|
Have you purchased radiant barriers for under
your concrete slab based on this claim, "reflects
97%
of radiant
energy" or "It
reflects up to 97% of radiant heat, the primary mode of heat
loss in basements."? If so you may have been mislead.
Avoid becoming a victim of radiant barrier, bubble
foil or reflective foil insulation scams:
From the Federal Trade Commissions website:
What should I do if I don't get information about the R-value from the manufacturer, retailer, installer or new home seller?
Report it to the Federal Trade Commission.
Use the online complaint form.
Call toll-free:
1-877-FTC-HELP
(382-4357) or,
Write: Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Response Center, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them.
The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies
in the U.S. and abroad.
True Story...
Section 460.13 of the R-Value Rule requires, “If you are a manufacturer, you must give retailers and installers fact sheets for the insulation products you sell to them.” When asked for a fact sheet one manufacturer replied it didn't have a fact sheet for the product.
Misleading Stuff
This excerpt comes from a industry technical bulletin,
"The system R-value of R-1.95 results in an energy savings or reduction in heat loss of 56% when compared to the same concrete floor system without insulation."
The Facts:
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ergo it can not be saved so the only true statement is a 'reduction heat loss' but what they don't tell you is that even with the bubble insulation the R 1.95 is still 256% less than the minimum standards of CSA B214 or 500% below the R10 requirements of many
building efficiency requirements such as those specified in the OBC.
It is irresponsible to make consumers think that a 56% reduction is better than no insulation when it is grossly inadequate.
Misleading Stuff Redux
This text is taken from one manufacturers website, "independent laboratory tests proved that 5/8" of brand x outperforms 6" of fiberglass insulation plus vapour barrier.”
What does The Safety & Buildings Division, Building Products Evaluation, State of Wisconsin note for this manufacturers product?
"The distributor and/or manufacturer may not reference radiant R-values associated with radiant testing of this product in the State of Wisconsin since these tests, and their associated results, are not recognized by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce as a means to demonstrate commercial building code
compliance." See Notes on page 2 and 3 from
the full report.
But unsuspecting consumers visit websites which have no geographic boundaries and read the stuff about independent testing and certifications without having the skills to evaluate it. The manufacturer does this knowing full well that the State of Wisconsin has limited reporting to the conductive and
convective result according to such tests like CAN/ULC S701-01 in accordance with ASTM C518, which states the thermal resistance for a nominal 1” sample of brand x is a nominal R-3.7
Ref. Intertek Testing Report
...and again from another website."
"In a heated slab, Radiation is responsible for 93% of the heat traveling downward."
The
Facts: Two surfaces in contact exchange energy via conduction not radiation.
Here is an excerpt from the Federal Trade Commission 16 CFR Part 460 Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation: Trade Regulation Rule; Final Rule
The Commission issued the R-value Rule to prohibit, on an industry-wide basis, specific unfair or deceptive acts or practices. When it issued the Rule, the Commission found that the following acts or practices were prevalent in the home insulation industry and were deceptive or
unfair, in violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45: (1) Sellers had failed to disclose R-values, and caused substantial consumer injury by impeding the ability of consumers to make informed purchasing decisions; (2) the failure to disclose R-values, which varied significantly among competing home
insulation products of the same thickness and price, misled consumers when they bought insulation on the basis of price or thickness alone; (3) sellers had exaggerated R-values, often failing to take into account factors (e.g., aging, settling) known to reduce thermal performance; (4) sellers had failed to
inform consumers about the meaning and importance of R-value; (5) sellers had exaggerated fuel bill savings that consumers could expect, and often failed to disclose that savings will vary depending on the consumer’s particular circumstances; and (6) sellers had falsely claimed that consumers would qualify
for tax credits through the purchase of home insulation, or that products had been ‘‘certified’’ or ‘‘favored’’ by federal agencies.
CHAPTER 6 ACI 318/318R-65, BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, p. 77,
section
R6.3.2 — "The code prohibits the use of aluminum in structural
concrete unless it is effectively coated or covered. Aluminum
reacts with concrete and, in the presence of chloride ions, may
also react electrolytically with steel, causing cracking and/or
spalling of the concrete."
Here some more deceptive text from
an internet reseller:
"However,
without adequate insulation, an efficient heating system will
not work at its full potential because of the portion of
radiant heat being lost into the ground below." accessed April 2009
There is no "radiant" heat being
lost to the ground. There might be heat loss to the ground but
its not transferred by radiant but by conduction.
ASTM International
"Improper installation
of (reflective) insulation can reduce its thermal effectiveness,
cause fire risks and other unsafe conditions, and promote
deterioration of the structure in which it is installed."
ASTM C727 -
01(2007)e1 Standard Practice for Installation and Use of
Reflective Insulation in Building Constructions
A word on
testimonials used by manufacturers.
Testimonials can be an effective sales and
marketing tool because it preys on some people’s belief that if
others are doing it - it must be good.
Non engineering types frequently use other
people’s statements as a way of making the fear of using a
product or service seems less risky – and here’s the thing –
these people want to believe the hype so bad – they will rely on
testimonials from individuals who are not qualified to evaluate
a product or system.
Let me explain; heat loss to slab is a building
science issue yet many people who sell or use these reflective
barriers for under slab heating have no training in building
science.
We’ve seen testimonials made about comparisons
between two identical buildings where brand x was compared
against brand y. Brand x claims that building A insulated with
their product outperformed building B with brand y. It is
written in such a way that the reader concludes that the slab
insulation was the contributing factor.
While it may be true that building A outperformed
building B but without scientific research one cannot make the
claim that the result was due to the type of under slab
insulation.
If you read testimonials where a product “saved”
or ”reduced” or “lowered” energy use and there is no scientific
research to back up the statement – the claims should be
viewed as speculation -
and not to be relied upon as facts.
Here's another one of our favorite internet
claims under the guise of "NASA" and "space science"...
"Radiant Barriers - Insulation That Saves Money
As You Cool or Heat Your Home...Just as space suits retain the
internal temperature of body heat from the astronaut while
reflecting the cold of space, so does the radiant barrier which
is installed in a family's attic."
We'd sure like to know the principles behind
'reflecting the cold of space'...another marketing firm
pretending to be rocket scientists...tsk tsk rocket man.
Have you come across this statement from a
bubble foil insulation manufacturer?
"If you buy too much insulation, it will cost
you more than what you will save on fuel."
Think about it...what's the missing quantifier?
That's right - the quantifier is...it all depends on what is the
cost of fuel.
Statements like these are designed to cause doubt
in the purchasers mind...as Elmer Fudd says, "be vewy vewy
careful" when reading this stuff.
Professional
Installs
This is how the pro's do it for aircraft hangars. It's how you should do it for your home as well. Why? Because the principles of heat transfer don't change just because your home has a 3" or 4" slab.
Photos' courtesy of Dwight McKimmon.
|
|
Building Systems - Reflective Bubble Foil Insulations &
Radiant Barriers
Bubble Foil Insulation fails to meet the
Model National Energy
Code for Commercial Buildings, 2009
- Natural Resources Canada
New
advisory as of March 5th, 2009- U.S. Federal Trade Commission
New advisory as of February 01, 2009 - State of Nebraska
Evaluation
Advisory from September 26th, 2008
- State of Wisconsin Evaluation
Part I, Research and Science versus Manufacturers Claims
For over 25 years years I've seen building products come and go and none has been as entertaining as the ebb and
flow of insulating products particularly the reappearance of what I call reflective
bubble 'faux' insulation or snake oil foil for under slab radiant applications. This
is a classic case of marketing masquerading as science and solutions looking for problems where none exist.
According to the government run Consumer Sentinel protection services, Shop at Home/Catalogue Sales is one of the highest ranked frauds in North America so if you are considering purchasing reflective bubble "faux" insulation
for underslab applications either online or at a distribution outlet -
with due respect to Shakespeare, remember these words -
double bubble with foil is trouble...
Read these excerpts and links from around the world...and make
note of how long this has been going on!
Barriers to
radiant barriers, Home Energy Journal, 1989
"They have been the subject of much controversy, as the
claims made by many manufacturers were extreme (up to 100%
heat shielding), with the consumer paying high prices for
ineffective devices."
NRC-IRC, Institute for Research in
Construction
, 1991
"...multiple reflective materials do not address conduction and convection losses in building envelope cavities well enough to warrant their use in colder climates...The reduction in heat loss suggested by the product literature, however, was not achieved...In terms of
cost, reflective materials are subject to the same principles of diminishing returns as conventional insulation. If it is not cost-effective to add more conventional insulation, it is probably not cost-effective to add a
radiant barrier."
The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, 1999
"In determining the R-value of reflective insulation, NAIMA believes evidence supports that the detrimental impact of dusting and corrosion frame the evaluation of thermal performance. The Department of Energy’s ("DOE") "Radiant Barrier Attic Fact Sheet," issued in June 1991, reported
laboratory measurements verifying that dust on the surface of aluminum foil increases the emissivity and decreases the reflectivity. Based on this finding, the DOE concluded that "dust or other particles on the exposed surface of a
radiant barrier will reduce its effectiveness.’ Thus,
observed the DOE, reflective insulation installed in locations that collect "dust or other surface contaminant will have a decreasing benefit to the homeowner over time." For instance, when DOE monitored reflective insulation installed in a dusty attic, researchers observed that 50 percent
of the insulation’s effectiveness dissipated after the first year of installation"
Canadian Construction Materials Centre Evaluates Thermal Resistance of Low Emissivity Sheet Material, 1999
"When the
low emissivity sheet material is installed in the wall system...the effective R-value of this material in combination with the air spaces and the strapping material (furring) used to create the air spaces will account for about 26% of the thermal resistance of the wall, whereas
the low emissivity material itself will account for only about 5%. (The RSI value of the material is in the order of 0.18.)
Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, Insulation Comparison Demonstration, Funded By U.S. Department of Energy, 1999
"Our comparison tracked the amount of energy required to maintain the interior temperature of the three buildings at a constant 72 degrees F. In this demonstration mass insulation, using fiberglass, required less energy to maintain the set point temperature, for all four seasons, than did
either the radiant barrier building...The
radiant barrier building required more energy than the fiberglass building...to maintain the set point temperature for all four seasons. In this specific comparison, the fiberglass insulated building performed the best out of the three buildings."
Building
Standards Saskatchewan Municipal Affairs, Building Officials
Newsletter, 2001
"Clearly, the result of misusing the listings, despite a
builder’s good intentions, could leave a building owner with
a product that has not been demonstrated to perform as
required, and could leave a building official with having to
explain why use of the material (reflective
foil insulation) in this application was
approved."
ASHRAE Fundamentals Handbook, 2001
"Values for foil insulation products supplied by manufacturers must also be used with caution because they apply only to systems that are identical to the configuration in which the product was tested. In addition, surface oxidation, dust accumulation, condensation, and other factors that
change the condition of the low-emittance surface can reduce the thermal effectiveness of these insulation systems (Hooper and Moroz 1952). Deterioration results from contact with several types of solutions, either acidic or basic (e.g., wet cement mortar or the preservatives found in
decay-resistant lumber)."
The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, 2001
"...one can only conclude that the
reflective bubble pack products do not meet the International Mechanical Code (IMC). Since all other model codes incorporate similar if not more stringent requirements, it is unlikely that the reflective bubble pack insulations meet any of the model
mechanical codes."
Florida Solar Energy Center, 2001
"...horizontal application...the later will significantly
degrade in performance from eventual
dust accumulation (Fairey
and Beal, 1988; Levins et al., 1990)."
Energy Fact Sheet -
Radiant Barriers, Southface Energy Institute, 2002
"Many do not feel the modest winter savings are worth the
risk of moisture problems or the likelihood of dust
accumulation, which could eliminate any savings."
Energy Design Update, November 2003
(A Note on the 2003 Energy Design Update article: You will need a subscription to obtain the complete text wherein several
bubble foil
firms made these apologies), "…apologies to anyone confused by the statement”, “This was an oversight on our part”, “we realized it was erroneous” ,
“apologize for the misconstrued quote”. (To RIMAs credit they are doing their best to curb this behavior but many other unscrupulous firms continue to sell the snake oil foil story for under slab applications to
unsuspecting consumers).
Federal Trade Commission Requirements, 2003
"The R-value Rule specifies substantiation and disclosure requirements for
thermal insulation
products used in the residential market, and prohibits certain claims unless they are true.
CMHC Comparison of
Under Floor Insulation Systems, 2004
"The bubble-pack insulation had a low insulating value compared to the polyurethane panels and the XPS board. It’s cost benefit was the poorest of all insulating materials tested."
Plumbing & HVAC Product News, 2004
“The floor we tested with
bubble foil underneath did not look like it had any insulation underneath,” reported senior researcher in the CMHC policy and research division.
Federal Trade Commission Advisory Letter, 2004
"The FTC staff is aware of claims that are being made in the marketplace for foil-faced bubble pack products (or similar
reflective or radiant barrier products) installed under concrete slabs. In the staff's view, it may be misleading for industry members to suggest that such foil
products will reflect radiant heat when installed under concrete."
U.S. Department of Energy, 2004
In heating dominated climates, they (radiant barriers) aren't very economical nor recommended in most cases. Unlike other insulation, there currently isn't a standard method for equating
how well a radiant barrier works. Many
manufacturers use the term "equivalent R-value." This really has no scientific meaning, and it often reflects optimum conditions and not necessarily climate conditions.
Bad Science, By John Siegenthaler, P.E., 2005
"Imagine a new insulation material with a claimed R-value almost six times greater than standard extruded polystyrene. So high, in fact, that no other established insulation product even comes close to offering the same R-value/thickness combination. When installed below a
heated slab, this material makes downward heat losses almost nonexistent. How is such spectacular
thermal performance achieved? What have all those scientists at Dow, CertainTeed, Owens Corning and the other insulation giants been missing all these years?"
Building America Best Practices Series: Volume 3 –
Builders and Buyers Handbook for Improving New Home
Efficiency, Comfort, and Durability in the Cold and Very
Cold Climates, US Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2005
"Reflective Insulation Systems -
Reflective insulation systems
are fabricated from aluminum foils with a variety of
backings such as roof sheathing, craft paper, plastic film,
polyethylene bubbles, or cardboard. These systems are not
recommended for the cold and very cold climates. If a single
reflective surface is used alone and faces an open space,
such as an attic, it is called a radiant barrier. Radiant
barriers are not recommended for cold and very cold
climates."
The Insulation Council of Australia & New Zealand,
2005
"It appears from the test results that a significant number
of manufacturers and suppliers of insulation products are
not meeting the required standards under the BCA...thermal
performance cannot be left in the hands of manufacturers
(and their trade associations) and must be endorsed by a recognised testing laboratory as per the standard."
Florida Solar Energy Center, 2005
"As in most cases, claims for radiant barriers that sound
too good to be true are too good to be true. If your roof
accounts for less than 20 percent of your cooling load, then
an attic radiant barrier can't possibly save more than 20
percent on your bills...over time,
dust may accumulate on
the surface of foil facing up. The dust will reduce the
radiant barrier effect by allowing the foil to absorb rather
than reflect thermal radiation."
Heating, Refrigeration, Air Conditioning Institute of Canada Advisory Letter
In direct reference to
bubble foil insulation, "Selecting materials that do not meet the minimum code requirements can significant affect comfort for the consumer through excessive wasted heat into the ground and could be a very expensive proposition to rectify the condition."
FTC Stops Allegedly False Claims About Insulation Performance
, 2006
"The FTC complaint alleged that advertising claims for “The Barrier” exaggerated its R-value by over 600 percent compared to test results and misrepresented other
thermal performance characteristics of the insulation. The FTC also charged that labeling for “The Barrier” and Microfoil insulation did not mention the products’ R-values or explain the meaning of R-value, as required by law. The complaint also alleged other violations of the R-value Rule, including the publication of ads comparing “The Barrier” to competing products without disclosing the R-value
for both products."
Multi-foil insulation products Compliance with Reg.7 and Req. L1, 2006
"In other words,
multi-foil manufacturers who have used the comparative testing route are claiming the insulating properties of their product to be approximately three times better than can be verified using existing National or European test standards."
SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS for BUILDINGS, 2006
"Testing undertaken by the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) appears to show that a
multi-foil insulation product, when tested in a hot box against the internationally accepted standard for thermal insulation, does not meet claimed insulation values...when tested in accordance with BS EN
ISO 8990:1996."
NHBC Guidance on Multi Foil Insulation, 2006
"The NHBC has recently published guidance regarding
multi-foil insulation performance in its Standards Extra, to the effect that multi-foils will not be accepted under its warranty arrangements until a consensus on the performance and testing of these materials is achieved."
TIMSA welcomes clarification of insulation regulations, 2006
"This guidance resolves a growing problem whereby claims for thermal resistance of
multi-foil materials based on arbitrary testing indicated much higher values than have been obtained when these materials are subjected to proven, relevant standard test procedures – sometimes by a factor of
five...over recent years many buildings have been completed with foil materials not certified by accredited bodies which may not even satisfy the standards required by Part L: 2002, putting seriously at risk the Government’s stated intention to raise buildings’ energy performance
standards..."
Energy Design Update , September 2006
"...the statement is kind of deceptive, because it gives the impression that if you use this product
(reflective
insulation), you will cut the heat flow through the wall by two-thirds, and that clearly isn’t true."
Wisconsin Department of Commerce, 2006
"...the state of Wisconsin does not recognize the
reflective
foil facing used on the product...“P2000” reflective
insulation board will only be allotted an R-5 per inch..."
Energy Design Update , September 2006
"...the marketers of
P2000* have made claims about R-value performance that are much higher than those in C-578 and are rightly being challenged to prove it."
Wisconsin Department of Commerce, 2006
"...this product can be installed but no credit will be
given as
under-slab insulation...SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED AS A
STAND ALONE PRODUCT IN LIEU OF THE CURRENT CODE
REQUIREMENTS."
Radiant Panel Association Newsletter, 2007
"Reflective foil under a slab, with no airspace, is totally ineffective as an insulator.
Reflective foil with a bubble or foam core is only slightly more effective than the bubble or foam by itself."
The UK Mineral Wool Association, 2007
"In recent months the government has moved to give guidance on the use of
multi-foil insulation...It has written to all local building control departments and to bodies such as the NHBC...(advising) they could no longer accept the thermal values claimed for (brand x) and similar products"
Sustainability Magazine, 2007
"The architects who specify such products and the building engineers who sign off houses insulated with them may be leaving themselves open to
litigation from clients who will understandably be very angry that their new home is not insulated to the required standard."
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and
Washington State University Extension Energy Program,
Product & Technology Reviews, 2007
"We conclude that an
under-slab installation is not a good application for this
type of product (bubble foil), even if only used to replace a vapor
retarder."
Reflective Insulation Manufacturers Association, 2008
"Claims of high R-values for
reflective products
when they
are used as under concrete insulation are not supported by
any industry or code body accepted testing methods. Products
installed under concrete slabs cannot reflect heat because
there are no air spaces present."
Forest of Dean, District Council, Building Control Newsetter,
2008
"Q. Can I use a multi-foil insulation alone?
A. The latest guidance dated April 2008 that we have been
informed about from the Local Authority Building Control
(LABC) is as follows: The group remain of the opinion that
the thermal performance of all insulation materials should
be determined by testing to National and European standards
by organisations who are accredited to do so. On this basis
there are currently no
multi-foil products that can reach
the current Building Regulation standard when used alone as
a single layer."
The Environmentally Responsible Construction and Renovation
Handbook, Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2008
"If
radiant heating sources are embedded in floors-on-ground
or in walls, the assembly must be insulated to a level 20%
better than the maximum overall U-value allowed by the MNECB
tables".
Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan's)
validation of new building designs policies and procedures
and interpretation of the Model National Energy Code for
Commercial Buildings (MNECB),
2009
Foil Back Bubble Wrap as insulation (Clarification of
MNECB 3.2.3.3)
"Question: Will using only foil back bubble wrap for
insulation under my radiant slab meet the Model National
Energy Code for Commercial Buildings (MNECB) requirement
3.2.3.3 for Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan’s) validation
service?
Answer: No, using only
foil back bubble wrap will not
meet the MNECB mandatory requirements. A study by the
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Technical Series
04-127) shows a double-layer bubble wrap with an
intermediate foil layer with an equivalent RSI value of only
0.4.
You should note that NRCan’s validation of new building
designs will only recognize results from third-party testing
for products or materials from organizations such as the
Canadian Standards Association and the American Society for
Testing and Materials. "
Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan's)
validation of new building designs policies and procedures
and interpretation of the Model National Energy Code for
Commercial Buildings (MNECB),
2009
Under Slab Insulation with Radiant
Floor Heating (Clarification of
MNECB 3.2.3.3-3)
"Question:
If a portion of the slab contains
radiant floor heating, must I
insulate under my entire slab
according to the Model National
Energy Code for Buildings (MNECB)
requirement 3.2.3.3-3 for Natural
Resources Canada's (NRCan’s)
validation service?
Answer:
To qualify for
NRCan’s validation of new
building designs and to meet the
interpretation of
MNECB 3.2.3.3-3, you must
insulate slabs with imbedded heating
ducts, cables or pipes under their
full area in which radiant heat is
installed as per Table A-3.2.3.1 of
Appendix A. Areas of the slab
without installed heating ducts,
cables or pipes need only comply
with the other requirements of
MNECB 3.2.3.3.
You
must physically isolate the sections
of the slab on grade with installed
heating ducts, cables or pipes from
the unheated parts of the slab,
either by vertical insulation or by
an expansion joint. Or the under
slab horizontal insulation below the
heated sections must extend beyond
the edges of the area being
radiantly heated to a distance of
four times the thickness of the
slab."
State of Nebraska, 2009
"Although the p2000 marketing materials do provide reference
to some ASTM tests being completed – the completed tests
are not the appropriate tests required under the
R-values
regulations of the Federal Trade Commission regulations."
Autodesk Ecotect, 2009
"...foil by itself does not provide
thermal resistance; foil facing an air space increases the
resistance of the air space. The increase in resistance
achieved by subdividing will be reduced if any air is
allowed to move from one space to another or if the
reflective surface becomes coated with dirt or
condensation."
This is an excerpt from an advisory from Natural Resources Canada, Released May 2007:
"As a result of countless inquiries from the general public, building contractors and building professionals concerning claims made by manufacturers of foil-faced bubble insulation (FFBI) products, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has prepared this paper dealing with the effective thermal
resistance (RSI/R value) of these and other reflective types of products for the purpose of energy modeling under its energy efficiency housing initiatives."
reflective barrier discussions
This is an excerpt from Thermal Insulation Manufacturers and Suppliers Association, Statement on Multi-foils, Released May 2007:
"...some multi-foil producers have been claiming thermal resistances or U-values based upon unproven, and therefore non-approved, comparative field test methods. These non-approved methods give apparent thermal values significantly better than those obtained using the Hot Box method. TIMSA
does not accept thermal resistance values or U-values based on such methods and advises that such values should not be accepted for any project under current Building Regulations: Part L- 2006."
Other Sources
De-rating Recommendations for Reflective Aluminium Foil Insulations As a
Result of Dust Accumulation
by Dr. R.M. Aynsley
Energy Efficiency Factsheet, Principles of Heat Transfer
by Dr. C. Roos.
HPAC Engineering, Moisture, Materials, and Buildings by Dr, J.F. Straube
Radiant Panel Association Technical Bulletin 101 (for members)
Radiant Panel Association Technical Bulletin 220 (for members)
Department of Energy, DOE/CE-0180/with Addendum 1, Insulation Facts
CSA B214-01, Installation Code for Hydronic Heating Systems
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.2-2004, Energy-Efficient Design of Low-Rise
Residential Buildings
Part 1, Answers to questions on snow-melt insulation
by
Mark Eatherton
Part 2, More answers on snow-melt insulation by Mark Eatherton
Part 3, Even more answers on snow-melt insulation by Mark Eatherton
Field Results of Insulations in a Snow Melt System, by Mark Eatherton
Underslab Insulation for Radiant Heating, Dr. J. Straube, C. Schumacher,
B.Tech, B.A.Sc. for Beaver Plastics, 2000
Claims on the Web 1
Claims on the Web 2
Claims
from past months...
* P2000 is an EPS insulation manufactured by Polar Industries.
Building Systems - Part II, Solutions & Facts
|
|
How Do Manufacturers and Distributors Come Clean?
Do not mislead consumers to believe that having certifications or product listings means that the listing is for the 'claimed' performance.
Do not mislead consumers to believe that buying and having memberships in several industry organization makes the performance claims legitimate.
Do not mislead consumers to believe that participating on industry committees validates the performance claims.
Do not mislead consumers to believe that energy savings or reduced heat transfer from a reflective foil product is a benefit when the benefit is substantially below energy and/or building codes. -
Do not mislead consumers with
testimonials that are based on conjecture from those
unqualified to evaluate thermal performances.
Do report how tests are performed and in what context and noting that the reflective component may not be recognized by building officials having
authority.
Do inform consumers that aging of reflective foils potentially includes corrosion, fouling, oxidation and/or accumulation of dust/dirt which reduces performance.
Do communicate that reflective foils under concrete slabs have zero radiant benefits and that "wet cement mortar or the preservatives found in decay-resistant lumber" may deteriorate
some foils.
Message to Consumers:
You have to do your homework. When companies can't follow the governing laws and/or make exaggerated claims,
and/or use scientifically unsupported testimonials, and/or make claims without providing context, and/or lead you to believe that having a product certification and/or listing or belong to and/or sit on association committees validates their performance claims, you are not getting the facts. Be wary of sellers
using words like "equivalent R-value" or "nominal", or "approximately"
or if claims are made to saving, lowering or reducing energy use without
scientific research by a credible organization such as a university or research
institute.. If you buy products in
a jurisdiction which does not recognize the manufactures claims and find yourself in a position of selling your property - knowing what you now know...do you want to have to defend your choice of insulation?
If you have been mislead or have concerns,
call the Federal Trade Commissions toll-free #
1-877-(382-4357)
|
|
