PVC Good or Bad?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 112 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 - 04:34 pm:    I keep hearing from Reps. that the next version of LEED will prohibit the use of PVCs (carpet, roofing). Does anyone know? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 280 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, July 11, 2008 - 05:56 pm:    The next version is out so you can check up on it for yourself; however, as a practical matter, banning PVC from all products or a substantial number of product types is probably impractical. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 12 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Saturday, July 12, 2008 - 12:45 pm:    LEED is not in the business of regulating the use of products, and remember that Credits are optional. Credits are typically written in a positive manner to encourage the use of sustainable materials and strategies that are benchmarked against credible standards. The PVC issue has been the subject of MUCH discussion within the USGBC and there is a PVC Task Group focused on trying to reach some consensus as to how to approach the issue in a fair and reasonable manner: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1633 LEED for Healthcare, currently in draft form, which is based on the Green Guide for Healthcare, does have a Credit that directly addresses the PVC issue, "Credit MR 4.1, PBT Source Reduction: Dioxins and Halogenated Compounds." http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3468 Some of us Greenies feel strongly, based on our research on the topic, that avoiding PVC is a good thing. Of course you can't avoid it entirely. But, by bringing this issue to the forefront and pushing the marketplace to develop non-PVC alternatives, there are many more options today that there were even a few years ago. Anonymous   Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 02:07 pm:    The USGBC, in its final TSAC report on this issue, concludes that PVC is no better or worse than alternative materials from a LCA perspective. Even so, there is a small group of anti-PVC zealots that continue to spread misinformation about this, one of the most studied of ALL building materials, in an attempt to get the material on some sort of DO NOT USE list. The USGBC PVC report conculdes that material avoidance credits are NOT recommended. Rewarding teams for material avoidance actually ends up steering decision makers toward materials that are MORE environmentally DAMAGING in many cases (specifically with regard to PVC, which is [to some folks] a surprisingly BETTER environmental alternative to many other building materials). When I encounter anti-PVC proselytizers, I find that none has actually even bothered to READ the USGBC report, but instead happy continue spreading the type of misinformation being handed down by the HBN and their ilk. The Green Guide for Healthcare anti-PVC credit was roundly criticized by the USGBC MR TAG and further by hundreds of public comments. It is a credit that was ill conceived from the get go. It is a pathetic attempt by the anti-PVC camp to get a PVC-avoidance credit into a USGBC rating system in compelte contradiction to the recommendations made about PVC in the USGBC TSAC report. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 113 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 04:49 pm:    Dear Mr. Anonymous, You sound just like the carpet & roofing vendors that tell us PVC is fine. However, when I go home at night and my wife or son tells me get the PVC shower curtain out of the house because they saw on the news that PVC is bad...well all I can say is it would seem the pro-PVC'ers have already lost that battle of perception. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 729 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 04:53 pm:    Russell, Then you should go educate yourself on the issue, which as Anon has done so very well, and then educate your family. I will vouch for Mr. Anon that what he has stated is totally correct. William Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 13 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 06:31 pm:    I was wondering when the PVC apologists would speak up. What took you so long? You're usually quicker on trigger. And you're so shy too, Mr. Anon - what company do you represent? Sadly, massive letter writing campaigns and mis-information spread by that well oiled machine (;o), otherwise known as the Vinyl Institute and all their pals, does not change the facts or the science. Yes, read the reports, study up on the science, and think about what kind of buildings you want to build. Me, I like the idea of building healthy buildings. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 730 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 07:05 pm:    Peggy, you need to read more facts, and less hysteria. Most of the concerns relates to the way they make vinyl or process it in manufacturing items made with vinyl - only, they don't make it that way anymore. It does not mean that you can't make it that way in some 3rd world country that does not regulate their industries, but then you can make almost anything so that it is harmful in some fashion. I can go out in the country not far from most major metropolitan cities and find someone making moonshine illegally, and likely dangerously (to their workers as well as their consumers). But for that should we ban the legitimate distilleries, breweries and wineries? Maybe we should all come out against cotton, abandon all your cotton products, afterall, someone somewhere could be destroying their worker's lungs with cotton filaments. At least Mr. Anon lists specific reports by legitimate organizations (such as USGBC), or is their literature suspect as well. Your own criticism is woefully short of credible evidence (actually none) to uphold your point of view. William Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 14 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 07:20 pm:    William - perhaps you didn't notice the link to the plethora of information put forth by the USGBC PVC TSAC that I included in my first note, and which your friend Mr. Anon quotes from. As I said, this issue has been discussed quite a bit in the sustainable community, and everyone has had a chance to put their two cents into the pot (even the greenwashing crowd). All I said was that some of us greenies have come to the conclusion that doing what we can to avoid the use of PVC is a good thing, and we're happy that alternative products are being developed. No need to panic. Hysteria? Please, that's so 60's. Woman speaks up, gets called hysterical. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 930 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 08:59 am:    I'm not going to jump into this fray except to note that, regarding the shower curtain story, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said "our staff scientist found many problems with the testing methodology, which called into question the credibility of the science." They also said there was a far greater risk of harm from slipping and falling in the shower than from anything in the curtain. Based on the huge risk of harm faced daily by our populace, I'm calling for an immediate ban on showering. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED Advanced Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 09:35 am:    John, Here here. I've been looking for a post I can really get behind. But I also want to support Peggy. So I'm calling for no showering for men! Back to being green, but not following LEED... I have several clients who prefer to limit the use of PVC products when possible and where appropriate alternatives are available. I find that to be a fair and reasonable response. Now I wish I'd taken that chemistry class in college. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 440 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 09:45 am:    John's ban on showering reminds me of oneof my favorite quotes. To a woman who complained that the shower scene in "Psycho" so frightened her daughter that the girl would no longer shower, Alfred Hitchcock replied: "Then Madam I suggest you have her dry cleaned." Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 802 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 12:54 pm:    I can see PVC being an issue if you were shut up in a closet that was entirely lined in vinyl, and of course the closet had no ventilation. But of course, LEED also mandates a certain number of air changes per hour and no one is going to line their room with it. Now, someone please tell me why linoleum is considered so preferable? its illegal to make in the US, has to be shipped 5000 miles to get anywhere, and needs 40% more cleaning and maintenance than a vinyl floor.... J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 281 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 01:14 pm:    I was unaware that the manufacturing of linoleum was illegal in the US. My understanding is that Armstrong (one of the last US manufacturers) got out of the business when the demand for it dropped to almost nil. If they had waited another couple of years and done some product development, they might have been able to retain market share now cockroached by the European manufacturers. As for it's being green; it's the whole rapidly renewable resource thing (like wheat board). Since it is manufactured using linseed oil (made from the flax plant) you get a new crop at least every year. Of course you are competing for this resource with linen and flax seed oil as well as linseed oil (which I am assuming has fallen out of favor because of the VOC issue) so the price of that linen jacket you have been coveting will be higher because of more demand for linoleum. Now if we can get around shipping flax from somewhere in Africa to the Europe where it can be made into linoleum to be sold to green project in the US. Armstrong has a new "biobased" product in which the plasticizer is manufactured from a plant-based oil (which I believe is corn oil). So they ship the corn oil to Pennsylvania from Corn Products Road in Corpus Christi, Texas so it can be combined with some recycled limestone and then shipped to El Paso, Texas to be installed in a LEED certified building. When you consider how much these composition tiles weigh (70 to 80 percent limestone so you don't fit a lot of product on an 18-wheeler), the transportation costs (dollars, pollution, etc.) are significant. Mmmmm.... Between locally sourced/manufactured products, products with recycled content, and products with rapidly renewable resource material; what would you choose? If you add the dimensions of cost, service life, and maintenance, the answer doesn't come any easier. Really fodder for another thread, but an interesting question. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1023 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 04:41 pm:    Peggy and for those of you that ban PVC from your health care projects..... just remember that IV and blood bags are made from PVC as well as tubing and other medical devices. I thought that PVC was no so much the problem but more the plasticizer (DEHP) leaching out. William - It is my understanding that cotton is the number one crop in pesticide and herbicide use. It accounts for something like 1/4 of all the world's pesticide use! So if I can't wear polyester or nylon or animal skins...what the heck am I going to wear?! I know! Hemp! Anne/Peter - I too have heard that the manufacturer of linoleum is banned by the EPA. I'm not sure that I believe it but I am surprised that the huge increase in demand for linoleum products has not monetarily influenced Armstrong or Forbo to open domestic manufacturing facilities. After all with the current state of oil prices, shipping across the Atlantic and trucking across the US is not going to get any cheaper. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 05:01 pm:    Here are the facts from the USGBC Assessment for the Technical Basis for a PVC-Related Materials Credit for LEED February 2007 for people that have not read (or choose not to read) the report: Summary of Findings: "No single material shows up as the best across all the human health and environmental impact categories, nor as the worst." "Relative to the environmental impact categories, PVC performs better than several material alternatives studied, regardless of the life cycle scope…" "Human Health Risk. If buyers switched from PVC to aluminum window frames, to aluminum siding, or to cast iron pipe, it could be worse than using PVC." "Environmental Impact. The evidence indicates that a credit that rewards avoidance of PVC could steer decision makers toward using materials that are worse on most environmental impacts…." "TSAC's position is that, even if one assumes that there are better alternatives, simply crediting the avoidance of PVC does not provide an incentive for using those better alternatives as proposed to other alternatives that might not be better." "It follows that if PVC is not consistently among the worst option for its common applications, such a credit could readily become an incentive to use something worse, which would not represent positive market transformation." Instead of a "plethora of information" showing PVC as a material to be avoided, I find the exact OPPOSITE to be the conslusion in the USGBC report. So, in avoiding the use of PVC building materials in every possible way, you are not being green at all, but actually causing MORE environmental damage. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 15 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 05:58 pm:    Well Mr. (or Ms.?) Anon - still hiding in the vinyl closet are you? I didn't say that the report came to a definitive conclusion against PVC. I just said that it contained a lot of information and that many points of view were considered in producing the report. I know this may provoke another apoplectic reaction, but Pharos has an interesting download on the conclusions of the report, somewhat different from yours: http://www.pharosproject.net/wiki/index.php?title=USGBC_TSAC_PVC We're all capable of evaluating information and coming to our own conclusions. My conclusions are different from yours. David - re IV lines and bags, yes, I know, and it gives me the creeps! Thankfully, alternatives are being developed. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 06:23 pm:    Uhh, yeah, thanksalot, but I do not need HBN to do my thinking for me. I provided verbatim excerpts from the USGBC report. I do not feel the need to spin my own interpretation on the conclusions made, the statements are crystal clear. The report concludes, most definitely, that a PVC-avoidance credit is a BAD thing and that using PVC building materials is a GOOD thing for the large majority of materials included in the study (roughly 75%). This is in stark opposition to your posting that "some of us greenies have come to the conclusion that doing what we can to avoid the use of PVC is a good thing." This position is not supported by the facts presented in the USGBC report and the adoption of such a position in light of the facts presented in the report will result in far greater environmental damage. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Tom Lent, Healthy Building Network (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 01:20 am:    “When we add end of life with accidental landfill fires and backyard burning, the additional risk of dioxin emissions puts PVC consistently among the worst materials for human health impacts…” Everyone has their favorite quotes from the USGBC's TSAC report. What else did the TSAC report find? The TSAC committee report looked at PVC and two to three alternative materials in four product types: windows (PVC, aluminum and wood), pipe (PVC, cast iron and ABS), siding (PVC, aluminum and fiber cement) and resilient floor (VCT, sheet vinyl, linoleum and cork). The report summarizes impact findings in three categories: Cancer, Total Human Health (includes cancer plus more effects including global climate change, particulates, mercury) and Environment. For the Environment category, TSAC looked at acidification, eutrophication, smog, ozone depletion, global climate change, fossil fuel depletion, ecotoxicity then normalized the scores to one ranking. Accounting for the wide range of data available on each of these issues, TSAC provided a low, average and high impact estimate for each category. Predictably, the results vary depending upon which estimates are used. Even using the low end estimates, PVC is rarely superior in any product type. Low end estimates are not, of course, protective of human health. Taking a Precautionary Principle approach to examine the TSAC data using the average to high estimates of impact for all materials leads to the following conclusions: On TSAC’s Cancer ranking, PVC is consistently the absolute worst for each of the four product types studied. On TSAC’s Total Human Health ranking, PVC consistently comes out either tied for worst or absolute worst. On TSAC’s Environmental ranking, PVC’s performance is mixed – still absolute worst in the case of flooring - both VCT and sheet vinyl - but better than one alternative and roughly equal to the other alternatives in the other three cases. Specifically it ranked better on environment than cast iron pipes, aluminum siding and non thermally broken aluminum windows and not significantly different from ABS pipes, wood windows, wood siding and fiber cement siding. Within the specific Environment subcategories performance is scattered with different materials excelling or being worse in different categories. Only cork flooring consistently outperformed every other alternative in its category in all environment indicators. Overall Conclusion: Screening out PVC across the board will lead to consistently better total cancer and overall health results. This is why reduction of the use of PVC and other halogenated compounds that share the dioxin forming proclivities of PVC is rewarded in the GGHC and draft LEED-HC. In the other environmental impact categories, there are no materials (among the limited set studied) that perform consistently better or worst across all categories, other than cork flooring. Impacts will vary depending upon the alternate material chosen and which environmental impacts are valued highest. A simple screen for PVC will give you variable results on these issues. Other screening tools are needed to insure that other environmental impacts are well accounted for and receive market push to improve. This analysis was first published in the Environmental Building News in May 2007. More detail on the discussions around the TSAC report is available at http://www.pharosproject.net/wiki/index.php?title=USGBC_TSAC_PVC Additional information about dioxin, phthalates and other toxicity issues related to PVC are also available at the PharosWiki. I would like to request that a public debate like this one - particualrly where aspersions are being cast on participants be done with full disclosure, not anonymously. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1024 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 02:58 pm:    If PVC is so bad, and I am not saying that it is or isn't, then why is The Vinyl Institute and U.S. Vinyl Manufacturing Association members of US Green Building Council (USGBC)? Isn't this like the Black Panthers being members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK)? Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 12:51 pm:    In all fairness, readers are encouraged to read the Vinyl Institute's position on this in addition to HBNs stand: http://www.vinylinstitute.org/Environment/VIResponsetoLEEDHC.aspx Anon Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 01:04 pm:    Here's a really good, unbiased article about PVC: "Navigating Fact from Fiction in the White-Hot Debate over PVC and the Environment" in Environmental Design+Construction magazine: http://www.edcmag.com/CDA/Articles/Sustainable_Flooring/ae50bb13fb697010VgnVCM100000f932a8c0____ Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 18 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 03:45 pm:    In response to David's question re vinyl industry associations being members of the USGBC, there was a wrestling match a few years ago when trade associations demanded to be allowed to join as members (even though their member companies could join already), claiming that the USGBC was being 'exclusive' by not having trade associations as a membership category. After much debate, the USGBC allowed the trade associations to join, and they participate to varying degrees. The VI is particularly active and agressive at promoting their agenda whenever and wherever they can - All-Vinyl-All-The-Time. And those who dare state any other opinion shall be hounded by the VI attorneys and attack dogs until they give up! Not such a good strategy for winning friends and influencing people. Being a member of the USGBC is not really working so well for the VI - we STILL don't like vinyl and we just walk on by their booth at GreenBuild. And every now and then we enjoy poking at them with a sharp stick to wind them up! William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 732 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 04:05 pm:    Anon, Interesting article, the"Navigating..." article. Peggy, Sorry that living through the 60s seems to have warped your sense of grammar. Read the statement again. I did not call you hysterical, I did not call you or any other individual hysterical. What I said was, read it again but here is the relevant extract, "... read more facts, and less hysteria." That is, you are reading too much hysteria and not reading enough facts. It makes no judgement of you, only of what you are reading. I make no apology for labeling much of the anti-vinyl information hysteria. When we all get down to life cycle analysis of building products from manufacturing, shipping to recovery/recycling/destruction/decomposition, things are not always what they appear to be on the surface. And then there are those on various sides of an issue with their own agenda. VI has the agenda of promoting vinyl...I mean, really, what is so surprising about that, its their name. But it does not mean that they spread misinformation by virtue of that association either. Its sort of like the, at this time still anecdotal, life cycle of a Hummer vs a Prius and that the Hummer, though it guzzles gas, over its life cycle from recycled materials in its fabrication to the recycle of components at the end of its life and the length of life of the 2 products, we would do the earth a lot better driving around in Hummers. Not that I am going to go buy a Hummer or even advocate that people do ... there are simply better choices, including some reasons that are, like in building materials as well, simply aesthetic. William Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 19 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 08:11 pm:    Now, now William - your crankypants are showing, along with your relentlessly arrogant 'tude. 1. Yes, I did enjoy the 60s, and one of the things I learned was acceptance of different points of view. Apparently you skipped that life lesson. Whatever. 2. You have no idea what I've read or not read about this issue, but you do go ahead and make an assumption that attempts to portray me as less informed than you. Odd. 3. Yes, these issues are complicated. Duh! 4. VI not only promotes vinyl, as we would expect them to do, they promote it as being a 'green' product. And they attack people who say otherwise. Fact. 5. I disagree with the VI premise that vinyl is a green product, and I prefer to avoid using it whenever possible and instead I look for sustainable alternatives that perform equally or better. My projects, my choice. With that, I'm bowing out of this PVC discussion. I know you will want to have the last word, so go ahead. I think Russell's original question has been answered. The USGBC is not prohibiting the use of PVC. I would hope that the folks who participate in this forum would be able to have rational discussions about provocative sustainable issues like PVC, without it devolving into a food fight. We all bring a lot to the table, and these discussions should be positive and informative. Colin - I think that the Anonymous postings in this discussion make a case for banning Anons altogether. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 931 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 10:11 am:    Sorry, Peggy, I disagree about banning anonymous postings. Nothing this poster(s) put up is personal or inflammatory. The issue has strong passions on both sides, and we should expect sharp elbows when discussing it. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 10:57 am:    There is only one poster being personal and inflammatory, and the name is not Anonymous. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 73 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 - 12:17 pm:    OUCH. Who let Gordie Howe's elbows in here. Inspite of the soapboxes, this valuable exchange has provided me many great sources from which to read varying opinions, reports, white papers, etc. I have learned much since July 11th. I suggest including more hotlinks to further reading of other topics/products in postings, not necessarily "green" issues. Wayne James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 42 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 09:07 am:    I agree with Wayne, through training while in college and, more importantly, actual practice, we are all educated people . The best we can do for ourselves, our profession, and the planet is avail ourselves to as much discussion of any topic that we can and make informed decisions. Colin has made it easy enough to search for topics in this forum but I also keep a little notebook where I jot down the location of certain threads and, especially, as Wayne mentioned, the addresses of useful links. If a topic in this forum does not have a direct impact on the issues I am dealing with today I can be assured that it will in the not too distant future. Lively debate is a natural result of intelligent people who are passoniate about their work discussing that work. Let's remember when we debate to pick apart each others' arguments and not each other. I hope there is a general understanding of apology for any comment that offends and forgiveness for the offense. I doubt anything any contributor to this forum ever does will wind up in the script for an episode of "Law and Order" or even "CSI" but let us remember that we are specifiers - the most civil creatures on the planet.(grin) William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 733 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 09:49 am:    James, "... we are specifiers - the most civil creatures on the planet." Actually, I thought Civil Engineers held that distinction since they licensed as professinals. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 114 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 10:15 am:    Just for the record...here's what the Masterspec Evaluation says about PVC backing in carpet in the following excerpts: "EverWher" by Milliken is an example of amorphous resin backing. It was developed as an environmentally preferable alternative to PVC, and because it contains no plasticizer, "EverWher" backing does not react with existing floor conditions such as old adhesives or underlayments, eliminating the need for rigorous floor preparation when recarpeting. "EcoWorx" by Shaw is an example of thermoplastic carpet tile backing. It is fiberglass-reinforced polypropylene and was developed as an environmentally preferable alternative to PVC. "EcoWorx" is closed-loop recyclable and compatible with known nylon 6 depolymerization methods. PVC is not compatible with recycling of nylon 6. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 01:24 pm:    ....and fiber cement is a "green" material too..it's amazing to me how hyped everyone is in the design community regarding PVC - do yourself a favor - take a look at the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for most products labeled "green" - compare side by side with an MSDS from any PVC based material and you will find you will have more to worry about than your PVC shower curtains!! I am convinced that many so called "greenies" use non-issues such as PVC to drive a greater wealth redistribution agenda....read The Really Inconvenient Truth by Iain Murray..and find reality! Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 75 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, July 18, 2008 - 01:46 pm:    Time to take a Valium. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 934 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 03:54 pm:    Some interesting quotes sent to me by Sarnifil (by way of disclosure), but nevertheless indicates how our media works, and why it's sometimes so hard to get truly factual information on a controversial topic. Shower Curtain Scare Story Called Exaggerated, “Wild” Activist Report Met with Broad Skepticism by News Media, Experts June 26, 2008 “Volatile Vinyl,” a report released in June 2008 by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, alleged chemicals being released by vinyl shower curtains are dangerous and should be banned. Many news organizations – and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission – criticized the report for sloppy research, limited sample size (only one shower curtain was fully tested), and scare-mongering. “…An environmental group claims in a new study of vinyl shower curtains that some of them may release into the air toxic chemicals which could cause asthma, eye irritation or even cancer…But some health experts are paying scant attention to those behind the curtain study. And perhaps with good reason…Skeptics pointed out what they call a glaring error in the study's methodology. The group tested a total of five shower curtains, of which only one shower curtain -- not one brand; one curtain -- was subjected to complete testing for chemicals in its composition, as well as those it released into the air -- a phenomenon known as ‘off-gassing’.” Studies Gone Wild: Death by Shower Curtain? ABC News, June 12, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5057141&page=1 “‘It's not a big issue,’ said Warren Foster, a professor in the obstetrics and gynecology department at McMaster University in Hamilton…. Foster said the groups releasing the study are ‘heavily biased’ and looking to confirm a hypothesis. A truly scientific study, he said, would look to test the hypothesis and also include controls and random sampling.” New concerns about plastic shower curtains may be overblown, experts say, The Canadian Press, http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5irXn1byZsglyrNuyKL9BfRE_KCIw “Also sounding off against the study was the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC), the agency charged with protecting the public from dangers in more than 15,000 types of consumer products under its jurisdiction…‘The CSPC never just discounts or discredits information,’ said CSPC spokesperson Julie Vallese. ‘If it is a topic that the agency should have an interest in, we are always willing to take a look at the science.’ But in this case, she noted, ‘Our toxicological experts took a look at the report and have many, many concerns with the credibility of the science involved…[T]he claims that are being made on shower curtains are “phantasmagorical,”’ Vallese said, adding that she doesn't get to use such a word very often in her work as a spokesperson.” Studies Gone Wild: Death by Shower Curtain? ABC News, June 12, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5057141&page=1 “According to the report, testing was limited ‘to avoid potential instrument damage’…in conclusion, more research needs to be done. Skeptics say don't panic just yet.” Shower Curtain Scare: New Study Only Tested ONE Curtain, The Post Chronicle, June 13, 2008, http://www.postchronicle.com/news/health/article_212152475.shtml “The study found the one curtain which was tested for off-gassing may have released, over the course of the first few hours after it was opened, chemicals that could be toxic if swallowed or inhaled only in quantities thousands of times greater than those found.” Studies Gone Wild: Death by Shower Curtain? ABC News, June 12, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5057141&page=1 “…the study found phthalates in the shower curtains but couldn’t find phthalates coming off the shower curtains. And if you can’t measure migration, how can you claim there’s an exposure risk? It’s a bit like saying, ‘there’s vinyl covering the wires inside a TV set; vinyl contains phthalates; phthalates are dangerous; we couldn’t really measure any phthalates coming out of the TV, but there must be (wait for another study), and meanwhile, watch out, TV exposes you to toxic chemicals.’” Enviro Psycho! Embarrassing Disclosure in Poisonous Shower Curtain Scare, STATS Blog Posted June 12, 2008 by Trevor Butterworth, STATS: The Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/enviro-psycho-embarrassing-disclosure-in-poisonous-shower-curtain-scare/ “‘It's a great example of how quickly a sound bite can become dangerous and contagious,’ said ABC News medical contributor Dr. Marie Savard…‘The idea that people should be tossing out their shower curtains based on a study that more or less focuses on a single shower curtain is absurd. This is scare science at its best, or worst, depending on how you look at it.’” Studies Gone Wild: Death by Shower Curtain? ABC News, June 12, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5057141&page=1 “[CHEJ’s Michael Schade, study author,] conceded that whether the levels of these VOCs emitted by the curtains could be directly linked to health effects was difficult to determine.” Studies Gone Wild: Death by Shower Curtain? ABC News, June 12, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5057141&page=1 “Equally sly is the CHEJ’s conclusion that the chemicals released by shower curtains are a major source of indoor air pollution, and that the American Lung Association (ALA) considers indoor air pollution a major health problem; it does, but there’s nothing in its fact sheet to indict shower curtains or vinyl. Instead, the ALA warns about ‘biological pollutants, including molds, bacteria, viruses, pollen, dust mites, and animal dander, radon, tobacco smoke, formaldehyde, asbestos, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and potential exposures to chemicals in household cleaning agents, personal care products, pesticides, paints, hobby products, and solvents.’” Enviro Psycho! Embarrassing Disclosure in Poisonous Shower Curtain Scare, Stats Blog Posted June 12, 2008 by Trevor Butterworth, STATS: The Statistical Assessment Service at George Mason University, http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/enviro-psycho-embarrassing-disclosure-in-poisonous-shower-curtain-scare/ “CHEJ’s primary interest is in leading a campaign against the household vinyl shower curtain and other safe products made of polyvinyl chloride – an important plastic better known as vinyl…As groups like CHEJ and Greenpeace continue to lose credibility in the public arena, they ironically continue to cling to the very types of activist campaigns that made them lose their credibility in the first place. It’s one reason I decided to leave Greenpeace, after co-founding the organization in the early 1970s and helping lead it through to 1986. Purporting to be driven by empirical data, groups like Greenpeace and CHEJ have become political, motivated by fundraising. In the process, they have lost any claim to scientific accuracy.” (The Absurd Campaign Against the Humble Shower Curtain,” Patrick Moore, Jan. 23, 2007 – written when CHEJ first began its attack campaign on shower curtains) Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 115 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:09 am:    Peggy, Thanks for posting the link to the USGBC PVC Task Group Report & Stakeholders Comments. After glancing at many of the Stakeholders Comments, a clear trend appears to emerge...for the most part industry stakeholders seem to favor PVC and for the most part all other stakeholders are opposed. Draw your own conclusions...but my we see the choice as clear. Anonymous   Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 01:08 pm:    Mr. Bunzick, Thanks very much for this posting. Very enlightening and I appreciate the time it took you to compile all of this and post it here. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 04:05 pm:    Ah yes, obscure. Reminds of the O.J. Simpson trial, attack the evidence gathering methods. If the (PVC) glove don't fit, you must acquit. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 03:04 pm:    When the planes hit the twin towers the jet fuel caused combustion. But what was burning...the carpet...now giving off toxic PVC fumes. Those poor people never had a chance. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 936 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 03:17 pm:    Yes, the carpet (and furniture, files and computers) burned, and maybe gave off fumes, but PVC is not one of the primary plastics carpet is made from. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 742 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 03:43 pm:    And actually, the report stated that it was fuel saturation that caused things to burn and to burn for so long. The quantity of fuel did not act like lighter fluid on a backyard grille. And jet fuel is not like gasoline, its closer to kerosene. Take a 2 inch deep pan of it and light it up, it does not vaporize, it takes a good while to burn. The fuel was a major component of the fire, not just the cause of combustion. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 08:49 am:    A diamond doesn't have to be big to be valuable. And any amount of PVC is toxic. Our chemists say smoldering PVC will burn up your lungs in less than 15 seconds. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 6 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 10:21 am:    Dear Anonymous, Please post your source. Whose chemist? What study? Please provide a link if possible. Thanks. Lisa D. Marshall Fryer, CSI, Assoc. AIA Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 64 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 11:12 am:    Hey all you Anonymi, Do you not realise that missives posted from behind a cloak automatically lose much of their weight? Particularly when making undocumented claims, and regardless of whether those claims may actually be true. The more you posture and pout, the more you actually hurt the cause you are trying to support. I am a spec writer. That does not automatically make me an expert on every subject I write about. I do the best I can with the information at hand. Part of my process is a decision as to the extent I can trust any given piece of information. And anonymous sources fall near the bottom of my list. If my clients (and many do) feel that PVC looks cheap, feels cheap, or hurts the environment, I do not spec it for them. If my clients are strapped for cash, they will likely see quite a bit of PVC in their project. If my client asks me for my opinion on PVC, I will tell them the jury is still out for many PVC products, but I will also express my opinion that the Vinyl Institute shrewdly got in on the ground floor of the USGBC movement, in order to lend credence to their greenwashing efforts. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 01:37 pm:    Would you question the credentials or deny anonymity to your favorite super-hero. "Ask any journalist, in the history of the world, the greatest of truths have been spoken off the record, not on." -Deep Throat D. Marshall Fryer, CSI, Assoc. AIA Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 65 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 02:43 pm:    Last time I checked, we were all humans here in the real world; not a super-hero to be found. Whereas anonymous tips certainly can aid law enforcement, they provide no real service to the design profession. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, August 01, 2008 - 08:01 am:    I for one am declining my party's nomination for Vice President in the 2008 election. Russell W. Wood, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: woodr5678 Post Number: 116 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Monday, August 11, 2008 - 11:37 am:    I'm confused. The comments at the USGBC PVC Task Group site by Kaiser Permanente are negative to PVC. However, I open my new copy of Professional Roofing magazine and see the aerial photo of their (new) Fresno Medical Center with the caption saying "PVC roof system", hundreds of squares. So are they PVC pro or con? Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 04:32 pm:    We hear carpet with urethane backing is also a problem with antimicrobial issues leading to delamination. Anyone know of problems with urethane? Anonymous   Posted on Friday, August 29, 2008 - 09:39 am:    Just wanted to chime in here too. Just saw the Green Seal report on carpet and they certainly advise that PVC vinyl in carpet backing is bad. Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 - 05:59 pm:    The GreenSeal report does not say that PVC backing in carpet is bad. It says that ALL synthetic carpet backings have negative environmental impact. It goes on to say the of the synthetic backings available, PVC is "good" in that it can, and in fact is, recycled - none of the other backings are. This attribute alone makes PVC a far better environmental choice over other synthetic backings. This is straight from the report: "All synthetic backing materials used in carpet manufacturing have known environmental drawbacks. PVC, a commonly used backing material, is produced from vinyl chloride monomer, a potent human carcinogen. PVC contains stabilizers, such as lead (a toxic metal), and also contains plasticizer chemicals (usually phthalates) that may be released into the indoor environment throughout the life of the carpet. Moreover, if carpets are incinerated for energy recovery, PVC backing can release dioxins, compounds that are potent carcinogens and can cause immune system damage. PVC, however, can be recycled into new vinyl carpet backing through existing programs. The manufacture of synthetic rubber (styrene butadiene rubber or SBR) involves toxic chemicals such as polystyrene and 4-phenylcyclohexene (4-PC), a byproduct with a very low odor threshold. The production of polyurethane, another commonly used backing material, involves the use of methylenediphenyl isocyanate (MDI), which could be hazardous for workers, although controls to prevent exposure are generally in place. MDI can cause dermatitis and respiratory diseases in workers and may alter the immune system, resulting in sensitization of the respiratory system and asthma-like reactions. MDI is not considered a carcinogen in humans, however, and does not present an exposure risk in the finished carpet products. There are no current commercial-scale recycling processes for polyurethane-backed carpet. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 08:42 am:    And another flat-earther is heard from. What was the term used above by Peggy White...PVC apologist. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:39 pm:    As opposed to a MDI apologist or a SBR apologist? BTW, the study report is dated 2001, before the exhuastive study done by the USGBC that concludes: "Relative to the environmental impact categories, PVC performs better than several material alternatives studied, regardless of the life cycle scope…" So by anon's definition, the USGBC is a PVC apologist as well? A PVC apologist is someone that chooses to weigh the evidence instead of running chicken little-like through the streets screaming "PVC is evil, PVC is evil!"? Thanks so much, anon, for clearing all that up for us. Peggy White, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 23 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:06 pm:    Weigh the evidence, or spin the evidence? As Tom Lent mentioned, everyone has their favorite quotes from the USGBC report. It would be helpful to your cause of promoting PVC if you could be less agressive and dismissive of those with a different opinion. Anonymous   Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:46 pm:    Peggy, I fail to see how posting direct quotes from sources such as the USGBC final PVC report and the GreenSeal report is in any way spinning evidence. Posting misinformation such as "they certainly advise that PVC vinyl in carpet backing is bad" most definitely falls into the realm of evidence spinning. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 957 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 08:32 am:    Just from the quote that was posted above (and not having read any more of the report than that), it reads to me that all of these synthetic technologies--PVC, styrene, SBR, urethane--are potentially bad for health or the environment. Maybe so. One concern I've had, when thinking about the movement against PVC, is understanding the viewpoint that PVC is much worse than any of these other materials, and it alone should be banned. In the manufacturing processes for all of these, very toxic chemicals are made and used, as in their eventual destruction or disposal. Real, meaningful comparisons between them seem to be rare. And it is also my observation that the anti-PVC movement stirs up animosity more than other environmental concerns. There's no room for grey in these discussions--it's black or white. That alone makes me a skeptic. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 08:59 am:    This is so simple to figure gang. Prove the postulate. Next time a carpet rep stops by with PVC backed carpet samples...just take out a Bic lighter and threaten to light up one of the samples. You'll see that rep run for the door like a scalded dog. They know what PVC does to your lungs! We've done this, we know, we saw! Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 11:28 am:    OMG. I can't think of a single combustible material that would not get the exact same reaction. What do you think happens when linoleum is burned? Or TPO? Or EPDM, or [fill in the blank]. BTW, PVC is self-extinguishing. This is what I love about the anti-PVC camp - they are just so gosh darned scientific! What hogwash. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 290 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 12:20 pm:    Can we please put a lid on this thread? It has long since passed the point where everything has been said that needs to be said, but not everyone has had a chance to say it. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 106 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 12:31 pm:    I agree Dave. Colin, how about pulling the plug or screening the rants? Oh and by the way, I rode at 70 mph past a project with vinyl siding. Am I now at risk of getting the big C. LOL. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 204 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 01:05 pm:    In a closed car you would be ok. On a Harley, I'm not so sure because of the direct exposure. :-P