Re: To Wayne and Carl re: Screwy test results

[Guest guest]

--- In , princess bride <herbivoresf@y...>

wrote:

>

If you want to see what is under the paint, cut out a piece of the

drywall and the mold is probably all in the insulation. But you would

have to replace it and paint over it. Then send samples yourself or

have them come out and take samples.

[Guest guest]

Harriet,

I'm sorry you think I'm trying to make you beg. I'm not. If you want

an interpretation of your lab data that will force someone to fix the

problem, then I'm sorry but no one can legitimately do so. And

certainly not with just a single comparison of indoor to outdoor.

But NEITHER CAN THEY DISPROVE YOUR CLAIM with that same

lab data!

That was why I gave you 13 ways to interpret instead of just 4. If

there are that many ways to interpret the data what is the value of

any? How does one choose which interpretation to rely on? The answer

is, whichever method that best supports what each wants to

accomplish.

That is the point. They need to understand that also. Remember the

fairy tale where the favorite tree was going to be cut down? It was

marked with a yellow ribbon. To protect it, the tree's friends tied

yellow ribbons on all the trees. How do you identify one out of the

all? Same here. ALL the methods have a yellow ribbon attached and

nobody has yet to figure out how to pick the one from the all.

So what is the problem in your situation? Smell? Water damaged

structure? Health effects? These answers come before sampling. Is

mold present? If you can see it you don't need sampling. If there is

visible water damage then mold IS present and you don't need

sampling. What you do to remove the mold is the same for ALL mold.

Again, you don't need sampling. Should mold be removed? Yes.

Is there mold that can't be seen or otherwise detected? Then sampling

MAY help. Especially in cases where the mold may have been spread to

other areas by cross-contamination. But that would never simply

compare inside to outside. Instead it would compare a complaint

location inside to a non-complaint location inside to a new complaint

location inside. It could require several sampling techniques with

different lab analysis for each location.

I once sampled for verification of a job using 4 kinds of sampling in

each location. Only one of the sample types found the mold. I did the

same on a different job and only one of the four found it. And it was

not the same sample type. This is not a precise endeavour.

Do you have a fungal infection and your doctor needs to know if you

are exposed to that mold in your home? Then, perhaps mold testing

would be helpful. BUT ONLY IF THAT SPECIES OF MOLD IS FOUND.

If it isn't seen in the samples it doesn't mean it isn't there. It

could be present but not detected, so you still don't know. There are

still so many false negatives that we can't rely on a lab result that

shows " no mold. "

What you really need is a competent, experienced professional that

knows how to assess your situation including your health related

complaints, prepare an appropriate report and know how to handle the

challenges of the " pretend experts. " Someone familiar with the

prevailing standards and guidance documents such as those from EPA,

ACGIH, Health Canada, IICRC and even the recent Univ of CT report for

doctors that is being discussed on this group.

If these documents from acknowledged experts exist, why aren't they

being followed? Your expert should understand the nonsense questions

and postions and how to refute them. None of this has to do with

testing.

There is no permissable exposure level for mold like there is for

radon or asbestos. There is no definitive test for mold like there is

for radon or asbestos. There is no cognizant authority for mold test

results like there is for radon or asbestos.

So any use by you OR THE DEFENSE of JUST the lab results is wrong,

wrong and wrong. You need a competent professional to assess and

define the problem, make recommendations, and verify the work, not

someone to only interpret simple, inadequate, inappropriate lab data.

Is the result of 7000 inside compared to 10,000 outside totally

useless? No. But it's only use is as a red flag indicator for a

likely problem that requires further investigation. But that was

already known before the test was taken.

Feel free to also contact me off-line.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

grimes@...

-----

> Hi Wayne and Carl, thanks for the responses.

>

> First Carl. You're making me beg here, huh? Okay,

> what are the 4 ways (was that the number?) you COULD

> explain my screwy results?