. In each case, they have always failed to get me into the “contaminated” house after I accepted the challenge. I suspect that this case would be the same, and I suspect that your client will be horrified to learn that you, without their permission, over the internet, invited a complete stranger to spend a week in their house.
I accept your challenge.
Mr. Braun, my policy has always been to accept such challenges. Please telephone me tomorrow at (303)-903-7494 and I will arrange a meeting between you and my attorney, so that the details can be arranged. Before you call, please call your attorney, and make sure he is on the line also, so that you are properly protected.
I will not proceed unless your attorney is part of the phone call. Further, I will not proceed unless your attorney approves of the subsequent contract.
But I also must warn you that in general, my exposures to moulds, (indeed, even those of farm laborers) are tens of hundreds of times greater than those of home occupants in mould infested houses. Mr. Braun, do the math: each American, every year will experience about 13 million spore years (1). During my private consulting business, just during crawlspace inspections alone, I (and indeed any home inspectors who perform crawlspace inspections) will experience about an additional 44 million spore years.(2) That is, our occupational exposures alone to moulds is about four times greater than most Americans. Most farm personnel (of which I used to number) will easily be even greater than 100 times that amount.
I say this with the greatest of sincerity and constructive spirit. I do not honestly believe that you intentionally cheat people. I apologize for poking fun at you and using you as an example, it was not charitable. But, in fact, based on your posts, if you are performing mould tests, I stand by my comments that you harm people. You have demonstrated that you entirely and completely disregard all objective conversation, and authoritative debate. So what am I to think?
I mean no harm when I say this: I think that you and I play on different playing fields. And I wish no further debate. Truly, if you pursue this, that’s fine, you will end up being hurt. But if you really want me to live with your client for a week (or month, etc), I will do that. But you must know there will be no further charity in my considerations once the contract is signed. You will be required to post bond and pay me upon completion of the challenge along with all my expenses.
I respectfuly look forward to your call. Please call me before noon. I am in court tomorrow afternoon from noon onward and I will be otherwise unavailable.
Mr. Braun, I mean you no ill intentions, and I wish you no ill fortune. Furthermore, if you don’t call me, I promise you, I will never raise the issue again if you don’t.
For the rest of the readers. I think you know where this is going. We are all adults, and I promise I won’t take advantage of any diminished person, but I have no moral obligation to accommodate fools – (and I’m certainly NOT insinuating Mr. Braun is a fool.) But there the cards lie.
So why do it? Here is some insight. Over the last several months, I have been involved in several projects involving “mould experts” who were not experts at all, and who harmed many people by their consultations. In one case alone, there is now a 5 million dollar law suit. The plaintiff will lose because they have hired a “toxic mould” charlatan who has mislead them with complete nonsense about toxic moulds; and who relied on “testing” etc. There is great harm when this happens, and it disturbs me that it is either charlatans (or nice but misguided people) who create that harm (however good their intentions). Intentions cannot ever be an excuse for bad behavior – in my business we call it “noble corruption.” Noble corruption is the insidious seed from which corrupt autonomy arises. It has nothing to do with money. As an example…
Yesterday, as part of my other job, I was called out for a medium risk “felony extraction.” I got all dressed up in my “secret Ninja gear” and armed with a shotgun, along with other members of my team, we performed a raid on an house occupied by some druggies. We knew the druggies were armed with rifles. We also knew the druggies had long criminal records and one of the occupants was a fighter. Since young children were involved, we also knew we were facing possible hostage/barricade situation if things went south. My assignment was initial entry. In my case, although armed with the normal array of my standard guns, I selected my weapon of choice for such entries – we call it “less than lethal shotgun.” Our objectives were to enter and immediately protect the children and arrest the druggies.
I can tell you that there is no amount of money that one can pay me to face a gun (especially a rifle which can penetrate my body armor) much less storm a house across a snowy open field (my secret Ninja gear is all black) occupied by a man armed with two rifles. There is no sum of money for which I will do that. So why do I do this stuff if not for $$$? Because there is no real choice. Someone who has the tools to complete the job must complete the job. That’s all. We all do our job. Home inspectors are no different. They exercise the skills and the talents that better society by their practice. I LOVE my home inspector. I have used the same guy for three houses. I would NEVER buy an house without his approval. He is dedicated, he is knowledgeable and he is BRAVE because he WILL tell me the TRUTH even if he takes heat. And I appreciate the fact that he is willing to step in on my ignorant behalf and make people angry for telling me the truth. He does what I do – he takes shots to protect others. I like that and I respect that. And he won’t back down (I like that, and I respect that), and he won’t acquiesce and he won’t appease and he can’t be bribed or pressured. He just speaks the truth even if it’s not what I want to hear or the realtor wants to hear or the seller wants to hear.
On this board (as well as others) I call out stuff, and as I said “calls em as I sees em.” I don’t make a penny doing it. My objective is to raise the issues and face them head on for casual readers and to address those things that are hurting people. On the civil side alone, I field no fewer than 12 projects each year as a private consultant wherein people have been hurt by the toxic mould kooks; however good their intentions.
It is upon principles that we work, just like the majority of home inspectors whom I know, and trust, we work as though we don’t need the money – we work on principle. At lease that how I see my home inspector.
Cheers you lot!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Applications Consulting Technologies, Inc.
www.forensic-applications.com
References
-
365 days per year, breathing rate of 1.5m3-1min, 24 hours per day, 1440 minutes per day at an average of 1,000 spores per cubic meter.
-
Number of crawlspaces inspected per year 19, average time per crawlspace 40 minutes. Estimated spore loading 2E6/m3, breathing rate 1.5m3-1min. Average time per crawler 40 minutes.
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 fun only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.
AMDG