Lumber Liquidators laminate flooring

Page 2 of 3  
Which flooring they have alot of laminate flooring is it all of them
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 11:42:32 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Did you check their website? Google for what product is affected? Call them up? They've said they are supplying test kits to customers who want them and if the tests show formaldehyde in the air, they will rectify it. Seems unlikely that someone here is going to be a definitive source on what's going on.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

My mother had a fungus on a big toe nail. The doctor gave her something, but it didnt' do much (which from her pov was equivalent to doing nothhing). This was 50 years ago.
Eventually the whole nail fell off, and the new one grew back fine.
Well, maybe whatever he gave her did have something to do with that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2015 02:04 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yah, Liquid Lumberdators double-checks their suppliers for safety and CARB compliance. Not to worry though, Monday morning the greedy chief asshole from Liquid Lumberdators is going to triple check their suppliers. This won't happen again because Liquid Lumberdators cares about your safety. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
And for those that missed 60 Minutes, CBS has it here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-storm-after-the-storm-lumber-liquidators-larry-david/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 21:04:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I caught it last night and thought it was interesting. Typical sleazy corporation trying to save a buck or two at the expense of peoples safety. You could totally tell the CEO was lying when they showed him the Chinese factory footage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/1/2015 9:04 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

I saw it too and question in my mind was that, while it fails California standard, what about US standards?
I know on CA prop 65 that their no significant risk limits are far tighter than those used by OSHA. Sixty Minutes had boards tested out of state to prove tests were correct but did not say if other state where they were tested would have failed them.
CA was also just testing the boards where I would expect the EPA to sample the indoor air.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2015 7:14 AM, Frank wrote:

...

...

I had it on, paid moderate attention...what I thought I heard was that EPA implemented the CA standards in part, at least, altho didn't try to get the details particularly.
They also talked about some emissions testing but as noted, that's so variable based upon the specifics of any installation owing to circulation, air leakage, etc., etc., etc., as to be of no meaning as a general rule so didn't pay much attention at all to that part...
The one medical professional indicated in his opinion the higher levels would definitely have enough outgassing over time in a confined space as to be a longterm increased risk but again, as is always the case, he noted there's no way to predict for any given individual a specific outcome...I didn't hear any risk predictions on means, etc., even, I presume owing to that they were either so low despite the comparison to limits or variable or difficult to predict they weren't meaningful so didn't make any worthwhile sensation factor to help the story--keeping in mind that they have no story if it isn't sensational in the end...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I only heard about 3 words, but I consider 60 Minutes an alarmist program, and untrustworthy. I know less about 20-20 and the other networks' similar programs. But I think there are not really enough terrible scandals to supply 156 or 208 a year for the 3 or maybe 4 such shows.
And 60 Minutes makes do by using an ominous tone of voice.
It's been decades since I became suspicious. One of their stories was about a guy suing a small city newspaper in Illiinois for libel and of coursd the court papers referred to the newspaper's publishing the libelous words. And 60 Minutes 2 or 3 times said that they had only included the words in a letter, they hadn't published them in the newspaper. Any law student who passed torts, a first year course, knows that publishing does not require a newspaper. That writing a letter IS publication. It's THE term for how one spreads libel, and that includes a mere letter or anything written. And the words don't have to be seen by everyone who reads a newspaper., if it the words are false and the letter is read by someone who then costs the plaintiff money**. If they didnt have an in-house lawyer look over the story, they should have hired an outside lawyer for an hour, instead of white-washing the newspaper.
**(Plus iirc one is entitled to a money judgment if the llibel accuses one of a crime or a disgusting disease, whether the plaintfiff suffers financial loss or not.)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 2:47:59 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:

I don't completely trust 60 Mins or any other news source for that matter. And there are very good reasons to be concerned with this story, because a hedge fund that has sold short the stock is involved with an environmental group and they are suing LL. The day after the story, LL stock dropped 25%. Potentially that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the hedge fund. I think 60 Mins had an obligation to ask the hedge fund manager if he currently was short the stock. They interviewed him, but never asked. So, there's that troubling angle.
But if you watched the whole thing, it's hard to dismiss the hidden camera part where 60 Mins went to the factories in China that produce the product for LL and posed as buyers looking for product for another company. The plant managers openly told them that the product they make doesn't meet the California CARB standard. They asked if it could be made to meet it, managers said, "that would be very expensive". Yet the product they are building for LL is labeled as CARB compliant. That's pretty powerful proof that the essence of the story is correct.
There was one other big avenue that 60 Mins didn't pursue, or if they did, didn't report on. LL CEO has what he says is test data from the lab they use to check CARB compliance. He showed a chart that shows all the tests are under the CARB levels, fully compliant. 60 Mins used a lab that says it;s actually ~2x to ~15X over the limit for formaldehyde. You would think 60 Mins would go to the lab LL used and try to figure out if there is an explanation for the huge difference, what that lab has to say, etc. But there was nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 05:43:26 -0800 (PST), trader_4

There is usually third party inspection for compliance, but that is a joke. If you want to cheat, there are many ways around it. The lab probably did test compliant parts. That, however, has little to do with the parts shipped every day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 7:25:14 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, I agree, there are many ways. But it still is a big missing piece of the story. It would have been very easy to go try to talk to the lab and see what they have to say. If they're honest, you would think they would be willing to take a 60 mins sample, test it and see what they get. That would be interesting, for sure. If they agree with the 60 mins numbers, then it would suggest that it's some sample switching, like you suggest. If they don't get those high numbers, then the obvious question is what's different in the tests.
Looks like Congress is going to get involved now too. That should be interesting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:44:40 -0800 (PST), trader_4

My guess is the lab is honest. They test what they are given. I've been involved with 3rd party testing and inspections for a dozen years. Every quarter an inspector would come un-announced, take random samples and send them to the lab. If you want to cheat, it is very easy to control what is sent.
Would have been interesting to see the comparative results, but my guess is their lawyers don't want to get involved. It was never said if they were contacted.

I feel so much better now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've likely told the story here before - we used to buy a lot of computer components from China at my last job before I struck out on my own. The first parts would always exede specifications by a fair margin. The second shipment might meet spec, but by the 4th shipment, it was pretty well junk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2015 8:14 AM, Frank wrote:

Everything causes cancer in CA. Given it was many times the limit and they had complaints from consumers, it is probably over the limits you'd want anywhere.
I was also very surprised that the factory people were so quick to admit it was over, but they put the labels on anyway. There are many potential problems with LL, the factory, the third party testing company.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2015 10:41 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

CA prop 65 has a no significant risk level for formaldehyde at 40 micrograms/day whereas OSHA permits workers to be exposed up to 2 ppm in continuous work environment.
Maybe somebody has the energy to figure out under the OSHA standard how many micrograms a worker might breathe in during an 8 hour shift.
Environmentalists had petitioned EPA to accept CA standard but I don't have the time to spend looking at their response:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-06-27/html/E8-14618.htm
CA is in a world unto itself on chemical toxicity. I write safety data sheets and if there is the possibility of a trace of a Prop 65 chemical in the product, I list it. If not, the likes of the Sierra Club will analyze your product and if they find an ingredient they tell the state and hope they fine you so the Sierra Club can get a cut.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2015 2:56 PM, Frank wrote:

So would you allow Lumber Liquidator's formaldehyde flooring to be installed in your home?
I damn sure wouldn't!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/2/2015 6:05 PM, N. Cognito wrote:

I'm not showing favor to Lumber Liquidators and certainly know that Chinese dry wall had a similar if not worse problem. I'm just wondering how bad the problem is as I know that CA has the tightest regulations.
As Oren points out it is not just new flooring that might out gas formaldehyde and new carpeting out gasses lots of similar goodies.
If flooring had sat in a ware house at length, formaldehyde level may be acceptable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/02/2015 11:33 PM, Frank wrote:

Clever evasion but would you install that stuff in your house?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/3/2015 4:30 AM, Jimmy wrote:

Dumb question. I don't need it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:39:19 -0500, Frank wrote:

So is that a yes or a no? It doesn't matter if you need it. Knowing what you know now would you install it in your home? Yes or no?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

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.