Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

November 21, 2006

Dear MeThinks:

1. Here at s, we solve IEQ challenges every day. As one reflection of that commitment, we have a Masters-level microbiologist on my staff. My understanding of HVAC systems is quite good, but you're guessing at my actual background. Try this: my professional bio is posted on our website. Have a look.

And because the bulk of my case load is legal/expert work, I must and do stay current with the literature and the bleeding edge in abatement and control techniques. It's my job -- a job that I thoroughly enjoy, and I am told, one at which I excel.

We don't just follow 'the standard'; we oftentimes set it. And we don't do it by selling EcoQuest ozone generators for mold remediation, as do you. (Yep, cat's out of the bag, Ken.)

2. You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to be a member of ASHRAE -- where did you ever get that idea? Some of our very best and brightest members are microbiologists, industrial hyenas, contractors, and researchers. For example, take a look at the roster of current Environmental Health Committee members.

3. Your father's contributions to society deserve our thanks and gratitude. However, his work as a civil engineer was 60 years ago, and still has nothing to do with the study of heat and mass transfer, or the applications of thermodynamics, such as psychrometrics.

You'll find, MeThinks, that I'm not "just" a BMechE. How many college-level courses in chemistry, particle technology, combustion, biology or medical mycology have you taken? How can you purport to "know thine enemy" without the foundation of formal education?

I look forward to your response.

Wane

>

> Dear Wane,

>

> MeThinks you are floating around the issue.

>

> MeThinks the issue is keeping current in the fast changing field of

> air quality control. While you obviously have a wealth of

> experiences in the traditional aspects of the HVAC field it is

> obvious you are somewhat unfamiliar with the biological aspects of

> cooking an environment with heat or even H2O2 vapors which are both

> entering the remediation field.

>

> What you say about Engr. Geyer and his C.E. degree may be true but

> it is also obviously true he knows and understands the technology of

> heat treating a building structure to rid the facility of bugs,

> vermin and microbials. I'm impressed with what he has brought here

> and also negatively impressed by the way he has been treated in his

> presentations.

>

> I smile at the suggestion a C.E. is not qualified to handle air

> quality or air delivery problems. I won't ask Engr. Geyer if he has

> had the M.E. courses that makes one qualified to be a member of

> ASHRAE. I suspect he has but that doesn't matter as he obviously has

> the field experience and technical competance to teach and

> remediate.

>

> I also smile because my father, a C.E., invented the NYC bomb truck

> in 1940 after the death of two detectives while dismantaling a

> terrorist's bomb. My father, the C.E., was also credited in the NY

> City Police Department with being the inventor of the first red-

> green clock controlled electric traffic light. Later the civil

> engineer in 1948 as a consultant designed the first computer

> controlled demand trafic light system for Nassau County in New York.

>

> Wane, I think it's time we took off our blinders and tried

> respecting the successes and contributions of others. Let's give

> Beyer a chance. We both might learn something.

>

> I have... but then I'm not in your league... yet.

>

> No disrespect or sarcasm intended. Just trying to blow away the fog.

>

> And about working with a friend's product.... Is there a better or

> faster way to learn new technology except from a friendly expert??

> I value greatly the friends who teach me. I value what I have so far

> learned here. I pray I'll be able to continue the learning

> experience.

>

> Respectfully,

>

> Ken Gibala

>

November 21, 2006

Wane:

What did I do to piss you off so much that you continue to put forth venomous, base-less, and malicious statements?

Not only that, you criticize civil engineers without merit, and you error in your portrayal of what civil engineers are, and are not, capable of performing. To state that “civil engineers...simply lack the requisite fundamental background in THERMODYNAMICS and HEAT TRANSFER, which are the essential sciences behind this approach to microbial remediation.” Is simply wrong and incorrect. I don’t know what engineering program you graduated from, and maybe yours lacked these fundamentals, but mine did not! And if you had paid attention to your research about me, you would notice that my engineering undergraduate study is in Agricultrual Engineering; which is analogous to Mechanical Engineering, and it has a VERY strong fundamental basis in thermodynamics. Moreover, I have attended many additional post-graduate courses and study on materials science as it applies to thermodynamics and heat transfer; and in my opinion it is not rocket science that heat has benefits in structural pasteurization. Moreover, much of it is common sense and practicality. Your assessment/opinion is very shallow.

You accuse me of promoting ThermaPure (of which a friend of mine is an owner) when I do not. I promote the benefits of heat. When you asked what the relationship was, I honestly answered your inquiry; I have nothing to hide. Yet you continue to allude to some monetary payoff – when there is none. I have been heating structures for many years, in many ways, on many types of buildings and building materials, in many locations, and on many projects. I promote heat because I have observed the benefits and value of heat treatment. I will continue to promote heat because it works, and it has broad applications to biological control without the use of chemicals. Too many remediators use chemical controls to achieve benefits similar to what heat can do and often do better. For building occupants that are chemically sensitive, this has significant value! You continue to criticize heat technology, but you provide little, if any, substantive basis for your criticism; except negative speculation.

You speculate. You criticize. And you denigrate. I find your comments to be without merit, of little value, and very foolish.

Enuff said. I firmly believe in ’s First Law of Debate.

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

, Stuart, Bob, all:

simply put, following is what I have found objectionable:

1. on numerous occasions, Mr. Geyer has promoted his

friend's " system " on this list without disclosing his personal

connection. whether there is/was some type of monetary payoff

involved is immaterial. (e.g., what better way to generate free

publicity than to start a thread of messages using the company name

on this list?)

2. Mr. Geyer is a licensed CIVIL ENGINEER, not a mechanical or

chemical engineer. is obviously a bright guy, but he is the

WRONG TYPE of engineer.

and yes, of course, there is a difference -- not all

engineers/contractors/physicians/attorneys are the same. I would not

hire an electrical or structural engineer to design an HVAC system.

similarly, I would not hire a mechanical engineer to layout water

distribution and sanitary sewer systems for a new sub-division.

licensed or not, civil engineers (and I've worked with quite a few

over the past 25 years), simply lack the requisite fundamental

background in THERMODYNAMICS and HEAT TRANSFER, which are the

essential sciences behind this approach to microbial remediation.

it's akin to hiring a licensed plumber to wire your house, or an

electrician to put on a new roof. there is a difference between

licensed contractors, and there is a difference between

licensed " engineers " .

I'm not stupid or particularly stubborn, but within this conversation

it is my opinion that Mr. Geyer has not been forthright, and

represents his expertise inaccurately.

anyone who's been in this business for a significant period of time

has heard the horror stories about, and the sales pitches from, the

KILL KILL KILL crowd. inexperienced remediation contractors overuse

disinfectants and fungicidal coatings every day. (I'm working on two

such legal cases right now wherein the property owners can't reoccupy

their homes because of the chemical load left behind.)

YES, I UNDERSTAND that Mr. Geyer is NOT proposing the inappropriate

use of CHEMICAL treatments, but the bottom line remains: there is no

advantage in KILLING the offending microorganisms before, or in

addition to, eliminating the source of moisture, an appropriate

course of structural drying, and physical removal of the microbial

reservoirs.

this is not a personal attack, and I would expect the same response

if I began touting a KILL KILL KILL approach, or began helping my

buddies market their particular approach to remediation.

that's it. that's all.

<sheesh!>

Wane

November 26, 2006

(Warning: extended post ahead. Read it later, or grab a cup of coffee and have a seat.)

:

Bravo! Finally, some honest communication (or perhaps not…?).

I'm rather surprised that your temper tantrum was given the nod by our list moderator, but no matter….

You'll note that my recent post was not addressed to you. Rather, it responded to those on this list who appeared to have taken up your cause -- those who had come to your defense. Q: Did you actually read the entire thread of messages before firing off this vitriolic soliloquy?

I provided very specific observations and complaints about your participation in this group in my private, off-list email to you of October 6, 2006. Although initially submitted to this group, the moderator's wisdom prevailed and I sent it to you privately (with blind copies to a select few). Q: Did you not receive that message?

To refresh your memory: the subject line was "Re: , Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation", and it was sent directly to your email address (mgeyer -at- atg1.com) on 10/6/06 at 10:29 AM. Perhaps your dog ate it, or your spam software intercepted it? If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to resend it.

I've done my best to answer your questions, and expect that you'll answer mine (you'll notice that they begin herein with "Q:")

To start, let's be very clear on the following:

ONE As a point of comparison and contrast, it's obvious that you've not bothered to look into my academic and professional background, even though it's publicly posted on our website.

TWO You are a P.E. -- a licensed Civil Engineer -- in California and one other state. I discovered several weeks ago that your undergrad is in ag engineering and soil science. Q: If indeed agricultural engineering is so remarkably "analogous to" mechanical engineering, why pursue the civil exam? Why not sit for the mechanical exam?

THREE As an alumnus of the University of Minnesota, I'm VERY familiar with ag engineering programs. In its sphere, the ag eng program at the UofM is very highly respected. Many of my fellow Institute of Technology students on the Mpls campus referred to the ag program (on the St. campus) as "Moo U", but I suppose that is neither here nor there. In contrast to your claims, based on my review of the required ag engineering curriculum, I see a single course in thermodynamics ("thermal sciences" at the UofM), but NO applied thermodynamics (wherein one actually learns psychrometrics), and NO heat transfer NOR mass transfer NOR thermal environmental engineering at either school.

From the University of Minnesota:

http://onestop2.umn.edu/programCatalog/viewCatalogProgram.do?programID=8 & strm=1059

From Cal Poly:

http://brae.calpoly.edu/department/brae.html

In anticipation of your certain rebuttal, yes, as part of my rather extended pre-med undergrad studies, I took courses in biology, and chemistry through organic, complemented in my graduate-level coursework by medical mycology.

Other relevant responses are embedded below [in square brackets] within your message:

----------------------------------------

Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:51 pm

Wane:

What did I do to piss you off so much that you continue to put forth venomous, base-less, and malicious statements?

[Hurray! This is the honest part. For my proactive reply, see the private email message dated October 6.]

Not only that, you criticize civil engineers without merit, and you error in your portrayal of what civil engineers are, and are not, capable of performing. To state that "civil engineers...simply lack the requisite fundamental background in THERMODYNAMICS and HEAT TRANSFER, which are the essential sciences behind this approach to microbial remediation." Is simply wrong and incorrect.

["…wrong and incorrect…"? That must be really bad. As previously noted, I've had the pleasure of working with dozens of civil engineers over the past 25 years. I'm VERY familiar with the distinction between their capabilities and roles, and those of the mechanical engineering staff.

[Let's look at the definition of civil and ag engineers from THE standard reference: the Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Dept of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm):

["Civil engineers design and supervise the construction of roads, buildings, airports, tunnels, dams, bridges, and water supply and sewage systems. They must consider many factors in the design process, from the construction costs and expected lifetime of a project to government regulations and potential environmental hazards such as earthquakes. Civil engineering, considered one of the oldest engineering disciplines, encompasses many specialties. The major specialties are structural, water resources, construction, environmental, transportation, and geotechnical engineering. Many civil engineers hold supervisory or administrative positions, from supervisor of a construction site to city engineer. Others may work in design, construction, research, and teaching.

[And for ag engineers:

[Agricultural engineers apply knowledge of engineering technology and science to agriculture and the efficient use of biological resources. They design agricultural machinery and equipment and agricultural structures. Some specialize in areas such as power systems and machinery design; structures and environment engineering; and food and bioprocess engineering. They develop ways to conserve soil and water and to improve the processing of agricultural products. Agricultural engineers often work in research and development, production, sales, or management.

[To be clear, we both know that "environmental" in the context of these disciplines refers to the OUTDOOR environment, not the built environment.]

I don't know what engineering program you graduated from, and maybe yours lacked these fundamentals, but mine did not! And if you had paid attention to your research about me, you would notice that my engineering undergraduate study is in Agricultrual Engineering; which is analogous to Mechanical Engineering, and it has a VERY strong fundamental basis in thermodynamics. Moreover, I have attended many additional post-graduate courses and study on materials science as it applies to thermodynamics and heat transfer; and in my opinion it is not rocket science that heat has benefits in structural pasteurization. Moreover, much of it is common sense and practicality. Your assessment/opinion is very shallow.

[see detailed comments above. As much as you may like this group to believe otherwise, ag engineering is NOT "analogous" to mechanical engineering. And how the heck does a single course in thermo constitute a "very strong basis"? Who are you trying to convince with this overt bit of hyperbole? Although many of us were born at night, Mr. Geyer, I assure you it wasn't last night.]

You accuse me of promoting <TP> (of which a friend of mine is an owner) when I do not. I promote the benefits of heat. When you asked what the relationship was, I honestly answered your inquiry; I have nothing to hide. Yet you continue to allude to some monetary payoff – when there is none.

[Wrong again. Please read my post more carefully: there was no specific suggestion of financial compensation. And of course you've promoted your friend's company on this list and elsewhere – how can you deny doing so? In fact, in a previous message, I asked you to direct us to others who practice this same approach; i.e., Q: what firms other than your friend's could I hire to heat up my house? My request was ignored. Your selective silence speaks volumes.]

I have been heating structures for many years, in many ways, on many types of buildings and building materials, in many locations, and on many projects.

[That's great -- good for you. But while you were building, demolishing and heating "brazilians" of homes, I was working as a graduate engineer, performing professional-level IEQ assessments as part of a multi-disciplinary team. That team variously consisted of other engineers and industrial hygienists, microbiologists, toxicologists, material scientists, architects and code specialists. We worked on several hundreds of projects, in many types of buildings, with a variety of occupant concerns, in countless locations, and discovered, monitored and addressed a broad range of physical, biological and chemical stressors.]

I promote heat because I have observed the benefits and value of heat treatment. I will continue to promote heat because it works, and it has broad applications to biological control without the use of chemicals. Too many remediators use chemical controls to achieve benefits similar to what heat can do and often do better. For building occupants that are chemically sensitive, this has significant value! You continue to criticize heat technology, but you provide little, if any, substantive basis for your criticism; except negative speculation.

[There is no speculation on my part. But you seem to imply here that I support the over-use of chemicals. My consistent criticism of both excess chemical use and thermal treatment is this: it's a waste of time and money.]

You speculate. You criticize. And you denigrate. I find your comments to be without merit, of little value, and very foolish.

[back to a bit of honesty. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and you've made it clear on this list that you're full of them. But let's both be honest, . Your posts to this group are consistently critical of others. You're incredibly condescending to everyone. (READ THE OCTOBER 6 MESSAGE.) And I can't think of a single time that you've actually contributed a useful literature cite for all to read and use. You don't like the tables to be turned, and you just can't handle it.]

Enuff said. I firmly believe in 's First Law of Debate.

[Ah yes, of course -- the nasty dig to close your comments. Unnecessary and unwarranted, but from you, predictable. What a class act you are, sir.

[i look forward to straightforward answers to the "Q:"s above.]

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

November 26, 2006

I would like to make one simple comment on heat.

I use it on occaision when I have no other alternatives but a fundamental in our industry is the mold even dead mold must be removed. Dead mold can still cause health effects. Go the EPA web site and download "Mold and Moisture in your Home". That publication is a core knowledge base in our industry based on the consensus of a wide range of industy experts.

When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete job.

Rosen, Ph.D.

Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

(Warning: extended post ahead. Read it later, or grab a cup of coffee and have a seat.)

:

Bravo! Finally, some honest communication (or perhaps not…?).

I'm rather surprised that your temper tantrum was given the nod by our list moderator, but no matter….

You'll note that my recent post was not addressed to you. Rather, it responded to those on this list who appeared to have taken up your cause -- those who had come to your defense. Q: Did you actually read the entire thread of messages before firing off this vitriolic soliloquy?

I provided very specific observations and complaints about your participation in this group in my private, off-list email to you of October 6, 2006. Although initially submitted to this group, the moderator's wisdom prevailed and I sent it to you privately (with blind copies to a select few). Q: Did you not receive that message?

To refresh your memory: the subject line was "Re: , Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation", and it was sent directly to your email address (mgeyer -at- atg1.com) on 10/6/06 at 10:29 AM. Perhaps your dog ate it, or your spam software intercepted it? If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to resend it.

I've done my best to answer your questions, and expect that you'll answer mine (you'll notice that they begin herein with "Q:")

To start, let's be very clear on the following:

ONE As a point of comparison and contrast, it's obvious that you've not bothered to look into my academic and professional background, even though it's publicly posted on our website.

TWO You are a P.E. -- a licensed Civil Engineer -- in California and one other state. I discovered several weeks ago that your undergrad is in ag engineering and soil science. Q: If indeed agricultural engineering is so remarkably "analogous to" mechanical engineering, why pursue the civil exam? Why not sit for the mechanical exam?

THREE As an alumnus of the University of Minnesota, I'm VERY familiar with ag engineering programs. In its sphere, the ag eng program at the UofM is very highly respected. Many of my fellow Institute of Technology students on the Mpls campus referred to the ag program (on the St. campus) as "Moo U", but I suppose that is neither here nor there. In contrast to your claims, based on my review of the required ag engineering curriculum, I see a single course in thermodynamics ("thermal sciences" at the UofM), but NO applied thermodynamics (wherein one actually learns psychrometrics) , and NO heat transfer NOR mass transfer NOR thermal environmental engineering at either school.

From the University of Minnesota:

http://onestop2. umn.edu/programC atalog/viewCatal ogProgram. do?programID= 8 & strm=1059

From Cal Poly:

http://brae. calpoly.edu/ department/ brae.html

In anticipation of your certain rebuttal, yes, as part of my rather extended pre-med undergrad studies, I took courses in biology, and chemistry through organic, complemented in my graduate-level coursework by medical mycology.

Other relevant responses are embedded below [in square brackets] within your message:

------------ --------- --------- --------- -

Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:51 pm

Wane:

What did I do to piss you off so much that you continue to put forth venomous, base-less, and malicious statements?

[Hurray! This is the honest part. For my proactive reply, see the private email message dated October 6.]

Not only that, you criticize civil engineers without merit, and you error in your portrayal of what civil engineers are, and are not, capable of performing. To state that "civil engineers... simply lack the requisite fundamental background in THERMODYNAMICS and HEAT TRANSFER, which are the essential sciences behind this approach to microbial remediation. " Is simply wrong and incorrect.

["…wrong and incorrect…"? That must be really bad. As previously noted, I've had the pleasure of working with dozens of civil engineers over the past 25 years. I'm VERY familiar with the distinction between their capabilities and roles, and those of the mechanical engineering staff.

[Let's look at the definition of civil and ag engineers from THE standard reference: the Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Dept of Labor (http://www. bls.gov/oco/ ocos027.htm) :

["Civil engineers design and supervise the construction of roads, buildings, airports, tunnels, dams, bridges, and water supply and sewage systems. They must consider many factors in the design process, from the construction costs and expected lifetime of a project to government regulations and potential environmental hazards such as earthquakes. Civil engineering, considered one of the oldest engineering disciplines, encompasses many specialties. The major specialties are structural, water resources, construction, environmental, transportation, and geotechnical engineering. Many civil engineers hold supervisory or administrative positions, from supervisor of a construction site to city engineer. Others may work in design, construction, research, and teaching.

[And for ag engineers:

[Agricultural engineers apply knowledge of engineering technology and science to agriculture and the efficient use of biological resources. They design agricultural machinery and equipment and agricultural structures. Some specialize in areas such as power systems and machinery design; structures and environment engineering; and food and bioprocess engineering. They develop ways to conserve soil and water and to improve the processing of agricultural products. Agricultural engineers often work in research and development, production, sales, or management.

[To be clear, we both know that "environmental" in the context of these disciplines refers to the OUTDOOR environment, not the built environment. ]

I don't know what engineering program you graduated from, and maybe yours lacked these fundamentals, but mine did not! And if you had paid attention to your research about me, you would notice that my engineering undergraduate study is in Agricultrual Engineering; which is analogous to Mechanical Engineering, and it has a VERY strong fundamental basis in thermodynamics. Moreover, I have attended many additional post-graduate courses and study on materials science as it applies to thermodynamics and heat transfer; and in my opinion it is not rocket science that heat has benefits in structural pasteurization. Moreover, much of it is common sense and practicality. Your assessment/opinion is very shallow.

[see detailed comments above. As much as you may like this group to believe otherwise, ag engineering is NOT "analogous" to mechanical engineering. And how the heck does a single course in thermo constitute a "very strong basis"? Who are you trying to convince with this overt bit of hyperbole? Although many of us were born at night, Mr. Geyer, I assure you it wasn't last night.]

You accuse me of promoting <TP> (of which a friend of mine is an owner) when I do not. I promote the benefits of heat. When you asked what the relationship was, I honestly answered your inquiry; I have nothing to hide. Yet you continue to allude to some monetary payoff – when there is none.

[Wrong again. Please read my post more carefully: there was no specific suggestion of financial compensation. And of course you've promoted your friend's company on this list and elsewhere – how can you deny doing so? In fact, in a previous message, I asked you to direct us to others who practice this same approach; i.e., Q: what firms other than your friend's could I hire to heat up my house? My request was ignored. Your selective silence speaks volumes.]

I have been heating structures for many years, in many ways, on many types of buildings and building materials, in many locations, and on many projects.

[That's great -- good for you. But while you were building, demolishing and heating "brazilians" of homes, I was working as a graduate engineer, performing professional- level IEQ assessments as part of a multi-disciplinary team. That team variously consisted of other engineers and industrial hygienists, microbiologists, toxicologists, material scientists, architects and code specialists. We worked on several hundreds of projects, in many types of buildings, with a variety of occupant concerns, in countless locations, and discovered, monitored and addressed a broad range of physical, biological and chemical stressors.]

I promote heat because I have observed the benefits and value of heat treatment. I will continue to promote heat because it works, and it has broad applications to biological control without the use of chemicals. Too many remediators use chemical controls to achieve benefits similar to what heat can do and often do better. For building occupants that are chemically sensitive, this has significant value! You continue to criticize heat technology, but you provide little, if any, substantive basis for your criticism; except negative speculation.

[There is no speculation on my part. But you seem to imply here that I support the over-use of chemicals. My consistent criticism of both excess chemical use and thermal treatment is this: it's a waste of time and money.]

You speculate. You criticize. And you denigrate. I find your comments to be without merit, of little value, and very foolish.

[back to a bit of honesty. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, and you've made it clear on this list that you're full of them. But let's both be honest, . Your posts to this group are consistently critical of others. You're incredibly condescending to everyone. (READ THE OCTOBER 6 MESSAGE.) And I can't think of a single time that you've actually contributed a useful literature cite for all to read and use. You don't like the tables to be turned, and you just can't handle it.]

Enuff said. I firmly believe in 's First Law of Debate.

[Ah yes, of course -- the nasty dig to close your comments. Unnecessary and unwarranted, but from you, predictable. What a class act you are, sir.

[i look forward to straightforward answers to the "Q:"s above.]

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

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

November 26, 2006

:

You state: “When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete job.”

This said, I need to ask....If you are not removing the mold and the bio-mass between the sole-plate the concrete, between studs and the sole-plate, between the studs and the top plate, between the two top plates, between the blocking and the studs, between the let-in bracing and the studs, and between all the other interstitial spaces that exist in a stick-framed wall assembly (ignoring all the other inaccessible interstitial spaces that exist in a structure), are you: 1 – Not doing a complete job, or 2 – Blatantly ignoring your own criteria? Or, do you totally demolish a structure done to individual sticks to remove all the mold?

Granted, dead mold can cause health effects. There is dead mold floating all over our environment. So what? Some people are going to be affected and some are not. Are you suggesting that the environment must be sterile in order to protect all persons? How does dead mold in un-occupied, inaccessible, interstitial spaces of a building assembly cause health effects? To suggest or infer that all dead mold must be eradicated from our environment is impractical and unrealistic. I also believe that to remove all dead mold in un-occupied, inaccessible, interstitial spaces is also impractical and unrealistic. I suggest remediating the gross, cleaning to a reasonable degree, and baking and killing the rest in-place, then restoring back to like-condition. You tend to sound like the Source Removal advocates that recommend demolishing buildings and subjecting building owners to significant loss of use and high removal/re-construction costs in the pursuit of removing every single mold spore; because that spore may have a mycotoxin and it may be hazardous. Moreover, you fail to acknowledge other beneficial aspects of heat-treatment, e.g., dry-out the moisture, bake-out the odors, and kill-off all the other biologicals that are typically associated with a mold event. Heat-treatment has broad applications and broad value; moreover, heat-treatment can remove a significant amount of bio-mass if done properly. To suggest that heat leaves behind dead mold, and that dead mold may be hazardous, is a bit myopic.

For what it is worth.....

--

Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

President

KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

Bakersfield, California

www.kerntecindustries.com

I would like to make one simple comment on heat.

I use it on occaision when I have no other alternatives but a fundamental in our industry is the mold even dead mold must be removed. Dead mold can still cause health effects. Go the EPA web site and download " Mold and Moisture in your Home " . That publication is a core knowledge base in our industry based on the consensus of a wide range of industy experts.

When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete job.

Rosen, Ph.D.

November 26, 2006

the EPA publication " Mold and Moisture in Your Home " is ideal for

distribution to the general public. it has lots of nice pictures and

provides sound advice for and Helen Homeowner.

it is a simplistic, non-technical guide for laypersons. it certainly

does NOT constitute " a core knowledge base in our industry " . if that

document represents our core base of knowledge, we're in a lot of

trouble.

Wane

>

> I would like to make one simple comment on heat.

>

> I use it on occaision when I have no other alternatives but a

fundamental in our industry is the mold even dead mold must be

removed. Dead mold can still cause health effects. Go the EPA web

site and download " Mold and Moisture in your Home " . That publication

is a core knowledge base in our industry based on the consensus of a

wide range of industy experts.

>

> When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete job.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

>

November 26, 2006

,

I wrote the book on the

physics and principles of heat drying wet buildings, 2004, revised 2005; so I

believe I can speak for most heat-drying manufacturers and the structural heat drying

industry as a whole.

I find the conversations

about heat misleading, meaning, raising temperatures to stop mold growth and

even eliminate mycotoxins are poorly understood.

First of all, the structural

building material drying goal (using elevated levels of heat) is to dry wet

building materials as fast as possible without causing secondary damage. In many water damage claims, expediting

the removal of moisture using heat, under controlled drying conditions and

monitoring, reduces the time most environmental molds of concern can germinate

and sporulate.

Using heat to retard active

mold growth is not magic. Removing the percent of moisture mold can grow is the

key, thus, heating the wet material (like a hair dryer) allowing the evaporation

of moisture to occur at a faster rate will do the job.

When mold is present and

the goal by using heat to further stop mold growth and

neutralize antigens, requires applying scientific principles. The first

principle of remediation in my opinion when there is active mold growth in

walls and ceilings, is to carefully remove the

affected materials under controlled conditions (refer to IICRC S520, ACGIH

Bioaerosols: Assessment and Control, Chapter 15). The use of heat (high heat

e.g., 140-160F) for the further reduction of residual desiccation of spores

occurs as a topical prophylactic treatment once the remediation process is

complete.

Moffett

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of gary rosen

Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006

10:36 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: Heat

Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

I would like to make one simple comment on heat.

I use it on occaision when I have no other alternatives but a

fundamental in our industry is the mold

even dead mold must be removed. Dead mold can still cause health effects.

Go the EPA web site and download " Mold and Moisture in your

Home " . That publication is a core knowledge base in our industry

based on the consensus of a wide range of industy experts.

When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete job.

Rosen, Ph.D.

Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

(Warning: extended post ahead. Read it later, or

grab a cup of coffee and have a seat.)

:

Bravo! Finally, some honest communication (or perhaps

not…?).

I'm rather surprised that your temper tantrum was given the

nod by our list moderator, but no matter….

You'll note that my recent post was not addressed to

you. Rather, it responded to those on this list who appeared to have

taken up your cause -- those who had come to your defense. Q: Did

you actually read the entire thread of messages before firing off this

vitriolic soliloquy?

I provided very specific observations and complaints about

your participation in this group in my private, off-list email to you of

October 6, 2006. Although initially submitted to this group, the

moderator's wisdom prevailed and I sent it to you privately (with blind copies

to a select few). Q: Did you not

receive that message?

To refresh

your memory: the subject line was " Re: , Appellate

Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation " , and it was sent directly to your

email address (mgeyer -at- atg1.com) on 10/6/06 at 10:29 AM. Perhaps your

dog ate it, or your spam software intercepted it? If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to resend

it.

I've done my

best to answer your questions, and expect

that you'll answer mine (you'll notice that they begin herein with

" Q: " )

To start,

let's be very clear on the following:

ONE As

a point of comparison and contrast, it's obvious that you've not bothered to

look into my academic and professional background, even though it's publicly

posted on our website.

TWO

You are a P.E. -- a licensed Civil Engineer

-- in California

and one other state. I discovered several weeks ago that your undergrad

is in ag engineering and soil science. Q:

If indeed agricultural engineering is so remarkably " analogous to "

mechanical engineering, why pursue the civil exam? Why not sit for the

mechanical exam?

THREE

As an alumnus of the University

of Minnesota, I'm VERY

familiar with ag engineering programs. In its sphere, the ag eng program

at the UofM is very highly respected. Many of my fellow Institute of Technology

students on the Mpls campus referred to the ag program (on the St. campus) as " Moo U " , but I

suppose that is neither here nor there. In contrast to your claims, based

on my review of the required ag engineering curriculum, I see a single course

in thermodynamics ( " thermal sciences " at the UofM), but NO applied

thermodynamics (wherein one actually learns psychrometrics) , and NO heat

transfer NOR mass transfer NOR thermal environmental engineering at either

school.

From the University of Minnesota:

http://onestop2.

umn.edu/programC atalog/viewCatal ogProgram. do?programID= 8 & strm=1059

From Cal

Poly:

http://brae. calpoly.edu/ department/

brae.html

In

anticipation of your certain rebuttal, yes, as part of my rather extended

pre-med undergrad studies, I took courses in biology, and chemistry through

organic, complemented in my graduate-level coursework by medical mycology.

Other

relevant responses are embedded below [in square brackets] within your message:

------------

--------- --------- --------- -

Re:

Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

Tue

Nov 21, 2006 9:51 pm

Wane:

What did I

do to piss you off so much that you continue to put forth venomous, base-less,

and malicious statements?

[Hurray! This is the honest part. For my

proactive reply, see the private email message dated October 6.]

Not only

that, you criticize civil engineers without merit, and you error in your

portrayal of what civil engineers are, and are not, capable of

performing. To state that " civil engineers... simply lack the

requisite fundamental background in THERMODYNAMICS and HEAT TRANSFER, which are

the essential sciences behind this approach to microbial remediation.

" Is simply wrong and incorrect.

[ " …wrong and

incorrect… " ? That must be really bad. As previously

noted, I've had the pleasure of working with dozens of civil engineers over the

past 25 years. I'm VERY familiar with the distinction between their

capabilities and roles, and those of the mechanical engineering staff.

[Let's look at the definition of civil and ag engineers

from THE standard reference: the Occupational

Outlook Handbook, U.S. Dept of Labor (http://www. bls.gov/oco/

ocos027.htm) :

[ " Civil engineers design and supervise the

construction of roads, buildings, airports, tunnels, dams, bridges, and water

supply and sewage systems. They must consider many factors in the design

process, from the construction costs and expected lifetime of a project to

government regulations and potential environmental hazards such as earthquakes.

Civil engineering, considered one of the oldest engineering disciplines,

encompasses many specialties. The major specialties are structural, water

resources, construction, environmental, transportation, and geotechnical

engineering. Many civil engineers hold supervisory or administrative positions,

from supervisor of a construction site to city engineer. Others may work in

design, construction, research, and teaching.

[And for ag engineers:

[Agricultural engineers apply knowledge of engineering

technology and science to agriculture and the efficient use of biological

resources. They design agricultural machinery and equipment and agricultural

structures. Some specialize in areas such as power systems and machinery

design; structures and environment engineering; and food and bioprocess

engineering. They develop ways to conserve soil and water and to improve the

processing of agricultural products. Agricultural engineers often work in

research and development, production, sales, or management.

[To be clear, we both know that " environmental "

in the context of these disciplines refers to the OUTDOOR environment, not the

built environment. ]

I don't know

what engineering program you graduated from, and maybe yours lacked these

fundamentals, but mine did not! And if you had paid attention to your

research about me, you would notice that my engineering undergraduate study is

in Agricultrual Engineering; which is analogous to Mechanical Engineering, and

it has a VERY strong fundamental basis in thermodynamics. Moreover, I

have attended many additional post-graduate courses and study on materials

science as it applies to thermodynamics and heat transfer; and in my opinion it

is not rocket science that heat has benefits in structural

pasteurization. Moreover, much of it is common sense and

practicality. Your assessment/opinion is very shallow.

[see detailed comments above. As much as you may

like this group to believe otherwise, ag engineering is NOT

" analogous " to mechanical engineering. And how the heck does a

single course in thermo constitute a " very strong basis " ? Who

are you trying to convince with this overt bit of hyperbole? Although

many of us were born at night, Mr. Geyer, I assure you it wasn't last night.]

You accuse

me of promoting <TP> (of which a friend of mine is an owner) when I do

not. I promote the benefits of heat. When you asked what the

relationship was, I honestly answered your inquiry; I have nothing to

hide. Yet you continue to allude to some monetary payoff – when

there is none.

[Wrong again. Please read my post more

carefully: there was no specific suggestion of financial compensation.

And of course you've promoted your friend's company on this list and elsewhere

– how can you deny doing so? In fact, in a previous message, I

asked you to direct us to others who practice this same approach; i.e., Q: what firms other than your friend's could I hire to

heat up my house? My request was ignored. Your selective

silence speaks volumes.]

I have been

heating structures for many years, in many ways, on many types of buildings and

building materials, in many locations, and on many projects.

[That's great -- good for you. But while you were

building, demolishing and heating " brazilians " of homes, I was

working as a graduate engineer, performing professional- level IEQ assessments

as part of a multi-disciplinary team. That team variously consisted of

other engineers and industrial hygienists, microbiologists, toxicologists,

material scientists, architects and code specialists. We worked on

several hundreds of projects, in many types of buildings, with a variety of

occupant concerns, in countless locations, and discovered, monitored and

addressed a broad range of physical, biological and chemical stressors.]

I promote

heat because I have observed the benefits and value of heat treatment. I

will continue to promote heat because it works, and it has broad applications

to biological control without the use of chemicals. Too many remediators

use chemical controls to achieve benefits similar to what heat can do and often

do better. For building occupants that are chemically sensitive, this has

significant value! You continue to criticize heat technology, but you

provide little, if any, substantive basis for your criticism; except negative

speculation.

[There is no speculation on my part. But you seem to

imply here that I support the over-use of chemicals. My consistent

criticism of both excess chemical use and thermal treatment is this: it's

a waste of time and money.]

You

speculate. You criticize. And you denigrate. I find your

comments to be without merit, of little value, and very foolish.

[back to a bit of honesty. You're certainly entitled

to your opinions, and you've made it clear on this list that you're full of

them. But let's both be honest, . Your posts to this group

are consistently critical of others. You're incredibly condescending to

everyone. (READ THE OCTOBER 6 MESSAGE.) And I can't think of a single

time that you've actually contributed a useful literature cite for all to read

and use. You don't like the tables to be turned, and you just can't

handle it.]

Enuff

said. I firmly believe in 's First Law of Debate.

[Ah yes, of course -- the nasty dig to close your

comments. Unnecessary and unwarranted, but from you, predictable.

What a class act you are, sir.

[i look forward to straightforward answers to the

" Q: " s above.]

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

Everyone is raving about the

all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.

November 27, 2006

Well said ,

The EPA says source removal is the preferred process.

See http://www.epa.gov/mold/i-e-r.html

Mold Remediation/Cleanup and Biocides

The purpose of mold remediation is to remove the mold to prevent

human exposure and damage to building materials and furnishings. It

is necessary to clean up mold contamination, not just to kill the

mold. Dead mold is still allergenic, and some dead molds are

potentially toxic.

Bob/Ma.

>

> I would like to make one simple comment on heat.

>

> I use it on occaision when I have no other alternatives but a

fundamental in our industry is the mold even dead mold must be

removed. Dead mold can still cause health effects. Go the EPA web

site and download " Mold and Moisture in your Home " . That

publication is a core knowledge base in our industry based on the

consensus of a wide range of industy experts.

>

> When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete job.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

>

> Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial

Remediation

>

> (Warning: extended post ahead. Read it later, or grab a cup of

coffee and have a seat.)

> :

> Bravo! Finally, some honest communication (or perhaps not…?).

> I'm rather surprised that your temper tantrum was given the nod by

our list moderator, but no matter….

> You'll note that my recent post was not addressed to you. Rather,

it responded to those on this list who appeared to have taken up

your cause -- those who had come to your defense. Q: Did you

actually read the entire thread of messages before firing off this

vitriolic soliloquy?

> I provided very specific observations and complaints about your

participation in this group in my private, off-list email to you of

October 6, 2006. Although initially submitted to this group, the

moderator's wisdom prevailed and I sent it to you privately (with

blind copies to a select few). Q: Did you not receive that

message?

> To refresh your memory: the subject line was " Re: ,

Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation " , and it was sent

directly to your email address (mgeyer -at- atg1.com) on 10/6/06 at

10:29 AM. Perhaps your dog ate it, or your spam software

intercepted it? If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to

resend it.

> I've done my best to answer your questions, and expect that you'll

answer mine (you'll notice that they begin herein with " Q: " )

> To start, let's be very clear on the following:

> ONE As a point of comparison and contrast, it's obvious that

you've not bothered to look into my academic and professional

background, even though it's publicly posted on our website.

> TWO You are a P.E. -- a licensed Civil Engineer -- in California

and one other state. I discovered several weeks ago that your

undergrad is in ag engineering and soil science. Q: If indeed

agricultural engineering is so remarkably " analogous to " mechanical

engineering, why pursue the civil exam? Why not sit for the

mechanical exam?

> THREE As an alumnus of the University of Minnesota, I'm VERY

familiar with ag engineering programs. In its sphere, the ag eng

program at the UofM is very highly respected. Many of my fellow

Institute of Technology students on the Mpls campus referred to the

ag program (on the St. campus) as " Moo U " , but I suppose that

is neither here nor there. In contrast to your claims, based on my

review of the required ag engineering curriculum, I see a single

course in thermodynamics ( " thermal sciences " at the UofM), but NO

applied thermodynamics (wherein one actually learns

psychrometrics) , and NO heat transfer NOR mass transfer NOR thermal

environmental engineering at either school.

> From the University of Minnesota:

> http://onestop2. umn.edu/programC atalog/viewCatal ogProgram. do?

programID= 8 & strm=1059

> From Cal Poly:

> http://brae. calpoly.edu/ department/ brae.html

> In anticipation of your certain rebuttal, yes, as part of my

rather extended pre-med undergrad studies, I took courses in

biology, and chemistry through organic, complemented in my graduate-

level coursework by medical mycology.

> Other relevant responses are embedded below [in square brackets]

within your message:

> ------------ --------- --------- --------- -

> Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

> Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:51 pm

> Wane:

> What did I do to piss you off so much that you continue to put

forth venomous, base-less, and malicious statements?

> [Hurray! This is the honest part. For my proactive reply, see

the private email message dated October 6.]

> Not only that, you criticize civil engineers without merit, and

you error in your portrayal of what civil engineers are, and are

not, capable of performing. To state that " civil engineers...

simply lack the requisite fundamental background in THERMODYNAMICS

and HEAT TRANSFER, which are the essential sciences behind this

approach to microbial remediation. " Is simply wrong and

incorrect.

> [ " …wrong and incorrect… " ? That must be really bad. As previously

noted, I've had the pleasure of working with dozens of civil

engineers over the past 25 years. I'm VERY familiar with the

distinction between their capabilities and roles, and those of the

mechanical engineering staff.

> [Let's look at the definition of civil and ag engineers from THE

standard reference: the Occupational Outlook Handbook, U.S. Dept of

Labor (http://www. bls.gov/oco/ ocos027.htm) :

> [ " Civil engineers design and supervise the construction of roads,

buildings, airports, tunnels, dams, bridges, and water supply and

sewage systems. They must consider many factors in the design

process, from the construction costs and expected lifetime of a

project to government regulations and potential environmental

hazards such as earthquakes. Civil engineering, considered one of

the oldest engineering disciplines, encompasses many specialties.

The major specialties are structural, water resources, construction,

environmental, transportation, and geotechnical engineering. Many

civil engineers hold supervisory or administrative positions, from

supervisor of a construction site to city engineer. Others may work

in design, construction, research, and teaching.

> [And for ag engineers:

> [Agricultural engineers apply knowledge of engineering technology

and science to agriculture and the efficient use of biological

resources. They design agricultural machinery and equipment and

agricultural structures. Some specialize in areas such as power

systems and machinery design; structures and environment

engineering; and food and bioprocess engineering. They develop ways

to conserve soil and water and to improve the processing of

agricultural products. Agricultural engineers often work in research

and development, production, sales, or management.

> [To be clear, we both know that " environmental " in the context of

these disciplines refers to the OUTDOOR environment, not the built

environment. ]

> I don't know what engineering program you graduated from, and

maybe yours lacked these fundamentals, but mine did not! And if you

had paid attention to your research about me, you would notice that

my engineering undergraduate study is in Agricultrual Engineering;

which is analogous to Mechanical Engineering, and it has a VERY

strong fundamental basis in thermodynamics. Moreover, I have

attended many additional post-graduate courses and study on

materials science as it applies to thermodynamics and heat transfer;

and in my opinion it is not rocket science that heat has benefits in

structural pasteurization. Moreover, much of it is common sense and

practicality. Your assessment/opinion is very shallow.

> [see detailed comments above. As much as you may like this group

to believe otherwise, ag engineering is NOT " analogous " to

mechanical engineering. And how the heck does a single course in

thermo constitute a " very strong basis " ? Who are you trying to

convince with this overt bit of hyperbole? Although many of us were

born at night, Mr. Geyer, I assure you it wasn't last night.]

> You accuse me of promoting <TP> (of which a friend of mine is an

owner) when I do not. I promote the benefits of heat. When you

asked what the relationship was, I honestly answered your inquiry; I

have nothing to hide. Yet you continue to allude to some monetary

payoff – when there is none.

> [Wrong again. Please read my post more carefully: there was no

specific suggestion of financial compensation. And of course you've

promoted your friend's company on this list and elsewhere – how can

you deny doing so? In fact, in a previous message, I asked you to

direct us to others who practice this same approach; i.e., Q: what

firms other than your friend's could I hire to heat up my house? My

request was ignored. Your selective silence speaks volumes.]

> I have been heating structures for many years, in many ways, on

many types of buildings and building materials, in many locations,

and on many projects.

> [That's great -- good for you. But while you were building,

demolishing and heating " brazilians " of homes, I was working as a

graduate engineer, performing professional- level IEQ assessments as

part of a multi-disciplinary team. That team variously consisted of

other engineers and industrial hygienists, microbiologists,

toxicologists, material scientists, architects and code

specialists. We worked on several hundreds of projects, in many

types of buildings, with a variety of occupant concerns, in

countless locations, and discovered, monitored and addressed a broad

range of physical, biological and chemical stressors.]

> I promote heat because I have observed the benefits and value of

heat treatment. I will continue to promote heat because it works,

and it has broad applications to biological control without the use

of chemicals. Too many remediators use chemical controls to achieve

benefits similar to what heat can do and often do better. For

building occupants that are chemically sensitive, this has

significant value! You continue to criticize heat technology, but

you provide little, if any, substantive basis for your criticism;

except negative speculation.

> [There is no speculation on my part. But you seem to imply here

that I support the over-use of chemicals. My consistent criticism

of both excess chemical use and thermal treatment is this: it's a

waste of time and money.]

> You speculate. You criticize. And you denigrate. I find your

comments to be without merit, of little value, and very foolish.

> [back to a bit of honesty. You're certainly entitled to your

opinions, and you've made it clear on this list that you're full of

them. But let's both be honest, . Your posts to this group

are consistently critical of others. You're incredibly

condescending to everyone. (READ THE OCTOBER 6 MESSAGE.) And I

can't think of a single time that you've actually contributed a

useful literature cite for all to read and use. You don't like the

tables to be turned, and you just can't handle it.]

> Enuff said. I firmly believe in 's First Law of Debate.

> [Ah yes, of course -- the nasty dig to close your comments.

Unnecessary and unwarranted, but from you, predictable. What a

class act you are, sir.

> [i look forward to straightforward answers to the " Q: " s above.]

> 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

>

_____________________________________________________________________

_______________

> Want to start your own business?

> Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index

>

November 27, 2006

,

At the URL http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2003/isbn9512267756/ there is an

overview of many of this issues involved with a link to the paper

at

http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2003/isbn9512267756/article6.pdf

Fungal spore transport through a building structure.

Airaksinen M., Kurnitski J., Pasanen P. and Seppänen O.

in Indoor Air (a journal)

When you combine the information in that paper, with the information

in this paper (below) and many other papers that have come out

recently about (unidentifiable microscopically, but still toxic)

fungal fragments and their toxic load, the importance of cleaning

those interstitial spaces should be clear to anyone.

Even well-constructed wood buildings in areas NOT prone to

earthquakes, etc. are porous!

http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/1/114

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, January 2005, p. 114-122, Vol. 71, No. 1

Detection of Airborne Stachybotrys chartarum Macrocyclic Trichothecene

Mycotoxins on Particulates Smaller than Conidia

T. L. Brasel, D. R. , S. C. , and D. C. Straus*

Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Texas Tech University

Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas

"

>

> :

>

> You state: " When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete

job. "

>

> This said, I need to ask....If you are not removing the mold and the bio-mass

between the sole-plate the concrete, between studs and the sole-plate, between

the studs and the top plate, between the two top plates, between the blocking

and the studs, between the let-in bracing and the studs, and between all the

other interstitial spaces that exist in a stick-framed wall assembly (ignoring

all the other inaccessible interstitial spaces that exist in a structure), are

you: 1 – Not doing a complete job, or 2 – Blatantly ignoring your own criteria?

Or, do you totally demolish a structure done to individual sticks to remove all

the mold?

>

> Granted, dead mold can cause health effects. There is dead mold floating all

over our environment. So what? Some people are going to be affected and some

are not. Are you suggesting that the environment must be sterile in order to

protect all persons? How does dead mold in un-occupied, inaccessible,

interstitial spaces of a building assembly cause health effects? To suggest or

infer that all dead mold must be eradicated from our environment is impractical

and unrealistic. I also believe that to remove all dead mold in un-occupied,

inaccessible, interstitial spaces is also impractical and unrealistic. I

suggest remediating the gross, cleaning to a reasonable degree, and baking and

killing the rest in-place, then restoring back to like-condition. You tend to

sound like the Source Removal advocates that recommend demolishing buildings and

subjecting building owners to significant loss of use and high

removal/re-construction costs in the pursuit of removing every single mold

spore; because that spore may have a mycotoxin and it may be hazardous.

Moreover, you fail to acknowledge other beneficial aspects of heat-treatment,

e.g., dry-out the moisture, bake-out the odors, and kill-off all the other

biologicals that are typically associated with a mold event. Heat-treatment has

broad applications and broad value; moreover, heat-treatment can remove a

significant amount of bio-mass if done properly. To suggest that heat leaves

behind dead mold, and that dead mold may be hazardous, is a bit myopic.

>

> For what it is worth.....

> --

> Geyer, PE, CIH, CSP

> President

> KERNTEC Industries, Inc.

> Bakersfield, California

> www.kerntecindustries.com

>

> I would like to make one simple comment on heat.

>

> I use it on occaision when I have no other alternatives but a fundamental in

our industry is the mold even dead mold must be removed. Dead mold can still

cause health effects. Go the EPA web site and download " Mold and Moisture in

your Home " . That publication is a core knowledge base in our industry based on

the consensus of a wide range of industy experts.

>

> When you do not remove the mold you are not doing a complete job.

>

> Rosen, Ph.D.

>

November 27, 2006

Agreed. But heat does not remove or destroy any toxins in the dead mold or the deacitvated / dead spores. Heat has its place in mold remediation but does not REPLACE source removal.

Rosen

Re: Heat Treatment Superfluous in Microbial Remediation

(Warning: extended post ahead. Read it later, or grab a cup of coffee and have a seat.)

:

Bravo! Finally, some honest communication (or perhaps not…?).

I'm rather surprised that your temper tantrum was given the nod by our list moderator, but no matter….

You'll note that my recent post was not addressed to you. Rather, it responded to those on this list who appeared to have taken up your cause -- those who had come to your defense. Q: Did you actually read the entire thread of messages before firing off this vitriolic soliloquy?

I provided very specific observations and complaints about your participation in this group in my private, off-list email to you of October 6, 2006. Although initially submitted to this group, the moderator's wisdom prevailed and I sent it to you privately (with blind copies to a select few). Q: Did you not receive that message?

To refresh your memory: the subject line was "Re: , Appellate Ruling Shoemaker Proof of Causation", and it was sent directly to your email address (mgeyer -at- atg1.com) on 10/6/06 at 10:29 AM. Perhaps your dog ate it, or your spam software intercepted it? If so, please let me know and I'll be happy to resend it.

I've done my best to answer your questions, and expect that you'll answer mine (you'll notice that they begin herein with "Q:")

To start, let's be very clear on the following:

ONE As a point of comparison and contrast, it's obvious that you've not bothered to look into my academic and professional background, even though it's publicly posted on our website.

TWO You are a P.E. -- a licensed Civil Engineer -- in California and one other state. I discovered several weeks ago that your undergrad is in ag engineering and soil science. Q: If indeed agricultural engineering is so remarkably "analogous to" mechanical engineering, why pursue the civil exam? Why not sit for the mechanical exam?

THREE As an alumnus of the University of Minnesota , I'm VERY familiar with ag engineering programs. In its sphere, the ag eng program at the UofM is very highly respected. Many of my fellow Institute of Technology students on the Mpls campus referred to the ag program (on the St. campus) as "Moo U", but I suppose that is neither here nor there. In contrast to your claims, based on my review of the required ag engineering curriculum, I see a single course in thermodynamics ("thermal sciences" at the UofM), but NO applied thermodynamics (wherein one actually learns psychrometrics) , and NO heat transfer NOR mass transfer NOR thermal environmental engineering at either school.

From the University of Minnesota :