Talk:Cellulose insulation

Adhesive[edit]

Does anyone know about the environmental qualities of the adhesives commonly used in wet application cellulose insulation? --Alphastream (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vapor Retarder[edit]

I just received approval from Portland, OR to not use a vapor retarder with cellulose, based on the science of vapor and air movement, as well as cellulose's ability to diffuse water vapor. This saved us on cost, but more importantly for us it meant we could use a no VOC primer instead of a vapor retarder primer. I'll adjust the page accordingly. --Alphastream (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No info in article about manufacturing process[edit]

Kinda wondering how the insulation is made. 71.132.197.68 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. If anyone has more information on the manufacturing, please share. --Engmech123 (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know also and dangers of inhaling the dust. They require masks to install it so if it is breathed in without masks what is consequence. My ceiling was torn down in one bedroom and the insulation was a couple foot deep on my floor. I have COPD and when I tried to shovel it into garbage bags I became short breathed after filling only 2 tall kitchen bags and had to quit and have someone else do it. I was wearing a mask. Vmcbroom (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity[edit]

While I don't dispute the facts on this page, it sounds like it was written by a cellulose insulation salesman. I have no problem with salesmen writing Wikipedia articles. On the contrary, I heartily approve of it since they usually have a lot of useful knowledge. However, the tone of this article should be revised to make it sound more objective, and less like a sales pitch. Specific examples of sections that sound particularly subjective would be the "Insulation is Green" section near the bottom, and the "Low toxicity and environmental impact of raw materials" section which explicitly puts down fibreglass insulation. Again, I don't doubt the validity of these claims, but the neutrality of this article should come first. --Engmech123 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- I specifically came to the talk page just to see if this issue was already discussed. 158.140.1.28 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Density[edit]

In two places the article discusses the density of Cellulose insulation compared to Fiberglass insulation. In the paragraph "Sound Insulation" it states that Cellulose is "about three times the density of Fiberglass". This statement is repeated in the paragraph "Weight". But neither of these paragraphs discuss the actual density of either material. Density is an important factor in determining cost and effectiveness of an insulation material. And whereas it is truly difficult to predict what the actual installed density of ANY Blown-In Insulation material may be at a particular installation, this article would benefit greatly from a discussion of theoretical principles of cellulose densities in relation to its effectiveness as a thermal, vapor or acoustic barrier. This information in turn would provide useful insights to the comparative cost of Cellulose as opposed to other insulation materials. The absence of this information speaks to the objectivity of this article (i.e. the lack thereof). Erik12om (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sound[edit]

I don't see where the source supports this statement: " Several installation options allow walls to have a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50 or greater.[2] " Strangesad (talk) 06:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So much of this article appears to be unsupported conjecture[edit]

I have added "^{[citation needed]}" in several places in this article. . A representative example can be found in the 'Spray Applied' section following a claim that 'chlorine' is added as a 'moisture retardant'. There is no reference. This is understandable: a quick google search provides no evidence supporting the existence of this mythical 'chlorine-moisture-retardant'. . Unfortunately, this regrettable example is less an exception and more closely representative of much of the article. 70.185.127.32 (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC) BGriffin[reply]

Boric acid, ammonium sulfate, ink from paper? Is this a safe combination to breathe?[edit]

My son was in the attic for about 3-4 hours buried in the insulation breathing in the dust particles from this insulation and then sprayed with mace which more or less glued this dust to his throat, lungs, and sinuses. He has been having migraines and coughing up blood for several weeks now. Vmcbroom (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cellulose insulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cellulose insulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Cptmrmcmillan (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]