I know that awhile back they removed the arsenic from treated lumber
and the new lumber was almost all copper treated. I read that this
new variety was extremely destructive to nails and screws, and one had
to use expensive stainless steel fastners. I just bought some treated
2x6s for a small deck and asked the store clerk what fastners to use.
He said just common nails or screws would work. I told him what I had
read about the new variety of treated wood, when he told me the lumber
I am buying is not corrosive. This was at a big box home center, and
although this guy is the store manager, not just some 20 year old kid,
I had my doubts about his advice.
I went to another local lumberyard, which is strictly only a lumber
yard and told the guy I wanted fastners that dont corrode from the new
treated lumber. He told me that if I bought it in the past month or
so, I could likely just use common fastners. I asked why "in the last
month". He said they changed the formula AGAIN. He could not tell me
much more but said this recently occurred.
OK, now I have 2 guys who said this.....
What's the deal? How did they change this lumber? What can I use now
On Oct 19, 6:18 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Its amazing that stores dont know what they sell, and that your deck
or whatever can fail eventualy from the fasteners failing, if you use
the wrong ones. Your wood should have tags stapled on the ends or
contact the store where you purchased it and then the manufacturer.
But the store should get you the right answer. I think stainless is
fine or the screws treated for decks, but I dont know. In 10-20 years
we will likely have porches falling down killing people from fasteners
failing. You would think stores would have this issue noted with signs
so they are not liable when decks fail from people using the wrong
I completely agree. I will have to look at the label. Then I will
likely use galv. nails and add a few stainless screws too. I
presonally can not stand using screws to build framing. How in the
hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place, hold the screw
and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once. I have been building with
nails for 40 years, and am not going to change now. The whole thing
with this treated lumber irks me to no end. What we had worked just
fine. Now we got more government scares to ruin what worked. I dont
believe this new treated wood is as good as the old stuff was, then we
may have failing decks and stuff, (like you said) and who knows what
else, not to mention that the tr. lumber is more costly, and at $10 a
lb for stainless screws, that's outrageous. First we had the asbestos
scare, then radon, now treated wood. I wonder what will be next. Are
they going to say that coffee causes cancer too? Oh wait, they
already did that....
The REAL #1 cause of cancer is politicians !!!!!
By the way, are those gold colored coated screws supposed to be safe
for the new treated wood? I may consider screwing the deck boards.
That I dont mind as much, even if my hammer is faster. But for
framing, there is no way. I wonder if they make stainless nails?
The color isn't necessarily important, read the information on the box
for what they are and for what they're intended.
Of course there are SS fasteners of any almost any variety one wants.
On the general question, won't say there isn't something that has been
introduced recently, but I do not believe there has been a general
industry-wide shift to new process or anything mandated by EPA other
than the ban/restrictions on CCA for residential/deck use.
OK. Well, it worked fine in mechanical terms, but unfortunately, stupid
people used it in places where kids would come into direct contact with it
often. Since nobody can control what stupid people do, the only option was
to change the product.
But there was little if any documented evidence of there being any
injury owing to the treatment. I've done a fairly extensive search and
found no epidemiology indicating any problems from playground equipment,
decks, etc., causing any adverse affects...
The reaction seemed to be way overblown in consideration of the problem.
Precautions are sometimes good. All smart people notice that kids put their
hands in their mouths. And, all smart observant people noticed (in the past,
and maybe now) that treated lumber was sometimes still slightly moist.
Finally, all smart people and doctors know that arsenic is dangerous.
But, if it (ACQ-treated lumber) were so dangerous, given the ubiquitous
nature of its usage for 20+ years and the millions of children putting
their hands in their mouths, if there were a significant health risk
wouldn't you expect to find at least _one_ documented case? AFAICT,
there is a single one.
There *WAS* documented data on mercury detected in children's blood. That's
step 1. Step 2 would be to prove it was harmful. If you think about that for
a moment, you'll realize how absurd it would be to expect such proof. I'll
wait & see if you come up with the answer.
Hg is not ACQ so has no bearing on the subject under discussion.
As I now recollect, you're the one we went around with on this same
subject only a few months ago. You couldn't come up with any health
risks/problems then, and I doubt you can now. The end result is a
proverbial tempest in a teapot with an extreme overreaction by the
government over an emotionally driven as opposed to real problem.
Sorry. I meant arsenic, and the information came from my son's pediatrician.
If you'd like, I can email him and find out the source which contained all
the lies about ARSENIC in children's blood.
One step at a time - do you believe arsenic is harmless?
All I've asked for is any refereed reference to epidemiology indicating
ACQ was the root cause for a health problem in the general population of
people using the results of facilities constructed w/ ACQ-treated lumber.
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.