Environmentalism gets nowhere when it is based on paranoia. This story is a classic example of that. The problem with fiberglass insulation is not a problem of "leaching" into the air. Look at those precautions in the picture: that mask is not a respirator that filers out gases; it is a matter of the fibers. Breathing in the fibers irritates the lungs. Unless someone has left the insulation exposed, those fibers aren't floating around in the air. Drywall is sufficient to keep them out of your home.
This article seems to take the same approach as the paranoia over asbestos. Indeed, the insulation in your home may be the asbestos of the 21st century, which would mean that it poses no threat if left alone. Asbestos is a powerful carcinogen, but it affects mainly workers who inhaled the fibers. Many people have asbestos tiles in their homes, and they pose no problems until they are removed. Then, of course, one must take rather serious steps to eliminate the problem.
Many people see environmentalism as a form of leftist paranoia. Being uninformed about the science that we're worried about reinforces that perception, and dismissing information from credible groups like the American Lung Association on the basis of a blogger and a Google search isn't exactly the epitome of critical reasoning. If we want people to take environmental responsibility seriously, then we need to take intellectual responsibility seriously.
Derek
· 1 year ago
I've used mineral wool insulation, and it's superior to fibreglass in every way. It's more fire resistant, easier to install, resists air infiltration more and if it gets wet, it dries out again. I don't know how environmentally sound it is thought, since it's made out of basalt.
Lloyd Alter
· 1 year ago
"Many people see environmentalism as a form of leftist paranoia. Being uninformed about the science that we're worried about reinforces that perception, and dismissing information from credible groups like the American Lung Association on the basis of a blogger and a Google search isn't exactly the epitome of critical reasoning."
Jeff, I am hardly dismissing the American Lung Association; if you read what I wrote, I concluded that "however it is cheap, and properly installed it is safe and inert and fireproof, which are all pretty good things." I also made very clear that the vapor barrier and drywall contain the fibers and any formaldehyde residue.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with pointing out that Inhabitat raises doubts, or that there are lots of people on google who don't like the stuff.
When I practiced as an architect I used it a lot- it is effective and cheap. All I am saying here is that it is a stretch to call it "green"- we have to get over this idea that all that matters is energy use.
I don't think that is intellectually irresponsible.
nate
· 1 year ago
This reminds me of a book I read written by an old back-to-earther who lived off the grid. He felt that the burning of hydrocarbons (oli/gas/etc.) should be banned because they should be conserved and used for their single greatest purpose: INSULATION!
I know it isn't directly related to the topic of fiberglass batt insulation, but I think that it illustrates that even the "loony left" understands the value of using our finite resources responsibly, even if that means not every material in itself is natural or green.
Nick
· 1 year ago
I have been building prototypes made of fiberglass for years.
Fiberglass production is ILLEGAL in the state of California due to the toxic fumes it releases in the air. Calling fiberglass 'green' does not make sense, as one has to use POLYESTER RESIN to apply it...and that is what caues fumes.
The question we should ask is, IS THERE A GREEN SUBSTITUTE FOR POLYESTER RESIN?
Thanks
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
I must seriously be in La-La-Land all by myself. Yes, the article is slightly in left-field, but all the comments are from left-planet.
First the article:
"Of course, there are a host of other issues involved in being a green building product, including how it is made, what it is made from and its effect on air quality and health. Of course, Owens Corning does not address those considerations."
Any reputable manufacturer would have done a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for their product before claiming it is "green." If Owens Corning is not addressing these considerations, then I really doubt they have done an LCA. Without an LCA, they don't know whether they are "green" or not. If they say they are "green" without doing an LCA, then they are not reputable, because they lack integrity and fall in line with the likes of Monsanto and Phillip-Morris (which, everyone knows are Anti-Green).
With regards to the other comments left before....Get a grip on reality people! What's wrong with you?
Matt
· 1 year ago
You misspelled the word leaching.
LA: Its a quote, what can I do?
Jeff Johnson
· 1 year ago
@Lloyd:
Point taken. It does seem a bit unclear from the original post what you expect the reader to conclude from what you wrote. But the occasional lack of clarity plagues the best of us, and that is a far cry from the irresponsibility that I read into your post. Thanks for the response.
Charlie
· 1 year ago
If it was really just that they focused only on energy, ignoring other stuff, I could forgive them: energy really is our most pressing problem. But then thing is, fiberglass really is not one of the better insulation materials. It's got about the same R value as cellulose (the other popular low-cost choice), but doesn't do as well at resisting air infiltration, or filling irregular cavities. And its R value when there are large temperature differences across it--the exact same conditions when you most need it to function well. So even just looking at energy, it's not a great material.
Christopher
· 1 year ago
Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good (and Lloyd, you seem to fall into this trap quite often). Is a house insulated with fiberglass better for the environment as a whole than a house with little or no insulation? Of course it is: fewer resources are expended in heating and cooling the house. Is it the perfect method of insulation? No, but the advantages so far outweigh the disadvantages that to argue otherwise is churlish at best, and at worst makes environmentalists look like loons. Is a house insulated with, say, cellulose or recycled denim better for the environment as a whole than a house insulated with fiberglass? Probably - i can't say that I have done the math on this one, but I expect someone has. Is it perfect? No - installers of cotton or cellulose still have to wear masks when putting the stuff up, even if it is all natural. However, Corning has the budget to get the message out: insulate your houses, people! Do they make more money this way? Sure, but there's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think it even comes near greenwashing. We should be grateful every time a big company tries to make money by doing something green, as it saves the rest of us the time and effort of getting them to do it for the good of the planet.
All Comments
Environmentalism gets nowhere when it is based on paranoia. This story is a classic example of that. The problem with fiberglass insulation is not a problem of "leaching" into the air. Look at those precautions in the picture: that mask is not a respirator that filers out gases; it is a matter of the fibers. Breathing in the fibers irritates the lungs. Unless someone has left the insulation exposed, those fibers aren't floating around in the air. Drywall is sufficient to keep them out of your home.
This article seems to take the same approach as the paranoia over asbestos. Indeed, the insulation in your home may be the asbestos of the 21st century, which would mean that it poses no threat if left alone. Asbestos is a powerful carcinogen, but it affects mainly workers who inhaled the fibers. Many people have asbestos tiles in their homes, and they pose no problems until they are removed. Then, of course, one must take rather serious steps to eliminate the problem.
Many people see environmentalism as a form of leftist paranoia. Being uninformed about the science that we're worried about reinforces that perception, and dismissing information from credible groups like the American Lung Association on the basis of a blogger and a Google search isn't exactly the epitome of critical reasoning. If we want people to take environmental responsibility seriously, then we need to take intellectual responsibility seriously.
I've used mineral wool insulation, and it's superior to fibreglass in every way. It's more fire resistant, easier to install, resists air infiltration more and if it gets wet, it dries out again. I don't know how environmentally sound it is thought, since it's made out of basalt.
"Many people see environmentalism as a form of leftist paranoia. Being uninformed about the science that we're worried about reinforces that perception, and dismissing information from credible groups like the American Lung Association on the basis of a blogger and a Google search isn't exactly the epitome of critical reasoning."
Jeff, I am hardly dismissing the American Lung Association; if you read what I wrote, I concluded that "however it is cheap, and properly installed it is safe and inert and fireproof, which are all pretty good things." I also made very clear that the vapor barrier and drywall contain the fibers and any formaldehyde residue.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with pointing out that Inhabitat raises doubts, or that there are lots of people on google who don't like the stuff.
When I practiced as an architect I used it a lot- it is effective and cheap. All I am saying here is that it is a stretch to call it "green"- we have to get over this idea that all that matters is energy use.
I don't think that is intellectually irresponsible.
This reminds me of a book I read written by an old back-to-earther who lived off the grid. He felt that the burning of hydrocarbons (oli/gas/etc.) should be banned because they should be conserved and used for their single greatest purpose: INSULATION!
I know it isn't directly related to the topic of fiberglass batt insulation, but I think that it illustrates that even the "loony left" understands the value of using our finite resources responsibly, even if that means not every material in itself is natural or green.
I have been building prototypes made of fiberglass for years.
Fiberglass production is ILLEGAL in the state of California due to the toxic fumes it releases in the air. Calling fiberglass 'green' does not make sense, as one has to use POLYESTER RESIN to apply it...and that is what caues fumes.
The question we should ask is, IS THERE A GREEN SUBSTITUTE FOR POLYESTER RESIN?
Thanks
I must seriously be in La-La-Land all by myself. Yes, the article is slightly in left-field, but all the comments are from left-planet.
First the article:
"Of course, there are a host of other issues involved in being a green building product, including how it is made, what it is made from and its effect on air quality and health. Of course, Owens Corning does not address those considerations."
Any reputable manufacturer would have done a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for their product before claiming it is "green." If Owens Corning is not addressing these considerations, then I really doubt they have done an LCA. Without an LCA, they don't know whether they are "green" or not. If they say they are "green" without doing an LCA, then they are not reputable, because they lack integrity and fall in line with the likes of Monsanto and Phillip-Morris (which, everyone knows are Anti-Green).
With regards to the other comments left before....Get a grip on reality people! What's wrong with you?
You misspelled the word leaching.
LA: Its a quote, what can I do?
@Lloyd:
Point taken. It does seem a bit unclear from the original post what you expect the reader to conclude from what you wrote. But the occasional lack of clarity plagues the best of us, and that is a far cry from the irresponsibility that I read into your post. Thanks for the response.
If it was really just that they focused only on energy, ignoring other stuff, I could forgive them: energy really is our most pressing problem. But then thing is, fiberglass really is not one of the better insulation materials. It's got about the same R value as cellulose (the other popular low-cost choice), but doesn't do as well at resisting air infiltration, or filling irregular cavities. And its R value when there are large temperature differences across it--the exact same conditions when you most need it to function well. So even just looking at energy, it's not a great material.
Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good (and Lloyd, you seem to fall into this trap quite often). Is a house insulated with fiberglass better for the environment as a whole than a house with little or no insulation? Of course it is: fewer resources are expended in heating and cooling the house. Is it the perfect method of insulation? No, but the advantages so far outweigh the disadvantages that to argue otherwise is churlish at best, and at worst makes environmentalists look like loons. Is a house insulated with, say, cellulose or recycled denim better for the environment as a whole than a house insulated with fiberglass? Probably - i can't say that I have done the math on this one, but I expect someone has. Is it perfect? No - installers of cotton or cellulose still have to wear masks when putting the stuff up, even if it is all natural. However, Corning has the budget to get the message out: insulate your houses, people! Do they make more money this way? Sure, but there's nothing wrong with that, and I don't think it even comes near greenwashing. We should be grateful every time a big company tries to make money by doing something green, as it saves the rest of us the time and effort of getting them to do it for the good of the planet.