Frank wrote:
>But there is a lot of conflict in trying to deal with real world solutions!
Frank, if you look closely most of my posts are about what we are doing
and the philosophy involved. We are not planning to do these things.
This is real world daily life. This doesn't mean my views are valid
only that they are heavily biased towards experience.
>In many of today's more tightly wrapped, highly insulated homes you need to
>provide for better air circulation and whole house air changes. In fact it is
>recommended that there be a minimum of .035 air changes per hour( ASHRAE
>standard)
Well, i hope you don't accept this nonsense. In some places the outside
air is worse than the air inside. Part of the reason for using plants is
to avoid this constant air change. This isn't fantasy it has been
studied and works. It may not work well enough for someone highly
sensitive to toxins, but it could sure help most of the houses i've
been in.
>Concerns over indoor pollutants are well noted...and I believe should also be
>planned for. I'd like to have a healthy home as well as natural, energy
>efficiemnt home.
>Unfortunately due to cost , availability etc. you can't have it all.
I have no idea what you are saying here. I live in a efficient
house with plants and it works well. We discarded our air filters
long ago and have no problems with keeping the air fresh.
The use of plants in a super-insulated house is the least
expensive option according to my calculations. What possible
option could be less expensive? Does someone in the house
have a medical problem that can only be addressed by air
filters?
>In the old days buildings were so leaky you didn't have to worry about air
>changes. he he.
True, in the old days they just stuck in a ventilation system and
some filters. This was all powered from some polluting utility and
if all the heat was pumped out of the house they just added a
bigger furnace. Unfortunately, those old days are still with us.
The big issue is: How are we going to move towards more sustainable
thinking and acting?
>I plan to have plenty of indoor plants anyway...and will try and select some
>of the species you are talking about.
Good, a quote from the book "How to grow fresh air"
Research data and real-world applications that prove the
effectiveness of plants in improving indoor air quality are
slowly changing how most people view their favorite
houseplants. House plants are no longer luxuries but
essential to health.
I think it is important to at least look at the research before
discarding plants as a solution. Plants don't have a marketing
organization promoting them the way air filters do. Catalogs
find air filters much easier to stock in a warehouse and the
profit is much higher. If anyone is going to promote plants
it will probably have to be us.
The argument that air filters remove particles from the air
and plants do not has little meaning for most of us. We can
reduce the molds, fungi by reducing the dust and humidity.
The pollen can be kept below most people sensitivity levels by
mechanical means.
Hummm, i'm probably defending this topic a little too strongly.
Does anyone else see this as a key issue? There is another
way to view it that might make my thinking easier to understand.
Try this line of reasoning:
Our children have an air quality problem and begin looking
for solutions. They want to make responsible choices, and
try to buy from earth friendly catalogs and stores. They
pick up a catalog and see air filters. This is the only
option in the catalog and assume this is an earth friendly
solution.
Air filters are added to the definition of "earth friendly"
and their path goes forward. Unfortunately, they are going
backwards and do not realize it.
----------
Jeff Owens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Zone 7
Underground house, solar energy, reduced consumption, no TV
