Pros and cons of using PVC as a building material

PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) is a synthetic material (polymer), versatile, durable, fire resistant and corrosion, recyclable, and is the third most widely produced plastic in the world, after polyethylene and polypropylene. A recent independent research commissioned by ECVM (European council of vinyl manufacturers), a division of Plastics Europe, the European association of plastics manufacturers, representing 100% of the plastic manufacturers in Europe, the emergence of a truly result stunning: PVC, in relation to other natural materials such as wood and metal, as would be the best product in terms of cost-benefit analysis. The study shows that in three important areas of buildings such as doors and windows, flooring and pipes, PVC is not only the most "effective" as far as the cost of installation, but it is also the best choice for life-cycle compared to other materials.

It is apparent from the study that shows that PVC is a material very environmentally friendly in terms of environmental impact throughout its life cycle, shown in terms of Ger (energy demand) and GWP (global warming potential - emissions greenhouse gases). Therefore presents advantages in terms of total energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

Too bad that the study was commissioned by the producers themselves, with goals easily understandable, and not by third parties and impartial institutions to protect citizens.

It is a material present in many domestic environments and working under various forms and functions. But a growing number of people and researchers is highlighting the real dangers of PVC and serious risk to human health.

POSITION AGAINST PVC

According to a study of "The Center for Health, Environment and Justice", a U.S. company in the defense of the consumer PVC would be responsible for many cancers and birth defects. The fact that many companies over the years have evaluated the opportunity or choose to remove from the production processes, the use of Polyvinyl chloride would represent irrefutable proof (for example - IKEA, Microsoft, Apple, Carnegie Fabrics Finitures etc.).

According to the CHEJ "PVC is dangerous to human health and the entire ecosystem throughout its life cycle, from the factory, use, until disposal. Our bodies are contaminated by chemical additive particles, toxic mercury and phthalates (toxic softeners that make it flexible and whose use in children's toys has been banned by the European Union in 2005 because of the risk to health, but continues to be used in the U.S. thanks to an agreement between the Department of Commerce and U.S. toy manufacturers) that can cause a lifetime of our lives less and irreversible. When produced or burned, PVC releases dioxins, a group among the most powerful chemicals ever tested, which can cause cancer and attack the immune system and the reproductive system.''

And still on the subject of recycling, the CHEJ says:'' The PVC can not be effectively recycled due to the additives used in the production process to make it durable and flexible as these contaminate the entire process. Many consumers do not know that the symbol 3 means affixed to the plastic PVC, and therefore recycle these products makes little sense as it would get containers unusable. In fact, one PVC bottle can contaminate a recycling process than 100,000 PET bottles. "

Therefore, what is clear is that the PVC would be technically simple to recycle as other plastic but what they produce greater health problems are additives used in the process to make it more malleable and workable, putting at risk the whole process recycling.

Another element of reflection is represented by the choice of locations for the production of polyvinyl chloride. In fact, plants for the production of PVC are located at concentrations of low-income communities and those of color, and of scientific tests in these areas would seem there is a clear correlation between health and pollution from PVC additives. The CHEJ argues, among other things: ".... In 1999, the federal government has measured the amount of dioxin in the blood of 28 individuals living near one of these plants in Louisiana. The test revealed that their blood it contained a level equal to three times that of the average U.S. citizens. The workers of these plants may result in damage to health arising from exposure to polyvinyl chloride and other additives used in the manufacturing process. These health risks include angiosarcoma of the liver, lung cancer, brain cancer, lymphoma, leukemia, and liver cirrhosis. "

 

IN FAVOUR OF PVC

The positions in favor of polyvinyl say that many of the reasons brought against its use are unfounded and have an origin policy. The arguments in favor are mostly economic in nature and, in particular, are turning to the ease of cleaning make it a key material - for example - in the field of health. In this field of application is used in various ways - by the walls of the operating rooms to blood bags, up to the gloves of surgeons. Indeed, if the PVC was actually a plastic harmful to human health, we'd all be in serious danger.

According to Dr. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace'' the evidence of danger to human health have been rejected by the European Commission, from in-depth studies on polyvinyl and also from the United States Green Building Council, a group of activists in various fields, which have refuted the criticisms of the vinyl.'' This statement sounds obvious, however, in contrast to a Community Directive that prohibits the use of additives commonly present in the material in the production, for now, to children's toys.

Moore also argues that the PVC is composed of only 50% from fossil fuels, while the other types of plastic are made 100% from fossil fuels with a significant reduction in global warming. And because it can be recycled, he continues: "... The activists who claim such as polyvinyl can not be recycled, they are wrong because about 100% of its processing waste is re-used." Therefore, the polyvinyl product and can be recycled by reducing the energy requirement and therefore damage to a lesser extent the environment, but this is true with respect to plastics and not alternative to natural materials.

One of the accusations made against the PVC industry is the impossibility or difficulty of recycling. Moore noted that the PVC having a life cycle tends to infinity, is less recycled. Thus says:'' Not much is recycled polyvinyl intended for consumers. Ask yourself why? Why still use it. It therefore makes little sense to move these charges to the industries of polyvinyl about recycling when, because of its durability is still in homes, water pipes, as an insulating material. It does not need to be recycled because it is still used due to its durability over time.''

Is not recycled because there is no need!

Interesting is the location, albeit biased, PVC Forum Italy, Centre for Information on PVC that, in short we have to forget the old PVC (so it is a form of admission of real problems) and look to the future, in terms of social sustainability and the environment. The conclusions of a conference speak for themselves:

• You have to look at the NEW PVC (PVC PVC 2.0 or 3.0) as something different from the OLD PVC product years ago and then evaluate it / handle it in a different way;

• The Vinyl 2010 program with its innovations "environmental", led to the opening of a path that gave us a PVC more sustainable and socially and economically more important: PVC 2.0.

• The new program VinylPlus can imagine that at the end of the new path you will be faced with a further evolution of the material going from PVC to PVC 2.0 3.0. "

10/06/2012

----------------------------------------

Translated via software

----------------------------------------

Source:

Italian version of CercaGeometra.it