Tim S wrote:
Andrew Gabriel coughed up some electrons that declared:

In article
,
writes:

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

I presume that's meant to be a joke?



I took it to be, after the first couple of sentences. Sadly, it *is* an
accurate reflection on the results of earnest research into the subject on
google. There seems to be very little deliberate effort at parody and a
great deal of ******** on the web.

The problem with something like this is the FUD factor - *if* dry rot can
consume your house, even after the initial water ingress is cured (by
supposedly generating its own water as a by product of eating the wood),
then you scare people into expensive work just to get a 10 year guarantee.

OTOH, if that were true, given my roof has been dry for 10+ years, then it
should have continued to eat at least the entire rafter, not stopped after
about 8".

My concern is that once this ceiling is put back, there's no easy way to
monitor the situation, which amplifies the risk of getting it wrong.

But I'll go with the general opinion that the sodding mushrooms are
dead/inactive, and I'll just replace structurally deficient timber as is
practical, lob some fungicide in because it's cheap and why not, and
reconstruct things so that damp can never form there again.

Sound reasonable?

Cheers

Tim

Perfectly. I also note that on roofs like that, even if one joist
fails completely the result isnt anything serious, just a little minor
local sag, hence some folk wouldn't do anything about it.

Rot fungi are like any other fungal plant, they need water to survive.
Without that, they're going nowhere.


NT