Remember that Rockwool versus fiberglass insulation video I made a few months ago?
That harmless, fun, hopefully informative video? Well, last week I got a letter from
the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of NAIMA which is the North American
Insulation Manufacturers Association. They represent manufacturers of fiberglass,
rock wool and slag wool insulation products. A week after I posted that video,
Owens Corning set up a Zoom call and complained about my video for 30 minutes. What’s really
suspicious is that everything they said is in this official letter from NAIMA. This
letter also seems to focus on my description of fiberglass and slag wool, and not as much
on rock wool. In all fairness, it’s not rude or offensive at all, it’s just very surprising
that a relatively small YouTube channel can have such an impact. Along with this 5 page letter,
NAIMA, also sent pages of studies and research and I naturally went through all of it. So,
in this video, I’m going to summarize and discuss the 4 main points they had an issue with.
First off, I said that respiratory protection like a face mask is required when working with both
fiberglass and rockwool, which apparently isn’t true. It is recommended to wear a mask when you’re
exposed to a space with more than one fiber per cubic centimeter over an 8 hour time period which
rarely ever happens. The few instances where you’d need an N95 respirator are when you’re
blowing loose fill insulation in an attic or wall cavities, when you’re dumping or pouring unbonded,
bulk or speciality fiber products and during insulation removal, repair or demolition.
The Health and Safety Partnership Program has tested thousands of air samples from manufacturing
facilities and installers and the exposure levels are always below 1 fiber per cubic centimeter.
Improvements to product design and engineering controls lower the amount of fibers released.
Unbonded insulation seems to release more fibers than bonded insulation, which makes sense.
However, lab tests are one thing, reality is another, right? I ran a poll on my YouTube
community page about this issue. A big thank you to the 513 people who participated in it!
82% of people said that they always cover up when handling fiberglass and 12% have never had
any issues. Most people said that they get itchy throats and red bumps on their skin, like I do,
if they don’t wear a mask and long sleeves. One person said foil faced hullboard
is the worst and itchiest fiberglass product he’s had to deal with. Another person said that pink
batts used to feel much worse a few decades ago, it’s much softer now. That’s an interesting point,
l wonder if the product has improved thanks to research and testing, but since its appearance has
stayed the same, its reputation hasn't changed. Either way, we can’t discount personal experience.
Even if lab tests say that we don’t need a mask, experience will tell us that we do.
Next, I said that inhaling fibers can cause respiratory issues. The reason I said this is
because, in 1987 the International Agency for Research on Cancer or IARC identified glass,
stone and slag wool as possible carcinogens or cancer-causing products. A cancer warning label
had to be placed on all glass wool products. However, in 2001, after extensive research,
they determined that glass fibers are not toxic and they do not increase the risk of lung cancer
or mesothelioma. Glass fibers are biosoluble which means that they dissolve in the lungs.
Unlike asbestos, which has a crystalline molecular structure,
glass fibers are amorphous and dissolvable. Also, fiberglass manufacturers have replaced
formaldehyde binders with a starch-based binder. Formaldehyde is both a human carcinogen and an
air pollutant. After replacing it, the EPA or environmental protection agency
found a 95% drop in hazardous air pollution emissions from fiberglass facilities.
All this is new to me. I went by all the info on research papers and competing manufacturers
websites, which is apparently outdated. Just like the previous point, fiberglass can’t shake off
it’s reputation from 30 years ago. It’s great to know that it isn’t toxic and that it’s biosoluble,
but I will still wear a mask to prevent the itchiness in the back of my throat,
even if it is temporary. NAIMA’s third issue is that I
said slag wool is inferior to rock wool. They think that is a flat and unsubstantiated claim,
which is false and misleading because there is no basis for the comparison. Ok, there are a
couple of reasons why I said that; first, logical reasoning. Before the recent spike in prices,
Thermafiber which contains 80-100% recycled slag and minimal basalt costs $2.6 per batt.
Safe and sound which is mainly made of basalt rock, cost $4.6 per batt. During my call with
the slag wool manufacturer, they couldn’t give me a reason for that significant price difference,
it’s almost 50% cheaper. I’ve also found that slag wool disintegrates more easily than rock wool.
The second reason is this research I found online on the high acidity coefficient of
slag wool compared to rockwool. The research found that slag wool is aging intolerant,
its pH is higher than that of rockwool and its water resistance can only be moderately stable or
unstable. They also discuss thermal conductivity performance, sulfur content and corrosion
resistance. I realize that the slag wool samples they were testing might have been inferior.
Y’all know that I’m not trying to bring down companies on this channel. I’m exploring this
realm of building science products and technology. I had never even heard of slag wool until I made
the video. It’s lumped in with basalt rockwool or just called mineral wool, but it’s a different
product. How can the ingredients be so different, but the end products and performance are the same?
I’d love to be involved in scientific tests comparing the materials and learning
more and if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. And now, their last point, which doesn’t
make any sense to me. They say that no insulation product can claim to be “environmentally friendly”
because it suggests that the production has no impact on the environment. You know how much I
despise green washing but if we go by this Federal Trade Commision of FTC definition,
there is nothing in the world that is green or environmentally friendly. Every single product has
an impact on the environment but, we can quantify the impact through embodied carbon or embodied
energy. Wood fiberboard, for example, is carbon negative in Europe. Are we not allowed to say
that it is better for the environment than other energy intensive or petroleum based products?
This letter says that all insulation product manufacturers collect and process raw materials
and create the end product with a process that requires energy of some sort. This
is not exclusive to insulation. Also, if that’s the case, why do you claim that your role is to
promote energy efficiency and environmental preservation through the use of glass,
rock and slag wool insulation? Isn’t the term environmental preservation
just as taboo as environmentally friendly? Again, I do not have some ulterior motive to
bring down NAIMA or any other company. I’d just like to explore this area of
building science in peace. This was very informative though and I learnt a lot.
When I speak to manufacturers that are trying to introduce a new, innovative product to the market,
they tell me about all the hurdles they face, whether it’s laws and codes,
R-value requirements, or going up against the old-school big dogs in the industry.
I kinda get it now. Anyway, thanks NAIMA for watching my video and for sharing all this
info with me. If you have any issues with this video, I’m sure you’ll let me know.
Don’t forget to hit that like button and subscribe to my channel. Thanks for watching. See ya.