Weird Mold Myths in the Home Inspection Industry! It's a good thing I'm here...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 11/25/2014 11:34 AM EST

We do provide it for everyone. I have a two hour course online, it's free, go to www.HomeInspectionUniversity.com

I'm not going to give a two hour course in bits and pieces in the form of forum posts, and apparently your education from elsewhere on this has failed you. The #1 Vendor of all time and the #1 educator of all time (Michael Casey) put together this wonderful resource for you. Why wouldn't you check it out and then come back and move the conversation to a higher level? That doesn't make sense to me.

Cameron Anderson wrote:

Nathan wrote:Sure, dozens. Have you taken the course at Home Inspection University yet? It might offer some clarity. Especially on the behind the wall topic.

No, I do my CE and research elsewhere. Besides, this is about providing info for everyone, not just me.

So what are the other notable ones from the dozens to choose from? Just fill in the blanks.
Mold testing...
1. Tells you the type of mold or mold spores present at the time and location of the test.
2. Mold testing tells you the difference between the types of mold or mold spores located at the interior and the exterior.
3. Can tell you what levels of moisture may have been present during a previous moisture/water intrusion event.
4. Can tell you if your levels are elevated. (Some clarification would help here. I'm assuming mold spores in the air)
5. Can help find mold issues behind walls. (Again, some clarification about the "How" of this would be helpful.)
6.
7.
8.
9.

See answer above. Hate when it skips pages

Nathan wrote:I'm not going to give a two hour course in bits and pieces in the form of forum posts, and apparently your education from elsewhere on this has failed you. The #1 Vendor of all time and the #1 educator of all time (Michael Casey) put together this wonderful resource for you. Why wouldn't you check it out and then come back and move the conversation to a higher level? That doesn't make sense to me.

I thought the conversation has remained at very high level. The only thing that tends to bring down conversations like this are insults.

I've got some reading to finish from the AIHA and WHO on the topic, but I will definitely check out that course in the next few weeks. Just to clarify, I'm not asking for it to be posted here. As I mentioned before I'm asking what is Inspectorlab's opinion on the benefits of mold testing? We have several, what are the others?

Mold testing...
1. Tells you the type of mold or mold spores present at the time and location of the test.
2. Mold testing tells you the difference between the types of mold or mold spores located at the interior and the exterior.
3. Can tell you what levels of moisture may have been present during a previous moisture/water intrusion event.
4. Can tell you if your levels are elevated. (Some clarification would help here. I'm assuming mold spores in the air)
5. Can help find mold issues behind walls. (Again, some clarification about the "How" of this would be helpful.)
6.
7.
8.
9.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 11/26/2014 01:46 AM EST

Nathan wrote:
Those organizations do not take a stance like what you're suggesting- not even close. Also, none of them are involved in any facet of real estate transactions, so completely irrelevant.

Any more testing than what we're suggesting in most all cases is completely unnecessary, gives repeatedly the same results

Nathan wrote:Here's the other myth: "An air sample measured in minutes can't represent the air quality in the home"

Nonsense. This is exactly the air that someone would breath in, we're taking in 150L of air in a room and every drop of that air has enough spores to represent what is going on.

The statement you've made here is patently false, and you're getting bad information from somewhere on the internet! Tell me from who, I want to make fun of them publicly and squash them like the cockroaches they are.

I'll try to get some of the others posted soon, but here's one sample. (no pun intended)

National Academy of Sciences - Institute of Medicine
Damp Indoor Spaces And Health (2004)

Pg. 99
"For risk-assessment purposes, measures of exposure need to be both accurate and precise so that the effect of exposure on disease can be estimated with minimal bias and maximum efficiency. Therefore, exposure must be assessed with a minimal measurement error. Precision can be gained (that is, measurement error can be reduced) by increasing the number of samples taken in each home."

"A within-home to between-home variance ratio of 3:1 to 4:1-which is not uncommon in airborne sampling of viable microorganisms-implies that 27-36 samples for home are required to estimate the average exposure reliably for an epidemiologic study with no more than 10% bias in the relationship between some health and the exposure(Heederik and Attfield, 2000; Heederik et al., 2003)."

"...it is well known that the concentration of total airborne viable fungi varies widely within a building even over short periods(Hunter et al., 1988; Verhoeff et al., 1994). Viable mold counts in house-dust samples taken from the same location within a 6-week interval also showed very poor reproducibility(Verhoeff et al., 1994)."

Pg. 97
"...sampling of viable microorganisms in the air with culture techniques will provide at best a "snapshot" of current exposure, given the high variability of microbial concentrations, the episodic nature of emissions from some microbial agents, and the relatively short sampling time allowed for this method. Thus, assessing the "true exposure" (risk-relevant exposure) requires many samples and is not possible in most population studies."

Pg. 100
"Thus, because only sparse data are available on variation of exposure to biologic agents in the home environment, it is not possible to recommend how many samples should be taken to produce an accurate assessment of the risk-relevant exposure. However, there is a strong suggestion that airborne concentrations are characterized by high variability over time, an indication that one sample per home is unlikely to be sufficient even when acute health effects are being considered, because variations in exposure occur over very short periods."

This actually brings up another issue which is often ignored and that is the use of viable and non-viable samples. Concerns about health are often brought up promoting testing but the majority of tests performed by inspectors are not even useful in addressing true health concerns because they are non-viable samples. It's a shotgun approach with a sniper rifle justification. It's not a big deal to me because I'm a firm believer in just cleaning up the mold regardless of the type because you don't know who the future occupants will be and what their reaction may be. It just seems disingenuous to sell mold testing by discussing health concerns when the reality is the inspector's typical test isn't used to address that anyway.

BTW, I never had a chance to really respond to something you mentioned earlier about "these organizations have nothing to do with a real estate transaction"(paraphrased). That may matter when arguing the need for testing based on a client's individual transaction, but it has nothing to do with the factual scientific information obtained from a test. The science is what it is. As I said, I'll try to get a few more posted when I get some time.

Thanks for that old, irrelevant to the real estate industry information...have you had a chance to review that two hour course from actual experts yet?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 11/26/2014 01:46 AM EST

Nathan wrote:Thanks for that old, irrelevant to the real estate industry information...have you had a chance to review that two hour course from actual experts yet?

I've answered that. So explain what makes it irrelevant? Your newly pioneered testing method and lab evaluation?

When did mold spores start dispersing through the environment differently?

No you didn't. If I'm willing to spend six figures creating the ultimate inspection education platform with educational material overseen by the #1 educator in the history of the profession with courses designed and taught by experts, and you're not even willing to simply watch (for free) two hours of that content to help you understand why these single paragraphs taken out of context (that don't actually back up any of your points either) don't apply, why would I be willing to debate my way through a two-hour course designed by the leading PhD in the industry? A guy more qualified than those who wrote the aforementioned out of context paragraphs by the way...

Look, you can ignore facts. It's costing you, at your size of business, probably around $30k per year in profit while costing your clients even more while you try to convince yourself of this position in error.

I spend six figures, asking for you to donate two hours. I think that's a fair trade, but if you don't see it that way go ahead and deliver less value to your clients while running from revenue. At some point you'll stop trying to sell your position to yourself.

I'm willing to start this debate at 0. I'd rather start it at 25, but you want me to start at -50 with misinformation.

Just asking you to take 1/50th as much time as it took you to get bad information to get some good information!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 11/25/2014 09:25 PM EST

It takes no time at all, I save everything I read on mold. When I take your class, some of that information will go into my library as well.

The World Health Organization

"Airborne sampling requires very sensitive analytical methods. In addition, for an accurate assessment, large numbers of samples must be collected, as the temporal variation in airborne concentrations is probably very high."

And then they quoted that same irrelevant information out of context and tried to apply it to real estate too.

Perhaps the most important problem, which has rarely been acknowledged in the literature, is that air sampling for more than 15 minutes is often not possible, since air concentrations usually vary a great deal over time. The few studies in which repeated measurements were made of fungi in air or in settled dust showed considerable temporal variation in concentrations, even over short periods (Hunter et al., 1988; Verhoeff et al., 1994b). The variation in the concentrations of isolated genera was even more substantial (Verhoeff et al., 1994b; Chew et al., 2001).
It has been suggested that in order to achieve a ratio of 3–4 for within and between-house variation in concentration, which appears to be realistic for culturable indoor fungi (Verhoeff et al., 1994b), 27–36 samples should be taken per house.

When are you going to share that new invention you all have come up with which makes a single sample so accurate?

The key word in that outdated, irrelevant to real estate, 20 year old out of context stuff you found is "probably". It doesn't even back up your position once again AND...I and my staff have been involved in many times as many tests as the writers of that passage.

It's not even close to accurate.

Take our courses then come back and post.

I can find anything on the Internet to back up any position, especially if I was willing to take it out of context.

Like I said Cameron, leave money on the table and leave your clients out in the cold. It's all good! We'll be here when you stop selling yourself this position!

(Thanks for the posts by the way, now I know where you're picking up the misinformation- it's where I assumed)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 11/25/2014 09:47 PM EST

One of the first things I say in my course is that "we're not a clinical lab", and by the way nobody else we compete with is either.

When you're looking for information on the Internet to back up the position that mold testing isn't useful, you'll find the data to back that up largely in the clinical side- which is where the WHO and everybody else Cameron cited plays.

Totally different industry altogether from what we do and what inspectors offer. We turn down tests in this genre regularly and we get a lot of questions about clinical tests. We help find a solution, but we're not necessarily it and neither are you.

When Cameron says that mold testing is ineffective in any way, he's right when it comes to our test looking for a property condition being misused as a clinical test.

I think that's where the miscommunication is here.

Regarding mold in homes, the EPA first recommends no testing but also refers the reader to its guideline on mold in commercial buildings and schools which says:

Several problems can occur when sampling. For example, there may be too few samples, sampling protocols may not be followed consistently, samples may become contaminated, outdoor control samples may be omitted, and since sampling can be expensive, sufficient funds may not be available to sample and to fix the water/mold problem. Professional advice may be necessary to determine if the project budget will allow enough samples to be taken to characterize a problem. If sampling cannot be done properly and enough samples to answer the questions posed cannot be taken, then it is preferable not to sample at all. Inadequate sample plans may generate misleading, confusing, and useless results.

Mold spores are the same in a clinical setting and a residential setting, how does the type of lab you run have anything to do with the variability of mold levels in the air? That's what makes a single test incapable of representing the IAQ of a home.

And who is saying mold testing isn't useful at all or totally ineffective? I haven't.

You're taking things out of context again. The goal of testing clinically is different than ours, much different.

The EPA takes no stance on mold levels and in another paragraph on testing on that exact same site they talk about residential testing specifically.

Can we please stop taking random quotes from the Internet out of context? Are we really going to play on that low level?

Nathan wrote:The EPA takes no stance on mold levels and in another paragraph on testing on that exact same site they talk about residential testing specifically.

Yes, I mentioned that. It's where they recommend "not testing" repeatedly. No one takes a stance on mold levels because there are no standardized exposure limits. You can't take a stance with any validity on something that doesn't exist and would vary randomly from person to person. Especially if you're the government.