> I've now compared the two ways to clean the air and
> can not see anything earth friendly about the products
> in the catalog. This may not be an eco-sham but it
> is close. On the other hand the idea of growing fresh
> air is inexpensive, non-polluting, and sustainable.
>
>Hmmm...I have the oppisite reaction that you do. I should say that I'm not
>familar with this catalog/products or the book so I am using more general
>examples.
The catalog is now discarded, but i think it was called
Harmony and carried a lot of Seventh Generation products.
There are two questions we can explore here. The first one
is my statement that Electronic Air cleaners are not
ecological. I still don't see anything ecological about
them. They require energy to operate and energy to
manufacture. They don't fit into nature and eventually
become garbage that doesn't cycle.
The second issue is whether they are more effective at
cleaning than plants. Plants don't remove pollens, molds,
and other particles from the air so i have to agree they are
limited. On the other hand the electronic air cleaners do
not remove chemicals very well. The charcoal filters work
for awhile but have to be replaced often and still let some
things get through.
The issue then becomes one of objectives. It depends upon
what needs removing. The formaldehyde in most building
materials seems like a natural for plants. I suspect that
was one problem we had, and the plants did eliminate my
spouses complaints. She is a lot more sensitive to these
things than i am.
What bugs me about catalogs is that they do not give
information to make an informed decision. This is what we
expect from a catalog and i can accept this. But, when a
catalog comes with the claim it is earth friendly, then i
have to wonder how they define earth friendly. Plants are
earth friendly, but electronic air cleaners..?
>As a person with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) I could not live
>without my air filter. I don't know how I got along before it. In fact, I
>will purchase one for my car as soon as I can afford it. I'd put one in
>every room of the house if I could. I also use a respirator mask (massive
>ugly filters but no power used in operation).
>
>I have long seen a division between people reducing use of
>chemicals/power/etc for environmental reasons and for health reasons. I
>try hard to do both.
I can see that someone suffering from Toxins would want an immediate
solution and those with environmental concerns would want to take
a longer term view and try to attack the source of the toxins. That
doesn't seem like a significant division to me.
>most people, no matter how environmentally aware, simply do not
>understand what toxins do to the body, how easy it is to come into contact
>with them, or how hard it is to get rid of them.
That is not the case here, i have contact with many people
who are very sensitive to toxins. We could switch viewpoints
and say that few people are aware of ways to effectively remove
toxins from the air using plants, even among those who are sensitive.
So, rather than create a division between those environmentally
aware and those suffering from toxins, it seems we should be
exploring plants and adding to the knowledge base. I would
not want to create a future where everyone went from filtered
buildings in filtered cars and we depended on filters for
survival.
>Plants are wonderful and they do reduce chemical load. I have tons of them
>in my home. But, trust me, they are not quick or particularly effective
>for people who must have a chemical-free environment.
I'm not convinced plants are not effective. There are charts
showing how different plants perform and discussions about
factors that impact their effectiveness. It is the soil that
does much of the filtering and how we pot a plant is
important. This was not known a few years ago. Another
issue is matching plants to local pollutants. If we look at
a urban area with high air pollution then that might require
a different strategy than a rural energy efficient house.
>Even so, my house is filled with toxins. Some are things I have, some
>older furnature made with pressboard, I have gas heat and a gas stove, some
>plastic, and some cloth items in the house contain polyester or nylon.
>These generally don't cause me problems but then you add...the air. My
>outside air has city problems (pollution) and I have neighbors. Neighbors
>do laundry. My worst problem is people on my block doing laundry. They
>use dryer sheets. These are one of the most toxic consumer products out
>there. I don't get to go outside very often but when I do, a good part of
>the time I can't because I can't breathe the air. I've tried...10 minutes
>is enough to make me sick the rest of the day.
Sigh, this seems to be an increasing problem. Statistics are
difficult to understand and have questionable accuracy, but
my poll of acquaintances says this chemical and pollution
sensitivity is wide spread and serious.
I have a friend who lives next to a Christmas tree farm and
got accidentally sprayed. That was a few years ago and today
she is sensitive to just about everything. It looks like her
immune system got hit along with some other stuff. Many of
her neighbors have the same problem. How do you go about
proving this and stopping this insane trust of chemicals.
>Air filters also remove dust, dust mites, mold spores, pollen, pet hair,
>and other allergens from the air. Plants can't do that. In fact,
>houseplants, even the best cared-for ones, add mold to the air. Regular
>cleaning makes most of those problems worse in the short-term. If you have
>asthma or allergies that react to particulate matter, there is no
>substitute for a filter.
Yes i have to agree with that.
>Good design solves a lot of the problem. Passive solar heating/cooling and
>etc. But then I read about people, even here, causually talking about
>using plywood (plywood is kept together by formaldehyde-based glues),
>sealants, caulk, paint, PVC, etc. With no talk of searching out the
>eco-versions of these products (you aren't going to find them in 99% of the
>places you look).
This problem is much bigger than houses. Our food supply and the
water are also sources of pollutants. The air is very bad in some
areas and even the soil can be contaminated. At some point it becomes
almost impossible to protect ourselves from all this. I'm not saying
we should not try, just that there is a long term perspective which
is different from short term survival.
>I can totally understand defining an ecological approach by power usage.
>It makes sense on a lot of levels. But it's not my mindset. My first look
>at any product or situation to evaluate for eco-fitness is to assess the
>toxic damage.
If we look behind almost all toxic situations what we
find is an energy problem. In many cases the immediate
environment is made toxic by energy use (automobile,
oil heat, heavy manufacturing, etc.) If we removed
oil refineries and their byproducts that would
create a sharp reduction in pollutants. If we changed
manufacturing to be more energy efficient that would
also make a big difference. We can track oil, coal, and
nuclear power from its source and it is a dirty trail all
the way to our kitchen shelves and the switch on the wall.
Almost every product in our house has a toxic quotient
which is related to energy.
>So anyway...these are all issues I've been meaning to talk about for a long
>time. They've been building up...so please don't take my diatribe
>personally :-).
It is fun talking about these things. If issues are important then
we often have strong feelings and that is a good reason to kick
them around and share ideas.
----------
Jeff Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Zone 6-7
Underground house, solar energy, reduced consumption, no TV
