At 05:12 PM 3/6/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Loren:
>I totally agree that the health/safety of the people is the top priority--much
>more important than saving a few BTUs. The question,though, is whether
>depending upon a leaky house--i.e., random infiltration--to supply enough
>fresh air to dilute pollutants and breathe well is the best way to assure
>their health.
>
>My own experience is that it's not. The solution for the folks who may be
>suffering from CO poisoning and oxygen deprivation is not to make the
>house leakier. The solutions are 1) source control and 2)ventilation. If
>they want to heat with wood (as I do) they need an air-tight stove,
>combustion air piped directly into the stove, and a sealed flue/chimney. If
>the stove is atmospherically decoupled from the living space, CO can't
>enter the house. A digital CO detector as a back-up is also a good idea.
>
>Then supply ventilation adequate for the people and moisture removal.
>
>Letting the CO in the house, and hoping to dilute it with either random
>infiltration or mechanical ventilation, does not seem like a sound strategy.
>
>Arnie Katz
>AEC
>909 Capability Dr.
>Raleigh, NC 27606
>
Hal Levin <hlevin@cruzio.com>
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________