Hi, folks!
There seems to be some confusion about two, very different ASTM documents
and two ASTM Committees that have different responsibilities. I hope that
this will clarify this matter a bit. I am a member of D22 Air Quality
Committee which is still working on the WK-3792 Guide (not Standard). The
whole Committee has not seen this document to date, since it is still
being worked on by the D22.08 Subcommittee for Mold.
The previous posts refer to the following ASTM standard:
E2418-06 Standard Guide for Readily Observable Mold and Conditions
Conducive to Mold in Commercial Buildings: Baseline Survey Process
You can download this standard from ASTM for $42
(http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2418.htm)
This was developed by another ASTM Committee, E50.02 (Environmental
Assessment), and has been published since 2006.
The D22.08 Guide (Standard Guide for the Assessment Of Fungal Growth in
Buildings) will be different than the one from this ASTM Committee because
that Standard is intended for commercial buildings as part of the Building
Survey Process, which is a method developed to evaluate the costs and
benefits of environmental cleanup. The E50 Committee is also responsible
for the Standard on Environmental Site Assessments (Phase 1 surveys)
completed for all types of environmental hazards, including underground
storage tanks, hazardous materials, etc. Their Standards are intended to
provide environmental site assessors a standard method to evaluate
commercial properties for potential buyers, so that the buyers will know
what they are getting into, including the costs of remediation. It is not
intended in any way to be a health-based evaluation of the consequences of
the contaminant (in this case, mould) on the occupants of the building.
The D22 Committee is responsible for Air Quality, and that is the primary
focus of the Guide we have been working on. This Guide will not replace
the E2418-06 Standard, as indicated by the post. A Guide does not replace
a Standard, first of all. In addition, the Guide is being issued by
another Committee (D22.08), and the E50 Committee is unlikely to withdraw
the E2418-06 Standard, since its purpose is quite different than the Guide.
Finally, the D22 Guide has not been ‘final’ approved by the sub-Committee
D22.08 as of yet, and has not been sent out for balloting by the full
Committee (D22) as yet.
Hope this clarifies things a bit.
Don
On 11/05/08, Rem Dude wrote:
> Sharon:
>
> Simply Amazing.
>
> The D22 committee just met in October. Where were you and just exactly
> which committee do you participate?
>
> 3792 will most certainly be the new standard for Fungal Inspection and
> will most certainly replace ASTM E-2418-06.
>
> But you already know all this because you sit on the D22 committee.
> Right???????
>
> As far as wasting time, you should be used to that by now...
>
> RD
>
>
> On 11/05/08, Sharon wrote:
>> RemDude,
>>
>> If you can check out all this, then you can also check the roster of
>> D22.08 committee members. You'll find my name on it and several
>> others who registed a negative vote on the definition you describe
>> for mycotoxins. It is interesting that I have no copy of what you
>> profess is out there. Neither do several other committee members.
>>
>>
>> And...there are more ballots to go on this committee and this
> issue.
>> It's scheduled to come back up in the Spring. And before it goes
>> anywhere, it has to be approved by the entire D22 committee. So if
>> you are correct that there is a current draft of this document
>> circulating out there, then something is quite funky.
>>
>> I still can't see exactly what you are talking about with the ASTM E-
>> 2418-06 soon to be replaced by WK-3792. WK 3792 is what I have been
>> working on. So...thanks for the heads up if you are telling the
>> truth and if not, I am going to be really mad that you wasted so
> much
>> of my time.
>>
>> Sharon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/04/08, Rem Dude wrote:
>>> Sharon:
>>>
>>> Once again you’re howling at the moon with absolutely no
>>> comprehension of what you spew.
>>>
>>> 1. This document is a final review draft and very accurately
>>> reflects ASTM’s position on investigation, health consequences,
>>> etc.
>>> 2. The stance on mycotoxins is not new for the ASTM. Simply refer
>>> to ASTM E-2418-06 already in circulation and soon to be replaced
>>> by WK-3792.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, if you actually sat on ANY ASTM review committee you
>>> would:
>>>
>>> 1. Already know all this.
>>> 2. Have YOUR VERY OWN COPY of the new standard.
>>>
>>> But you don’t sit on any ASTM committee therefore you simply look
>>> ridiculous attempting to discredit the information and inanely
>>> attacking me.
>>>
>>> Have a great day and do take something for that blood pressure.
>>>
>>> RD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/04/08, Sharon wrote:
>>>> That is what I thought. You have no clue as to the current
>>> state
>>>> of the document. There is no way in Hell that document would
>>>> ever be completed with the definition of inhaled mycotoxins that
>>>> you ignorantly promoted without knowing of what you speak. The
>>>> Federal GAO just noted it ain't science. And the D22.08
>>> Committee
>>>> got rid of it way back in the Spring. Again, no wonder you
>>> don't
>>>> use your real name when you post and share your "wise words of
>>>> wisdom" with us. It is a scary thought that you actually "work
>>>> for a living" within this issue. God help us all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/04/08, Rem Dude wrote:
>>>>> Sorry to keep you in suspense you silly twit, but I work for a
>>>>> living.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you sit on the review committee, simply refer to ASTM
>>>>> guidelines on Assessment of Fungal Growth in Buildings-WK3792.
>>>>>
>>>>> RD
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/04/08, Sharon wrote:
>>>>>> Still waiting, RemDude. Or were you just spouting off again
>>>>>> while posting FALSE garbage on this board? It is no wonder
>>>>>> you don't use your real name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sharon
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.