Talk:Dry rot treatment

Standalone article

I've restored this as a separate article rather than a redirect. The article seems well-written and it's got one or two sources as well (!). If there are specific problems with original research or POV, I think they should be discussed here and/or tagged with appropriate templates. The material as written seems overly large to be merged into the dry rot article as the Treatment section would be bigger than all the rest of it. If it should be merged though, let's have a merge discussion. Or deleted altogether maybe, though I don't see why just now. Discussion welcomed. Franamax (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I know a big building (bigger than just a house) that has dry rot and it is not so easy to get rid of it. Not as easy as this article suggests. It says: "just dry it out." But THAT is exactly the damn problem. Without a new roof and whatnot else, the building will never be dry. There are already concrete façades, that wrap the building in plastic and keep the humidity in. The concrete would have to be stripped off. I've read this article several times and it makes me angry each time. I can't show it to the owners of the building for two reasons, they'd either get mad at Wikipedia or overread the whole part about the necessity to get the place dry. And no it would cost a bit more than £23.000 to put a new roof on, fix the rain sink and strip the concrete off. There's probably even more to do to get it dry, some exterior digging maybe. The numbers in the article are only valid for a certain building. Can't have been that serious a dry rot, that big a building and so on.--Stanzilla (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion points

This article related, specifically, to the treatment of Serpula lacrymans and primarily in the UK.

It's _S_erpula _l_ acrymans. Capital 'S', small 'l'.

This particular species poses the greatest threat to buildings since it can spread through non-nutrient providing materials (e.g. masonry and plaster) for several metres until it finds more timber to attack

All species of brown rot decay fungi create strands and can grow through and along walls, S. lacrymans, is not special in that respect. Tobias Huckfeldt found that Coniophora putenana had a better ability if anything.

The minimum moisture content of timber for spore germination is 28 -30% (lower than other rots) and the relative humidity must be in excess of 95%.

It's no lower than any other rot. And if the timber moisture content is that high, then the surrounding relative humidity will certainly be above 95%

The first step in any course of treatment is to make the necessary repairs to the building defects (overflowing gutters, blocked airbricks...

Blocked airbricks would not allow water penetration. they would prevent ventilation that might prevent the evaporation of water from another source, but blocked airbricks on their own would not cause an outbreak of dry rot as even in 100% RH, timber moisture content of Pine will not rise above 24% (Tsoumis, G.T., (1995) Science and Technology of Wood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

Am I the only one who reads this as a rant against "orthodox" treatment? — Coren ^(talk) 15:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)