Seattle Home Inspector's Blog

Perhaps they just liked blue!

Baby blue at that.

Home inspectors notice the darndest things.  There is no stopping us, in fact, we can’t even stop ourselves.  Now most of the time, noticing things is a good thing---in terms of reducing the risk of missing things that do matter.

Other times it seems to result in a lot of mind clutter not unlike those people that always win Trivial Pursuit or who fill in the question long before Alex Trebek even finishes reading the answer.

So take a look at this matched set of baby blue appliances.

One would think that over the course of the 11 year life of these appliances that someone would have noticed the blue peels off.

But then again---perhaps they just like blue.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

It is hard to not notice that houses seem to have “themes.”

Just like Disneyland, the US Congress or other theme parks, homes too can be united by common features.  This post however is not about the “houses of horrors,” befitting any Halloween night, that have become common with short sales and foreclosures. 

It is more about “little things” that are common in homes.  For example if a house has one defective GFCI receptacle it is likely that there will be more than one.  If there is one junction box with a missing cover---there will be many.  If one of the windows has a broken seal it is likely that there will be others with broken seals.  If one door sticks---others will stick.  If one chrome trap is at the end of its expected life, so will others in the home.

Now there are several reason we have these themes in homes.  Firstly, the age of the house is a factor.  If everything in the home was installed at the same time---it is likely they will come to the end of their life at the same time.

Secondly, often work was done by the same person.  If they do something wrong once---it is highly likely think that they will have done it the same way at other locations in the home.  If there are missing flashings in one place there will be missing flashings somewhere else---even if the flashing serves a different purpose.

Take the previous picture.  How many flashing issues can you spot in the picture?

Well of course there is obvious cavernous opening where the top of the brick work at the corner of the home never got completed.  This is on the South side of the home---the direction from which we get a lot of our weather in the Northwest.  There is a pretty good chance this is going to become a water collection point.

In this next picture I have done some overlays to show where there should be flashings, caulk and other seals installed to prevent moisture from damaging the structure.

At “A” there should be a flashing to prevent moisture from getting behind the horizontal trim board.

At “B” the light fixture does not properly cover the junction box cut-out in the siding.

At “C” one can see there is no flashing across the top of the doorway horizontal trim (also the vertical trim is not caulked).

At “D” the wire penetration is not sealed.

And at “E” of course the brickwork is not finished.

Like any good theme park, here we have lots of similar repeating issues that could be conveniently gunny sacked into one photo.  There were many other flashing issues around this theme park.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

When moisture condenses on plywood roof sheathing repeatedly or continuously the wood will turn black.  This can be caused by the action of fungal growth and molds and the affect they have on the tannins in the wood. 

The following picture is of a long standing moisture condition in an attic where much of the roof sheathing has turned black.  There were some areas with obvious mold or mold-like fungal growth present but many areas just appeared to be stained.

Any time the inspector finds this kind of ongoing staining the prognosis for the roof is not good if repairs are not made.

Of course the primary concern is figuring out why there is so much moisture in the attic. 

In this case all of the existing soffit vents---of which there were too few to begin with---were all painted shut and blocked with insulation.  Improving the soffit ventilation will be part of the solution---but this lack of soffit vents did not entirely account for why there was so much moisture that needed venting to begin with.  Ideally no moisture should find its way into the attic space.  Historically stopping all moisture laden air from finding its way into the attic has proven difficult---usually due to ignorance and laziness.  Here is a partial list of some of the “common” pathways for moisture finding its way into the attic:

Non-airtight can lights,

Access hatches not being weather-stripped,

Missing fire stopping around wires and pipes running into the attic space,

Missing fire stopping around HVAC equipment vents,

HVAC equipment venting directly into attic,

Standing water in condensate trays,

Missing fire-stopping around chimneys,

Dryers venting into attics,

Bathroom, laundry and kitchen exhaust fans venting into attics,

Missing ceiling vapor retarders.

In this case the actual biggest culprit, because some of the other factors were also present, was failure of the b-vent from the furnace.  With adequate venting most roofs will be fairly forgiving of some of the items on the list---even multiple things on the list.  But having the HVAC equipment venting directly into the attic will likely have disastrous results.  The reason for this is that the furnace runs the most when the roof is coldest and is most likely to condense the exhaust by-products onto the roof sheathing.  Add to this inadequate ventilation and we have a recipe for “black roof.”

The large hole in the side of the outer layer of pipe is where the flue gases are entering the attic instead of going the rest of the way up the vent pipe to the exterior.

The big question here is:  Why didn’t the HVAC contractor check the vent pipe when the furnace was replaced?  In my experience, most b-vent pipe has a life span about the same as the furnace.  Its condition should at least be checked when a furnace is replaced.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

It is not all that unusual to turn the dishwasher on and have water come out of the air gap device---such as this one where the hoses were hooked up backwards. 

This condition is immediate and is obvious as soon as the dishwasher starts to drain the first time.  It usually only occurs in new construction or newly installed dishwashers.

The other day I had one in a newly remodeled kitchen back up out of the air gap device at the middle of the draining cycle instead of at the beginning.  It was as if the drain could take some water for a while and then it would gradually back up the hose and out the air gap device. 

The reason for this was because the drain between the air gap device and the disposal connection had a BIG loop in it.  This loop held water and continued to hold water even after the washer was done. 

Water can only drain by gravity through this section of pipe because the air gap device represents a break in the drain.  Prior to the air gap device the drain is under pressure.  Because the water cannot drain by gravity, eventually the amount of water being pumped into the air gap device exceeds what can drain by gravity through the drain that is full of water.

This is a pretty simple fix and is accomplished by installation of a drain from the air gap device to the disposal that does not trap water.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle.

Everyone talks about the building codes.

Buyers want to know if the work that was done is “up to code.”

Inspectors like to claim they are not code inspectors.

Some simply wish the codes didn’t exist.

Let’s face it, when it comes to codes they can be a pain in the butt in the context of selling or buying a house.

As we “do si do” to the tune of the code dance I thought it would be fun to show an example of how “literal” (and thus confusing) the codes can be.  While I won’t fool everyone with this “trick question,” I think I can still demonstrate that the dance is not as easy as it looks on TV.

The question involves stair or deck barrier railing spacings (or as the codes call them: “guards”).  

Everyone knows that in modern construction the maximum width is 4,” correct?

Well “technically” that is NOT correct. 

You see the code has to be worded in such a way as to include ALL types of designs for barriers.  So while a huge proportion of barriers have some sort of baluster that breaks up the plane---and these indeed cannot be more than 4” apart---there are many designs that do not utilize vertical dividers.  Barriers with “horizontal” dividers could have a space of almost any width---and of course the space between them could not be more than 4.”

So the way the code handles this is to simply state that guards “shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which do not allow passage of a sphere 4 inches or more in diameter.” In this sense the space is only “indirectly” related to height and width.

Another seldom recognized variance from this requirement is that for guards/barriers on stairs, the size of the sphere changes to 4-3/8.”  This variation was instituted so that on stairs where the balusters terminate at the treads, there could be two balusters per stair tread instead of the three it would take if they had to adhere to the 4” rule in some cases.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

There is an ongoing argument among home inspectors as to whether their Standards of Practice is a “bar not to be exceeded” or the “minimum that an inspector is required to do.”

Finding myself in the latter camp I have wrestled with different arguments to support my position.  I have come up with a visual analogy.

A tree.

With a Tree, we have the above ground trunk, limbs and leaves.  Underground we have the root system that supports the tree. Of course these components are interdependent.  We all know that a tree can’t live long without roots, and while a cut rose will do wonders for your sweetie---eventually it ends up in the compost.  Of course without a trunk, branches and leaves, the root system will also wither and die---serve no useful purpose. 

I have noticed however, the tenacity of root systems to continue growing.

 Sometimes the portion above ground will create a whole new root system as well---if nurtured effectively.

As an analogy we can visualize the Standard’s of Practice as the roots of the tree. 

After the home inspector’s training has been completed, and the inspector is “qualified” to go out into the world to kick tires and tree trunks, the tree is already an established size based on the Standards of Practice agreed upon by one’s particular State Licensing board, or one’s chosen Association---such as ASHI.  This amounts to the above ground portion of the tree.

Now of course, the foliage of the tree is beautiful and symmetrical---however, perhaps a little “bonsaied” by the minimal nature of the Standards of Practice as well as the minimal amount of education/information the new inspector brings to the forest. 

Time goes by and the sun shines on the tree and, despite the best efforts of the arborist Home Inspector, the tree grows---producing more roots, more branches and more leaves.

This “growth” is equivalent to “new information” being added---new knowledge being gained---continuing education.  To support this growth, the roots---the Standards of Practice---must also grow.  Unfortunately the minimum standards don’t grow fast enough (some arborists even believe they should never be allowed to grow) to keep up with the growth of the tree---a kind of “natural bureaucracy” takes over.  Others argue that new roots must be added by the inspectors themselves to compensate.  This is called “growing going beyond the Standard’s of Practice.”  I think the majority of inspectors have a green thumb in this respect whether they would admit it or not.

As with any tree, messing with the Primary Roots will land you in trouble, so it is important to make sure they are maintained and well cared for.  Pretending that some of the primary roots are necessary and some are not is not going to be good for the tree or the home inspector.

Every tree has a great many roots that are not necessary for the tree’s support but nonetheless equally important in nourishing the tree.

Sometimes, regardless of attentive pruning and feeding, an ill wind will blow and expose hidden decay/rot.  Sometimes a George-Washington-type may come along and even chop the whole thing down---for no reason whatsoever.

Such is the life of a tree---

---and a home inspector.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

Today’s post is about one such little detail.  In this case the risk of its being a “big deal” is small but I have seen similar installations where, over time, considerable damage does occur.

This is a typical lead flashing common on houses in the Northwest. 

The flashing is made of lead.  It is designed to fit over the pipe and be lapped by the shingles on the plane of the roof.  The cap you see on the top is a nice way to finish off the installation and is quite common when the roof portion of the flashing is not quite tall enough to extend to the top of the pipe.  When it is tall enough, the excess above the pipe is simply folded inside the pipe.  When the top is “counter-flashed” with this type of cap it is designed to lap both the outside of the lead flashing and the inside of the pipe.  Without the cap, any water that hit the pipe would run down the pipe behind the lead flashing.

Now you might ask, well how much water could that amount to really?

If you look at this next picture you can see where the blue arrow points to two water lines that show how water hitting the inside of the cap is still finding its way outside of the metal flashing.  The red arrow points to a water line that is clearly running down the pipe and into the roof/house structure.

In this next picture we can see “why” this is happening.  When they installed the nice counter-flashing the piece that is supposed to be inside the pipe got scrunched and no longer directs water inside the pipe.  While the blue arrows show where they have been “lucky,” the red arrow show where they have not been lucky.

In our area of the world, where it can rain or drizzle for weeks on end, it actually can result in a fair amount of water getting into the roof/house structure.  Sometimes these vent pipes make an immediate right angle below the roof line to move over to where the pipe actually comes up through the house.  There are lots of reasons why a plumber might do this.  For example if the pipe would end up coming through the roof on the “street side” of the home, they will often run it to the back of the house where the pipe would not show.

At any rate, even a half a cup of water a day---or any amount that would not dry in 24 hours would keep ceilings below the leak wet and eventually cause damage to the ceiling.  As a Licensed Structural Pest Inspector, this lack of attention to detail is what we would consider a “conducive condition.”  A condition that if left un-repaired could result in wood decay/rot or promote infestation by wood destroying insects.

I have found several damaged ceilings with “unexplained” past/ongoing water damage from improper flashings around pipes.  Repairs are a very easy fix, but certainly worth noting. 

This defect, I might add, could likely not be determined from a ladder at the edge of the roof---another important reason for the home inspector to walk the roof when it is safe to do so. 

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

While most jurisdictions have setback requirements, it is typically beyond the scope of a home inspection to know what the requirements are for any given jurisdiction.  These setback requirements are different for rear yard, side yard and front yards.  They are also different for homes on corner lots or homes with streets or alleys on two opposite sides of the home.

In some areas “grandfathering” may also apply. 

Also “variances” may have been obtained.

When additions are added to homes these setback requirements have to be taken into account.  While I may not be able to determine the “exact” setback requirements for the home I am inspecting, there are some cluse that might make one question the location of structures on the property. 

At a recent inspection I noted that the addition to the home was "less-than-professionally" constructed, and that the addition was closer than 5 feet to the property line.  There is a pretty good chance that the addition was done without permits.  It would be a good idea in such a case for the buyer to obtain documentation that the addition meets jurisdictional requirements.  They might find themselves forced to bring the structure into compliance.

In the following photo it is not hard to see that this addition to the home is certainly close enough to the fence (property line) to most likely be out of compliance.  The red line is approximately 5 feet inside the property line and shows how much of the addition might need to be removed.

In older neighborhoods it is common to find homes that would today be considered too close to the property line---but these sorts of variances and grandfathering are rare in newer developments.

The methods of construction appeared to have been done “in the middle of the night” as they say---and quite possibly in the dark as well.

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle

There is a saying: “The truth is what is so.”

The truth is---what is so.

Ponder this for a moment…..

After recent events here in the rain, it should be obvious to everyone just how true this statement is.  There is tremendous danger in “assuming” that what we think is true---is in fact true.  It is entirely possible for large numbers of people to be misinformed by non-digital information as much as we can be fooled by digital information.

Right off the bat, I want to make it clear that in some cases it may not even be possible to know what the truth is.  It is obvious to me that when it comes to those sorts of things---it is best to keep an open mind.

When the government "gets on board" and says something is “so” it becomes even more difficult to keep an open mind.  In fact, the government's simply saying something is “so,” is enough to convince most people---end of discussion.  When that happens, a chain of events that affects anyone tied into, and dependent on, the government's  information stream is affected.  I find this fascinating in light of how most of us at one time or another speaks of not trusting the government.  Just look at all the bickering about how the government handles almost anything.  Yet when it comes to other things we just turn into the Stepford Wives. 

While the psychology of all of this would make for a better subject of a book, as opposed to a blog post, I will do my best to keep this from turning into a book.

Today I want to talk about Radon---and raise the question: "What is the real truth about radon? 

Rather than claim that I personally know what the “truth” is, I am going to attempt to show that there is at least the possibility that there may be a truth that is different than what one is used to hearing regarding Radon.  I would ask that you keep an open mind and check out the hard science behind Radon.  If you start to dig deep, you will notice that a lot of what is claimed about radon is in fact parroting of information that is dubious at best.

So what is Radon?

1.  Radon is a colorless, odorless, radioactive gas.  It is a result of the decay of uranium and is present to some degree everywhere on the planet.  It is found in higher concentrations in some areas of the country than in other areas.  If that was all we had to know about radon, life would be simple.

2.  Radon is a multi-billion dollar industry.  There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by testing for radon and mitigation of radon.  Like other fear based industries it is fairly easy to get people on board with misinformation and half-truths.  Once on board and invested, it is very difficult to jump off the wagon.

So which is closer to the truth?  Are both the truth?  Well obviously the first statement is true.  Perhaps not so obvious---the second statement is true as well.

Now let’s visit the science behind the claims that Radon is a health risk.  If there was no purported health concern regarding Radon there would be no industry built up around it.

I will start out by quoting Forensic Industrial Hygienist, Caoimhin Connell:  “A large portion of the general population is under the misconception that the frequently published risks associated with radon are well accepted scientific facts. In reality, the vast majority of well designed studies do not support policy or positions that exposures to indoor radon pose a significant threat to health, and indeed, the majority of those studies indicate that, at concentrations typically seen in homes, as the level of radon increases, the risk of lung cancer goes down, not up.”

Now I don’t know about you, but this sounds HUGELY different than what we are used to hearing from those that have a vested interest in promoting radon as being a problem.

A blog post is an extremely poor means to cover this topic adequately.  The most I can hope for is that my post will peak your interest enough to read the “story” behind this topic on your own.  As an introduction to the topic I recommend reading, Radon—A Brief Discussion, by Caoimhin P. Connell.  This article is where the above quote came from, and after reading it I suspect that most will find it difficult to not at least question the claims made by the EPA.

It is important to keep in mind that political organizations such as the EPA (we would love to think they are “neutral” wouldn’t we?), while they produce reports that attest to the elevated risk associated with radon, according to Caoimhin Connell, “to date (2010) there are no scientific studies that have ever actually shown that radon gas, as typically seen in houses, increases the risk of cancer.”  In a position statement by the Health Physics Society “…risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.”  The EPA itself even admits that there is no hard evidence to support the notion that Radon causes cancer at levels found in homes, but instead extrapolates its version of the truth from the fact that it is carcinogenic in amounts that miners are exposed to.  Such an extrapolation is simply not supported by current knowledge.

Other interesting stuff that one can find, if one digs into the literature far enough (and is thoroughly discussed in Radon—A Brief Discussion) is that not only does the presence of radon in homes not increase the risk of cancer but that in homes with lower than normal levels of radon, health risks actually slightly increase.  Exactly backwards of what the radon industry would have one believe.

In a study undertaken by Richard E. Thompson, and published in 2011 (EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR POSSIBLE RADIATION HORMESIS FROM RADON EXPOSURE: A CASE-CONTROL STUDY CONDUCTED IN WORCESTER, MA) it was also found that Radon exposure in homes actually decreases the risk of lung cancers.  So that no one has to look it up, "Hormesis" is the principle that some things that are harmful in large doses actually have a beneficial effect in small doses.  Doesn't his sound like so many things we consume?  While Radon clearly has a detrimental effect on human tissue at the levels found in mines, there is no comparison between the very highest levels found in homes in relation to levels found in mines---and certainly no comparison behind levels "typical" of homes that are considered to be in "actionable" areas.

The EPA has added two new studies to its website that attempts to deal with the criticism that concerns about radon were improperly extrapolated from studies of miners exposed to HUGE doses of radon.  These studies, called "pooling studies," are where one combines the results of many studies and attempts to come up with conclusions more to one's liking than would otherwise be gleaned from the studies individually.  Of course this is a bit "cynical" interpretation, but pretty much what this pooling approach amounts to.

While I realize that I am in full and familiar uniform as Don Quixote (those that know me have seen me ride this horse before) when it comes to doing battle with the Giant Radon Industry, I will end my ride today hoping that you will do a little more real investigation of the topic on your own.  

With a squeaking and crunching of armor I will leave you with this important excerpt from, U.S. Department of Energy, (Radon- Radon Research Program, FY 1989, DOE/ER-448P., March 1990), “Currently there is very little information about...the health effects associated with exposures to radon at levels believed to be commonly encountered by the public. The only human data available for predicting the risks to the public are studies examining the health effects of exposure to radon and its progeny in underground miners. This information would be appropriate for predicting the risks to the public if everyone was a miner, everyone lived in mines, and a large fraction of the general population smoked cigarettes.”

Based on the 2011 study by Richard E. Thompson, this statement is just as true today as it was in 1990 and is likely why every other TV add is not about the dangers of radon, why there aren’t Radon billboards on every street corner or the sides of every bus, and why most of the information and warnings we do hear about radon is from the industry that is built-up around it---a case of following the money.

Charles Buell, real estate inspections in Seattle

I know you don’t think I am minding my own business when I chew on things. 

But I really am.

I really don’t understand how you can criticize me when you let the dog chew on everything in sight.  Sure, you might scold him, but in the end you will pet him on the head and scratch him under his chin. I just don't get it.

Nobody even wants to pet me on the head.  I know some of my hybridized cousins have “crossed over,” but that is another whole story.

And don’t get me started about the cat. 

The other night I saw what she did to the door jamb and the end of the couch.

I can see by the look on your face that you want to know how I know this?

Well, if I answered that, I would no longer be able to eat the dog’s left over’s, eat the cat’s left over’s or get into Jonnies candy hid in the shoe in the back of his closet.

Suffice it to say I have means---if you know what I mean by means.

Please keep in mind that I HAVE to chew on things.  If I don’t chew on things my teeth can actually grow to the point that I could not eat and I might die.  I really don’t think that Fido and Fur Ball are going to die if they stop chewing on things.  Life just plain isn't that fair.

Anyway, that is why the wiring in your attic looks the way it does.  And if you are going to provide me with something to chew on that gives me a slight buzz at the same time---I am going for it.

After all, you light up my life! 

Charles Buell, Real Estate Inspections in Seattle