*
Recently I had a customer back out of the sale of a home because PT lumber was used. This customer was quite concerned with the potential health risks involved. After a little research the only proof I’m finding that it is indeed safe is from lumber companies that make the stuff. That, and a lack of actual case studies proving the end user is getting poisoned. Burning and cutting PT lumber is obviously a risk, but I’m looking at normal consumer use (ie. kids playing on a PT deck). Is there substantial unbiased proof out there proving it either safe or unsafe?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story

Tips for picking the right paintbrush based on paint type, surface, and personal comfort.
Featured Video
Video: Build a Fireplace, Brick by BrickHighlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Fine Homebuilding Magazine
- Home Group
- Antique Trader
- Arts & Crafts Homes
- Bank Note Reporter
- Cabin Life
- Cuisine at Home
- Fine Gardening
- Fine Woodworking
- Green Building Advisor
- Garden Gate
- Horticulture
- Keep Craft Alive
- Log Home Living
- Military Trader/Vehicles
- Numismatic News
- Numismaster
- Old Cars Weekly
- Old House Journal
- Period Homes
- Popular Woodworking
- Script
- ShopNotes
- Sports Collectors Digest
- Threads
- Timber Home Living
- Traditional Building
- Woodsmith
- World Coin News
- Writer's Digest
Replies
*
mike... ever wonder how they mfr . PT ?
well, don't you think OSHA would be all over the industry .. especially the mfr'g process , if it were as big a deal as the worry warts make it to be ?
but not to fear... sooner or later some well meaning legislator will introduce some legislation to ban it..
then we'll be right back to the early '70's , trying to come up with ways to keep our decks and sills from rotting into the ground...
as my mentor often said..
b what, me worry ?
*I've been breathing treated sawdust for about 15 years and I'm not dead yet.Give me a break!
*...yet. there's always a chance for later health problems,asbestos, carbide, coal dust....
*I've seen lumber industry literature recommend against CCA (chromated copper arsenate) treated wood in playground equipment. As for sill-plates or in the foundation or framing or fence posts; give me a break! But on as decking with barefoot kids, I'd have concerns.One should balance risks. If a deck collapses in 5 years due to a untreated foundation, there's a risk of injury. If you ram a sliver of wood containing three heavy-metal posions into your body, that's not good. So use CCA for deck posts and joists and cedar for the decking. Or build one of those tupperware decks. Mike: Did you consider they may have just been looking for an excuse to back out? And been good actors? -David
*I think we should be looking out for that new lobbying group, The Professional Deck Builders of America. They are behind the planned demise of treated wood. One tree, one board mills, also owned by the same lobbyists. It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!
*Can't recall the precise site, but the University of North Carolina has done a lot of PT toxicology work, especially real time tests with gardens and root plants. A google or hotbot search should find that study . Dave's "good actor" response was likely the correct read of the "clients"
*I think David's take is exactly right.Yes, there ARE dangers associated with PT wood. I hate to say it, but breathing it for 15 years -- that is, cutting it regularly, or handling it a lot, and not taking safety precautions -- could definitely lead to serious illness at some point. Smokers sometimes say the same thing: "I've been smoking for 20 years and ain't dead yet." Sure, not every smoker dies prematurely. But MOST people ARE affected, and one-third DO die prematurely. For PT, I think a similar kind of story is likely, even if the numbers are a lot different.On the other hand, PT is perfectly reasonable if used with common sense. I would NEVER top a deck with it, but I sure would use it for all the posts and ground or near-ground framing. I've replaced the occasional exterior door or window casing with it, if the original was rotting. There are a lot of times when it is simply the right stuff to use, and CAN be used without much hazard if you take appropriate safety precautions.Thing is, there are other reasons to not use more of it than required. It's more expensive, for one. And around here, anyhow, it's really crummy wood. I had a bit of 1949 2x6 garage door frame to replace the other day ... just a foot or so that was rotting. I counted about 85 rings in that wood. The 2x6 PT I used to replace it had just 17. I could get a 1' chunk off okay, but the rest of the 12' piece had warped like braided rope. Useless!-- RogerPortland, OR.
*The more that die young, the better the social security system will hold up!Die all you scaredy cats...die I say!nanuke
*Mike, PT has arsenic in it and thats why the big scare. I have gotten sick from it one time after apparently forgetting to wash my hands or something and getting some in the old digestive system. Got a violent headache, dizzy and barfed my guts up for a few hours. By the end of the day, I was OK...OK...OK...OK...OK But seriously, if its handled correctly, I can't see the big scare as opposed to the gypsum in drywall, the lime in concrete, etc. I guess some folks are just concerned about their kids being in contact with it. Thats understandable. Just so long as these same folks understand if they want a substitute, it'll cost almost double for the other materials used for whatever project they want constructed.Mike
*I had a feeling it was "just an excuse" from the start. But still, it got me curious as to who had the final say that PT lumber is safe. Responsible use and placement (ie. NOT for decking)is a good approach, but it is up to the builder or contractor doing the work to make that decision. I tend to believe the lumber companies claims and research results that it's a resonably safe product, but to an average consumer that opinion seems awfully biased. Environmental groups seem to hate the stuff, and understandably so. I was kind of hoping that there was some sort of government study declaring PT lumber safe for all to use..."Dont worry, it's safe. Just don't eat it."
*Seems like we have visited this issue a few times before...From http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts2.html :How likely is arsenic to cause cancer? Several studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can increase the risk of lung cancer, skin cancer, bladder cancer, liver cancer, kidney cancer, and prostate cancer. The World Health Organization (WHO), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the EPA have determined that inorganic arsenic is a human carcinogen. How does arsenic affect children? We do not know if exposure to arsenic will result in birth defects or other developmental effects in people. Birth defects have been observed in animals exposed to inorganic arsenic. It is likely that health effects seen in children exposed to high amounts of arsenic will be similar to the effects seen in adults. The argument of the people selling CCA is that the heavy metals are tightly bound in the wood. This generally appears to be the case until the wood becomes sawdust, is burned, or decomposes. Fresh CCA lumber can also have a film of CCA on the surface which should be removed before people have contact with it. Recent studies in Florida and other places have shown that children playing on CCA lumber in playgrounds do get the CCA compounds on their hands and transfer them into their mouths. The children are certainly not falling over dead, but no one knows what the long terms effect might be for them. A news article discussing some of the problems is at:http://www.sptimes.com/News/051101/State/EPA_to_rush_arsenic_r.shtmlI haven't seen any quantification of the risk - if you ingest modest quantities of arsenic (much of the exposure comes from drinking water in areas where it resides in the soil) the risk is probably more than eating red meat and probably less than smoking - just a guess on my part, however. Areas with high levels of arsenic in the drinking water have been shown to have a corresponding increase in various types of cancer.As I mentioned previously, there are types of pressure treated lumber which do not contain heavy metals and are considered safer than CCA or ACZA. One type is ACQ such as is described by one of our local pressure treated lumber manufactures http://www.conradwp.com/acq.htm . Many other suppliers of treated wood products also have alternatives that do not contain arsenic. The problem is that most lumber yards do not carry anything but CCA and getting the alternative takes perserverence and special ordering. I have also had several information desk people at the big boxes claim that the Chromated Copper Arsenate doesn't really contain any arsenic - yeah right, they just call it arsenate for effect...
*seems you have been here and done this before. many thanks for the information you have posted and the links included. paul
*Talk about dangerous......Get in the car and drive to work.Now that's dangerous.I'd use PT for mudsills and floor joist with no worry. They say it should not be exposed in living areas.Hell, I don't know.I smoke three packs of cigarettes a day. What do I care about a bunch of PT dust.Ed.
*As a follow up...The latest issue of Building Products magazine has a good article about PT and its controversy.Mike
*Thanks for the info Casey.
*Hello Mike (and others),I apologize for raising the pressure treated wood foundation issue again. I've read through the archives and I have a few questions. I am interested in buying a home that has a PWF. I live in the west Kootenay of British Columbia, a moderately wet area. However, the home is on a south-facing hillside, with supposedly very well drained sandy/gravely soils. The home is about 5 years old.During the final home inspection, my inspector noticed some dampness against the wall of a storage room, where there was no drywall and we could see the insulation. After an exceptionally dry summer/fall, it had just rained for 1-2 days. There was even a little pool of water (size of my palm, a few millimetres deep; the pool was gone the next day though). I felt behind some of the insulation panels, some were dry, but above where the water was pooled, the insulation was wet against the wall. The inspector found “higher than normal” moisture readings in several spots in the basement, although there are no visible signs of moisture on the carpets, drywall, or cement floor. The inspector couldn’t say for sure what was going on, but recommended getting a contractor to assess. The homeowners got their own person (contractor/inspector), and they claim that the dampness could be due to condensation. I am very dubious of this claim. Is this even possible, given what I wrote above? They claim that because the house hasn’t been heated in a while, and the air exchanger has been off, that it is possible. They are doing some playing around with fans and dehumidifiers, and they say that if it rains, and no new moisture shows up, then it’s an internal, vs. external problem.Also, I’ve heard 2 camps, one says that PWF should not have a vapour barrier, so that the wood can dry out from the inside, whereas the other camp says there should be a vapour barrier. What has been your experience? This house has a vapour barrier.But wait, there’s more. I tracked down the original building inspection, and spoke to the original company that built the foundation. Apparently, the original engineer from the city claimed that because the drainage was so great on the site, only a ‘dampness barrier’ (that is, tar) was required on the outside of the foundation. So they did not install an impermeable membrane. This seemed strange to my inspector, and to me. What do others think? Through my research, I continually read that PWFs have to be ‘done right’. I’m wondering if this was the case. In every other respect, the home is very high quality.ThanksRob Serrouya
*I live in an extremely dry area (S Alberta) and all PWF's I've done (and seen done) have the wrap-around membrane (2 layers 6mil poly or better). Some early PWF's don't have the membrane, but I'd say it's pretty much a standard nowadays no matter what. PWF's can be a good system, if planned and built right. This also includes proper backfill material to allow for *excellent* drainage. If you or your inspector have doubts that it was built up to snuff, I'd keep looking.
*all this talk has made me wonder;what can you use instead of PT?how long do these alternatives last?in the ground? does finishing help, or add to the longevity? Educate me. Please.
*I don't understand why you guys think it's okay to use "just a little" CCA treated wood because it's the cheapest way to put a post in the ground, but in the same sentence say you'd never use it for a deck surface. If the stuff is toxic, it's toxic. Water penetrates the soil around those posts and absorbs the arsenic and eventually becomes part of the aquifer. You damn sure wouldn't build a picnic table, or raised vegetable garden with the stuff. Why do you think it's okay to risk our fresh water with it?
*Aaron,There are man made studs now made out of who knows what that they use for deck boards. These could be an alternitive to PT mud sills.Ed.
*rob... sounds like the kind of problem an dehumidifier can handle... i'm here , you're there.. but based on what you described.. i wouldn't be too concerned... worst case.. down the road , you replace a couple panels.. if the sellers are motivated.. could work in your favor...'course.. down the road .. you may want to sell it also.. and you may have to discount for the PWF..jimbo... i wouldn't build a picnic table out of the stuff because of the splinters.. and splits and cheks.. not because of the supposed toxicity....... i would build a raised bed out of it, though... and never lose a bit of sleep...b what me worry ?
*Jim,Manufacturers actually say it's safe to use in vegetable gardens. Testing hasn't proved otherwise. As far as leaching chemicals into the soil, these amounts are small. What about the lime in concrete? Or the tar used to damproof some basements? Don't these chemicals have an effect on the soil as well?
*Jim,Some of our 'fresh' water in Utah has more arsenic in it than CCA does. Recently read about one small water district that would have to pay $25,000/household to get the arsenic levels down to the new federal minimums.
*Hysterical....I have used a half million dollars worth of PT building docks...No gloves...splinters come and go...thousands of pounds of sawdust...Ducks swam safely thru...near the stream drinking the water too,aj
*I have read reports that soils under decks built with CCA treated lumber have tested toxic beyond health standards. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's common knowledge. Lead used to be widely used as a building material too. I think I've heard about extensive soil contamination in New England from rainwater picking up lead and then depositing it in the ground around buildings as the water filtered down. Some of you folks in that part of the country are probably familiar with that."As far as leaching chemicals into the soil, these amounts are small." What if we continue to use more and more of this stuff, is it possible that eventually the amounts will become dangerous? A couple years ago I learned that concrete leaching lime into water is a problem. I never realized it, or even stopped to think about that. And the tar used for water resistance on some foundations? I think you have a valid point there, as well. Saying "what are we gonna use instead?" doesn't release us from the responsibility we have to take care of our planet. If we don't, it slowly but surely will become uninhabitable. Does it make any sense to ignore that?I'll say one thing, at least we're talking about it. Exchanging ideas is a good start.
*There are different types of "pressure treated" lumber. The industry standard has been various concentrations of "CCA" (copper, chromium, arsenic maybe?)for the past few decades. Lately I've heard of a different type of PT wood, I think it's called "ACQ", that is supposed to be a lot less toxic and still have the rot resistance for many exterior applications. I don't know if you can use it for posts or not.I have a friend who builds in the Virgin Islands, and he told me ALL their wood, every last bit of it, is pressure treated. I wonder what type PT they use. When we were in Hawaii last year we noticed houses built with PT framing members, too. You would think climates like that would be the best place for health risk testing.
*
Recently I had a customer back out of the sale of a home because PT lumber was used. This customer was quite concerned with the potential health risks involved. After a little research the only proof I'm finding that it is indeed safe is from lumber companies that make the stuff. That, and a lack of actual case studies proving the end user is getting poisoned. Burning and cutting PT lumber is obviously a risk, but I'm looking at normal consumer use (ie. kids playing on a PT deck). Is there substantial unbiased proof out there proving it either safe or unsafe?