kurt

Familiar as in I've installed them. Vastly inferior to neoprene gasketed screws. The lead is supposed to squash out when you cinch the nail to the steel, but they usually squish out and/or come off. I'd recommend a dab of SolarSeal caulk, or equal, to every nail head.

It's the wimpification of America. Pretty soon we'll have our learned ones identifying virtually all elements on Earth as having the potential for harm. And, they'll be right.

Is the roof sheathing plywood? Are there roof and/or soffit vents? Without pictures or specific descriptions, it's not possible to offer efficient advice. The larger concern is not mold, but the water that allows the mold to propogate; where is it coming from? There is the distinct possibility that it is only a minor little bit of black mold that isn't going to effect much of anything; it exists in about half the attics I look at. OTOH, depending on purchase price of the house, $1600 might just be the easiest & fastest way to deal w/it. Most inspectors, and definitely myself, point out various mold "now" that I would have never even mentioned "then". This is self preservation more than any real concern related to mold. I suspect that your situation might fall under that umbrella.

There is the thought that one is installing an ACM (vermiculite contains some asbestos fiber) in the crawlspace, albeit within a matrix of concrete. In some ways, it isn't a bad way to deal w/ the nasty crawlspace problem. Did they mention what happens when it is applied over a vapor retarder/barrier? As w/ most concrete products, I imagine it would mess it up without very careful application, i.e., concrete installed over vapor barriers doesn't set up properly unless there is minimal water in the mix.

It's a decent fix for the nightmare crawlspace(s); the advertising is just trying to capitalize on all the usual sensational hysteria related to mold. Crusty, read the latest mold study; it's in last weeks Chicago Tribune. Upshot; none of the crap we've been reading the last couple years is borne out by scientific study. None of it. "Toxic" mold is only toxic to those who have genetic predispositions to be allergic to the stuff, usually only those w/ pre-existing respiratory health issues (asthma leading the way). These same folks have problems w/ pollens, atmospheric pollutants of all stripes, & just about anything that isn't pure air. Mold is just another item in the list. Conclusion: mold is not good, but it isn't necessarily "bad". It does provide great fodder for those inclined to sensationalism in reporting. Concrete will keep rodents out of the crawlspace (sometimes); in Chicago, concrete provides a wonderful roof for the rat warren though. When we've busted out slabs in crawlspaces to dig out bsmts'., we find amazing tunnel complexes where (apparently) thousands of rats have lived. The concrete is, in one way, protective; we can't put poison under the concrete, & it provides the rats a nice barrier from our eradication efforts. Mikes comments were (as usual) pretty much spot on. He wasn't saying any of the stuff that you seem to have drawn from his statements.

That's the other surprising thing; these places are always old, 2x4 rafters, no ridge beams, (maybe) collar ties, etc., but possess no significant sag. One thing they usually share is a steep pitch, which is the balm for the (otherwise) goofy mess of roofing.

I always wonder the same thing. What's strange is that the slates don't look shattered; they hold the nail(?). I suppose it's like nailing on steel "pole barn" roofing; hold the nail straight, & hit it really HARD.

I see it a few times a year on the old stuff in the City; sometimes 2 or 3 layers over the old slate. It seems to work OK, but it is a sorry excuse for roofing. It makes the (eventual) tearoff a much larger job.

I'm with Mike; what is "cultured brick"? I'm assuming that you mean those soft brick that are adhered to a fibrous/celotex substrate. They don't need weepholes. If it is a "real" brick veneer sitting on a brick shelf on the foundation, you needs weepholes, wicks, & through wall flashing.

Go for it; it's been a little dry lately, & I could use some of your (considerable) wit w/ the limerick.

There are a lot of minds @ ASHI; anyone that thinks the organization is a set piece of single mindedness has apparently not spent much time talking to Directors, Officers, or staff @ HQ. The Branding thingiemabob grew out of a lot of differing opinions & input, but as near as my backroom investigative work can tell, there was big push from one Exective Director who managed to convince several folks that this was a good idea. There are still several Directors who think it is a bonehead idea. Do not look to the general staff @ HQ as the culprits either. ASHI is lucky to have a number of very dedicated folks @ HQ who just want to do what we want them to do; don't blame them. The push to the big organizations (realtors, Home Depot, etc.) seems to be thought of as a good idea by the advertising agency ("we negotiated a deal w/ Home Depot!"), and Mr. Executive Director ("I negotiated the deal w/ Home Depot!"). There are many rank & file that like the ideas, but they didn't come up w/ the idea(s). As near as I can tell, Branding is going off w/ all the force of a baked potato popping in the oven, i.e., "did you hear something?".

Yeah, Mike, c'mon; it's called debate. This isn't a discussion of which is the best professional association; this directly effects how we write reports. It's not about looking right or "arguing"; it's about stating positions, being rebutted, & working to find what's right. I don't know about anyone else, but I thought it was a pretty good go around. I learned something.

It's called Balsam Wool around here (Chicago). Sometimes I see it encased in an asphaltic paper batt. It's ground up pine trees, I think.

Personally one makes a quantum leap from reality if one assumes that what goes on in a court of law (especially with respect to home inspectors) is anything but silly, IMO. Sad but true. No said it was fair. Often, the reluctance to take the necessary action to provide a good legal offense in our report writing is one of the major causes that your E&O carriers are so ready to roll over and settle rather than spend the money to defend. The end result…… You pay the deductible and everyone's rates go up.[:-banghead] Crusty, that's not what he said. You're extrapolating from statements to conclusions that don't reflect what the statement indicated. He didn't say what goes on in court of law is silly; he said the notion that using a code reference makes our reports a code inspection is silly (or something like that). As far as E&O rates going up, if more people cited references for their statements, I believe we would find the rates going back down.

To bring the topic full circle, I don't think the switching thing matters @ all. As a source (not code), I use my own bathroom, w/ 2 doors & one switch. I built it that way 9 years ago because it was easier. Not once has anyone commented on the requirement to walk (approx.) 5' across the bathroom to turn on the light. I've run a little poll of the population (wife, daughter, & daughters friends) about the lack of a 2nd switch; they all looked @ me like I'm a dork (I am). It would be nice, but no one notices what is not there in the first place, I guess. Geeeez, I wish I had this sort of stuff to worry about. Saturday's job had termites, a collapsing chimney, about $80,000 of blown lintels & collapsing masonry, a buried oil tank, a bsmt. full of shredded asbestos, the entire place needed new windows, and that's just for starters. $879,000 just doesn't buy what it used to.......

What Jim said. I wish I could use the more references than I do; I work in Chicago, where code is, how can I describe it(?), ummm, fluid. Code is very often what Carmine down @ city hall sez it is. I've (literally) had City inspectors side w/their union brothers (to be an inspector in Chicago, you have to be in the union) in things they "both agree are not to code, but so what, we're the union, so fuck off." It makes it hard to cite code as a source. I'm still not sure I understand Crusty's position; on the one hand, he says it gets you in trouble, and to not use it. On the other, he says that he advises use at every opportunity. I get the sense that ol' Crusty is siding w/ Mr. Salty out of respect, but knows where his bread is buttered & is getting his IRC cert because those that know the source get to look a lot smarter than someone who doesn't.

Good man. I protect my data like I protect my privates; can't be too careful.

Not mad Crusty, just emphatic. You're completely wrong. Your entire position is built upon non-sequiturs. At least one of your conclusions (the last one) is based on a "guess". Your argument is that we must not use source material for any statement because we will be held to a higher standard; "all or nothing". Upon what do you base this proposition? Upon what do we base our opinions? Would it make more sense to you that we base our opinons on personal heresay instead of written law? It is not all or nothing. There is nothing in any aspect of English common law that states we must know all elements of every law. Heck, even the lawyers don't know every element of every law. There is nothing that requires us to state the code, but any intelligent judge is going to accept a properly referenced source. If one does not know whereof they speak, for gods sake don't go making things up. That is what will get you in trouble, not citing source material. Your idea is based on a salty inspectors opinion, and god only knows where mr. salty arrived @ his misbegotten conclusion. He probably watched a good attorney eviscerate a doofus inspector w/ a lousy attorney, & made the same (non-sequitur) conclusions that you have made. If you are 3/4 of the way to earning your IRC cert, (and I commend you, sir), what the heck are you talking about when you say we can't use references?

Nonsense. No one is going to have any increased liability for citing a source for their statements; if the source happens to be the code, all the better. Referencing a source is what smart inspectors do. The idea that we will be punished because we use a code reference is silly. Does anyone think that we will be punished for being smart & informed, & using references when they apply? If one gets dragged into court, it will be because one made a mistake, not because they were using all the information available to them. Just because you use a code reference in on portion of the report, it doesn't mean you have to use it in all aspects of the report. It does not necessarily mean that you are performing a code compliance inspection, nor does it give that impression. The impression it gives is that the inspector knows what the hell they are talking about. Exactly how is an opposing attorney going to make one look stupid for using a code reference?

That ran through my mind, but why would the flow drop dead when the pump kicked in? Even w/ no tank, the flow will surge & drop as the switch clicks on and off. I ran this by my pump guru @ the cottage, & he just looked @ me w/ that "huh?" look. I'm workin' on it; this is cornfusin'.......

Did you have water flow up until the pump kicked in @ 30psi? IOW, did the flow stop when the pump turned on?

Anywhere from 8 to 30 years; there is no (apparent) standard lifespan. My own just failed after 10 years & 2 months. Of course the listing agents plumber said that it didn't need to be replaced; plumbers always say stuff like that. If you called him after it leaked, he would say that anyone could have seen it needed replacement. A 25 year old heater is @ the end of its lifespan; time for replacement.

Other option..... Get an inline Fantech fan going on; they have a bathroom/water closet fan that moves around 800cfm minus static. You mount the fan @ the outlet anywhere (more or less) that you want (up, down, sideways), & pull the bath air out silently. One fan can service multiple bathrooms. http://www.fantech.net/bathroom.htm

Yes. Flexible ducting creates turbulent air flow; this turbulence creates static pressure, which reduces air flow. The longer the duct, the greater the static pressure. A 15-18 foot run will probably create too much static for a bath fan to effectively counteract. It will also allow moisture to condense on the interior of the duct. Just run it through the roof; it's easy, & they don't leak if the installer has a grain of know-how. At minimum, discharge the duct within 6" of a standard roof vent; this isn't "legal", but it works fine.