Tim S wrote:
The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:


well it hardly matters which it is, since both need damp to flourish and
both need entirely removing, and remedial action to remove the wetness
applied, as well a replacement of structurally deficient timbers.

A good fungicide is also a good idea as well.

So would it matter if a section of generally sound, but inaccessible timber
with a trace of rot is left in place (the alternative being to strip the
roof, which is lead)?

For wet rot, I would say yes.

For dry rot, I'm still a bit contaminated by the 70's notion that one hint
of dry rot left will eat your house alive.

Where did that idea come from? Was it scaremongering by rot-killing firms?

Cheers
Tim

If theres no water getting to the wood, it isnt going to rot any more.
That simple.

If you realy want to know which it is, this should clear it up:
http://www.wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Wood_Rot


NT