Posted by Mike Ciavattieri on Mon, Dec 14, 2009 @ 12:32 PM
Over my 10+ years as a Massachusetts Home Inspector, I (like many others in my profession) have seen a huge increase in the percentage of well-informed clients that are requesting radon gas testing as an additional service along with their home inspection. Several months ago I added continuous radon monitoring (CRM) - also loosely known as "the machine test" to my service arsenal, while continuing to offer the more economical liquid scintillation test - aka "the two small plastic vials".
I routinely get quizzical questions from clients ranging from ‘what is radon' , ‘why should I test for radon', ‘what's the difference between the two methods' , and my favorite - ‘why should I pay you when I can do it myself?' So, I thought I was time to devote a couple of blog installments on this rather important and somewhat mysterious subject. Here goes:
One common misconception about the two test methods is that the ‘machine test' is more accurate than the ‘vial test'. The bottom line is there is no difference in accuracy. Doesn't it make simple common sense just based on all of the potential implications? Think about it. The USEPA maintains strict protocols for placement and QA/QC for both types of devices. Upon close examination you'd find that for the most part, the protocols are nearly identical! So don't get sold into paying more based solely for accuracy - it simply isn't there. Analytical Organizations that provide vial test kits for testing must remain in compliance with the USEPA's strict QA/QC protocols in order for their devices to retain their product certifications. The same goes for Home Inspectors and the like providing continuous radon monitoring services.
Another common misconception is that there is some sort of ‘magic formula' for making a pre-determination about a property without actually testing for radon - there isn't. Brand new homes, old homes, stone foundations, concrete foundations, etc. - none are immune. No one in the neighborhood has radon? No matter - soil concentrations of radon can vary as much as 300 times over as little as 30ft of distance. The bottom line is that radon gas testing is the only way to make an accurate determination. I've had many an unsuspecting property and/or property owner be surprised by significantly elevated radon gas levels.
Which leads me to my final point: Accurate determinations require accurate testing. Yes, the average handyman can easily purchase the $30 hardware store kit. The truly difficult part comes with correctly following the placement protocols and the interpretation of the results. The average hardware store kit instructions at best fill up a few paragraphs on a single page - the USEPA's Protocol for ‘vial kits' takes up an entire page and half just for device placement! A lot of this critical information simply isn't on the average hardware store kit instructions! I've stumbled across many an incorrectly setup hardware kit over the past 10 years - and in almost all of those cases, those placement mistakes were almost certain to induce false negatives. Why risk it for another handful of dollars? Have a professional place your radon test kit.
In part II, I'll cover some of the pros and cons for each testing method. See you then...
Posted by Mike Ciavattieri on Tue, Dec 01, 2009 @ 06:32 PM
I got a lot of (mostly) good feedback on the last article about home inspection company sales pitches, so why not kick off the winter blogging season with four more tried and true goodies:
1. "My report is better because it's (insert number typically greater than 30) pages..."
What it can mean: "...the report will likely be filled with a lot of boiler plate (typically paragraphs of cut-and-paste information from a reporting software with some field enterable data); repetitive and over-worded statements (for instance, instead o f "I do not move furniture", using, "I didn't move the dresser in the front bedroom, I didn't move the sofa in the living room, etc."; lines of disclaimers (designed primarily to protect me); a copy of my state home inspection standards (which is required, but makes about 13 great pages of filler); about 100 questions "you should ask the Seller" (protecting my liability); and 10 contractors you should consult (also protecting my liability). Since you've never seen any other reports, you probably won't ever know the difference."
2. "I have conducted over 5,000 inspections over the past 6 years...."
What it can mean: "...I was really only paid to do 750 inspections over the past 5 years, but I am counting every house I have ever looked at, because bigger numbers look way better than my competition. I may, however, be unable to figure out that would require performing more than 2 inspections per day, every day, 365 days per year, for 6 years straight, and the subsequent diminished quality that might seem to entail. Hopefully, you don't figure this out either."
3. "I guarantee you my best effort, I promise you this..."
What it usually means: "...I got this great sounding tag line from (insert affiliation) and I really need to put something catchy on my web page/ad that shows you just how serious, how much better, and how different I am then my competition. I don't think you will find it cheesy, and I certainly do not think you will do a web search on it and find 100 other Inspectors (also from said affiliation) using the exact same line, because if you did I would look just like everyone else."
4. "I've been a builder/contractor for the past (insert some multiple of 10) years..."
What it means: Being a good carpenter, plumber, finish contractor, etc. really has very little bearing whatsoever on being a good home inspector. You may logically assume that if someone has been hammering nails for 20 years, they must know a lot about houses (hopefully). You might not however, assume that doing finish cabinetry doesn't teach someone much about say, electrical systems or identifying foundation failures. What you do need to know is that being a great home inspector requires an enormously diverse skill set that is not taught in trade school, or ‘at the job site'.