Companies who make and sell stuff have to work inside the profit system, they are regulated, but that is very much an 'add on'. Basically they need to make a profit or go under. When the shit hits the fan, they must do anything they can, as individuals with families to support, and legal entities, to survive. That includes misinformation, disinformation, cover ups and plain lying.
Of course I am not here referring to any particular company, but that is how the system works.
If I had got myself into a position, where I was involved in such a situation, I would do all of that to protect my family and income, and in the process, I would twist and distort 'truth' in such a way as to justify my actions, I would believe whatever was needed to protect my livelihood.

That doesn't mean companies are crap, we would have no products without them. It doesn't mean people are crap, we all have good sides and bad sides. We need to find a sense of proportion that is appropriate, yes, but what is it. I suggest that the fundamental thing is information, and rational discourse. We can try a rational discourse here, but the information that sparked the thread is missing.

Perhaps later a more informed response will be possible, showing that Chris and Tuna are correct and there is nothing to worry about. Perhaps we just need to make sure there is not a good air path between internal insulation and the house air, perhaps paint (as natural as possible of course) will be sufficient. Perhaps in the end it is wiser not to use these materials internally. I feel unable to decide at present.

A suitably proportioned response in those circumstances is difficult, I choose to be cautious. I will not be using synthetic insulation on the inside of my house, probably not on the outside, that is my response to companies who take legal action to suppress reports concerning health.

Peter

Posted By: ChrisEnglande.g. if a material states 'use only in well-ventilated conditions' and someone publishes a report on ill effects when used in a sealed lavatory cubicle that could well be construed as an attempt vilify the company when it's product is actually perfectly safe when used appropriately

I agree, that is why we need to have information available to us, then it will become clear. If a company protests that will compromise their business, I have little or no sympathy where health is concerned.

Posted By: ChrisEnglandunfortunately it's always difficult for the general public to (a) get the whole truth and (b) work out if there are more general ramifications.

For some, in some situations, but this only adds to the weight of what I said above.

Posted By: ChrisEnglandAlso, we are of course in something of a quandary regarding the need to reduce CO2 etc by increasing insulation and air-tightness, without long-term knowledge of the effects of either traditional or modern techniques and materials..just got to do the best we can.

Quite, but 'best we can' does not necessarily involve believing everything we are told by people with a commercial interest.

One of my interests is that we do appear to have alternatives to synthetic insulation, and the argument has been made that these are better by other criteria:

http://www.natural-building.co.uk/PDF/art_Traditional_Materials.pdf


Peter

Should we really be concerned? Internal insulation e.g. Celotex/Kingspan/Quinntherm has both faces lined with aluminium foil, the insulation when installed has joints taped with aluminium foil and is then often covered with foil backed plasterboard and joints further taped and sealed and edges sealed with acrylic mastic. The whole lot is then sealed with plasterboard sealer followed by 2 or 3 layers of vinyl emulsion paint.

If water vapour has a problem getting through that lot, then I doubt if any heavier organic volatiles (heavier in terms of molecular weight) would make much headway.

Posted By: Jeff B The whole lot is then sealed with plasterboard sealer followed by 2 or 3 layers of vinyl emulsion paint.

I hope that's low voc paint!

And MHVR whips away offgassing, radon etc.

Posted By: Peter ClarkWhy not use wood fibre, hemp etc?

Also Warmcel, cork and of course sheeps wool. And does multifoil offgas?

Posted By: joe90This is exactly why I am planning a straw bale build with as little modern chemical materials as possible.

Hi joe,

Do you want to tell us about this house?

What will you put on the inside surfaces of the straw? I have read very interesting reports of the moisture buffering effect of straw bale walls with clay plaster - no mechanical ventilation necessary?

How will you ventilate the house?

How will you protect the outside from the weather?

Will you have timber frame?

Perhaps you could start a thread for this?

Peter

Posted By: jamesingramI was working with some straw bales last summer , my arms at the end of the day came up in a rash , similiar to rockwool but slightly worse

Chemicals on the crop?

Physical abrasion?

There's a common misconception that things that are "natural" are perfectly safe and without affect on the body. This is far from the truth. "Natural" products are full of "chemicals" - many of which people are allergic to. Wood itself offgases formaldehyde, sheeps wool may contain lanolin which many are allergic to. Etc, etc.

Paul in Montreal.

Lots of living biting things in a straw bale!

Peter Clark.

I have been planning this house for the last 6 months and using this forum to great effect for honing the details. Unfortunately I will not be in a position to build it for at least 4 years because of family commitments but the planning is keeping my mind very active as I love to absorb information on this subject.

As a small time builder I often come across very bad examples of work done in the past even ones that are supposedly up to regs but finished badly (insulation badly installed with loads of air gaps etc).

My passion is a pretty cottage that is healthy to live in (in a previous thread I mentioned my past health problems and my wifes double hit with cancer with no family history). After many hours on the internet I have decided that I want to build a straw bale cottage probably with a "stick frame" because I want large patio doors in the south elevation for solar gain. Although I love the look of brickwork I have decided to lime render the external and clay/lime plaster the inside. Rammed stone foundations, limecrete slabs. (note to Biff. no Portland cement) large thermal mass fireplace with wood stove. Solar space to the south (unheated single glased conservatory) Probably up to passive hous standards but I am not worried about certification.

I would also like solar thermal and P.V. (if it continues to come down in price) rainwater harvesting kitchen made of real wood, etc, etc.

When I am a little nearer to actually building this I would love to bounce my ideas off the many people on this forum that I have high regard for because of the wealth of knowledge they share with us all.

Joe 90

I am not saying that natural will be prefectly safe, my previous point was I was "hedging my bets". Radon from granite is a good example of a natural baddy!. Lead in paint is a good example of what was accepted but proved bad later on.

Regarding the cottage I glean snippets of good info every day from this forum (my wife thinks I am a geek) but she will also benefit from this at a later date when we are living the good life.

Unfortunately if you push that argument to the maximum then one would have to conclude that wood should not be used inside houses!

Posted By: Peter ClarkConsidering the emphasis on sealing houses, this means that these two products are not equally safe

Actually, I'd argue the reverse. A "sealed" house with a mechanical ventilation system has a known and consistent ventilation rate that can be used in design guidelines. Traditional "leaky" houses have unknown ventilation rates that are clearly sometimes inadequate since condensation and mould problems are not scarce.

Please note, I am arguing that sealing houses makes the situation better. I am not getting involved in the discussion as to the merits or otherwise of natural products.

I think we are all agreed that a well sealed house without MVHR is a bad idea and previous threads talk about 0.5 to 1.0 ACPH (air change per hour) being "good". What we dont know is how many ACPH a "leaky house" is? (and they will all be different).