I have long wondered what exactly is meant by "ecological building," "healthy building," or building biology. Sometimes I read statements saying that new houses contain numerous harmful substances and that one should pay more attention to building biology.
I have looked into this and researched, but I haven't found a clear difference between "normal construction" and construction that is considered safe from a building biology perspective. My first suspects, plastics like multilayer composite pipes or insulation materials, apparently seem to be completely fine.
Some people bring up the topic of electromagnetic pollution. Okay. This leads to the entire house being turned into a kind of electromagnetically shielded cage. Of course, it makes sense not to run cables across the bedroom or under the bed.
Now, for the first time, I noticed a point that is truly considered concerning. Apparently, standard expanding foam used in construction is far from healthy. However, there is also the opinion that all harmful substances have dissipated 48 hours after application.
It is then recommended to fill the gaps around interior doors, the front door, and window edges with materials like wood fiber, mineral wool, stone wool, or jute instead of using expanding foam. Is there any truth to that? Where else is expanding foam still used?
Do you know of any other areas that are not just subjectively but clearly part of building biology?
I have looked into this and researched, but I haven't found a clear difference between "normal construction" and construction that is considered safe from a building biology perspective. My first suspects, plastics like multilayer composite pipes or insulation materials, apparently seem to be completely fine.
Some people bring up the topic of electromagnetic pollution. Okay. This leads to the entire house being turned into a kind of electromagnetically shielded cage. Of course, it makes sense not to run cables across the bedroom or under the bed.
Now, for the first time, I noticed a point that is truly considered concerning. Apparently, standard expanding foam used in construction is far from healthy. However, there is also the opinion that all harmful substances have dissipated 48 hours after application.
It is then recommended to fill the gaps around interior doors, the front door, and window edges with materials like wood fiber, mineral wool, stone wool, or jute instead of using expanding foam. Is there any truth to that? Where else is expanding foam still used?
Do you know of any other areas that are not just subjectively but clearly part of building biology?
BeHaElJa schrieb:
You can build whatever you want. Exactly. :-)
I just wanted to know what is truly and definitively considered problematic from a building biology perspective (PU foam, for example!?) and where it’s more of a scare tactic (REA gypsum, plastics used in water installations when the water has already traveled several kilometers (miles) through the plastic pipes of the water supplier).
B
Bauexperte11 Oct 2016 11:29Grym schrieb:
EPS is still being incinerated as before. Currently, EPS is not even being accepted due to widespread uncertainty.
Best regards, Bauexperte
B
Bieber081511 Oct 2016 11:41Grym schrieb:
Just wanted to know what is really and definitely considered biologically questionable in building What is considered good or questionable from a building biology point of view is defined by the relevant association!
Much of it is a matter of personal perception! There is no solid scientific proof that our cork flooring is better (meaning healthier) than vinyl or laminate. But --- we definitely feel much better in our home (to avoid any misunderstandings, it is not an ecological house). The same applies to wooden windows instead of plastic ones, or solid wood furniture instead of coated composite materials. Note: it’s called biological building, not healthy building.
You have to answer your question yourself when it comes to subjective issues! If it’s about the health aspects, it gets complicated. It’s not that simple, because first of all, it always depends on the dose (concentration, exposure, etc.), and second, sometimes you only find out later how things really are (compare wood preservatives from the 1970s and 1980s).
Now, in my opinion, there are three approaches:
1.) It will probably be fine, I’ll build standard!
2.) Better safe than sorry, build 100% biologically with no compromises!
3.) The middle ground, weigh options and evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
Option 1 is the easiest and generally the most affordable. Option 2 is a bit more demanding and somewhat more expensive. Option 3 is extremely complicated, and as a layperson with only nighttime hours available (due to work commitments for the build), you probably won’t reach your goal.
Still, I’m looking forward to interesting discussions here in the forum if you go for option 3 😀 😎. (I do believe you can manage that …)
I don’t see it as too critical now, especially because of the controlled residential ventilation system. Even if something harmful were to off-gas, the controlled ventilation would at least prevent critical concentrations from building up.
I just wanted to know if there are any essential points that must be followed, particularly any that are very critical. Presumably, many things are already prohibited based on experiences from the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and so on...
I’ve seen the term mentioned frequently, often with flowery phrases like on the website of #9.
(Oh no, a link – and it’s still active :eek 🙂
“Tested,” “Certified,” “Ecologically approved,” “Materials we trust”
instead of
“We avoid using chemical xy,” “For interior paint, we use vapor-permeable, solvent-free paint based on silicate”...
I just wanted to know if there are any essential points that must be followed, particularly any that are very critical. Presumably, many things are already prohibited based on experiences from the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and so on...
I’ve seen the term mentioned frequently, often with flowery phrases like on the website of #9.
(Oh no, a link – and it’s still active :eek 🙂
“Tested,” “Certified,” “Ecologically approved,” “Materials we trust”
instead of
“We avoid using chemical xy,” “For interior paint, we use vapor-permeable, solvent-free paint based on silicate”...
What will be considered problematic in several decades is purely speculative. Regarding EPS (expanded polystyrene), in my personal opinion, there is no need for concern because the critical flame retardants are no longer used, and the disposal issue (which is actually not a real problem but more a source of uncertainty) will be resolved fairly quickly due to the large market behind it and the relatively manageable technical complexity.
If we were to eliminate everything in our lives made from polystyrene, far more items than just thermal insulation would be affected... For some people, EPS seems to symbolize all the negatives of the so-called "insulation craze," and the arguments usually revolve around disposal or, even more so, the claim that "the house cannot breathe" 🙄,
If we were to eliminate everything in our lives made from polystyrene, far more items than just thermal insulation would be affected... For some people, EPS seems to symbolize all the negatives of the so-called "insulation craze," and the arguments usually revolve around disposal or, even more so, the claim that "the house cannot breathe" 🙄,
Similar topics