Gary R. Lloyd wrote:

When it comes to something as vital as providing sufficient air to
breathe, I would lean heavily towards passive solutions and overkill,
i.e. leakage. It's about human health and comfort. Screw the energy
efficiency.

Spoken like an HVAC criminal :-) But we can enjoy "human health and
comfort" with less energy consumption if we do air sealing first.
It would be extraordinarily difficult to seal up a house so tight
that a person could not breathe. And most people would open windows
as needed to avoid condensation and lower the indoor RH. That's also
easy to do with a small exhaust fan and a humidistat.

Herbach and Rademan (800) 848-8001 http://www.herbach.com sell a nice
brass $4.95 Navy surplus humidistat, item number TM89HVC5203, with a
20-80% range, a 3-6% differential, and a 7.5A 125V switch that can be
wired to open or close on humidity rise.

People in dry climates are acclimated to their environment, and thus
would have no problem with low humidity. People who suffer through
high temperature and humidity throughout the summer are not equipped
to put up with low humidity in the winter.

In what sense? How do you know? Where is your evidence? Then again,
living with low humidity is only one option. It's better to raise
the RH and lower the fuel bill with more air sealing.

Besides, my grandmother's antique dining room set doesn't like low
humidity, so that settles it.

Is it better to airseal your house to assuage the feelings of your
grandmother's antique dining room set, or humidify the house and
dramatically increase the fuel bill and invade Iran to keep the price
of oil low? :-)

Nick