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.

Show me.

Done that, several times now.

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.

Seal up the house and then open the window? Oddly enough, I think
that's what a lot of people do.

Oh?

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.

And if the control fails?

We suffocate like dogs.

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?

I have no intention of proving anything.

Good idea. Perhaps you recall your last attempt at proving something,
in which you confused dew point and wet bulb temps :-)

...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? :-)

Let's try to stay on subject, shall we?

People are different. Avoiding Middle-East wars is a primary motivation
for using less fossil fuels, in my case.

Nick