General: Off gassing from Insulation

1 to 30 of 86

- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 8th 2010 edited
Does anyone know anything about this, or can read German?

http://www.constructireland.ie/vb/showthread.php?t=1155

Unpleasant levels of dangerous chemicals as a result of internal insulation with some synthetic insulation.

Peter
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeMar 8th 2010
I think something must be wrong with the sample they tested...

http://constructireland.ie/vb/showthread.php?p=6580

In the case of disclosure of only 2 meters cut surface with a hacksaw and kleinzahnigen without intensive aeration, the strain became so great that only with respirator could be continued. Headaches and bloody nasal mucous membranes were the result of unprotected handling.

They appear to be saying the person cutting the sample had a severe reaction after cutting just two meters of the stuff. If that were generally true why aren't builders dropping like flies?
- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 8th 2010 edited
Posted By: CWattersI think something must be wrong with the sample they tested...

I hope so.

Peter
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeMar 8th 2010
It seems that the main problem is identified when the boards are being cut in a room with no ventilation. They seem to imply from the translation that this is a problem for flats that have no ventilation, but even that seems to be rather over-stating the case as it would require the insulation to be disturbed during occupation.

There seems to be a certain amount of sensationalism in the report, and in the way it's being passed on. Certainly there would have to be a stronger case made and a clearer indication that it is dangerous in normal use before Kingspan have much to answer.

If anyone wants to come and measure the levels in our SIPs house, they can - but I suspect they'd be sorely disappointed.
- CommentAuthorsipman
- CommentTimeMar 8th 2010
interesting comments regarding the atmosphere within a SIPs house

http://www.eco-houses.info/
- CommentAuthorjamesingram
- CommentTimeMar 8th 2010
I work with the stuff all the time , a bit nasty and I'll wear a mask if I'm cutting lots of it .
I do feel like I'm ageing prematurely the last couple of year , but I'm guessing that more to do with the kids

My thoughts are , there are lots of canny lawyers about nowadays , if there was a whiff of a chance to claim
they'd be on it.
One benefit of the ' Where there's blame there's a claim ' culture , no win no fee , is that the cover up of dangerous material is less likely . ( I hope ?? )
- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
Posted By: jamesingramthere are lots of canny lawyers about nowadays

Looks like the Irish forum have removed the thread because it is "potentially libellous".
- CommentAuthorwookey
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
Cwatters - yes, I 've cut loads of the bloody stuff, and whilst it's not particularly pleasant (dust mask strongly recommended) I haven't suffered unduly (yet - maybe I'll have the PUR equivalent of asbestosis in 20 yrs time).
- CommentAuthortony
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
I recon that if there was a problem it would have shown up by no in the storage facilities and merchants.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
I think everyone's got used to feeling slightly ill because of the off-gassing we live in. Evidence the anecdotal reports enthusiastic about MHRV, which results in 'fresh mountain air' feel in a house.

Posted By: jamesingramthere are lots of canny lawyers about nowadays , if there was a whiff of a chance to claim they'd be on it
That's like expecting the Futures Market to have a realistic view of fuel price rises.
- CommentAuthorjamesingram
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010 edited
Tom , I think you might be under estimating one of the only positive side effects of greed.

Sick house syndrome etc. very differcult to get a real objective view . I cant remember the last time I woke up feeling refreshed. Far to many factors to link it to one thing .
Quite possibly your right about getting use to it ( Modern toxins in our environment ). But if your use to it , might it therefore no longer be of concern ?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
Posted By: jamesingramif your use to it , might it therefore no longer be of concern ?
No, it just means your immune system's having to work harder, and tho everything seems to be keeping normal, you're pushing closer to its homeostatic limits (the level of challenge beyond which it can no longer compensate to maintain same (homeo) state (stasis)). In other words, your subsystems will lose the plot and go chaotic, one by one, and sooner than without such accumulation of challenge, with likely cascade-failure effect. Aka cancer, depression, candida, you name the increasing incidence of modern symptoms (albeit we'd all have been dead sooner, in the past).
- CommentAuthorsinnerboy
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Tuna</cite>There seems to be a certain amount of sensationalism in the report, and in the way it's being passed on. </blockquote>

I agree with the first part ... but not the second - I passed it on here ( on another thread http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=5453&page=2#Item_9) in good faith .
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010
Posted By: fostertomI think everyone's got used to feeling slightly ill because of the off-gassing we live in. Evidence the anecdotal reports enthusiastic about MHRV, which results in 'fresh mountain air' feel in a house.

Given the wide range of very different housing we live in, it's a wild generalisation to say we've got used to feeling slightly ill - who exactly? The people in the 1930's housing? The people in 1970's estate houses? If off gassing was genuinely noticeable, there would be no rush to move from 1930's houses to the modern equivalent. Ventilation in general and modern central heating has had a real effect, but off-gassing?

The significant thing about MHRV is that ventilation is reliably supplied regardless of the external conditions, it filters incoming air and it's designed to reach throughout the houses. That alone accounts for the enthusiastic reception - what evidence is there for anything more subtle?
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 9th 2010 edited
Posted By: Tunait's a wild generalisation to say we've got used to feeling slightly ill
I speak for myself - but you feel absolutely tiptop at all times? Or at least absolutely sure that modern materials can only be beneficial, just like it says on the tin? Carpets, packaging, paints, cleaning chemicals, fabric treatments, MDF can have no possible effect on well-being, in 30s or 70s houses alike? No one would notice any benefit from removal of internal pollutants by ventilation - so what would they notice about ventilation then?
Posted By: Tunawhat evidence is there for anything more subtle?
What evidence would you accept? I feel an attack of peer-review coming on.
- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010 edited
Posted By: tonyI recon that if there was a problem it would have shown up by no in the storage facilities and merchants

We have heard in this thread that people who use some of these materials recognise the need for respiratory/nasal protection.

People spend more time at home than at work, in a week maybe three times as much? without protection?

The German report suggests a problem HAS shown up, but the report is being suppressed to some extent.

Children may be more susceptable for several reasons.

The idea that we can cover interior surfaces of our homes in hundreds of square metres of paint/insulation containing synthetic chemicals, many volatile, and not have a problem strikes me as absurd. Particularly in view of the move to reduced air leakage. It may be OK, in some cases, of course but as a general rule, we must be mad to do that.
If ever there was a need for application of the precautionary principle, it is this.

Peter
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010
Posted By: fostertomI speak for myself - but you feel absolutely tiptop at all times? Or at least absolutely sure that modern materials can only be beneficial, just like it says on the tin?

No actually, I feel like ****. Sleeping badly, aches and pains and constant colds. That's largely down to a 24 hour lifestyle, two young kids starting school and living in a cold and damp caravan.

The point with modern materials is that they appear to be net positive. Yes, of course there are down sides, but overall the improvement in living conditions (over an un-inuslated, poorly ventilated and badly heated house or caravan) is vastly more beneficial to good health and comfort.

That report is barely credible - it claims physical symptoms that no-one I know who handles this stuff on a daily basis has experienced. It's not being suppressed - it's freely available for anyone to read - but it's not receiving much publicity because there is the issue of credibility.

The report would have much more value if it gave some real-world figures for off-gassing in a normal installation after a couple of weeks' settling. I'd bet that the figures would be disappointingly low - they only got the numbers they did by cutting open fresh panels in a sealed chamber. That's not representative of any real world situation that I'm aware of.

It's hard not to get frustrated by the 'science of common sense' that gets applied to situations like this. Logic like "these are artificial chemicals that can build up, therefore they must be bad for the human system" simply has no basis in reality and allows scaremongering and FUD like this to be spread. I'm happy to accept proper studies of levels of VOCs in a modern home, and peer reviewed analysis of the level of long term (not short term) harm that exposure to specific VOCs can do. But to pretend that 'chemicals' are any more the cause of bad health than damp, mould, bacteria, virii and naturally occurring substances from wood sap to lead is a gross simplification of the facts.

So yes, if you rub your face in the stuff, I'm sure you'll get a reaction. If it's installed in a normally ventilated home in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, I would bet that you'll be fine. In fact, as we've built our entire house out of the stuff, we have made exactly that bet. You are welcome to come and measure the internal air quality at any time you wish.
- CommentAuthorCWatters
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010 edited
Peter - I think most people we agree with you but it's a question of the scale.

For example is it safe to coat your walls with something containing calcium hydroxide?...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_hydroxide

As with many chemicals, exposure may pose health risks:[3]

Inhalation: Respiratory tract irritation. Coughing, shortness of breath, chemical bronchitis.
Ingestion: Internal bleeding, possible perforation of esophagus, severe pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and collapse.
Eyes: severe irritation, pain, ulceration, blindness.
Skin: burns, blistering.
Chronic Exposure: dermatitis or severe irritation to skin.

eg Lime wash.
- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010 edited
Posted By: TunaIt's not being suppressed - it's freely available for anyone to read - but it's not receiving much publicity because there is the issue of credibility.

Please tell me where to obtain it.

I said to some extent, the only source I know of, the Irish forum has had to take down the thread.

Posted By: Tunathese are artificial chemicals that can build up, therefore they must be bad for the human system" simply has no basis in reality and allows scaremongering and FUD like this to be spread.

There are many scientific peer reviewed publications about the negative effects of volatile chemicals on human health, in buildings. But the situation is complex, as with many aspects of human health, that is why I suggest the precautionary principle. This is not scaremongering.

Posted By: TunaIf it's installed in a normally ventilated home in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, I would bet that you'll be fine. In fact, as we've built our entire house out of the stuff, we have made exactly that bet. You are welcome to come and measure the internal air quality at any time you wish.

I am not interested in having a bet with you, this is too important.
I don't know how to measure internal air quality.

Posted By: CWattersFor example is it safe to coat your walls with something containing calcium hydroxide?..

Calcium Hydroxide is not volatile, and it has been used for this purpose for centuries, in over ventilated buildings.

Posted By: CWattersbut it's a question of the scale.

It is a question of many details, concentrations, build up in human tissue, physiological effects etc.

Peter
- CommentAuthorjoe90
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010
This is exactly why I am planning a straw bale build with as little modern chemical materials as possible. My wife and I have never lived in a "dangerous" envoironment specifically but I have suffered ill health and my wife has had cancer twice and no family history of the disease. I believe that there are those of us who may or may not be affected by certain chemicals and so no limit can be set for everyone as a safe level.

I am hedging my bets on avoiding things that may be a problem. This is not scaremongering, its informed choice. We have also thrown out the microwave as a few professional people have cast doubt on its safety (in fact it was banned in russia for many years because it was deamed unsafe).
- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010 edited
Posted By: TunaIf it's installed in a normally ventilated home in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions, I would bet that you'll be fine. In fact, as we've built our entire house out of the stuff, we have made exactly that bet. You are welcome to come and measure the internal air quality at any time you wish

Tuna, this thread in danger of becoming overheated. I agree with what you have said here that you and your family will be fine, because of the informed and careful way in which I imagine you have built.

But that does not mean that we should sanction the use of synthetic materials, inside well sealed houses, without careful consideration. Other people may not be fine, for various reasons. If someone has commissioned a report because of health concerns, and the report has something negative to say, we should all be able to see it, preferably translated into English.

Peter
- CommentAuthorChrisEngland
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010
While to some extent I agree with Peter that care should be taken in introducing novel products into increasingly sealed environments, a sense of proportion is required - after all, many of these products have been in use for many years and we're all supposed to be living longer and more healthily. I'd be much more worried about some of the components of cleaning products etc than the small residues emitted from building products (although some, of course, are dangerous - the naturally occuring minerals known as asbestos being an example). As for VOC's, I'd suggest that alcohol is probably the most dangerous that people are likely to encounter on a regular basis and as Tuna said, it's a matter of scale and typical use rather than perhaps abuse - and presentation can be skewed - if you haven't seen this already it's worth a look:

http://www.dhmo.org/
- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010 edited
Posted By: ChrisEnglanda sense of proportion is required

I completely agree, this is completely about that, but what does that mean here exactly?

Posted By: ChrisEnglandmany of these products have been in use for many years and we're all supposed to be living longer and more healthily

How many years? The same years in which we have seen an increase in asthma?
Airtightness is on the increase, this is a crucial part of this equation surely?

Posted By: ChrisEnglandI'd be much more worried about some of the components of cleaning products etc than the small residues emitted from building products

I don't like lots of cleaning fluids etc, but I suspect don't inhale them 16 hours a day from the day of birth.

Posted By: ChrisEnglandAs for VOC's, I'd suggest that alcohol is probably the most dangerous that people are likely to encounter on a regular basis and as Tuna said, it's a matter of scale and typical use rather than perhaps abuse

Typical use?
We drink some alcohol, at a concentration determined by millennia of experince, then... we stop for a while. If we ingest alcohol every day, all day, then we all know the horrible consequences.
Compare the chemicals that may be off gassing from paints etc
We ingest these relatively new synthetic chemicals, perhaps for most of the time, every day, at concentrations that are unmonitored and the effects of which are unclear?

Thanks for the link, I will have a look
EDIT, Very amusing, and well done.
BUT, person's who are concerned about the potential health effects of VOC etc are naive and scientifically illiterate and deserve to be mocked?

Peter
- CommentAuthorChrisEngland
- CommentTimeMar 10th 2010
Peter,
Wasn't intended to be mocking - just thought it was a good site to illustrate the more general point that presentation, along with such things as limited case studies, extreme 'experimental' cases and such-like can be used to give a very biased view of the reality of a situation - vis the scare stories regularly put out in the newspapers - but you are right that caution is required.

Chris
- CommentAuthorChrisEngland
- CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
Also, regarding the comments about alcohol - I was thinking more that we know it is potentially dangerous taken in large doses, and also (probably) taken in much smaller doses for long periods of time (links to mouth cancers from alcohol in mouthwashes etc), but nobody(?) worries about the small amounts we routinely inhale (from natural sources, wine glasses, cleaning materials etc etc) because our bodies can, by and large, deal with a certain amount of damage by, for example, inducing cell death. The same processes will be at work with other VOC's, indicating that, although they may be damaging at high concentration, low levels are less likely to be significant. There will always be a risk, some chemicals will be carcinogenic for example, and perhaps there'll be some susceptible individuals, but that is as likely to apply to natural environmental VOC's as artifical ones - nothing can be regarded as wholly risk free.
- CommentAuthorPeter Clark
- CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
Posted By: ChrisEnglandThe same processes will be at work with other VOC's, indicating that, although they may be damaging at high concentration, low levels are less likely to be significant.

I hope you are correct.

Peter
- CommentAuthortony
- CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
Another point about off gassing is that it can only happen once.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
Posted By: tonyAnother point about off gassing is that it can only happen once.
Once in many cases means 'in one continuous (maybe declining) lifetime emission'. For example anything 25yrs old that still smells is still offgassing (tho no smell doesn't necessarily mean no offgassing).

Chis England is talking, rightly, about the body's immune system, or homeostatic ability to keep itself truly unaffected, up to a certain threshold of environmental challenge. Also pointing out that there were in the past/still are plenty of such challenges from 'natural' sources - which the modern world has partly reduced for us. But the modern world has introduced a raft of new 'unnatural' environmental challenges, which include electromagnetic and magnetic as well as chemical. There's no real distinction between 'natural' and 'unnatural' - except that there's a lot of commercial self-interest in selling the 'unnatural' ones, hence a lot of scientific disinformation about them, and a lot of public naive eagerness to believe the reassurances because it seems our way of life would frighteningly collapse without them.

The work of the body's immune or homeostatic system, in succesfully keeping the body truly unaffected, up to a certain threshold of environmental challenge, in not however without cost. The harder it has to work, while we're young, fit and energetic, the more the body's core resources may be (but not necessarily) used up - another way of saying ageing. Of course psychology has a part in this - a person can fortify their resources and slow down ageing, by the spirit in which they live. But ageing means that the body's immune or homeostatic system becomes less capable sooner, can cope with only a lowering level of environmental challenge, and risk of sub-system overwhelm increases, at which point the subsystem goes chaotic instead of homeostatic, and likely causes knock-on overwhelm of other subsystems.

This is why an apparently fit and healthy person so suddenly (or creepingly) succumbs to unexpected deteriorations or even major illness, at any time but particularly after middle age.

So just because we feel fine now, in our environment so full of 'natural' and 'unnatural' challenges, you need to be doing something quite special, psychologically, to escape the debit that's being chalked up in your body. Blithely ignore or deny our offgassing built environment now, and pay later.
- CommentAuthorTuna
- CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
Posted By: fostertomOnce in many cases means 'in one continuous (maybe declining) lifetime emission'. For example anything 25yrs old that still smells is still offgassing (tho no smell doesn't necessarily mean no offgassing).

Anything 25yrs old that still smells probably needs a wash!

The thing I find frustrating about these discussions is that in the face of poor knowledge, people can become paranoid or begin to make up unfounded theories about how the world works. There are so many things to worry about - magnetic fields, radioactivity, chemical pollution, disease, parasites, fungus, air quality... the list is endless. If you take the 'just to be safe' approach, you end up like living in an oxygen tent in the middle of a field, like a stone age Michael Jackson.

Perhaps it's the current culture of apportioning blame - something must be at fault for our bad health? Perhaps I'm a defeatist (I prefer to think realist), but I'm happy to accept that the human body is far from perfect, and naturally decays. We get colds, get ill, get cancer, altzheimers, parkinson's disease and a whole host of other problems regardless of our habitat. The genetic lottery means some of us will last longer than others. We can improve our environment to the point where we don't suffer from malnutrition or excess heat or cold - but beyond that, the body will still quite naturally break down at some point. I'm not too happy about dying either, but no amount of sheeps' wool and happy thoughts are going to change that basic fact.

That's what makes me most uncomfortable. It's nice to think that happy thoughts and a perfect environment will naturally ward off illness, but it's snake oil to suggest that this is actually a cure or preventative. We live in a messy world, where nature is actually quite surprised to find us still alive past 30 years. When people start dredging up new fears and worries, or hand wavy theories for good health it benefits no-one and distracts from the good science and understanding that has developed over the years.

Should we worry about offgassing? Well, if normal environmental levels in your home are below internationally accepted minima, then surely there are probably bigger things to be concerned about. This report doesn't change that, and as laymen our combined fears are not going to improve the scientific understanding or change the risks - which appear to be minimal.
- CommentAuthorfostertom
- CommentTimeMar 11th 2010
You're describing a belief, an attitude, a reliance on Science, 'internationally accepted minima' etc; that all's well and The Authorities would have warned us.
The proof of that, is the emotive distance you put between yourself and 'hand wavy theories for good health'.

1 to 30 of 86



	Site Map \| Home \| View Cart \| Pressroom \| Business \| Links	Contact Us
Logout
© Green Building Press

Green Building Forum

Categories

Feeds

General: Off gassing from Insulation