ozofprev

Ok, we will just have to disagree about the meaning of unbiased. And, the consumer is misled by the state that meaningful credentials exist. But, sticking to the point... The state requires next to nothing - and that's bad. Not true, if licensing were meaningful. He would have a field day.

Damn, I hope you're right.

Cool, put that in your profile. Can you describe the unbiased forum to which you refer? That's sad. The expectations should be established prior to the inspection. Even so, it seems strange that people have a more positive view of our profession after discovering that their expectations need to be lowered. Well, NY State's standards are the ASHI standards. The problem is that the licensing requirements are not preparatory for the performance of that standard. Although the NHIE is simple, the NYS exam is half as long and easier still. So being licensed in NY is easier than being an ASHI associate with logo privilege. That's another reason I think the current licensing law is bad for the consumer. Not necessarily. The inspectors who don't meet clients' expectations will quickly become some RE agent's best friend. Almost. That's the problem I have with current licensing. Clients ask themselves the same question. I state on my website that licensed and certified do NOT mean qualified. Some poor homeowners have discovered that the hard way. Licensing gave them a false sense of security. Where's Walter?????

That's a cool bit of history. My imagined history was much nicer, however. Thanks for ruining that for me.

Being on a state committee, you are likely to agree. Could you fill out your profile to show which state (USA isn't much help)? Thanks. How is that better for the client? So, it's better for the state to mislead the public by implying that someone who is licensed has the appropriate qualifications? They don't, you know. If the state's qualifying standards were any better, I would agree, but they aren't. That's why it's bad for the consumer. The consumer can only be let down by the state's low standards.

Ok, pretend it is tomorrow... Carl has offered some of the finest advice I think I've seen in any HI forum. Following that advice will quickly advance us all into the professionalid="maroon"> status we desire. Thank you, thank you.

Why would anyone ever leave Beaver Island?

Chad, you are correct. A really bad joke! Everything you say is true. The one's making a bundle in this deal are the lousy HI schools. (No, not all are bad, but way too many are.) How can you tell if a law is good for a consumer? Simple, it doesn't let an unqualified person into a position serving a consumer. NY's law is BAD for the consumer. If I know of anyone moving to Rochacha from Buff, I'm sending them your way, Chad.

Les, that was awesome!

Retracting too early can make your props curly. (sorry, I just always liked it.) I have a compulsion problem too, Brian, but I don't try to fix it. Being a grown-up is entirely over-rated. Oh, and the solution to polution is dilution.

Bruce, Wow! You are getting all this education for free. Regular participants in these forums should receive MRC's - really. As you can tell, we actually care. A good thing for you to look for is this - is a person talking about buildings, materials, ethics, electrical, plumbing or tulips? If so, then that is someone from whom you can learn much. Of course we bring up business issues from time to time, but that is not our usual emphasis. For anyone here to really listen to another's advice, we first need to know that their motivation is building science and ethics. If that's not a person's introduction, then they are likely seen as fluff. Got it, Ace?

Bruce, Mark said good stuff, but I wouldn't count on flyers. Realtors generally just toss those, since they already have their stooge HI. Now, you do have a choice. You can be a stooge HI and go the way of Carl, or you can be respected by your peers. It's a free country.

Hey, is that a knock on Rochester? Chad and I will come after ya!

And then, you witness a murder!

Joe, Those are nice pics. Thanks. I expect everyone in Chapman to have a really nice pool table. And I suspect lots of hernias for local builders.

It would make for a nice little wine cellar.

Mike, I believe numbers 2 and 6 (with 1 being the top pic) are the ones I hooked Martin up with earlier. They were at the ASHI site and were taken by Tim Maxwell.

As the only access? Only for tree-houses.

Since I have commercial, instrument, single and multiengine, land and sea ratings, I have to say that that makes me one of the best inspectors in New York. Now, wouldn't it suck if I really believed that? Since there is no homogeneity in qualifying for this trade, claims like these are only natural. But we cannot 'up' the standards, I have been told, because that would put too many current home inspectors out of business. So these sorts of claims will likely continue for a long time to come. I have been told by a brilliant PE (hint, P.E.) and top HI that his mentoring experience has shown that engineers, in fact, do pick things up more quickly, but that their engineering degrees alone are insufficient. Sounds reasonable. It seems that Jowers has the right 'first step' in requiring some minimal education. The simple ability to logically debate issues is more than several in this trade can muster. (none of those here, of course!)

Magnificent. Did you get dizzy taking the picture of the ceiling? I always do.

True, and I understand what you say (later) about meta analysis being weighted, but done correctly, the 'weighting' objectively accounts for errors in the raw data and collection techniques. The link you provided is funded by cancer research and includes a statement that the cancer funding had nothing to do with the report. Ok, I can trust the academicians on that, but the report still shows nothing new. It states in bullet form precisely what it adds to the knowledge base. This is what the report itself claims to add: 1. ... strong evidence of an association between the radon concentration at home and lung cancer 2. The dose-response relation seemed to be linear, with no evidence of a threshold dose, and there was a significant dose-response relation even below currently recommended action levels. 3. Absolute risk to smokers is much greater. 4. Radon accounts for about 9% of lung cancers. I have seen all of this. Radon, bad. There is no magic threshold number, even though some have been manufactured by governments. That's fine, governments do that with toxic things like pesticides, carcinogens, friable material, etc... Thanks, but no. So, you are not also Michael F???id="green">

For those old enough to remember punch cards and Hollerith fields the name, John Backus, probably rings a bell. For the younger ones, this is still one hell of an interesting read. What a life!

Great. Show me. By 'pooled', I take it you are saying a valid meta analysis exists. So point the way. I can read and decide the 'bottom line' for myself. I don't know if you are also that Michael F character or not, but he still owes me. (I'm not getting personal Mike O, this is just a strange thread) Just the facts, please. ON SECOND THOUGHT...id="maroon"> I need nothing more. After reviewing this thread, I think Jimmy summed everything up quite nicely in his first post. I'm a happy camper. As a NEHA certified Rn measurement provider, I am qualified to provide the reliable information my clients can use to decide for themselves. Today is the second nice day this year in Buffalo. Time for fun...

That's a very good point. Time to change my ways.

I used to do that. It works.