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
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 :) ).
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
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
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.
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.
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"...
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.
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".
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...
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
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.
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.