←back to thread

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

(charleshughsmith.substack.com)
478 points spking | 4 comments | 17 Jan 25 00:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bluedevil2k ◴[17 Jan 25 01:50 UTC] No.42733208[source]▶
Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we say the same about people building and rebuilding over and over in these disaster areas.
replies(20): >>42733219 #>>42733293 #>>42733338 #>>42733367 #>>42733486 #>>42733536 #>>42733984 #>>42734013 #>>42734047 #>>42734060 #>>42734202 #>>42734459 #>>42734714 #>>42734874 #>>42739590 #>>42740487 #>>42741749 #>>42742138 #>>42743881 #>>42744799 #
Dig1t ◴[17 Jan 25 02:13 UTC] No.42733338[source]▶
There should be a way to build fire resistant buildings to reduce the cost of insuring them, likely this would be the solution in California without price caps.

You can build out of concrete and use fire resistant materials like metal or tile for the roof and your house is nearly fireproof. These buildings would be realistically insurable in both California or Florida. They would cost more to build, not THAT much more though especially if land costs many millions, an extra 50k - 100k to build out of concrete is a very reasonable expense.

replies(5): >>42733371 #>>42733453 #>>42733677 #>>42734267 #>>42734815 #
defrost ◴[17 Jan 25 02:18 UTC] No.42733371[source]▶
Steel frame, flame retardant insulation and cladding, rammed earth, .. these are all options.

Flammable trees well away from a leaf free clean guttered (or no gutter) house are also no compromise requirements.

See: https://research.csiro.au/bushfire/ and https://www.csiro.au/en/work-with-us/services/testing-and-ce...

for the rabbit hole of Australian Bushfire housing certification and testing.

Burning Down the House: Trial by Fire CSIRO- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBtawn7IAnI

replies(3): >>42733567 #>>42733595 #>>42733666 #
sdiupIGPWEfh ◴[17 Jan 25 02:52 UTC] No.42733595[source]▶
> flame retardant insulation

Which are almost definitely known to the state of California to cause cancer.

replies(1): >>42733646 #
defrost ◴[17 Jan 25 03:01 UTC] No.42733646[source]▶
Elsewhere fiberglass and mineral wool insulation aren't regarded as carcinogens.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1947241/

https://mesothelioma.net/fiberglass-connection-to-mesothelio...

replies(1): >>42735195 #
1. inferiorhuman ◴[17 Jan 25 08:12 UTC] No.42735195[source]▶

  mineral wool insulation aren't regarded as carcinogens
A quick look turned up one mineral wool SDS with a Prop 65 warning for formaldehyde.

https://www.jm.com/content/dam/jm/global/en/MSDS/20000000205...

replies(1): >>42735232 #
2. defrost ◴[17 Jan 25 08:20 UTC] No.42735232[source]▶
From your link:

SECTION 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

  IARC No component of this product present at levels greater than or equal to 0.1% is identified as probable, possible or confirmed human carcinogen by IARC.

  ACGIH No component of this product present at levels greater than or equal to 0.1% is identified as a carcinogen or potential carcinogen by ACGIH.

  OSHA No component of this product present at levels greater than or equal to 0.1% is identified as a carcinogen or potential carcinogen by OSHA
> warning for formaldehyde.

Trace amounts can possibly sweat out in specific conditions .. which is why you might choose to install with a vapor barrier.

replies(1): >>42736278 #
3. inferiorhuman ◴[17 Jan 25 11:04 UTC] No.42736278[source]▶

  Trace amounts can possibly sweat out in specific conditions
Nah, it's pretty well documented heat and humidity will release formaldehyde. In paperwork filed with the EPA arguing against new limits, an insulation manufacturer trade group cited California's (OEHHA) exposure limits on formaldehyde as reasonable.

Those limits are:

  recently manufactured products contribute no more than 9 µg/m3 of
  formaldehyde into the indoor air
So the Prop 65 warning certainly seems reasonable from here.

https://downloads.regulations.gov/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0613-0230...

replies(1): >>42744479 #
4. defrost ◴[17 Jan 25 23:52 UTC] No.42744479{3}[source]▶
Vapor barriers limit human exposure, it has to travel into the occupied spaces to be an issue, then linger.

It also has to be the type of wool that has been treated, etc.