Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by ozofprev

That's pathetic, Scott.

You did not say that people in a certain organization take the simple path to learning (i.e., boondoggles). You did say that people who belong to a certain organization do mold inspection. There is a huge difference. Daniel does mold inspection and he belongs to the the same organization as you.

You cannot automatically connect a mold inspector with Pro-Lab anymore than you can automatically connect a home inspector with the Podunk School of Home Inspection and Beauty Products.

Sorry you think that Gary. You and I have never seen eye to eye on much of anything. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You tend to get and take things a little personal.

I really do not care what organization a home inspector is a member of, IMO the two do not mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ozofprev

As you know, mold inspection has been a popular topic at TIJ before. On one of those threads, I mentioned that I knew a VERY smart HI who was disappointed that I was choosing NOT to do mold inspections. It was Daniel to which I referred.

He believes a home inspector has a much better opportunity to provide mold inspections than any IAQ expert.

That's interesting, because Jeffrey May, author of My House Is Killing Me is someone that I would say is very qualified to be doing mold investigations, but his take on the whole mold thing is that it's a quicksand bog for home inspectors just waiting to suck them down.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by hausdok

That's interesting, because Jeffrey May, author of My House Is Killing Me is someone that I would say is very qualified to be doing mold investigations, but his take on the whole mold thing is that it's a quicksand bog for home inspectors just waiting to suck them down.

ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!!

Mike

And I agree with Jeffrey in today's world.

Look, what training is available today that most HIs will pay for? It is garbage, as are the tools most use in their testing.

If a home inspector actually had the intellect and took the time to learn about mold the way Friedman has, THEN the home inspector has the advantage of looking in every visible nook and cranny - something the average IAQ person does NOT do.

Jeffrey sees the world that is, while Daniel sees the world that could be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ozofprev

. . . I have little doubt that you know him and Pete well enough to turn this around, but as of now - he does call himself a mold inspector and he does believe that HIs should be inspecting for mold.

OK. I revise my opinion. It's only 99.99% of people who call themselves "mold inspectors" that are frauds.

Frankly, I think that Friedman and Engle would be well advised to find a different title for what they do.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Jim Katen

OK. I revise my opinion. It's only 99.99% of people who call themselves "mold inspectors" that are frauds.

On that, I agree. But I would say the same thing of home inspectors.id="blue">

Originally posted by Jim Katen

Frankly, I think that Friedman and Engle would be well advised to find a different title for what they do.

I believe they are among the few who should maintain their titles. It is the rest who should not be allowed to use it.

There is a short list of home inspectors who are extremely qualified. Should they change their titles because the majority are unqualified? The answer may be yes, but then everyone else simply follows suit and the game goes on.id="blue">

Home inspector -> Master home inspector -> Senior Master home inspector -> Chief Senior Master Home inspector -> ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda on a different subject - but seems to go along with the crooks and thieves idea. About 2 hours ago while inspecting, it was just me and the realtor in the house - she tells me she has a listing for 8%. Around here 5-6% is average and I have never heard of anything above 7%. I asked her why she would take 8% and she replied w/ a grin on her face "hey it negotiable, besides he is going to make 100k since he has owned it since 1980." I'm really burned up about this. Probably some old couple that knows no better. I'm tempted to find out the house and drop a note in the owners mail box! Damn thieving bitch!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ozofprev

Go here and click on Find a mold inspector (Scroll down a bit)[/url]

Click on that link and you will find he lists himself (And Pete Engle).

I know Pete quite well - we've worked together on State legislation issues, on joint inspections & refer each other. I'm quite sure he has never called himself a mold inspector. I'll bet a large sum that he has never performed a mold test. Like myself, he does some moisture intrusion investigations. When finding a mold problem, I'll also bet that he steers folks toward an Industrial Hygienist, experienced with residential mold issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ozofprev

Until rigorous education and or training in all things home inspection related, this will continue to be the sort of field where people say, "Yeah, and did you ever notice that these guys are in *****?"

IMHO, when it comes to spore whores and buckethead home inspectors, it's not so much what org they're in or the places they've been.

It's the places they've deliberately avoided. Legitimate classrooms, for instance. And libraries.

Mostly, I see handymen with word-of-mouth educations. Reminds me of people who sent in sketches from those old matchbook covers, hoping to start on a career in art.

WJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ozofprev

You might be right, but only praise has been heaped on either of them. And all that's been mentioned is what exists on their public websites.

Well, if we're talking about Engle and Friedman, those two are first-rate. I'm talking about the shysters in the mold game, and the HIs who operate essentially off the info they get from other HIs and RE agents.

WJ

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by SonOfSwamp

Well, if we're talking about Engle and Friedman, those two are first-rate. I'm talking about the shysters in the mold game, and the HIs who operate essentially off the info they get from other HIs and RE agents.

That's my point, sort of.

I wanted to show that the discussion of mold in this business is painted with too broad a brush. The same is often true of Rn, WDO and IR.

The best way to make my point wrt mold was to point out someone of unquestionable intellect who does mold inspection and mitigation.

If the topic was Rn, WDI or IR then I could easily find inspectors of high repute to support that.

The point --> if someone has the intellect and takes the time to truly understand a subject, then they should be proud to offer that service as they peruse a structure.

Debating whether a home inspector should be 'doing' mold, Rn, WDI or IR is moot. If someone has only a weekend certificate, then he should not. But that's true of home inspection itself! On the other hand, if one has invested the time and effor to truly learn a subject, then great!

I'm sure that people will still say things like, "A home inspector should not be doing xxxx." I say, "That depends."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a story about a lady chasing odors in her house. There's a mold guy involved in this story too. By the way, when I post links to articles like this, there's often a way that you can respond to the author of the article, the same way that you respond here, so provide feedback from a home inspector's standpoint when you can.

I dunno, reading this story, early on it occurred to me that a rat might have gotten up under that island cabinet and expired there. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the ones that nobody thinks about.

Enjoy: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07349/841500-30.stm

OT - OF!!!

M.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Good morning, Gents –

I just now saw the video on the mould inspection scammers. I’d like to point out there are some issues that should be clarified.

Some of the questions put to the IH, Brian Daly were loaded, and some of the responses appeared to be edited, and may have been presented out of context. And, importantly, the data quality objectives, and sampling rationale performed by Daly were not revealed in the video. By the way, I don’t know Mr. Daly and I have never met him; I have only ever reviewed one of his reports, and it would appear that he is a legitimate and competent IH.

For example, the reporter asked Daly the following loaded question:

“Can an expert tell that it's dangerous toxic mold just by lookingid="blue">?â€

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Originally posted by ozofprev

Originally posted by Jerry Simon

I could care less if I find mold that speaks English and tells me it's mold...

That should read, "I couldn'tid="maroon"> care less..."

Very common slip.

Thanks to Gary Randolph for referring readers to my mold information website - its home page is www.inspect-ny.com/sickhouse.htm

I agree that it's difficult to read and believe various credentials offered to and by "mold inspectors" - there are some (I list one at my bio as an example at www.inspect-ny.com/danbio.htm) that you can obtain by just sending money, others for a weekend class.

A combination of these things in an inspector's background may be useful in choosing an inspector:

- experience as a home inspector or building inspector - since knowing how to recognize high moisture, leaks and leak history is a key factor in knowing where to look for mold

- familiarity with building materials - some are much more mold friendly than others, e.g. drywall is rather mold friendly whereas plaster is less so - lower but not zero risk

- basic understanding of mycology - not all mold is harmful, some is just cosmetic: some unambiguous cases of "cosmetic only" mold that ANY astute inspector can figure out with NO tests whatsoever are at

http://www.inspect-ny.com/sickhouse/Not ... m#cosmetic

More important, an inspector needs to know how to recognize mold that can be hard to see, and s/he needs to understand that if conditions are right to produce mold in a building, there is likely to be more than one problem area and more than one kind of mold present. One of the most egregious problems I find is hygienists (they are often the worst building inspectors) "testing" for mold using an air sample (very unreliable), finding some mold problem, and then cleaning up the "wrong" area - say cleaning visible cosmetic or low-issue but easy to see mold, and leaving a serious but hard to see problem (say moldy fiberglass insulation).

Because I operate a building forensic lab and specialize in identifying biological particles like mold, I have been able to do more tests than most of us could otherwise afford (my lab, my tests) - it's made me a bit opinionated about what kinds of mold inspection and mold "tests" are more or less valid. Did you know that only 10% of all molds on earth will grow on any culture media under any condition? So a mold culture as a building screen for mold is 90% WRONG the moment you open the "home test kit" - how bout them apples!

Best wishes to you fellows chatting about this topic. I welcome questions about my website content - my contact info is at my website www.inspect-ny.com

Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Scottpat

Has anyone ever noticed what home inspector organization most home inspectors who test for mold are associated with? Funny how they go hand in hand with each other.

Charter member DDMG

In reply to the writer who points out that I list myself as someone to hire to investigate mold problems,

Of course I list myself - I'm serous and trained - faculty at the Harvard School of Public Health, McCrone institute of microscopy in Chicago, various PAAA spore camp seminars etc.

Frankly I think that a home inspector trained in mold and mycology makes a better mold investigator than most industrial hygienists (who don't know much building science).

Pete is also very well qualified and we've enjoyed some classes together.

ANY qualified inspector with training and exprience (not a weekend class or a for-pay diploma) is very welcome to add his or her listing - there is no fee, just contact Dan Friedman with the particulars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Scottpat

Has anyone ever noticed what home inspector organization most home inspectors who test for mold are associated with? Funny how they go hand in hand with each other.

Charter member DDMG

Well Gary thanks for the debate on what I, Dan Friedman, call myself (other than expletives)

I would say that I offer mold inspection and testing services, but I am hardly a "mold inspector" in that no decent inspector simply goes into a building looking at or for only one IAQ problem source (if that's the topic).

Haven't many of you fellows found cases where a client is in a panic about a trivial amount of mold, nothing deserving professional analysis or cleanup, but you see that the gas fired heater flue is dumping flue gases into the living space or some other much more serious concern. Heck, just loose railings and falling down the stairs is a more frequent source of lost work than mold related illness.

I'd like to think I'm a building diagnostician, or building failures researcher, and also am trained in some specialties like mycology and forensic microscopy, but all those words are so fancy as to sound pretentious and thus embarrassing.

How about "building diagnostician" or "failures analyst" or something.

What's in a name?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Scottpat

Has anyone ever noticed what home inspector organization most home inspectors who test for mold are associated with? Funny how they go hand in hand with each other.

Charter member DDMG

Just to be clear on Gary's comments:

It is not my opinion that home inspectors SHOULD be inspecting for mold.

It is my opinion that a home inspector, if s/he WANTS to inspect for mold, will do a better job than some other highly-specialized "experts" who don't understand how buildings work.

Also I expect home inspectors to be more ethical, not selling scare, or un-needed tests and services. By contrast there are plenty of "turnkey" mold companies who do it all - testing (no real inspecting), cleaning, and then post-remediation clearance testing - the fox watching the hen house so to speak./

Certainly an inspector who decides to offer "mold testing" should make sure the test is both appropriate (we don't normally test small areas of mold less than 30 sqft as professional and costly cleaning are not needed anyway) and that its method is valid (say a tape sample to a decent lab) (please don't send them to my lab).

The most important part of any mold inspection, however, is not the "test" it is the "inspection" for leaks, leak history, moisture, moisture history, what building areas got wet, where did water go, therefore where are the risks, and where is there visible mold. This is much more important, and more fundamentally sound than going into a building and doing a "mold test"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...