Insulation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

inability to pay monthly energy bills, is associated with greater odds of household and child food insecurity, child developmental concerns, poor school performance, and increased hospitalization (Cook et al., 2008). Furthermore, the 2005 National Energy Assistance Directors (NAEDA) Program survey of low-income US households that were eligible to receive federal home energy assistance found that 78% of families reduced basic expenses for household necessities in order to afford their energy bill. Outdoor Environment and Health: A 2002 life cycle assessment study by Nishioka et al. (2002) found that overall, insulation improvements in the US would decrease energy use and energy production plants PM2.5 emissions over a 10-year-period such that it would lead to 60 fewer fatalities, 2000 fewer asthma attacks, and 30,000 fewer restricted activity days. While overall insulation is beneficial, various negative health effects are associated with exposure to each type of insulation. Some health effects occur immediately after exposure (in the short term), while others the long term; some on an individual scale of in home inhabitants or insulation-installing contractors, and some on a broader societal scale, such as global warming and environmental impacts. Health effects of Cellulose Insulation: Cellulose insulation poses minimal health risks to those who protect themselves properly by hiring a contractor to install it properly. Cellulose’s high dust content allows it to easily become an airborne respiratory irritant if it’s not properly installed. It’s ability to absorb and retain moisture make cellulose insulation a prime location for mold and pathogen growth so ensuring that water damage does not occur is essential (Godish, 2006). One case study showed respiratory alveolar structural changes as a result of high exposure to fibrous insulation made in part by cellulose insulation (McDonald, 2000). Perhaps most concerning though is that cellulose insulation is 15% flame retardant by mass, including reproductive toxin, borate (associated with poor sperm quality and tumors of the testes) (Bouissou, 1965a & b; Dixon, 1979; Ghosh, 1998; Konstantinova, 1992; Weir, 1972), or ammonium sulfate (Morgan, 2004). Health Effects of Spray Foam Insulation : If properly and safely installed by a contractor, spray foam does not pose any known health risks to a home’s inhabitants. It is a reproductive toxin associated with kidney tumors in rats and testicular tumors in mice (Turnbull, 1994), made of ether, polyl, flame retardants, and isocyanates, the latter of which is associated with decreased immune response and dermatitis (Baur, 2009). The real looming risk of spray foam insulation is that it can release fluorocarbons (CFCs) upon disposal into landfills (Kjeldsen, 2003). CFCs have a contribution to global warming that is 950 times the impact of carbon dioxide, the primary carbon pollutant that is regulated. Health Effects of Fiberglass Insulation: If protective safety gear isn’t worn during application, fiberglass induces dermatitis (Farkas, 1983; Lee, 1992; Verbeck, 1991), characteristic of red rash and itchy,
irritated skin but otherwise the long term effects of fiberglass insulation in the environment are not well known. Environmental Health Comparative Assessment: Given that the short term effects of fiberglass are well documented, in the short term we ranked fiberglass as the most severely harmful to health, but in the long run it is the least harmful. Taking the reproductive toxicity and global warming effects of spray foam insulation and cellulose into consideration, we ranked spray foam as the least environmental-health-friendly in the long term, followed by cellulose and then by fiberglass. Our analysis would have been enriched by more complete data on the production and disposal practices of each type of insulation. Fibreglass is usually thrown out with regular solid waste or contractors pay a fee to dispose of it in landfills. How do the insulation types rank overall? A star ranking system is created based on qualitative judgments and findings. In the below chart, the scores ranged from 1 star, meaning poor performance, to 3 stars meaning good performance. The scores were designated based on the comparative criteria performance qualities that were identified as holding primary importance. The details of these were discussed previously in this report. For example, for an environmental score, spray foam received the worst ranking because of its potential contributions to global warming upon disposal.
Page 1 and 2: Insulation Sandy Do Anthony Hoac Da
Page 3 and 4: that “will never blow off again
Page 5: In terms of sound, it has been argu
Page 9 and 10: References BASF products. http://ww
Page 11: Turnbull, D., R. J. Machado, et al.

Insulation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?