I've worked with mineral wool for years and I've never seen any of the effects that Cartwright is describing. In fact, it sounds like he's describing fiberglass (which does cause contact dermatitis) rather than mineral wool. I've handled mineral wool without gloves. It is interesting that he describes mineral wool as "man-made vitreous fiber". That isn't correct. That term refers to glass-fiber (hence the term "vitreous"). It would explain why he complained of skin problems after handling it without gloves. There are specific and explicit warnings on fiberglass packaging to wear gloves, goggles and breathing masks. As for his empty speculation that mineral wool is "effectively the replacement technology to asbestos". Even if that were true, it is irrelevant and a sleazy attempt to create guilt by association. It should also be pointed out that Gary Cartwright isn't a doctor, medical research or scientist of any kind. He's a blogger who works with an online publisher called "EU Today". In any case, it is hard to take a guy seriously when he doesn't understand the difference between mineral wool and fiberglass - or even that there is one.
Here is a toxicologist's opinion: ua-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/v-deo.html Rockwool was classified as cancer causing in 1988 until additional insulation industry sponsored research "proved" that it did not really cause cancer. Based on this, the IARC changed the carcinogen classification for rock wool (and fiberglass) from Group 2B (possible human carcinogen) to group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans). Go find where the insulation institute addresses who sponsored this "new" research: information.insulationinstitute.org/blog/why-some-products-have-a-cancer-warning-label They didn't mention that part. Are we surprised? No. This is common in the industry! Big tabacco sponsered research for decades, successfully "proving" that tobacco was harmless and even healthy! Even their TV ads were informing the public about the health benefits. Since the media was paid through cigarette ads, they went along with their golden goose and many didn't dare to publish a "smoking is bad" research article. When we put the fox in charge of the hen house, what else can we expect? The same story is happening with the phone industry. Cell phones are supposedely harmless since radar is non-ionizing, so we are led to believe. Unfortunately, one does not need ionizing energy in order to get a tumor. Persistant inflammation can cause cancer, whether that is due to bad nutrition, small particles or fibers that get stuck in the lung, persistant stress or lack of sleep. The cause of inflammation doesn't matter! The phone industry has also been sponsoring research that contradicts others research. Due to all this "contradictionary" research, we are led to conclude that cell phones are safe. Just as with big tabacco, some courts are starting to disagree: www.smart-safe.com/blogs/news/fifth-court-in-italy-ruled-cell-phones-cause-brain-tumors-and-determined-it-is-an-occupational-disease 5 G with its much higher energy density is coming because it's going to be a trillion $$$ industry. Who is concerned? Independent scientists and unbiased policy makers ALL over the world: www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal Unbiased researchers do not have the deep pockets to "influence" our mass media and our politicians. That is the sad reality. Meanwhile, rockwool doesn't seem to have a better alternative and world governments are focussing on energy conservation. Such politics may also have played a part in the "non-cancer causing" reclassification. The rockwool safety sheet recommends the use a NIOSH certified dust respirator with an efficiency rating of MINIMUM N95 during the install to protect our lungs from it's "safe" fibers. Ironic, isn't it? files.stifirestop.com/5.%20Safety%20Data%20Sheets%2F1.%20English%2FSDS_Roxul-Safe.pdf
Well, for me it was enough to handle rockwool (not even bare, but packed in textile, and definitely not fiberglass) once for just a few minutes and all my hands became itchy for the whole day.
You sound like the dopes that said the same thing about Asbestos back in the day. Its anti-Capitalism and Industry. Blah, blah, blah. Here is another dumb anecdotal logic that people like you probably spew. "I know several people that smoke cigarettes and cigars and have lived very long lives". Oh its true, its true!
Bare hands, no rash. I guess some people may be more sensitive to the product. The EU is like California: everything has been determined to be carcinogenic. I think Europe should be much more concerned about where it gets natural gas and fuel from.
this was the most incompetent interview ever. Only one solid point was made by a guy on the left. The scratching on your hands (somewhat) similarly happens in your lungs (BARELY) since those fibers get wet in your lungs and cant be dry sharp and to stitch anymore, their micro-particular behavior changes due tho cohesive properties. take rockwool in your hand and rub it, it will scratch your hand, then do it on the other hand but make it very wet, you will see that it will not itch at all. Further more those particles are easily absorbed by our macrophages or on the other hand excreted by your slime in your respiratory tract. Comparing some substance that can itch a little bit to a cancerogen is just non-sense. So here are official data by various world health organizations which can not be all somehow magically controlled by a company called rockwool with 2 billion in revenue which is quite laughable compared to other textile industries that would be super happy to jump in as asbestos alternative: Rockwool and Slagwool: • A large study of glasswool, rockwool, and slagwool workers in the U.S. analyzing mortality data from the 1940s to the 1980s showed no or small increases in the risk for respiratory system cancer, but no correlation between length of exposure and increased risk. (1) • A study of respiratory cancer among glasswool, rockwool, and slagwool workers in the U.S. analyzing mortality data collected until 1992 reported a small, but statistically significant increase in respiratory cancer for workers employed less than 5 years. However, no increased cancer risk was reported with years of employment or cumulative exposure. (1) • A large European study of glasswool, rockwool, or slagwool workers showed no increased cancer risk related to date of hire or employment length. (1) • In chronic inhalation studies in rats exposed to rockwool and slagwool, no increase in lung tumor incidence was seen. (1) • EPA has not classified rockwool or slagwool for carcinogenicity. • IARC has classified rockwool and slagwool as Group 3, not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans. (4) Only thing that so far did happen was that they put rats for 6 years 6 hours a day to inhale highly concentrated rockwool particles WITHOUT any protection and they noticed SOME scaring. They could not even say moderate or sever scarring but rather wrote "some statistically significant" in other words in real world not significant scarring... lol you know if you inhale regular sand that way you for 6 years 6 hours a day through a tube you will have SOME MAJOR scarring on your lungs. So here is my professional opinion: Rockwool particles size is okay and easy to digest, easy to throw out with slime as well, it is easily dissolved, can be itchy and don't be dumb with it, put on a mask and do the best job you can. Further more if you have a studio with a lot of sound absorbing panels that you may not just cover since it will affect the acoustics of that panel, then make sure you don't move it around, rockwool is very heavy as dust and it falls on the ground, buy a good vacum cleaner, make vacum cleaning your routine and it won't even itch anymore. Further more Rockwool isn't anything new, it has been around for decades and decades and generations of professional workers with rockwool have grown up and died out and of course we would have by now be able to figure out what they were dying of and if it was related to lungs disease. Those two guys gave no facts what so ever, what so ever... So as someone with medical background and someone who was deeply interested in the subject since I was building a studio with my company couple of months ago and needed some truthful reliable and verifiable facts, I have discovered that Rockwool is not lying. Even Russian medical studies in Russia they still use asbestos and admit it is harmful but it is very cheap for them to mine, they admit that rockwool is much safer, to be quite exact >> completely safe. That is basically a country where Rockwool is seen as a threat to domestic industries of asbestos, their medical institutions still gave out reliable information about Rockwool to their population. If you think otherwise, please show evidence.
@@bobsagget823 Yeah that study says that it takes longer to dissolve some particular rockwool of newer brands under same pH value. So they refer to post 1995 fibers as being the potentially bad ones. So for example In most cases, symptoms of asbestosis take 20 to 30 years to present from the time someone is initially exposed to asbestos. So in theory, yeah... What if that effect really takes so much toll on our lungs and if pH value is all that matters or at least mostly matters in this case? Theoretically anything is possible. You go out now, a car might hit you on the road. The study was not to prove that it is cancerogenic. It was not even to prove that it stays longer in the lungs. It was only to prove that solubility under that pH value is somewhat different. I am not convinced and I'm leaving my studio as it is. I don't like to be dismissive. I hate dismissive people. Yes that study indicates that maybe it is possible that those newer brands stay longer in the lungs. Do they? Well even the study says "Considering the content of respirable fibres, these findings imply that the risk assessment of modern stone wool may need to be revisited based on in-vivo studies of MMFV as marketed (with binder)." So they call for in-vivo studies to see. And I agree, it should be investigates. Still even if something horrible would come out, I don't expect anything even remotely close to Asbestosis. Such studies and implications must be investigated as soon as possible to prevent speculations and possible damage. Being ignorant serves no one. I really tried to have realistic and not one sided view to this topic. So far it stays as it is, there are no studies that prove it is causing cancer or something.
@@dominikusenicnik4470 Well as far as I can tell, yes... Not only I say so, I acted upon that and have made them myself for my own studio. In fact I spend 5 hours a day in a room full of it. So...
Why compare it with asbestos? They're not the same. Rockwool fibers are single monofilament strands that don't separate into thin fibrils like asbestos, and will not penetrate the cell walls within the body. I guess these twats have never handled a batt of fiberglass insulation before. If they knew what they were talking about, or knew how to do proper journalism to begin with, then they would understand that FIBERGLASS insulation was developed to replace asbestos insulation (not necessarily asbestos products) when it was banned in the UK nearly FOUR decades ago. Rockwool is the latest innovation in building insulation, and is intended to replace fiberglass insulation. You know, that itchy, lung irritating crap that goes airborne just by looking at it. Trust me, those of us working in the construction industry are well aware of the risks of ALL building materials - it's our job to understand them. If you're working and installing ANY fibrous building material for an extended period of time without protecting your lungs, then you're an idiot who deserves a Darwin award.
Stonewool has been studied, and it does not remain in the lungs as long as organic fibers, nor does it cause the same irritation as fiberglass. This legislation is based on superficial resemblance to asbestos, not data. Yes, it can cause irritation snd proper PPE should be used. EU has been unreasonable and not science based in the restriction of products, such as glyphosate, and this has caused economic and environmental harm.
@@uadcro yes, it means more tillage, which causes land errossion, while burning fossil fuels, and increases land requirements for food production, which reduces land conservation.
@@brettknoss486 I want to use Rockwooll too to insulate my house and I love that it's not flammable. I don't see how literal rock crystals could dissolve but still even if it's unhealthy, the usefulness is just too good
I don’t put any value in what was presented in this video. Nothing was mentioned about Mr. Cartwrights’ credentials (if any), about the testing procedure, the length of the testing, or any statistics to support his claims. Basically, there's a complete lack of credibility. Watching this video was a waste of time and appears to be an alarmists’ viewpoint. This is no different than someone making a 10 second video saying popsicles are dangerous and then walking off the stage.
hi i read a lot of bad things about rockwool but i need to make acoustic panels for the living room, where my kids go too. did i read that i am carcinogenic? that are bad for your health? Thanks for the reply
Before working with fiber glass or minieral wool cover yourself from head to toe with clothing. They sell clothing kits to wear top to bottom for very cheap. Any exposed skin that could be exposed like your lower back, neck, face especially forehead with baby powder. The powder will protect your skin from exposure and drastically reduce or eliminate the itching. Do not ever breathe the stuff or get it in your eyes. Protect Protect Protect.
1 it TOUCHES his hand its not TOUCHING the lungs...., fierglass causes skin irritation, is he concerned about that, is it safe? not if u breathe it.... and spray foam is flammable, more dangerous.... i was just going to use rockwool tomorrow, should i?
I was really hoping for a more in depth discusion as to why its unsafe . Fiberglass insulation used in most homes now makes you itch . Since it is made from rocks it was an easy conclusion that the binding agent would be the bad part . It's really hard to pick and alternative material because they all seem to have many pros and cons both to humans and the environment.
it's less about what it's made from and more about the structure and durability of the fibers. I.e. they are small fibres that can lodge themselves in your lungs and they're not biodegradable so they stay there and cause permanent inflammation. Same issues with fiberglass.
One thought to the positive would be to either coat during manufacturing or blend the base material with a metal again during production. Aluminum for example could seal the material but once cut to fit it would be back at square one with the health hazard. Blending the stone while in liquid form with aluminum even to a microscopic degree could produce the same or better characteristics but would reduce any microscopic fly away material. For that matter a non flammable dampening spray, perhaps silicone oil would also reduce the detrimental environmental factors.
My concern with Rockwool is the addition of phenol formaldehyde as the binding agent. Rockwool says their product doesn't off-gas, but I'd like to see some evidence of this. Rockwool does make a formaldehyde-free product, but it is impossible to source.
Yep - I TRIED to order some formaldehyde-free Rockwool. The distribution warehouse had no idea what I was talking about. They said they would try to get a sample for free and get back to me. Never got back to me. Strange.
Phenol formaldehyde is NOT formaldehyde. It is already reacted, so doesn't pose the same chamical hazard, and does not outgas. Instead of being a light, volatile compound it is a nard palymer. See Wikipedia.
On a similar front. I worked a short 3 weeks in a fiberglass factory. Up to a year later I would find strand of fiberglass that looked like a hair, but pulling it was a 6-8 inch strand of glass that had been floating around my body. That can’t be good. Wear protection, gloves, suits , masks on any fiber or dust product it just makes sense to do that.
As I am about to install Rockwool in my attic, that will be also a bedroom, I begin to worry. And not only for the time handling the material during installation but I also worry that, in the future, the fibers may slip through the cracks between the rafters and the wood panels and be constantly in the air. Also, the insulation I got is called Rockwool Multirock. I believe it's made in Romania and it doesn't seem to be in the market anywhere else but in Eastern Europe. I wonder if it's yet again another substandard product that is only acceptable in Eastern Europe and not in the West. I noticed how easily the material breaks into pieces, when handling, and there's definitely lots of particles floating in the air. I don't know what to do. I've already spent a bunch of money for this insulation. I'm trying to convince myself that, if Rockwool is so widely used, it's probably not that bad. Here is another video that explains why fibers (glass and those of mineral wool as well) are harmful: "Dr. John Hadley: A Toxicologist’s Review of Fiber Glass and Mineral Wool Insulation Fibers" ua-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/v-deo.html
You need to seal the penetrations from attic to the living space below as much as possible. Then lay insulation over that and maybe a radiant barrier above that to reflect that radiance from the roof itself or move radiant barrier to the roof rafters while allowing air flow in and out of under the roof from the outside to avoid problems like ice damming. Using baffles can be useful then radiant barrier behind that so baffles flow the fresh air in and out and the barrier stops the radiant temps from the roof (radiant barrier on both sides can help keep the heat in the attic during the winter. With minimized airflow from attic to living space you drastically cut down on fiber glass or mineral wool falling into the living space. As a precaution, things on the top floor right below the attic can be covered and then vacuumed. The good thing about mineral over fiber glass is that it doesn't float like fiberglass; it sinks which can then be wet-vac'd up .
I was using rockwool for one week, insulating my house in closed spaces, and i had a cough that lasted like 4 days to heal. I have a strong nature so i was surprised at first, after that i'm cautious when i'm using fibers (either rock or glass)
@Dabid5 Didn't you read the manual, or at least look at the pictograms? Gloves, eye protection, mask, etc.? There is probably a reason behind the use of these, don't you think?
@@DesertFernweh no, my bad. I remember i started with a mask, but i had to handle so many packets on my own, steps, small rooms all by myself, that the mask exhausted me and got rid of it
I'm working with it and armaflex last 6 years, nothing except itching sometimes. Last education we had here in Sweden, they said in 3 years they'll stop with mineral wool and only rubber will be allowed(armacell)
There can be health issues with any product that creates small particles that can be inhaled. This goes for concrete, wood, paint, plaster, metals and the list goes on. This is why health and safety protocols mandate that you wear the appropriate protective gear for each type of material. As for this panel: Can you say hired shills?
Yes but the main point is if the materials is biodegradable or not. And if it produces small enough particles to not be expelled by the lungs defense mechanisms or not.
It's not just the workers who install, but also the people who live afterwards. Especially in log cabins where the inner wall is made of wood 15-20mm thick with small gaps between... For years, they will inhale what falls out of the walls or attic. And what is the alternative?
Well you have to where PPE these guys have got vested interests surely paid by their rivals like PIR which is flammable - Mineral wool doesn't burn unlike the Grenfell disaster
Never believe how good something is from someone who has something to benefit from it; Never believe how bad something is from a competitor; Look for independent unbiased proof. E.g. Don't believe research sponsored by tobacco companies about the effects of cigarettes, etc. I've noticed, even in myself, that we tend to believe the first story/opinion we hear if it sound credible...but then you MUST hear the other side of the argument, because that's often just as convincing
Before you go and introduce legestation should you not find need and reason? Rock wool and asbestos are of a different chemical composition. A mask and protective clothing are the best defence right now. This video is four years old and have any problems such as cancer links been discovered?
Rockwool is building a facility less than 1/2 a mile from our children’s elementary school. They will have two 213 ft smokestacks and burning 82-90 tons of coal a day across from growing children.
Well with the world we live in. Chances are higher that one of their teachers will fuck them before any of them get cancer from rockwool. Roll the dice.
This should be scrutinized to the max. Lots of homes have it laid on fireplaces, walls, ceilings and other places where there is airflow. At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging pacifist (which I'm not), I would say that mankind needs to stop putting money first, and consider the health of those who unsuspectedly use such products.
Unlike any generation before we have this blessing of global communication so this and messages like it can get out. This particular product seemed obvious as a hazard from the start if considering the natural form created by magma and the airborne particles around it.
True. The main problem though is that expecting that in a capitalist setting (money above all, money themselves have now value, competition based) is, well, you'll be disappointed. That's the reason of all our today's problems, climate change problem/pollution, automation instead of bettering human experience = humans losing means to make a living, economic inequality when we know that we humans desperately need the opposite, etc - because we put money (and capitalist principles in general) above all, as our goal, as our guide.
I used this product to insulate a 2500 square foot home. I wore only surgical gloves (for PPE) and had no issues except minor itching on my right arm that went away after showering. I am not sure that the itching was caused by this product, but I cant rule it out either.
Got no problems here...great product my kids rooms are so much warmer in winter..cooler in sumer and sound down fireproof easy to work with...what are they talking about???
This amounts to a "puff piece." The first panelist really just made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions and then immediately made a comparison to asbestos. Why? No one knows.
I would Have to seriously argue , these three mens point ! And really and truly ,Laughable that you have two from Europe , one from Romaina ? Just off hand , what would possibly make anyone think or believe that Europe would be a authority on anything , besides Historical mistakes , since recorded history ? And a Construction Business owner from Romainia ? I must have missed the E-Mail , That they were the leading edge of Industry ? I think they've put to much stock in the Queen & Tea !
Opinion are like Arseholes - everyone has one. I’m not interested in opinions, I’m interested in facts which are obtained through impartial scientific research.
They did a study on millions of work hours of workers in insulation manufacturing compared to the general population and there was no increased incidence in cancer. They did a study on rats exposed to inhaled fibers and the fibers were eliminated and did not cause cancer.
Sorry but I don't really think these people are qualified to talk about this topic. Just because you install it in your works doesn't mean you understand what it is as he clearly mistaken fiberglass for Rockwool
Asbestos is a catch all for like a dozen different materials, stone wool IS asbestos as well. The same kind if process of how the natural stuff is made is the same process of how the man man stuff is created.(sort of like cotton candy but with lava) There is a difference in the binding agent used in the man made stuff. But the formaldehyde in that also poses a risk and if or when that binding agent degrades there will be no difference between the natural stone wool and the man made stone wool.
I've worked with mineral wool for years and I've never seen any of the effects that Cartwright is describing. In fact, it sounds like he's describing fiberglass (which does cause contact dermatitis) rather than mineral wool.
I've handled mineral wool without gloves.
It is interesting that he describes mineral wool as "man-made vitreous fiber". That isn't correct. That term refers to glass-fiber (hence the term "vitreous"). It would explain why he complained of skin problems after handling it without gloves. There are specific and explicit warnings on fiberglass packaging to wear gloves, goggles and breathing masks.
As for his empty speculation that mineral wool is "effectively the replacement technology to asbestos". Even if that were true, it is irrelevant and a sleazy attempt to create guilt by association.
It should also be pointed out that Gary Cartwright isn't a doctor, medical research or scientist of any kind. He's a blogger who works with an online publisher called "EU Today".
In any case, it is hard to take a guy seriously when he doesn't understand the difference between mineral wool and fiberglass - or even that there is one.
Here is a toxicologist's opinion: ua-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/v-deo.html
Rockwool was classified as cancer causing in 1988 until additional insulation industry sponsored research "proved" that it did not really cause cancer. Based on this, the IARC changed the carcinogen classification for rock wool (and fiberglass) from Group 2B (possible human carcinogen) to group 3 (not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans). Go find where the insulation institute addresses who sponsored this "new" research: information.insulationinstitute.org/blog/why-some-products-have-a-cancer-warning-label
They didn't mention that part. Are we surprised? No. This is common in the industry!
Big tabacco sponsered research for decades, successfully "proving" that tobacco was harmless and even healthy! Even their TV ads were informing the public about the health benefits. Since the media was paid through cigarette ads, they went along with their golden goose and many didn't dare to publish a "smoking is bad" research article.
When we put the fox in charge of the hen house, what else can we expect?
The same story is happening with the phone industry. Cell phones are supposedely harmless since radar is non-ionizing, so we are led to believe. Unfortunately, one does not need ionizing energy in order to get a tumor. Persistant inflammation can cause cancer, whether that is due to bad nutrition, small particles or fibers that get stuck in the lung, persistant stress or lack of sleep. The cause of inflammation doesn't matter!
The phone industry has also been sponsoring research that contradicts others research. Due to all this "contradictionary" research, we are led to conclude that cell phones are safe.
Just as with big tabacco, some courts are starting to disagree:
www.smart-safe.com/blogs/news/fifth-court-in-italy-ruled-cell-phones-cause-brain-tumors-and-determined-it-is-an-occupational-disease
5 G with its much higher energy density is coming because it's going to be a trillion $$$ industry. Who is concerned? Independent scientists and unbiased policy makers ALL over the world: www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal
Unbiased researchers do not have the deep pockets to "influence" our mass media and our politicians. That is the sad reality. Meanwhile, rockwool doesn't seem to have a better alternative and world governments are focussing on energy conservation. Such politics may also have played a part in the "non-cancer causing" reclassification.
The rockwool safety sheet recommends the use a NIOSH certified dust respirator with an efficiency rating of MINIMUM N95 during the install to protect our lungs from it's "safe" fibers. Ironic, isn't it?
files.stifirestop.com/5.%20Safety%20Data%20Sheets%2F1.%20English%2FSDS_Roxul-Safe.pdf
Well, for me it was enough to handle rockwool (not even bare, but packed in textile, and definitely not fiberglass) once for just a few minutes and all my hands became itchy for the whole day.
@@kristupaskmitas5440 wear gloves and only put it in things that fully cover it up 😂
You sound like the dopes that said the same thing about Asbestos back in the day. Its anti-Capitalism and Industry. Blah, blah, blah. Here is another dumb anecdotal logic that people like you probably spew. "I know several people that smoke cigarettes and cigars and have lived very long lives". Oh its true, its true!
Bare hands, no rash. I guess some people may be more sensitive to the product.
The EU is like California: everything has been determined to be carcinogenic.
I think Europe should be much more concerned about where it gets natural gas and fuel from.
this was the most incompetent interview ever. Only one solid point was made by a guy on the left. The scratching on your hands (somewhat) similarly happens in your lungs (BARELY) since those fibers get wet in your lungs and cant be dry sharp and to stitch anymore, their micro-particular behavior changes due tho cohesive properties. take rockwool in your hand and rub it, it will scratch your hand, then do it on the other hand but make it very wet, you will see that it will not itch at all. Further more those particles are easily absorbed by our macrophages or on the other hand excreted by your slime in your respiratory tract. Comparing some substance that can itch a little bit to a cancerogen is just non-sense.
So here are official data by various world health organizations which can not be all somehow magically controlled by a company called rockwool with 2 billion in revenue which is quite laughable compared to other textile industries that would be super happy to jump in as asbestos alternative:
Rockwool and Slagwool:
• A large study of glasswool, rockwool, and slagwool workers in the U.S. analyzing mortality data
from the 1940s to the 1980s showed no or small increases in the risk for respiratory system
cancer, but no correlation between length of exposure and increased risk. (1)
• A study of respiratory cancer among glasswool, rockwool, and slagwool workers in the U.S.
analyzing mortality data collected until 1992 reported a small, but statistically significant
increase in respiratory cancer for workers employed less than 5 years. However, no increased
cancer risk was reported with years of employment or cumulative exposure. (1)
• A large European study of glasswool, rockwool, or slagwool workers showed no increased cancer
risk related to date of hire or employment length. (1)
• In chronic inhalation studies in rats exposed to rockwool and slagwool, no increase in lung
tumor incidence was seen. (1)
• EPA has not classified rockwool or slagwool for carcinogenicity.
• IARC has classified rockwool and slagwool as Group 3, not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity
to humans. (4)
Only thing that so far did happen was that they put rats for 6 years 6 hours a day to inhale highly concentrated rockwool particles WITHOUT any protection and they noticed SOME scaring. They could not even say moderate or sever scarring but rather wrote "some statistically significant" in other words in real world not significant scarring... lol you know if you inhale regular sand that way you for 6 years 6 hours a day through a tube you will have SOME MAJOR scarring on your lungs. So here is my professional opinion: Rockwool particles size is okay and easy to digest, easy to throw out with slime as well, it is easily dissolved, can be itchy and don't be dumb with it, put on a mask and do the best job you can. Further more if you have a studio with a lot of sound absorbing panels that you may not just cover since it will affect the acoustics of that panel, then make sure you don't move it around, rockwool is very heavy as dust and it falls on the ground, buy a good vacum cleaner, make vacum cleaning your routine and it won't even itch anymore. Further more Rockwool isn't anything new, it has been around for decades and decades and generations of professional workers with rockwool have grown up and died out and of course we would have by now be able to figure out what they were dying of and if it was related to lungs disease. Those two guys gave no facts what so ever, what so ever... So as someone with medical background and someone who was deeply interested in the subject since I was building a studio with my company couple of months ago and needed some truthful reliable and verifiable facts, I have discovered that Rockwool is not lying. Even Russian medical studies in Russia they still use asbestos and admit it is harmful but it is very cheap for them to mine, they admit that rockwool is much safer, to be quite exact >> completely safe. That is basically a country where Rockwool is seen as a threat to domestic industries of asbestos, their medical institutions still gave out reliable information about Rockwool to their population. If you think otherwise, please show evidence.
Thanks man, I had a open glass/rock wool spot on the wall, and got really scared, now I am more calm
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28784145/
@@bobsagget823 Yeah that study says that it takes longer to dissolve some particular rockwool of newer brands under same pH value. So they refer to post 1995 fibers as being the potentially bad ones. So for example In most cases, symptoms of asbestosis take 20 to 30 years to present from the time someone is initially exposed to asbestos. So in theory, yeah... What if that effect really takes so much toll on our lungs and if pH value is all that matters or at least mostly matters in this case? Theoretically anything is possible. You go out now, a car might hit you on the road. The study was not to prove that it is cancerogenic. It was not even to prove that it stays longer in the lungs. It was only to prove that solubility under that pH value is somewhat different. I am not convinced and I'm leaving my studio as it is. I don't like to be dismissive. I hate dismissive people. Yes that study indicates that maybe it is possible that those newer brands stay longer in the lungs. Do they? Well even the study says "Considering the content of respirable fibres, these findings imply that the risk assessment of modern stone wool may need to be revisited based on in-vivo studies of MMFV as marketed (with binder)."
So they call for in-vivo studies to see. And I agree, it should be investigates. Still even if something horrible would come out, I don't expect anything even remotely close to Asbestosis. Such studies and implications must be investigated as soon as possible to prevent speculations and possible damage. Being ignorant serves no one. I really tried to have realistic and not one sided view to this topic. So far it stays as it is, there are no studies that prove it is causing cancer or something.
@@TeacherFlash hey! so if I am making a sound panels for my studio with rockwool its completely safe then?
@@dominikusenicnik4470 Well as far as I can tell, yes... Not only I say so, I acted upon that and have made them myself for my own studio. In fact I spend 5 hours a day in a room full of it. So...
Why compare it with asbestos? They're not the same. Rockwool fibers are single monofilament strands that don't separate into thin fibrils like asbestos, and will not penetrate the cell walls within the body. I guess these twats have never handled a batt of fiberglass insulation before. If they knew what they were talking about, or knew how to do proper journalism to begin with, then they would understand that FIBERGLASS insulation was developed to replace asbestos insulation (not necessarily asbestos products) when it was banned in the UK nearly FOUR decades ago. Rockwool is the latest innovation in building insulation, and is intended to replace fiberglass insulation. You know, that itchy, lung irritating crap that goes airborne just by looking at it. Trust me, those of us working in the construction industry are well aware of the risks of ALL building materials - it's our job to understand them. If you're working and installing ANY fibrous building material for an extended period of time without protecting your lungs, then you're an idiot who deserves a Darwin award.
I thought they were worried about the scarring that mineral wool is confirmed to do?
Pro sound people say it is BAD for sound panels it can kill you later
The EU is in trouble for exactly this kind of counter factual fact-free bs.
Stonewool has been studied, and it does not remain in the lungs as long as organic fibers, nor does it cause the same irritation as fiberglass. This legislation is based on superficial resemblance to asbestos, not data. Yes, it can cause irritation snd proper PPE should be used. EU has been unreasonable and not science based in the restriction of products, such as glyphosate, and this has caused economic and environmental harm.
How do you know? It takes decades for the effects to be seen.
Not using glyphosphate causes environmental harm?? 😂😂
@@uadcro yes, it means more tillage, which causes land errossion, while burning fossil fuels, and increases land requirements for food production, which reduces land conservation.
@@HyuLilium rockwool dissolves in the lungs, whereas asbestos accumulates and continues to cause harm for decades.
@@brettknoss486 I want to use Rockwooll too to insulate my house and I love that it's not flammable. I don't see how literal rock crystals could dissolve but still even if it's unhealthy, the usefulness is just too good
I don’t put any value in what was presented in this video. Nothing was mentioned about Mr. Cartwrights’ credentials (if any), about the testing procedure, the length of the testing, or any statistics to support his claims. Basically, there's a complete lack of credibility. Watching this video was a waste of time and appears to be an alarmists’ viewpoint. This is no different than someone making a 10 second video saying popsicles are dangerous and then walking off the stage.
As far as I can tell, Cartwright is a blogger who advocates for more and stricter laws on any given subject.
He’s down grading mineral wool ……..has he looked at his hair in the mirror?
What are your credentials...how much testing have you done personally..and how much work have you done with this substance?
The guy on the left has been rubbing rockwall into his face!
hi i read a lot of bad things about rockwool but i need to make acoustic panels for the living room, where my kids go too. did i read that i am carcinogenic? that are bad for your health? Thanks for the reply
Is it safe to use in fish tanks to hold plants together?
Before working with fiber glass or minieral wool cover yourself from head to toe with clothing. They sell clothing kits to wear top to bottom for very cheap. Any exposed skin that could be exposed like your lower back, neck, face especially forehead with baby powder. The powder will protect your skin from exposure and drastically reduce or eliminate the itching.
Do not ever breathe the stuff or get it in your eyes. Protect Protect Protect.
1 it TOUCHES his hand its not TOUCHING the lungs...., fierglass causes skin irritation, is he concerned about that, is it safe? not if u breathe it.... and spray foam is flammable, more dangerous.... i was just going to use rockwool tomorrow, should i?
So wear proper, recommend PPE. Same goes for fiberglass.
I was really hoping for a more in depth discusion as to why its unsafe . Fiberglass insulation used in most homes now makes you itch . Since it is made from rocks it was an easy conclusion that the binding agent would be the bad part . It's really hard to pick and alternative material because they all seem to have many pros and cons both to humans and the environment.
It's not only made from rocks.
I work for Rockwool in the United States, and trust me it still makes you itch just as bad as fiberglass, if not worse
it's less about what it's made from and more about the structure and durability of the fibers. I.e. they are small fibres that can lodge themselves in your lungs and they're not biodegradable so they stay there and cause permanent inflammation. Same issues with fiberglass.
One thought to the positive would be to either coat during manufacturing or blend the base material with a metal again during production. Aluminum for example could seal the material but once cut to fit it would be back at square one with the health hazard. Blending the stone while in liquid form with aluminum even to a microscopic degree could produce the same or better characteristics but would reduce any microscopic fly away material. For that matter a non flammable dampening spray, perhaps silicone oil would also reduce the detrimental environmental factors.
Couldn't we just ingolf rockwool in something, even simple plastic bags? Or anything really, does it have to be opened as material?
They use a binder for that vary reason.
My concern with Rockwool is the addition of phenol formaldehyde as the binding agent. Rockwool says their product doesn't off-gas, but I'd like to see some evidence of this. Rockwool does make a formaldehyde-free product, but it is impossible to source.
Yep - I TRIED to order some formaldehyde-free Rockwool. The distribution warehouse had no idea what I was talking about. They said they would try to get a sample for free and get back to me. Never got back to me. Strange.
Phenol formaldehyde is NOT formaldehyde. It is already reacted, so doesn't pose the same chamical hazard, and does not outgas. Instead of being a light, volatile compound it is a nard palymer. See Wikipedia.
@@paullangford8179 No it still off gasses but can be reduced in certain circumstances to almost 90% less, but it absolutely still off gasses.
On a similar front. I worked a short 3 weeks in a fiberglass factory. Up to a year later I would find strand of fiberglass that looked like a hair, but pulling it was a 6-8 inch strand of glass that had been floating around my body. That can’t be good. Wear protection, gloves, suits , masks on any fiber or dust product it just makes sense to do that.
As I am about to install Rockwool in my attic, that will be also a bedroom, I begin to worry. And not only for the time handling the material during installation but I also worry that, in the future, the fibers may slip through the cracks between the rafters and the wood panels and be constantly in the air. Also, the insulation I got is called Rockwool Multirock. I believe it's made in Romania and it doesn't seem to be in the market anywhere else but in Eastern Europe. I wonder if it's yet again another substandard product that is only acceptable in Eastern Europe and not in the West. I noticed how easily the material breaks into pieces, when handling, and there's definitely lots of particles floating in the air. I don't know what to do. I've already spent a bunch of money for this insulation. I'm trying to convince myself that, if Rockwool is so widely used, it's probably not that bad. Here is another video that explains why fibers (glass and those of mineral wool as well) are harmful: "Dr. John Hadley: A Toxicologist’s Review of Fiber Glass and Mineral Wool Insulation Fibers" ua-cam.com/video/MSJjipaPxUE/v-deo.html
If you put the insulation on the inside of the wall you also must add a vapor barrier so there's no reason to be worried about the floating particles
You need to seal the penetrations from attic to the living space below as much as possible. Then lay insulation over that and maybe a radiant barrier above that to reflect that radiance from the roof itself or move radiant barrier to the roof rafters while allowing air flow in and out of under the roof from the outside to avoid problems like ice damming. Using baffles can be useful then radiant barrier behind that so baffles flow the fresh air in and out and the barrier stops the radiant temps from the roof (radiant barrier on both sides can help keep the heat in the attic during the winter.
With minimized airflow from attic to living space you drastically cut down on fiber glass or mineral wool falling into the living space. As a precaution, things on the top floor right below the attic can be covered and then vacuumed. The good thing about mineral over fiber glass is that it doesn't float like fiberglass; it sinks which can then be wet-vac'd up .
It’s amazing how many people will but into a random video on the internet that offers no proof of their claims.
I was using rockwool for one week, insulating my house in closed spaces, and i had a cough that lasted like 4 days to heal. I have a strong nature so i was surprised at first, after that i'm cautious when i'm using fibers (either rock or glass)
@Dabid5
Didn't you read the manual, or at least look at the pictograms? Gloves, eye protection, mask, etc.? There is probably a reason behind the use of these, don't you think?
Did you wear a mask?
@@alexvassilev9586 that's the point, they should include gloves and a mask, like in the polyuretane cans, no big deal.
@@DesertFernweh no, my bad. I remember i started with a mask, but i had to handle so many packets on my own, steps, small rooms all by myself, that the mask exhausted me and got rid of it
I'm working with it and armaflex last 6 years, nothing except itching sometimes. Last education we had here in Sweden, they said in 3 years they'll stop with mineral wool and only rubber will be allowed(armacell)
These two should also study the risk of sprayfoam which is not regulated and should be!
There can be health issues with any product that creates small particles that can be inhaled. This goes for concrete, wood, paint, plaster, metals and the list goes on. This is why health and safety protocols mandate that you wear the appropriate protective gear for each type of material.
As for this panel: Can you say hired shills?
Yes but the main point is if the materials is biodegradable or not. And if it produces small enough particles to not be expelled by the lungs defense mechanisms or not.
@@titter3648 Rockwool is not a biological substance and you wouldn't want one in the walls of your home anyway
It's not just the workers who install, but also the people who live afterwards. Especially in log cabins where the inner wall is made of wood 15-20mm thick with small gaps between...
For years, they will inhale what falls out of the walls or attic.
And what is the alternative?
I never have a problem with mineral wood. Fiberglas yes. I doubt this is actually a new program but more of a punch against rock wool.
I just been offered a full time job to work with Rockwool. Don't know if I should take it or not.
Did you take it?
Well you have to where PPE these guys have got vested interests surely paid by their rivals like PIR which is flammable - Mineral wool doesn't burn unlike the Grenfell disaster
These guys have been eating asbestos!
can you show us some evidence please
I wonder who funded his research???
Fiberglass insulation manufacturers was my guess 3 minutes in.
Never believe how good something is from someone who has something to benefit from it; Never believe how bad something is from a competitor; Look for independent unbiased proof.
E.g. Don't believe research sponsored by tobacco companies about the effects of cigarettes, etc.
I've noticed, even in myself, that we tend to believe the first story/opinion we hear if it sound credible...but then you MUST hear the other side of the argument, because that's often just as convincing
Before you go and introduce legestation should you not find need and reason? Rock wool and asbestos are of a different chemical composition.
A mask and protective clothing are the best defence right now.
This video is four years old and have any problems such as cancer links been discovered?
use it in growing dont they?
I'm sorry, what is this video about again..?
I wonder if those guys are going to talk about the dangerousity of PUR and PIR ! This is pure lobby ... Miserable !
7 months and still no response.
What about workers on rockwool factories.
Rockwool is building a facility less than 1/2 a mile from our children’s elementary school. They will have two 213 ft smokestacks and burning 82-90 tons of coal a day across from growing children.
Provided they( have the right filters on those smokestacks it will be a none issue.
Well with the world we live in. Chances are higher that one of their teachers will fuck them before any of them get cancer from rockwool. Roll the dice.
sounds like its time to move
Let's make it illegal to raise awareness. That sounds like a brilliant idea. Not ridiculllous at all.
This should be scrutinized to the max. Lots of homes have it laid on fireplaces, walls, ceilings and other places where there is airflow. At the risk of sounding like a tree hugging pacifist (which I'm not), I would say that mankind needs to stop putting money first, and consider the health of those who unsuspectedly use such products.
Unlike any generation before we have this blessing of global communication so this and messages like it can get out. This particular product seemed obvious as a hazard from the start if considering the natural form created by magma and the airborne particles around it.
True. The main problem though is that expecting that in a capitalist setting (money above all, money themselves have now value, competition based) is, well, you'll be disappointed.
That's the reason of all our today's problems, climate change problem/pollution, automation instead of bettering human experience = humans losing means to make a living, economic inequality when we know that we humans desperately need the opposite, etc - because we put money (and capitalist principles in general) above all, as our goal, as our guide.
I used this product to insulate a 2500 square foot home. I wore only surgical gloves (for PPE) and had no issues except minor itching on my right arm that went away after showering. I am not sure that the itching was caused by this product, but I cant rule it out either.
Got no problems here...great product my kids rooms are so much warmer in winter..cooler in sumer and sound down fireproof easy to work with...what are they talking about???
Just have it all contained 😂
so lava rock an Metal slag is dangerous
Ask yourself, is it because rockwool is something good that they shootin it down ?
The power of prayer IN JESUS CHRIST'S NAME can and will heal your body if truly believe
sounds like more investigation is definatly needed
This amounts to a "puff piece." The first panelist really just made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions and then immediately made a comparison to asbestos. Why? No one knows.
“We don’t warn of the dangers.” What are the dangers? Oh, uh…
Ironic they talk about information. There is hardly any here.
Rockwood is Awesome...the EU...
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Hemp is best
maybe
I would Have to seriously argue , these three mens point ! And really and truly ,Laughable that you have two from Europe , one from Romaina ? Just off hand , what would possibly make anyone think or believe that Europe would be a authority on anything , besides Historical mistakes , since recorded history ? And a Construction Business owner from Romainia ? I must have missed the E-Mail , That they were the leading edge of Industry ? I think they've put to much stock in the Queen & Tea !
This guy never has worked with regular insulation. He’s just a pencil pusher. Look who’s writing their checks.
Opinion are like Arseholes - everyone has one. I’m not interested in opinions, I’m interested in facts which are obtained through impartial scientific research.
They did a study on millions of work hours of workers in insulation manufacturing compared to the general population and there was no increased incidence in cancer. They did a study on rats exposed to inhaled fibers and the fibers were eliminated and did not cause cancer.
Sorry but I don't really think these people are qualified to talk about this topic. Just because you install it in your works doesn't mean you understand what it is as he clearly mistaken fiberglass for Rockwool
Fake news
Asbestos is a catch all for like a dozen different materials, stone wool IS asbestos as well. The same kind if process of how the natural stuff is made is the same process of how the man man stuff is created.(sort of like cotton candy but with lava)
There is a difference in the binding agent used in the man made stuff. But the formaldehyde in that also poses a risk and if or when that binding agent degrades there will be no difference between the natural stone wool and the man made stone wool.
Still in Russia
This should be legislated World Wide!!
I would not trust any of these presenters to give a 5 year old a lollipop let alone advice on how to build something.