I've built my new home few years ago, so airtight according to local norms (France) and with proper ventilation, as computed in the project: IME the article hav

I've built my new home few years ago, so airtight according to local norms (France) and with proper ventilation, as computed in the project: IME the article have a small point in the sense that: - there is much more dust in wood-frame + glass wool homes than in classic masonry ones, so while formally anything is done as it should there are still a bit too much particles of I-do-not-know-what. So far (5y) I experience no health issue though, no specific sign of even little suffering, just noticing that I've clean around the double dust than the ancient home, perhaps people who already have respiratory issue might suffer; - even if formally calculated as it should I feel the need of a little bit more ventilation than the computed one. Air quality remain constant, so for instance in the bedroom I do not experience "morning poor air" that's a normal thing in classic houses, similarly if I hold a party perceived air quality stay essentially the same BUT when I'm outside I feel a better air, with a different significant enough to think that few m³/h would be far better. Beside that the article probably see restored houses, so houses where changes are constrained by something preexisting and compromises became a must, where much of the work was done "on experience and cheapness basis" not on seriously computed design fueled also by customers who do not understand much the tech. IME the overall quality of new home is still superior to the classic one, far lower humidity, far more constant climate matter.