I’ve been reading about “green” building practices and products. Is anyone interested in talking about this stuff? Do any of you give much thought to using sustainable materials? I’m not on any soap box, just interested in talking, exchanging ideas. – Jim
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
By considering things like energy-efficient mechanicals, window orientation, and renewable energy sources, homes can be evaluated to meet the energy codes. Here's what the IRC has to say.
Featured Video
Video: Build a Fireplace, Brick by BrickHighlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
Hi Jim
I consider myself somewhat of a Green builder. We do solar on most all of our homes and have used recycled materials as much as the client will allow. Did you ever hear of "Harmony" in St. John VI? I was instrumental in that and now some of the products we used have shown the test of time.....Trex is great. Termites love Homosote subfloor panels....Solar electric works well but what do you do with 2000 lbs of batteries on an island where it is hard to recycle them?
Etc..
Do you know about the Green Builder program out of Austin Texas? Contact Laurance Doxey.
How about Environmental Building News? out of Vermont
How about that!
Environmental Building NewsHelen
Every try to refurbish batteries? I've heard of it being done with success.
I used to do it all of the time, take a battery dump the acid into a glass bowl. let the white stuff settle out.(that's lead sulfate) I then rinse out any sulfate I can by pouring water into the battery & gingerly slooshing it around and dumping out. when clear water comes out I then pour the acid back into the battery being careful to decant the lead sulfate. Usually you'll need to add some acid but that's not very expensive.
I could sometimes get two years out of a salvaged battery.
Interesting tip Frenchy, i might try that.
I read once about a fella who would get dud batteries from a car wreckers. Any bad cells were carefully cut out of the main battery, the good ones were then ganged up with other 'spare cells', to make up one decent battery. A whole pile of these were combined to store power from his solar panels. He reckoned the entire battery bank cost about $100, as well as being easily replaced when one part died and the load was shared between lots of little cells making it all last longer.
Wood Hoon
The objective seems to be 'remove the lead sulfate' Your method seems more time effective than repeated charge/discharge
Jim:
You know me, GREEN is good if equivalent to free and recycled. If I have to pay extra for it, forget it. That may also be a prevalent consumer attitude.
PS: Continental hardwood chipped their entire "free woood " pile last month. Transferred desk to Plant II from Kent so don't go by there much anymore, so don't know if it will build up again.
I'm a homeowner/builder who thought long and hard about this subject prior to actual building. To me the prime concern is sustainablity. will the trees that grew the wood for your house be there when the house needs to be replaced. Many things are a one shot deal, for example stone work. when stone is used, it can never be replaced, there will always be a hole in the ground where it was removed from and won't regrow.
Yet stone is the most durable building material and some of it is more common than good dirt. Once that issue is solved we need to address the cost (in real terms which includes environmental costs) of removing it and getting it to where it will ultimately be used. How many gallons of non-renewable oil was used in extracting the stone and transporting it?
Where are we better off using products which work better as intended then other more "natural" replacements? For example straw bales. they provide a level of insulation, yet they either use more material surrounding them or provide a smaller space. In addition, they are vulnerable to moisture damage if not protected with a complete vapor barrier.
All of these are complex issues which I've attempted to answer in the most green fashion possible. Some may differ, however carefull thought was given to each and every material selection.
Frenchy:
Ref: FHB Nov., 1990, GM page. Mt St. Helens deposited plenty or "new" sand and stone; May, 1980. But you are right, there is a big hole!
nuvue - What is "Harmony"? What about this Green building project in Texas?
I just started reading "Environmental Building News". Thanks, Helen. Funny, I subscribed to "Mother Earth News" for years and have "The Solar Home Book", used to subscribe to "New Shelter", but I guess somewhere along about when the kids started in school in the mid 80's, and little league, and pony club, and theater group...I guess I lost track of that movement.
Then, just recently a few different people have mentioned oddball bits of information that somehow got me thinking more and more about green building practices. I guess reusing existing stuff is certainly one such practice, but I think frenchy touched on really relevant points, too. Like, how much nonrenewable energy does it take to harvest that stone, which itself is sort of non renewable...and last week David Ericson was telling me about the problems associated with the manufacture and disposal of vinal siding and windows...and two of my kids and I have asthma, so I've long been conscious of the clean air problems that are increasing...
Today Kathy and Amy and I went to an environmental building supply store in Seattle and I got some information about a coallition of Green building professioinals that meets the first Wednesday of each month in a nearby city. I'm looking forward to learning more about what all this is about.
Keep talking, you guys, I can't remember when something has grabbed my interest like this. Have you seen this cotton insulation made from denim scraps from the clothing industry?
there is a wide range of what's green in green building, Jim, but however you define it I think this specialization (?) of building will keep growing in the market. there seems to be a buzz lately.
I'm a member of a 'green' building organization in the pacific nw and I work for a remodeler who also has been a member. I think the mainstream reality of green building is that there's not much different from conventional building; that said there's a lot of green building that's not 'mainstream', but is it a lot compared to the amount of most conventional building? No.
nevertheless if I ever start a business I'll specialize in this field.
best, GO
Where in the Pacific NW, Go?
I'm in Seattle, Jim, and reading your last post it sounds like you went to the EHC down by Safeco field and heard about the NWEBG; the NWEBG has chapters from Bellingham to Eugene (some more active than others), and I go to the Seattle events.
this reminds me of a discussion I took part in a couple of months ago, around the fact that you currently can't buy 'sustainably harvested' (certified by the FSC) dimensional framing lumber in Seattle. The EHC stopped carrying it. The old supply/demand question; no supply if there's no demand, but how do you get demand with no supply?
GO
Many issues related to sustainability go far beyond whether or not to use "green" materials or resources. A lot of issues relate more to urban planning than to individual residential construction.
For instance, adaptability and reuseability--In European cities there are buildings centuries old that are still used today, and should see continued use for centuries to come. In America, when the McDonalds outlives its usefulness, we tear it down and put the rubble in a landfill so we can build a drive-up bank on the site, which in 15 or 20 years may be torn down...
Another issue is huge buildings and vast tracts of land that are only in actual physical use for 8 or 10 hours a day--such as your local shopping mall. Not a very practical use of resources. It might be better to return to more mixed-use developments--living units located above the stores and such, where buildings and land can actually be in use 24 hours a day.
Another issue is the street systems and infrastructure more generally. It used to be that communities were built largely on grid systems. Grids are good in a lot of ways--they're adaptable to changes in economies, changes in use, changes in mode of transportation, etc. If you need to make changes in housing stock to accomodate different classes of people, or if you find it's feasable to add a new public transportation system, it can easily be done where the streets and utilities are laid out on a grid. But if a large subdivision, with all of its convoluted and dead-end streets (and very specific economic segregation) should become outmoded, what's one to do? Gut the entire development and start over?
And one can't fail to mention the way our entire culture has been constructed around the automobile since WWII. If a builder, a developer, or a city planner were seriously concerned about sustainable use of natural resources, rather than talking about whether or not to put solar cells on the roofs of houses, they might discuss putting buildings a little closer together, or actually installing sidewalks so that people can actually walk to places instead of having to drive. We could save a helluva lot of petroleum in this country if kids in subdivisions were actually able to ride their bikes to school and soccer practice, instead of mom having to drive them around in the big SUV. There are neighborhoods in my own city that one can hardly even get into or out of, except by car--6 lanes of heavy traffic and no sidewalks on the arterial streets (and no through side streets). From the driver's seat it might not seem so bad, but on bike or on foot, it feels like a dangerous, barren, overscaled wasteland.
Sustainablitity,
is your use of materials replaceable within the life of the structure they are in?
For example. Engineered wood. it can be made from trees that are very young. the trash wood will fire the boilers which creates much of the "glue" which holds things together. While not a completely closed loop, it is probably better than many homes built in the 70's and 80's with old growth lumber which took hundreds of years to grow.
Against that I choose to use timbers from old growth trees because they provided materials that homes in europe which are a thousand years old in some cases. I'm using extreeme care to build a home which should last much longer than it took to grow the trees and since the timbers are a design element. The appeal of those timbers should provide their own security.
In addition the trees are locally grown. thus the use of non-renewable oil to transport them is minimized. (again, not a completely closed loop, but with the smallest possible gap)
Finally I selected SIPS for insulation. heating is a serious energy consumer in this climate. by careful selection of a non- CFC releasing foam, an absolute minimum of oil by product will provide for a maximum of heat (energy) retention.
while this isn't the cheapest way to build a home, it is the absolute best way to preserve energy, ( my goal is to be able to heat the house with a warm fart in January)
The point I'm making is that there can be no fixed formula for a "green" house, You are right when you say that you can't just plop some solar panels on the roof and pretend that it's green.
Yeah, Go, that's the store we went to and the group we are trying to track down.
I think there are many ways of looking at engineered lumber as a green building material. While on the one hand you could argue it utilizes parts of trees that would have been "waste", someone else might argue allowing that "waste" to mulch back into the soil maintains a cycle of replenishment of the soil, for other species of plants to follow the fir tree. I'm not saying this is the case, but I think it's really important to stop and realize what we are saying when we say "something would go to waste".
"Waste" as far as usefulness to humans, maybe. But maybe an important link in the ecological chain for the environment. It's kind of like the way people will rationalize the white man's conquest of the West by saying things like "well, the Indians weren't doing much with it". It just seems like a very narrow perspective to me.
I was reading a series of e mail exchanges by some folks in the green building movement and they were talking about why we have these big homes. Somehow we have this notion of "more is better"...more cars, more money, more square feet in our home...more of everything. Consumerism. So, of course, we need more room to store all this stuff we think we need more of. Interesting thought.
Not to mention the fact that since we all race around trying to acquire more stuff, we need money. So we work. And work. And virtually ANYTHING can be rationalized with "it's a business, of course we are trying to maximize profits". We don't even stop to think maybe we could work less, have less, and be happier because of a more relaxed lifestyle.
Or like all these manufacturers who have to sell bazillions of widgits to make enough money to pay for cleaning up the mess from the manufacturing of the widgets we really didn't need in the first place.
Edited 5/19/2002 11:33:59 PM ET by jim blodgett
Nice thread Jim
An example of 'waste' that I see every week...... I do bathroom redo's for another carpenter. I go in and without exception the job is the same. "rip it all out and take it away"
So, it all goes to the dump. perfectly servicable toilet, vanity, shower tray, mirror, heated towel rail, heater.................dump it.
What i do is put it on the ute and take it round to the building recyclers. I get about 50 bucks for minimal effort, and someone gets the opportunity to reuse it.
The thing is, in 10 years, it will all get ripped out and start again. why? cos it doesnt look new anymore.
I am doing some renovations around home. So far I have done all of it with materials reused from other areas of my own place. Timber removed from one of the sheds, became framing in the house, etc etc. it amazed me how much I could do with so little once I started looking for ways. I have spent very little so far.
I also get any timber coming out of houses I work on, once again saving it from the dump.
When I push our living room wall out, I am going to frame it with recycled telephone poles. probably infill with straw bales.
An interesting subject this green thing........
Wood Hoon
if you take a look at the building supply re-use stores they're a small fraction of the market but some of their stories are pretty exciting.
for example...I just learned about the Rebuilding store in Portland, OR. opened in '97 on a shoestring budget...on a credit card, basically. About a year and a half later they bought their own building for 1+ million. Now they have something like 40,000 sq. ft of store and they're turning a profit...(this is a non-profit btw) that they will funnel back into a community service organization.
as part of their business they bid against demolition contractors to take apart houses piece by piece...photograph and catalogue everything taken apart and give it to the homeowner for an itemized deduction to their non-profit. All of their expenses are paid by their business...no non-profit grants or any of that.
I heard one of the founders of the store speak. I could go on and on about this store. I was impressed.
chrs, GO
That sounds similar to what HfH is doing. They have call it Restore. Here are the links to the Restore in Canada and the US.
http://www.habitat.org/env/restorecanada.html
http://www.habitat.org/env/restoreusa.html
I shudder to think about how much perfectly good lumber I've either taken to the dump, or burned, because it had a few nails in it. Really doesn't make much sense.
They have a small used building supply store in Olympia, lots of appliances, old cabinets, flooring, plumbing fixtures, miscelaneous hardware. You'd think there'd be a great market for stuff like that for people just starting out in life.
"taken to the dump... because it had a few nails in it"
Jim .. how could you?
Probably every project (furniture included) I've built in the last 12 years is from lumber that had nails in it at one time (99% I pulled) - every piece of lukalumber once had nails.
Obviously, pulling nails from scrap is very seldom cost effective, but as you said in a previous segment, money shouldn't be everything.
I've some 30 YO D.fir that sons and I planted (some are already 18" dia), hope for grandsons to be able to build using trees their GP/father planted.
here's a link to our local effort to promote 'Green Building' - as a humble advisory council member for the solid waste management district, we've discussed many of frenchy's points vis-a-vis 'sustainability' but since our mandate involves reduction of solid waste, often products with relatively high energy inputs are offered for consideration - ths plastic recycling thing is an example - it's uneconomical to handle and haul plastics any distance - more energy used than reclaimed, so is recycled plastic a 'green' material? - dunno - check out the link and let me know 1. did you find it usable? 2. did you find it useful? 3. how could it be improved? thanks, DOUD
http://www.slashthetrash.com/grbld.htm
David -
Didn't know you were into that - Would have made a good topic of discussion while I was up your way.
I spent several years on the board of directors (And as an active volunteer worker) for the local recycling center. Learned enough about it that I'm almost convinced that much of it is a waste of time.
Plastic, in particular, is a real hot button for me. Plastic is the least recycled and the least recycleable container out there, IMHO. The durned stuff should be outlawed. (as a container material) But the plastics council has done a good job of promoting it. Have you noticed the ads on TV never mention recycling when they promote plastic?
Didn't mean to hijack your thread, Jim...
ya - if we do it again, perhaps we can take a tour of the wabash county's new judicial annex recently completed with various 'green' componets - it was interesting hearing about the resistance from the architecs to input on this concept - mercifully I was at a fair distance to the whole thing -
I can vouch firsthand on the merits of this store. I've shopped there for numerous items not readily available through box stores or lumberyards because it's not made anymore. The place is a city block long, has everything imaginable and the costs run about 40 cents on the dollar for viable building goods. I take anything useable back to them for the tax break but more for the hate of throwing perfectly good things away. Yes, it's a great store. There should be more of them...
Is there a store like this in the Los Angeles area? I'd be interested....
-- J.S.
Taking something to the dump may not be as bad as all that!
In some cities like Mpls. and San Diego (that I know about) the dumps are covered over with a plastic tarp and the metahane gas captured is used to power giant generators. providing electrical power. Decades go by generating methane which is used to replace diesel powered generators.....
In addition in my city they burn refuse to generate power and heat. to prevent polution they hand pick things like batteries etc. thus providing jobs to otherwise unemployable people. thus some of your lumber and old furnature becomes heat and electricity, while offering jobs and returning a profit.
http://www.habitat.org/env/restoreusa.html
There are a couple in CA, don't know how close they are to you.
Thanks for the ReStore link, Bill. Alas, the nearest ones are about 60 miles North and 60 miles Southeast of here. They'd have to have something pretty special to be worth a round trip in the 1985 F-350 at 8 MPG.
-- J.S.
Jim,
Aren't you in Seattle area? If so you just missed a good conference. National Green Building Conf. Put on by NAHB. I will try to link http://www.nahbrc.org/ Hey, it worked! Good stuff. Might want to get on the mailing list for next year. I spoke in 2000 in Denver. NAHB has a lot of resources if you want to learn about green.
Green isn't black or white. It is a process and you never reach the end. There is always something else. I know one builder that does "Healthy Houses". He is very busy. One remodeler is known as a green remodeler. Very focused in their organization about green issues. But it still has to pencil out. So you couldn't be 100% green unless you had unlimited resources. Some people think green is small houses and less is more in their lifestyle. Fine for them. Others don't want minimalist living but they can do ONE thing. Great way to start. So at any one time people can be anywhere along the green spectrum.
Thanks for that link, Scrapr. Looks like I missed a good conference there. What did you speak about at the Denver conference?
Jim,
We are one of the larger construction clean up services in the nation. With 10 trucks on the road you need to do a LOT of cleaning up. I spoke about what we do, how we do it and the recycling that occurs. Just by recycling the wood product we can get to about 65-70% recycle rate. Goes up a little more when our trash goes to a Material Recovery Facility. Pretty everyday day stuff to me, but somebody at NAHB Research was interested. I think he moved on to Environmental Building News. Might want to try that for info. Sorry I don't have a link. Maybe one was posted earlier? Good luck.
If you read through the PCA link mentioned above you will find an extensive study that assessed all the energy consumption in building and maintaining a stick-built vs. ICF house. (It's been a while since I visited that site, but that study is there somewhere). Their conclusion? - If the house were to last in excess of about 5 yrs. (IIRC) then the ICF house is more "green" in terms of energy used and greenhouse gas contributions. Most houses I know will last more then 5 yrs.!
Also - 100 yrs lifespan for concrete is VERY questionable (under most conditions anyway) In fact, 100 yr old concrete in the presence of any moisture at all would still be getting harder! (yes it's true)
Regards - Brian
Hi AJ in NZ,
Carefull there, telephone poles in this country are treated with cresote. which has been known to cause cancer. In addition the steady off gassing of creasote decades after treatment stinks.
Jim, an interesting subject for sure and many of the posters have touched on components.
some thoughts; to build a 10000sq foot "second home" using "green materials", ie recycled lumber, OSB, ICF, SIPs, all considered green materials, is it really green building?
your and others comments about engineered lumber and waste trees. What is a waste tree as you mention. Also for OSB for instance, so much of it is produced from mechanically harvesting (clear cutting) aspens and a mono-cultured tree plantation pine (SE) each of which bring up other ecological issues. Then there is the toxic glues, waste and energy consumption.
ICF are another so called green product yet in examining the manufacturing process, are they really that green.
I think to be "green", one has to look at the entire picture. From manufacturing of materials through construction and use, to the day when the structure fails and collapses into the earth.
As far as sustainability, is that necessarily green. Would it not be better to build a structure say from natural, quick rejuvinating materials and expect it to last only 5 years. then rebuild? Or live in a teepee or yurt and move on?
Or should we build structures to last 1000 years and pass them on from generation to generation?
For myself, I focus first on size and try to encourage people to build small but adequate...live outside more....multiple use areas etc. Then I look at materials. I like wood and think that it by and large can be the most environmentally friendly material to use. Properly managed forests and wood lots, recycled materials. Properly constructed and ideally indigenous material. Add to that rammed earth or strawbale, and you are beginning to build a sustainable, comfortable structure that can naturally move on through the wheel of life.
davidwalk good
David,
You and I have have talked before, so let me ask a question on this. How do we figure that type of "overall Greeness" out? I mean, lets look at ICFs for instance. Let's say they are a lot more effecient, and last a long time (never worked with them, so wanted to pick something rather innocuous to discuss). If they save two or three or whatever times as much energy over traditional methods, and last as long (perhaps longer?) than others, even though they use petro products, chemicals, big manufacturing cycle...how does anyone really get to the point of understanding what the tradeoff is?
Jason, There are many assumptions and misconceptions regarding ICFs. I have used several brands and by and large like their use in some applications. However I do not consider them a green product.
For one thing, there effective R-value or insulative effect is negated by heating climates, at least that is what the studys I have been reading are discovering. Energy consumption in ICF homes are not appreciably better than other framing methods when one compares apples to apples. An example is the HUD studys done comparing the energy consumption of two identical homes built in Maryland. One 10" ICF, the other 2x4 stick frame with fiberglass batts. The ICF used 20% less energy over the course of the year, but was more than twice as thick in wall size. A comparable stick frame house of 8" wall thickness even with batts would show greater energy savings than the ICFs.
Another consideration is manufacturing. Both ICFs (even the brands that use recycled polystyrenes)and cement manufacturing require considerable energy consumption in the manufacturing process. It would be an interesting study to determine energy consumption in the manufacturing compared to energy use reduction in using ICFs. I have used them for cetain applications, but they are not my choice for energy reduction in building.
Tradeoff may be the key word in all of this. Examining options (necessities) regarding size of building, use, and available building material....and often times how hungry we are, ie. do we need the job?
davidwalk good
Careful thinking is needed at this point. For example OSB, made from "trash trees" that are quick growing and produce a viable "crop" in as little as 15 years. For 15 years their leaves have been enriching the soil and providing us with free oxygen, when cut down the branches, roots,and twigs are given to the soil with only the Boll removed from the forest.
Yes it's monocultered, however it's 15 years allow a fair number of forest creatures to survive and thrive. The issue of ownership enters here. Do you like it if your neighbors told you what to grow in your own yard? If they like roses and you can't stand them should you have to grow roses? OK Some of the forest companies are a little heavy handed. Maybe there would be other uses for their land then what they put them thru, but to me the solution is for you to aquire all of the forest land you can and do exactly whatever you want done on their land.
Are old growth forests worthy of protection? of course! As a public policy we should use our taxes to buy old growth from private owners and preserve it. Yet not every parcel of land needs protection.
In addition I'd like to challenge the idea that bigger is wrong somehow. In Europe it is common for several generations to live together in large old homes. That has a tremendious appeal to me. Grandpa and grandma care for the babies and in turn are cared for in their old age. To work that needs space. space for privacy. space to seperate and live your own life. that means a large house. Bigger is only bigger, not good or bad, just bigger.
This complexity is what makes this such a great topic. I can see valid points flying left and right that could otherwise seem at odds with each other. Frenchy, that's a great point about the size of houses and extended families sharing life, a home, responsibilities...
What about this "off gassing" that several folks have mentioned? Mongo, I think, and David Thodal mentioned it and the resins and glues used in engineered lumber and sheet goods like plywood and o.s.b. Is there some standard of measuring this stuff so a small builder like me could compare products on that basis then decide how much it costs to switch to folmaldehyde free products, for example?
Mongo with the health issues, Boss Hog with the mention of plastics...PLEASE don't think you're hijacking the thread or talking off topic. I think that stuff is exactly ON TOPIC. Really, this green building idea has me thinking about way more than building, more like "responsible living". I think each of us could probably do quite a bit to leave a healthier planet for our descendants if we thought about it even just a little; but as builders, it does seem like we have a unique opportunity to make significant contributions to that end.
Keep it up you guys, what else? What about recylcing torn off roofing? Has anyone tried that yet?
Edited 5/20/2002 10:53:56 PM ET by jim blodgett
Jim,
nice post
some books and such.. Richard Manning THE GOOD HOUSE
David Pearson NEW ORGANIC ARCHITECTURE THE NATURAL HOUSE BOOK
Malcom Wells also wrote some interesting books of the subject of natural or earth friendly homes
Kennedy , Smith, & Wanek Editors THE ART OF NATURAL BUILDING
http://www.environdesign.com a site for suistainabilty and design
Another group from the 70's who I think are defunct but you might find some old writings was the THE NEW ALCHEMISTS out of Wood's Hole Ma. Interesting things with shelter, food production and energy and integrating the processes together.
davidwalk good
What about this "off gassing" that several folks have mentioned?
jb,
I'll tell you what I know. Like most things, it may not be right, which is why I spout off anyway.<g>
Most interior-grade sheet materials used to be, and some still are, made with urea formaldehyde. That's the bad stuff. UF off gasses formaldehyde, and formaldehyde is indeed bad for you...but it has another bad side. I'ts known as a "sensitizer", which means that it can make you sensitive to things that previously wouldn't have bothered you before you were exposed to uf.
Most exterior-grade sheet good are made with phenol formaldehyde.This doesn't offgass formaldehyde like UF does, so most products made with phenol, like OSB, are considered "low" formaldehyde products. They're even considered "green" by some green groups despite the pf.
Back to interiors. I think the old-style particle board was the nastiest. That's been replaced by other particle board-type materials...mainly MDF. "Regular" MDF does emit formaldehyde. Some has been reformulated, so you need to get a sheet from the manufacturer or call their tech reps to get the good info. MEDEX doesn't have uf, so it's formaldehyde free. And yes, MEDEX is an exterior-grade product, and it's considered UF-free.
There's another glue out there...MDI...which is, if I recall, "methyl di-isocyanate." MDI is a "green" adhesive, or binder. It's used in a lot of newer sheet good, one of them being a product called Primeboard. Primeboard is a sheet good made from wheat straw. Supposed to be good for cabinetry, etc, takes and edge well and takes paint well too.
If you're in a house that has uf off gassing, there are "specialty sealers" that you can use to seal the uf in the product. I looked in to them a while back but never persued them. Crystal Aire and Crystal Shield. Not sure if they work or are fluff, or if another type of coating will work just as well. I never got requested information, so I dropped my little search in to their product.
Also, I think Medite is a uf-free, or at least a low-uf product.
Then again, we could go back to using real wood...<g>
Still, for most house, carpeting is the biggest offender when it comes to off gassing uf. It's not just the carpet, but the pad as well, and adhesives that have been used to glue the pad or the carpet down.
Even if you have the best of intentions and buy a wool or nylon carpet, it's the unlisted substances used in manufacturing the carpet that are most responsible for "toxic" off gassing. These unknown ingredients are usually in the primary and secondary backings and are chemical additives intended for controlling fungus, mold, mildew, and rot.
The VOCs that off gass from carpeting are a lot of the "-enes." Things like benzenes, xylene, toluene, formaldehyde, and acetone.
Even if you "go green" and order a carpet made from natural materials like wool or cotton, you still need to specify what you don't want in the carpet, as many of these chemicals may be added as part of the post-manufacturing treatment.
Besides carpeting, cabinetry is a big off-gasser due to particle board construction. Some paints. Some finishes.
The good stuff? Homasote. Exterior-grade sheet goods. Cellulose insulation (borate version only). There's actually a "green backlash" against FG insulation, as the high-density FG gets the higher density by spinning the glass thread finer. More concern regarding health issues with the finer glass threads.
Ah, what a can of worms. Worms...I think they're uf-free. Not sure about the can...
Time for bed!
Frenchy, the telephone poles that we get access to here are some sort of Australian eucalypt. They are untreated. they are as hard as hell, will last almost forever, and have a very nice jarra like colour.
The new ones that go in as a replacement are pressure treated pine or concrete. I dont think I will be lining up for any of those.......
The nice old ones go for $30. so it wont take too many to make something useful.
I have an excellent book called "The Sustainable House", by Michael Mobbs (sp?). He lives in Sydney in terrace housing. After his remodelling, ( all materials were sustainable, all 'waste' was recycled ) No sewerage left his section and they were totally self sufficient for water. a grid interactive solar setup meant they were in the enviable position of getting paid by the power dept.
He mentioned offgassing too. ALL PVC, engineered wood ( particle board, ply etc ) most paints, floor finishes, most lino, etc etc offgassed. He used wire insulated with PVA ( I think thats right ) natural based floor sealers, paints etc.
Really good book. I can supply the ISBN No. if anyone wants it.
Wood Hoon
AJ in NZ,
I'm pretty certain that I read it, It's in our local library and I've read everything on the shelf, I'm reasonably certain I read that too.
Hey those poles sound neat, use some to make the mast on the sailboat you sail up here to pick up your Black walnut! (i'll gladdly replace them with some black walnut poles!)
The trade off is that without OSB, Plywood, etc. building becomes extremely labor intensive. I am using rough sawn eastern white pine to roof the west wing of my new house. I bought it green and rough at the mill and spent several weekends stickering up the wood and then tarping it. after a year I uncovered it and unstickered it. I then hauled it home and ran it thru the planer. (well oK, three times to get everything to the same thickness and cleaned up. ) I then ran it thru the jointer (both sides) and then ran the router over both edges. I then cut it to length and installed it. In just the decking going up on the roof, I spent well over 200 hours. If I'd accepted plywood or OSB, I would have had it done in a couple of hours tops!
The timbers I use require an average of 8 hours labor per timber prior to erection. That does not count the stickering and tarping either. In addition they are far too heavy for a man to pick up alone. I need to use a telescopic forklift and evan at that I take well over an hour per timber to get them erected.
What I've built since last august I could have gone to the local big box and bought and built in a couple of weeks using engineered products and common construction methods. If everyone built using my methods The average home would cost well in excess of a million dollars. But it would be much more "green"
Frenchy,
First off I do not think of a species of tree being a trash tree or by extension the forest eco system it represents a 15 year project. One common tree used in OSB production is aspen....considered by many to be a trash tree. Yes it can be fast growing, but it provides food, shelter, and forest diversity for a number of plant and animal species. Do we place a time limit on their existence so we can manufacture a product that is really unnecessary? And when these trees are harvested for chip, there is very little biomass remaining. They take the whole tree.
davidwalk good
frenchy,
a few thoughts: with all respect you seem to have a tendency to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about big being bad or wrong. I wrote I try to encourage people to be small but adequate. If you need room for several generations of relatives living under one roof, then your needs will be different from a couple with only one child.
But as a general trend at least here in the USA, our private homes are becoming larger in size and our family size is decreasing. Carried through to the second and sometimes third home, it becomes bordering criminal in my mind. At least with regards to "green building".
I love the wood, the forest. Yet I also include in that logging. I see nothing wrong with timber harvesting if done responsibly. Whether on private land or national forest land. The idea of responsible forestry is different for many people thus the conflict. But properly managed, trees are an excellent source of renewable, recyclable, essentially non-toxic greeen building material.
davidwalk good
David,
I'm sorry if you felt I was "attacking" you . Believe me, I never meant it to come out that way, I'll try to be more carefull in the word selection I use when posting.
I understand your point about 3 people families and Mc Mansions. My only hope is that eventually with all that space multigenerational families will become more possible. The real tradegedy is the quality of the build and durability of the building material may not allow multigenerational use of homes. For example is engineered wood products durable enough to last through several generations? The plastic siding that is so common today will it be something to be proud of in 125 years?
Regarding logging, I believe you and I are on the same page there. It would be wonderfull to have virgin wilderness outside everyone's door. that's not realistic or evan possible. Nor do I think that we should try to micro manage forests /woodlots to some utopian ideal. America is a big wonderful place. Room for many points of view.
We need to use the Mc Donalds model as our goal. I don't remember if you recall when Mc Donalds use to put all their sandwiches in non-biodegradeable styrofoam containers. They contributed billions of tons of styrofoam to the enviornment. Some very practical "greens" pointed out that it was actually in Mc Donalds interest to stop and go back to biodegradeable paper wrap. Recently they convinced Mc Donalds to treat it's chickens and other animals more humainly. Mc Donalds will refuse to buy from venders who violate their new standards. They are leading the industry in that respect. (still not exactly a bunch of chickens wandering around the farm yard digging for worms but at least not the 20 to a cage, forced molting, beak trimming, etc. that used to go on. )
That victory was won by some practical "greens", who realized that to.achieve something good they had to find the benefit for large corporations. I'm wandering but the point I'm trying to make is that to be successful we need to look beyond our own selfish interest and find the benefit to corporations.
Interesting -- I bought the dump we're rebuilding now specifically because I could walk to work. Parking around here is miserable because the whole area was built in the red car days, when you could get around on public transportation. A four unit apartment building would have a one car garage, just in case they ever rented to somebody who had one.
As for the whole green thing, I tend to stay away. There's just way too much religion to it. There's too much pretending that there are absolute slam dunk right answers where in fact we're looking at imponderable apples to oranges tradeoffs. Take flourescent lights. They use less energy, slam dunk, right? But nobody thinks about the phosphors, the mercury vapor, the ballasts....
-- J.S.
I did a house for a couple whose children had nasty allergies and one was asthmatic. Built using materials with nothing nasty in them...minimized or eliminated everything and anything that could possibly off-gas.
Four months after moving in, the kids were "cured."
Had very good friends just move locally, almost a year ago. the house they bought was to me a bad buy. Low-laying lot, moist, the house just seemed clammy and damp.
About a month after moving in, their infant started getting sick. A few weeks later their 2-year old did the same. Both kids have pretty much been sick since then. A pity. I swear its the house. Moist, clammy, a finished basement with carpeted flooring. the house has carpeting throughout, except in the kitchen,,,vinyl. It's new construction, a spec house.
Different topic, I suppose, but it came to mind.
Anyhow, "building green." I'm very consciencious regarding waste on site. I never put a dumpster on site, so guess what...avoiding waste becomes more of a topic than just grabbing a new stick and chopping whatever length is needed. All cutoffs are stacked by length near the chopsaw, it becomes quite easy to grab what you need to get what you want without wasting time searching or figuring. All construction waste gets recycled to it's specific source, except for drywall cutoffs. Those get dumped in the bulk waste at my town dump, they have to way to use them. Ideas have been broached, but it never works out for one reason or another.
Recycled/salvage materials (lumber/windows, etc) are great, but I don't think they're efficient for new home construction. Remodeling/renovation are great applications, when matching existing materials, or when building an outbuilding...shop/garage/playhouse/tool shed.
I grew up recycling lumber. I spent many a summer with a hammer in one hand and a pry bar in the other, pulling nails from lumber that came from shipping crates my Dad brought home from work. Oy!
It is very difficult for me to put lumber in the dumpster just because it has nails in it. But contractors are far and few between that are willing to pay an employee to pull nails to save the material. So, often when I've encountered this situation on a job, I salvage the lumber on my own time, either for my own use or to go to my employer's storage. I don't care that it's cost me my own time- it is not so much about money but about the principle- seems like such a crime to just throw this stuff away.
Ken Hill
Ken, I agree with you 100%. Pulling nails is not something I'd pay someone to do. As strange as it may sound, it's something I actually don't mind doing. I'm saving a stick, minimizing waste, ans saving myself a buck in the process.
"saving myself a buck in the process"
Right on Mongo- a buck coming in isn't necessarily green, but one leaving is definetely un-green. Just this trash-picker's opinion.
On another note - News article in Seattle area recently that over 50% of stuff so neatly sorted by homeowners into special recycle bins goes into landfill anyway. Can't find the specific quote.
Same here regarding recycled materials.
Our curbside pickup has me putting all trash in one container, all recycleable material in another. After watching the trash man dump it all into the truck I asked "what's with the recycle going in with the trash."
He just laughed.
"Do you sort it at the dump site?"
He just laughed.
"Does it get separated out later?"
He drove away.
funny about that 50% recycling --> goes to waste figure. I think that's about right. a good friend of mine works for an environmental consulting firm that does a lot of work on recycling programs. Contracting with municipalities mostly on the west coast (LA, Seattle). A lot of recycling does get thrown out, b/c it's contaminated or not recyclable, etc.
also, remember that for everything you buy, the actual physical object represents a very, very small part of the materials used to make up the object. A common percentage is 5% (see McDonough's new 'Cradle to Cradle').
For example, for your television set (or, I guess, your square of shingles). 95% of the materials (including energy) used to manufacture it are lost as waste. A lot of this is to the atmosphere as CO2.
so it seems like green building depends on localized, low-energy and low-waste building materials. Like somebody said here (Thodal or Cloud? -- sorry), the product's life cycle.
about ICF's...the more I learn, the more it seems like anything with cement is about as far from green building as you're gonna get.
best, GO
Yo Go - (Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?)
"anything with cement is about as far from green building as you're gonna get."
I assume by cement you mean concrete? Or are you talking cement (or glue) that holds plywood/OSB together?
There are only three kinds of people; people who can count and people who can't
What's wrong with concrete?
Boss and Jim,
by cement I mean portland cement, not other adhesives (that also might be pretty bad) but I guess in general I'm talking about concrete. manufacturing cement is one of the largest (like top 3?) emitters of co2 and energy users on the planet.
it's true that concrete's high embodied energy is balanced by a long lifespan and good performance...IF we used our buildings for a long time. currently we don't and I don't think our culture is going to change that. so we build very energy-intensive buildings and then 25 years later landfill them. I don't have a problem with landfills per se, but the energy and effort that went into the materials in the first place going to waste.
I guess I should qualify my statement somewhat b/c not everything with cement is terribly bad. earth walls with a small part cement additive for example.
is it easier to change the culture or the material you build with? the two probably are linked somewhat, but though I can't answer that question I'm gonna lean in the direction of materials. even though I can't imagine removing concrete from the modern building methodology.
GO
Interesting point about cement. I hadn't hear that there was anything bad about it.
Do you know why there seems to be such a bias against recycling old concrete as gravel? I toured a place up nead Chicago last year that did demolition of large structures. They had a pile of old concrete roughly the size of 3 football fields and 60' tall. They would haul in chunks of concrete from demolition sites and run it through a crusher.
Trouble was the EPA (I think) won't allow the use of concrete in place of gravel, so the stuff just piled up. He can't even give it away. don't know what will eventually happen to it. But it sure seems like a waste not to use it.
Lead me not into temptation. I can find it myself
I'm looking at using Icynene instead of the cellulose I usually use. It seems there'd be some benefit with the air sealing value, but the actual R value doesn't seem any better, only 3.6 per inch. The cost is about 2.5 times as much, so I'd have to be looking at a major energy savings to justify that. Any thoughts re the Green value of Icynene vs. cellulose? How about polyurethane foam?
Glad to see the Green topic getting thrashed about. Personally I weigh in with the notion that the biggest green aspect is building size. Build small and you've done more than most "green" oversized houses. Secondly I think there are a thousand and one shades of green, and each little incremental step gets us to a better and better place. Finally, on the concrete thread, even recognizing the embodied energy, that the durability and beauty makes it a great resource. Use it for your structural and finished floor and I think you're way ahead on all counts.
Concrete is only good for 100 years? Seriously? Can anyone provide a link to some of these studies? I'm astonished.
Right on Jim and John S., try telling Hadrian and the architects of the Pantheon that concrete is only good for 100 years.
There sure is a lot of BS propagated by who? .. so called "greens " that must really have an anti-civilization agenda and no idea of true dconservation? .
Edited 5/22/2002 11:53:58 PM ET by JUNKHOUND
Portland cement was formulated sometime in the late 1800's in England, I believe. Hadrian's Wall though in England is a dry stack rock wall , an ideal green choice for building. So much of the old structures still standing 1000 years later were built of stone without mortar and used non-portland mortar which has been renewed or lost over time.
davidwalk good
Roman concrete, opus caementicium, was lime, gypsum, and volcanic ash instead of Portland cement. Portland cement is stronger so should last even longer than 2000 years if mixed properly in the first place. Hadrian was emperor when the Pantheon in Rome was rebuilt (why I used him as a reference), which has a close to 500 foot dia dome of concrete, still in excellent shape.
For more history, see http://www.chch.school.nz/mbc/panth1.htm, the very first google web hit on the pantheon.
>
20323.68 in reply to 20323.65
> Portland cement was formulated sometime in the late 1800's in England, I believe.
It was patented in England in 1824, but didn't come into widespread use in the U.S. until the late 1800's.
-- J.S.
Don't laugh and point at me because of my ignorance!
Where does portland cement come from? Is it a renewable resource?
Yes, I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.
Mark --
http://www.portcement.org/index.asp will answer all those questions and much more. Start with their "Concrete Basics" page, it has the history link on it. There's also an environmental section there someplace.
-- J.S.
Jim, I tryed to find a link, but no luck. BUILDERS magazine January 2000, I think had an excellent article about construction and longevity of products. They had an interesting section on concrete. They also made the observation, that manpower is your greatest and best renewable resource.
As far as other sources, I will try to locate some in my collection of info and pass it on.
walk good
"manpower is your greatest and best renewable resource."
I like that observation...need it be said that here you run across one of the great equations of 20th (sorry, 21st too so far) century building: time = money.
many low-energy and earth friendly building techniques take a lot of time. is it possible to use these practices conventionally for pay? I wish I knew the answer to that.
also...about 'green' ideas being anti-civilization. it's true that many 'environmentally friendly' ideas, like ideas in general, aren't based on sound facts. but who will disagree that civilization and earth friendly building are not incompatible. most cultures on the planet have been doing it already for thousands of years.
best, GO
"I like that observation...need it be said that here you run across one of the great equations of 20th (sorry, 21st too so far) century building: time = money."
Yeah, I think what many people overlook is you really don't have to go out and work at a job for money, then exchange that money for your dwelling, food, and the automobile you need to take you back and forth to work. You could make the choice to live on less money, and spend your life building shelter and growing food.
Of course, I'm giving an extreme example, but where is is wriien in stone(concrete? <g>) we have to work 40 hrs/week? That's one of the things I love about being a carpenter, that freedom to choose when, where, and how often I work for money. In a way it's quite a burden, making those decisions. It would be far easier to have a "job", and kind of drift through life, looking to others for direction.
I spent quite a bit of time thinking about concrete yesterday...how strong it is, when we first started using it as we know it...imagine the energy it would take to crush/pulverize that big pile someone mentioned earlier into reusable size?
Maybe we really should be thinking in terms of building homes to last just our lifetime, then let the next generation build their homes. Sure is a switch from the way I've always thought about building. In a way, these things we're building now are more like monuments than dwellings.
You make a good point Jim.
It has often struck me as odd that most people go to work so they can have a place to live ( often choosing more expensive inner city living cos its close to work ), clothes, food etc. just so they can go to work. WHY??
That looks a whole lot like a hamster in its little wheel to me. maybe thats why its called the rat race?. Just another rodent living our lives in order to support the ever increasing complexity of "the system".
I am very in favour of using enviro freindly materials to build my home, put in sweat rather than cash ( I do that a lot ), trade my skills for those I dont have ( plumber, sparky etc ) and grow my own food. Once i have those things there is no way i am ever going to work a 'real job' again.
Wood Hoon
Yeah, somehow or other we got things twisted around, didn't we? Around here it's real common for someone to ask "you staying busy?". I realize they're just making small talk, but why the heck would "staying busy" be such a good thing? I'd rather have time to notice the flowers at the side of the road, or listen to the birds sing.
Hi AJ in NZ,
It's a matter of trade-offs. You work like that little hamster trying to get ahead so that in your retirement you are reasonably secure. Besides, not all things in city life are bad. I have great access to culture, theatre, art, musiums, a variety of social events. (while not of interest to me, sporting events, entertainment, etc.) In addition Medical care is close by and while that may not seem important, if your life ever hangs in balance it will be damn important.
Nor are all things rural wonderfull. Fewer chances to achieve, and if you fail everyone in the country knows and whats more takes an interest.
I will admit that competition is much more intense in the city and it's easy, too easy to get shoved aside by someone with a greater drive or ambition than your own. I suspect the trick is not so much where you live but rather what control you have of your own life. If you work for asphole #1 your quality of life ####. If you work for yourself without the resources and rewards that are needed than your quality of life still ####.
However if you are successfull, life can be sweet. You can live both places at your whim. Enjoy the joy of rural life while having full access to all the wonders and benefits of an urban life.
The trick then is not where you live, but how successfull you are.
The one real benefit of living in a city is that very few know of your failures. It's very easy to change careers / jobs and not be labeled a failure. Maybe you sucked at sales but are a wizz at machinery, or woodworking etc. In the country they will always know you as the guy who failed rather than get credit for your success. That's somewhat understandable, If you failed as a farmer, that's your identity, that's what others think of you as. It doesn't matter that you are a wizz at woodworking, or whatever... It only matters that once you failed.
Not in the city, they are too busy to care. Good woodworker? great! Do this and this for me will you?
Well, what you said is true.
Around my place nobody can do anything without 1/2 the district knowing about it. To start with it felt a little weird and sort of 'in your face', especially as the last place we lived the neighbours wouldnt say hello unless you almost ran into them.
We have got things evened out now so we know who is who, and for the most part we keep to ourselves without being rude. This way we get to live how we want without any interference or 'help'.
As for culture, I lived in the capital for a while and had access to culture till it came out my ears, now, I much prefer the quiet, space and freedom from all that is city.
I think it all depends on which way your geared. If I could I would live so far out in the boonies I never saw anyone.
I like to be independant anyway, so seldom need any sort of help. If there was an emergency, I suppose that would be dealt with as it happened.
I still think country life beats city hands down.
Jim, I'm with you man. I work so I can live, I dont live so i can work.
However it is better to be busy than quiet. cos if its quiet then ya dont get paid. :)
Wood Hoon
The Amish around here (a religious sect that doesn't believe in modern stuff like phones or electricity) have a saying, Celibrate hard work, That is they find joy in the hard things in life. The fact that you can do them is a reason to celibrate, the fact that you are healthy enough to contribute is a blessing in itself. It's very easy to take the easy way out, to sit back and let others carry the load, let others do the difficult.
Yet by doing the things that are hard, you strengthen yourself and achieve something that is worth while. It's also very easy to sleep after that, you sleep the sleep of the just. In addition your mind is clear and you just can't help feeling good about yourself.
Whoops, sorry sermon warning....
Anyway I can tell you are young, Emergencies can be life or death things where the time it takes to get help is critical. Rural life takes that time away from you. Asd you get older and see the risks you are in a better position to evauluate the risk /reward of your life style choices......
I like the idea of the Amish thing quite a lot. The only fly in the ointment for me is the religous angle. Each to their own.
Risk. I suppose its how you look at it. I used to go bush almost every weekend hunting. On my own. I would go into areas with no tracks, huts etc as part of as normal day. My behaviour with regard to how I went about this changed a lot when I started going alone. It becomes very clear that there is no back up, so dont stuff up. I think I was at a much lower risk then because I wasnt carrying around the false sense of security others provided. Bottom line was I was still a long way away from 'help' so would be in a jam anyhow.
The way I see it, life is to be lived. If being out in the boonies means I might not live out my full quota, then at least I had a good time! :)
Wood Hoon
> Do you know why there seems to be such a bias against recycling old concrete as gravel?
It would be interesting to do a test, make two batches of concrete, one using conventional aggregate, and the other using similar sized broken old concrete. The old concrete may absorb more water out of the mix, so some adjustment might be needed there. Make up cylinders and have them tested. It might not be as strong, but if you know how strong, you can design for that and use it. For ordinary sidewalks and driveways, why not?
As for concrete only lasting 100 years, well, just look around at old buildings. This is low quality nonsense. The better grade of nonsense isn't so obviously false..... ;-)
-- J.S.
I don't know John, if I look around at "old" buildings (not houses), I see more care taken in the mix (a lot of it onsite), a lot more care taken in forming and pouring and finishing. If I look around today, I see hot loads that are overrolled or overwet, shot into crappy, poorly set forms, no vibrating, and not a lot of finishing. Heck...the way some of these guys work, you don't even need to do a brush finish to get traction when they're done troweling. I also see a lot more basement "problems" in newer homes than older. So yeah, I'd buy that in today's world, 100 years is probably pretty good.
Yeah, you are right, there are the shysters that pour 10" slump soup for driveways, sure hope no one on this board does that, more like just 10 year life.
Jim, another consideration of cement/concrete besides GO's post is the actual longevity. Some studys I have read , say the concrete used in a typical foundation will last only about 100years (depending on climate and moisture) before it is structually inadequate. I think we all have seen examples of this.
By changing mix and using fly ash instead of sand, one can strengthen and lenghthen the lifespan. But what of the heavy metal concentration in fly ash?
I think if we want to be truely green we need to be nomadic and live in hide structures.
But then if man is a natural animal and a natural part of the environment/ecology, where does one draw the line between man's activitys as to being a natural part of the ecologicl flow? In truth, man and his technology may destroy or alter much of the world in which we live, but will it eventually destroy the fabric of life. Short of literally blowing up the entire planet. And is that any different than in 4 billion years or whatever, our planet fusing with the sun?
sorry, I may be doing too much thinking. where's my hammer?
davidwalk good
"News article in Seattle area recently that over 50% of stuff so neatly sorted by homeowners into special recycle bins goes into landfill anyway"
I would be surprised if it was that high. But I'm sure it's done, for a couple of reasons.
First - People throw all kinds of things into recycle bins. The thinking sems to be that the recycling center can throw it away if they don't want it.
Second - Some plastics (Like types 6 and 7) can be very hard to get rid of. It isn't really recycleable if there's no one to recycle it.
Thanks, everyone. Especially for the book titles. I'll be checking them out.
"Medite II" is supposedly formaldehyde free, as opposed to "Medite", which is that manufacturer's "standard" MDF. "Medex" is made by the same company, and is indeed an exterior grade, but they don't make any claims about being formaldehyde free in the literature I have.
Back to the off-gassing, is that what radon alarms detect? If not, is there a meter that can measure the ambiant harmful gasses in a particular room, or building? If what Mongo says it accurate, and the stuff that's bad isn't listed on the MSDS sheets, how the heck can we tell if we are exposing ourselves to this stuff before we get sick?
Geez, what a frikkin' mess...we spent the last 25 years devising ways to seal houses tighter and tighter so as to conserve enrgy, now people are getting sick from all these trapped gasses. So we say "that's why we devised air to air heat exchangers, to get rid of these toxins from our homes..." but all we're doing is exhausting them into the atmosphere, which can't be good.
As for the "save a buck" line of thought, I'm for that - as much as the next guy. But what I DON"T want to do is save myself a buck, and thereby cost my descendants 2 bucks later to clean up the mess (like the nuclear disposal mess we now face, or lead, or asbestos). Vinal windows and siding come to mind.
The literature for that cotton insulation claims that it's made of 85% clothing industry scraps, 10% borates to resist fire and help control mold and mildew growth, and 5% binder to keep it all together. I have long thought that fiberglass was wicked stuff. Imagine microscopic fibers of spun glass in you lungs, or sinus cavities. Then your body sends protective coatings so that stuff doesn't cut you to shreds, but it still stays in you. Geez, how much lung capacity can we afford to loose to stuff like that?
Edited 5/21/2002 10:41:38 AM ET by jim blodgett
Jim
No, radon is a slightly radioactive gas from natural deposits in the ground.
The primary outgasing product from MFD and the like is formyhide (sp?). Maybe some other VOC's.
Wheatboard/strawboard is also suppose to be free from formyhide.
For some strange reason I got mailing list for Professional Equipment (www.professionalequipment.com). They sell home inspectors and "trouble shooters".
They all kinds of moisture sensors, mold test kits, lead test kits, radon test, CO tester, CO2 tester, electrical testers, etc, etc, etc
But nothing for formyhide or other VOC's.
Great thread - even printed out some of your posts. Thank you for the Restore link too; one of the stores is reasonably close to me and I'll check it out. (BTW - IS there anything I can do with the vinyl I'm taking off of my house, besides sending it to landfill?) My suggestion if we move towards the multi-generational dwelling idea - lets swap parents and kids with one another occasionally, OK?
"A completed home is a listed home."
Back to the off-gassing, is that what radon alarms detect? If not, is there a meter that can measure the ambiant harmful gasses in a particular room, or building?
jb,
Bill is right regarding radon. Radon has more to do with where you build, vs what materials you use to build. Here in CT, radon is a biggie as we have old geological formations. Levels tend to be greater if ledge has to be blasted to makes room for the basement. I always put vent pipe under the slab before the basement slab is poured, then if radon is a problem, all that needs to be done is a bit of minor addirional work to reduce the levels...a fan, exhaust pipe, etc.
Testing for formaldehyde is in some ways like testing for radon in that test packets are left out in ambient air, then sent out to a lab for interpretation. Radon tests are normally long-term. Several day exposure for the first test, and if that comes back positive, a second, longer-tem test will be conducted...the second test normally taking a few months.
Formaldehyde tests...at least the DIY versions...simply take a small sample of ambient air. It's normally captured, then sent out for interpretation. the test itself is near-instantaneous, then you just have to wait a week or so to get the results back from the lab.
DIY test kits are available for less than $100, and you usually get two tests out of that kit. I don't know much at all about the more expensive sniffer equipement that can give you a reading instantaneously. I'm not sure if there's an agency that does testing like that. One fo the on-line "green" groups should have better info.
Realize that while radon is a "permanent problem", off-gassing of things like formaldehyde is high when the materials are installed, and then decreases over the next few years. Carpet off-gassing can be downright nasty when the carpet is first unrolled in the house, but it decreases dramatically over the next few days before settling into a more gradual decline over the next 5-7 years or so.
I know a few installers who, if permitted by the builder and the weather, will first unroll carpeting outside and let it air for a few days, then they re-roll, move it inside, and install. they say it makes a dramatic difference.
There is a company that makes "green" carpeting. I'll look through my files for their name then come back and edit.
In the end, you do need to be concerned with what you put in your house. I have no carpeting in my house, indoor air pollutants from off-gassing was one of the reasons why. Every decision has consequences...some positive, some negative. Some result in a savings, some require more cash outlay.
I suppose I could be cheap, or just plain apathetic. I could close my eyes and justify that I could live with some of this stuff in my house. But my kids? I've seen houses make kids sick. I've seen houses make kids better. The extra few bucks are worth it to me.
Good thread.
Edit: Okay, the "green carpet" company is Collins & Aikman. Also, good catch on the Medite. The UF-free version is indeed Medite II.
Edited 5/21/2002 1:00:19 PM ET by Mongo
Jim, did you read the article in the design section of this site by James Cameron about the aerated concrete block home built for the Pearsons? Its not exactly what you folks have been discussing (green builders), but I thought it was an interesting concept and I'm going to check it out when I get ready to build my next home. bob
Ken & Mongo --
I, too, am a puller of nails. It may not make purely economic sense, but adding up the imponderables, including that sometimes it's nice to have some mindless little thing to do with your hands while you let your brain idle, and the bottom line is that I decide to do it.
-- J.S.
FYI - I subscribe to GreenClips an e-mail service that twice monthly provides "a summary of news on sustainable design and related government (i.e., EPA, Department of Energy, states) and business issues." To subscribe via e-mail send a blank message to [email protected].