smoke or mold?

[fcarrio (Frank M. Carrio, CMI)]

[quote=Brian A. MacNeish]
When we see the stuff, why do we have to test for it??? Are we supposed to make $$$$$ at every chance…even when not needed? Come on, get real about things!

Here’s what I see going on too much: **Scare the sh!t out of them; then pick their pockets!!! **

Saved a family about $8,000 (quote from the area’s largest engineering company) on a “mould cleanup” two summers ago. Gave them info so they could do it themselves- my charge $60…I was inspecting on the next street that day and spent 15-20 minutes on site. The “mould” problem was: (1) an attic that looked like the initial picture (no real need to clean that mould- just change the conditions to provide a dry sheathing year round; (2) less than 10 sq ft of dark mould in a basement corner; (3) a 1973 rotting softwood garage door (eng. co’s comments: Do not go into the garage- hazardous to your health.) The decay mould was white filamentous mycelia…very similar and maybe the same species as the decay fungus you see rotting dead spruce, pine, fir trees in the forest!!! Then I guess the corollary would be: DO NOT GO INTO THE FOREST- HAZARADOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. COME ON!!!

From America’s preimminent building scientist:

"If you see it or smell it, you do not have to test for it. It is more important to get rid of the mould ( or conditions) rather than spend a lot of money trying to find out more about it***.***" (by sampling and identifying the species of mould- our comment) Dr. Joe Lstiburek, P. Eng., Phd…; Building Scientist and principle at Building Science Corporation (Website: www.buildingscience.com)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fcarrio
Robert,
I have seen this condition many, many times and it always turned out to be mold.

I STRONGLY recommend that you have a swab send to Pro Lab or another Bona Fide mold testing facility ASAP and certainly before closing.
***IF ***your client does not want this home tested for Mold then be SURE that you get a DISCLAIMER.
Good luck

Quote: Brian
When we see the stuff, why do we have to test for it???
Brian,
**First of all, there are many, many different types of mold. Some of them are harmless and others are toxic **and can either make you extremely ill or even incapacitate you . **
Purchasing a home is usually the largest purchase anyone will ever make. You must remember that this inspector went into a home that his client is considering purchasing and living in this contaminated home for many, many years or maybe even the rest of their life.

**At the present time I am involved in a court case where a home inspector conducted a “visual inspection” according to the ASHI standards of practice. This inspector walked through a room in a basement that was absolutely saturated and I mean saturated / covered in mold. **
**The mold was highly visible on the ceilings, walls, and floors. According to the ASHI standards of practice he did not have to report on the mold. Does that mean that he could ignore it? **
You might say yes but the law and the court system said that any reasonable man would have suggested at the very least, and I repeat at the very least that the client should have been alerted to the fact that some of this mold could be potentially toxic and or harmful to his health.

**Remember that all Standards of Practice are ****Guidelines ****and are NOT Law. **

**The sad part about this situation is that the client is a handicapped Vietnam veteran who is confined to a wheelchair with a *severely compromised immune system *and is extremely “visually impaired” so he could not see the mold even when he was standing in front of it. **
**He purchased this home “in good faith” based on the “Certified Home Inspector’s” report that failed to mention that the entire basement, and attic were absolutely saturated in mold. **

**You did not have to be a ****Home Inspector to see it. **

Are we supposed to make $$$$$ at every chance…even when not needed? Come on, get real about things!
**Obviously this inspector thought that if he inspected according to "his" standards of practice that he was not obligated to report on the presence of mold. Also like you, he probably thought that it was “not needed”. Well guess what? He could not have been more mistaken. **

Here’s what I see going on too much: **Scare the sh!t out of them then pick their pockets!!! **
Informing your clients that there is mold in their “POTENTIAL” home is not scaring the sh~t out of them is called being responsible!

**Why would you NOT report the fact that there is mold in the home? **

**Why would you NOT suggest that the client have the mold tested to see if it is toxic or not? **

**Unfortunately in this case the homeowner found out about the TOXIC mold after he bought the house. How did he find out? He spent $90,000.00 on renovations and the contractors kept coming up with "excuses" that they were falling behind schedule because everyone was getting sick with the “flu”. **

**Finally the “light bulb” went on when two out of the eight workmen had to be admitted into the hospital! **
It turns out that the basement, the attic and the interior of each and every wall of this house was severely contaminated with Stachybotrys Chartarum!!

**This house is so severely contaminated with Stachybotrys that it has been deemed to be uninhabitable. It would take more to mitigate the mold than the house is actually worth! **

That is right Brian, it has been condemned and the homeowner is suing the home inspector for the entire price of the home plus expenses for the rental property that he has been forced to move into.
Saved a family about $8,000 (quote from the area’s largest engineering company) on a “mould cleanup” two summers ago. Gave them info so they could do it themselves- my charge $60…I was inspecting on the next street that day and spent 15-20 minutes on site. The “mould” problem was: (1) an attic that looked like the initial picture (no real need to clean that mould- just change the conditions to provide a dry sheathing year round; (2) less than 10 sq ft of dark mould in a basement corner; (3) a 1973 rotting softwood garage door (eng. co’s comments: Do not go into the garage- hazardous to your health.) The decay mould was white filamentous mycelia…very similar and maybe the same species as the decay fungus you see rotting dead spruce, pine, fir trees in the forest!!! Then I guess the corollary would be: DO NOT GO INTO THE FOREST- HAZARADOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. COME ON!!!
If someone like you advised this homeowner to simply “clean up” the toxic Stachybotrys Chartarum without the expertise needed or any special protective clothing and or equipment then I am sure you would have been added to the list of defendants in this lawsuit

From America’s preimminent building scientist:

"If you see it or smell it, you do not have to test for it. It is more important to get rid of the mould ( or conditions) rather than spend a lot of money trying to find out more about it.

(by sampling and identifying the species of mould- our comment)
Dr. Joe Lstiburek, P. Eng., Phd…; Building Scientist and principle at Building Science Corporation (Website: www.buildingscience.com)

First of all, it does not take a lot of money to take air samples or a culturette /swab(s) and send in a small section of the contaminated plywood to identify whether the mold is benign or toxic.

**Second, if the mold is toxic the homeowner, prospective buyer and the people who are trying to get rid of it have got to be informed! **

**Sending an unsuspecting and innocent workman into a situation where toxic mold is present is irresponsible and bordering on the criminal! **
So this comment that you attribute to a “pre-eminent building scientist” does not ring true with me.

I cannot believe that anyone who has a basic understanding of what toxic mold can do to people would make such a ludicrous statement.

**The bottom line is that if there is suspected mold in the house any reasonable Home Inspector should advise the client about it and recommend that they have it tested to see if it is TOXIC or not. **

**This decision should be theirs and theirs alone. **

[fcarrio (Frank M. Carrio, CMI)]

@Caoimhín P. Connell

Hello Mr. Jack:

Here is a thought on your question from a slightly different angle; that from a professional investigator.

In your question, you have already limited your answers. You have presumed, without any apparent reason, that the material on the surface must be either smoke or mould. Why? What if it is neither smoke or mould? Instead of asking “Is it smoke or mould?” shouldn’t you instead be asking “What is it?”

In 19 years of performing both mould inspections and smoke inspections (both criminal arson and civil liability investigations), I have never seen a single instance anywhere under any of the very strange circumstances I’m in where smoke has even slightly resembled mould or where mould has even slightly resembled smoke.

The two entities are so vastly different that their deposition, patterns, occurrence, visual aspects and even odors would allow an immediate on-site differentiation at a glance (without the collection of a single sample).
Agreed, but I am sure many of us did not see the need to come off as a* Pompous Buffoon and rub his face in it.*

Some of your previous responders posted some lazy-brain responses “to cover yourself” and suggested taking mould samples. However, far from covering yourself, the suggested lazy-brain actions could result in even greater liability for you and provide a terrible disservice for your client. Here’s a simple example of how –

Let’s assume, for the moment, it is either exclusively smoke or mould. You follow a lazy choice and instead of investigating the discoloration properly, you simply collect the suggested swab and send it to the suggested laboratory, “Pro-Labs.”

The result of the swab comes back positive (but then of course it would, even if there was no mould problem, the result would comeback positive), and Pro-Labs in their report interpret the data and report that the swab indicates that “Elevated Mold Condition Exists” (but then, as I have mentioned before, I have reviewed MANY Pro-Labs reports, wherein Pro-Labs has reported that the samples indicate that elevated mould conditions exist, where in fact, the property did NOT have ANY kind of elevated mould conditions ANYWHERE in the property).

• **What a ridiculous / ludicrous response! You make no sense whatsoever! So the bottom line is that you are accusing “Pro Lab” of FRAUD & DECEIT! **
  So, now you have a lab report for a “mould test” that contains “data” that for all you know is exactly similar to a swab that one may take from virtually any attic, including one with no discoloration; and therefore, the report contains information that you cannot interpret.
  More nonsense!
  ALL of the certified labs that I have dealt with always send out a detailed explaination of what was found.

But, you tell your client the attic has a mould problem, since that is what the report says.

Consider for a moment what the US Centers for Disease Control says about such sampling (1):

The results of samples taken in your unique situation cannot be interpreted without physical inspection of the contaminated area or without considering the building’s characteristics and the* factors that led to the present condition.***
That is a big DUH!**

Ah, what the heck, what would they know? After all, as Mr. Gromiko would tell you, they’re not NACHI Home Inspectors, therefore, it’s criminal for them to provide instruction on mould inspections. Take a look at Messrs. Gromiko, and Porter recent comments on industrial hygienists, (of course, if you consider those comments, you are going to have to completely ignore the disclaimer found at the bottom of the page of the Pro-Labs report summary… ouch).
**Another NON MEMBER “Nick Basher” spouting off his hatred for all things NACHI:roll: **

Also, you are going to have to explain to the homeowner why you similarly ignored the US Centers for Disease Control when they said:

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.
So according to this statement you are telling all of us that YOU have never taken any type of sample other than in “A Controlled, limited, reasearch setting”?

---

[size=3]Ridiculous! **
**That means tha ALL of the results of samples taken “out in the field” would be null and void. Don’t make me laugh![/size]

Aww, what the heck, Nick knows more than that bunch of egghead industrial hygienists at the CDC, right? And besides, you have been through the Pro-Labs one day class, so you’re every bit as much an expert as they are, right?
You are coming across as a Pompous Prima Donna!

So you tell the homeowner that the deposition is mould, and the elevated mould conditions exist in the house.

Homeowner Smith: “What do I do?”

Mr. Jack: “Remediate the mould!”

So, the homeowner spends $15,000 to remediate the mould, and sells the house to the Jones family (with their two darling little girls).
What a DRAMA QUEEN!

But guess what? Yes of course there was mold on the surface – duh! That mould grew there thirty years ago when the building material was sitting out in the lumber yard, and became colonized with “Elevated Mould.” After which, it was installed into the house, and for the last 30 years the mould (now completely covered with smoke particles) can no longer be seen.

Mr. Jack: “Oooops… what was that? Smoke? Did you just say smoke? What do you mean smoke?”

Caoimhín:
Oh, didn’t I mention, the discoloration actually was smoke after all, and the smoke was coming from smoldering wires in the attic, that were shorting out, and smoldering the surround paper and other building materials. But then, see your “mould test” didn’t answer the necessary question “What is it?” In fact, your Pro-Labs mould test didn’t even answer the question you thought it did, which was “Is it mould or smoke?” Your Pro-Labs sample ONLY answered a single question “Is mould present on that surface at that location?” Which any fool could have told you that it was present, even an egghead industrial hygienist, without having to collect a sample.

Hey - But look at the bright side! The entire Jones family died in the subsequent fire three months later,
[size=3]What a DRAMA QUEEN![/size]
so they will never know just how bloody wrong you were or how bloody incompetent you were or how foolish you were to follow the advice of the lazy-brains, instead of doing your job correctly.
**And your advice for "Doing your job correctly is…don’t alert the customer? Don’t take air samples? Don’t send in a small section of the affected area? Don’t send in one or more swabs? **

And don’t worry about that attorney who is now trying to contact you, I’m sure he just represents the lottery board and is trying to tell you that you are the luckiest guy on earth – you hit the jack-pot!

Of, course, I just made all that up, and it is entirely an unreasonable scenario that could NEVER happen, right? By the way, would you like to see the photos of the Jones house and those darling little girls as found by the arson team and that will be entered as exhibits during the trial? I have some.
What a DRAMA QUEEN!

Just some thoughts, on the matter. Either way, it’s the same to me – except of course, I will make money off the lazy-brain course of action, when the Jones estate hires me to evaluate the mould inspection you performed. Ouch. I make rather a lot of money off the lazy-brains and their lazy-brain suggestions.

p.s. I wonder if you have ever actually read the disclaimer at the end of a Pro-Labs report. Hmmmm.

Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Applications, Inc.
www.forensic-applications.com

1. US Centers for Disease Control, Mold: General Information: Basic Facts | CDC APRHB, 2007

**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. **
**I am sure that many of your “Peers” think that you are full of hot air! **

**The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice **
**No Kidding! **
and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.
AMDG

From your arrogant post it seems that you have had your head in some “Smoke” all day long.

[fcarrio (Frank M. Carrio, CMI)]

[quote=Caoimhín P. Connell]

Let’s assume, for the moment, it is either exclusively smoke or mould. You follow a lazy choice and instead of investigating the discoloration properly, you simply collect the suggested swab and send it to the suggested laboratory, “Pro-Labs.” The result of the swab comes back positive (but then of course it would, even if there was no mould problem, the result would comeback positive), and Pro-Labs in their report interpret the data and report that the swab indicates that “Elevated Mold Condition Exists” (***but then, as I have mentioned before, I have reviewed MANY Pro-Labs reports, wherein Pro-Labs has reported that the samples indicate that elevated mould conditions exist, where in fact, the property did NOT have ANY kind of elevated mould conditions ANYWHERE in the property)***. [End Quote.]

Mr. Connell,
In my opinion this is one of the most libelous and slanderous things I have read in a long, long time.

• You have gone on a NATIONAL Bulletin Board and questioned Pro Lab’s HONOR & INTEGRITY and accused them of FRAUD & DECEIT!

**Anyone who does not know Pro Lab and even those of us who do would be hard pressed to give them any business what so ever after this. **

• **You make a compelling statement NOT to ever trust ANY Lab results from Pro Lab!
  **[/quote]

I hope that you have some VERY deep pockets!

[mbazzo (Michael Bazzo, CMI)]

@Caoimhín P. Connell

.

Let’s assume, for the moment, it is either exclusively smoke or mould. You follow a lazy choice and instead of investigating the discoloration properly, you simply collect the suggested swab and send it to the suggested laboratory, “Pro-Labs.” The result of the swab comes back positive (but then of course it would, even if there was no mould problem, the result would comeback positive), and Pro-Labs in their report interpret the data and report that the swab indicates that “Elevated Mold Condition Exists” (but then, as I have mentioned before, I have reviewed MANY Pro-Labs reports, wherein Pro-Labs has reported that the samples indicate that elevated mould conditions exist, where in fact, the property did NOT have ANY kind of elevated mould conditions ANYWHERE in the property).

How in the world does a swab sample come back with a elevated level of mold? As an expert, wouldn’t you agree that swab samples cannot determine spore count? I have used Pro Lab for quite some time and have had a hand full of sample reports come back with elevated levels being reported.

So, now you have a lab report for a “mould test” that contains “data” that for all you know is exactly similar to a swab that one may take from virtually any attic, including one with no discoloration; and therefore, the report contains information that you cannot interpret. But, you tell your client the attic has a mould problem, since that is what the report says.

Consider for a moment what the US Centers for Disease Control says about such sampling (1):

The results of samples taken in your unique situation cannot be interpreted without physical inspection of the contaminated area or without considering the building’s characteristics and the factors that led to the present condition.
**
Ah, what the heck, what would they know? After all, as Mr. Gromiko would tell you, they’re not NACHI Home Inspectors, therefore, it’s criminal for them to provide instruction on mould inspections. Take a look at Messrs. Gromiko, and Porter recent comments on industrial hygienists, (of course, if you consider those comments, you are going to have to completely ignore the disclaimer found at the bottom of the page of the Pro-Labs report summary… ouch).

Also, you are going to have to explain to the homeowner why you similarly ignored the US Centers for Disease Control when they said:

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.
**
*HUD and FHA the EPA, as well as many state agencies recommend mold testing before closing any real estate transaction. It’s obvious the CDC’s recommendations are ignored by these government body’s for a reason. The CDC’s recommendation is impossible to adhere too. *

Aww, what the heck, Nick knows more than that bunch of egghead industrial hygienists at the CDC, right? And besides, you have been through the Pro-Labs one day class, so you’re every bit as much an expert as they are, right?

So you tell the homeowner that the deposition is mould, and the elevated mould conditions exist in the house.

Homeowner Smith: “What do I do?”

Mr. Jack: “Remediate the mould!”

So, the homeowner spends $15,000 to remediate the mould, and sells the house to the Jones family (with their two darling little girls).

But guess what? Yes of course there was mold on the surface – duh! That mould grew there thirty years ago when the building material was sitting out in the lumber yard, and became colonized with “Elevated Mould.” After which, it was installed into the house, and for the last 30 years the mould (now completely covered with smoke particles) can no longer be seen.

Does it matter what caused the elevated levels of mold to form? the bottom line is the fact that elevated levels exists and anyone purchasing the home has the right to know this information before inheriting a $15,000 problem

Mr. Jack: “Oooops… what was that? Smoke? Did you just say smoke? What do you mean smoke?”

Caoimhín:
Oh, didn’t I mention, the discoloration actually was smoke after all, and the smoke was coming from smoldering wires in the attic, that were shorting out, and smoldering the surround paper and other building materials. But then, see your “mould test” didn’t answer the necessary question “What is it?” In fact, your Pro-Labs mould test didn’t even answer the question you thought it did, which was “Is it mould or smoke?” Your Pro-Labs sample ONLY answered a single question “Is mould present on that surface at that location?” Which any fool could have told you that it was present, even an egghead industrial hygienist, without having to collect a sample.

Ever smell burning or burnt wiring? has an almost sickening sweet smell to it that can’t be confused with anything else in the world. Kinda gives me the idea your not to familiar with buildings and there related systems, which diminishes your professional opinion some what.

Hey - But look at the bright side! The entire Jones family died in the subsequent fire three months later, so they will never know just how bloody wrong you were or how bloody incompetent you were or how foolish you were to follow the advice of the lazy-brains, instead of doing your job correctly.

And don’t worry about that attorney who is now trying to contact you, I’m sure he just represents the lottery board and is trying to tell you that you are the luckiest guy on earth – you hit the jack-pot!

Of, course, I just made all that up, and it is entirely an unreasonable scenario that could NEVER happen, right? By the way, would you like to see the photos of the Jones house and those darling little girls as found by the arson team and that will be entered as exhibits during the trial? I have some.

Just some thoughts, on the matter. Either way, it’s the same to me – except of course, I will make money off the lazy-brain course of action, when the Jones estate hires me to evaluate the mould inspection you performed. Ouch. I make rather a lot of money off the lazy-brains and their lazy-brain suggestions.

p.s. I wonder if you have ever actually read the disclaimer at the end of a Pro-Labs report. Hmmmm.
I have to agree with Frank on this one, You are a drama queen.
Cheers!
Caoimhín P. Connell
Forensic Industrial Hygienist
Forensic Applications, Inc.
www.forensic-applications.com

1. US Centers for Disease Control, Mold: General Information: Basic Facts | CDC APRHB, 2007

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

Thanks for “helping” us gain a better understanding the world of an industrial hygienist :roll:

[gporter (Gary L. Porter)]

Of, course, I just made all that up, and it is entirely an unreasonable scenario that could NEVER happen, right? By the way, would you like to see the photos of the Jones house and those darling little girls as found by the arson team and that will be entered as exhibits during the trial? I have some. Please post them so the family can sue you Connell

[krose (Kerry Rose)]

Man! Those hygenists in Bailey Colorado really wear their shorts to tight. :shock:

[klott (Kenneth Lott, 001236461)]

I think we should invite Pro-Lab to come and see his post, they have a right to stop this jerk. He needs to be put away until Mold grows on him. His name sounds like medicine for stomach distress! :roll:

[gporter (Gary L. Porter)]

I am sure someone will. I would love it if they sent him a little lawsuit.

[fcarrio (Frank M. Carrio, CMI)]

@klott

I think we should invite Pro-Lab to come and see his post, they have a right to stop this jerk. He needs to be put away until Mold grows on him. His name sounds like medicine for stomach distress! :roll:

**I called Pro Lab right at “closing time” and the President / owner was in a meeting but his Staff said that they will bring this to his attention. **

**The head of their Tech Dept. is aware of this and they were going to “look into this matter.” **

[bhoagland (Brian C. Hoagland)]

Actually Dr. Joe L. (I can’t spell his name) is a leading authority on why buildings fail to perform as designed. He is an expert on mold(why did everybody spell mold as mould?) and is quite correct that since nearly all molds require excessive moisture to grow, the problem boils down to the elimination of humidity and moisture conditions promulgating the growth of the offensive substances. From his viewpoint, the correction of the structure problem is of greater concern than the elimination of the organic contaminants. I have to agree, if the conditions which fostered the growth of an undesirable, health hazard are not abated, the removal of the offensive substances will only provide a minimal relief as they will surely reinstate themselves.

[wdecker (William Decker, CMI, IL. Lic. 450.002240)]

In my opinion, Frank is, as is his fortey, out of line and should stay out of this and let smarter and cooler heads handle it. One answers accusations with facts, not name calling.

This type of post does not help, puts on a bad face to NACHI and does not promote the purpose of thei board which is education.

i am also aware that many who have some sort of problem with NACHI (for obvious reasons) know that they can post stupid stuff here (in hopes of harming NACHI) and get away with it because NACHI does not scrub this board of things that may reflect badly on the association.

It’s the price one pays for free exchange.

Always idiots trying to ruin a good, honest exchange of ideas.

Sad, really.

[jfarsetta (Joe Farsetta)]

[FONT=Arial][size=3]How in the world does a swab sample come back with a elevated level of mold? As an expert, wouldn’t you agree that swab samples cannot determine spore count?

[/size][/FONT]

While a swab sample has nothing to compare itself to, the notion of an “elevated” level can probably be determined if the number of CFUs was really, really high. “Elevated” assumes there is a benchmark, which is why exterior and interior air samples are typically needed. Which room one chooses to sample in is another topic…

And, yes, a swab sample will determine spore count based on the physical size of the area swabbed.

The problem is in the determination as to when a real hazard exists. I am of the opinion that all mold is toxic. The problem is in determining at what level it will affect the building occupants. Tnat is the problem with all of this, and it is something we have little document knowledge of. In fact, the Mayo Clinic recently finished a 3-year study and has determined that there is no correlation with mold exposure and the myriad of medical complaints claimed by hysterical individuals. I say this, reserving those cases where a person is severely immunocomprimised (like those in chemotherapy or with AIDS) who can die if exposed to extremely high levels of mold, and the normal results of exposure, which can trigger asthma or flu-like sysmtoms and other allergic reactions.

So, the source of moisture should always be eliminated. Whether or not one chooses to remediate is a personal decision, and largely depends on where the mold was found and how much exists. IMO, it never hurts to remediate all of it.

But, back to spore counts. I had a remediator tell a client that he had 4000 CFUs measured in a 2"x2" square, based on a swab sample only. As mole was seen, there was no need for air sampling. The client was told that the room should not be entered until remediation was completed. The species found were aspergillius and another (I forget). Truth was that 4,000,000 CFUs would have raised a true mold expert’s eyebrows slightly. In the mean time, the client got an estimate for a $8,000 remediation, and was in a panic.

As to mold growth, remember that certain species can grow very rapidly, even overnight.