Woodworm treatment in roof timbers

modelreject

I have a bit of woodworm in the roof timbers and I'm going to get it professionally sprayed. The company say that the spray isn't a poison that will kill straight away but rather make the woodbeetle infertile. Is this true and is it the best way to treat it?

Many thanks!

ormus

how much are they charging you?
i bought a tin of woodworm treatment for about a tenner, and did my own.
i had to leave the house empty for 24 hours.

Gloomendoom

It is an awful job to do properly... especially at this time of year.

Ten quid won't go far in an average roof!

ormus

that was in 1987.

modelreject

Price is £180

David_Aldred

Hi modelreject,
Wood boring insect attack to roof timbers perhaps needs a bit of consideration for the following reasons:

Firstly correct diagnosis of what caused the damage is crucial when considering whether to treat the area or not. Common furniture beetle is often called "woodworm" by the public and if a proven active infestation of this insect is found then it may need some control measures such as insecticides. However similar damage to the wood can be caused by insects such as bark borer, often mistaken for common furniture beetle that will not require such insecticide control because bark borer does not re-infest once they emerge from the wood.

Secondly you need to determine if the infestation is actually active or not since no amount of insecticide treatment will make the emergence holes / damage disappear. The use of these long lasting insecticides needs to be justified (see comment below).

Common furniture beetle are attracted to light bright surfaces such as window cills and white bathroom suites but in the loft void laying a section of white lining paper over the first floor ceilings within the loft void will tend to attract such insects if active and also taping paper / card over insect damaged timber will help in monitoring / trapping insects to show activity or lack of it.

Common furniture beetle tend to emerge from the wood to breed during the summer months but ideally a good twelve months of such monitoring should be allowed for. Be mindful that as the insects fly the whole house should be considered at risk and monitored accordingly rather than just the loft void.

If the infestation is proven to be active then the client needs to make a balanced decision upon whether insecticide treatment is appropriate or not. For instance does the client feel a single live common furniture beetle found on a window cill that could have simply flown into the property through an open window justify insecticide treatment throughout the property. Some would argue yes whilst others would say no, especially since such insecticides may not only kill the intended pest but also the natural predators of that pest at the same time.

There are various types of treatment on the market as insecticide control for wood boring insect from sprayed / brushed on liquids to smokes / mists containing insecticde and each of these methods of application can vary in how they kill / control this household pest but it should be appreciated that none of these will penetrate the depth of the wood by more than 1-2mm and so these products will not provide an instant kill to such insects throughout the full depth of the wood.

This has big implications because if an egg was laid into the wood just prior to treatment it may well live and eat that wood for several years before it comes back to the surface to breed and hopefully come into contact with such long lasting insecticide near the surface. That means that what looks like minimal damage at time of treatment can become severe within several years after treatment despite application of surface applied insecticides.

In view of the above the client should appreciate that they may well see common furniture beetle on surfaces / flying for several years after treatment and complain of such back to the contractor. The contractor applying the treatment will not usually entertain re-treatement for several years after application because they will quite rightly state that this is the natural fly out period of the insect considering it may live within that wood after treatment for several years before it meets any insecticide.

As such the insecticide is designed to simply break the cycle of egg laying / larva eating wood / beetle emerging to breed and this may take several years or indeed may never be fully achieved due to reasons discussed below.

There is evidence to suggest that some insects may sense the insecticide and instead of emerging to breed will do so within the depth of the timber or at timber construction joints which is the last place you want a concentrated infestation.

In addition it should be appreciated that not all surfaces will be reached when the operative applies the insecticide, such as the upper concealed faces of rafters, ridge beams, bearing faces of timber wall plates etc, such that treatment is only ever going to be partially effective and as such some degree of active wood boring insect attack may remain.

Such treatments are only ever effective on bare clean wood so if there is any painted / varnished timbers such coatings need to be removed prior to treatment. Also the loft void would need to be completely cleared of insulation and all debris removed finishing with industrial vacuuming of the roof void timbers to remove all fine debris especially those on first floor ceilings prior to treatment otherwise the treatment will be ineffective and the client will be wasting their time and money.

All services within the loft void should then be appropriately protected as some insecticide products can cause severe problems when they come into contact with such services both in the short and long term. The loft void is a confined space and the quote should allow for a competant person outside that confined space monitoring the person within that confined space during treatment as a matter of health and safety as it woudl not be the first time an operative was overcome by fumes from the product being applied. The client should ensure that all of this has been allowed for within the works quoted for.

Warning notices should be permanently fixed stating who treated the loft void giving their full address and contact numbers, what products were used, who manufactured the products and their contact details and the date of treatment. This notice to be fixed at point of access to warn anyone entering the loft void of the potential hazard.

Claiming on a treatment guarantee for ineffective treatment is not easy. Firstly there is the seven year fly out period to be allowed for, then the client would have to prove that a live beetle / larva came from within a section of wood to be treated. There are many different types of product used as insecticides and laboratory work to identify such needs to be product specific within that search i.e. the laboratory / client needs to know what chemicals were supposed to be within the insecticide used, in order for the laboratory to look for them.

The products on the market are currently approved as being safe for use by the HSE so this all sounds well and good. However a cautionary note is perhaps one should bear in mind that this list is subject to constant revision in the light of long term monitoring. Many of the products that were once similarly approved as insecticides for the control of "woodworm" have now been withdrawn by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) unfortunately after many years of application on the grounds that they were found to cause cancers and other health risks to those exposed to them.

When one considers that these products are expected to last for 30 years of a typical guarantee and the product if applied inappropriately to dust / debris within the loft void may be disturbed easily by those entering such a confined space such that it becomes airborne and breathed in by not only those who applied them but also by those living within that home for many years after application; perhaps one can appreciate that application of such insecticides does require some degree of consideration to ensure their use for a truly active infestation is indeed justified.

With regard to the £180 quoted the price for treatment and appropriate cleaning down / preperation / protection / monitoring of operatives / re-instatement of insulation etc does on the face of it seem rather cheap for an average sized loft void. Hope the above helps, kindest regards David Aldred Independent damp timber and cavity wall surveyor

modelreject

Thanks very much. Very detailed information. The loft is quite small. It's 1930's and doesn't have and felt or insulation under the tiles or around the timbers. The infestation seems to be confined to one area also.

Dry_Rot

Hi Modelreject.

The quote sounds very reasonable (cheap) to me (I'm a specialist contractor). We would usually charge over £500.00 plus VAT to treat an average semi's roof void.

The only treatment I know which interferes with the life cycle in this way is Flurox. It basically targets the grubs ability to form a pupa when the time comes to pupate and turn into a beetle. I don't use it because all the evidence I've seen implies that the time taken to effect a 'kill' is too long and it will not act on freshly laid eggs. It is a very good pre-treatment fluid, for deep penetration into wood at a timber yard, by VAC-VAC or similar method. I'm not happy to rely on it when just spraying to run off.

Permethrin is the weapon of choice for most companies because it kills on contact, so is effective on insects near the surface and on egg laying and emergence too.

I, and most other contractors I know don't get much (if any) of the post treatment emergence problems alluded to in the last post. Permethrin is so effective against common furniture beetle that they often don't get through the outer few mm of treated wood on their way out. The really persistent ones sometimes get to just poke their little heads out before expiring (poor !!!!!!s - I have lots of photos of this). Permethrin is very very safe.

You will have much more toxic things in your house, under the sink and in the garage. Talk of past fluids being allowed and then banned implies problems. In fact I sprayed lindane, TBTO & most of the phenols for years and yes - it may have damaged me (not thus far though), so I'm glad that my technicians have something safer to use every day.

Of course the HSE want safer and safer fluids, that is evolution. It does not imply that the thousands of customers who've had treatment done in the past were somehow wrong or are at risk. TBTO was banned world wide because of it's use in marine anti-fouling paints, where it leached out into the salt water. Dieldrin was also banned - good job really because it didn't work for as long as the formulators said it would. One day permethrin will be banned, as will every chemical we use today for anything, in any industry.

There has never been a safety issue with customers, provided professional, well trained operatives are involved. I'm sure one day Alcohol and cigarettes will be banned....Anyway, I digress.

In your position you are right to be concerned that:

1 - the diagnosis is correct
2 - That the recommendations are appropriate
3 - That the price is reasonable.

So, get a second opinion from a specialist who is a member of The Property Care Association. That way you get someone independently vetted on stuff which matters, but which is far too boring for you; insurance; safety standards; site work standards; complaints procedures; guarantee insurance....on and on...

He will be qualified to make a correct diagnosis. He must carry professional indemnity insurance to protect you if he makes a mistake (all the other insurances too in case he poisons the whole planet and burns the town down

His recommendations must be sound for the situation - the PCA has a code of conduct you can see and a code of ethics he must abide by.

IF, there is work to be done, he will want to win the work. So threaten to get another PCA member quote if he seems expensive.

Doing this sort of work properly costs money so I expect his quote may be more than the one you have. However, it will be done safely and properly. It is the cheap, unqualified specialists who have corrupted the consumers trust in the rest of the good firms out there.

The link may not work - just type it in to your browser.

http://www.property-care.org

find a contractor section.

Dry Rot.

modelreject

Thanks Dry Rot. I will quiz the company about the products and advice you have given. Very helpful!

David_Aldred

Just came across these articles regarding insecticide / woodworm treatment which may be of interest. Having known remedial treatment operatives who died prematurely of cancers this issue remains of interest to me personally:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/house-and-home/the-woodworm-treatment-that-could-lead-to-gulf-war-syndrome-1266862.html

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1989/nov/07/toxic-and-hazardous-substances

Lindane and PCP was during their use a fully approved chemical for many years dating back to the 1940's and these were used extensively within homes until it was eventually banned as an insecticide against woodworm. Referring to the above web link discussion by House of Commons MP's the following extract is of particular interest dated 1989:

"The attitude of the manufacturers and suppliers of toxic chemicals is deplorable. They make no effort to establish whether their products are safe. They attempt to discount evidence of toxic effects and they make very little effort to inform the public of the possible consequences of using their chemicals. For example, Peter Bateman—the public relations director of Rentokil (A Property Care Association Member Contractor)—has described Lindane as a life-saving chemical, despite all the evidence of its toxic properties. I ask Mr. Bateman to stop and think for a moment about Ann and Eric Riley. Eric was exposed to Lindane and PCP—pentachlorophenol—in January 1987. He rapidly developed lethargy, depression, pain in the throat and stomach and other symptoms. Eric had an epileptic fit in April 1987 and suffered memory loss and lack of co-ordination. He never fully recovered his health. He had a further fit in January 1988, as a result of which he drowned in the family bath—killed by Lindane".

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Homepest/timber.htm

Of note the above report from the Pesticides Action Network recommended clients use an independent qualified specialist surveyor to inspect the problem in the first instance to determine if treatment is indeed justified rather than using a contractor selling such treatments.

The following article recommends to avoid having insecticide treatment four months prior to conception due to concerns over birth defects:

http://jergun.com/2009/04/solutions-to-infertility-protection-against-poullutants-and-chemicals-at-home/

Also re: concerns over Permethrin as still used widely as an insecticide especially for woodworm:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/did-cockroach-spray-kill-little-claire-1361812.html

Also found:
Liverpool University researchers have established that food containing residues of more than one pesticide can be up to ten times more dangerous than those containing residues of just one. This may be relevant to the housing market. Houses are frequently treated for woodworm and sometimes dry rot each time they change hands, whether they need it or not. This creates cocktails of pesticides which may be many times more toxic that the simple toxicity sum of the individual pesticides used.

Victim of Timber Treatment: Margaret Reichlin
In May 1988, the cellar under Margarets living room was treated for woodworm and (wrongly) suspected damp. This resulted in a four year nightmare which cost her over £26,000 and left her highly sensitised to a wide range of chemicals, including PCP, lindane, TBTO*, white spirit and alkyldimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (benzalkonim chloride).
After receiving little help from the local environmental health department and her GP, the HSE investigated and (45 days after the incident) tested for PCP, lindane and white spirit. TBTO was said not to be testable and benzalkonim chloride not considered necessary to test. The HSE failed to report the case to their own Pesticide Incidents Appraisal Panel (PIAP). The HSE found the contractors at fault and her health at risk. They considered the incident to be very serious, but took no action.
She reported the incident to PIAP, which investigated and confirmed her exposure after five years: they published it in their annual report in year six.
The cellar was then sealed off. All the timbers and living room floor were replaced. The carpets were replaced twice. Furnishings have been re-upholstered, replaced, re-covered and dry cleaned repeatedly. The walls of the living room, hall, kitchen, stripped, lined and replastered.
She stated at the time that we do not have an adequate system for dealing with the victims of pesticide incidents. The first firm of solicitors dealing with the complaint made significant errors, and only when she changed solicitors after four years did she find a firm which effectively pursued the case. She discovered her claim ceased to exist because the treatment company had stopped trading. Her other strongest help has come mainly from voluntary sources.
* Use of liquid TBTO for on-site timber treatment was revoked in 1990 because of health concerns.

Exposure from adjoining house: Margaret Anderson
Margaret was poisoned by pesticides and solvents when timber treatment from the house next door invaded her old terraced house, without warning, one winter weekend. The active ingredients of this toxic and potentially explosive mixture were mainly lindane and pentachlorophenol, and the solvent 'carrier' was over 85% industrial white spirit.
The relevant Code of Practice, Remedial Timber Treatment in Buildings and Guidance Note GS 46 covers just such situations and the hazards to be expected and guarded against-but they are not mandatory. The Approved Code of Practice: The Safe Use of Non-Agricultural Pesticides, does not seem to have any reference to these official HSE guidelines within it. They are supposed to be read in conjunction with the Approved Code-and followed. She asked why, then, were they not combined in one comprehensive set of legal requirements concerning the use of pesticides and wood preservatives?
After ventilating the house, she closed doors and windows, not realising that her nose had 'shut down' under the onslaught-and it was continuing. Next day her carer found her very ill and the house uninhabitable and called the doctor, who ordered evacuation until the house was apparently clear, six weeks on. HSE said later that had she found her dead, tests would have been done, but since she was still alive it took seven weeks of persistent effort to get an investigation started. The immediate respiratory problems (plus nausea, aches and tremor) were followed by symptoms indicating involvement of the lymphatic and neuromuscular systems, liver, kidneys and bladder, and damaged vocal cords. As the National Poisons Unit warned, she was left extremely sensitised. This aftermath she said had completely disrupted her life and added financial hardship to shock, distress and ill-health.

Kindest regards to all David Aldred Independent damp and timber surveyor

Dry_Rot

Dear Modelreject


Don’t worry, nowadays we use safe treatments and I've given you good and sensible advice.

As for all the scare mongering in the previous post, you should look at this guy’s previous ones – we should all just stay at home and do nothing, because the sky is falling in and we’re doomed.

Seriously though, my uncle died of lung cancer and he worked in the industry for ten years. Mind you, he smoked like a trooper for 50 years. My wonderful cousin Andrew worked with me for at least 20 years in the industry. He left to work in engineering and at the young age of only 40, he lost control of his motorcycle and was tragically killed, along with his 17 year old passenger. 5000 – Yes Five Thousand people will die of asbestos related disease this year – it will rise to 10000 before 2020. Sorry I digress, but I hope this just indicates where we are when it comes to priorities. These are facts by the way

Telling stories like this is like using medical evidence from the 50's to put people off going to hospital. Some people are just hostile to the remedial industry, even some who were happy to work in it for decades - why is that? I don’t honestly know, it is a mystery to me.

We should keep these things in proportion. With luck, your infestation will be dead already or due to Bark Borer – the CSRT qualified PCA member you call will tell you. Print off and show him these posts – just for a laugh.

Dry Rot.