Replies

1. 
   Guest_ | Jun 22, 2000 05:29am | #20

   *
   I checked high and low and cannot find any reference to the million dollar house near Sacramento that never had occupants, it belonged to a doctor, the rain had infiltrated the cellulose insulation that had been mixed incorrectly, and it put off a chemical that ate all of the nails etc. and the house was condemned and eventually donated to the fire departments to use as a burn to learn. If you know where the story is, let me know Please! [email protected] Thanks

1. 
   Guest_ | Jun 15, 2000 01:36am | #1

   *Here ya go! Bad House

1. 
   Guest_ | Jun 15, 2000 02:17am | #2

   *Thanks....I looked and looked! Ian

1. 
   Guest_ | Jun 16, 2000 04:41pm | #3

   *Ian. Note the date of the newspaper article--mentioned by Adam S--about the mansion that had to be burned down: April 2000. It is interesting because this happened 10 or more years ago. These stories about corrosive cellulose eating a metal building, for example, keep popping up. The owenrs of the mansion did have problems, but they never acknowledged their role in the disaster. GeneL.

1. 
   Guest_ | Jun 17, 2000 12:35am | #4

   *Gene: What was the owner's role in the deal?

2. 
   Guest_ | Jun 17, 2000 03:25am | #5

   *I guess I would say the acid formation in the celks was a symptom. The problem - according to the article - was that gutters dumped water inside the wall.If they had used fg they would have gotten that baby killing mold in the walls.That's my big bitch in everything I do - Symptom, problem determination. I disagree with lots of people that want to fix symptoms.-Rob

3. 
   Guest_ | Jun 17, 2000 03:35am | #6

   *"If they had used fg they would have gotten that baby killing mold in the walls".What a dumbass statement.You create symptoms where they may not exist. FG is not organic.Gabe

4. 
   Guest_ | Jun 17, 2000 06:26am | #7

   *Gene,They broke ground in 1993, 7 years ago. Two years later, in 1995, they sued the cellulose manufacturer and contractors. I'd assume the problem was "installed" some time in 1994. The cellulose was "defective", assumedly for using 38% ammonium sulfate instead of 9% ammonium sulfate plus 5% boric acid.The other key item was that gutters were installed improperly, allowing water to flow into the structure. (Boggles the mind, no?) I would imagine there is another side (or two) to this story, and wouldn't be surprised if there was culpability on others, perhaps even the owners. However, nothing in the article, or that I've heard, points to their active role in the disaster.I've actually got to go up to the local building department next week. I'd like to see if they have anything "off the record".Adam

5. 
   Guest_ | Jun 17, 2000 11:48pm | #8

   *Whatever, I'd like to know the whole story.....What about cellulose in a steel frame house?

6. 
   Guest_ | Jun 18, 2000 12:21am | #9

   *I don't know the chemical composition of every manufacturer of Cel. Ins. but I doubt that anyone would have anything to fear from cellulose rusting out nails and metal studs in standard applications.I think that in the example reported on, the composition of the cellulose served as the basis for a lawsuit against an insured company with deep pockets.I won't argue that the cellulose can hold a lot of water, but insulated walls should not be subjected to flooding either.We have a lot of products in our industry that are incompatible (ie aluminium flashing and metal nails)and we have learned to adjust.In as much as the house in question was destroyed makes it difficult for a truly independant technical audit to clear the air on this example.Gabe

7. 
   david_sorg | Jun 18, 2000 12:53am | #10

   *Jeez, Gabe, I'd be careful with the name calling. You missed both Rob's point and his reference. I notice a ten minute difference in posting times between his and yours; perhaps a bit more time to reflect would be in order.

8. 
   Guest_ | Jun 18, 2000 01:29am | #11

   *Jeez David.....NOPEHe had no point and it only took 2 seconds to figure it out.Gabe

9. 
   Guest_ | Jun 18, 2000 04:12am | #12

   *Gabe,Are you unaware that there is a particular strain of mold that develops on fiberglass batts, inorganic or not? Apparently the oils on the strands of fiber or something. A particular problem in flooded basements, EIFS failures, and most notably - the University of Connecticut law library.There are new workplace standards being developed for the workers doing the EIFS retrofits, as they are developing worse health problems due to overexposure from the direct contact with the stuff.Anyways, my point was that in my opinion the cellulose manufacturers were about as liable as if there had been fg or PUR or donuts in the wall! The PROBLEM was bulk water entry.Ian's statement:..."the rain had infiltrated the cellulose insulation that had been mixed incorrectly..."I don't care what was in the wall, anything after rain entry was SYMPTOMATIC.-Rob

10. 
    Guest_ | Jun 18, 2000 03:45pm | #13

    *The strain of mold that developes in the U of C law library is called "lawyers.""I don't care what was in the wall, anything after rain entry was SYMPTOMATIC"Wrong!In this example "IT WAS CONTRIBUTING"Gabe

11. 
    Guest_ | Jun 18, 2000 05:02pm | #14

    *Even though there were problems other than the wrong proportions of chemicals mixed with the cellulose, what if the house had been moved into and sweating occured in the walls or something.... I still would like to know how the owners contributed to the problem...

12. 
    Guest_ | Jun 18, 2000 05:52pm | #15

    *Rob,Do you know of any good sites on the growing concern with molds and fungi etc in houses?TIABob

13. 
    Guest_ | Jun 19, 2000 03:45am | #16

    *I am going to e-mail you with an address for a guy if I find it in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, mail me to keep reminding me.I spoke to two doctors at AC 2000. Nathan Youst and Gene Ouillett. These guys both are respiratory and environmental medicine types. Nathan worked with the American Lung Association and Betsy Petit (Lstiburek's wife) on their latest healthy house initiative.I believe the ALA is coming out with their own set of guidlines.-Rob

14. 
    Guest_ | Jun 19, 2000 03:52am | #17

    *Gabe - Lawyers are just misunderstood in many cases they are just trying to correct obvious defects in the laws of nature. Can't you just take it easy on them?I agree the cels was contributing - and the fact that they botched the mix compounds the fact. But how liable should they be when one of the the basic assumptions of an installation is compromised? (Bulk water and rain are going to be kept as exterior environment)I guess GM really did help contribute to all those DWI deaths. After all, they make the cars so easy to start and operate for the drunks. They should expect old El Caminos, operated by drunks, to smash into old Monte Carlos. And then those greedy bastards lie in court and say they had nothing to do with it. They really are part of the problem, because they are certainly not part of the solution.-Rob

15. 
    Guest_ | Jun 19, 2000 10:27pm | #18

    *Ian. My understanding about the owners is that they made changes in the design that more readily allowed moisture penetration. The percentages that Adam S mentioned are not meaningful. The highest percentage of ammoniumsulphate al lowed is 17.99% and the lowest is 2%. GeneL.

16. 
    Guest_ | Jun 21, 2000 02:49pm | #19

    *My understanding was that the superintendents and an engineer were responsible for the design change that cut the overhang back. At any rate, What is the potential for something to go wrong in a steel frame wall in the event that sweating occurs in the wall cavity, or moisture leaks in. I believe that many steel frame walls sweat, especially at bathroom locations that are on exterior walls. TIA Ian

17. 
    Guest_ | Jun 22, 2000 05:29am | #21

    *Just ran across this short article on a fungus that grows in building materials that can give the flu like symptoms described in the write up on the problems with the house - sounds like something one might want to avoid:Stachybotrys sp. Several strains of this fungus (S. atra, S. chartarum and S.alternans are synonymous) may produce a trichothecene mycotoxin- Satratoxin H - which is poisonous by inhalation.The toxins are present on the fungal spores. This is a slow growing fungus on media. It does not compete well with otherrapidly growing fungi. The dark colored fungi grows on building material with a high cellulose content and a low nitrogencontent. Areas with relative humidities above 55% and are subject to temperature fluctuations are ideal for toxin production. Individuals with chronic exposure to the toxin produced by this fungus reported cold and flu symptoms, sore throats, diarrhea,headaches, fatigue, dermatitis, intermittent local hair loss and generalized malaise. The toxins produced by this fungus willsuppress the immune system affecting the lymphoid tissue and the bone marrow. Animals injected with the toxin from thisfungus exhibited the following symptoms, necrosis and hemorrhage within the brain, thymus, spleen, intestine, lung, heart,lymph node, liver, and kidney. The mycotoxin is also reported to be a liver and kidney carcinogen. Affects by absorption of the toxin in the human lung are known as pneumomycosis. This organism is rarely found in outdoor samples. It is usually difficult to find in indoor air samples unless it is physicallydisturbed or if there is (speculation- a drop in the relative humidity). The spores are in a gelatinous mass. Appropriate mediafor the growth of this organism will have a high cellulose content and a low nitrogen content. The spores will die readily afterrelease. The dead spores are still allergenic and toxigenic. Percutaneous absorption has caused mild symptoms.