bob haller wrote:
Still missing - *data* that supports your claim. Your buddies at State
Farm can't help you?

--
bud--

Bud ignores the NEC, which prohibits insulation contacting K&T

"Obviously you are too lazy to click on links." Insulating K&T is the
subject of the link to the Illinois Dept of Commerce. But you could just
read what I posted that came from that link: "No record of hazard was
found in the large number of K&T installations that had insulation added
around them."

If you knew anything about the NEC you would know it has no intrinsic
authority and is in effect only as it is adopted by enforcement
jurisdictions.

If you read the Illinois report you would know that many jurisdictions,
including 5 entire states, have modified the NEC prohibition on insulation.

jeez i wouldnt want to live in a home you worked on.........

you must believe the NEC is advisory only?

Lacking competent sources you attack others. Your level of stupidity is
amazing.

you must be smarter than the entire NEC, which must look at all these
issues carefully

Your understanding of the NEC is minimal.

As you consistently ignore, the NEC does not require removal of K&T. A
"rewire" can just refeed K&T.

If you read the Illinois report on insulation around K&T you would know
that "looking at the record of the code change, it was not based on data
substantiating a actual problems."

But why would you want to read - you would just get confused. Zealots
don't like conflicting information.

Still missing - *data* that supports your claim that K&T is
intrinsically hazardous. Or *authoritative* sources.

Still missing - data that indicates significant hazard from insulation
around K&T.

--
bud--