Green Buildings Hazardous to Health?

[John McKenna]

Green Buildings Hazardous to Health?

The buildings commonly referred to as "green" could actually be hazardous to your health, according to a new report.
That's one of many warnings out of a new report from the Institute of Medicine, which tracked the potential impact of climate change on indoor environments.

The report cautions that climate change can negatively and directly affect indoor air quality in several ways. But the scientists behind the study warn that homeowners and businesses could also be making the problem worse by pursuing untested or risky energy-efficiency upgrades.

"Even with the best intentions, indoor environmental quality issues may emerge with interventions that have not been sufficiently well screened for their effects on occupant safety and health," the report said.

To save costs and cut down on emissions, building owners typically find ways to seal off potential leaks and conserve energy. But in "weatherizing" the buildings, they also change the indoor environment.

By making buildings more airtight, building owners could increase "indoor-air contaminant concentrations and indoor-air humidity," the report said. By adding insulation, they could trigger moisture problems. By making improvements to older homes, crews could stir up hazardous material ranging from asbestos to harmful caulking -- though that problem is not unique to energy improvements.

The report did not dissuade homeowners and businesses from making the energy-efficiency upgrades. Rather, it called for a more comprehensive approach, urging organizations to track the side effects of various upgrades and minimize the "unexpected exposures and health risks" that can arise from new materials and weatherization techniques.


I have been saying this for years.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

Green Buildings Hazardous to Health?

The buildings commonly referred to as "green" could actually be hazardous to your health, according to a new report.
That's one of many warnings out of a new report from the Institute of Medicine, which tracked the potential impact of climate change on indoor environments.

The report cautions that climate change can negatively and directly affect indoor air quality in several ways. But the scientists behind the study warn that homeowners and businesses could also be making the problem worse by pursuing untested or risky energy-efficiency upgrades.

"Even with the best intentions, indoor environmental quality issues may emerge with interventions that have not been sufficiently well screened for their effects on occupant safety and health," the report said.

To save costs and cut down on emissions, building owners typically find ways to seal off potential leaks and conserve energy. But in "weatherizing" the buildings, they also change the indoor environment.

By making buildings more airtight, building owners could increase "indoor-air contaminant concentrations and indoor-air humidity," the report said. By adding insulation, they could trigger moisture problems. By making improvements to older homes, crews could stir up hazardous material ranging from asbestos to harmful caulking -- though that problem is not unique to energy improvements.

The report did not dissuade homeowners and businesses from making the energy-efficiency upgrades. Rather, it called for a more comprehensive approach, urging organizations to track the side effects of various upgrades and minimize the "unexpected exposures and health risks" that can arise from new materials and weatherization techniques.


I have been saying this for years.

Well, that shows me that you've learned little about the newer and healthier building techniques......

I was working with this stuff (Canada's R2000 system) in the early 1980's as well as doing some research contracts involving homes after they were lived in......NO ONE said their or their family's health had suffered.....actually about 55-60% said their family's health was actually better in the highly efficient home with a fully ducted HRV system; that's one reason they chose to build an R2000 home!!!

Around 1995, the building/energy/IAQ principles of the the R2000 system were copied by the Minneapolis Lung Assoc after they visited an R2000 project subdivision in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Eventually R2000 technques/principles were added to/improved due to now working with a group of sick people (more stringent requirements of site, materials, techniques) as opposed to the general more healthy public. This has now evolved into the "Health House" program with some Lung Assoc regions. Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corp was co-chair of the technical committee for this program.

Why would sick people be telling sick people to build airtight, energy-efficient homes if they did not work and actually made you sicker?

http://www.healthhouse.org/consumer/buildfaq.cfm#faq1


We also know how to safely renovate older homes for energy efficiency. If proper and extensive training is not somehow made mandatory, then a lot of problems may occur. It will be on the goverment's and leaders of the building industry's shoulders if this were to occur and become widespread!!

John:

Have you become RESNET or BPI certified yet???

Have you taken any courses on "healthy home" building practices?

25+ years of house building and CMI does not give you this knowledge!!

[Patrick Carter]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

John:

Have you become RESNET or BPI certified yet???

Have you taken any courses on "healthy home" building practices?

25+ years of house building and CMI does not give you this knowledge!!

Bingo...

[Robert Ernst]

Yep to much air sealing can be an issue. Thats why uneducated contractors and inspectors should refer to someone with the correct equipment and expertise to address these conditions. They should also be following the ASHRAE 62 or 62.2 minimum ventilation requirements.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

Well, that shows me that you've learned little about the newer and healthier building techniques......

I was working with this stuff (Canada's R2000 system) in the early 1980's as well as doing some research contracts involving homes after they were lived in......NO ONE said their or their family's health had suffered.....actually about 55-60% said their family's health was actually better in the highly efficient home with a fully ducted HRV system; that's one reason they chose to build an R2000 home!!!

Around 1995, the building/energy/IAQ principles of the the R2000 system were copied by the Minneapolis Lung Assoc after they visited an R2000 project subdivision in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Eventually R2000 technques/principles were added to/improved due to now working with a group of sick people (more stringent requirements of site, materials, techniques) as opposed to the general more healthy public. This has now evolved into the "Health House" program with some Lung Assoc regions. Joe Lstiburek of Building Science Corp was co-chair of the technical committee for this program.

Why would sick people be telling sick people to build airtight, energy-efficient homes if they did not work and actually made you sicker?

http://www.healthhouse.org/consumer/buildfaq.cfm#faq1


We also know how to safely renovate older homes for energy efficiency. If proper and extensive training is not somehow made mandatory, then a lot of problems may occur. It will be on the goverment's and leaders of the building industry's shoulders if this were to occur and become widespread!!

John:

Have you become RESNET or BPI certified yet???

Have you taken any courses on "healthy home" building practices?

25+ years of house building and CMI does not give you this knowledge!!

I read an article with information from the Institute of Medicine, and now you declare I am not qualified to agree with their findings?

Why make a simple article into a chance to show us your credential.?

Should they tell everyone who is not RESNET or BPI that they are forbidden to read the article? Should we filter all articles through you before we post them, since you hold yourself as the only one who is qualified to read them?

[RUSSELL SHUEY]

Green is the new Red i hear.

[Robert Ernst]

Don't take it so personal John. You both have valid points but he should be sharing his information with you and not just knocking your post. It has been known for a long time that air changes in a house are important. It water is lingering around for a long time after a shower or cooking it's true the house may be to tight. There are allot of things that can contribute to poor air quality and it's not just "Green" building. Just last week here in Nevada a law was passed requiring people that want to do energy audits to be licensed by the state. It will fall under the same law as Home Inspectors. Weatherization contractors will have to be licensed here soon also. So it will hopefully make things better for the consumer.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

I read an article with information from the Institute of Medicine, and now you declare I am not qualified to agree with their findings?

Why make a simple article into a chance to show us your credential.?

Should they tell everyone who is not RESNET or BPI that they are forbidden to read the article? Should we filter all articles through you before we post them, since you hold yourself as the only one who is qualified to read them?

Your quoted material from the article and responses/comments similar to your "I have been saying this for years." eventually filters to the street level. This has set the "energy efficiency in housing" programs uptake back years. We knew how to do this stuff properly in the 1980's and here we are going through it all again!

The first airtight R2000 homes I worked on in 1984-5-6 were actually way over-ventilated by fully ducted HRV systems......erring on the side of safety bigtime!! The ventilation requirements in houses here have been reduced 3-4 times without IAQ/health problems.

You used the article that says there "may" or "could" be problems to back up an unproven/ unresearched personal belief that energy-efficient homes must be unhealthy.

[John McKenna]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

personal belief that energy-efficient homes must be unhealthy.

My belief is that sometimes health becomes an issue, not always.
It would be absurd for me or anyone to think all energy efficient
homes are unhealthy. Are you smoking crack?

Go sniff on some else's rear end.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

[quote=jmckenna1;792463]My belief is that sometimes health becomes an issue, not always.
It would be absurd for me or anyone to think all energy efficient
homes are unhealthy.
Your offhand comment certainly has that "air" to it.......as well as other of your comments in the past!

Are you smoking crack?

Go sniff on some else's rear end. [/quote]

Ah!! From the Executive Director of Master Inspector Certification Board...... Great example for public relations!

[John McKenna]

[quote=Brian A. MacNeish;792508]

Originally Posted by jmckenna1

My belief is that sometimes health becomes an issue, not always.
It would be absurd for me or anyone to think all energy efficient
homes are unhealthy.
Your offhand comment certainly has that "air" to it.......as well as other of your comments in the past!

Are you smoking crack?

Go sniff on some else's rear end. [/quote]

Ah!! From the Executive Director of Master Inspector Certification Board...... Great example for public relations!

You will soon learn that I have no political phobias about making a good impression....

[Brandon Clark]

Goodness!!! I was just thinking to myself a few days ago about how bad the thermal imaging section of the InterNachi forum was. It goes days and days sometimes without the first comment or new posting. It's a VERY rare that I ever see more than 1-2 images a week if not every other week.

Well we atleast know what the cause is. There's so much hatred amongst this group that most folks just stay away from us including us. Folks have read our disputes and they know they better become prepared for all out war should they want to offer an opinion.

If I had to do it over again than I might have stayed away myself. Once somebody starts to swinging on you than you have no choice but to swing back an from there it's on like a chicken bone! You might as well stick around the beat down!

I personally would stay FAR more involved with this area because I enjoy it but I also enjoy not getting my *** ripped apart. I often think about posting random thermal imaging stuff about what I find interesting but realize it's simply not worth the risk.

If you post something opinionated than you immediately have folks lining up wanting to know what rights you have to have an opinion. If its factual than folks are wondering what qualifications you have to post such true conditions as if your a teacher. If it's a joke than folks completely miss the humor at a chance to bring up your lack of ethics and professionalism. If it's a simple idea or thought, others want to know why in the hell you'd be posting such stuff without the facts to back it up. ALL of these methods of posting have different short-run outcomes but 99.9% of everything posted has a default long-run outcome that will somehow or another divert back to John Mckenna Poor Dude!!!

Everybody who keeps up with this section is aware of what's going on and so do the moderators. It seems like there would be some way to lay out some guidelines and enforcement's. I realize Nick and Ben think a heated discussion can be a great learning opportunity but not when the whole thread is practically dead because of the non-stop heated discussions about the same ole BS over an over an over!

Why can't the moderators simply retract postings that don't contribute to learning? It doesn't get much simpler, in my opinion. (not good) Shouldn't moderators try an moderate an atmosphere that's conductive to learning?

PS: I'm not trying to specifically point out any moderators as I don't even know exactly who they all are. I'm just asking in a normal tone of voice(very friendly-like gesture on my face) if such moderation may ever be considered?

[Patrick Carter]

Brandon,

Good post, this is an open forum that my potential clients may see, and I sure don't want them to think that I tolerate stupidity and intolerance. So I don't post here often, but I do enjoy the positive and constructive thought process that is exhibited at this link...

http://homeenergypros.lbl.gov/


It is for the professional individual...

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by pcarter1

Brandon,

Good post, this is an open forum that my potential clients may see, and I sure don't want them to think that I tolerate stupidity and intolerance. So I don't post here often, but I do enjoy the positive and constructive thought process that is exhibited at this link...

http://homeenergypros.lbl.gov/


It is for the professional individual...

Here are some comments from the above site about the article John must have read........

"This article came out on June 8 and deserves a response from DOE and some Home Energy Pros!

Green Buildings Hazardous to Health? Report Cites Risks of Weatherization
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/08/green-buildings-hazardou...

This is the kind of fodder that gets people to debunk home energy efficiency improvements. It reminds me of the articles a few years ago bashing the Energy Star program because there may have been some errors in calculating efficiency..."

"Perhaps too eager to mock green, Fox gave the story an unfortunate slant by putting ASHRAE & BPI standards outside the frame"


"You can definitely cause more problems than you solve by implementing poorly planned changes to seal your envelope but it's just frustrating to know that some people will read a report like this and use it as an excuse not to act at all.

I think a response from DOE on how following established standards and guidelines can prevent any negative impacts from an energy efficiency upgrade is warranted here. Maybe a comment on the importance of getting a certified professional to perform energy efficiency upgrades to avoid such problems."

"Why single out "Green" construction? As an Energy Star verifier, I look at many new homes, both in and out of the program. Without verification it is common to see attic baffles installed incorrectly and insulation missing in critical spaces for example, inviting not only poor performance but Ice damming in the winter, roof damage and mold. This is just one example. This isn't a "green" problem.
In existing homes, it's more likely that the ductwork is defective in some way than not. It's not breaking news to find a supply duct disconnected causing the house pressure to go negative which sucks fumes in from the garage and under the house.
Or how many homes are built with no return air relief from the bedrooms which causes the core of the home to go negative just by closing the bedroom doors? This isn't a "Green" problem. At least we in the green industry are aware that these are issues and know how to correct them."

[Joseph Hagarty, CMI]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

The first airtight R2000 homes I worked on in 1984-5-6 were actually way over-ventilated by fully ducted HRV systems......erring on the side of safety bigtime!!

Exactly
Almost all homes where i find a HRV system
the Homeowner has previously disabled due to increased HVAC expense