I would not single out building tightness as the main factor but I would
say it depends on the issue - the rise in chilhood asthma for example
has been linked to moisture born contaminants resulting from either air
tight buildings or improperly vented buildings depending on how you want
to look at it. I would say that the majority of problems are a result of
the mix of chemicals produced from the variety of materials used - maybe
the point I was trying to make is that combining this basic issue with
stringent enforcement of tightness at this point in our common knowledge
is negligent - remember it took over 5 years for cellulose insulation to
be approved for horizontal applications (and at this point you could
probably consider it an improper use of fibre) meaning industry moves
slowly and at the point that it does introduce a product there is a lot
invested to maintain that products usage well beyond its benefical (or
not)application.
I also agree that historically buildings have made people ill in a
variety of ways for a variety of causes but as we grow increasingly
aware of the problems and their possible causes perhaps we should in the
interim be more honestly proactive with the consumer and label buildings
with notices such as "WARNING - SHORT OR LONG TERM OCCUPANCY OF THIS
BUILDING MAY CAUSE ASTHMATIC REACTIONS OR VAGUE UNDIAGNOSABLE FLU-LIKE
SYMPTOMS OR WORSE"
On the loose path I would like to see more available research and
specifications on materials that can move moisture and air through a
building wall while maintaining energy values - these may not be
reflectance values but we do need to develop an alternate vocabulary of
building techniques that can work their way into current code structures
and ultimately industry. We have a lot of anecodotal and even some
quantitative info. on buildings that have performed well utilizing flaky
things like siting, creation of climate zones, organization of site and
building mass values,etc. All that remains is to formalize this
discourse within the current support structures for the industry
(meaning civil code structures and their adherents). This approach may
be more historical and culturally appropriate (if such a thing can be
said) but as such it probably has a better chance of dealing with our
current quagmire.
p.s. airbags are not a good analogy - they have been implicated in a
number of unwarranted suffocation deaths
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this.
John Salmen
TERRAIN E.D.S
terrain@seaside.net
__________________________________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________________________________