What to do with Old Attic Insulation?

eamon11

hi Folks,


I am in the process of insulating attic but the house is 32 years old an has some fiberglass already in place. It yellow an old at this stage. I dont know when it was put there as I have recently bought the house.
Anyway, my question is should I remove and discard this, or should I just roll my new insulation over it?

Thanks a lot,
Eamon

mp22

Put the new stuff over it.

heinbloed

Mineral wool is usually hazardous waste if it was installed before 2000, as far as I know.
The EU demands special care when handling the stuff. The risk comes from the small fibres which can enter and pass the lung, causing cancer.
You are not allowed to dump it along with household waste, contact a licensed waste handler.

The legislations have changed in 2000, the fibres nowadays being bonded for example with resin or being to big to pass the lung tissue or being so small that the human body can easily excrete them after inhalation.

This 'new quality' mineral wool is dexclared as such. If no information is available on the product/waste it must be handled as if being carcinogenic, hazardous.

In practical terms this involves full protection, mask etc., isolated work place and packing and labelling of the waste as well as a permit to handle, transport and dump it.

Build4less.ie

eamon11 wrote: »

hi Folks,


I am in the process of insulating attic but the house is 32 years old an has some fiberglass already in place. It yellow an old at this stage. I dont know when it was put there as I have recently bought the house.
Anyway, my question is should I remove and discard this, or should I just roll my new insulation over it?

Thanks a lot,
Eamon

Your probably better if you just cover it with the new insulation. Going by what heinbloed said it seems like you could be getting into more expense than it is worth if you take it away.

Google "moy isover insulation" to find suppliers.

Build4less

heinbloed

Brain damage?

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/mp201176a.html

"Immediate communication" means the scientists are worried about their findings.

Al Capwned

Leave it in....
Not doing any harm, and can only help.....

heinbloed

Bright fellow!

brendankelly

If you have any respect, feelings or love for your family you would not gabble with their health that Heinbloed might be wrong.

If you had an open fire would you spend a few Euros on a fire guard or gamble that your child would probably not fall into the fire?????????

seamusfamous

Just cover over it,it will be fine its there 30 odd yrs and i bet no one died because of it

Nonmonotonic

Particulate matter air pollution = Dust.

All fine dust is a irritant but not necessarily a carcinogen.
To my knowledge glass is inert so not a danger. We are going to have to wear face masks on a permanent basis if it was otherwise.

Build4less.ie

Nonmonotonic wrote: »

Particulate matter air pollution = Dust.

All fine dust is a irritant but not necessarily a carcinogen.
To my knowledge glass is inert so not a danger. We are going to have to wear face masks on a permanent basis if it was otherwise.

Exactly well put

heinbloed

Glas fibres are NOT inert in the humane body. Very small glass fibres/mineral wool fibres can be digested/dissolved in the humane body.

Contact google or a medical advisor.
Asbestos is inert on the other hand, causes cancer.

Be carefull, DIYers. Myth and mystery is your shrine (smiley).

eamon11

thanks lads,

fiberglass is approx 10 yrs old neighbour was telling me.

Appreciate the replies.

Eamon

figs

It is easier and perfectly safe to install new insulation over old fibreglass insulation, provided there is enough depth between the joists, and no obvious reason as to why it should be removed. Puncure holes, and compression of the fibres due to age may mean the old insulation may not be as efficient as it once was, but it will still have a better U-value than none at all!

As with handling all insulation and glass fibre materials, appropriate PPE should be used (that means the right type of dust mask - yes, there are special types for fibreglass - safety goggles and long sleeve gloves). make sure all skin areas are covered to avoid irritation, etc...

Glassfibres may have detramental effects to the skin, eyes and respitory system if there is significant exposure, so necessary precautions should be taken. To imply short term exposure to glassfibre poses health risks at a level similar to that of asbestos is scare mongering.

Al Capwned

figs wrote: »

It is easier and perfectly safe to install new insulation over old fibreglass insulation, provided there is enough depth between the joists, and no obvious reason as to why it should be removed. Puncure holes, and compression of the fibres due to age may mean the old insulation may not be as efficient as it once was, but it will still have a better U-value than none at all!

As with handling all insulation and glass fibre materials, appropriate PPE should be used (that means the right type of dust mask - yes, there are special types for fibreglass - safety goggles and long sleeve gloves). make sure all skin areas are covered to avoid irritation, etc...

Glassfibres may have detramental effects to the skin, eyes and respitory system if there is significant exposure, so necessary precautions should be taken. To imply short term exposure to glassfibre poses health risks at a level similar to that of asbestos is scare mongering.

Finally - the voice of reason. I absolutely agree 100% with everything in this post.
The whole comparison with asbestos is maddening.

Nonmonotonic

heinbloed wrote: »

Glas fibres are NOT inert in the humane body. Very small glass fibres/mineral wool fibres can be digested/dissolved in the humane body.

Contact google or a medical advisor.
Asbestos is inert on the other hand, causes cancer.

Be carefull, DIYers. Myth and mystery is your shrine (smiley).

Be careful, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Glass fibre is inert and not a carcinogen. It is an irritant so appropriate protection should be used when handling it.

Love the Google advice. I dont think they do house calls.

Build4less.ie

alproctor wrote: »

Finally - the voice of reason. I absolutely agree 100% with everything in this post.
The whole comparison with asbestos is maddening.

Yes I totally agree that comparison is just non sense and not even a consideration.

heinbloed

Nonmonotonic wrote:

Be careful, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

and posted this link:

http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/fiberglass.htm

from which I quote:

How can fiberglass affect my health?


........Little information is known about the health effects caused by small fibers. Smaller fibers have the ability to reach the lower part of the lungs increasing the chance of adverse health effects.......

In Illinois they know very little it seems. Adult illiteracy rate of over 20% there?

The WHO considers glassfibre as a carcinogen if the fibres are
a.) longer than 5 micro meters
b.) smaller than 3 micro meters
c.) the ratio between length and width is larger than 1:3

So the stuff is potentially carcinogenic.

And that the small particels are not innert is the only excuse of the glasfibre industry when they sell the stuff as being harmless.
See about the innertness

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7882963
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/6/857.abstract

And here the propaganda page where these things are all confirmed:

http://www.fibrox.com/art02.htm
from
http://www.fibrox.com/home.htm

So it is potentially carcinogen.

Any more questions? Contact your GP. Or an ocupational health and safety inspector.

The university of Leipzig did a lot of research on the topic, that's where I get my infos from.

http://toxi.dl.uni-leipzig.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/PGSToxi_derivate_00000092/046_Creutzenberg_Otto.pdf;jsessionid=groag0mol0nl?hosts=


An interesting issue b.t.w..

One could check as well the WHO documents. A job for Build4less.ie ?

Build4less.ie

heinbloed wrote: »

Nonmonotonic wrote:



and posted this link:

http://www.idph.state.il.us/envhealth/factsheets/fiberglass.htm

from which I quote:




In Illinois they know very little it seems. Adult illiteracy rate of over 20% there?

The WHO considers glassfibre as a carcinogen if the fibres are
a.) longer than 5 micro meters
b.) smaller than 3 micro meters
c.) the ratio between length and width is larger than 1:3

So the stuff is potentially carcinogenic.

And that the small particels are not innert is the only excuse of the glasfibre industry when they sell the stuff as being harmless.
See about the innertness

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7882963
http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/6/857.abstract

And here the propaganda page where these things are all confirmed:

http://www.fibrox.com/art02.htm
from
http://www.fibrox.com/home.htm

So it is potentially carcinogen.

Any more questions? Contact your GP. Or an ocupational health and safety inspector.

The university of Leipzig did a lot of research on the topic, that's where I get my infos from.

http://toxi.dl.uni-leipzig.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/PGSToxi_derivate_00000092/046_Creutzenberg_Otto.pdf;jsessionid=groag0mol0nl?hosts=


An interesting issue b.t.w..

One could check as well the WHO documents. A job for Build4less.ie ?

Heinbloed I read those articles you posted and it says nothing that we did not already know. We know that fibreglass causes skin irritation that is why it makes you itchy. We know that fibreglass causes irritation to the throat that is why we wear face masks when using it. We know that it can make your eyes red due to irritation also. These are all things that have been know for years its not new.

The article also states that there is no evidence of any long term side effects from fibreglass other than slight irritation. It mentions about effects to rats when the fibres are injected into the lungs but I dont think anyone is injecting fibreglass just yet. You are singing an age old tune that holds no water other than your own.

We all know precautions need to be taken when using this product ie face mask, gloves etc to avoid irritation. Thats common sense so stop scaremongering please.

staker

In answer to OP, rarely ahve I seen old attic insulation removed except for when the slab,lats/plaster is pulled down for replacement too.
I'm in and out of residential attics constantly for the last 18 years and the more common practice is to lay the new insulation perpendicular to the existing runs.
I've always tried to used some facial protection along with gloves (I'm guilty of not too btw),but my biggest worry in older attics is rat/bird droppings.
Steer a wide berth is my policy but I'd remove them before laying the new stuff and introduce some preventative.

heinbloed

The propaganda page from the mineral fibre industry seems to be your only source of knowledge concerning the glass fibre problem, Build4less.ie.

Do us a favour and publish the WHO documents.

There is a difference between an advertising and scientific work.

That the lungs of rats have to be injected with the test substance is common standard, they wouldn't take up a controlled dose otherwise.

Scaremongering is the way some people use mineral fibres, spread their ignorance about the health and safety issue. Esp. when it is the old, now illegal building material - which is the topic of this thread after all.

Leaving a health risk material which is banned since the year 2000 in a building designed for human ocupation certainly reduces the market value of the structure.
And the advice to a DIYer to leave the risk material where it is and just wear a mask when putting new material over the existing health hazard is indeed scaring.

A 3 micro meter filter mask - when have you used something like that?

3 micro meter is very small, this dust once airborne up will stay in the air for ages. It is virtually invisible. Protecting a person against an invisible, not sensorically detectable enemy is a lost battle.

So please: the WHO documents.


The claim " there is no evidence that our product causes cancer" can be smoked. The tobacco industry used it for nearly a century. And delivered plenty of 'evidence' that it is as they like it.

Build4less.ie

heinbloed wrote: »

The propaganda page from the mineral fibre industry seems to be your only source of knowledge concerning the glass fibre problem, Build4less.ie.

Do us a favour and publish the WHO documents.

There is a difference between an advertising and scientific work.

That the lungs of rats have to be injected with the test substance is common standard, they wouldn't take up a controlled dose otherwise.

Scaremongering is the way some people use mineral fibres, spread their ignorance about the health and safety issue. Esp. when it is the old, now illegal building material - which is the topic of this thread after all.

Leaving a health risk material which is banned since the year 2000 in a building designed for human ocupation certainly reduces the market value of the structure.
And the advice to a DIYer to leave the risk material where it is and just wear a mask when putting new material over the existing health hazard is indeed scaring.

A 3 micro meter filter mask - when have you used something like that?

3 micro meter is very small, this dust once airborne up will stay in the air for ages. It is virtually invisible. Protecting a person against an invisible, not sensorically detectable enemy is a lost battle.

So please: the WHO documents.


The claim " there is no evidence that our product causes cancer" can be smoked. The tobacco industry used it for nearly a century. And delivered plenty of 'evidence' that it is as they like it.

You keep dragging this thread down into what you want to talk about not what the op wants to talk about. Your better off starting a new thread on your issues and discuss it there. Maybe you are also better off discussing more troubling issues like the radiation cloud floating over Ireland from Japan maybe we should all be wearing masks all day and night to avoid the contamination from that.

I would although have some concerns if I was exposed to this stuff all day everyday if it was my job on a daily basis to install fibreglass because then you are exposed to large dosages of it for a prolonged period of time but being in contact with it on a one off in your own attic will not do you any harm at all apart from itchy skin from the glass, a sore throat and sore eyes maybe but no long term effects.

Al Capwned

Jesus lads give it a rest - cant you agree to disagree????

I agree with Build4less, btw...

paddy147

Another thread goes downhill.

lads give it a rest now.

michael999999

Give it a coat of P.V.A.

DoneDL

If the old insulation is in reasonable condition then lay new insulation over it and crosslay the other insulation on top, sending it to the tip makes no sense at all.

eamon11

thanks lads,

funny the way this simple question has turned into something more than I bargained for.
Your advice Staker I find most practical and will be doing as u an most others say.

Thanks again,

Eamon

staker

Let us know how it goes!

Build4less.ie

Finally the job gets done. Haha. Nothin like a good auwl chin wag on boards.

heinbloed

Since none of the interested parties has botherred to dig out some official statement - here we go:

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/74732/E71922.pdf


Glasfibres/mineralfibres are dealt with from page 206 onwards.
The WHO guideline says clearly (page207):

Guidelines
IARC classified rock wool, slag wool, glass wool and ceramic fibres in
Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) while glass filaments were not
considered classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3) (15).
Recent data from inhalation studies in animals strengthen the evidence for the
possible carcinogenicity of refractory ceramic fibres in humans.

paddy147

I think that post number 2 was the most simple and straight forward to this thread,the rest is just bitch after bitch after bitch.