Building biology / Healthy building / Ecological building

EPS is still burned as before. Only the incinerating company now needs a certificate, which it did not require before. I don't really see a problem with EPS.

You can build whatever you want.

Anyway. :-)

Just wanted to know what is really, definitely considered problematic from a building biology perspective (PU foam, for example!?) and where it is more of a scare tactic (REA gypsum, plastics in water installations where the water has already flowed for kilometers through the plastic pipes of the water supplier).

EPS is still being incinerated as before.

EPS is currently not even being accepted because there is a great deal of uncertainty.

Rhenish greetings

Just wanted to know what really, definitely counts as problematic from a building biology perspective

Building biologically good or problematic is what the association defines as such!

Much is a matter of feeling! There is no hard scientific evidence that our cork floor is better (in terms of health) than vinyl or laminate. But — we feel significantly better in our house (before any false suspicions arise, it is not a biological house). The same applies to wooden windows instead of plastic. Or solid wood furniture instead of coated composite materials. Note: It is called biological building (not healthy building).

You have to answer your question yourself on feeling topics! If it is about the health aspects, it gets complicated. It is not that simple, because firstly it always depends on the dose (concentration, exposure, ...) and secondly you often only know afterwards what the situation really is (cf. wood preservatives from the 1970s and 1980s).

Now there are three ways, IMHO:
1.) It will probably be fine, I'll build standard!
2.) Better safe than sorry, 100% biological building, without any compromise!
3.) The middle way, weighing and evaluating case by case.

Way 1 is the easiest and cheapest (on average). Way 2 is slightly more difficult, but somewhat more expensive. Way 3 is insanely complicated and as a layperson who only has time at night (due to working for the house construction) you will not reach your goal.

Nevertheless, I am of course looking forward to interesting discussions here in the forum if you pursue way 3 further :D:cool:. (I am quite confident you can do it ...)

I don't see it as too critical now, especially because of the [Kontrollierte-Wohnraumlüftung]. Even if something harmful were to off-gas, the [Kontrollierte-Wohnraumlüftung] would at least ensure that no critical concentrations accumulate.

I just wanted to know if there are any mandatory points to consider that are very critical. Presumably, much is already banned due to experiences from the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc...

I have just read the term more often and always with such flowery descriptions like on the website of #9.
(Oh dear, a link - and it's still active :eek:)

"Tested," "Certified," "Ecologically recognized," "Materials we are convinced of"

instead of

"We avoid using chemical xy," "As interior paint, we use diffusion-open, solvent-free paint based on silicate"...

What will be considered problematic in several decades can only be speculated about. Regarding EPS (but this is a personal opinion), I have no concerns, as the critical flame retardants are no longer used, and the disposal issue (which actually isn't one, just uncertainty) will be resolved quite quickly, since there is simply too large a market behind it and technically the complexity is truly manageable...

If we were to remove everything made of polystyrene from our lives, far more things would disappear than just thermal insulation... For some people, EPS is, figuratively speaking, representative of all the evils of the "insulation craze," and the argument always comes down to disposal or even better, "the house can't breathe" :rolleyes:,