Can I just replace the sawdust with insulation?

[Claes Sörmland]

so you will keep a fire going all summer?

In the summer, the wind is scorching hot from the sun. It is at its driest.

Ventilation is solved as it should be in a house from 1920, windows and doors ajar.

Or you have to rebuild the whole house.

 

[nybyggarn3]

but who said there are no risks?

I thought you wrote that it's just a matter of going ahead and solving the problems as they come. I think that's a bad idea.

 

[fribygg]

but why sawdust, it is a poor solution that should no longer be used? there are much better alternatives in every way.

Because it is simple and has proven to work well in the current house. The risks are quite small if you add 1 dm now; if more is needed, you can always add more in another year.

What sources do you have for your claim that sawdust in 1920s houses is bad and should no longer be used?

That there are more efficient insulations that are likely better suited for today's newly built airtight houses is entirely clear, but it is TS's situation we are discussing here.

 

[Claes Sörmland]

Sawdust (not wood shavings which historically were not used) serves a purpose in these old houses by sealing cavities and the like, stopping air movement. It's crucial that air doesn't move up to the attic from the living space. So save the sawdust if it's not possible to tear down all the ceilings and walls for sealing on the upper floor.

We had 10 cm of sawdust in the attic of a house from 1920. Added wood shavings, noticeably better insulation. A convenient aspect of wood shavings is that it's delivered to your home in bales by stable product companies for a small cost, meaning the action is cheap and easy.

Another advantage is that it is crawl-friendly once it's up there in the attic.

 

[Aunty]

Because it's simple and has been shown to work well in the house in question. The risks are quite small if you add 1 dm now, if it turns out more is needed you can always add more another year.

What are your sources for your claim that sawdust in 1920s houses is bad and should no longer be used?

There are certainly more efficient insulation materials that are likely better suited for today's newly built airtight houses, but it is TS's situation we are discussing here.

Sawdust is bad in all houses and there are insulations that have the good properties of sawdust but lack all its bad properties. Of course, you shouldn't use sawdust when there are better alternatives.

There is no one using sawdust anymore for a reason.

 

[Aunty]

Thought you wrote that it was just to keep going and solve the problems as they come. I think it's a bad idea

never said

 

[fribygg]

sawdust is bad in all houses and there are insulations that have the good properties of sawdust but lack all its bad properties. obviously, then one should not use sawdust when there are better alternatives.

no one uses sawdust anymore for a reason.

TS obviously uses sawdust today, I have a couple of properties with sawdust insulation so saying that no one uses sawdust today is incorrect.

 

[Aunty]

In the summer, the wind is scorching hot from the sun. It is at its driest.

Ventilation is solved as it should be in a house from 1920, windows and doors ajar.

Or you have to rebuild the whole house.

but then you don't understand how moisture problems work.
night radiation creates big problems even in the summer in attics.

 

[Aunty]

The original poster clearly uses sawdust today, I have a couple of properties with sawdust insulation so to say that no one uses sawdust today is incorrect.

Sure, there are properties that have it from before, but no one uses it when they have the opportunity to choose new if they have any knowledge in construction.

 

[Davion]

What do you mean certified inspectors, how are they certified?
Then I wonder what kind of certificate the professionals in a construction company have?
They're not exactly trained engineers working at Anticimex if you thought so, they're salespeople.

The only problem with wood shavings isn't the lambda value; wood shavings have many problem areas.
There are many reasons why it shouldn't be used anymore, so if you're going to install new insulation, you definitely shouldn't use shavings.

If someone carries out inspections and issues certificates and protocols certifying X Y and Z, which in turn are based on various standards, Swedish and global, then they are typically certified or otherwise trained. Anticimex themselves define and market their services as inspections conducted by certified inspection technicians, and there's clearly a lot of legal validity tied to that. Why are you making assumptions about a context I was personally involved in when it involves a conversation I've had with a certified inspection technician concerning the house I bought?

Regarding the construction company's employees, I meant that they have undergone industry-related training focused on standards, which are in turn established and continuously revised by various inspection authorities and controls, combined with any training and professional experience depending on the area. The company presents and accounts for the standards to which they have trained their staff and the requirements they meet. What's difficult about that?

From other posts, I see people have provided you with factual and detailed descriptions of exactly what I have previously written and tried to explain. Your cynicism and skepticism toward all other instances is not something I have the energy to discuss with you, and I don't really understand why you seem to have such difficulty accepting that it is not a horrible solution that the original poster in this matter is advised to improve the wood shaving solution rather than make drastic changes and possibly invite new problems. Good grief.

 

[fribygg]

of course there are properties that have had it before, but no one uses it when you have the opportunity to choose new if you have any knowledge in construction.

If you mean that new builds don't use spån today, you are probably right but not very good at expressing it in writing.

 

[Aunty]

If someone performs inspections and issues certificates and reports that certify X Y and Z respectively, based on various different standards, both Swedish and global, they are typically certified or otherwise trained. Anticimex themselves define and market their services as inspections carried out by a certified inspection technician, and of course, there's a slew of legal validity attached to that. Why are you guessing about the context I was personally involved in when it concerns a dialogue I had with a certified inspection technician regarding the house I bought?

Regarding the construction company's employees, I was referring to them having undergone industry-related training aimed at standards, which in turn are established and continuously revised by various inspection agencies and controls, combined with possible education and career path depending on the area. The company displays and accounts for which standards they have trained their people to meet and which requirements they fulfill. What is difficult about that?

I see from other posts people are writing to you that you have received a factual and thorough description of exactly what I previously wrote and tried to explain. I can't be bothered to debate your cynicism and skepticism towards all other agencies and I really don't understand why you seem to have such difficulty accepting that it's not a horrible solution for TS in their matter to get advice to improve the chipboard solution rather than making abrupt changes and potentially inviting new problems. Good grief.

but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anticimex "technicians" are just salespeople, their job is to sell their products.
you ramble about certified inspection technician, there's absolutely no such thing in the industry and certainly not Anticimex salespeople.

then regarding the construction company, you have no idea how it works and are just rambling.
name which standards and controls etcetera?

 

[Aunty]

If you mean that new buildings aren't constructed with wood shingles today, you're probably right but not very good at expressing it in writing.

and why should one do that when making a renovation on a house, when there are better materials available?

 

[Davion]

but you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anticimex "technicians" are only salespeople, their job is to sell their products.
you're rambling about certified inspection technicians, there is absolutely no such thing in the industry and certainly not Anticimex salespeople.

then regarding the construction company, you have no idea how it works and just ramble.
mention which standards and controls, etc.?

You are objectively completely wrong and it's incredibly obvious. It's embarrassing.
Here you go:
Rules for becoming a certified inspection technician - Anticimex

Regarding the construction company, I absolutely will not do you the favor of listing it as you simply don't deserve it, and you will have to expand your own meager knowledge. Do your own research. It seems it will be the first time, that's obvious.

 

[Pin]

If someone performs inspections and issues certificates and protocols certifying X, Y, and Z, which are based on various standards, both Swedish and global, then they are typically certified or otherwise trained. Anticimex themselves define and market their services as inspections carried out by certified inspection technicians, and of course, there is a slew of legal validity connected to that. Why are you making assumptions about the context I was personally involved in when it concerns a dialogue I had with a certified inspection technician regarding my house I purchased?

Regarding the construction company's employees, I meant they have undergone industry-related training aimed at standards, which in turn become established or revised continuously by different inspection bodies and checks, combined with any training and career journey depending on the area. The company presents and accounts for which standards they have trained the staff to and which requirements they meet. What's difficult about that?

I see from other posts people write to you that you have received a factual and detailed description of exactly what I previously wrote and tried to explain. I can't be bothered to discuss your cynicism and skepticism towards all other bodies with you, and I don't really understand why you seem to find it so difficult to accept that it is not a horrible solution for TS in their query to get the response to improve the chipboard solution rather than make abrupt changes and possibly invite new problems. Good grief.

There is definitely not a "slew of legal validity.” There is no legal validity whatsoever. They can define what the certificate requires and then execute it themselves. However, they are experts in disclaiming risks.