My Rockwool vs Fiberglass video made NAIMA mad скачать в хорошем качестве

My Rockwool vs Fiberglass video made NAIMA mad

I got a letter from the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of NAIMA which is the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association. They represent manufacturers of fiberglass, rock wool and slag wool insulation products. They asked me to correct my Fiberglass versus Mineral wool/Rockwool video. Here you go.. Link to my Patreon page:   / belinda_carr   Chapters 0:00 Introduction 1:04 Face protection required 3:02 Respiratory issues 4:32 Slag wool vs rock wool 6:20 Environmentally friendly claims 7:41 Conclusion First off, I said that respiratory protection like a face mask is required when working with both fiberglass and rockwool, which apparently isn’t true. It is recommended to wear a mask when you’re exposed to a space with more than one fiber per cubic centimeter over an 8 hour time period which rarely ever happens. The few instances where you’d need an N95 respirator are when you’re blowing loose fill insulation in an attic or wall cavities, when you’re dumping or pouring unbonded, bulk or speciality fiber products and during insulation removal, repair or demolition. However, lab tests are one thing, reality is another, right? I ran a poll on my YouTube community page about this issue. 82% of people said that they always cover up when handling fiberglass and 12% have never had any issues. Most people said that they get itchy throats and red bumps on their skin, like I do, if they don’t wear a mask and long sleeves. One person said foil faced hullboard is the worst and itchiest fiberglass product he’s had to deal with. Another person said that pink batts used to feel much worse a few decades ago, it’s much softer now. That’s an interesting point, l wonder if the product has improved thanks to research and testing, but since its appearance has stayed the same, its reputation hasn't changed. Next, I said that inhaling fibers can cause respiratory issues. In 1987 the International Agency for Research on Cancer or IARC identified glass, stone and slag wool as possible carcinogens or cancer-causing products. A cancer warning label had to be placed on all glass wool products. However, in 2001, after extensive research, they determined that glass fibers are not toxic and they do not increase the risk of lung cancer or mesothelioma. Unlike asbestos, which has a crystalline molecular structure, glass fibers are amorphous and dissolvable. Also, fiberglass manufacturers have replaced formaldehyde binders with a starch-based binder. Just like the previous point, fiberglass can’t shake off it’s reputation from 30 years ago. It’s great to know that it isn’t toxic and that it’s biosoluble, but I will still wear a mask to prevent the itchiness in the back of my throat, even if it is temporary. NAIMA’s third issue is that I said slag wool is inferior to rock wool. They think that is a flat and unsubstantiated claim, which is false and misleading because there is no basis for the comparison. Ok, there are a couple of reasons why I said that; first, logical reasoning. Before the recent spike in prices, Thermafiber which contains 80-100% recycled slag and minimal basalt costs $2.6 per batt. Safe and sound which is mainly made of basalt rock, cost $4.6 per batt. During my call with the slag wool manufacturer, they couldn’t give me a reason for that significant price difference, it’s almost 50% cheaper. I’ve also found that slag wool disintegrates more easily than rock wool. The second reason is this research I found online on the high acidity coefficient of slag wool compared to rockwool. The research found that slag wool is aging intolerant, its pH is higher than that of rockwool and its water resistance can only be moderately stable or unstable. They also discuss thermal conductivity performance, sulfur content and corrosion resistance. How can the ingredients be so different, but the end products and performance are the same? https://www.insulationecoin.com/diffe... They say that no insulation product can claim to be “environmentally friendly” because it suggests that the production has no impact on the environment. If we go by this Federal Trade Commision of FTC definition, there is nothing in the world that is green or environmentally friendly. Every single product has an impact on the environment but, we can quantify the impact through embodied carbon or embodied energy. This letter says that all insulation product manufacturers collect and process raw materials and create the end product with a process that requires energy of some sort. This is not exclusive to insulation. Also, if that’s the case, why do you claim that your role is to promote energy efficiency and environmental preservation through the use of glass, rock and slag wool insulation? Isn’t the term environmental preservation just as taboo as environmentally friendly? #rockwool #fiberglass #mineralwool #insulation #construction #architecture #design #airtight