Replies

1. 
   Ken_Berg | Jan 31, 2002 07:08pm | #1

   *
   Huh?

1. 
   James_DuHamel | Jan 31, 2002 08:35pm | #2

   *I think this is the link he was refering to (below)The link he listed justs takes you to the front page, with a Donald Rumsfeld story. Ya gotta dig DEEP to find the treated wood story, so here is a link to the ACTUAL STORYPhasing Out Treated LumberJames DuHamel

1. 
   Boss_Hog | Jan 31, 2002 08:55pm | #3

   *I'm surprised the wood treaters are going for it - I would have expected them to fight it for a while. Guess they must have felt they were up against the wall and had no choice.

1. 
   Brian_Mulder | Feb 01, 2002 02:24am | #4

   *You know darn well that there is already another product ready to take its place that will cost the same. I'm glad to see it go. Fiberglass insulation should be next.

1. 
   Steve_G | Feb 01, 2002 02:33am | #5

   *The lumber yard we use hasn't carried it for at least a year. The lumber is treated with ACQ. I'm not sure what that stands for, but it doesn't contain arcenic, and the cost and green color, are about the same. So the replacement is already available.steve

2. 
   xJohn_Sprung | Feb 01, 2002 04:02am | #6

   *I laughed my a$$ off at the following quote from the story:> The building supply industry has to "get serious about finding alternatives," Home Depot spokesman John Simley says. "We can't afford to be caught without product on our shelves, and (producers) can't afford to be caught without a market for their product."So where was Simley yesterday when I was looking for barely-adequate or better 2x4's? I think I'll print that quote out, make a lot of xerox copies, and stuff them in every empty bin next time I go to HD.-- J.S.

3. 
   Tommy_B. | Feb 01, 2002 05:33am | #7

   *The funny thing is this will become a mega class action lawsuit perpetrated by attorneys and owners of treated structures.I always pushed alternatives for treated, and acq specifically, as many as five years ago. And, I have offered a disclaimer on treated yp when they decided to use it anyway. But it always came down to the low cost of ptyp and the fact that everyone uses it. Customers figured its got to be safe. I would even go so far as to suggest that they not place sand boxes and children's toys under the deck noting that grass does not grow on the drip line between the boards. The tests that they initially performed to determine the amount of leaching included placing treated lumber objects in the ground vertically, which doesn't really take into account how it is used on decks for example.The point is that very seldom would homeowners opt for the safer acq even though it was only about a 10% upcharge in my area. Yet I'm sure these same people will be happy to sue for their own penny pinching. My suppliers eventually dropped it from their line when home depot showed up. Bottom line is I'm sure some of those who installed it will be hung out to dry at some point, and I'm sure in the end it is going to be very expensive for all of us.Not to mention those of us who handled a ton of the stuff, before it became prudent to wear protective gear.I for one am glad its going away. And I'm going to start offering treated lumber abatement to my list of services so I can be grandfathered in without getting licensed when the gov't starts regulating the industry.

4. 
   jim_"crazy_legs"_blodg | Feb 03, 2002 07:32pm | #8

   *Man, am I glad to see that. We pay a tiny bit more now, or our descendants will pay with health problems. I bet it took years of lobbying against an industry with that much clout - what did they say, "75 billion board feet"?Can't you just hear the discussion at the lumber yard? Guy goes in, asks for pressure treated, then complains about the price. The sales guy says "yeah, friggin' government, gettin' their nose in everybody's business". I think this is great news. And I agree that fiberglass insulation, while not a risk to our water maybe, sure has the potential to get down in your lungs and tear things up pretty bad. Why is that okay? What about all those finishes and glues that contain methol keytones and other toxins. We wear respirators and vent them out of our buildings, right? But don't they just build up in our atmosphere? Isn't that why they took lead out of gasoline?

5. 
   4Lorn | Feb 03, 2002 08:19pm | #9

   *Glad to see CCA go even though it may still be available or used in special circumstances. From what I read CCA is superior to all other current alternatives but that, in most cases, CCA is overkill. CCA is very toxic which is why termites and fungus won't eat it. I was reading that someone burned a pile of CCA treated lumber and left the wood ashes. Cattle, aparently attracted by the salts, licked at the ash pile and were poisoned. According to the article only a a few tablspoonsfull of the ash were needed to kill a cow of over 1000 pounds.I asked a local vet who confirmed that CCA ash if extremly toxic. How much would it take to kill a 185 lb man or a 45 lb child I can only imagine. How much CCA it would take to poison or stunt a child would, I imagine, be very small.That said CCA has been around for a long time and carpenters are not dropping dead on the spot. How many may have less obvious damage , beyond the normal brain damage involved in working for an idiot, remains to be seen. I will say that on most job sites the recommended, common sense, precautions are not taken. Sawing with the sawdust blasting at the carpenters unprotected face and eyes. Failure to wear gloves and then eating with visible sawdust dropping onto food and drink. Smoking with CCA residue on the hands. Burning CCA lumber, often upwind of the job.(I was told by one gentleman that burning CCA upwind helped keep the misquitoes away and he highly recommended it.) If CCA is not banned maybe it will alert builders to the hazards and change behavior.

2. 
   Moonlight_Graham | Feb 03, 2002 08:19pm | #10

   *
   Pressure treated wood will be changing.

   http://www.usatoday.com/hlead.htm