I don't think anybody has mentioned this, but if as some of you have suggested that rising damp does not exsist, then pray explain to me why the ends of floor joists at ground floor level regularly succomb to decay by wet and dry rot fungus.
Rising damp does not exist
- Thread starter Softus
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Just found this post and have to say that I did see the documentary about damp previously mentioned and as a result have looked at all damp cases with open eyes now, In most cases you can spot where the damp comes from and its not 'rising'.
All damp is caused by a source of water and all you have to do is find it, it could be poor drainage, soil banked against walls, neighbouring walls too close to allow naturall air drying etc. condensation can occur naturally and needs adequate ventillation to dry it out.
The photos of brick walls in pools of water prove this, also just look at any number of water courses in towns, they all have brick culverts etc with no signs of 'rising damp'.
It seems that the term rising damp is a frightener used to prop up an industry built on the gullibility of us, the general public.
All damp is caused by a source of water and all you have to do is find it, it could be poor drainage, soil banked against walls, neighbouring walls too close to allow naturall air drying etc. condensation can occur naturally and needs adequate ventillation to dry it out.
The photos of brick walls in pools of water prove this, also just look at any number of water courses in towns, they all have brick culverts etc with no signs of 'rising damp'.
It seems that the term rising damp is a frightener used to prop up an industry built on the gullibility of us, the general public.
The fact that you say, "pray explain", (and rather pompously so), means that you've probably missed the point of my topic.anobium said:
My point was to assert, as a postulate, that RD does not exist, in the hope that people with genuine experience of it could post accurate information. However, to date (from memory though, and I can't be a*rsed to check tonight), only one forum member has managed to achieve this, and even he was, in hindsight, unsure.
It's not my responsibility to explain away your damp problems - it's for you to explain how rising damp has occurred and how you've reached that conclusion after exploring and eliminating all other possible causes of the damp. If you don't want to do that, then continuing to post on this topic in the manner that you've used so far would be a topic hijacking, which is against the forum rules.
Notwithstanding all that, to answer your other questions, because I'm a helpful soul (most of the time)...
Dry rot is relatively rate. If indeed you do have it, you may find it useful to learn that it carries its own water supply from remote sources, so it's more likely than not that any fresh tendrils you find are not near the source of the damp.
Regarding wet rot, my very sketchy experience of this is that it occurs in conditions of high humidity and poor ventilation. If you correct one or both of those conditions then I would expect you to find that the problem subsides. You may need to treat infected wood with a chemical anti-fungal treatment though.
The previous discussions on this thread, as far as I’m concerned, neither prove nor disprove any of the theories surrounding Rising Dampness. Konrad – for whom I have a tremendous respect and affection (which incidentally may come to an abrupt end if we lose on penalties – again - to You Know Who this summer) argues his case with cogency, wit and, I suspect, a little selectivity; whereas there are no convincing arguments supporting the other side. Not that such arguments don’t exist, there are in fact a plethora of them and indeed I have just been reading one prepared by the BRE where, in an exercise carried out in properties in Cardiff Bay, they concluded that 76% of the properties tested, out of a sample of 94, had rising dampness. Not all of these positive results seem to have been taken from freestanding walls but nevertheless the figures were conclusive enough for the BRE to go into print!
It would seem that Joe-90 has been wrongly convicted after all!
Unfortunately this seems to be one of those issues that polarise people quite dramatically, even when they have either no experience or the technical ability to reach a considered decision; and one is left to conclude that they seek out the arguments that support their cause, as seems to be the case with the OP. This is quite natural and I have no problems with it all, except to think that though it may help them, it doesn’t do much for others.
I survey between five and ten properties each week, specifically for any problems relating to dampness or timber but I have absolutely no truck with the vast majority of the damp and timber industry. Indeed I share Konrad’s views on their efficacy.
However, that doesn’t stop me seeing things that can be easily explained away by the ‘it doesn’t exist’ camp. In houses constructed pre ‘Model Building Bye-laws 1877/8’ - when the first legislative reference to damp proof courses was included - I sometimes see internal, free-standing walls that display dampness to a height that is anywhere up to 1500mm above ground level. The walls in question have never been exposed to livestock, haven’t suffered from passing traffic and are highly unlikely to ever have been subjected to condensate. So, what is this phenomenon and why is it so uniform across the lower reaches of the walls?
Well, I’m not even going to start down the technical road, I’ve seen to many clever men contradicting each other to do that. For me it’s sufficient to know that the base of these walls has a higher moisture content than their upper levels and I’m quite happy to call it ‘rising dampness’ – a rose by any other name!
The BRE report I referred to earlier also concluded that the majority of the properties suffering from ‘rising dampness’ had not suffered any other deterioration and, as they had been in this condition for decades, were not likely to; and therein, I believe, lies the rub. Konrad’s, (and other’s of course) presumption that they know what I, and others, mean when we diagnose ‘rising dampness’ only serves to deflect attention from the practical assessments that are required to satisfy the building’s owner. A scientific explanation seldom satisfies a first time buyer who finds her dream home has damp walls; she wants to know how to make it go away; as inexpensively as possible!
Because ‘rising damp’ has been so demonised, the very phrase is associated with invasive treatments – it’s a licence to drill! This is a direct result of the ‘Yes it does’, ‘No it doesn’t’ argument. What we should be saying is ‘Yes it does, but, in the vast majority of cases it doesn’t matter very much’. If it isn’t causing any problems that can be detected other than with a moisture meter, leave it alone. It will ebb and flow with the seasons and, if we look after the building’s fabric and keep an eye on condensation, you probably won’t even know it’s there.
Please leave a suitable time to allow me to duck beneath the parapet
Patrick
It would seem that Joe-90 has been wrongly convicted after all!
Unfortunately this seems to be one of those issues that polarise people quite dramatically, even when they have either no experience or the technical ability to reach a considered decision; and one is left to conclude that they seek out the arguments that support their cause, as seems to be the case with the OP. This is quite natural and I have no problems with it all, except to think that though it may help them, it doesn’t do much for others.
I survey between five and ten properties each week, specifically for any problems relating to dampness or timber but I have absolutely no truck with the vast majority of the damp and timber industry. Indeed I share Konrad’s views on their efficacy.
However, that doesn’t stop me seeing things that can be easily explained away by the ‘it doesn’t exist’ camp. In houses constructed pre ‘Model Building Bye-laws 1877/8’ - when the first legislative reference to damp proof courses was included - I sometimes see internal, free-standing walls that display dampness to a height that is anywhere up to 1500mm above ground level. The walls in question have never been exposed to livestock, haven’t suffered from passing traffic and are highly unlikely to ever have been subjected to condensate. So, what is this phenomenon and why is it so uniform across the lower reaches of the walls?
Well, I’m not even going to start down the technical road, I’ve seen to many clever men contradicting each other to do that. For me it’s sufficient to know that the base of these walls has a higher moisture content than their upper levels and I’m quite happy to call it ‘rising dampness’ – a rose by any other name!
The BRE report I referred to earlier also concluded that the majority of the properties suffering from ‘rising dampness’ had not suffered any other deterioration and, as they had been in this condition for decades, were not likely to; and therein, I believe, lies the rub. Konrad’s, (and other’s of course) presumption that they know what I, and others, mean when we diagnose ‘rising dampness’ only serves to deflect attention from the practical assessments that are required to satisfy the building’s owner. A scientific explanation seldom satisfies a first time buyer who finds her dream home has damp walls; she wants to know how to make it go away; as inexpensively as possible!
Because ‘rising damp’ has been so demonised, the very phrase is associated with invasive treatments – it’s a licence to drill! This is a direct result of the ‘Yes it does’, ‘No it doesn’t’ argument. What we should be saying is ‘Yes it does, but, in the vast majority of cases it doesn’t matter very much’. If it isn’t causing any problems that can be detected other than with a moisture meter, leave it alone. It will ebb and flow with the seasons and, if we look after the building’s fabric and keep an eye on condensation, you probably won’t even know it’s there.
Please leave a suitable time to allow me to duck beneath the parapet
Patrick
Sponsored Links
Rising damp was invented by the CIA in the 1950s to counter communist insurgents living in low-cost terraced accommodation in pinko land. J Edgar Hoover commissioned Howard Hughes to design and build a gravitational satellite that would hover over western Europe in a stationary low-Earth orbit sucking damp up from the ground into the walls of these terraced houses. It was expected that the detrimental health effects of living in these damp homes would prevent the communists from breeding or attaining high office. CIA agents posing as damp-proofers were able to divert funds away from the communists by offering rising damp treatments in exchange for cash. This money was then used to finance a failed execution attempt on Fidel Castro using an exploding cigar. This scheme proved so lucrative that the CIA soon branched into other areas of operation such as selling "traditional" lime-based building products.
Even after the end of the Cold War, the US Government has continued to deny responsibility for rising damp, claiming that it is a natural phenomenon affecting old houses that were built without damp-proof courses. But they would say that wouldn’t they. Just like they deny that their space programme was built on alien technology acquired from Hitler (who was actually a lizard from space that had sworn allegiance to the All Seeing Eye of Lucifer).
Even after the end of the Cold War, the US Government has continued to deny responsibility for rising damp, claiming that it is a natural phenomenon affecting old houses that were built without damp-proof courses. But they would say that wouldn’t they. Just like they deny that their space programme was built on alien technology acquired from Hitler (who was actually a lizard from space that had sworn allegiance to the All Seeing Eye of Lucifer).
Wow, those Orgone Accumulator things look awsome. Is it the same as electro-osmosis?
http://www.orgone.org/
http://www.orgone.org/
- Joined
- 18 Nov 2005
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
Regarding the rotten floor joists, I bet it's too much damp in the room's air combined with a convective heating system. The floor is cold, condensate will come in and never get out. Under the floor it is still warm enough for the rot and this types of organism like it dark. They have no need to transport water from a dwell, the moistured heating air will give them more than they need. To get better conditions for man and wooden constructions and make it worse for all sorts of rot and mould, look here.
Besides the dicussion is going very generally (and esoterically), what is with the capillarity between fine pores of brick and all sorts of stones and the rough pores of mortar? Who can proof the evidence of capillar transaction here, the only presupposition of RD? Please try it, all you not convinced good believers of one of the best fairy tales of whole building branch! We are still waiting for better arguments. And it would be very nice, not to discuss like a merry-go-round.
Besides the dicussion is going very generally (and esoterically), what is with the capillarity between fine pores of brick and all sorts of stones and the rough pores of mortar? Who can proof the evidence of capillar transaction here, the only presupposition of RD? Please try it, all you not convinced good believers of one of the best fairy tales of whole building branch! We are still waiting for better arguments. And it would be very nice, not to discuss like a merry-go-round.
Softus said:
Firstly I am sorry that you took exception to my phrase "pray explain".
I was merely trying to point out a situation where fungal decay can occur in timbers which are not exposed to the elements, leaking water pipes, high ground levels, etc, etc, and to try and show that rising damp does exist.
With regard to the statement re dry rot, I agree with you when you say that it has the ability to transmit moisture to other timbers.
However this only occurs when the decay and mycelial growth is established, via the rizamorphs . Dry rot starts when the spores of the fungus germinate on timbers which have the required moisture content. This moisture content can be as a result of rising damp.
With regard to wet rot, the hypothetical example I pointed out to you was timbers which were built into the wall and were the under floor ventilation and humidity were at acceptable levels.
I totally agree that the majority of damp problems are incorrectly diagnosed as rising damp,either as a result ignorance or as an attempt to profit by disreputable contractors.
Despite everything I have read it is possible to determine if rising damp is present, ( after eliminating all other possible causes, falling ,penetrating, condensation, burst pipes,) by carrying out calcium carbide gradient tests.
I also include in these tests the analysis required to eliminate the moisture due to the salt content. The only problem with these tests are that they are time consuming and destructive and that is why they are not used by the majority of the advisors/surveyors in the industry.
Could you please also advise me of why you feel I have hijacked the topic against forum rules.
I was not aware that I had done so and if guilty did so unknowingly.
Finally my compliments to PatrickD for his comprehensive post on the subject which I agree with in the main.
He has not said however what method he uses to justify the installation of a dpc when his company installs one, which presumably they do.
By the way I have no connection with any commercial company in this field.
Please don't be - I took no exception, I merely pointed out that your post wasn't in the spirit of the topic. You are merely one in an increasingly long line of posters who are prepared to theorise but are not prepared to explain or justify.anobium said:
OK. Well you failed to show that it exists, probably because you didn't explain how it occured in your scenario.anobium said:
Your first statement makes the second two statements irrelevant.anobium said:
I'm curious about this - why can it be so?anobium said:
It's enough for me that the example was hypothetical; this topic is not about hypothesis - I asked for practical and real examples.anobium said:
On this topic, I have not said the thing that you claim to agree with.anobium said:
Fine - do you have a real example of having carried out this test?anobium said:
Er, OK thenanobium said:
Hijacking, per se, is automatically against the rules of this forum. I didn't say that you had hijacked it, I said this:anobium said:
Comprehensive it certainly was, and demeaning it certainly attempted to be, but it comprehensively failed to address the point of this topic.anobium said:
To re-iterate the point: I assert, as a postulate, that RD does not exist. I hope that people with genuine experience of it will post accurate information that shows that it does exist.
So, are you now going to provide a reasoned explanation for the occurrences of rising damp that you've seen? Or am I asking for something unreasonable?
bla bla bla if it's damp it's wet, if it's wet it's damp.
OK Softus, clearly I did not get the point across that rising damp exists.
I thought that maybe you had had some experience in this field but from some of your responses it would seem not., particularly the dry rot element
As you are probably aware there are four types of dampness in a building
These come under the headings of , falling damp, penetrating damp, condensation, and rising damp.Therefore if you accept that rising damp exists , then it is simple matter of a process of elimination to arrive at a cause.
You ask if I have ever been personally involved in the carbide tests referred to including the salt analysis,
The answer is yes, more than I care to remember. What always surprised me though was the amount of moisture in the samples which was due to the salt content. If this does not prove the presence of rising damp then pray tell me how you explain the presence of salts, ie chlorides, sulphates, and nitrates 1 metre up in an internal wall.
You ask for examples which I have personally been involved with.
Again literally hundreds but one that really comes to mind was a very large victorian property which had been subject to various methods to cure the rising damp problem, including silicone injection and electro osmosis.
The effects of our attempts to effect a cure were dramatic in respect of the drying out process, and the method that was used was by inserting a conventional dpc.
I could go on and on but I suspect that you made up your mind on this matter some time ago , but may I suggest that you get a copy of the BRE Digest 245 and read the opinions of an independent body.
If you want to see a really good example of rising damp next time you are in york visit the minster and see the base of the columns and the works done to rectify the problem.
I thought that maybe you had had some experience in this field but from some of your responses it would seem not., particularly the dry rot element
As you are probably aware there are four types of dampness in a building
These come under the headings of , falling damp, penetrating damp, condensation, and rising damp.Therefore if you accept that rising damp exists , then it is simple matter of a process of elimination to arrive at a cause.
You ask if I have ever been personally involved in the carbide tests referred to including the salt analysis,
The answer is yes, more than I care to remember. What always surprised me though was the amount of moisture in the samples which was due to the salt content. If this does not prove the presence of rising damp then pray tell me how you explain the presence of salts, ie chlorides, sulphates, and nitrates 1 metre up in an internal wall.
You ask for examples which I have personally been involved with.
Again literally hundreds but one that really comes to mind was a very large victorian property which had been subject to various methods to cure the rising damp problem, including silicone injection and electro osmosis.
The effects of our attempts to effect a cure were dramatic in respect of the drying out process, and the method that was used was by inserting a conventional dpc.
I could go on and on but I suspect that you made up your mind on this matter some time ago , but may I suggest that you get a copy of the BRE Digest 245 and read the opinions of an independent body.
If you want to see a really good example of rising damp next time you are in york visit the minster and see the base of the columns and the works done to rectify the problem.
Oh deary me - this is far harder than it really should be.
No, you didn't; probably because you didn't attempt to get the point across in any scientific manner - you merely attempted to insist that it exists.anobium said:
I've never pretended to have more experience than any other houseowner, so I don't know why you thought otherwise. This doesn't mean that you can blind me with science, because I'm a scientist, and a more than averagely open-minded one. One advantage that I have of not working in the damp-proofing or the renovating industries is that I have no axe to grind. Anyone who works as a surveyor or damp-proofer cannot make the same claim to independence.anobium said:
So, no "rotting damp" then? Or flooding - doesn't that make a building particularly moist?anobium said:
Maybe so, but why would I accept that rising damp exists without evidence in support of it?anobium said:
That doesn't tell me much - how many do you "care" to remember? It might be zero for all I know.anobium said:
You would only have been surprised if you had a pre-conception of how much you expected to find - not a very scientific approach IMHO.anobium said:
I don't know if it proves or disproves it. Why don't you explain, for everyone's benefit, why you think it equates to the condition of rising damp, through brickwork?anobium said:
So now we're getting somewhere. You give an example of a Victorian property. You say that various method were use to cure a rising damp problem, but you haven't said what those methods were or how you determined that the problem was one of rising damp.anobium said:
Mm, hmm. So, what was the wall contruction and the wall covering, both inside and outside?anobium said:
Please do.anobium said:
Quite the contrary - I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that you diagnosed rising damp, and then implemented a remedy and were able to show that the actions you took were the sole cause of the reduction in damp.anobium said:
You may indeed suggest it, but does this mean that you don't consider yourself capable of documenting an independant analysis of your findings?anobium said:
This is more like it - I can't help but wonder why you didn't mention this in your very first post on the topic, or right at the top of your last post.anobium said:
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
