Re: Toxic Mold? Limitations uncovered...
Posted by ff on 5/15/07
It's certainly not an exact science. Add this to the flexibility
inherent in the "judgment" phase, and that's probably how they got
so far off. I want to emphasize that even under the best
circumstances, we're missing more relevant info than we rely on.
The general theme here is that water intrusion = spontaneous
stachybotrys. Remdud made a good comment about the significance
of sampling - to the effect that visual observation and common
sense should prevail over IAQ/LAB work.
This is but one shortcoming.
On 5/15/07, johncodie wrote:
> On 5/15/07, ff wrote:
>> Wasn't AEROTECH the first to get on EPA's list. It scares the
>> heck out of me to have witnessed their, in my opinion , of
>> course, inadequate effort which also ignored existing data,
>> was based on false assumptions, coincided with the demands of
>> liable parties, etc...
> US Departments Funded by Congress are precluded from giving
> endorsements of qualifications, or free advertisements. There
> no implied or expressed warranties of a companies work or
> certification. The use of the word "conform" is a legal word
> gives relief as to "meeting set standards". I can conform to a
> companies practice and standards but there is a lack of
> measurement that cerfifies that performance has been met. I
> believe a former "EPA" official created "AEROTECH LABS" and saw
> how the mold hype could make alot of monies over the
> controversey. The longer the skeptisism, the more monies.
> Just one escape clause seperates and segregates the liability,
> and custody. Sure AEROTECH LABS can do EPA work but its not EPA
> data. Throw in the word methodologies with conform and that
> widens the gap for interpretations.
> One could say that their business conforms to the methodologies
> of the insurance claims gaints and go to prison for their action
> for not being in the protected group; the methodologies used by
> the insurance industry.
> Also there is one thing to have standards much less meeting
> requirements, there is much to be said of an inspection group
> that has shaky standards to labs that do the testing have as
> shakey or questionable standards.
> From the AEROTECH LABS INC.
> Where the services to be provided by Aerotech require the use of
> analytical methodologies, Aerotech will use those analytical
> methodologies which CONFORM with methodologies set by the U.S.
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Arizona Department of
> Health Services (ADHS), American Society for Testing and
> Materials (ASTM), Association of Official Analytical Chemists
> (AOAC), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
> Wastewater, or other such appropriate methodologies. Aerotech
> deviate from these methodologies where, in Aerotech's judgment,
> it is necessary or appropriate to do so. The nature or
> compositions of a sample are examples of factors that may
> Aerotech to deviate from these methodologies. Any deviations
> the analytical methodologies set forth above will be made in
> accordance with recognized industry standards, Quality Assurance
> Plans and/or referenced Standard Operating Procedures.
Posts on this thread, including this one