insulation; UFFI

[Steve & Chris Clark]

OK everyone!
I haven't looked into UFFI in more than 20 years now.....friends of ours are
looking at a house that used UFFI as the insulation in 1978........anyone
have any uptodate statistics/info/web sources that they would be willing to
share?
What does everyone think nowadays? Buy or beware?
thanks very much everyone in advance
Chris

 

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

OK everyone!
I haven't looked into UFFI in more than 20 years now.....friends of ours are
looking at a house that used UFFI as the insulation in 1978........anyone
have any uptodate statistics/info/web sources that they would be willing to
share?
What does everyone think nowadays? Buy or beware?
thanks very much everyone in advance
Chris

Brick house? Nice and dry?

 

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

OK everyone!
I haven't looked into UFFI in more than 20 years now.....friends of ours are
looking at a house that used UFFI as the insulation in 1978........anyone
have any uptodate statistics/info/web sources that they would be willing to
share?
What does everyone think nowadays? Buy or beware?
thanks very much everyone in advance
Chris

Brick house? Nice and dry?
Go for it.
Frame house and or damp? Stay away.
UFFI was approoved for dry brick buildings, and installed in anything.
Problems in the questionable installs gave it a bad name.

Another situation where our government got involved without checking
its facts properly.

 

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

Since this product was banned around 1980 the off gassing in now over. The
stuff also breaks down so there could just be a pile of dust at the bottom
of the wall cavities. At the very least it will have a diminished insulation
value. A good inspection is in order.

Properly installed i n dry cavities it did not outgass excessively or
break down. It should never have been installed in frame buildings -
was great in brick.

 

[james w lazenby]

Brick house? Nice and dry?
Go for it.
Frame house and or damp? Stay away.
UFFI was approoved for dry brick buildings, and installed in anything.
Problems in the questionable installs gave it a bad name.

Another situation where our government got involved without checking
its facts properly.

I thought your earlier post "Brick house? Nice and dry?"
was going to point out an oxymoron. (Relative to the cavity
behind the outer brick wythe.)

The operative words are likely "Nice and dry," regardless of
the exterior finish, unless you are quoting a truism in
favor of "dry" and against "damp."

You certainly are correct, per the government's
all-too-recent "recall" of its long standing ban on UFFI.
(Without so much as an "oops.") The stuff does turn to
dust. But it requires external force or vibration to cause
disintergration. Reasonably well applied (rather rare with
the all-too-common gypsy installers), the stuff held
together until you disturbed its environment.

Jim
Jim

 

[bsfdl]

Another situation where our government got involved without checking

its facts properly.

Please explain?

 

[Ray]

Usenet is a big place, with lots of people who don't "play nice
with others".

I didn't know that..
Thanks..
I cancelled the post.
But see no good reason to apologize to you.

 

[Ray]

Your response would be different if you thought you were dealing with
a man?

Because you are.

No it would not.. The "Man" below includes WoMan.
Although the "Journey" was through the Y chromosome..

I've explained that.

Why would I ask if you'd done it adequately?
I still don't know.

Neither. Just that I've had some experience with the stuff, and iff
properly installed in the right kind of structure it is just fine.

And that's enough for you to dis the government of the whole USofA?

By the way, you got issues with those of the "feminine persuasion"?
Many names fit both genders - and mine just happens to be the short
for Clarence. Ya wouldn't hang that name on a woman.

Clarence doesn't make you any dumber...

 

[Ray]

Ray,

please stop posting comments that use profanity and are intended to
insult people. This post is also another example where your posting
makes very little sense. Please try to write comments that are more
comprehendable to the alt.building.construction audience.

Owen,

1. The message AND your replies are cross posted to:
alt.building.construction,alt.energy.homepower,alt.home.repair

So far.. the alt.building.construction audience.
Includes JD#1,2,3, and Matt, some other blowhards.

Which audience are you referring to?
The ones (under pseudonyms) posting nonsense questions?
Or the ones responding in excrutiating opnionated detail?

 

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

Why would I ask if you'd done it adequately?
I still don't know.

You appear to be thicker than a 12 foot plank, so I'll stop banging my
head against the wall.

And that's enough for you to dis the government of the whole USofA?

I was dis ing the Canadian Government who was just as stupid as yours,
for once.

Clarence doesn't make you any dumber...

Or you any smarter.

 

[John T. McCracken]

You appear to be thicker than a 12 foot plank, so I'll stop banging my
head against the wall.

I was dis ing the Canadian Government who was just as stupid as yours,
for once.

If you consider our government so stupid, maybe you would prefer the country
on the southern border of Canada to be, say, Somalia? or maybe Columbia? How
about Uzbekistan? or China, or on and on we could go.

JTMcC.

 

[Ray]

Damn you John..
He, she, it is going to keep on trying..

 

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

In order to live in the house safely they will have to remove all the
exterior sheathing, dig out and remove all the foam, re-insulate and
re-side the house. $10,000 - $30,000 depending on size / difficulty.

Not necessarily so.
After 10 years even the worst install has virtually stopped
outgassing.
This UFFI thing is a red herring.

 

[Steve Spence]

indeed, it's not like its asbestos or anything.