Solid wood house / partial self-labor, wall structure / differences

Did I say that cross-laminated timber is not glued with PUR????????????????????
Cross-laminated timber is usually glued with PUR. Some manufacturers also use melamine glue.
I am just trying to make you understand that I consider the discussion about evil PUR glue nonsense. Of course, it would be better to have no chemicals at all, but I can't see any reason to favor the significantly more expensive glue-free products because of that. Besides, there are other problems.
Just think about it, in the text I copied for you it is accepted that no emissions are measurable. But because PU is fundamentally bad for these people, there has to be something after all. They are not too proud to doubt today's super sensitive measurement methods. That sounds to me very much like lobbying for the glue-free products.
So if you absolutely want to follow this discussion and exclude cheaper alternatives because of it, then you just have to see how far your money goes. But please exclude [Blckbauweise] then as well, because you get glued products there just the same, unless you build a log house.
Of course, there are ways to build much cheaper with the cheap turnkey wet builders, if you want to put up with that!!!! But please don't confuse them with prefabricated house construction. Prefabricated houses are usually built in the timber frame system with prefabricated elements. The cheap turnkey wet builders usually do masonry work on the construction site.
Regards Friedrich.

I have been skeptical since I read the technical datasheet about it. Accordingly, apart from allergies, it is classified once as a carcinogenic hazard category 2 and once even as category 3. I don't want that. Apparently, this only applies to people who have to work with it, but what I don't want for myself, I also don't want to impose on others. If necessary, build with stone anyway. But I am not giving up yet. There are also log houses that are connected only with harmless white glues. I have no objection to that. You just have to look into the past. Asbestos was also considered harmless and was used on a large scale. And now it is known that they were highly harmful and are hazardous waste. It is just difficult as a layperson and ignorant to judge who is right and who is not. Everything always revolves around money.

Inhaltsstoffangabe gemäß CLP (EG) Nr 1272/2008:
Gefährliche Inhaltsstoffe
CAS-Nr.
EG-Nummer
REACH-Reg. No.
Gehalt Einstufung
4,4'- Methylendiphenyldiisocyanat
101-68-8
202-966-0
01-2119457014-47
< 30
% Karzinogenität
2
H351
Akute Toxizität
4; inhalativ
H332
Spezifische Organ-Toxizität - bei
wiederholter Exposition
2
H373
Augenreizung
2
H319
Spezifische Organ-Toxizität - bei einmaliger
Exposition
3
H335
Reizwirkung auf die Haut
2
H315
Sensibilisierung der Atemwege
1
H334
Sensibilisierung der Haut
1
H317


Inhaltsstoffangabe gemäß DPD (EG) Nr 1999/45:
Gefährliche Inhaltsstoffe
CAS-Nr.
EG-Nummer
REACH-Reg. No.
Gehalt Einstufung
4,4'- Methylendiphenyldiisocyanat
101-68-8
202-966-0
01-2119457014-47
< 30
% Xi - Irritant; R36/37/38
R42/43
Carcinogenic, category 3; R40
Xn - Harmful; R20, R48/20

I have been skeptical ever since I read the technical datasheet about it. According to it, apart from allergies, it is classified once as a category 2 carcinogenic risk and once even as category 3. I don’t want that. Apparently, this only applies to people who have to work with it, but what I don’t want for myself, I don’t want to impose on others either.

There is nothing more to say about it; today’s modern PU wood adhesives are completely harmless to the user. It honors you that you want to protect the people who work with it, but I don’t know any occupational group that is not exposed to a certain hazard potential. You also wouldn’t forego medical care because nurses potentially have to expect back problems. It is only a matter of recognizing and minimizing the hazard.

If necessary, build with stone after all.
You still have to educate yourself there, see: building materials such as clay and loam have excellent ecological and building-physical properties. Depending on their origin, however, they (and their products like bricks, roof tiles) can have considerable radioactivity.
If necessary, you might even have to forgo building.

There are also log houses that are only connected with harmless white glues.
How do you come to the conclusion that white glue (PVAC) is completely harmless? The well-known white glue is a formaldehyde-reduced dispersion adhesive based on PVAc (polyvinyl acetate) as a binder, which is supplied ready to use as a dispersion in water and is available as cold glue, rapid binder, veneer glue, hardener glue, lacquer glue, and hot glue. It comes in the stress groups D2–D4.

To produce structural building products, an adhesive approval is required. Log beams certainly belong to this. Suitable adhesives are: UF; MUF; PRF; PUR adhesives.
Unsuitable is: white glue.

But here I would be very grateful if you could tell me the log house manufacturer or the product you mean. I really don’t want to die stupid, I learn every day and want to keep learning. Maybe I have a gap in my knowledge here. Your message is also welcome via private message.

Did I read correctly that you come from the Nuremberg area? Therefore, a kind greeting from the Lower Franconian Prussians to the Middle Franconians from Potsdam.
Friedrich

If you follow the thread, you can really only come to the conclusion to shoot yourself immediately. With so much poison surrounding us.

Irony off!

I believe that one can also overdo it. The house is built super ecologically and in the garage there are two cars which are full of toxins and plastics. Work is done in the non-ecological office building (after all, it’s only 50 hours a week). There are also plenty of substances in the food that are not necessarily harmless. Finally, we breathe air that is not really clean either. The list can be extended at will.

I stick with my conventionally built house, which is probably cheaper, and will still live to be 94 years old.

You hit the nail on the head. That is also why there is the text about radioactivity of clay and co. Even in natural wood you can detect formaldehyde and/or VOCs. Nevertheless, clay and wood remain some of the safest building materials available. I only have an issue with clay and co when they are fired and thus an enormous amount of grey energy is used.

I believe that one can also overdo it. The house is built super ecologically and there are two cars in the garage that emit plenty of toxins and plastics. Work is done in the uneconomical office building (after all, only 50 hours a week). There are also plenty of substances in food that are not necessarily harmless. Finally, we breathe air that is not really clean either. The list can be extended indefinitely.

I will stick with my conventionally built house, which is probably cheaper, and will still live to be 94 years old

Nice if you get to be 94 years old. I agree with everything, even though we are not among those who drive a lot by car and certainly not two cars in the garage. I also cook everything from fresh ingredients and with spices that I grind myself because I want to know what is in them. Of course, this does not apply when eating out, which I do from time to time as well. But that doesn’t mean I have to suffer from headaches or breathing difficulties forever in my own house because everything is still off-gassing.