hausdok

Hi, Unbolted and unflashed deck ledgers too because not all unbolted and unflashed deck ledgers separate and allow decks to collapse. [] OT - OF!!! M.

It's waaay outside the range of home inspections but nonetheless important to those who hang here at TIJ and on other boards, there are several groups advocating metered internet service. If these folks had their way, we could one day find ourselves paying internet charges in much the way we pay for cell phone usage. That's not a pleasant thought! To read more about these loonies, click here.

Hi All, I'm disappointed to learn that the former President of NAHI, Ralph Wirth, is on that board and mixed up in this, but that still doesn't change my opinion. Since he's the honcho on that board he is now the head pinhead as far as I'm concerned. I say again, just shine a light on it. It was done behind closed doors. They never asked for the input of the inspectors in the state, before they created this oh-so-convenient-for-the-sellers-and reel-tours-rule. It's goofy and it's a disservice to the consumer. They can paint it any way they want and I'll still believe that it was done to plander to special interests. Get it out in the open so their little "arrangements" are revealed and see what happens. The North Carolina boys and girls have already shown you what to do. Now do it better than they did. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Washington, D.C./December 5, 2007 - Release #08-110 The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with GE Consumer & Industrial, of Louisville, Ky., today announced a voluntary recall of approximately 92,000 combination microwave and conventional built-in wall ovens sold under the brand names: GE, GE Profile® and Kenmore. The microwave oven has a defective door switch that can overheat and ignite plastic components in the control area, thus posing a fire hazard to consumers. There isn't any hazard with the lower thermal oven. These appliances were sold at department and appliance stores from January 2000 to December 2003 for between $1,500 and $2,000. The ovens come in white, black, bisque and stainless steel. The brand name is printed on the lower left corner on the front of the microwave door. The following model and serial numbers can be found inside the microwave oven on the left interior wall. Recalled GE / GE Profile Models: JKP85B0A3BB, JKP85B0D1BB, JKP85W0A3WW, JKP85W0D1WW, JKP86B0F1BB, JKP86C0F1CC, JKP86S0F1SS, JKP86W0F1WW, JT965B0F1BB, JT965C0F1CC, JT965S0F1SS, JT965W0F1WW, JTP85B0A2BB, JTP85B0A3BB, JTP85B0A4BB, JTP85B0A5BB, JTP85B0D1BB, JTP85W0A2WW, JTP85W0A3WW, JTP85W0A4WW, JTP85W0A5WW, JTP85W0D1WW, JTP86B0F1BB, JTP86C0F1CC, JTP86S0F1SS, JTP86W0F1WW, JTP95B0A2BB, JTP95B0A3BB, JTP95B0A4BB, JTP95B0A5BB, JTP95B0D1BB, JTP95W0A2WW, JTP95W0A3WW, JTP95W0A4WW, JTP95W0A5WW, JTP95W0D1WW Serial number begins with: AZ, DZ, FZ, GZ, HZ,LZ, MZ, RZ, SZ, TZ, VZ, ZZ, AA, DA, FA, GA, HA, LA, MA, RA,SA, TA, VA, ZA, AD,DD, FD, GD, HD, LD,MD, RD, SD, TD, VD,ZD, AF, DF, FF, GF,HF, LF, MF, RF, SF,TF, VF, ZF Recalled Kenmore Models: (All model numbers start with 911) 41485991, 41485992, 41485993, 41485994, 41489991, 41489992,41489993, 41489994, 49485992, 49489992, 47692100, 47699100,47862100, 47869100, 47812200, 47813200, 47814200, 47819200,47792200, 47793200, 47794200, 47799200 Serial number begins with: 0, 1, 2, 3 No injuries have been reported, but GE is aware of 35 incidents of minor property damage and one incident in which a fire damaged adjacent kitchen cabinets. Inspectors finding these units should advise homeowners to stop using the microwave oven immediately and contact GE regarding their GE/GE Profile micro-oven combo or Sears for their Kenmore unit. GE is offering a free repair or rebate on a new product, a $300 rebate toward the purchase of a new GE brand unit, or a $600 rebate toward the purchase of a new GE Profile brand unit. Sears is offering a free repair or $300 rebate toward the purchase of a new Kenmore brand unit. For more information on GE /Profile units, contact General Electric toll-free at (888)-240-2745 from 8 a.m. to 8p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit GE's Web site at www.geappliances.com. For additional information on Kenmore units, contact Sears toll-free at (888) 679-0282 from 8 a.m.to 10 p.m. ET Monday through Saturday, or visit Sears' Web site at www.sears.com To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of therecalled product, please click here. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $700 billion annually. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

Holy F slot FPE Man! Where's your faithful sidekick Stablok? OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Yes, they are the same. There was also a Canadian version that sold, I believe, under the brand name Federal Electric, and looks and functions essentially the same. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi All, My apologies to everyone. I didn't realize that folks couldn't get to parts 2,3,4, and 5 of this article because I'd parked it in an area of the forum that only moderators and admin folks can access. I've fixed it now and I logged out and logged back in under a different name to check it to ensure it's 100% accessible. To read it, folks will still need to be TIJ members which is no big deal, because membership is FREE, so don't let that stop you. Many thanks to Cyndy Patzman of Bellingham, WA for bringing this to my attention and then being patient with me while I took forever to figure out that it wasn't she who was putting in the wrong password - it was I who'd parked it incorrectly. What can I say, I think I'm betting that oldtimers disease. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

I used to think that too, until I'd inspected a couple of dozen flat-roofed multi-family housing structures with flat roofs and vented attics and didn't encounter any mold, rot or anything like that. Most of those were vented with nothing more than a fascia vent around the perimeter and didn't have any mushroom vents at all; yet, they were venting fine. Now I just try to figure out where the barrier is placed. If it's at the roof plane, then the area needs to be unvented and turned into conditioned space. If it's at the ceiling and it's going to be a cold roof there needs to be ventilation or they've created a petri dish. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

They were all designed with E & F breaker slots. The E-slots are for the narrow wafer breakers and the F-slots for the full-width breakers. You can use either one F type breaker or two E type breakers in an E-slot but only one of either type in an F-slot. That's where the trouble comes in - people try to jam a second E-type breaker into an F-slot and the tangs bend. It's making contact but it isn't locked in. I've never seen any other type of FPE bus design, so I think Jim is correct. This only illustrates more clearly that the KBHI doesn't understand the issues and is therefore incompetent to make this call in concert with the Office of Housing, Building & Construction Electrical Advisory Committee. If they had understood it and made the OHBC electrical advisory committee clear on it, I doubt that any responsible and competent group would have issues such an idiotic edict - the relative term here being competent. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi, Jim beat me to it. I think the paper was carefully worded to avoid the Stablok debate. It forces inspectors to either simply ignore the FPE issue or refer it to an electrician. The advantage of doing that is that then the reel-tours are able to call their favorite always-referred electrician to say that things are fine. It's been my experience that, unless the thing is so bad that the house is on the verge of burning down now, knowing that many more referrals will be coming his/her way if he helps the reel-tour, electricians tend to avoid getting into the middle of a pending sales transaction argument and are only too happy to discredit a pesky inspector or two when they can. The KBHI hopes that this puts them on the high ground. However, let me ask everyone a question that Jim has already aluded to - has anyone ever seen any FPE residential panels, other than the old edison fuse type panels which we already know are obsolete, that are not Stablok panels? I haven't and I've been doing this nearly 12 years and have commented on hundreds of Stablok panels. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

These might help too Click here for #1 Click here for #2 Click here for #3 Click here for #4 Click here for #5

Hi, These might help a little: http://www.buildingscience.com/document ... main_topic http://www.buildingscience.com/document ... l-climates OT - OF!!! M.

I just did. It's in the hot link at the second paragraph of my post above. OT - OF!!! M.

Hi, Word has it that the idea was pushed by the reel-tours and then the electricians agreed and went along with it. Well, why wouldn't the electricians go along with it? What are they going to say, "We don't mind that home inspectors are making a call that we can get paid to make?" Anyway, the memo is inaccurate when it says that, "There is no current documentation from any source that states the FPE panels and breakers are a hazard to life and property," because there is plenty of documentation and research right here. If the KBHI is ignoring this they are even bigger pinheads than we think. They talk about arcing, but the arcing in an FPE panel, just like in a Zinsco panel, isn't visible unless one pulls the breakers. I have the guts out of an old Zinsco panel that I use to prove that to clients. It looks perfectly normal until you pull the breaker and can see the bus and then one easily understands why it's a concern. If the home inspectors on the KBHI don't know this they aren't competent as home inspectors and shouldn't be serving on the board and someone needs to let the Governor know about that. Why is it that the electricians are the only one's authorized to determine if the panel is hazardous? Will an electrical engineer agree with that? How about a fire chief? You guys in Kentucky need to get together, pool some funds, and get some full page ads printed in some papers explaining the issue to the public and pointing them to Aronstein's work and Hansen's paper. Even if only 1 in 5 adults who reads it is concerned enough to pick up the phone or shoot off an email or write their local paper, it will have an effect. Don't think so? Look what the inspectors in North Carolina were able to do. Maybe a few of you picketing the KBHI on the capitol steps with your mouths taped shut is just what you need. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

All the more reason to write. The guy leaving office is often more than happy to toss a stumbling block in front of his successor - particularly if his successor defeated him or is from another party. If the guy sitting now were to be flooded by a deluge of correspondence expressing concern for the safety of Kentucky citizens, and then threw this rule out, the new guy would then have the unenviable task of deciding whether to reinstate a rule that could ultimately see someone killed under his watch. That's not exactly a tantalizing prospect to ponder when one is looking at reelection only two years away. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Kurt, Funny you should ask that. There's going to be a meeting on the 13th in Olympia and Soumi has asked interested home inspectors from the various organizations, as well as independents, to attend. The meeting involves the language being used in pre-inspection agreements all over the state by home inspectors. It seems that the AG has determined that home inspectors here can't have a limitation of liability clause in their contract limiting recovery to just the cost of an inspection, or an arbitration clause leaving damage determination up to an arbitrator, because under Washington State's screwy pest-control laws, anyone who is performing inspections of a home is "technically" doing a pest inspection, and is therefore required to carry either E & O insurance or a $25,000 bond. This is an interesting idea, because it could open a whole lot of inspectors (At last estimate the State believes there are between 1300 and 1500 inspectors in the state) to additional liability. Because I'm not affiliated with any association, I was invited to attend. However, I've got a conflict and won't be able to make it. So, of there are any independent Washington inspectors out there who would like to take my place, shoot me an email at hausdok@msn.com and we can talk about it. In fairness to Soumi, he's said publicly more than once that he doesn't think that the WSDA should be in control of home inspector licensing in the state and that he's not adverse to some kind of a system wherein home inspectors would be able to comment and report on rot and would be required to refer all insect issues to licensed pest control operators. In fairness to Chunn, he's just an objective observer. He went around the state gathering information from inspectors and let anyone who wanted to say anything have his or her say, over and over again, without painting anything one way or the other. It's interesting when one reads Chunn's document that inspectors on both sides of the licensing issue feel that it supports their view and not the other side's. Maybe it was too objective. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Scott, You don't need to. All he has to do is click on the icon in the initial post and the PDF will display and he can save it to his documents files. OT - OF!!! M.

Update!! I just received the final sunrise report and recommendations from the Washington State Department of licensing, so I've removed the draft of the final from TIJ's archives. The report's author, Bruce Chunn, informs me that there have been a few minor edits since the draft came out, but that the core findings and recommendations remain essentially unchanged. To download a copy of the final report and recommendations pertaining to home inspector licensing by the Washington State Dept. of Licensing, click here. Many thanks to Mr. Chunn for keeping us up-to-date on what's been happening in Olympia. You're a Mensch, Bruce! ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

TIJ has just received a copy of an official advisory memorandum (#07-001) from the Kentucky Board of Home Inspectors that is addressed to To all Kentucky licensed home inspectors and KBHI approved education providers. In bullet point format, the document states that: There is no current documentation from any source that states the FPE panels and breakers are a hazard to life and property solely because of the name of the manufacturer. To assume so without current documentation is incorrect and irresponsible. To require or recommend the removal of FPE panels and breakers solely on the basis of the manufacturer's name and without visual evidence of a specific hazard is irresponsible and could cause the homeowner undue financial hardship. The memo goes on to state that if an inspection of the interior of the panel indicates arcing or extreme heat that the inspector shall recommend further evaluation by a licensed Kentucky electrician, but states that only a licensed Kentucky electrician has the authority to determine what action is appropriate. Lastly, the memo states, "To assume all FPE devices are unsafe and a fire hazard without current evaluation by a Kentucky licensed electrician is not within the scope of a home inspection," and goes on to direct home inspectors to review their inspection reports for compliance with the advisory bulletin. The FPE panel issue is not a new one. Inspectors have known for more than a decade that the FPE Stablok panels are problematic and a class action lawsuit was initiated against the principals of FPE more than 4 years ago. These panels have even garnered mention in home inspection texts. Electricians across the country know about them as well and rarely dispute an inspectors recommendation to replace them. Several years ago, Douglas Hansen, long the undisputed guru of inspecting electrical systems, authored FPE Panels - Hazard or Hype?, a paper that supports inspectors who were calling for replacement of Stablok panels. One is forced to wonder what kind of nimrods have been appointed to the Kentucky Board of Home Inspectors (KBHI) and who they are kow-towing to with this memorandum. Do these people even realize that their ultimate obligation is to the truth - not to the truth as a seller or listing agent wishes it to be? Why are they concerned about a seller's financial hardship? Should cash-strapped buyers, who're cleaning out their savings accounts and working two jobs be saddled with the cost of replacing these latent fire hazards when they eventually go bad - and they will go bad. Maybe these individuals should look inward to find a definition of "irresponsible" or, better yet, maybe they should be forced to live in homes equipped with FPE Stablok panels. Let's hope nobody's family loses a child or another loved one to a fire caused by one of these panels because KBHI can't stand on it's own two feet. Download Attachment: KyFpeAdvisoryBulletin.pdf 79.79 KB

Hi All, For those of you who are interested, I've finished uploading the entire 5 part Radiant Barrier Document. You can continue reading it from the hot link at the bottom of the article above. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

Hi Steven, I pretty much have to concur with Kurt. Tell the client to ask himself, "What kind of an idiot would build a house with the garage and basement lower than the surrounding terrain when the house is already in a known flood plain?" Hell, his sump pump is going to be keeping the neighborhood pumped out. I bet the neighbors love it. I'd ask him if he has any running shoes. When he asked why, I'd say, "Because you need to put them on and run as hard as you can away from this house." OT - OF!!! M.

Introduction What is a radiant barrier? Radiant barriers are materials that are installed in buildings to reduce summer heat gain and winter heat loss, and hence to reduce building heating and cooling energy usage. The potential benefit of attic radiant barriers is primarily in reducing air-conditioning cooling loads in warm or hot climates. Radiant barriers usually consist of a thin sheet or coating of a highly reflective material, usually aluminum, applied to one or both sides of a number of substrate materials. These substrates include kraft paper, plastic films, cardboard, plywood sheathing, and air infiltration barrier material. Some products are fiber reinforced to increase the durability and ease of handling. Radiant barriers can be used in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. However, this fact sheet was developed only for applications of radiant barriers in ventilated attics of residential buildings. For information on other applications, see the references at the end of the Fact Sheet. How are radiant barriers installed in a residential attic? Radiant barriers may be installed in attics in several configurations. The simplest is to lay the radiant barrier directly on top of existing attic insulation, with the reflective side up. This is often called the attic floor application. Another way to install a radiant barrier is to attach it near the roof. The roof application has several variations. One variation is to attach the radiant barrier to the bottom surfaces of the attic truss chords or rafter framing. Another is to drape the radiant barrier over the tops of the rafters before the roof deck is applied. Still another variation is to attach the radiant barrier directly to the underside of the roof deck. How do radiant barriers work? Radiant barriers work by reducing heat transfer by thermal radiation across the air space between the roof deck and the attic floor, where conventional insulation is usually placed. All materials give off, or emit, energy by thermal radiation as a result of their temperature. The amount of energy emitted depends on the surface temperature and a property called the "emissivity" (also called the "emittance"). The emissivity is a number between zero (0) and one (1). The higher the emissivity, the greater the emitted radiation. A closely related material property is the "reflectivity" (also called the "reflectance"). This is a measure of how much radiant heat is reflected by a material. The reflectivity is also a number between 0 and 1 (sometimes, it is given as a percentage, and then it is between 0 and 100%). For a material that is opaque (that is, it does not allow radiation to pass directly through it), when the emissivity and reflectivity are added together, the sum is one (1). Hence, a material with a high reflectivity has a low emissivity, and vice versa. Radiant barrier materials must have high reflectivity (usually 0.9, or 90%, or more) and low emissivity (usually 0.1 or less), and must face an open air space to perform properly. On a sunny summer day, solar energy is absorbed by the roof, heating the roof sheathing and causing the underside of the sheathing and the roof framing to radiate heat downward toward the attic floor. When a radiant barrier is placed on the attic floor, much of the heat radiated from the hot roof is reflected back toward the roof. This makes the top surface of the insulation cooler than it would have been without a radiant barrier and thus reduces the amount of heat that moves through the insulation into the rooms below the ceiling. Under the same conditions, a roof mounted radiant barrier works by reducing the amount of radiation incident on the insulation. Since the amount of radiation striking the top of the insulation is less than it would have been without a radiant barrier, the insulation surface temperature is lower and the heat flow through the insulation is reduced. Radiant barriers can also reduce indoor heat losses through the ceiling in the winter. Radiant barriers reduce the amount of energy radiated from the top surface of the insulation, but can also reduce beneficial heat gains due to solar heating of the roof. The net benefits of radiant barriers for reducing winter heat losses are still being studied. How does a radiant barrier differ from conventional attic insulation? Radiant barriers perform a function that is similar to that of conventional insulation, in that they reduce the amount of heat that is transferred from the attic into the house. They differ in the way they reduce the heat flow. A radiant barrier reduces the amount of heat radiated across an air space that is adjacent to the radiant barrier. The primary function of conventional insulation is to trap still air within the insulation, and hence reduce heat transfer by air movement (convection). The insulation fibers or particles also partially block radiation heat transfer through the space occupied by the insulation. Conventional insulations are usually rated by their R-value. Since the performance of radiant barriers depends on many variables, simple R-value ratings have not been developed for them. What are the characteristics of a radiant barrier? All radiant barriers have at least one reflective (or low emissivity) surface, usually a sheet or coating of aluminum. Some radiant barriers have a reflective surface on both sides. Both types work about equally well, but if a one-sided radiant barrier is used, the reflective surface must face the open air space. For example, if a one-sided radiant barrier is laid on top of the insulation with the reflective side facing down and touching the insulation, the radiant barrier will lose most of its effectiveness in reducing heating and cooling loads. Emissivity is the property that determines how well a radiant barrier will perform. This property is a number between 0 and 1, with lower numbers indicating better potential for performance. The emissivity of typical, clean, unperforated radiant barriers is about 0.03 to 0.05. Hence they will have a reflectivity of 95 to 97 percent. Some materials may have higher emissivities. It is not always possible to judge the emissivity just by visual appearance. Measured emissivity values should be part of the information provided by the manufacturer. A radiant barrier used in the attic floor application must allow water vapor to pass through it. This is necessary because, during the winter, if there is no effective vapor retarder at the ceiling, water vapor from the living space may condense and even freeze on the underside of a radiant barrier lying on the attic floor. In extremely cold climates or during prolonged periods of cold weather, a layer of condensed water could build up. In more moderate climates, the condensed water could evaporate and pass through the radiant barrier into the attic space. While most uniform aluminum coatings do not allow water vapor to pass through them, many radiant barrier materials do allow passage of water vapor. Some allow water vapor passage through holes or perforations, while others have substrates that naturally allow water vapor passage without requiring holes. However, excessively large holes will increase the emissivity and cause a reduction in the radiant barrier performance. The ability to allow water vapor to pass through radiant barrier materials is not needed for the roof applications. What should a radiant barrier installation cost? Costs for an attic radiant barrier will depend on several factors, including the following: Whether the radiant barrier is installed by the homeowner or by a contractor. Whether the radiant barrier will be installed in a new home (low cost) or in an existing home (possibly higher cost if done by a contractor). What extra "features" are desired; e.g., a radiant barrier with perforations and reinforcements may be more expensive than a "basic" radiant barrier. Any necessary retrofit measures such as adding venting (soffit, ridge, etc.) Whether the radiant barrier is installed on the attic floor or on the rafters. Radiant barrier costs vary widely. As with most purchases, some comparison shopping can save you money. A survey of nine radiant barrier manufacturers and contractors representing 14 products, taken by the Reflective Insulation Manufacturers Association (RIMA) in 1989, shows the installed costs of radiant barriers to range as shown in Table 1. In some cases, radiant barriers are included in a package of energy saving features sold to homeowners. When considering a "package deal", you may want to ask for an itemized list that includes material and installation costs for all measures included. Then shop around to see what each item would cost if purchased individually before you make a decision. What should conventional insulation cost? Heating and cooling bills can also be reduced by adding conventional attic insulation. So that you can have some basis for comparison shopping, typical installed costs for adding various levels of insulation are given in Table 2. These costs are typical for insulation installed by contractors. Actual insulation costs will vary from region to region of the country, will vary with the type of insulation selected (blown, or loose-fill, insulation is usually lower in price than "batt" insulation), and may vary from one local contractor to another. You can expect to deduct 20% to 50% for a do-it-yourself application. You should always check with your local or state energy office or building code department for current insulation recommendations or see the DOE INSULATION FACT SHEET. Next Section - Effect of Radiant Barriers on Heating and Cooling Bills Source: U.S. Dept. of Energy & Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building Envelope Research Program Key to Abbreviations. Information Services About This Fact Sheet

MADISON, WI -- Each year American homeowners spend millions of dollars attempting to fix or prevent moisture-related problems. Too often, their efforts don’t fix the problem. In some cases, these efforts actually make matters worse. So says Anton TenWolde, a physicist and researcher who has been studying moisture in buildings for more than 20 years. According to TenWolde, many generally accepted moisture-control practices in the United States are based on limited or no research but mostly on tradition among home builders and others. “We spend very little on housing research in the United States. Several countries, including Canada and even smaller nations like Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, invest more than the United States in research into home-building technology,â€

Yes, Thank you, Kyle. How soon do you think you'll be able to know? I just last night sent a report to one of my clients with a recommendation to remove an FPE box. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike

OK, That's enough of that, Les. The idea of dousing those two unwashed hippies with Lysol sounds like fun [:-smirk], but the thought of jumping in the shower with them [:-blindfo? Uh, uh, I gotta draw the line somewhere. I'd rather get a root canal. [:-smile_g OT - OF!!! M.