That works both ways. For instance, there are still a few who believe that agricultural chemicals do not leach into groundwater, not anywhere, not ever.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Did they change treated lumber AGAIN?
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
yeah people prefer to ignore many risks.
and about smoking..... it should be illegal around children and one day it will.
pure child abuse.
but back to the subject if it looks suspicious and its not 100% completely understood its best to err on side of caution.
like global warming, we honestly dont know the cause, or more likely causes but the risks of doing nothing are way too great.
you should always respect hazards you dont fully understand
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
That's logical, at least to normal people who weren't dropped on their heads as children.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
...
Reference?
--
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
We're going in circles. I told you earlier that the information came from my kid's pediatrician. I also told you that if you wanted me to, I'd call him and see if he still had the information. Do you remember this?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Yes we are and as I have earlier said repeating a previous thread almost verbatim. Remember?
You want to add something, find some citable references and/or links. You can do that however you choose; I have no preferences/requirement.
I will also repeat yet again I spent a fair amount of time looking and came up empty. It was not, and was not intended to be, an exhaustive and scholarly literature search. However, as noted before, if the hazards of CCA were so egregious, it shouldn't take any effort at all to find a large number of citations in the readily available literature. If that were the case and I simply somehow made a bad effort, it shouldn't take someone else more than about 30 seconds to counter the argument.
--
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
OK. Have a nice day.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Draw your own conclusions.
I took a few minutes and found these links. Off the top, you'd think that there may be some relationship between pressure treaded wood and arsenic levels in children.
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Then I found this. Did they have pressure treated wood 5000 years ago?
formatting link
formatting link
is a common, naturally occurring element in the Earth's crust. Arsenic comes in two forms: organic and inorganic. Elevated levels of inorganic arsenic, the more harmful form to humans, have been found in the groundwater in some wells in Genesee County. Organic arsenic is not found in groundwater.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
So, I take it you're off on a literature search? :)
--
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
That's the fundamental thing -- I can't _FIND_ this supporting information. You know where it is?
--
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
No I don't. But, I also do not believe the formulation was changed without good reasons. Do you?
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
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 :) ).
--
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
There was no forced change. The EPA did study after study, and did not find evidence to even put a warning (other than the one that existed) on PT lumber. The manufacturers voluntarily chose to change the formulation, not due to regulation, but due to the fear of lawsuits from idiots.
I have worked with CCA for over 30 years. I have been exposed to it for that amount of time in a manner that would cause far more than the minimal contact that a child would ever get, yet, I am fine. So are all of the other 400 or so carpenters that I know or have known personally. So where did you get your data again. How long do you think that I have to live?
Due to the fact that I was forced to be exposed to it, I have done extensive research on the subject and I can tell you that you are simply wrong. Unless you burn it, you have nothing to fear from the old CCA. And neither does anyone else.
Worry about lightning. Or your salt intake. It will be far more productive.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
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.
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
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.
--
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
No, it's emotional. It appears to the same people who think a theory is the same as a proven fact. It comes from not being able to think critically.
-- "Tell me what I should do, Annie." "Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
That would be the same trial lawyers who scour medical literature looking for the next thing they can file class action lawsuits for?
-- "Tell me what I should do, Annie." "Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
Succinctly put.
-- "Tell me what I should do, Annie." "Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars
- Vote on answer
- posted
16 years ago
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.