Login / Register
 
The Comparative Safety of Rockwool, Fiberglass, and Organic Fibers (a review)
New Reply
Subscribe
SAC
#31
30th June 2010
Old 30th June 2010
  #31
SAC
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,622

SAC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlfworkman View Post
...
Having read this thread I am concerned about the potential health hazards of mineral wool and fiberglass.


You actually read the thread with the excellent overview and the links?

The conclusions presented are COMPLETELY contrary to your conclusion - which seems to reinforce the notion that facts are superfluous when presented with ones foregone conclusion based upon belief.

And thus we can expect the recurrent emotional hysteria to continue...
#32
2nd July 2010
Old 2nd July 2010
  #32
Gear maniac
 
soulfield's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Dahlonega, Georgia
Posts: 269

soulfield is offline
Having read the op I don't think that exposed or wrapped (fabric) fiberglass is going to directly kill or hurt anyone in the long run unles you eat the stuff! HA HA

Seriously, I have exposed pink fiberglass in all the joist cavities above the studio I am building out, and while I attempt to wear a resperator while working in close proximity to it (ceiling furr, electrical, HVAC) I'm often on the ladder without it.

An entire weekend of being in that area will be felt in the nose on monday morning. Like you have taken to much of a decongestant and your nose is dry.

I can't wait to seal off those cavities and move on to dealing with drywall dust instead!

Intresting subject though.
#33
3rd July 2010
Old 3rd July 2010
  #33
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 397

AcousticsWizard is offline
Ive been working with OC and Rockwool for about 6 months now. Sometimes I did without a mask... and I think i inhaled some rockwool a few times.... now I make sure to always have a mask when working with any of that, but i am still concerned when not working with it due to what could be floating around in the garage. but even more of a concern is am I really going to develop asthma from not wearing the mask those few times i failed to wear it?
#34
3rd July 2010
Old 3rd July 2010
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC View Post


You actually read the thread with the excellent overview and the links?

The conclusions presented are COMPLETELY contrary to your conclusion - which seems to reinforce the notion that facts are superfluous when presented with ones foregone conclusion based upon belief.

And thus we can expect the recurrent emotional hysteria to continue...
SAC I don't any of that is remotely true. The thread wasn't started to provide any absolute claims about anything or portray anyone as "emotionally hysterical".

There are genuine health issues to consider with all of these materials. The only one we can rule out is cancer - no typical acoustic material will produce it. But things like interstitial fibrosis are a bit more subtle, and it is hard to say absolutely.

Also, again, none of the investigations linked in any way investigate the gases released by these materials in close quarters. Keep in mind most of these materials are meant for going behind drywall - not sitting out in your living space.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AcousticsWizard View Post
Ive been working with OC and Rockwool for about 6 months now. Sometimes I did without a mask... and I think i inhaled some rockwool a few times.... now I make sure to always have a mask when working with any of that, but i am still concerned when not working with it due to what could be floating around in the garage. but even more of a concern is am I really going to develop asthma from not wearing the mask those few times i failed to wear it?
I would say the odds are incredibly, incredibly slim. The type of lung disease that is generally associated with this type of chronic dust/fiber exposure (whether from fiberglass, mineral wool, or cotton) is more of a "restrictive" pattern. This means that as the lung is scarred, it will lose flexibility and ability to expand, giving a slightly lower volume overall. This will generally be asymptomatic. You wouldn't even notice it unless it got very, very bad from years and years of exposure. Asthma (chronic, spastic cough) is different and shouldn't result at all, even theoretically.

And there is no way anyone should expect anything serious whatsoever would develop from a few inhalations of normal consumer grade rock wool or fiberglass. As stated in the articles, small quantities of this stuff should just dissolve in your lung with no subsequent issues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dove View Post
You also have to consider chemical binders, etc. Actually I personally know a respiratory MD and his experience vs industry (tobacco style) science propaganda is that fiberglass is very harmful to lung tissue.

Keep in mind that industry reports and their governmental counterparts are more in favor of industry than personal health. The onus is on the population to prove negative health problems than it is on industry. Environmental illnesses are increasing at a high rate because of so many new chemicals being introduced into our environment.

I personally have had ill effects due to being in studios with fiberglass behind material. This was verified by both ENT specialists and respiratory specialists. We had to wrap acoustic paneling in plastic and recover with cloth. This helped immensely. In other studio designs I have gone with hemp long fibres behind high poiont material (the kind used in alleviating dust mite situations) with excellent results.

I find it interesting that industry standards recommend these panels be covered in a barrier yet somehow the recording industry is ignoring these recommendations.

As far as using hepa filters, etc. it is always best to minimize fiber release and then use such mechanical filters to clean the air. Keep in mind that hepa filters can introduce lots of noise into a studio.
I would agree with all of that.

I would also elaborate that in my previous page I suggested going with Ultratouch cotton wrapped in plastic. I have since tried this. Although I found UltraTouch to produce no irritating gases to my throat or eyes (unlike typical Mineral Wool or Fiberglass), the dust from it has been just awful. Plastic wrapping worked to an extent, but it has been far too easy to puncture just from handling.

What I will be using for my next build is therefore the new Knauf Ecose. Due to the lack of harsh binders it should be free of irritating gases. And in my experience, fiberglass/rockwool fibers can be very well contained by wrapping with a polyester batting (from any fabric store), with Super 77 spray for adhesive.

http://www.knaufusa.com/products/bui...ith_ecose.aspx

I am hoping that will provide the ideal solution to a still somewhat tricky problem.
SAC
#35
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #35
SAC
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,622

SAC is offline
John Mansville is manufacturing fiberglass product without formaldehyde, yet your Spray adhesive contains VOCs!

And you cannot even establish a viable vector for the transmission of fibers from an covered panel - even if they were loose and not bound as in semi-rigid Fiberglass or mineral wool!

How are you handling this stuff such that fibers are continuing to be released after installation????????

Fibrosis requires an extended exposure to airborne particulate matter! Covered panels are essentially inert! Please provide a causal relationship between covered panels and a continuing presence of airborne fibers. Without such, there is no risk of fibrosis. And ALL best practices while handling ANY of the materials suggests respirators or filter masks.

...And your cotton fiber where organic fibers present a greater issue than the silicon or basalt based product? Again, this begs the question of how this stuff is being handled - especially considering that semi-rigid Fiberglass is covered with binder and all of the products are contained behind material facing.

I can only imagine what some are doing to experience prolonged odors, irritation, continued fiber exposure, etc. when the product, properly constructed are inert.The irony is that you are experiencing more VOCs from spray and wood adhesives and fabric dyes than you are any Fiberglass or Basalt based mineral wool!

Oh, and I hate to burst any bubbles, but drywall will not prevent the dispersion of VOCs from Fiberglass or mineral wool material within a house. And as long as the products have been used, and considering the number of homes treated with such, I think we have a pretty large pool of guinea pigs available over a very substantial period of time. Much more than what a few panels would create. Yet we have no crisis there.

Simple risk analysis would indicate that you have more to worry about simply ingesting aspartame and the myriad colors and preservatives in your food and deodorants and various household detergents, cleaners, carpets, paint, sheets and blankets, paper, toner, ink, ALL plastics, and any number of items you are routinely exposed to which pose a much greater risk than Fiberglass or mineral wool panels! And how many use non-stick cookware or cell phones? Or of the all too common natural plant produced pesticides which are produced by plants in response to stress from the attack of pests that are higher in concentration in organic food than in the non-organic foods. Or of he ingestion in many foods of the allelochemicals that serve as natural herbicides to other plants limiting competition (ever wonder why nothing grows under walnut trees?) Or of the percentage of aflatoxin in common grains! Or of the sulfites common in SO many foods! - all of which we have a much longer and insidious exposure to over a good portion of our lives than we do a few panels. And let's not forget exotics like sugar (in ALL of its myriad labeled forms!) and sodium and ALL processed foods (an be careful if you dare read the latest findings that you will not be hearing about that was just published in Scientific American! Forget fat and focus on refined carbohydrates!).

It is interesting to observe how selective attention seems to elevate one source above much more common and pervasive sources. It is little different than folks refusing to fly due to the perceived risks (where facts show the rate of incidents per mile to be incredibly small), and instead run and jump into their car to drive instead (where facts reveal the risk to be significantly higher for disability or death per mile traveled). And this is a form of emotional hysteria where people continue to selectively elevate isolated risks out of context with factual reality and assign a perceived risk that is totally out of whack with actual risk analysis!

Funny how we emotionally selectively ignore those common and statistically more significant factors that we consider 'necessary' and instead selectively focus on other isolated items that quantitatively constituent a much small portion of our day.

Worry as you will. You have established no necessary or sufficient nexus - only emotionally based possibilities. VOCs, if any, are rather easily moderated by allowing the material to be exposed to open air after unpackaging, And airborne fibers need not be an issue at all during handling if best practices are followed, and there should be no risk at all of airborne particulate matter whatsoever in covered wall mounted panels!
I would suggest either becoming more aware of additional risks you are exposed to every day that most ignore, or conducting a more comprehensive risk analysis of that to which you are routinely exposed in order to place the risks associated with such panels into the proper context with other much more common and pervasive sources of the contaminants being focused upon here. This is like the fear of lightning or tornadoes or airplane crashes - all of which pose an insignificant risk compared to such common actions as driving a car or household accidents- which poses a MUCH greater probability of risk of actual disability or death!

The ironic fact is that perceived risk takes precedence and assumes a much larger influence for most than actual risk. Ask anyone who ran and jumped in their car to travel to Grandma's following the 9.11 airline accidents...
#36
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #36
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC View Post
Funny how we emotionally selectively ignore those things we consider 'necessary' and focus on other selective items that quantitatively constituent a much small portion of our day.

Worry as you will. You have established no necessary or sufficient nexus - only emotionally based possibilities. But I would suggest either becoming more aware of additional risks you are exposed to every day that most ignore, or conducting a more comprehensive risk analysis of that to which you are routinely exposed.
This is not remotely the case.

In my case, when I last used my old mineral wool panels, in Ready Acoustics bags, and additionally plastic wrapped, after just a few full days around them I had bloodshot eyes and my throat was raw. By the fourth or fifth I could not take it any more. These were not symptoms one would expect with fiber release, and my plastic was sealed well. As a result, I concluded it was most likely related to a gaseous irritant.

I had no expectation whatsoever that would happen, having written the original post of this thread only a few months prior.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about other theoretical contaminants we face in our lives. But my decision to remove those panels and try something new (cotton, which immediately corrected the redness and irritation I was experiencing) was in no way emotionally based. It was pretty open and shut. Nothing else in my daily life or routine has ever triggered symptoms like that before. And nothing else has since.

I don't know if anyone else will experience the same thing with standard mineral wool or fiberglass. I am just sharing my experience.

This is not about life or death. It is about being able to live comfortably in your work and home environment, which can be just as important. There is no reason to live with acoustic materials that are bothering you. There are plenty of options on the market.
Quote
1
SAC
#37
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #37
SAC
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,622

SAC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
In my case, when I last used my old mineral wool panels, in Ready Acoustics bags, and additionally plastic wrapped, after just a few full days around them I had bloodshot eyes and my throat was raw. By the fourth or fifth I could not take it any more. These were not symptoms one would expect with fiber release, and my plastic was sealed well.
So now its not the inhalation of free fibrous material, nor the potential for minute quantities of VOCs to offgas over time - assuming the product is newly manufactured and has not been stored for a reasonable time, but now the claim is that VOCs are able to migrate in significant quantities at high rates across sealed plastic barriers! And so the claims escalate!

Whatever you say.

Well now we all can understand the source of sick building syndrome - its caused by the use of Fiberglass and or mineral wool insulation. Forget plywood, OSB, carpet, adhesives, paints and lacquers, carpet, flooring, particleboard, cabinets, countertops, paneling and other building products, let alone cleaning products, clothes detergents, deodorants, perfumes or any other common personal products and just about all of the common household chemicals. And ignore the fact that basalt based insulation is comprised of non-respirable fibers whose diameter averages 9-15 microns.

You might want to do a bit more examining of how the fabric cover was dyed.

The fact that some are allergic to peanuts does not render the peanut a threat to the masses. And an exception does not a rule make.

And I would avoid any building not insulated with polyicynene which should take some doing, seeing as how silicone and basalt based insulation are the most widely used. As well as those employing plywood, OSB, carpet, adhesives, paints and lacquers, upholstery, any kind of composite wood products, plastics, carpet, flooring, particleboard, cabinets, countertops, paneling and other building products, let alone cleaning products, clothes detergents, deodorants, perfumes or any other common personal products.As all have been shown to be sources of substantially greater amounts of VOCs!

Not to mention the millions who work with the manufacture and installation of Fiberglass based products not reporting significant adverse affects. Nor of the power of belief to influence physical reaction to various materials. One might also want to reference the VERY significant issues modern drug makers are now encountering in the testing of pharmaceuticals!

Again, the risk analysis for the majority of the population renders concern with mineral based insulation is minimal - and even the opponents still listing the danger of Fiberglass to be the inhalation of fibers (who are still touting the claim of Fiberglass being a carcinogen despite the EPA's and OSHA's insistence that it is not)! They might want to at least get their message consistent! With organics offering little real advantage with their more potentially harmful fibrous nature and the fact that these are treated as well with borax variants for both fire and pest resistance.

I am sorry for your experience, but it is not cause for the majority of folks to eschew what has proven perfectly acceptable for the VAST majority of the population. Especially as you are now positing the problem not as loose fiber or the open close proximity release of VOCs, but as SEALED mineral based insulation. No one, not even the most zealous opponents of VOCs and/or fibrous inhalants, have extended the concept so far!
Apparently now the effectiveness of Fiberglass and Basalt based insulation is reaching the homeopathic stage!!!



Maybe the insulation manufacturers should learn from the lessons learned by the pharmacological folks:

Foregone believe and expectation MATTER!

Rx for Success:

What turns a dummy pill into a catalyst for relieving pain, anxiety, depression, sexual dysfunction, or the tremors of Parkinson's disease? The brain's own healing mechanisms, unleashed by the belief that a phony medication is the real thing. The most important ingredient in any placebo is the doctor's bedside manner, but according to research, the color of a tablet can boost the effectiveness even of genuine meds—or help convince a patient that a placebo is a potent remedy.

Yellow pills
make the most effective antidepressants, like little doses of pharmaceutical sunshine.
Red pills
can give you a more stimulating kick. Wake up, Neo
The color green
reduces anxiety, adding more chill to the pill.
White tablets
particularly those labeled "antacid"—are superior for soothing ulcers, even when they contain nothing but lactose.
More is better
scientists say. Placebos taken four times a day deliver greater relief than those taken twice daily.
Branding matters.
Placebos stamped or packaged with widely recognized trademarks are more effective than "generic" placebos.
Clever names
can add a placebo boost to the physiological punch in real drugs. Viagra implies both vitality and an unstoppable Niagara of 'sexy'.


The result: Real differences from nonsensical imagined differences!

And next, maybe we can discuss the banning of liver for all based upon my personal reaction to it! Or of how I am literally scared of benedryl (diphenhydramine), as I have stood in a COLD shower, literally falling asleep standing up after having taken 1/2 a tablet for hayfever symptoms over 6 hours previously! Ban that too based upon my personal reaction! And as reasonable(sic) as that suggestion might seem to ME, it is absurd to assume the same reaction for all and to impose such draconian measures on others because of an exceptional case. The answer is simply for me to perform my due diligence and to avoid it and to pursue alternative means.


Reasonable caution is ALWAYS prudent. And I am certainly not suggesting a cavalier attitude toward any material! If you choose to avoid it and seek alternative materials, that is indeed your prerogative! But it makes no sense to denigrate a product based on a belief that a sealed product poses a significant source of harm that is simply not supported by the experiences of the vast majority of the population over substantial time frames - especially in the context of a plethora of additional materials that dominate the living space with demonstrated issues regarding VOCs that are selectively ignored. ...Regardless of whether you get hives just thinking about it!


#38
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #38
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC View Post

So now its not the inhalation of free fibrous material, nor the potential for minute quantities of VOCs to offgas over time - assuming the product is newly manufactured and has not been stored for a reasonable time, but now the claim is that VOCs are able to migrate in significant quantities at high rates across sealed plastic barriers! And so the claims escalate!
No one said fiber inhalation was not a possible problem. I wrote an entire post about the potential risks or lack thereof from fiber inhalation. See below regarding "sealed plastic barriers". I think you are getting your wires crossed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC
You might want to do a bit more examining of how the fabric cover was dyed.
The fabric provided no such eye/throat irritating effects once cleaned, washed, and filled with cotton UltraTouch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC

The fact that some are allergic to peanuts does not render the peanut a threat to the masses. And an exception does not a rule make.
I never claimed it did. I have no allergies to any typical household products I am aware of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC

And I would avoid any building not insulated with polyicynene which should take some doing, seeing as how silicone and basalt based insulation are the most widely used. As well as those employing plywood, OSB, carpet, adhesives, paints and lacquers, upholstery, any kind of composite wood products, plastics, carpet, flooring, particleboard, cabinets, countertops, paneling and other building products, let alone cleaning products, clothes detergents, deodorants, perfumes or any other common personal products. As all have been shown to be sources of substantially greater amounts of VOCs!
As I have said, I have never had any similar adverse reaction in finished houses or for short durations when helping to finish one. I have lived in about 9 over the years.

I did actually have a similar experience about two months ago with a large sheet of unpainted particle board I had been storing in my bedroom, which had minimal ventilation. Again, I had no expectation this would happen (if I did, I would not have left it in my bedroom). I removed the particle board and the problem similarly went away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC

Not to mention the millions who work with the manufacture and installation of Fiberglass based products not reporting significant adverse affects.
I am not claiming to know how unique or common my experience is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC

Again, the risk analysis for the majority of the population renders concern with mineral based insulation is minimal - and even the opponents still listing the danger of Fiberglass to be theinhalation of fibers (who are still touting the claim of Fiberglass being a carcinogen despite the EPA's and OSHA's insistence that it is not)! They might want to at least get their message consistent! With organics offering little real advantage with their more potentially harmful fibrous nature and the fact that these are treated as well with borax variants for both fire and pest resistance.
I have already stated I see no reason to call the kinds of fiberglass we use carcinogenic. I have also stated that my experience with UltraTouch was not ideal for other reasons. That is why I have said I will be trying Knauf ECOSE for my next build.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC

I am sorry for your experience, but it is not cause for the majority of folks to eschew what has proven perfectly acceptable for the VAST majority of the population. Especially as you are now positing the problem not as loose fiber or the open close proximity release of VOCs, but as SEALED mineral based insulation. No one, not even the most zealous opponents of VOCs and/or fibrous inhalants, have extended the concept so far!
Again, I have already stated that loose fiber can be an irritant. Anyone who has built one of these panels and taken a breath in without a mask will know it. However, it is my suspicion from those experiences that free fibers would most cause a coughing response, not bloodshot eyes and an uncomfortably dry throat.

Regarding the notion of them being "sealed", as I said I only used thin light plastic and tape.

Had the panels been instead composed of rotting garbage, I am absolutely certain you would still have smelled them in full force.

So I am not sure why you feel the need to imply there must be something "mystical" about the fact that any gasses they were emitting would still have been distributed through my room.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC

Maybe the insulation manufacturers should learn from the lessons learned by the pharmacological folks:

Foregone believe and expectation MATTER!
I have never had any foregone belief or expectation this would be a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC
Reasonable caution is ALWAYS prudent. And I am certainly not suggesting a cavalier attitude toward any material! If you choose to avoid it and seek alternative materials, that is indeed your prerogative! But it makes no sense to denigrate a product based on a belief that a sealed product poses a significant source of harm that is simply not supported by the experiences of the vast majority of the population over substantial time frames - especially in the context of a plethora of additional materials that dominate the living space with demonstrated issues regarding VOCs that are selectively ignored. ...Regardless of whether you get hives just thinking about it!
Again, we are not talking about an industrially sealed product. Just tape and thin plastic, which in the manner it was applied would not IMO likely be sufficient to even trap the odor of rotting fruit. Though as above, I do no believe free fibers were the problem.

I have had no similar reaction to the types of VOCs you describe in my usual living space. None of these things give me "hives just thinking about it". I am far more of a pragmatist than you would like to imply. If something in my living space is physically bothering me, I will remove it. That is all I have done.

As I have said, there are many products on the market to choose from.
#39
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #39
Gear Guru
 
DanDan's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Cork Ireland
Posts: 10,482

DanDan is offline
Materials

I would not suggest that the reaction here was psychosomatic. However if it was, I would still completely respect the issue. Many people are simply unhappy about lots of nasty scratchy material surrounding them. I use that wonderful link by audiovisceral to reassure them, and myself.

I welcome new materials.
The Ecose feels kinda harmless to the touch.
Sheepswool also feels really nice but only in the 15-25 KG range. mmmmm....
The smell can sometimes linger though.
Homatherm seems like a great material.
HDP-Q11 standard NEW!
Ultratouch.

Fabric containment feels a little insecure to me. Acoustically transparent plasterboard and plaster looks promising. I hope to incorporate the SToSilent system into a new build shortly.

DD
SAC
#40
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #40
SAC
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,622

SAC is offline
I am sorry that you had a bad experience with it.

But that is not the larger subject the thread was about. The larger subject is in regards to whether Fiberglass and Mineral wool, and to a lesser degree, organics, pose serious health hazards to people.

And each time attempts are made to present a case that the materials do not present an unavoidable necessary health risk, we have a few trot out their traumatic experiences, be they in regards to odors (which turned out to be from another source) or their individual sensitivities. And these are fine - not in the sense that they are good, but in the sense that in any generalization there are exceptions. And in this case, the focus and message is not in the exceptions, but in the larger normal pool of behavior.

And while you object to analogies, the same case could be made in regards to food. At which point, the mention of foodstuffs that are perfectly fine for the overwhelming majority will then be littered with exceptional horror stories of allergies to peanuts, milk, shellfish, or whatever... which in no way invalidates the larger point that the materials are safe for the vast majority of users - individual exceptions considered.

And tons and tons of this stuff (Fiberglass and mineral wool insulation) is used routinely in homes in walls, crawlspaces and attics...and no, many of these spaces are in no way air tight - even where many wish they were! And literally millions are routinely exposed to such environments for years without ill effect - not to mention the millions who routinely are involved in the material handling and processing.

Again, you may have had an exceptional traumatic experience with the material. Millions on the other hand do not. And the same VOCs that are potentially out-gassed by insulation are routinely used in myriad household products and materials in much greater percentage. I wonder, have you, or do you advise the average person to discard ALL such products? Or would you consider it more prudent to be aware and to perform their due diligence on a case by case basis? I find it interesting that those who are so adamant with regards to insulation are not out advocating the vacating of composite wood build homes and buildings, or those with carpet or countertops or any of the myriad other COMMONPLACE products that exhibit much higher percentages of the same chemicals that occur in higher concentrations. Now don't get me wrong...I am not advocating intentionally exposing oneself to any of the compounds! But simply consider them in context and perform reasonable risk analysis!.

And where is the drama??? I would suggest that it exists in the exceptional cases, however valid, where one may have an isolated individual sensitivity rather than in the condemnation of the entire material category that so many have attempted to make the issue. Even Rod has had reason to communicate with such a group that continues to promulgate the hysteria regarding Fiberglass/mineral wool insulation!

I make no attempt to minimize the fact that someone may have an individual experience based upon their circumstances that may deviate from the MUCH LARGER generalization that the material category is fundamentally safe.

But as been stated, despite exceptional circumstances, the material group is safe for the VAST majority, and that the practice of responsible due diligence in handling such material will not result in undue risk toe the VAST majority of persons.

The fact is, no one has attempted to state that all materials of any type are completely benign to ALL persons everywhere!

Nor does that in anyways suggest that folks should be cavalier or irresponsible in their handling of any material!

But what does routinely occur every time this issue is raised, is that instead of folks reasonably assessing the situation based upon reasonable risk analysis for the vastly larger population based upon the larger response metrics and accepting the fact that the material is safe for the vast majority, it becomes instead a forum for individual anomalies - which completely and utterly misses the larger point.

And my suggestion is that for anyone who suspects that they might have a problem with ANY product of ANY type, is to do their due diligence and to use an alternative if they experience an exceptional issue with any material of any kind! But that does not mean hat the material may not be eprfectly benign for the vast majority of others.

The LARGER point of fact remains that for the greater population, the materials are fundamentally safe.


----------

Johns Manville has introduced formaldehyde free mineral products, as have most of the manufacturers. If they perform on a comparable level, I would suggest folks are wise to use them!

And for others who desire to use the alternative organic products (of which, ironically basalt and silicon (sand) are!), be aware that the organics have similar counter-indications that may result in exceptional individual sensitivities that likewise do not render them unfit for the vast majority of users as well! Just do your due diligence and test your sensitivity before making a huge plunge!

But at some point, folks need to understand the nature of solvents and their role in organic chemistry. If you want the benefits that such technology offers, its not always as simple as simply declaring that they must leave the materials out while leaving the resultant characteristics of such technology in!
#41
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #41
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanDan View Post
I would not suggest that the reaction here was psychosomatic. However if it was, I would still completely respect the issue. Many people are simply unhappy about lots of nasty scratchy material surrounding them. I use that wonderful link by audiovisceral to reassure them, and myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC View Post
I am sorry that you had a bad experience with it.

But that is not the larger subject the thread was about. The larger subject is in regards to whether Fiberglass and Mineral wool, and to a lesser degree, organics, pose serious health hazards to people.

And each time attempts are made to present a case that the materials do not present an unavoidable necessary health risk, we have a few trot out heir experiences, be they in regards to odors (which turned out to be from another source) or their individual sensitivities. And these are fine - not in the sense that they are good, but in any generalization there are exceptions.
For reference, since many seem to have missed it, I am the one who started this thread. Different username, same user (perhaps bad idea in retrospect, given confusion it's causing, but I was sick of logging in with that name so ).

And I continue to learn more about this subject every day.

Quote:
At some point, folks need to understand the nature of solvents and their role in organic chemistry. If you want the benefits that such technology offers, its not always as simple as simply declaring that they must leave the materials out while leaving the resultant characteristics of such technology in!
Once upon a time, I was actually a teacher's assistant in organic chem. I love organic chem.

I am also not trying to dissuade anyone else who is satisfied with traditional fiberglass or rockwool from using them. I am just saying that personally, based on my understanding and my experiences, I most likely will not. At least not until I've had a chance to demo some ECOSE from Knauf first.
SAC
#42
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #42
SAC
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,622

SAC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
I am also not trying to dissuade anyone else who is satisfied with traditional fiberglass or rockwool from using them. I am just saying that personally, based on my understanding and my experiences, I most likely will not.

I understand! I have individual sensitivities to materials too!.

But why does that invariably take center stage over the larger topic regarding the larger suitability of a class of products and their safety for the vast majority of users????

Why is not the primary focus instead on the suitability of the material for the majority of users, with simply a footnote being that it is possible for an individual to experience an exceptional reaction and the reinforcement to follow best practices handling procedures????

Remember, the problem we seem to have here is not how a number of individuals dealt with exceptional individual sensitivities! It is the larger perception on the part of TOO MANY who, for whatever reason (mostly these threads where they read the horror stories of a few!!!), have the INCORRECT impression that Fiberglass or mineral wool is somehow fundamentally and necessarily unsafe - and in many cases carcinogenic! And the issue comes up routinely on many forums!

Its time to put a rest to the larger fear issue and instead to promote reasonable and responsible material use - of WHATEVER material one chooses to employ - as they ALL have responsible handling procedures!
#43
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC View Post
I understand! I have individual sensitivities to materials too!.

But why does that invariably take center stage over the larger topic regarding the larger suitability of a class of products and their safety for the vast majority of users????

Why is not the primary focus instead on the suitability of the material for the majority of users, with simply a footnote being that it is possible for an individual to experience an exceptional reaction and the reinforcement to follow best practices handling procedures????
Again, I do not know how exceptional my reaction was. I have been around organics of every kind in lab and in life, and I have never had what I think would qualify as an "exceptional" reaction to any of them relative to my peers.

At this point I am mostly just curious. If someone was so inclined, they could easily put together a trial to assess this subject as it pertains to indoor acoustic treatment. Half of subjects could live and sleep in a room with Roxul/OFI based panels. The other half could live with panels containing shredded newspaper or just bundled up cotton bedsheets. After a predetermined time intervals, subjective feedback and ENT physicals including spirometry could be taken. As per other comments, it would be nice if any such research was not sponsored by corporations with vested interests, but these days that is unfortunately sometimes rare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC
Remember, the problem we seem to have here is not how a number of individuals dealt with exceptional individual sensitivities! It is the larger perception on the part of MANY who for whatever reason (mostly these threads where they read the horror stories of a few!!!) have the INCORRECT impression that Fiberglass or mineral wool is somehow fundamentally and necessarily unsafe - and in many cases carcinogenic! And the issue comes up routinely on many forums!
I have done my best to dispel claims of carcinogenicity based on the literature I could find. But that is all. I don't have a larger agenda, and I do not see a wider perception problem that needs correcting based on the evidence I have at hand.

But as Fletcher would say, YMMV.
SAC
#44
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #44
SAC
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,622

SAC is offline
Do we NEED additional larger studies with beau coup 'subjects'???

Fiberglass and mineral wool are incredibly pervasive not only in industry but in our homes! And remember, most sealants like Tyvek are applied with the insulation within the envelope!

Again, individual reactions are exceptional. Period.

And its simple to simply allow the material to sit unpacked and unsealed for a period of time. And if you experience a problem, simply remove them and allow them to outgas in a neutral area! Volatiles will cease to be 'volatile' after a period.

But just how many bazillion man years additional exposure do we need a sample study? Like it or not, we have already been subjected to this by virtue of its pervasive use.

I don't need another study of 58 quadrillion persons over a 23 year period to determine if I can safely eat peanuts!

We keep beating this horse to death. Dealing with an individual reaction is easy. And it is exceptional - based upon the very definition of the word! We know that simply by the experiences of folks here.

But to repeat - for the last time and to many cheers - that is not the problem!!!!

The problem is that far too many persist in thinking that Fiberglass and mineral wool are inherently unsafe.
Here and on MANY forums!

It should be easy to simply reply uniformly that they are not, but that best practices and due diligence should always be followed when handling such materials.

This is an issue that has lasted far beyond its worth.

Have a great day. The grass is calling my name to be mowed in the ~100 degree heat!
#45
4th July 2010
Old 4th July 2010
  #45
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,415

mobius.media is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAC View Post
Do we NEED larger studies with beau coup 'subjects'???
We can never have too many studies.

But I understand where you are coming from and can agree with the majority of your comments.
#46
5th July 2010
Old 5th July 2010
  #46
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 189

Send a message via ICQ to JustinW
JustinW is offline
Thanks for the post OP!
#47
6th July 2010
Old 6th July 2010
  #47
Lives for gear
 
mikymike's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: The ATL
Posts: 655

mikymike is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mukiw View Post
could someone please confirm that this solution wouldn't add an extra acoustic problem?
Nope, just a bit of a fire hazzard!!!
#48
25th August 2010
Old 25th August 2010
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Gdupproductions's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,538

Gdupproductions is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by takman View Post
i'm going to give this air purifier a try

Alive Air Purifier-The 9-stage Air Purifier with HEPA, UV, Ionic and more...

the website comes off as one of those gimmicky websites that i usually dont trust...but every review i read is positive..theres a number of them on cosumer reports and amazon...

I also received a reply from rockwool customer support...

heres the email i sent...




reply...



and this is the health booklet he sent me...

http://www.rockwool-firepro.co.uk/gr...gle_sheets.pdf

Intresting
#49
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #49
Gear nut
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 79

perplex is offline
i am so glad i found this thread. also, I am glad to have read SAC's comments as I have determined he is a damn genius.
#50
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #50
Lives for gear
 
avare's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, On Canada
Posts: 4,733

avare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplex View Post
i am so glad i found this thread. also, I am glad to have read SAC's comments as I have determined he is a damn genius.
Yes he is. Curmudgeonly too, but in a loving manner.

Andre
#51
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Steab's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Greece
Posts: 1,065

Steab is offline
How isn't this STICKY?
#52
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #52
Lives for gear
 
Gdupproductions's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,538

Gdupproductions is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steab View Post
How isn't this STICKY?
Becuz you don't have to believe everything you see/read.
#53
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #53
Lives for gear
 
PaulP's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,196

PaulP is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdupproductions View Post
Becuz you don't have to believe everything you see/read.
Heathen !
#54
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Gdupproductions's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,538

Gdupproductions is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulP View Post
Heathen !
LOL. 4 real, i knwo you think im in idiot right now for saying that.
But if you gone base your life on everything you read or see then you don't have a life anymore at the end.
__________________
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Gdupproductions

Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/GdupProductions
_______________________________________________
#55
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Steab's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Greece
Posts: 1,065

Steab is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gdupproductions View Post
LOL. 4 real, i knwo you think im in idiot right now for saying that.
But if you gone base your life on everything you read or see then you don't have a life anymore at the end.
How did this thread turn from a safety review to "everything you read or see" in your mind?
Shake yo head!
__________________
#56
28th February 2011
Old 28th February 2011
  #56
Gear nut
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 79

perplex is offline
man what da hell is gone on in this hea thread? if it aint sumthin, its gonna be a whole lotta somethin else!
#57
1st March 2011
Old 1st March 2011
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Gdupproductions's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,538

Gdupproductions is offline
Nvm
Fhl
#58
1st March 2011
Old 1st March 2011
  #58
Fhl
Lives for gear
 
Fhl's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Norway, Trondheim
Posts: 652

Fhl is offline
Great thread. Sticky! thumbsup
#59
13th September 2011
Old 13th September 2011
  #59
Gear Head
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Barnsley
Posts: 70

3dsmatt is offline
The fact that this discussion is unresolved makes me feel a little bit uneasy.

Just installed 5 panels today. Full up with Alpharock . YUm!
#60
17th September 2011
Old 17th September 2011
  #60
Gear Guru
 
tINY's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: Orygun
Posts: 11,845

tINY is offline

You're going to die


(it's a fact of life)



-tINY

New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
The_Cartel / So much gear, so little time!
0
fabiano83 / Bass traps, acoustic panels, foam etc
10
max cooper / Music Computers
36

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.