Re: Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

[Guest guest]

Hang on... we need to back up the Rosen Express before we all end up derailed, crushed and broken, lying beside the rails in a flaming heap.

I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the legal "standard of care"? as a "more up-to-date" testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called IESO "standards" as published to date are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer.

, are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO "standards"? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is "a technical guide for hygienists", and non-applicable to the "real world"? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of "Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples"?

I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the "real world"?

the talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org URL?)

OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax mailto:wab@... On the web at: http://www.michaelsengineering.com "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" - Graham

>> Sorry if I was a bit crude. You are right. > > But back to the testing discussion ...> > Liability ...> > If you are concerned that there is something that the courts will find in the Bioaerosols handbook that requires you to test or test to a species level that's not the case. That is a technical guide written for hygienists. It does not apply to the real world of mold remediation that we live in today. Attorneys and juries will not understand it.> > Testing ...> > A more up to date testing guide would be the IESO standard of care for mold testing. Go to www.IESO.org to find it for $25.00. Or you can go to my book on Amazon.com "Locating Hidden Toxic Mold" and pay $9.95 and get the IESO standard free in an appendix.> > What the courts are interested in, is today's standard of care. And did you do a good job getting rid of the mold. > > Standard of Care ...> > According to S520 p 15 ... when the scope of work can be determined without sampling, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be necessary.> > The EPA makes it even more clear ... In most cases, if visible mold growth is present, sampling is unnecessary. This statement is on page 13 of the EPA Mold Guidelines. If you copy that page and show it to an attorney complaining that you did not test, that will be the end of the coversation. It is hard to fight these EPA guidelines. But there should never be any complaints about testing or not testing so long as the job is done right.> > About expense ...> > Your clients will disagree with you about expense. In everything we do money is important. If you can do a good job without spending their money on exotic species ID testing for every day jobs that is important. Given that limited funds are available for remediation work, quite often extensive testing means that the actual mold remediation work cannot be completely or properly done. Now that is a disservice to the client and that can become a potential liability problem. > > In summary, if the only reason you are testing to the species level is to protect yourself from liability that does not make sense. There is absolutely nothing in today's standard of care that requires that for typical jobs. Sure special medical claims and court cases require extensive testing but that is the exception. And yes ... assuming that culture testing can give you a reasonable indication of the relative number of species present is no longer accepted as true. Splitting samples and doing parallel PCR (DNA) and culture testing has shown that results of culture testing have no relationship to reality. Temperature, competing species, media, and many other factors would appear make this form of testing more or less obsolete.> > Sincerely,> Rosen, Ph.D.>

[Guest guest]

The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard. It is actually a compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use of various sampling equipment. It also incorporates important information from the Bioaerosols handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It should be of great use to practicing mold assessors. I strongly recommend it.

What? I agree with Wane and will similarly not go into any detail which might negatively reflect on some of the well-meaning participants who created it. It is, in essence, a thinly veiled mechanism for training home inspectors to take mold samples and send them to labs for analysis. I very much do, however, look forward to what the IESO will produce in the future using the ANSI consensus standard-setting process.

If there is one person on this user group that has read the Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene. Anyone read the Bioaerosoal handbook?

It may be interesting to note on this thread that in Section 15.5 of Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control, 1999, headed "Judging Remediation Effectiveness", the ultimate criterion for the adequacy of abatement efforts is clearly stated in such a way that you can all just throw all of your PRV clearance criteria out the window. It is about as ultimately unscientific a criterion as you can get.

Steve Temes

[Guest guest]

I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the legal "standard of care"? as a "more up-to-date" testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called IESO "standards" as published to date are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer.

I believe that you are mistaken in this regard and you should review the publication for what it is.

The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard. It is actually a compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use of various sampling equipment. It also incorporates important information from the Bioaerosols handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It should be of great use to practicing mold assessors. I strongly recommend it.

, are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO "standards"? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is "a technical guide for hygienists", and non-applicable to the "real world"? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of "Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples"?

If there is one person on this user group that has read the Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene.

Anyone read the Bioaerosoal handbook?

I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the "real world"?

the talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org URL?)

OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words.

Re: Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

Hang on... we need to back up the Rosen Express before we all end up derailed, crushed and broken, lying beside the rails in a flaming heap.

I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the legal "standard of care"? as a "more up-to-date" testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called IESO "standards" as published to date are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer.

, are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO "standards"? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is "a technical guide for hygienists", and non-applicable to the "real world"? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of "Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples"?

I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the "real world"?

the talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org URL?)

OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" - Graham

>> Sorry if I was a bit crude. You are right. > > But back to the testing discussion ...> > Liability ...> > If you are concerned that there is something that the courts will find in the Bioaerosols handbook that requires you to test or test to a species level that's not the case. That is a technical guide written for hygienists. It does not apply to the real world of mold remediation that we live in today. Attorneys and juries will not understand it.> > Testing ...> > A more up to date testing guide would be the IESO standard of care for mold testing. Go to www.IESO.org to find it for $25.00. Or you can go to my book on Amazon.com "Locating Hidden Toxic Mold" and pay $9.95 and get the IESO standard free in an appendix.> > What the courts are interested in, is today's standard of care. And did

you do a good job getting rid of the mold. > > Standard of Care ...> > According to S520 p 15 ... when the scope of work can be determined without sampling, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be necessary.> > The EPA makes it even more clear ... In most cases, if visible mold growth is present, sampling is unnecessary. This statement is on page 13 of the EPA Mold Guidelines. If you copy that page and show it to an attorney complaining that you did not test, that will be the end of the coversation. It is hard to fight these EPA guidelines. But there should never be any complaints about testing or not testing so long as the job is done right.> > About expense ...> > Your clients will disagree with you about expense. In everything we do money is important. If you can do a good job without spending their money on exotic species ID testing for every day jobs that is important. Given that limited

funds are available for remediation work, quite often extensive testing means that the actual mold remediation work cannot be completely or properly done. Now that is a disservice to the client and that can become a potential liability problem. > > In summary, if the only reason you are testing to the species level is to protect yourself from liability that does not make sense. There is absolutely nothing in today's standard of care that requires that for typical jobs. Sure special medical claims and court cases require extensive testing but that is the exception. And yes ... assuming that culture testing can give you a reasonable indication of the relative number of species present is no longer accepted as true. Splitting samples and doing parallel PCR (DNA) and culture testing has shown that results of culture testing have no relationship to reality. Temperature, competing species, media, and many other factors would appear make this form of testing more or

less obsolete.> > Sincerely,> Rosen, Ph.D.>

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

, Uhhh... Did you say "The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard."? May I suggest that you need to get your facts straight before you come to this group? I think you just discredited yourself right in front of many top professionals in this industry. I was going to check out your references, but I think I will wait till when I have nothing to do. Wei Tang QLab gary rosen wrote: I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the legal "standard of care"? as a "more up-to-date" testing guide? I'm incredulous. when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called IESO "standards" as published to date are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer. I believe that you are mistaken in this regard and you should review the publication

for what it is. The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard. It is actually a compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use of various sampling equipment. It also incorporates important information from the Bioaerosols handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It should be of great use to practicing mold assessors. I strongly recommend it. , are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO "standards"? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.) while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is "a technical guide for hygienists", and non-applicable to the "real world"? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of "Field

Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples"? If there is one person on this user group that has read the Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene. Anyone read the Bioaerosoal handbook? I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the "real world"? the talents of

qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes! and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie! (BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org URL?) OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words. Re: Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express Hang on... we need to back up the Rosen Express before we all end up derailed, crushed and broken, lying

beside the rails in a flaming heap. I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the legal "standard of care"? as a "more up-to-date" testing guide? I'm incredulous. when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called IESO "standards" as published to date are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer. , are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO "standards"? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.) while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH

1999 is "a technical guide for hygienists", and non-applicable to the "real world"? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of "Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples"? I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the "real world"? the talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes! and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie! (BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org URL?) OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words. Wane <><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" - Graham >> Sorry if I was a bit crude. You are right. > > But back to the testing discussion ...> > Liability ...> > If you are concerned that there is something that the courts will

find in the Bioaerosols handbook that requires you to test or test to a species level that's not the case. That is a technical guide written for hygienists. It does not apply to the real world of mold remediation that we live in today. Attorneys and juries will not understand it.> > Testing ...> > A more up to date testing guide would be the IESO standard of care for mold testing. Go to www.IESO.org to find it for $25.00. Or you can go to my book on Amazon.com "Locating Hidden Toxic Mold" and pay $9.95 and get the IESO standard free in an appendix.> > What the courts are interested in, is today's standard of care. And did you do a good job getting rid of the mold. > > Standard of Care ...> > According to S520 p 15 ... when the scope of work can be determined without sampling, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be necessary.> > The EPA makes it even more clear ... In most cases, if

visible mold growth is present, sampling is unnecessary. This statement is on page 13 of the EPA Mold Guidelines. If you copy that page and show it to an attorney complaining that you did not test, that will be the end of the coversation. It is hard to fight these EPA guidelines. But there should never be any complaints about testing or not testing so long as the job is done right.> > About expense ...> > Your clients will disagree with you about expense. In everything we do money is important. If you can do a good job without spending their money on exotic species ID testing for every day jobs that is important. Given that limited funds are available for remediation work, quite often extensive testing means that the actual mold remediation work cannot be completely or properly done. Now that is a disservice to the client and that can become a potential liability problem. > > In summary, if the only reason you are testing to the

species level is to protect yourself from liability that does not make sense. There is absolutely nothing in today's standard of care that requires that for typical jobs. Sure special medical claims and court cases require extensive testing but that is the exception. And yes ... assuming that culture testing can give you a reasonable indication of the relative number of species present is no longer accepted as true. Splitting samples and doing parallel PCR (DNA) and culture testing has shown that results of culture testing have no relationship to reality. Temperature, competing species, media, and many other factors would appear make this form of testing more or less obsolete.> > Sincerely,> Rosen, Ph.D.> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director QLab5 DriveCherry

Hill, NJ 08003www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

,

You wrote:

> The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard.

This is incorrect. IESO recently received ANSI accreditation as an

organization - as announced at the Nashville Conference - but NONE of

its standards automatically become ANSI accredited. Each existing

standard they want to receive ANSI accreditation must go through a

thorough and lengthy accreditation process that includes an industry

review, a public review and a consensus body vote. Only then will it

be submitted to ANSI for approval. This process has only just begun.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

> I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO

> documents as the legal " standard of care " ? as a " more up-to-date "

> testing guide? I'm incredulous.

> when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15

> minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but

> useless. the so-called IESO " standards " as published to date

> are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no,

> that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the

> science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer.

>

> I believe that you are mistaken in this regard and you should review

> the publication for what it is.

>

> The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard. It is actually a

> compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use of various

> sampling equipment. It also incorporates important information from

> the Bioaerosols handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It

> should be of great use to practicing mold assessors. I strongly

> recommend it.

>

> , are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called

> IESO " standards " ? do you know who wrote them, whenand why? (and

> no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

> while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is " a technical guide

> for hygienists " , and non-applicable to the " real world " ? what an

> utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the

> AIHA's 2nd Edition of " Field Guide for the Determination of

> Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples " ?

>

> If there is one person on this user group that has read the

> Bioaeorosolhandbook and understood even a small percentage of it I

> would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment

> for practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is

> targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene.

>

> Anyone read the Bioaerosoal handbook?

>

> I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the " real

> world " ?

> the talentsof qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify

> and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete?yikes!

> and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience?

> zowie!

> (BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a

> *.org URL?)

> OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for

> words.

>

>

> Re: Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

>

> Hang on... we need to back up the Rosen Express before we all end up

> derailed, crushed and broken, lying besidethe rails ina flaming

> heap.

> I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO

> documents as the legal " standard of care " ? as a " more up-to-date "

> testing guide? I'm incredulous.

> when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15

> minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but

> useless. the so-called IESO " standards " as published to date

> are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no,

> that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the

> science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer.

> , are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called

> IESO " standards " ? do you know who wrote them, whenand why? (and

> no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

> while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is " a technical guide

> for hygienists " , and non-applicable to the " real world " ? what an

> utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the

> AIHA's 2nd Edition of " Field Guide for the Determination of

> Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples " ?

> I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the " real

> world " ?

> the talentsof qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify

> and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete?yikes!

> and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience?

> zowie!

> (BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a

> *.org URL?)

> OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for

> words.

> Wane

> <><><><><><><><><><><>

> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

> Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

> MICHAELS ENGINEERING

> " Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

> Phone , ext. 484

> Cell

> Fax

> mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com

> On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com

> " To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be

> more fun? "

> - Graham

>

> >

> > Sorry if I was a bit crude. You are right.

> >

> > But back to the testing discussion ...

> >

> > Liability ...

> >

> > If you are concerned that there is something that the courts will

> find in the Bioaerosols handbook that requires you to test or test to

> a species level that's not the case. That is a technical guide

> written for hygienists. It does not apply to the real world of mold

> remediation that we live in today. Attorneys and juries will not

> understand it.

> >

> > Testing ...

> >

> > A more up to date testing guide would be the IESO standard of care

> for mold testing. Go to www.IESO.org to find it for $25.00. Or you

> can go to my book on Amazon.com " Locating Hidden Toxic Mold " and pay

> $9.95 and get the IESO standard free in an appendix.

> >

> > What the courts are interested in, is today's standard of care. And

> did you do a good job getting rid of the mold.

> >

> > Standard of Care ...

> >

> > According to S520 p 15 ... when the scope of work can be determined

> without sampling, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be

> necessary.

> >

> > The EPA makes it even more clear ... In most cases, if visible mold

> growth is present, sampling is unnecessary. This statement is on page

> 13 of the EPA Mold Guidelines. If you copy that page and show it to

> an attorney complaining that you did not test, that will be the end

> of the coversation. It is hard to fight these EPA guidelines. But

> there should never be any complaints about testing or not testing so

> long as the job is done right.

> >

> > About expense ...

> >

> > Your clients will disagree with you about expense. In everything we

> do money is important. If you can do a good job without spending

> their money on exotic species ID testing for every day jobs that is

> important. Given that limited funds are available for remediation

> work, quite often extensive testing means that the actual mold

> remediation work cannot be completely or properly done. Now that is a

> disservice to the client and that can become a potential liability

> problem.

> >

> > In summary, if the only reason you are testing to the species level

> is to protect yourself from liability that does not make sense. There

> is absolutely nothing in today's standard of care that requires that

> for typical jobs. Sure special medical claims and court cases require

> extensive testing but that is the exception. And yes ... assuming

> that culture testing can give you a reasonable indication of the

> relative number of species present is no longer accepted as true.

> Splitting samples and doing parallel PCR (DNA) and culture testing

> has shown that results of culture testing have no relationship to

> reality. Temperature, competing species, media, and many other

> factors would appear make this form of testing more or less obsolete.

> >

> > Sincerely,

> > Rosen, Ph.D.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wei,

Is there another way to say what you just

said w/o being what appears to be harsh? I agree the IESO is not ANSI approved.

I also do not believe it is the best sampling document out there, yet it is a

good start. I also took the CRMI course and made know my concerns over the

document. That is why I do not quote the IESO in my specifications and/or

reports. I do believe that the IESO board will be taking this up soon.

I believe the best way to handle this

issue would be to consider becoming a board member and help generate a document

that will pass peer reviews.

I think if we used a more gentle approach like:

why

do you think the IESO sampling guide is ANSI approved?

May we offer information and if someone

disagrees lets just ask them “why they believe this or that and allow

them the time and space to reply. They may actually have supportive

documentation for this what appears to be unreasonable thinking.

Bob/Ma

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wei Tang

Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006

4:49 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:

Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

,

Uhhh... Did you say " The

IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard. " ? May I

suggest that you need to get your facts straight before you come to this group?

I think you just discredited yourself right in front of many top professionals

in this industry. I was going to check out your references, but I think I will

wait till when I have nothing to do.

Wei Tang

QLab

gary rosen <garyrosen72652>

wrote:

I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO

documents as the legal " standard of care " ? as a " more

up-to-date " testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15

minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but

useless. the so-called IESO " standards " as published to date

are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a

joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic?

unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's

closer.

I believe that you are mistaken in this regard and you

should review the publication for what it is.

The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard.

It is actually a compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use

of various sampling equipment. It also incorporates important information from

the Bioaerosols handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It should

be of great use to practicing mold assessors. I strongly recommend

it.

,

are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO

" standards " ? do you know who wrote them, when and

why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is " a technical

guide for hygienists " , and non-applicable to the " real

world " ? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would

say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of " Field

Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental

Samples " ?

If there is one person on this user group that has

read the Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it

I would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment

for practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is

targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene.

Anyone read the Bioaerosoal handbook?

I have to wonder: what

color is the sky in your version of the " real world " ?

the talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify

and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a

*.org URL?)

OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for

words.

Re: Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

Hang on... we need to back up the Rosen Express before we all end

up derailed, crushed and broken, lying beside the rails in a flaming

heap.

I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO

documents as the legal " standard of care " ? as a " more

up-to-date " testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15

minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but

useless. the so-called IESO " standards " as published to date

are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a

joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic?

unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's

closer.

,

are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO

" standards " ? do you know who wrote them, when and

why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is " a technical

guide for hygienists " , and non-applicable to the " real

world " ? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would

say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of " Field

Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples " ?

I have to wonder: what

color is the sky in your version of the " real world " ?

the talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify

and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a

*.org URL?)

OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for

words.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

MICHAELS ENGINEERING

" Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@michaels

engineering. com

On the web at: http://www.michaels

engineering. com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more

fun? "

- Graham

>

> Sorry if I was a bit crude. You are right.

>

> But back to the testing discussion ...

>

> Liability ...

>

> If you are concerned that there is something that the courts will find in

the Bioaerosols handbook that requires you to test or test to a species level

that's not the case. That is a technical guide written for hygienists. It does

not apply to the real world of mold remediation that we live in today.

Attorneys and juries will not understand it.

>

> Testing ...

>

> A more up to date testing guide would be the IESO standard of care for

mold testing. Go to www.IESO.org to find it for $25.00. Or you can go to my

book on Amazon.com " Locating Hidden Toxic Mold " and pay $9.95 and get

the IESO standard free in an appendix.

>

> What the courts are interested in, is today's standard of care. And did

you do a good job getting rid of the mold.

>

> Standard of Care ...

>

> According to S520 p 15 ... when the scope of work can be determined

without sampling, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be necessary.

>

> The EPA makes it even more clear ... In most cases, if visible mold growth

is present, sampling is unnecessary. This statement is on page 13 of the EPA

Mold Guidelines. If you copy that page and show it to an attorney complaining

that you did not test, that will be the end of the coversation. It is hard to

fight these EPA guidelines. But there should never be any complaints about

testing or not testing so long as the job is done right.

>

> About expense ...

>

> Your clients will disagree with you about expense. In everything we do

money is important. If you can do a good job without spending their money on

exotic species ID testing for every day jobs that is important. Given that

limited funds are available for remediation work, quite often extensive testing

means that the actual mold remediation work cannot be completely or properly

done. Now that is a disservice to the client and that can become a potential

liability problem.

>

> In summary, if the only reason you are testing to the species level is to

protect yourself from liability that does not make sense. There is absolutely

nothing in today's standard of care that requires that for typical jobs. Sure

special medical claims and court cases require extensive testing but that is

the exception. And yes ... assuming that culture testing can give you a

reasonable indication of the relative number of species present is no longer

accepted as true. Splitting samples and doing parallel PCR (DNA) and culture

testing has shown that results of culture testing have no relationship to

reality. Temperature, competing species, media, and many other factors would

appear make this form of testing more or less obsolete.

>

> Sincerely,

> Rosen, Ph.D.

>

Everyone is raving about the

all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

Wei Tang, Ph.D.

Lab Director

QLab

5 Drive

Cherry Hill, NJ 08003

www.QLabUSA.com

[Guest guest]

As Carl Grimes corrected me... IESO as an organization has been ANSI accredited but the IESO sampling doc is not yet.

The IESO sampling document is for the most part a summary of recommendations from manufactures for using their equipment. For instaince, Zefon quotes for their Air-O-Cell ... x amount of time at 15 lpm for air sampling in contaminated setting; y amount for fairly clean environments etc. Other sampling devices are rated at 5 lpm or 20 lpm and for difrenent durations.

What IESO did not get from the manufacturers they obtained from other authoritative sources includig the ACGIH Bioerosols book. There is nothing made up or invented in the guide.

It is a very useful, and simple guide that summarizes various industry information in one place.

Rosen, Ph.D.

Re: Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

Hang on... we need to back up the Rosen Express before we all end up derailed, crushed and broken, lying beside the rails in a flaming heap.

I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the legal "standard of care"? as a "more up-to-date" testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called IESO "standards" as published to date are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer.

, are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO "standards"? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is "a technical guide for hygienists", and non-applicable to the "real world"? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of "Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples"?

I have to wonder: what color is the sky in your version of the "real world"?

the talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org URL?)

OMG -- this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><> Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality MICHAELS ENGINEERING"Real Professionals. Real Solutions." Phone , ext. 484 Cell Fax mailto:wab@michaels engineering. com On the web at: http://www.michaels engineering. com "To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more fun?" - Graham

>> Sorry if I was a bit crude. You are right. > > But back to the testing discussion ...> > Liability ...> > If you are concerned that there is something that the courts will find in the Bioaerosols handbook that requires you to test or test to a species level that's not the case. That is a technical guide written for hygienists. It does not apply to the real world of mold remediation that we live in today. Attorneys and juries will not understand it.> > Testing ...> > A more up to date testing guide would be the IESO standard of care for mold testing. Go to www.IESO.org to find it for $25.00. Or you can go to my book on Amazon.com "Locating Hidden Toxic Mold" and pay $9.95 and get the IESO standard free in an appendix.>

> What the courts are interested in, is today's standard of care. And did you do a good job getting rid of the mold. > > Standard of Care ...> > According to S520 p 15 ... when the scope of work can be determined without sampling, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be necessary.> > The EPA makes it even more clear ... In most cases, if visible mold growth is present, sampling is unnecessary. This statement is on page 13 of the EPA Mold Guidelines. If you copy that page and show it to an attorney complaining that you did not test, that will be the end of the coversation. It is hard to fight these EPA guidelines. But there should never be any complaints about testing or not testing so long as the job is done right.> > About expense ...> > Your clients will disagree with you about expense. In everything we do money is important. If you can do a good job without spending their money on exotic

species ID testing for every day jobs that is important. Given that limited funds are available for remediation work, quite often extensive testing means that the actual mold remediation work cannot be completely or properly done. Now that is a disservice to the client and that can become a potential liability problem. > > In summary, if the only reason you are testing to the species level is to protect yourself from liability that does not make sense. There is absolutely nothing in today's standard of care that requires that for typical jobs. Sure special medical claims and court cases require extensive testing but that is the exception. And yes ... assuming that culture testing can give you a reasonable indication of the relative number of species present is no longer accepted as true. Splitting samples and doing parallel PCR (DNA) and culture testing has shown that results of culture testing have no relationship to reality. Temperature, competing species,

media, and many other factors would appear make this form of testing more or less obsolete.> > Sincerely,> Rosen, Ph.D.>

Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

Wei Tang, Ph.D.Lab Director

QLab5 DriveCherry Hill , NJ 08003www.QLabUSA. com

Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

[Guest guest]

See Below with $$$$ and in red.

Sorry – gotta go, still behind from

unexpected issues from last week – like the asbestos contaminated house

that developed a water leak and mold.

.......................................................................

" Tony " Havics,

CHMM, CIH, PE

pH2, LLC

PO Box 34140

Indianapolis, IN 46234

off

fax

cell

90% of Risk Management is knowing where to

place the decimal point...any consultant can give you the other 10%(SM)

This message is from pH2. This message and

any attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information, and

are intended only for the individual or entity identified above as the

addressee. If you are not the addressee, or if this message has been addressed

to you in error, you are not authorized to read, copy, or distribute this

message and any attachments, and we ask that you please delete this message and

attachments (including all copies) and notify the sender by return e-mail or by

phone at . Delivery of this message and any attachments to any

person other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive

confidentiality or a privilege. All personal messages express views only of the

sender, which are not to be attributed to pH2 and may not be copied or

distributed without this statement.

From:

iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006

1:50 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re:

Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

I can't

believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the

legal " standard of care " ? as a " more up-to-date "

testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they

were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a

determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called

IESO " standards " as published to date are....let's see, how do I say

this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too

strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in

need of substantial revision? that's closer.

I

believe that you are mistaken in this regard and you should review the

publication for what it is.

The

IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard.

$$$$ Really – what was the method of stakeholder

solicitation and what did the committee consist of?

It

is actually a compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use of

various sampling equipment. It also incorporates important information from the

Bioaerosols handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It should be

of great use to practicing mold assessors. I strongly recommend it.

$$$$ That would scream bias and not a proper spread of stakeholders.

, are you

actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO

" standards " ? do you know who wrote them, when and

why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in

contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is " a technical guide for

hygienists " , and non-applicable to the " real world " ? what

an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the

AIHA's 2nd Edition of " Field Guide for the

Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples " ?

If

there is one person on this user group that has read the

Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I would

be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for

practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is

targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene.

Anyone

read the Bioaerosoal handbook?

$$$$ YES. And understood every word, including the typos and the

misunderstanding of the statistics, and the lack of full understanding of the

historical references on bioaerosols, etc. It still is very useful, and

practical in a different sense. Apparently you seem to want to make surgery

into a simple SOP. Well one can, but only with an understanding of the

fundamentals already.

$$$$Question: How do you define: Toxic Mold??? Since certain mushrooms

make me deleterious while others make me delirious and other stimulate piloerection.

I have to wonder: what

color is the sky in your version of the " real world " ?

the

talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and

enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your

firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how

does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org

URL?)

OMG --

this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words.

Re: Clearance testing & ... The Rosen Express

Hang

on... we need to back up the Rosen Express before we all end up derailed,

crushed and broken, lying beside the rails in a flaming

heap.

I can't

believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the

legal " standard of care " ? as a " more up-to-date "

testing guide? I'm incredulous.

when they

were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a

determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called

IESO " standards " as published to date are....let's see, how do I say

this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong.

overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of

substantial revision? that's closer.

, are you

actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO

" standards " ? do you know who wrote them, when and

why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

while in

contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is " a technical guide for

hygienists " , and non-applicable to the " real world " ? what

an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the

AIHA's 2nd Edition of " Field Guide for the

Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental

Samples " ?

I have to wonder: what

color is the sky in your version of the " real world " ?

the

talents of qualified, AIHA-accredited (EMLAP) labs to identify and

enumerate fungal organisms is unreliable and obsolete? yikes!

and your

firm has four whole years of remediation experience? zowie!

(BTW, how

does an obvious for-profit endeavor justify the use of a *.org

URL?)

OMG --

this is all very disturbing. for once, I'm at a loss for words.

Wane

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Wane A. Baker, P.E., CIH

Division Manager, Indoor Air Quality

MICHAELS ENGINEERING

" Real Professionals. Real Solutions. "

Phone , ext. 484

Cell

Fax

mailto:wab@michaels

engineering. com

On the web at: http://www.michaels

engineering. com

" To love what you do and feel that it matters - how could anything be more

fun? "

- Graham

>

> Sorry if I was a bit crude. You are right.

>

> But back to the testing discussion ...

>

> Liability ...

>

> If you are concerned that there is something that the courts will find in

the Bioaerosols handbook that requires you to test or test to a species level

that's not the case. That is a technical guide written for hygienists. It does

not apply to the real world of mold remediation that we live in today.

Attorneys and juries will not understand it.

>

> Testing ...

>

> A more up to date testing guide would be the IESO standard of care for

mold testing. Go to www.IESO.org to find it for $25.00. Or you can go to my

book on Amazon.com " Locating Hidden Toxic Mold " and pay $9.95 and get

the IESO standard free in an appendix.

>

> What the courts are interested in, is today's standard of care. And did

you do a good job getting rid of the mold.

>

> Standard of Care ...

>

> According to S520 p 15 ... when the scope of work can be determined

without sampling, engagement of an IEP for assessment may not be necessary.

>

> The EPA makes it even more clear ... In most cases, if visible mold growth

is present, sampling is unnecessary. This statement is on page 13 of the EPA

Mold Guidelines. If you copy that page and show it to an attorney complaining

that you did not test, that will be the end of the coversation. It is hard to

fight these EPA guidelines. But there should never be any complaints about

testing or not testing so long as the job is done right.

>

> About expense ...

>

> Your clients will disagree with you about expense. In everything we do

money is important. If you can do a good job without spending their money on

exotic species ID testing for every day jobs that is important. Given that

limited funds are available for remediation work, quite often extensive testing

means that the actual mold remediation work cannot be completely or properly

done. Now that is a disservice to the client and that can become a potential

liability problem.

>

> In summary, if the only reason you are testing to the species level is to

protect yourself from liability that does not make sense. There is absolutely

nothing in today's standard of care that requires that for typical jobs. Sure

special medical claims and court cases require extensive testing but that is

the exception. And yes ... assuming that culture testing can give you a

reasonable indication of the relative number of species present is no longer

accepted as true. Splitting samples and doing parallel PCR (DNA) and culture

testing has shown that results of culture testing have no relationship to

reality. Temperature, competing species, media, and many other factors would

appear make this form of testing more or less obsolete.

>

> Sincerely,

> Rosen, Ph.D.

>

Everyone is raving about the

all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

:

You stated: "The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard."

The recent announcement regarding the IESO's accreditation by ANSI was indeed very good news. As others have already noted, however, it does not mean that the IESO standards are somehow retroactively accredited.

Having been involved in ASHRAE's standard development process, I've learned (among other things) that a transparent, public review process is key to achieving ANSI accreditation. And to my knowledge, the IESO standards have not yet begun that process.

See: http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/public_review/overview.aspx?menuid=3

RE: my review of IESO Standards, Volume 1. No, I'm not mistaken. It's not an ANSI standard and it needs work -- a lot of work. Perhaps you're referring to some other IESO publication with which I am not familiar. I find no reference to an "IESO Sampling Guide" on their website. If such a document does exist, I'd appreciate learning more from someone else on the list who has used that document. Regardless, it cannot be an ANSI standard because it has not been through public review nor met their other development requirements.

See: http://www.iestandards.org/Publications/publications.aspx

You also stated: "If there is one person on this user group that has read the Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene."

Well, whatever we do, let's not introduce science into this conversation. Yes, we've read it and re-read it! Many of us have devoured, understood and debated the ACGIH 1999 Bioaerosols handbook, just as we did its predecessor from 1989 – of course we have! It has often been introduced as one of several "learned treatises" in my legal cases. Properly applied, it IS a practical guide, one that competent professionals with the appropriate education, training and experience rely upon every day.

Please, before you attempt to dismiss industrial hygiene as irrelevant in this line of work, review the latest issue of "In the Air", the print-format newsletter from the IAQA. You'll note that six of the 21 technical journal articles reviewed therein are from the "JOEH", the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Hygiene. The JOEH is the official publication of the AIHA and the ACGIH, which as you know, are the two major industrial hygiene organizations in this country.

Two more articles report the activities of NIOSH in conducting HHEs; you can be assured that those IEQ assessments were conducted by industrial hygienists. In fact, the second HHE report describes their evaluation of health concerns related to mold exposure in certain government offices. The report indicates that (a portion of) the field activities were carried out by Ken Wallingford, a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), who is the IEQ Research Coordinator for NIOSH. I first got to know Ken about 6 years ago when I took over his responsibilities on ASHRAE's Environmental Health Committee.

In sum, 8 of 21 (nearly 40%) of the technical articles highlighted by the IAQA newsletter reflect the activities of the industrial hygiene community. This is not to say that industrial hyenas are the ONLY source of guidance for the IAQ industry, but they're certainly an important part of this rather broad field.

Finally, please don't selectively ignore questions posed to you; we already have enough of that behavior on this list. Something seems strange and disingenuous about your use of "Mold-Free.org". So I ask again,

"how does an obvious for-profit endeavor [your company] justify the use of a [non-profit] *.org URL?"

Thanks in advance.

Wane

>> I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents as the legal "standard of care"? as a "more up-to-date" testing guide? I'm incredulous. > when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the so-called IESO "standards" as published to date are....let's see, how do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong. overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision? that's closer. > > I believe that you are mistaken in this regard and you should review the publication for what it is.> > The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard. It is actually a compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use of various sampling equipment. It also incorporates important information from the Bioaerosols handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It should be of great use to practicing mold assessors. I strongly recommend it. > > , are you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO "standards"? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)> while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is "a technical guide for hygienists", and non-applicable to the "real world"? what an utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd Edition of "Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants in Environmental Samples"?> > If there is one person on this user group that has read the Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is targetted for scientists in the field of industrial hygiene.> > Anyone read the Bioaerosoal handbook? >

[Guest guest]

Wayne,

Great job in your rebuttal(s). No

slamming; just questions and support for your beliefs and much more professional.

Bob/Ma.

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of Wane A. Baker

Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006

3:50 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Clearance

testing & ... The Rosen Express

:

You

stated: " The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI

standard. "

The

recent announcement regarding the IESO's accreditation by ANSI was indeed

very good news. As others have already noted, however, it does not mean

that the IESO standards are somehow retroactively accredited.

Having

been involved in ASHRAE's standard development process, I've learned (among

other things) that a transparent, public review process is key to achieving

ANSI accreditation. And to my knowledge, the IESO standards have not yet

begun that process.

See:

http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/public_review/overview.aspx?menuid=3

RE:

my review of IESO Standards, Volume 1. No, I'm not mistaken. It's

not an ANSI standard and it needs work -- a lot of work. Perhaps you're

referring to some other IESO publication with which I am not familiar. I

find no reference to an " IESO Sampling Guide " on their website.

If such a

document does exist, I'd appreciate learning more from someone else on the list

who has used that document. Regardless, it

cannot be an ANSI standard because it has not been through public review nor

met their other development requirements.

See:

http://www.iestandards.org/Publications/publications.aspx

You

also stated: " If there is one person on this user group that has

read the Bioaeorosol handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I

would be surprised. It is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for

practicing mold assessors or mold remediation contractors. It is targetted for

scientists in the field of industrial hygiene. "

Well,

whatever we do, let's not introduce science

into this conversation. Yes, we've read it and re-read it! Many of

us have devoured, understood and debated the ACGIH 1999 Bioaerosols handbook,

just as we did its predecessor from 1989 – of course we have! It

has often been introduced as one of several " learned treatises " in my

legal cases. Properly applied, it IS a practical guide, one that

competent professionals with the appropriate education, training and experience

rely upon every day.

Please,

before you attempt to dismiss industrial hygiene as irrelevant in this line of

work, review the latest issue of " In the Air " , the print-format

newsletter from the IAQA. You'll note that six of the 21 technical journal

articles reviewed therein are from the " JOEH " , the Journal of Occupational & Environmental Hygiene.

The JOEH is the official publication of the AIHA and the ACGIH, which as you

know, are the two major industrial hygiene organizations in this country.

Two

more articles report the activities of NIOSH in conducting HHEs; you can

be assured that those IEQ assessments were conducted by industrial

hygienists. In fact, the second HHE report describes their evaluation of

health concerns related to mold exposure in certain government offices.

The report indicates that (a portion of) the field activities were carried out

by Ken Wallingford, a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), who is the IEQ

Research Coordinator for NIOSH. I first got to know Ken about 6 years ago

when I took over his responsibilities on ASHRAE's Environmental Health

Committee.

In

sum, 8 of 21 (nearly 40%) of the technical articles highlighted by the IAQA

newsletter reflect the activities of the industrial hygiene community.

This is not to say that industrial hyenas are the ONLY source of guidance for

the IAQ industry, but they're certainly an important part of this

rather broad field.

Finally,

please don't selectively ignore questions posed to you; we already have enough

of that behavior on this list. Something seems strange and disingenuous

about your use of " Mold-Free.org " . So I ask again,

" how does an obvious for-profit endeavor [your company]

justify the use of a [non-profit] *.org URL? "

Thanks

in advance.

Wane

>

> I can't believe I'm hearing some of this. you're citing the IESO documents

as the legal " standard of care " ? as a " more up-to-date "

testing guide? I'm incredulous.

> when they were published, I had to take a look. it took all of 15 minutes

to make a determination, then I filed them away as all but useless. the

so-called IESO " standards " as published to date are....let's see, how

do I say this politely? useless? a joke? no, that's a bit too strong.

overly-simplistic? unsupported by the science? in need of substantial revision?

that's closer.

>

> I believe that you are mistaken in this regard and you should review the

publication for what it is.

>

> The IESO Sampling Guide is now an ANSI standard. It is actually a

compendium of manufacturer recommendations for the use of various sampling

equipment. It also incorporates important information from the Bioaerosols

handbook in a practical and user friendly way. It should be of great use to

practicing mold assessors. I strongly recommend it.

>

> , are

you actually familiar with the genesis of the so-called IESO

" standards " ? do you know who wrote them, when and why? (and no, I

have no intention of ever buying your $10 book.)

> while in contrast, in your opinion, ACGIH 1999 is " a technical guide

for hygienists " , and non-applicable to the " real world " ? what an

utterly fantastic claim!! I suppose you would say the same about the AIHA's 2nd

Edition of " Field Guide for the Determination of Biological Contaminants

in Environmental Samples " ?

>

> If there is one person on this user group that has read the Bioaeorosol

handbook and understood even a small percentage of it I would be surprised. It

is NOT a real world guide to mold assessment for practicing mold assessors or

mold remediation contractors. It is targetted for scientists in the field of

industrial hygiene.

>

> Anyone read the Bioaerosoal handbook?

>