Did they change treated lumber AGAIN?

Page 3 of 6  


OK. Have a nice day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...

So, I take it you're off on a literature search? :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course not. I suggest that you gather your conclusions and present them to the appropriate parties who were involved in forcing a change in the chemicals used to make PT lumber. You obviously have better information than they did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

That's the fundamental thing -- I can't _FIND_ this supporting information. You know where it is?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No I don't. But, I also do not believe the formulation was changed without good reasons. Do you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Well, lacking the evidence to the contrary, yeah, I think the reaction was overblown at the least.
I've made the previous analogy to the lead-in-paint issue -- it's not at all difficult to find epidemiological studies establishing the link. Why do you suppose that isn't so for CCA? Could it perhaps be that the decision wasn't made on an actual established link but on a more political or general basis? As I've said before, I don't know for certain, but it certainly appears that way to me. Who actually were the "appropriate parties", anyway. I really don't have a clear picture of that from what searching I did at the EPA site. Do you know how it all "came down", so to speak?
You see, this came about because one day long ago, even before the previous exchange along this line, the subject came up in a different usenet group. I don't recall whether I see your monikor there or not, but that's kinda' immaterial. It was midwinter, we were having a blizzard, I was stuck in the house, the cattle were in the corrals as best as could be accommodated adn we still had power so I had time. (Right now, we're shut down because it's too dry to drill wheat and the milo isn't ready to cut yet, so I've also got some time, but anyway...).
So, I had always been surprised form the git-go that CCA was removed from the market because I had never heard of there being a problem other than the occasional dermatitis and the splinter thingie. Of course, we all know it isn't wise to burn/inhale it, but surely that couldn't be the cause, could it? Therefore, I thought I'd look into it some figuring I'd learn all about it. Thing is, the more I looked I still found no great mass of reports of health issues nor studies documenting same. So, I still had the question of what _was_ the real problem being addressed? As near as I could tell, it was a gross solution to a fairly minimal problem, if that.
So, we're back full circle. Can you provide that "missing link"?
And, to short circuit, I know the response is that no, you don't, but you're confident "they" knew what "they" were doing, so we can let alpha meet omega and go on (unless, of course, you really do have a place that provides the information and you've been sandbagging :) ).
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only possible way to prove the stuff was harmful would've been to wait and see if kids got sick from it. That means you're using kids as test subjects without consent. I believe that's illegal, and it's certainly unethical. Instead, the opposite happened: The formulation was changed.
Only lunatics expose their kids to substances whose long term effects are not known.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

... That's just absolute nonsense. It was in _WIDESPREAD_ use for years. The test subjects were already there. Effects (if any) were there to be observed (or not).
So you're saying doing a posterior study would be illegal is why the epidemiology isn't available? That's simply ludicrous at best.
As for why the formulation was changed, see Robert Allison's response. I hadn't thought of that as the root cause, but certainly goes far in explaining why there's no findable citation on the EPA web site (which always puzzled me because, like many, I had _presumed_ the change was mandated).
Wouldn't be the first time, certainly. The cost of litigation became so onerous that for a time there were no single-engine prop civilian-market aircraft being made in the US for precisely that reason.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ludicrous? If you cannot enlist test subjects, how can you conduct a controlled study? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. What would you study if you didn't have a population to study?
Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a product's safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

This futile, of course, but I'll make one last stab at gaining at least a tiny bit of understanding...
Were the studies of lead ingestion in toddlers and infants in the tenement housing in Chicago controlled studies?
Since the weren't, I presume they're to be considered bogus? (And, parenthetically, since the "test subjects" weren't provided the opportunity to sign a waiver a priori, obviously the authors were guilty of a crime or at a minimum, grossly unethical behavior in pointing this out I gather from your previous words?)
What you're obviously missing is observational epidemiology.
When there becomes an occurrence of any medical phenomenon, folks start looking for root-cause explanations. They start out by collecting as many cases of similar symptoms from similar circumstances as possible and looking for patterns and statistically significant incidence rates above background and correlations w/ conditions.
If these screening studies show up stuff that is the least bit suspicious, they move on to more and more extensive and detailed analyses. Eventually, sometimes, as in the case of the lead, they do actually uncover problems with long-accepted practices and make changes based on those findings.
OTOH, not always are the studies positive--that is, sometimes despite a hypothesis that a particular product or action is potentially harmful, an analysis of results simply doesn't support that conclusion.

Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, that's what competent parents do. Even many animals do the same.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Competent parents didn't do it (change PT formulation), government did.
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dadiOH wrote:

Well, that's not at all clear to me. I could not find any actual directive from EPA, CPSC, OSHA, ... that actually does that.
As Robert Allison noted, it appears the change was made through the manufacturers' associations of the various producers.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I have a tendency to blame government for most all things. It comes from experience :)
I'm perfectly happy to accept Mr. Allison's statement since it means that the change still wasn't instigated by "competent parents".
--

dadiOH
____________________________
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dadiOH wrote:

Of course, it also implicates the trial lawyers and the "nanny-ness" of the self-appointed protectors of us all in that it still doesn't appear to be based on any actual demonstrated excessive risk...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Prescisely. They do not need a nanny doing it for them.
-- "Tell me what I should do, Annie." "Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We as individual parents can make the decisions necessary as we see fit. We do not need a third party (either government or trial lawyers) making those decisions for us.
-- "Tell me what I should do, Annie." "Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Two relatively recent and accurate polls indicate that 54% of the population is NOT capable of making good decisions. I'm OK with Darwin's principles shaving a few off the population, but 54% is a bit too much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

It used to be only 8%, but then the government protected them which allowed them to reproduce. It's time to thin the herd :-)
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hopefully before the next poll (also known as the presidential election).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.