Insulation Causes Cancer? Will a Barrier Help?

V

v3nge

New member
Hello. So I'm building some panels for my home studio using wood frame, acoustic fabric, and roxul insulation. I watched a video yesterday by acoustic fields about how this kind of insulation has been shown to cause cancer because the particles float and you breathe them in.

Now, I realize that they are trying to sell their own ridiculously expensive treatment, but there does seem to be some evidence for what they're saying.

That being said, I'm wondering if using some kind of barrier around the insulation, like maybe two large trash bags or something like that, would effect the reflection/absorption of the panels? Or, if you have any ideas of something else I could use to create an air-tight barrier?

Thanks!
 
My recollection is that the studies are based on people that worked in the manufacturing/mining or some kind of related industry. If you're put the stuff in a frame and don't shake it vigorously with your nose pressed up against the fabric every time you walk into the room, I suspect you'll have other carcinogens get to your first.

I've put homemade panels/traps around in my room and I have very, very little dust in that room compared to the rest of the house. (Just noticed a tiny bit on the back of the black swivel chair yesterday - been 6 months at least since I dusted.) Probably most of what I see comes off the cheap dhurrie and couple of even cheaper synthetic rugs. God knows what I'm breathing in from those and the laminate floor.

But, someone here has posted that very thin poly-film can be used in addition to (behind) the fabric covering, and it won't impact their effectiveness significantly. I have to believe it's going to make some difference perhaps in the highest frequencies, but those typically aren't the ones you're busy trapping. I'd add that if it is a concern.
 
The warning about it being hazardous is overblown unless you are continually building with it, cutting or breaking it. Any kind of fiber (rock wool, glass wool, ceramic etc) can be hazardous if you breathe lots of it over years. I checked the Roxul safety data, and its a common level of 5 mg/m3 (total dust) TWA 8 hours as specified by OSHA. These restriction are for industrial exposure, meaning someone is working with the material constantly..

However, what it doesn't say is that once you build your frame and cover it with fabric, there will be no dust generation because you aren't going to be disturbing the fiber matrix. Asbestos is far more "toxic" yet it really is safe once it is in place and not disturbed. The problem is when you start demolishing structures, or removing it. That's when you break the structure and create the dust.

Common sense here says that when you build your panels, it would be best to do the building in something like a garage, so that you can blow any dust out of the room, and wear a simple dust mask when you are cutting the Roxul (if you cut it). Once its in place and you cover it with fabric, you're safe.

As for encasing it in a plastic bag, I wouldn't do that. A plastic bag can affect the absorption characteristics and it won't contain any more than your fabric cover. A simple fine weave cloth is more than sufficient.

... and remember that almost EVERYTHING is hazardous in the state of California. I remember someone once saying that saliva is hazardous to your health in California, but only if you swallow small amounts over a long period of time!
 
sasquatch said:
Life itself is a fatal disease.
Be a rebel or wear a mask.
Click to expand...
Yes, mask recommended when building! Also, long sleeves and gloves, though, for me, the Roxul Safe'n'Sound "rockwool" type product was much less irritating than the pink fluffy (fiberglass) stuff. Didn't really seem to float around as much, though it does shed a bit of dust while working with it.
 
Just don't use your absorption panels as punching bags! And maybe keep cats out of the room...

Air tight is ok if you are building thick low frequency traps from what I have found in my research, but for the majority of the frequencies that make a rockwool broadband trap efficient, it needs to 'breathe' air. Bass traps for extreme low frequencies can benefit from plastic wrap. Even heard just bundles of pink stuff in plastic in corners works well. I have two stacks of them floor to ceiling in my guitar isolation room-covered in cloth. Seems to work.

And don't go to Web MD or listen to everything you hear from a Google search. Rich gave the facts. Just be safe while working with the material. Once contained in cloth and not beaten with a bat, it is proven safe. :)
 
Thanks a lot! You guys have been knowledgeable as always. I was mostly worried about exposure overtime, so that helps. I remember digging through construction site garbage cans as a kid and getting all that pink stuff all over myself and that hasn't killed me so far. So, I think I'll be okay.

Thanks again!
 
keith.rogers said:
...someone here has posted that very thin poly-film can be used in addition to (behind) the fabric covering, and it won't impact their effectiveness significantly. I have to believe it's going to make some difference perhaps in the highest frequencies, but those typically aren't the ones you're busy trapping. I'd add that if it is a concern.
Click to expand...

I've used a super thing, 0.4 mil plastic to seal my large bass traps I made a couple of years ago...though I used OC 703 fiberglass, not Roxul.

Bass Trap Madness

I did it because the fiberglass can be irritating, and the traps were made to be movable, so I wanted to make sure there was never any fiberglass coming loose when moving them. Since these were mainly meant for LF trapping, the thin plastic was insignificant...but I do think even if you used it for basic broadband traps, it would have no significant reflection of HF.

One thing that differs with fiberglass and Roxul...is that fiberglass has no chemical additives, while Roxul does...but unless you're sitting there inhaling particles day after day...I don't think you will ever get cancer from it.

As a comparison...even excessive exposure and inhalation of cotton particles could eventually do some damage to your lungs...and we wear cotton most of our lives.
The people working in the cotton processing plants are the ones at risk...but not those of us wearing cotton shirts and underwear. :)
I'm a big cotton junkie...and generally avoid synthetic clothing whenever possible...at leas the stuff that's on my skin. I hate the feel of most synthetic fabrics...but that's another topic. :D
 
I've said it many times on this forum, use polyester type insulation and there are no fibres, the little extra cost is worth it. Its also nicer to work with.

If you buy coloured stuff you don't even need to cover it.

Alan
 
witzendoz said:
I've said it many times on this forum, use polyester type insulation and there are no fibres, the little extra cost is worth it. Its also nicer to work with.

If you buy coloured stuff you don't even need to cover it.

Alan
Click to expand...
It's hard to find that stuff in the US. A quick google showed that Dow has ceased production. Probably lacked any kind of government push and didn't catch on because it wasn't as cheap as fiberglas.
 
The following comes from an article about risk:

"We cannot minimize our risks by simply avoiding those we happen to think about. For example, if one thinks about the risk of driving to a destination, one might decide to walk, which in most cases would be much more dangerous. The problem with such an approach is that the risks we think about are those most publicized by the media, whose coverage is a very poor guide to actual dangers. The logical procedure for minimizing risks is to quantify all risks and then choose those that are smaller in preference to those that are larger."

So there are risks associated with using insulation, but the likelihood of unhappy outcomes from that use (and particularly your limited use) is dwarfed by the myriad of activities and their risks that you engage in the course if your normal life.

There is the story of the construction supervisor who berated a couple of workers on a building for not wearing their safety harnesses, then walked across the road to get coffee. The moral of that story is that the supervisor faced a greater likelihood of injury in walking across the road than the workers.
 
I work for many months each year - and have done since 94, and a bit more spasmodically from 84, in a building constructed from asbestos sheeting. Dangerous stuff, and I don't think anyone would disagree, but the danger is often overstated. In the late 90s we had a small fire that fractured a few of the panels, and the building (a 1400 seater theatre) was full of smoke from the fire. Our local authority were informed by the fire brigade and turned up with a scientific vehicle and they set small filters around the building. They were a small box with inlet, filter and a small fan. They sucked in a precise amount of air for 30 minutes. The filter was then taken to the vehicle and they searched for the asbestos particles with a microscope and counted how many they found for the 30 minute period. The reading was high for the first tests, and we were prevented from entry. We had a show - sold out, due to go up at 7.30 in the evening and the first test was at 10am. by lunch time the partial count let the staff back in and by 4pm, we were clear to let the public in. They left the sensors in place on timers and the partial count was zeroed out by two days. Ventilation removing the dust in the air.

My understanding is that plastic will reflect as well as transmit sound, so will spoil the performance but if the covering material has a sufficiently dense weave, it's a filter. Lots of people have been using fibreglass insulation in cheaper sound treatment and while not the same performance as rockwool and the mineral fibres, I've never seen any evidence that the fibres from this get into the air. The other thing is that it's not like putting the material over the top of a sub driver where the airflow is considerable - in a panel, there is practically no airflow at all - so no movement, and therefore no release of any significant particles.

I'd avoid this kind of thing in a school or college, because the kids pick holes and abuse wall treatment, but in a controlled studio environment people won't sit there and pick through the fabric.
 
rob aylestone said:
My understanding is that plastic will reflect as well as transmit sound, so will spoil the performance but if the covering material has a sufficiently dense weave, it's a filter.
Click to expand...

You really can't just say "plastic"...it's about the thickness/density/rigidity of it...and then what frequencies are you talking about.

Trust me...a 0.4mil piece of plastic is like tissue paper thin...if even that. It's so think, you could hardly feel it between your fingers.
I know, I used it, and the minute I saw how thin it was, I lost all concerns about any reflectivity. If it's reflecting any frequencies, they are probably the ones way up there, that we can't even hear.
Also...I did tests with the traps I built, which happen to have one side with aluminum foil covered FRK fiberglass.
I tested with the traps turned both ways...and I saw no loss of HF that was obvious from one side to the other. If anything, I saw a difference in how the LF were affected.

I know some people will use dense weave cloth...well that to can be reflective to some degree...so I think we are splitting hairs about "reflectivity", and if someone wants to feel comfortable about their insulation choices, just warp it in very thin plastic. You can even find .03 mil at some hardware stores, but I could only find 0.4 mil in big enough sheets so I could wrap the whole trap. You certainly don't want to use some thicker plastic or the garbage bag kind.
 
For what its worth, Rockwool Safe and Sound is certified Greenguard Gold status, which is a very strict certification. What's that mean?

Per Greenguard.org:

GREENGUARD Gold Certification (formerly known as GREENGUARD Children & Schools Certification) offers stricter certification criteria, considers safety factors to account for sensitive individuals (such as children and the elderly), and ensures that a product is acceptable for use in environments such as schools and healthcare facilities. It is referenced by both The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Building Rating System.


I don't know what Acoustic Fields is selling, or where they got their information, but it looks to me to be obvious fear mongering. I would be more concerned about the crystalline silica in beach sand than any dust from a piece of Rockwool in an enclosed bass panel.
 
Good thoughts on the thinner plastics, I'll tuck that away. I suppose that we just want a risk free environment - schools all over the world seem to want this, but health wise, they're responsible for spreading contagious diseases and of course the usual breaks and sprains. Respiritory issues from dust, smoke and other particles seem to be very selective. Some people convinced haze is bad, some suck it it in mega huge concentrations vaping - and science seems incapable of deciding if it's good or bad. As for carcinagentic effects? So little conclusive evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top