Follow us!

    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:
    >> joohncodie:
    >> 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...
    >> ff
    > 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.
    > jc
    > 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

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.