Is Tripolymer spray foam insulation a ‘healthy’ choice in insulating an older home?
GBA编辑器|Posted inGreen Products and Materialson
我们正在寻找一个绝缘的旧家庭，这些家庭具有较差的绝缘（房屋的原始部分1850，1970年的添加剂），并被这款三利男性产品诱惑。本公司的所有者声称它是一个“绿色”产品，没有健康风险。我无法找到任何信息，以与我来的所有网站相反，由泡沫公司赞助。您是否有任何关于该泡沫绝缘的潜在缺点的信息？（PS：CL＆P，我们的电动供应商每张兑现旧家庭提供1美元的现金返还，因此如果我们这样做，我们将节省大量节省）。
Thank you for any guidance you can provide.
Amanda Cordano.
答复
不要接受制造商或安装人员关于石化产品的“绿色”或“健康”的任何索赔。
You're right that it's difficult to find any objective information on this relatively new phenolic foam, but there is a history of problems with the older phenolics, including shrinkage, water absorption and metal corrosion.
The formula does seem to have fewer negative impacts than most sprayed foam insulations, but
Caveat Emptor.
//m.etiketa4.com/blogs/dept/green-building-blog/does-spray-foam-insulation-out-gas-poisonous-fumes
//m.etiketa4.com/community/forum/green-products-and-materials/14537/out-gassing-bad-stuff-spray-foam-insulation
Trpolmer is a masked urea formaldehyde insulation. it is plastic. will not burn, but it will melt and the fumes will kill you. Recently marketed in Canada under the name Retro foam. Once the canadian government found out, the company was shut down and is now in a 500 million dollar lawsuit. Marketed around the US by various names the producer is CP Chemical out of White Plains New York. Just try to get information out of what is in Trypolymer. they will not tell you.
Tripolymer泡沫是苯酚 - 甲醛，而不是尿素甲醛。苯酚 - 甲醛树脂用于胶合板和OSB。
为了回应Cassie海报＃3您决定在您的所有索赔和声明中均有100％的信息！你应该去看医生或请访问http://www.ijectionfoam.com或者www。tripolymer.com获取正确和诚实的信息。或随意打电话给手机＃在网站上。
任何将寻找“正确和诚实信息”的制造商和安装人员的人是需要医生的人。你为什么不透露你对Tripolymer的兴趣迈克？
这绝对是真实的，禁止侵略垃圾和加拿大政府在700家住宅中安装乌菲的诉讼诉讼。
但是，它似乎确实是三龙泡沫是酚醛甲醛泡沫。
三利男是一种酚醛 - 甲醛树脂。Goto FreePatents.com Punch Number 4345061，您将看到1980年提交的Walter Hasselman专利。Walter是C.P的所有者。在白色平原的化学品。这是为了迈克，所以他明确了解他所代表的内容。
账单,
很棒的发现。我无法让网站上所作为，但我能够找到专利信息Patent Genius。
That link will take you directly to the product. Amazingly, not only doesn't it clearly state in the headline that it is a formaldehyde based product, but when you read down through the details, it goes on to state that in certain formulations it MAY BE UP TO 20% FORMALDEHYDE by volume of weight!!!
本周我一直在芝加哥的Greenbuild，并且在整个展示中始终如一的建筑物嗡嗡声对所有品牌的两部分泡沫的毒性问题一直非常有趣。即使来自一些能量僵局，它们也具有关于添加到这些泡沫的B侧的一些阻燃剂的显着担忧，这些阻燃剂被揭示和讨论了生物物理化学师甲醛Blum。
人们真的需要考虑c之前漫长而艰难ommitting to living in an indoor environment filled with these things. One really interesting point she made was that the molecular structure of both the isocyanates and the fire retardants are heavier than air. As a result, when they are put into your attic and not sealed behind gyp board (or something similar) than the off-gassing that they do will drop those toxic molecules directly down into the ceiling plane. If you're ceiling plane isn't then completely air-sealed, you can expect to be breathing those molecules in the interior of your home as they leak in. Really scary stuff.
She also pointed out that most of these brominated and chlorinated retardants are they same mutagen formulations banned from kids pajamas and other articles back in the 70's because of the bad stuff they learned about them. But since the EPA evidentially doesn't have the authority to permanently ban chemicals, they are still being freely made and inserted into our foams instead!
I just had Tripolymer installed in my home and it shrunk away from my studs (up to 5/8 of an inch on each side, within a week) and away from the drywall and exterior sheathing. After having the installer come back twice to fix the problem I was forced to remove the product and replace it with another product. This required removing the finished drywall! I called and emailed CP Chemical and they will not return my calls or emails. Everytime I call they tell me "our technicians are away?" Do yourself a favor and DO NOT use this product!!! I was having second thoughts about using it from the begining and wish I would have never used it, don't make the same mistake! I have plenty of pictures to prove my claims. This product is garbage!!!!!
奇怪的是，经过几代经验的石化产品的毒性影响以及“更好的通过化学生活”的致命影响，最好的和最聪明的仍然急于在天使恐惧踩踏并采用最新的石化奇迹治愈。
“我想对你说一个字。只有一个词。你在听吗？塑料。”
“你是怎么意味着的，先生？”
There is no doubt that all the urea formaldehyde (UF) foams are problematic from both a health safety and performance standpoint as a result of potential degradation leading to shrinkage and release of free formaldehyde. Phenol formaldehyde (PF) binders have been used for decades to make wood based construction products such as plywood and OSB. Recent experience with those products in some portable housing units shows that these can be a problem also but they are much more stable. Some recent products based on polyurethane or polyurea are made from isocyanate raw materials and do contain fire retardants. They are much more stable and one would not expect to have "toxic molecules" in the air in building containing those products. In the first place isocyanates are quite reactive with water and would react with that long before any potential exposure occured, even if there was any decomposition which is unlikely. I dod not claim to know all the formulations used but do know that the typical FRs used (halogenated phosphate esters) have been used for over 50 years in all sorts of polyurethane products without risk to health. In term of products of combustion I would avoid breathing smoke from burning wood that is present in quantities thousands of times greater that insulating foams in typical buildings and building codes require that foams be covered with a "thermal barrier" to prevent ignition; smoke from burning furnishings are much more hazardous.
In the interest of complete disclosure I have been working with polyurethane type products for over 40 years and have participated in research, production, and testing of insulating products, including health and safety issues. I have seen products disappear that I once considered "safe" and as a result have become much more skeptical of many claims. One has to balance the potential good (in the form of practical energy savings) with the potential risk (in the form of fire or other risk exposures). It is not correct to assume that all petrochemical based products are bad or that there is always a superior "natural" alternative and it is a good idea to crititcally examine the facts to be sure that preconceived notions do not govern.
虽然假设往往是不正确的并且基于偏见或偏见，但它同样正确的是，我们的文化对生产和使用人工石化产品具有非常强烈的偏见，这通常具有未预期的长期影响。
自从1859年的石油年龄开始以来，我们不仅不仅抢劫了数十亿年的“古阳光”，而且不可撤销地改变了气候，也产生了80,000个石化，从未在地球上存在（全球每年2.5亿吨）。
有17,000家可用于家庭使用的石化，其中仅30％已在美国家庭普通的普通州的安全和63种合成化学品（10加仑）进行测试。FDA只需要警告标签，尽管大多数（如果不是全部）对人类健康和环境都很危险。典型的美国人的血液中有145个人工化学品，其中许多人通过母乳通过下一代。
The risks of petrochemicals are hardly "potential", but very real. Neither our bodies nor any other part of the biological environment evolved to deal with this chemical assault.