On Monday, March 16, 2015 at 11:42:32 AM UTC-4, email@example.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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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...
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
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.)
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.
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.
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
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'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
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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
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.