>Huh?? Jeff, are these real questions or are you just trying to boost list
>traffic? Either that or I'm massively misreading what you mean. I know
>the book in question and I really fail to see the problem with advocating
>natural materials...something you do every time you post.
Yes, using natural materials is a great idea, my concern was elsewhere.
>Us "fragile people" do indeed only survive in nontoxic environments. The
>safe spaces we create don't make us more "fragile," they keep us alive.
>I'm sick of seeing people I care about die of chemical poisoning, cancer,
>and other diseases of our modern world.
Sure, we need to make houses safer and healthier for everyone not just
those chemically sensitive. My nit picking was just trying to point
out a bias in the book.
>Nontoxic products are not necessarily more expensive than the toxic ones.
>It depends on your resources. If you make a house out of straw bales,
>rammed earth, local wood, or a variety of other things, you can do it
>cheaply and sustainabily. The commercial nontoxic products are indeed more
>expensive (most, but not all, of the time) but that has to do with the
>scale of distribution and production. Also with the cost of raw
>materials...one of the reasons products are so toxic is because companies
>would rather save a few pennies than worry about the health of their
>customers. Unfortunately, sometimes using toxic products (or excluding the
>less expensive nontoxics) has to do with building codes (some reasonable,
>some not).
Yes, that is the way it is.
> My bias is that this book puts too much emphasis on the perfect
> environment for people and needs a slight shift towards
> earth friendly.
>
>Your statement also sets up a false dicotomy. Human health and
>enviromental health go hand in hand; we don't have to choose. If you
>aren't already ill or disabled, the things you do to maintain good health
>are basically the same things you do to live sustainabily and promote
>ecological health...that is, if you look at things the right way and not
>blinded by modern society's definition of health.
The words "slight shift" does not create a dicotomy in my
mind. It is true that the environment and health can fit
nicely. The issue here is "how" to do it. Remember, they
are addressing this book to everyone, not just those
sensitive. That opens up the question. What would happen if
everyone followed their advice? Would it help the
environment and lead towards a sustainable future? Is a
healthy and sustainable future less important that the
health of current generations?
> If we always put the health of people first
> we will eventually destroy ourself by short sighted thinking.
>
>What a strange argument. I don't put health of people first but it as
>important as anything else. And in most cases coincides with health of
>animals, plants, and the earth.
Hummm, yes i think my statement needs a little revision. The
intent was to equate "people first" to keeping current
generations healthy as opposed to what is good for their long
term survival. I think we might agree, if even half of
todays population followed the advice in this book it would
be a disaster for the environment. We just don't have the
resources to provide these houses to that many people. The
techniques in the book are for an industrialized and wealthy
society. This is a natural bias and not a big deal. Also,
my suggestion that the book could incorporate a few more
earth friendly ideas is not a strong criticism.
Not everyone needs the ventilation systems they suggest and not
everyone needs all the humidity control measures. The use of plants
to clean the air got one line and was never mentioned again. So...
isn't a slight shift in emphasis possible?
>Cyndi...who lives in a pretty nontoxic house that would cost a lot to
>replace but isn't any more expensive than any other house once
>standing...it was just built in 1940 when plaster walls, metal pipes
>(leadfree), and hardwood floors were the default, wood wasn't
>pressure-treated with arsenic or glued with formalehyde, and hard outdoor
>surfaces were made with cement, not asphault. I really fail to see why you
>object to this.
I don't remember mentioning Cyndi in my critique of the book
<grin>. But, as long as we are on the topic... I think
everyone in our society (especially those with cars and
computers) are wasteful. I may be the worst. At times i
marvel at how many resources we have available and at other
times i feel sad to see everyone taking them for granted. An
ecologist once said "oil is one of the most precious things
in this world". At the same time i see our misuse of oil as
a awful problem. This isn't suggesting that we should feel
guilty or angry, just that we should see ourselves clearly.
Most of us did not choose this culture or understand ecology
until recently. Most of society still does not see a serious
problem.
This brings up the question, What is the best attitude we can
develop regarding our life and the environment? For me the
answer is to enjoy life, resist some of societies more
objectionable activities, be a positive model for change,
and constantly explore ideas (education). So... i guess
your original statement is correct. I'm trying to boost
list traffic by picking on topics that are sensitive and
sometimes controversial, thanks for the comments <grin>.
jeff
