Comments on: California Mistakes Put Spray Foam Insulation on the “Bad List”

By: Richard Beyer

Richard Beyer — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 21:09:00 +0000

Allison,

Allison,

Nice writings as always. I'm not telling you something you do not already know here, but unless professionals practice law they will never absorb the spin on words this chemical industry uses to distract from the truth to avoid liability. Your writings illustrate some of it here. The question is how many picked up on it? It's law, confusion and deception at it's best. Lloyd Alter and Ken Levenson know this already.

Yes California made errors and yes they should have spent a tad bit more time spell checking what they wrote. It does not dismiss the fact there are many people affected by these chemicals today and this is not limited to just workers of the spray foam industry.

Now the common sense approach.. How many young men can keep up their stamina just like a CNC machine? These young men are the machine, the eye's and ears of the finished product. Now how do you produce a human machine with less than a week of training? Chemical companies which use computerized machines in a laboratory environment make mistakes too and we are suppose to believe what happens in a lab is the same as whats produced in the field? I don't think so. Now who paid for the studies the chemical giants are providing as their grounds for dismissal of common chemical issues?
How many professionals have examined the air quality on their own after installation to determine fact from fiction?

Why don't we look at the chemicals which make up MDI like Benzene, formaldehyde, aniline and the many other toxic compounds that do show up in air quality analysis? Why are those chemicals dismissed?

Let's see the proven facts rather than keeping them under lock and key as an industry trade secret.

Was not long ago when cigarettes, formaldehyde and asbestos was good for us too!

By: Richard Beyer

Richard Beyer — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:09:00 +0000
Allison,    Nice writings as always. I'm not telling you something you do not already know here, but unless professionals practice law they will never absorb the spin on words this chemical industry uses to distract from the truth to avoid liability. Your writings illustrate some of it here. The question is how many picked up on it? It's law, confusion and deception at it's best. Lloyd Alter and Ken Levenson know this already.     Yes California made errors and yes they should have spent a tad bit more time spell checking what they wrote. It does not dismiss the fact there are many people affected by these chemicals today and this is not limited to just workers of the spray foam industry.     Now the common sense approach.. How many young men can keep up their stamina just like a CNC machine? These young men are the machine, the eye's and ears of the finished product. Now how do you produce a human machine with less than a week of training? Chemical companies which use computerized machines in a laboratory environment make mistakes too and we are suppose to believe what happens in a lab is the same as whats produced in the field? I don't think so. Now who paid for the studies the chemical giants are providing as their grounds for dismissal of common chemical issues?  How many professionals have examined the air quality on their own after installation to determine fact from fiction?     Why don't we look at the chemicals which make up MDI like Benzene, formaldehyde, aniline and the many other toxic compounds that do show up in air quality analysis? Why are those chemicals dismissed?     Let's see the proven facts rather than keeping them under lock and key as an industry trade secret.     Was not long ago when cigarettes, formaldehyde and asbestos was good for us too!

By: Andrew Henry

Andrew Henry — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 05:18:26 +0000
In hindsight, as someone who
In hindsight, as someone who insulated a large addition to a small house with spray foam, I would have reconsidered the design of the addition on my house so that I wouldn't have had to use such an expensive insulation option. In renovation situations spray foam has it's place, in large part because the homeowner is backed into that option as even recently built homes weren't insulated as well as we all know they should have been.

In a new construction situation, a good design would mean you wouldn't have to use spray foam. We'd all be better off leaving the management of hazardous substances to a controlled factory situation than a chaotic job site.

By: Lloyd Alter

Lloyd Alter — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 04:52:18 +0000
just spent the weekend in
just spent the weekend in Seattle talking to Ken Levenson and the anti foam people and they make a persuasive case. We should talk about this.

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 04:45:45 +0000

It is telling that all those
It is telling that all those cited as confident of the safety of MDI and polyisocyanates and critical of any regulations are industry affiliated. ACC is about as credible on chemical safety as the American Petroleum Institute is on global warming. They are paid to protect the industry, period.

We’ve had enough bad apples give spray foam a black eye by installing it improperly. Foam is a great tool and there are some situations where it really is the only viable retrofit option. That said, nobody should get sick because they decided to insulate their home. I see the threat of CA regulations as a hammer that will result in action instead of delay. If the end result are regulations to ensure that field-cured foam is installed and applied properly (less risk), or manufacturers put the screws to bad apple contractors, or move towards formulations that are less hazardous to begin with (and thus less risky) we all win.

Targeting MDI and polyisocyanates is nothing new. EPA has had a workgroup on this with the industry for years as acute health impacts from truck bed liners, etc. made it clear the potential for harm. Do all installers follow industry best practices and how can we better ensure that? See what is recommended for ventilation and you can get a sense for how things can go very wrong in a home. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/mdi.html 
and
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/spf/ventilation-guidance.html
and NIOSH
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/isocyanates/

By: Andrew Henry

Andrew Henry — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:18:26 +0000
In hindsight, as someone who
In hindsight, as someone who insulated a large addition to a small house with spray foam, I would have reconsidered the design of the addition on my house so that I wouldn't have had to use such an expensive insulation option. In renovation situations spray foam has it's place, in large part because the homeowner is backed into that option as even recently built homes weren't insulated as well as we all know they should have been.    In a new construction situation, a good design would mean you wouldn't have to use spray foam. We'd all be better off leaving the management of hazardous substances to a controlled factory situation than a chaotic job site.

By: Lloyd Alter

Lloyd Alter — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:52:18 +0000
just spent the weekend in
just spent the weekend in Seattle talking to Ken Levenson and the anti foam people and they make a persuasive case. We should talk about this.

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:45:45 +0000

It is telling that all those
It is telling that all those cited as confident of the safety of MDI and polyisocyanates and critical of any regulations are industry affiliated. ACC is about as credible on chemical safety as the American Petroleum Institute is on global warming. They are paid to protect the industry, period.

We’ve had enough bad apples give spray foam a black eye by installing it improperly. Foam is a great tool and there are some situations where it really is the only viable retrofit option. That said, nobody should get sick because they decided to insulate their home. I see the threat of CA regulations as a hammer that will result in action instead of delay. If the end result are regulations to ensure that field-cured foam is installed and applied properly (less risk), or manufacturers put the screws to bad apple contractors, or move towards formulations that are less hazardous to begin with (and thus less risky) we all win.

Targeting MDI and polyisocyanates is nothing new. EPA has had a workgroup on this with the industry for years as acute health impacts from truck bed liners, etc. made it clear the potential for harm. Do all installers follow industry best practices and how can we better ensure that? See what is recommended for ventilation and you can get a sense for how things can go very wrong in a home. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/mdi.html 
and
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/spf/ventilation-guidance.html
and NIOSH
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/isocyanates/

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:08:06 +0000
Thanks for a well written
Thanks for a well written summary, Allison. We still occasionally hear from the "bad science" article regarding PUR foam insulation and GWP that Alex Wilson generated 5 years ago, and you did a nice re-buttal of that. It helps to have your well-reasoned and sourced articles to refer back to. Quite frankly 19 out of 20 customers we have do not focus on issues like these, but a few do, and it helps to have some other impartial but informed content to point them to.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 31 Mar 2015 17:08:06 +0000
Thanks for a well written
Thanks for a well written summary, Allison. We still occasionally hear from the "bad science" article regarding PUR foam insulation and GWP that Alex Wilson generated 5 years ago, and you did a nice re-buttal of that. It helps to have your well-reasoned and sourced articles to refer back to. Quite frankly 19 out of 20 customers we have do not focus on issues like these, but a few do, and it helps to have some other impartial but informed content to point them to.