Wow! Obviously a touchy subject. I assume that it means that it is
fertile ground for an interesting exchange of ideas and growth - not just a
bunch of "compost." Jeff has already "jumped to my defense" on a few
issues, but I'll add some more.
First, I'd like to review what I was trying to say. Then I'll respond to
previous posts. Then I'll get into how to build a safe cabin. Please
excuse any editing. I did it for brevity, and it still ended up long. If
you find misleading ommissions, please bring them up.
Eric:
>Here is a great chance to apply eco-ethics. "Dawn" (?), above, hints at
>the ethical issue here, as I see it. There are ways around the ethical
>question, ways of changing the parameters of the situation like: find an
>appropriate, "earth-friendly" substitute for Styrofoam or find a cure for
>MCS. But, I'd like to stay with the ethical issue at first.
>I see the ethical question as:
>To what degree is it okay to harm the environment for our personal comfort?
>I see this as really going to the heart of the problems were are facing.
>And it is a good example because we are dealing with a pretty nasty
>material and a person's health (not a solar powered milk frother).
What I was trying to say here is that it is a good problem to work with in
order to sharpen our abilities to in corporate our ethics into our actions.
It is a good problem precisely because it is not an easy question (while
vs. individual). Many of the responses were avoiding the central issue I
brought up here. I wanted to look at the ethics! State an ethical
principle and show how your ideas follow through with it. I know it is
easy to slip into a discussion of "so what should I do?" or personal
choices, but I was trying to focus on the underlying ethical issues, to
help us clarify our own ethics and apply them consistently. I don't feel
we have had much discussion on this yet.
Now, I'll respond to one person at a time and hope it all ties together.
Dawnskye [Is your name Dawn? I'd like to know to whom I'm writing] wrote:
>Stuart is suffering from MCS which affects an estimated 15% of the
>population. I do not believe 15% is that small a percentage of the
>population, and unfortunately more and more people are becoming
>sensitized to chemicals every day and developing MCS.
I have not heard that it is so prevalent. I assume you know A LOT more
about it than I, so I will tend to take your word for it. 15% is one in
over seven people. I know hundreds of people and, to my knowledge, none of
them has MCS. So, from my own experience, I thought the number would be
more like 1%.
>Stuart is suffering from MCS.
>As Stuart stated
>his house is too toxic for him to live in anymore and this "cabin" is to
>be built next to his house so he has someplace to live. That means 365
>days a year.
He never said these things. At least not on this list. Recently, he made
it sound like it was for someone else and only for the summer.
>I also have MCS so I have personal experience in what Stuart is going
>through. I have been spending the last two years exploring methods of
>building a safe house with non-toxic materials.
>We suffer immensely.
I'm trying to empathize here, but the topic is still remote to me. It must
be very difficult. But, it seems like you are reading a lot into Stuart's
situation based on your own, unless you know more about him from another
(MCS?) list.
>Let's talk about the eco-ethics of computers.
>To what degree is it okay to harm the environment for the personal
>convenience of owning a computer? Could we not communicate via pen and
>paper just as well?
Jeff had a good response to this. I will only add that in my vision of a
sustainable future there will be no computers. I'm not saying we need to
be perfect now; I'm saying let's try to find ways of moving in the right
direction (good ethics, better material choices, etc.). I am not "Mr.
Eco", far from it (I have been known to use both styrofoam and computers!)
. I am just a guy who wants to help people see where we are, what we're
doing, what we'd like to be doing, and how to get there. For now, the
computer seems to help this purpose a lot more than styrofoam does.
Currently I am struggling with the issue of personal action versus group
change, the difference I make as an individual consumer and explorer and as
an example versus the difference I can make in the way humans interact with
the planet. I feel there may be times when my personal eco-choices may be
an obsticle to helping humans make a change I feel is necessary. I'm
trying to decide what I can do that will have the biggest cumulative effect
toward that change.
>People with MCS live an ecologically low-impact life because we can not
>tolerate modern society's pollution. Our bodies have been damaged by
>chemicals beyond any repair at this time.
This is a good result for an unfortunate reason. I hope other's do not
have to wait until they are so severely effected before they want to help
ride the planet of synthetic chemicals and other nasties. But I don't get
why you are willing to support the use of styrofoam, when it is just these
kinds of materials that make people (and other things) sick.
Jeff wrote:
> 2. Avoid perfection and guilt. There are thousands of small
> battles and we can win the war without winning every
> battle.
>
> 3. It is OK to compromise our actions, but not our objectives
> and model of sustainability. In other words, we can choose
> to use Blueboard in construction, but we need to acknowledge
> it isn't an optimum choice for the ecology.
Yes. We need to be MOVING in the right direction. Each step helps, and
may lead us to a day when humans live in a sustainable, harmonious
relationship with the planet. Some steps are bigger than others, but the
little ones add up too. My point is to spend some energy on "what
direction". I think solid ethics help a lot, as is the ability to compare
action with ethics.
Cyndi wrote:
>I talked here about how someone with MCS may focus more on the toxicity of
their >personal space and less so on the wider ramifications and people
>who are very environmentally aware, seeing the big picture, will often not
>focus on issues of toxicity. We're seeing this division right here right
now.
>(snip) The argument was, which do you choose is the choice is local and
produced
>with pesticided (but local) feed and hormones vs thousands of miles away,
>a large corporate producer using no hormones and only organic feed?
>All the healthy people chose the local producer. As a person with MCS,
>I chose the only one that would not make me sick.
>I have to make choices like this all the time. And I choose my health.
>Argue with me all you want but I know from personal experience that I am a
>useless shell of a person when I'm toxed out. Not to mention miserable.
>Not to mention a drain on society and resources in other ways. I try to
>make sure my choices will minimize the ecological impact if I can, but it's
>not number one and it can't be.
Underlying these comments is the, possibly correct, assumption that
currently uneffected people would make the same choices, as people with
MCS, if they were similarly effected. If so, then there may be no ethical
conflict here. All may be working on the principle that individual
survival and freedom from pain and suffering has priority over other
factors, and that the health of the earth should be considered when
possible. Is this how you feel, Cyndi?
>As a person striving for both sides (I refuse, as best I can, to use
>products dangerous to the enviroment, even if I can tolerate them, and I
>keep in mind personal toxicity issues when considering the ecology of my
>choices) I find it very difficult.
>My allegence is to the MCS side though. I know much more about it (I'm
>here mostly to correct that imbalance of knowledge) and I have more at
>stake with it too. I feel terrible when I drive or buy something wrapped
>in plastic I have to throw away, etc. But I know that some of that is
>necessary in the society I choose to live in. I work to make sure my
>choices minimize the impact on the earth. But even if I were to stop all
>my polluting habits, it would not even make a dent in the problem. I don't
>think we shouldn't try, but my point is that my eco-choices are part of a
>larger system without a lot of direct effects.
>On the other hand, if I comprimize on my MCS choices, well, that's about as
>direct as I can get.
You are obviously struggling with this balance, and seem to be doing a good
job of it. That is to be congratulated. You also seem to be valuing the
environment to a high degree despite some personal difficulty.
>The question that kept running through my head when Eric was coming down on
>Dawnskye for suggesting styrofoam was "must people with MCS or other health
>problems be held to higher standards than other "eco" people?"
Why would they need to be held to higher standards? I wasn't suggesting
that "eco" people could use styrofoam, or any other "non-eco" material,
product or method when people with MCS could not. I thought the
participants of this list were interested in moving along their ecopath
(becoming more sustainable). I am passing no judgements on any
individual's choices. Again, I am trying to help people focus on ethics
and consistency. I still make non-eco choices every day, so I am in no
position to judge others.
>Does styrofoam work for the job as stated? What works better? What works
>just as well? What works less well but still within acceptable limits? Of
>all the things that work, what are the ecological impacts and what is the
>toxic load after and during installation? Those are the kinds of questions
>that interest me.
Yes, they are good questions, and we should explore them. But it avoids
the ethical question I originally brought up.
Stuart wrote:
>Comfort! Comfort !@#$%...We are talking pain and suffering here
>not discomfort! I know you mean well but...
As I said I regret my remote feelings to the problem. But, my point
stands; I'll just reword it to be more sensitive. To what degree is it
okay to harm the environment to prevent our personal suffering?
>Well, since I'm the guy who asked about the safe room and also
>said , "the greatest good for the greatest number", ... I find myself
>in a quandry! I probably would take the easy way out, and since
>there is probably no substitute for the styrofoam, I would use it and
>vote to have it taken off the market. Sounds terrible doesn't it?
>From a practical, what-do-we-do-today stand point it may be a good choice.
>From a big picture, where-are-we-headed pint of view I say where are the
ethics? This is not the same as choosing Styrofoam as the least of evils.
Perhaps if, as Dawn brought up, the balance of actions is strongly in the
favor of the earth, the use of Styrofoam can be overlooked and the result
will be better than most small buildings. But we still need to solve the
question of how else can we build, what are the alternatives.
Kathryn wrote:
>Most of us could, if we wished, and on this side of the
>atlantic, live in houses where there was very little
>chemical pollution - lead, sulphur, chlorine about the strength
>of it and we knew what those were in and what the dangers were. But we
>don't live in that simple world, and however much we try to pretend in the
>building of our ecopaths, it won't come again unless global catastrophy
>triggers it. You can't get back into Eden once you eat the apple.
We could do much better than we are, and we need to keep moving in that
direction. No one is pretending to "build an ecopath". Each individual
will move on their path. It becomes an ecopath when the individual decides
to try to live more sustainably. As Jeff often points out, we may not see
a day when we can sit back and say we are done. We just need to keep
taking steps in the right direction. Sometimes I, too, am pessimistic that
humans won't voluntarily move toward sustainability; all I can do is try my
best and help others do the same. Just because others will not try to be
more sustainable does not make it okay for me not to try. I don't like the
ethic of "other people are bad, so it's okay for me to be bad too."
>So we have to look at the pros and cons of computers and styro foam. And if
>styrofoam keeps some people alive and maybe hastens the death of others
>than its up to the individuals involved to decide whether they use it, and
>how, and how much, and to lobby for better alternatives. it sure ain't up
>to us to pass judgement. Part of being human is fighting to stay alive. And
>if we think that computers are part of the way we want society to go then
>we use them but try to use those that leave the smallest footprint on the
>earth. . . (snip) . . . But . . .(snip) . . . we are the good guys here
folks - we
>are all doing it differently but we are all doing the best we can.
So, from what I see here, I take it your ethical principle is that
individual survival has priority over all other factors and that the size
of ones ecological footprint should also be considered when possible. If
that is true, then you may find it relatively easy to choose to use
styrofoam. I don't like the first part of that ethic, and that is why I
suggested looking for a "better" material.
So, I'd like to bring it back to a discussion about ethics for a moment.
Only Sturt has specifically stated his ethical position, and is finding it
difficult to live up to. I have not even stated my own ethical priniples
clearly, though I have hinted at them. Many others have made statements
that hint at theirs as well. But everyone seems to have trouble discussing
them. This is why I think it is an important topic. When you are unclear
about your own ethics, it is impossible to be consistent. Or another way
of looking at it, when you let ethics evolve under the surface, it is hard
to avoid a very selfish ethic, especially in our culture. Perhaps we are
incapable of being anything else, a sad thought. But, if that is so, then
we can avoid all of the altruistic pretenses and get on with survival. If
we find we are capable of a more altruistic ethic, then we can act with
more purpose and focus.
Now, let's look at the actual problem of building a "safe cabin". I am
still hoping that we will all take up the challenge as a group to define an
ethic (for the person who needs the building) and solve the problem of how
to build it. Any takers?
Stuart wrote:
>Could you tell me where I could get information on building a
>simple "safe" one room cabin or cottage.
>I need to avoid all mold , adhesives, plastics, and
>other chemicals. I would like either to use a large sheet metal
>shed kit and convert it , or build it out of cinder block (concrete
>block).
>My problems are that the sheet metal structure would transmit
>heat too well, and so would need some sort of insulation that would
>allow air to pass through it easily so that mold doesn't build up.
>While the cinder block structure would would have to be sealed on
>both sides with a safe sealant.
>I don't plan on using a foundation if I don't have to.
>The structure would be located next to my house which is too toxic
>for me , so I would not need bath/ toilet or kitchen facilities.
>Has anyone got any other simple ideas??
>It will actually be used by a MCS suffer in Ontario , who has such
>severe reactions to so many things that people like her are referred
>to as "universal reactors". The one room structure would only be
>used in summer, in a damp location in northern Ontario.
Dawn wrote:
>Use Dow Blue Styrofoam under the footings as
>only Blue Styrofoam has the necessary resistance against compression
>under the footings. On top of this pour your concrete foundation. You
>now have a warm, dry floor that will NOT suck the heat out of your house
>in winter nor will it be damp.
Not all of my suggestions will be ecological, but I think it is good to
brain storm at first then weed through the posiblilities. We need to know
a lot more about the site. Stuart, fill us in. But, here are some
preliminary thoughts.
Perhaps you can get away without the (Dow blue foam) insulation under the
footings, maybe just insulate (under the slab with something else?). The
heat loss through the footing may not be enought to worry about, because
now we know it is for summer use only. Perhaps over heating is the only
problem. Perhaps no insulation is required under the slab at all. You
could put a moisture barrier under everything, or as Jeff suggested keep
the ground dry.
What about using the metal shed kit and using shade instead of insulation
to prevent overheating? Perhaps another, larger shed or roof structure a
few inches away will provide enough air movement to help reduce most of the
heat. Radiant heat from the bottom side of the upper roof to the lower
roof could be a problem, but a reflective surface on the top side of the
lower roof or beween roofs would take care of that. The roof could be of
another material that won't ge sot hot. I used a fiber cement shake that
has a lot going for it. Sod roof?
The thermal mass of cement block may or may not be helpful. It depends on
whether the average temperature would be comfortable or not. Here in
Northern Coastal California we have night time fog in the summer which
brings the temperanture down to the 50's at night. During the day it goes
into the 80's and 90's. So for us, thermal mass is great because we can
open windows in the evenings if it is necessary to cool the house down or
open them during the day to warm it up. My impression is that in a hot
humid climate the average temperature would not be comfortable and there
would not be a cooler time to significantly bring the temperature down.
So, what is that part of northiern Ontartio like in the summer? Is "damp"
humid or rainy or both?
Could the structure be mainly a roof for rain protection? Do you need
walls other than for privacy? Do yo need to be closed off from outside
air? If not, what about trellised plants for walls? (Jeff mentioned
plants' ability to help clean the air!)
Do you need a floor? Or is bare earth good enough? Adobe floor? Rammed
earth?
Why not just a shaded roof (or sod?) with trellised walls and a rammed
earth floor?
Enough for now!
Eric:
