Class action on corroded deck fasteners.
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/fastener.htm
The legal firm is running ads on google looking for potential clients for class action lawsuites.
” ACQ- and CA- treated products contain higher levels of copper than the earlier products did, which levels can corrode metal connectors and fasteners and potentially lead to structure collapse.
A Serious Problem: Fastener Corrosion
The high copper content in ACQ- or CA-treated wood means that any other metal (like nails, screws, bolts or flashing) that comes in contact with the lumber sets up a mild electrical charge with the copper, making traditional steel fasteners and aluminum flashing corrode more quickly (by some accounts up to five times faster than in the old CCA-treated lumber).
This risk of corrosion presents the possibility of structures becoming unstable or even collapsing because of fastener degradation.
According to the Sacramento Bee, higher metal corrosion rates associated with the treated wood have raised concerns with the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and a San Francisco Bay Area district attorney who recently issued a consumer alert.
“CPSC is recommending consumers use stainless-steel brackets and fasteners in conjunction with ACQ-treated lumber,†CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said.
Contra Costa County District Attorney Bob Kochly warned in a recent consumer alert that wood treated with ACQ and copper azole “may result in serious and premature corrosion … especially in wet or moist conditions†unless stainless-steel connectors are used.”
“Contact Lieff Cabraser
If you have experienced hardware or fastener corrosion with your deck or other structure, we would like to learn more about your experience as part of our investigation. Please click here to contact us.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is a national law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, Washington, D.C., Beverly Hills and Nashville. We are recognized for our successful prosecution of individual and class action lawsuits involving defective products, ranging from faulty building and home products to faulty cars, tires and computer devices. To learn more about our firm, click here.”
Replies
I'm telling you, man. With the liability issues we expose ourselves to on a regular basis, it's a wonder ANYONE trys to make a living building. The risks so far outweigh the monetary rewards it's just a matter of time.
Scary stuff.
While I don't disagree at all with what you said if this every comes to a class action it won't be the contractor that they go after.It will be the deep pockets that handle enough of these to make it worthwild to go after as a group.My guess is that is will be the "retailers" that they claim are selling the non-protected fastnerers (although there are interior uses where they are still appropriate).Or the PT companies that don't have 2 ft large labels on each sq ft of board.
They will go after everyone, the builder, the retailer, the manufacturer of the fastener, the PT company and anyone else in firing range. They won't care about the builder though, they want the deep pockets of retailer, fastener co and PT company.
But as with all lawsuits, they companies sued will pass the expense along to everyone via higher prices. Forget Deer season, they should have a season to thin the population of lawyers.
lawyers are something like guns
and of course
guns don't kill people, people kill people
guns just make it easier
therefore
lawyers don't sue people, people sue people
lawyers just make it easier
the easiest way to get rid of lawyers is
Quit suing people !
Then the lawyers will disappear.
Greed drives the system.
Not lawyers.
carpenter in transition
Waht you posit is not true though with class action suits. most of them are actually initiated by lawyers who seek out the 'victims' to bolster the case. A handfull of original victims are necessary to et the ball rolling but liek a goony bird taking flight, soon enough, they get off the ground and soar into the heavens with the suit.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Agreed, except for the goonie-bird:-)There are tv commercials here every now and then doing that very thing.
"If you or someone you know been injured/diagnosed/whatever by;
nail guns
welding rods[ yes, welding rods]
lead
anything elseThis may sound naive but,
if 'they' know about rusting fasteners why not make it code? A nationwide code.
"welding rods[ yes, welding rods]"
I can tell you what that is about... One of my two closest friends was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease a few years ago - at 26. He is a bright guy, and practiced law in Memphis (product liability defense - a litigator).
The disease has advanced fairly rapidly, in large part due to his lifestyle - trying to live his whole life before he can't do things any more. Anyway, part of his current situation is OCD - he gets into something and can't give it up (fixing up cars, research, gambling, whatever). When he was researching his disease, he found a doctor who was "experimenting" with the removal of heavy metals from the bloodstream as a treatment. This treatment has its risks - it is somewhat similar to chemotherapy and dialysis - but he tried it out. Turns out that he had extremely high levels of manganese, a component in welding rods that is released during welding. Guess what my buddy did when he was young? Yep - watched grandpa weld out in the barn all of the time.
Back to the point, the reason that it is a class action is that the manufacturers knew of this problem, but chose to do nothing about it. I have still yet to hear about it, other than there is evidently now a fine print warning on the cans suggesting that welding fumes may cause symptons resembling Parkinson's.
I am a firm believer in tort reform and the like (Any Rand follower), but I'm also a believer in companies paying for criminal negligience.
Anyway, my two cents...
R.e. the new treated lumber, I've had several splinters in my hand for a month or two, and they still hurt too bad to dig out. Can hardly tell they are there until something hits the right spot. Ready to try some Epsom salts. Fasteners for my deck cost an additional $200 to $300 on top of the $2,300 or so in wood. HDG, not SS. Fortunately they are in a place where I can easily keep an eye on them.
Verbose as usual...
Lew
>>Waht you posit is not true though with class action suits. most of them are actually initiated by lawyers who seek out the 'victims' to bolster the case.And that conclusion that "most of them" are one thing or another is based on your personal experience? Perhaps an objective study you've run across?
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
What was that u said about enviro's Piffin; I was out back hugging the spreading Trex tree.?
Sure Bobby, I'm in the mood for some entertainment tonight.Most of them I have been exposed to for sure. I get solicitations in th email form lawyers. I see ads in magazines on this. I see them on TV asking people to come joint their party. I have been sent two checks for measely amounts that I "won" in lawsuits I had never entered for causes I didn't know existed.Now open up and tell us hjow all the lawyers doing all this are just good hearted Erin Brochobiches
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>Most of them I have been exposed to for sure.
So you have "most of them?". Quick: how many class action suits were filed last year? How many class action certifications were allowed, and how many disallowed?
What's a class action certification?
How have the rules on class actions changed over the last, say, 20 years?
What is the underlying policy objective of class action suits?
Where do they fit within our jurisprudence?
I'm sure with your deep expertise you won't have to check to come up with the answers.
>>Now open up and tell us hjow all the lawyers doing all this are just good hearted Erin BrochobichesThe difference between you and I is that you imagine and then think "all."
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Edited 5/30/2005 9:13 pm ET by Bob Walker
jeez, try to find a lawyer who will initiate one on your behalf. it would have to be a slam dunk. i don't have facts here to substantiate this, but i would bet that class action suits represent less than one hundredth of 1% of all lawsuits filed in this country. you may be right that some class actions are initiated by attorneys, but it still takes the individuals to jump on the bandwagon in search of the almighty buck at the end of the rainbow.
carpenter in transition
Hey while ew're on this topic, I'd just like to give out an unsolicited caution on using Osmose brand deck screws in ACQ; I used them on my father's deck not six months ago, and many of the heads are already rusting...I plan on pulling a few of them when I have the chance to evaluate how the shanks are holding up. These screws seemed to be thinner and softer than DeckMate screws and other "big box" brands.
Just a caution; please no one sue me for slander :-)Jason Pharez Construction
Framing & Exterior Remodeling
It might be a small percentage of cases filed but the awards won in trial and the cost to mount a defense is huge. I would bet they may be 1% of cases filed but something north of 20% of money won. That is the big thing in this, when you get sued the damage of the verdict is enormous.
My favorite class action was a tobacco case in Florida a few years ago. A jury of 12 nitwits let their bleeding heart award an amount of $145 billion dollars. Yeah, billion is correct. The total stock market value of all the companies sued was less than $50 billion at the time. It is in appeals now.
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/07/09/Columns/Tobacco_plaintiff_spe.shtml
But the cases like the one above are the problem, you have 12 nitwits who were in essence chosen by the plaintiffs both by where the case was filed and also in the jury selection. Every person I know like heck to get out of jury duty, I sure the same exists everywhere. So what you have left in the jury pool is the jobless, morons of society that don't care about spending someone else's money (i.e. the companies, also a ton are probably welfare kings and queens stealing everyones money).
Another case was in LA, not a class action, but ridiculous. A jury found that Chrysler had a design flaw in its rear door on their mini vans. In a rear accident, the door opens and the boy who was in the back was ejected and died. The jury awarded 5 billion. I sympathize for the families loss but even if at fault (which was questionable) how is the damage 5 billion dollars? Yeah you can't value life, but in court that is what is done.
>>My favorite class action was a tobacco case in Florida a few years ago. A jury of 12 nitwits let their bleeding heart award an amount of $145 billion dollars. Yeah, billion is correct. The total stock market value of all the companies sued was less than $50 billion at the time. It is in appeals now.145 billion. Wow, that's a big mutha' fockin number - I'll betcha those plaintiffs are all gonna retire as millionaires, right?Well, come to think of it, with 700,000 plaintiffs in the class, $145B comes out to $207142.86 each.Shoot, they don't even get 1/4 mil each? Man that sucks!Those nitwit jurors sure didn't do them any favors.>>you have 12 nitwits who were in essence chosen by the plaintiffs both by where the case was filed and also in the jury selection.You're telling us Florida doesn't let the defendants get involved in jury selection?>>the total stock market value of all the companies sued was less than $50 billion at the time. So, after several centuries of courts and legislatures working out a set of rules for awards of damages being based on the injuries received and the damages incurred, you're telling us we should base the award on the size and market cap of the wrongdoer?>>It is in appeals now.Apparently you didn't even read the article you cited.The appeals court held that it should have been brought as a class action: each of the 700,000 plaintiffs should file individually.Now there is a solution! Pretty stupid, no matter which way you look at it, but it is a "solution."
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Edited 5/31/2005 5:08 pm ET by Bob Walker
It's in appeal at the state supreme court now and will probably keep going from there.
Yes the defense gets a choice on the selection but they do not get to choose the venue, the class action lawyers go shopping the district and will file the suit when they believe the case will be assigned to a favorable judge.<!----><!---->
The judgment was ridiculous and that is the point. You are worried that they didn't get 250k? They were doing something they wanted to do and they were well aware of the dangers involved and still continued. They should get nothing and like it.<!---->
People need not look to society, companies or others to fault for their own poor choices in life, they need to take responsibility for their actions. <!---->
Edited 5/31/2005 7:42 pm ET by DDay
So you have anything/opinions on 'this' thread ?
That's probably true.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>the easiest way to get rid of lawyers is
>>Quit suing people !
>>Then the lawyers will disappear.
>>Greed drives the system.
>>Not lawyers.http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=55323.38The easiest way for people to quit suing each other is for no one to ever get injured or no one to ever be negligent or break their contracts.How long can you hold your breath for?
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
"the easiest way to get rid of lawyers is
Quit suing people !
Then the lawyers will disappear.
Greed drives the system.
Not lawyers."
In the case of class action lawsuits, the lawyers themselves put forth the suits, then they market it to 'victims'.
I'm with you on lawyer season.
How much you think a hunting liscense would cost?
Q. What's black and brown and looks good on a lawyer?
A. a doberman!
I was just paying this month's bills and found a credit for forty one cents for some class action settlement on my AMEX bill. God bless the lawyer who got that for me!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I'd like to see them go after the enviro-whackos who pushed to get rid of the old PT and bring this crap in on us. Get into their pockets to teach them some responsibility for their actions!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
The whole PT thing is going to be a mess. None of the yards/retailers I buy from seemed very proactive educating customers about the"new PT" and the fasteners to be used with it.
I worry about guys building treestands with the stuff, the DIYers, and the ESLers who never got the memo.
The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man.
- Fyodor Dostoyevski
Should this be put on the shoulders of the fastener compamies, maybe a caution stating that this fastener is not suited for ACQ or CA lumber.
I use torx screws that the local yard switched to when the new ACQ came out, they are greenish in color and about six bucks a pound unless you buy them in bulk. They screws they carried before were GRK (or something like that) brand that had a yellow zinc coating.
RU
Go to message 37752.11
Quality repairs for your home.
AaronR Construction
Vancouver, Canada
I think the problem is that everybody seems to get lumped in the same cataglory. This goes for lawyers and contractors. Yes there are unethical prfessions on both sides, but there are ethical ones too.
What about the track builders that higher the lowest unqualified sub and never supervise/inspect their work. Or, in the case of ACQ, the framing sub/ general that doesn't used the proper nails to tie the MA6/MA8's(not double dipped either) to the sill plate because the guys doesn't what to buy the new nails/nailer, or even finish using up what has left. That's what's going on where I live. I have personally seen it. These guys deserve to be sued. The problem is the new $3-500 gun and an extra couple hundred extra in hardware costs the homeowner/insurance tens of thousands or repair. Where I live, I know of 3 different homes built by different builders that are like this. Building dept doesn't look/inspect this
I have yet to see a class action suit collect enough money to pay for the total repair. Remember, all those expert witnesses and lawyers get their chunk first. The homeowner gets the crumbs. When a homeowner can't fight the system on their own becasue the contractor and/or their insurance company hires their own lawyer, what else are they to do?
This is a murky, unpleasant issue. There are certainly going to be lot's of victims, and very few actual winners. (except for the lawyers, of course)
I'm gonna agree with Piffin. The real villians and the ones who should be held accountable are the ####'s who pushed the legislation through in the first place. How could anybody not realize that this new PT stuff is so much worse than the old PT stuff ? The answer is, they did know it. They just didn't care. This is not unlike that whole huge boondoggle with the 1.6 gal. toilets. How many of us would like to get our hands around the throat of the guy that was instrumental in cramming that down our throats?
This one wasn't legislation.It was unrelenting threat of laawsuits that would have been impossibly expensive to defend, going over several years of bad press...so the manufacturers relented and agreed to change and let the ignorant bullies have their way.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I'm not sure what's ignorant about it, or what enviro-whackos are. If you're not able to find fasteners that will work with ACQ lumber, don't use it. There are great suppliers of all sorts of appropriate materials that will ship them to you overnight. Personally, I'd rather not breathe arsenic-laden sawdust and would rather have less toxic alternatives. I guess some of you guys don't agree.
I worked with some of that fire treated stuff about a dozen years ago, and I ain't been right since.
"Logic, like whiskey, loses it's beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities." Lord Dunsany
Here is what is ignorant about it.the old arsenic compounds were inherently stable. The only way that it could be released and formed into a toxic state was to heat it as in a fire or using a dull sawblade to burn it - or to subject it to an acidic environmet. Yeah, your stomach is both warm and acidic, but anyubody with a lick of sense did not eat it or use it for things where humans might be eating or licking it. So doing away with it entirely becaue it occasionally saw some misuse such as building playground equipment, cooking vessels, or burning it for firewood or in th etrash is ridiculous and ignorant overkill. There will be more people hurt because iof deck failures than ever had a chance of getting sick from arsenic out of the old PT. Copper can be toxic too, and many of us have experienced reactions to the new ACQ much worse that we ever had to the old CCA. We are only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg.It is also ignorant because of a lack of basic elemental knowledge. Many threatened suits were based on soils test near PT showing arsenic in the soils. There were not controlled tests, however. Arsenic is a natural element in soil, more so in some places than in others. Those who chose to hate the CCA also chose to ignore this fact and behave as though the only way arsenic could be in soil was if it were added by the PY leaching it into the soil. That is an ignorant attitude.An envirwhacko is someone who is so whacko over protecting the environment that they forget about protecting people and maintaining any sort of natural balance.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Where I work we see individuals seeking treatmemt for splinters in their hands and feet from this new generation PT. (mostly from their decks)
To the person they have infections and reactions with the chemicals that are in the wood. Some of the reactions are quite alarming.RELAX... The work can wait... The fish might be biting...
You think the reactions are alarming to you as a person treating them? Imagine how alarming it is to HAVE the infections and reactions!
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
West slope eh? You have more than the average amt of arsenic natrually in your soils.I lived in Kremmling and in Montrose, CO way back when
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
That is where I'm from. I live out on the flat lands now. I miss that area something terribly but this is where work has me.
RELAX... The work can wait... The fish might be biting...
Edited 6/2/2005 12:14 am ET by MOWsr
Same here. I'm likely to be back on the west slope someday.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
You rail and carry on about "enviro-whakos" and claim they don't know what they are talking about.And yet you don't hesitate to express uninformed opinions about the legal system and class action suits.I'm still waiting for some response to the basic questions I posed to you in message 58855.15So far as I can see: the ignornace of "enviro-whackos" exists mainly in you mind; your ignornace of our legal system has been laid out for all to see.You claim CCA is inherently stable and doesn't leach out and leaching hasn't been subjected to scientific tests.But you are wrong all all three counts:http://216.48.37.142/pubs/viewpub.jsp?index=6354Citing: Lebow, Stan; Foster, Daniel; Lebow, Patricia. 2004. Rate of CCA leaching from commercially treated decking. Forest Products Journal. Vol. 54, no. 2 (Feb. 2004). Pages 81-88..Perhaps you'd care to show us the "enviro-whacko" errors with that study: http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2004/fpl_2004_lebow003.pdf>>An envirwhacko is someone who is so whacko over protecting the environment that they forget about protecting people and maintaining any sort of natural balance.Ahh, don't look now, but the concern is about what use of CCA doers to people.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
I see you are stillup to your old tricks bobby. Yopu puit words into someone's mouth and then argue with that statement and prove it wrong, except that it is your own self you are provoing wrwong because it is your own statement and not mine. I did not say that it does not leach out. Didn't use the word leach at all.You hae shown that some leaches out, but like the rest of the history of this product and attempts to make it look eveil, there has never been a proof offered that any exudate has hurt anybody or evidence that it is likely to.Even the study you cite in the PDF makes numberous references to uncertainties in the field. It goes no-where. Just like you.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>I did not say that it does not leach out. Didn't use the word leach at all.
Here's what you said:
>>the old arsenic compounds were inherently stable. The only way that it could be released and formed into a toxic state was to heat it as in a fire or using a dull sawblade to burn it - or to subject it to an acidic environmet. [Emphasis added.]
Leaching is a form of "release."
You were wrong - it can be and is release through leaching.
>>Even the study you cite in the PDF makes numberous references to uncertainties in the field. It goes no-where. Just like you.
I have never claimed there was certainty, but you have: But you have told us that there is certainty that there is no harm in the stuff in day to day use and that concerns are only a result of "envirowackos."
Risk assessment and action based on risk analysis is rarely black and white or based on certainties.
BTW, you made various assertions about class actions suits. I asked you some basic questions to determine you degree of knowledge about the subject:
http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=58855.15
I await your response.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Edited 6/2/2005 9:15 pm ET by Bob Walker
I hope they do go after the fastener companies.
Try to get HDG nails in this godforsaken part of the world. Besides Simpson 10dx1-1/2", all you can get are GripRite 10d hot galvanized nails. Same thing, right? Wrong! POS galvanization flakes off before it's even in the wood.
And of course it's pure coincidence that it sounds like HDG (just drop one word).....
Why should they go after the fastner companies?Sounds like it is the retailers that are the problem in your area.
I have to be careful how I say this...but calling their fasteners "hot-galvanized" has caused a lot of confusion....and every retailer I've spoken to thinks its the same thing as HDG....if it wasn't for this confusion, maybe retailers would stock better nails....As far as retailers share of the blame, I've griped before about the godawful selection of building materials around here....maybe has something to do with this being mcmansion territory....
You have it backwards.There have been hot dipped galanized fastners for years and years.It is not there fault that there is are new and more stronger requiremnets for a denser zinc coating for a new application.
I stand corrected. Ok I blame the retailers....
> I hope they do go after the fastener companies.
I disagree. The fastener companies aren't doing anything different than they were in the CCA days. They didn't change anything. What changed was the treatment of the wood. That caused the problem, that's what's at fault. ACQ and CA are the real cause of the problem. It's like aluminum wire all over again.
Piffin is right about environmentalism. All too often, it turns into an us-vs-them political game. Science and reality go out the window. This is a classic example of a product that worked well, and could be used safely, being replaced by something much worse. For far too long, environmentalists have been able to get away with being wrong. They've found a niche where there are no consequences to them for the harm they do to others.
BTW, check out http://www.swansecure.com for stainless nails and screws. I just ordered another $1700+ worth of stuff from them, great company, great products.
-- J.S.
Alright, a couple of smaller points about the prop 65 list and cancer in general and then I'll get to the main CCA issue in a later post - I'm going to have to go find some references and it's going to take some time.Prop 65 is derivative, they primarily use data from a variety of designated "authoritative body's" to determine whether or not something goes on their list of 'known' carcinogens. This is a good idea because most groups don't cover the range of chemicals (the US EPA carcinogen list, far from being a gold standard, is a political football and only covers 443 chems while the more comprehensive IARC list has close to a thousand compounds listed). It's also a somewhat loose standard though, as they apply the word 'known' more frequently than other groups do. Worth noting, however, CA prop 65 does NOT use European lists (they aren't considered 'authoritative bodies' ) so there's a whole universe of data that's excluded from their determinations. The European's are much more aggressive than we are in their approach to regulating chemicals so it's not at all surprising to me that they'd exclude this data, like I keep saying, this is politics, and the industry simply owns this game.There is a misconception that 'everything causes cancer' when in fact, using all the 'known or probable' carcinogens from the major lists out there (US EPA, US NTP, IARC) (but excluding Cal Prop 65 list) is only 322 compounds (out of at least 100,000 that are in use in some form). Sure it includes some surprising things. Did you know that there is a fungus that grows on corn tassels that produces a toxin (fumonisin) that causes cancer? Regulators had to actually decide what level of early deaths were acceptable due to ground corn meal. Obviously (yes even to enviro's it's obvious) it doesn't make sense to ban corn, but neither does it make sense to pretend the problem isn't there. It is a real problem, and eating corn infected with this mold will cause a certain number of cancer cases, it really will. Is there anything we should do about this? I don't think so, but I don't dismiss it either - that's just denying reality.The public health biz is all about numbers, does it matter if MY building wiring is slightly too small for the current draw? Probably not. But if you make that the rule and multiply that by a million buildings will it cause a certain number of house fires down the road? Of course is will, that's why code is conservative. Toxicity is subtle and it shows up over millions of cases. That doesn't mean it isn't happening it just means it doesn't happen all that often.Lew had some nice points about comparative risk, absolutely there are a lot of risks out there especially in the building trade. About a month ago a guy working on the house next door slid off a one story roof backwards and landed on his face and neck and my friend and I had to care for him until the paramedics arrived, I had blood all over me and had to actually think about giving him mouth to mouth for moment. Amazingly, he survived and still walks but you can bet I've been thinking long and hard about my own safety... That said, I really take acceptation to the 'chem companies are your friends' line and Lew, if you knew what kinds of things these guys do, I think you'd agree. I know a bunch of first hand stories but I don't what I can find that's been written down. I'll see what I can dig up. These are not nice people when you get between them and money; also their behavior here and in developing world countries is really very different. As a general rule I think they get away with what they can get away with.On all the examples you mention, thalidomide's, PCB's, dioxins etc, industry fought tooth and nail to continue manufacturing and selling these chemicals, they were forced, generally after years of legal action, to pull these products. The EPA drags their feet for these guys and it is generally only through court order that they will remove or restrict chemicals at all (the EPA has been sued and has lost a whole string of cases about their conduct and is now under court order to actually review chemicals). In 1993 the National Academy of Science found that the EPA was NOT setting chemical tolerances based on safety standards but rather was setting acceptable exposure limits at the level where they could still be used commercially.I repeat, this is a *very* corrupt business -it's not like other industries where I would agree, often businesses can be relied upon to do the right thing. I have nothing but praise for most tool companies, I've been amazed at how airlines cater to their customers (whiny gits!), car companies go to great lengths to test and design cars for safety. There are a hundred examples I could name: but pesticide companies are different.Bill, re: the micronutrient argument: absolutely true, these are all useful chems in small amounts and in the right forms...but I think you recognize the fallacy of extrapolating that to large doses in more reactive forms. Yes arsenic may be a trace nutrient and yes it *will* kill you if you eat anything more than a trace amount. (p.s. I liked working with CCA because it was satisfying to know that you could build with it and it would stick around, the pleasure of building something that lasts)Some sources and explanation for Ca Prop 65:
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Docs/ref_regulatoryCA.html#CAProp65List of all known/probable carcinogens from major lists:
list of chems
Edited 6/2/2005 4:21 pm ET by storme
Don't post long URL's.I am going to scroll back and forth to try and read the results.You can use TinyUrl.com to convert it to a short one.
oops, my bad! the URL should be fixed now.I've got to go do some actual work, will respond back about the CCA issue later this evening - the EPA documents that Bill cites is the place to start but it's a hard slog. The problem here is that either you have the actual studies (many pages of dry material) or you have summaries of it which people often choose to dismiss as biased (sometimes unfairly in my view). I'll see what I can about finding some sources that we can all accept. It's worth noting that they did capitulate which should I think, tell you where the balance of evidence is - these guys don't give anything up if they don't have to.
Edited 6/2/2005 4:30 pm ET by storme
I've worked for three chemical companies. I've yet to see or hear any one of them doing anything unethical. Typically, the things that I've seen have involved operators trying to hide something from their boss to avoid responsibility when it comes down to it. If managers find out, no one tries to hide that information from authorities if they should know. Management for these companies, although maybe not the best business people, have all been very forthcoming with information. The companies themselves have worked with the community, provided jobs, and made products that a vast majority of the people in the country use. These materials are used to make soles of shoes, cores of bolwing balls, circuit boards, caulk, paint, adhesives, plastic pipe, etc.
I'm interested to hear your "personal" stories. If you've never worked in a plant or for a chemical company then you have no first hand experience. You're going on someone else's word of from a story you've read.
I'm not familiar with the details of the fights you claim were waged to keep producing dioxin or PCB. I believe that both are byproducts found in other materials (I know dioxin is a byproduct of the pesticides used in the herbicide known as Agent Orange). I have read the lab reports - the actual books - of the scientists performing tests on lab animals injected with dioxin and the base herbicide. They were injected at hundreds of times the dose a person would ever receive before they ever showed effects.
Sounds like you worked with polyurethene products
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Main product at Arch Chemicals, also made microelectronic materials.
Also silica & silicones at Dow Corning.
Currently in Louisville. Don't want to broadcast current employer bc I definitely do not speak for them, only for me.
>>I've worked for three chemical companies. I've yet to see or hear any one of them doing anything unethical.ROFLOL
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Questioning my integrity are you?
>>Questioning my integrity are you?Nope.Knowledge maybe, but not your integrity.Sorry I wasn't clear about that.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
If you're going to be so hard on other people's arguments, you should be damm sure that your comments or "refereeing" are spot on. My quote was "I've yet to see or hear any one of them"It was not "I've yet to see or hear of any one of them"
I've only been in the industry for 10 years, but I've never seen anything untoward personally. Operators have stories, but most of what I've heard is pretty benign and certainly would not affect people off-site. Further investigation generally exonorates the company, which is why I am generally suspicious of anyone's claim - there's always more to the story.
If you're going to be so hard on other people's arguments, you should be damm sure that your comments or "refereeing" are spot on. My quote was
"I've yet to see or hear any one of them"
It was not
"I've yet to see or hear of any one of them"Fair enough - I mis-read that as meaning any chemical company, not any of the three you've worked for.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Don't take it personally. Bobby questions everyone's integrity but his own. He still thinks he is cross examining people on the stand. Slow to catch up on realities of life as it is.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>Don't take it personally. Bobby questions everyone's integrity but his own. I didn't question his, and I rarely question anyone's integrity here.With a few, rare exceptions.>>He still thinks he is cross examining people on the stand. Slow to catch up on realities of life as it is.I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I never did litigation, so it seems to me that you are the one having a bit of trouble with reality.And if you think questioning the grounds and logic of views being presented is somehow limited to the legal world, you are simply misinformed.I'm curious, why do you persist in calling me "bobby."That isn't my name. It seems to me that it is a childish attempt to be, dare I say it, condescending?But perhaps you'd care to offer some other explanation which is a bit more uplifting?
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Ok, so let's ignore the over 20,000 people killed in Bhopal by Union Carbide (now part of Dow) for a minute, here are some everyday things pesticide companies do/have done. My knowledge is of the big pesticide companies: Monsanto, Novartis, Syngenta, Dow, etc. Here are three stories, they aren't the most compelling I've heard but they are well documented and the details aren't disputed. One is from personal experience, the last two I know of and went and found a write up about.
An anonymous source inside the EPA sent me a letter from an industry source which had specific edits of an internal EPA document. Basically the EPA is supposed to write a toxicity summary for each chemical and then post it and then everyone, industry and environwhacko's alike (I've been christened so many times maybe I'll just keep it, eh?), get to comment on the document. What had happened instead, is that the EPA had given it to industry and they were trying to get their edits into the official document before it was released. This may seem small, but if their edits had been accepted, it would have had a major impact on the continued use of the chemical in question, which is now being phased out. Just to put this in perspective, the chemical was a known developmental toxicant so we're talking about manipulating the safety documents of a chemical known to cause birth defects. There is a special place in hell for people like this.
(From: http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_200404.14.1.05.dv.html)
Ignacio Chapela, a microbial ecologist in the plant sciences department at University of California, Berkeley. In 2000, Chapela discovered that pollen had drifted several miles from a field of genetically modified corn in Chiapas into the remote mountains of Oaxaca in Mexico, landing in the last reserve of biodiverse maize in the world. If genes from the rogue pollen actually penetrated the DNA of traditional crops, they could potentially eliminate maize biodiversity forever. In his report, Chapela cautiously stated that this indeed might have happened. He expressed that sentiment in a peer-reviewed study published by Nature in November 2001.
After an aggressive public relations campaign mounted for Monsanto by the Bivings Group, a global PR firm that began with a vicious email attack mounted by two "scientists" who turned out to be fictitious, Nature editors did something they had never done in their 133 years of existence. They published a cautious partial retraction of the Chapela report. Largely on the strength of that retraction, Chapela was recently denied tenure at UC Berkeley and informed that he would not be reoffered his teaching assignment in the fall.
(postscript, the importance of this may seem slight but genetic contamination was/is a major issue and might have slowed the acceptance of genetically engineered crops, hiding the evidence was the goal here. Chapela got a unanimous endorsement by his tenure committee but was turned down by school administration (Novartis gave $25 million to UCB incidentally). An independent review however, just decided that his rejection was politically motivated and he just received tenure.)
(from the same article above, Atrazine is the #1 herbicide in use worldwide and there is a global die off of amphibians)
When Tyrone Hayes, a UC Berkeley endocrinologist specializing in amphibian development, exposed young frogs in his lab to very small doses of the herbicide Atrazine, they first failed to develop normal larynxes and later displayed serious reproductive problems (males became hermaphrodites), suggesting that Atrazine might be an endocrine disrupter.
Hayes' subsequent experience differed slightly from the other panelists', but was no less troubling to academic scientists. As soon as word of Hayes' findings reached Sygenta Corp. (formerly Novartis) and its contractor, Ecorisk Inc., attempts were made to stall his research. Funding was withheld. It was a critical time, as the U.S. EPA was close to making a final ruling on Atrazine. Hermaphroditic frogs would not help Sygenta's cause.
Hayes continued the research with his own funds and found more of the same results, whereupon Sygenta offered him US$2 million to continue his research "in a private setting." A committed teacher with a lab full of loyal students, Hayes declined the offer and proceeded with research that he knew had to remain in public domain.
This time he found damaging developmental effects of Atrazine at even lower levels (0.1 parts per billion). When his work appeared in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sygenta attacked the study and claimed that three other labs it contracted had been unable to duplicate Hayes' results.
Hayes, who keeps his head down on the Berkeley campus, has obtained tenure and continues to teach. But his studies that could affect approval of the most widely used chemical in U.S. agriculture are being stifled at every turn.
<!---->
Point by point...
Bhopal was an industrial accident caused mainly by poor management of change. One or more engineers made some honest mistakes. There was nothing malicious about it. Unfortunately, it cost many people their lives. Much different, for example, than the first Shuttle explosion where the engineers warned management that there would be problems due to the cold weather but they launched anyway.
Pesticides are one division of the chemical industry, which is what you indicted. I have never worked for or near a pesticides company.
Your "personal experience" begins with "An anonymous source inside the EPA sent me a letter"Sounds a bit Woodward & Bernstein to me. You haven't entered any profile information, so I have no idea what your background is. Therefore I cannot make a judgement on your personal experience with this story. I can say generally that1. The EPA is not a chemical company but that's who you seem to be flaming2. It is not unusual for industry to see advance copies and even to submit comments on documents. You fail to cite any threats made by anyone.3. The rest of the story is too vague to comment on, but you did a good job of portraying them as evil.
"indeed might have happened"Enough said.
"0.1 parts per billion"This may mean 1 drop of pure Atrazine (is that how it is dropped onto crops or is it diluted?) in 10 billion drops of blood by injection, or it may mean 1 drop in 10 billion drops of water by ingestion. 10 billion drops of water is about 2.6 million gallons, the amount of water a river 5 ft deep by 20 ft wide would contain over 2/3 of a mile. This may be a reasonable levell at which worry is warranted if his results are corraborated.
"three other labs it contracted had been unable to duplicate Hayes' results"The important part of this is "it had contracted", which detracts credibility from the results. However, they did offer to have him conduct studies for them, and he could have taken those findings public had he accepted.
I never said that there are not companies that knowingly break laws and put people at risk; see my original post (I think it was in this thread) about my friend with Parkinson's. He has seen with his own eyes some internal documents r.e. his disease from welding rod manufacturers. What I said was that on the whole, chemical companies, and corporations in general, do a great deal of good for the general public.
We have a much higher standard of living than we did 50 years ago due to products that are available at lower costs due to mass manufacturing, which mom & pop can't do.
We live longer and in better health in large part due to drug companies producing drugs. (By the way, the longer you live the more likely it is that you will contract something harmful - cancer, alzheimer's, broken hips, etc.. The human body was not really designed to function for 100 years)
We have jobs
We have better roads, schools (the buildings themselves anyway), etc.
There are risks involved with chemical manufacture & use. Do they outweigh the benefits? Sometimes. On the other hand, sometimes people are willing to take the risk anyway to get the benefits knowing that it will harm them in the long run - smoking, drinking, steaks, potatoes, Celebrex, ACC, etc. If I know that I can have my leg chopped off and live or take a new drug that will kill my affliction but will also kill me in 20 years, I might keep my leg.
it has to be up to the end user to use products responsibly. Otherwise we should stop producing gunpowder, fertilizer (bombs), alcohol, Sudafed (or whatever it is that they use to make meth), spray paint (can't have people making graffiti), and many other products that 99% of the end users do use correctly. Granted this is tough with treated lumber since its hard to keep an eye on your kids 24/7. If there is in fact an incontrovertable link between kids chewing on ballusters (very plausible situation - I used copper on mine so I guess I'll ahve to worry about your other post) then they should have pulled it. End of story. If it turns out there is another plausible root cause for the kids getting Leukemia then they may have overreacted. I'm with Carbon Monoxide boy on at least one point - you have to have sound logic to make these decisions. Emotion is dangerous.
Hi Lew, there is a process for pesticide re-registration and it was illegal for the EPA to share their documents with industry prior to opening the document up for public review. No threats had to be made. My point is that the EPA re-registration process is corrupt and that the EPA, on occasion, secretly helps industry and is in general very reluctant to follow the law. They have to *publicly* follow the laws, but that doesn't mean they can't undercut them, especially by dragging their feet.How bad is it? They had to be sued to actually get them to test chemicals and now the entire pesticide re-registration process is under court order - that's an extraordinary act for the courts to take as they almost always defer to regulatory authority. Here's a writeup: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EPA-Pesticide-Obligation.htmBhopal was an accident, of course there wasn't anything malicious about it though I think people should be held accountable for their actions. We don't have accidents of that scale here for a reason: We hold people to higher standards. I think UC was cavalier about safety and 20,000 people died for it. Further, Union Carbide's (now part of Dow Chemical) response afterwards was not an accident. Go follow that link to the Bhopal page above - these guys are fighting tooth and nail to avoid responsibility.About Hayes, the studies that Novartis cited were fake studies that they pulled together precisely so they could issue that denial. In one of them, they used so much solvent that it killed both the controls and the test animals, they then conclude "there was no difference between the controls and the test cases" Junk science indeed. It got them what they wanted though, a nice press release and a plausible denial. When Novartis submitted the study to the EPA review committee though, the study was so bad that they rejected it as worthless.Incidentally, Hayes' work was published in a top journal and got global press coverage. Since the initial experiments he and others have duplicated the results both in the lab and in streams in the midwest. In spite of all this, when deciding about the safe environmental use limits for atrazine the EPA decided to simply defer considering Hayes' work. They will eventually get sued and the envirowhackos will win (again) but that will take years. Atrazine has been/is being phased out in Europe btw.I've laid out a wealth of information here, and unlike several people I haven't lobbed insults, so accusing me of making an emotional decision is odd don't you think? I think the reality here is that there are a whole lot of people in denial about the real impacts of these chemicals, who, because they can't see chronic effects simply pretend they aren't real.That said, there are trade offs and it's reasonable to accept some harm for a greater good. But the issue is more complicated than that, first, much of the harm is hidden and hard to track, only showing up years down the line. Secondly, a lot of that harm is unknowing, I rock climb and I accept that risk but that's different from someone else putting me at risk without my consent or knowledge. Thirdly, balancing risks and rewards doesn't work when companies hide those risks, which is more common than people seem to believe. Fourthly, special populations (kids, farmworkers, construction workers, etc) are often more at risk than the general population. CCA was killed because of the elevated exposures that kids get. Fifthly, I believe that we as a nation are endlessly inventive and can come up with better solutions to these problems than dumping a billion pounds of pesticides in the environmental every year.I'm no fan of the nanny society - people should take responsibility for their actions, but putting out a product where there's a reasonable expectation that it will cause lots of down stream problems is just dumb. There's a balance here, the problem is that environmental damage has been ignored and/or discounted and long term effects have been ignored or discounted.Back to CCA, the toxicity of arsenic is very well established, so really the entire issue is whether there's exposure. The EPA did a series of studies that showed that kids playing on CCA playground equipment got very elevated levels of arsenic, they weren't even close to acceptable limits. For this, they looked at a whole bunch of kid behaviors like putting things in your mouth, hands to mouth, eating dirt etc - it was really pretty thorough. The arsenic all came from leaching btw, which is why the big emphasis on sealing playground equipment now.The thing about all this is that there are a lot of other exposures that are never considered: what about 40 years down the road when someone tears out the CCA structures I've built? I imagine the wood will be partly rotted so the arsenic will be loose in the dirt. Will that guy make sure to wash his hands before having lunch? Seems trivial I know but there's hundreds of millions of board feet out there - there's going to be a lot of random exposures: splinters, eating something that gets dropped on the deck, kids playing in the dirt below a CCA deck, you name it. Most of these are NOT considered when they test for exposures. The worker exposure testing only covered 4 classes of workers (factory workers, applicators etc) so this huge range of possible exposures simply wasn't considered.On the bigger issue of corporate responsibility, I think we get a lot of benefits from our industrial companies but I also think the smart thing is to view their claims with skepticism, there's a lot of money on the line here. The demonization of environmental watchdogs is frankly suicidal: these are the people watching the store, you *want* them on the job. Will they always be right? Of course not. Are they fighting to make working people's lives healthier and safer? You bet.
"I've laid out a wealth of information here, and unlike several people I haven't lobbed insults, so accusing me of making an emotional decision is odd don't you think? I think the reality here is that there are a whole lot of people in denial about the real impacts of these chemicals, who, because they can't see chronic effects simply pretend they aren't real."actually, with all the "informntion" you have laid out, you have attempted to use association and innuendo to castigate a portion of one industry becasue it bears faint comparison in your own mind to other portions of a separate industry that have had or caused health or enmvironmental problems, all the while avoiding any reports of any persons being harmed by any CCA - because those cases do not exist which is the very reason why the govt agencies did not order it taken off the market - there is no objective evidence of harm, only what you fear and want to cause others to fear
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I've linked, and Bill has linked, to the data that show CCA exposure causes elevated arsenic exposure levels in kids which it would appear you haven't bothered to read. CCA is a mix of three chemical compounds that contain: arsenic, copper and chromium. The component of CCA that has people most concerned is arsenic which is why, when testing for CCA exposures, they focus on arsenic levels. CCA is a pesticide and the CCA industry is the pesticide industry, there's no separate industry. um, and it *has* been taken off the market and they're advising that all CCA playground equipment be painted over to seal the arsenic in.Look I can see that you're not willing to be convinced, not sure how we got there or how you developed so much contempt for environmentalists but that's not for me to fix, eh? peace.
Done - but I did read the links - why it took time to reply. and I found no cause-effect relationship between use of CCA and harm done to any individual person.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
It's the silicone breast implant fiasco all over again, no definitve proof just anectdotal "junk science" and tears convinced the jury and nearly killed Dow Corning.
The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there, and the battlefield is the heart of man.- Fyodor Dostoyevski
Storme, thanks for posting your information. Do you have any pointers to information on copper water pipes? A poster here recently claimed that after doing his research, he was putting PEX in his house instead of copper.I recommend everyone read "A Civil Action." During jury selection, one juror expressed reluctance to cause any trouble for "Mr Grace" (to the astonishment of both prosecution and defence). Remember, the case involved kids dying of leukemia because of the actions of WR Grace. The movie sucked the big one. It ends with good ole EPA riding to the rescue like the 7th Cavalry. In reality the EPA sat on evidence that would have helped the plaintiffs until after the trial. Lew, I'm sure the vast majority of employees in any industry are decent hard-working people who want to do the best by their fellow man and woman. But who was it said that, just as cream rises to the top, so does scum? Just ask the employees of Enron.I personally have had the experience of pushing my 1-year-old kid in a stroller, passing a house we had seen being demolished the previous day.....and there was a guy in a space suit walking through the rubble across the street. I don't have any illusions that big business or big govt gives a sh!t about my welfare or that of my family.
Edited 6/3/2005 1:44 pm ET by Taylor
I don't know much but these guys: http://www.plumbingsupply.com/cuinfo.html have some info on the issue. They also sell copper fittings and have some pretty decent prices, worth checking out. Here's a snippet but go read the page, it doesn't sound like a widespread problem:Copper Pipe, Aggressive Water Linked To Illnesses
The ingestion of copper-contaminated drinking water resulted in numerous reports of nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort in two separate cases in Wisconsin. In both instances, new copper piping systems and very aggressive water combined to cause the outbreak.Health problems associated with the ingestion of copper-contaminated drinking water are not new, said Dick Church, president of the Plumbing Manufacturer's Institute. "We've heard of situations like this before," said Church. "It's known that northern Wisconsin's water has had low pH levels and is very aggressive. As long as the plumbing products meet NSF 61 requirements, this should be a non-issue from the manufacturer's point of view."No perfect method of piping water exists, said Catherine Bolton, director of communications for the International Copper Association. "Everything needs breaking in. Copper pipes need to build up a coating, and the time that takes depends on the water quality. Once that's set up, it deletes the possibility of leaching problems."Situations like those in Wisconsin are not broad-based," added Bolton. "It all depends on the water quality in a particular area. This is a water problem, not a pipe problem. Sellers need to be aware of aggressive water in their area."
BTW, check out http://www.swansecure.com for stainless nails and screws.
Thanks I also found this closer to home:
http://www.manasquanfasteners.com.
check out Jamestown Distributors too.
> check out Jamestown Distributors too.
Compare prices. You'll find some sources that are re-selling stuff that they buy in bulk from Swansecure.
-- J.S.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.The arsenic in CCA is significant and it was showing up in all sorts of kid related situations including playgrounds. It was pulled after the manufacturers ran out of ways they could ignore the law and were forced to actually pull a dangerous product.Pesticide regulation in general is an exceptionally crooked business with all sorts of industry intimidation and manipulation of the data. Chemicals which are widely understood to be dangerous to people and harmful to the environment are used for years while the issue is obscured. Let me give you just one example: in 1982 one of the Cal water boards made a determination that because there was no evidence of pesticide related harm due to farm runoff, they didn't need to regulate farm runoff. Ironically 1982 was the peak year for fish kills due to farm runoff. Now should farmers be regulated? maybe yes, maybe no. The point I want to make here is that regulatory authorities (political appointees) are willing to lie to make sure they were not.Is CCA dangerous? Well it's extremely toxic but it binds well to wood so exposure is minimized. It also tends to stay put in soils, this is good. The key issue is mobility. Lessee: do you vacuum up all the CCA sawdust? wear a mask so you don't inhale it? I know I didn't. Do you make damn sure none of it gets burned? I sure didn't - I used to burn CCA when I was a kid (it burns a nice green color...)Look, you guys are contractors, probably mostly good ones. YOU know that problems often take 15 years to show up, does that make the crappy nailed off ledger a good idea because at year 12 the deck is still standing? Is it good building practice because MY deck didn't rot away? of course not. I challenge you to show the same respect for epidemiologists who can show that there are significant arsenic exposure levels due to CCA.I'm 38 and I have three friends in their mid 30's who have come down with breast cancer. Nothing's been proven (and I'm not suggesting that CCA had anything to do with these three) but many different types of cancer *are* rising sharply. I've heard there is an 'epidemic' of asthma as well. Where's it all coming from? Really: why do you suppose there's so much cancer in developed societies?How long are people going to believe that our chemical exposure is all Ok because they don't notice any short term effect?
One more thing: what do you suppose happens to the arsenic when the wood finally does rot? (thinking fencing here) That soil is now permanently laced with arsenic - maybe not a big risk but just think how widespread CCA is. By using CCA our society has taken on a long term commitment to manage all that material safely. The soils around our fences and deck which was once completely benign are now something to be concerned about if we have small children. That sucks.Having said all that, let me also say I appreciate CCA - it was a really great product, cheap, didn't rot easily, easy to work with, there's a lot to like about it. If only...
You are right about all of the chemicals.Here is another one. http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html"Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.""Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and saccharine), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.""# DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
# Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
# Contributes to soil erosion.
# Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
# Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
# Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
# Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.""# as an industrial solvent and coolant,
# in nuclear power plants,
# by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
# by elite athletes to improve performance,
# in the production of Styrofoam,
# in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
# as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
# in abortion clinics,
# as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,"
Sounds like Bill has lent hart to the storm.
"I can't say I was ever lost, but I was bewildered once for three days."
bah. Working with CCA doesn't make you a chemist or an epidemiologist or a doctor. I have a lot of respect for the folks here around building issues but there's more to the CCA issue than you folks realize. I used to be one of those "enviro-whacko's" that several people been insulting. Do you really think the chemical companies are your buddies? That they'd never exaggerate the safety of their products? That they'd err on the side of caution if there was an issue? Do you have any idea of their history? Union Carbide killed over a thousand people in India and they're still fighting (and winning) the legal fight.The people out there working to make working people's live safer and healthier don't deserve your contempt, they deserve your thanks.Arsenic and chromium are, without a doubt, both carcinogens. Sources for Arsenic:
US National Toxicology Program
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/roc/toc10.html
California Prop 65 list of known carcinogens:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.htmlSources for Chromium:
US EPA
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/carlist/(there are additional listing from other agencies including IARC, CA p65)The ONLY question about the safety of these chemicals is whether there's any exposure. No exposure = no problem for you but it's still there for someone down the road to trip over. So my questions above are real: are you and is everyone else in the field really that careful? DO you vacuum up the sawdust? DO you make sure none of it ever gets burned? Can you guarantee that it'll never go up in flames? What do you do if it does? The amount of arsenic in CCA wood is substantial.Calling the people who are actually out there working for you and your children's safety 'enviro-whackos' or posting patronizing posts about 'dihydrogen monoxide' what's that about? You want to go back to the good old days where people sprayed children with DDT (yes, it really happened: because the companies said it was safe). You think because it hasn't killed you yet the known toxicity of these compounds somehow goes away? How many people do *you* know who've come down with cancer?more data than you really want to know about:
arsenic: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35165
chromium: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC40089
copper: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC33553ok, I'm ranted out. Look I loved working with CCA wood - it's a great product. I was bummed it got taken off the market and I can appreciate that it seems arbitrary after you've used it for many years but don't think there weren't good reasons.I hope everyone here has a great day and a safe one. peace.
" Look I loved working with CCA wood"Don't know of any one that "loved" working with CCA treated wood. I know people that accepted the pros and cons, but b*tched about working with it because of factors like it being wet and twisting like hell.And do you know what it takes to be put on Calif Prop 65 list?The are now talking about putting baked potateos and toasted bread on the list.http://tinyurl.com/cdfc4And you don't want to elimated chrome and copper. Both are essential trace minersals and arsnic is also possible one.http://www.mii.org/periodic/LifeElement.html"Arsenic (As)Despite Arsenic’s reputation as a highly toxic substance, this element may actually be necessary for good health. Studies of animals such as chickens, rats, goats and pigs show that it is necessary for proper growth, development and reproduction. In these studies, the main symptom of not getting enough arsenic was retarded growth and development. It is suspected, but not known, that arsenic is necessary . It is thought to be necessary for the functioning of the nervous system and for people to grow properly. Since arsenic is present in our food and water, all humans have some arsenic in their bodies and a deficiency of this element in humans has apparently never been observed. An arsenic trioxide has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat a rare and deadly form of leukemia called acute promyelocytic leukemia, or APL.Chromium (Cr)When we think of chromium, our brains may generate images of everything from the shinny finish on our first bicycle to the brilliant chrome rally wheels on the ’66 Mustang GT. The last thing that comes to mind is a substance that we actually need to eat in order to stay healthy. Chromium, in fact, is an element that is essential to good human health. It does many important things in the body. Most significantly, it is a vital component of a molecule that works with insulin to stabilize blood sugar levels. In other words, it helps our bodies absorb energy from the food we eat and stabilizes the level of energy that we feel throughout the day.Our bodies need sufficient quantities of chromium to make many of the large biological molecules that help us live. This vital element can also help increase muscle mass while reducing fat mass in our bodies. It helps cells, such as heart muscle cells absorb the energy they need to work properly.Unfortunately, it is often difficult to get enough chromium in our diets. People who exercise frequently have especially high demands for this element. Scientists estimate that 90% of all Americans don't get enough chromium from their diet. Foods that are high in chromium include whole grain breads, brown rice, cheese and lean meats. Chromium is also in many (but not all) multi-vitamins and supplements, but the body absorbs chromium much better from food.Copper (Cu) - a micronutrientCopper is an element that is very important for our good health. Actually, that may be understating the true importance of this element. Copper is critically important for dozens of body functions.To begin with, copper is a major component of the oxygen carrying part of blood cells. Copper also helps protect our cells from being damaged by certain chemicals in our bodies. Copper, along with vitamin C, is important for keeping blood vessels and skin elastic and flexible. This important element is also required by the brain to form chemicals that keep us awake and alert. Copper also helps your body produce chemicals that regulate blood pressure, pulse, and healing. Current research is looking into other ways copper can affect human health, from protecting against cancer and heart disease, to boosting the immune system.General symptoms of not getting enough copper in your diet include anemia (a condition in which your blood can’t supply enough oxygen to your body), arthritis (painful swelling of the joints), and many other medical problems.Copper can be found in dried beans, almonds, broccoli, garlic, soybeans, peas, whole-wheat products, and seafood. Unfortunately, many people do not get enough copper in their diets. Also, eating food rich in fructose (sugars in fruit, and cornstarch) and taking mega-doses of vitamin C for long periods of time can keep your body from absorbing the copper in your food. This lack of copper intake by your body can cause the medical problems mentioned above, or it can even affect your life span."
So Cal prop 65 is the reason EVERYTHING in the world says "is known to cause cancer to the state of california"?
That has to be the greatest example of an overburdensome government regulation. The way they use that law, it would be easier if they were to tell you what doesn't cause cancer. They use that so much that it is something that all buddies laugh about, if they used it selectively when it were really a danger than maybe poeple would pay attention to it.
Yes, the chemical companies are your friends: They employ your neighbors, provide tax income for your state and country, contribute to charitable organizations in their community, boost your IRA returns, not to mention they provide new products that benefit society.
There is a price to pay. Disasters do happen. UC's Bhopal incident has killed closer to 30,000 people to date according to some sources. The BP explosion a few months ago killed over a dozen and injured over 100. Products hit the market that turn out to be problems - thalidomide, PCB's, dioxins, etc. Most large reputable companies take action when there is scientific proof that there is a problem.
However, just because someone says that a product is to blame for something, companies or government should not immediately remove it from the market. Dow Corning has only recently been vindicated r.e. the implant issue. Current studies show no relationship to cancer, but they were still forced to file bankruptcy, costing many jobs, tax benefits, etc. I doubt that they have received any checks from people (like my grandmother) who collected from class-action settlements. Fortunately for Dow Corning, the communities of Elizabethtown and Carrollton, and the state of Kentucky, they were able to stay in business despite the bankruptcy and are doing well.
No one will argue that arsenic is no good, but lots of people (scientists) will tell you that it is a naturally occuring element in the soil in many areas. As a scientist I recognize the risk associated with CCA lumber and do take actions to minimize my family's exposure. I vacuumed up 90% of the sawdust while building my deck this spring even though the new chemicals are supposed to be "safe". But I believe the likelihood of my daughter getting killed in a car crash is higher than her increased cancer risk b/c of normal exposure to chemicals.
I try to spend my time minimizing the real risks out there - making my wife wear a seatbelt, cleaning up the jobsite at the end of the day, keeping knives away from my 2 year old. I'd be a nervous wreck if I worried that working in a chemical plant would give me cancer.
So - the short version would be that you don't think that the Bophal incident is a reason for removing CCA lumber from the market, right?;)
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
That pretty much sums it up. Bhopal and the hydrogen hydroxide emissions from after rain water hits the decking on a hot day.
Storme,I did a lot of reading during the last days of CCA production and was never able to find a study that convinced me that CCA posed a probable threat to end users.I just now finished reading about 30 pages from a few google searches and still have found no data that supports that using (or even working with) CCA is harmful.You provided plenty of data that Arsenic and Chromium are harmful compounds. I doubt many would argue your position with regard to those substances. However, I fail to see the connection between the treatment process and the risks to homeowners with a CCA deck and fence.Can you provide some data that shows that living on or around a CCA deck poses a likely risk to anyone?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com
>>I did a lot of reading during the last days of CCA production and was never able to find a study that convinced me that CCA posed a probable threat to end users.>>I just now finished reading about 30 pages from a few google searches and still have found no data that supports that using (or even working with) CCA is harmful.And your qualifications for processing and evaluating such information?Did you read the material at the EPA site? http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/If so, why haven't you noted that the use of CCA was a voluntary action, not a law or regulations?With all of the experts spouting off here on one side or the other, how has that basic fact gone unmentioned?
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Bob,About the voluntary withdrawal, this is typical. There are international treaties (the PIC treaty primarily) that are triggered when chemicals are banned so when the writing is on the wall, the pesticide companies will withdraw them. The EPA likes this too because it's less work for them to press the case home. The industry fought the CCA action for years and their capitulation came only after years of work, studies and legal action. My understanding is that the CCA issue was largely pushed by Beyond Pesticides: http://www.beyondpesticides.org/A judge just dismissed another lawsuit brought against the EPA by BP over EPA's failure to proceed with a scientific assessment of wood preservatives (the EPA has been dragging it out for years, Beyond Pesticides sued to get them to proceed with the assessment) The judge ruled that BP hadn't made a 'formal' request so the EPA hasn't done anything wrong. So it goes.. Here's the press release:http://www.beyondpesticides.org/news/daily_news_archive/2005/04_04_05.htm
>>And your qualifications for processing and evaluating such information?None whatsoever, Bob. Does that really matter? I'm no chemist or biologist but I can read a report on a website that shows how the elevated levels of arsenic poison the water supply or how 131 children now have leukemia stemming from their time spent knawing on CCA balusters. Can't I?>>Did you read the material at the EPA site? http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/No I have not. Thank you for providing that source. I will read the executive summary and possibly more when I have time later tonight.>>If so, why haven't you noted that the use of CCA was a voluntary action, not a law or regulations?I fail to see what your point is. Just because the action was voluntary doesn't mean that the wood treatment industry agreed with the "enviro-whackos", does it?>>With all of the experts spouting off here on one side or the other, how has that basic fact gone unmentioned?Again, what is the relevance?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com
>> >>And your qualifications for processing and evaluating such information?>>None whatsoever, Bob. Does that really matter?LOL
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Bob, you crack me up.What are your qualifications to discuss the merits of CCA?
Jon Blakemore RappahannockINC.com
>>What are your qualifications to discuss the merits of CCA?I don't have any qualifications to discuss it's merits.I believe I am eminently qualified to discuss views expressed about the situation: a meta view, if you will.One need not have subject matter expertise to see faulty arguments presented by those who claim such expertise.Like one poster here arguing in part, to the effect that 'because I've never been injured by cca, objections to it must be wrong.'That's like arguing "I've never been injured by a terrorist, so terrorists don't exist."
I think if you reread my posts, you'll see I haven't taken a position on CCA itself - I believe I have only commented on the logic or lack thereof, or accuracy of certain statements made. I have refrained from comments on CCA itself for the very reason you point out.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Edited 6/3/2005 8:02 am ET by Bob Walker
;)Now he has something to REALLY be worried about!Maybe Luka can lend him a foil hat too. The solar storms are getting worse this year
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
In your attempt to indict all CCA proiducts, you earlier stated something about not knowing what health risks lie fifteen years down the road. To my memory, th eCCA products have already been with us for about forty years, and still have a good track record for not hurting anybody.Arsenic gets bad press because o fAgatha Chrisie novels where it is used to hurry the pot of gold into the heirs hands, but did you know that your apple seeds have arsenic compounds in them? Diod you know that I eat apple seeds and many others do too, as a cancer preventive, because a tiny amt of a compound can do good wjhile a large amy in the wrong way can do harm? You act as though any and all arsenic in any form must be done away with. It occours naturalluy in soil and rock. You need to start digging a very large hole to get to thje place where you have removed all the arsenic from your environment.So what if some goes back into the ground. That is where it came from in the fiorst place. But the compound it is in as CCA is still inert and not dangerous if the wood rots. You would have to heat it and eat it before it could hurt you, or use acidic soil mixed with rotted CCA lumber to grow p[otatoes in , and then eat several hundred pounds of those potatoes in a couple of weeks...just to get a tummy acheYou are living with unfounded fears and projecting those fears onto something benign as a rock.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
> To my memory, th eCCA products have already been with us for about forty years, and still have a good track record for not hurting anybody.
True, but the whackos don't care. It's just a game, and they won. If they really meant what they said about protecting yadda yadda, they would have insisted on proof that the replacements, ACQ and CA, were better, not worse, than CCA. But their goal in the political game was to demonize CCA, not to actually think about what might replace it. That's a real world problem, not on their radar.
-- J.S.
to all: this is the risk assessment of children's exposure to CCA wood:http://www.epa.gov/oscpmont/sap/2003/december3/shedsprobabalisticriskassessmentnov03.pdfpage 1-6 has a table which shows that children exposed to CCA playground equipment consistently get exposed to arsenic levels far, far above acceptable 'Margin's of Exposure' - it's technical, but that's the key bit of evidence that put the nail in the coffin for CCA. Incidentally, this is the last legal pesticidal use of arsenic - every other use was canceled years ago. So take it up with your kids.Why you think environmentalists, who don't gain anything, can't be trusted but chemical companies that are trying to sell you the stuff, can, is just astonishing to me. As I said earlier,
I don't think the people out there working to make working people's live safer and healthier deserve your contempt, I think they deserve your thanks.
With all due respect, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. I see that you are fairly new here. I would gain a great deal more knowledge than you have before I started correcting someone like piffin on this board. That guy has forgotten more about building in the last week than you have known in your life.
Also, you should do a little research before you start claiming CCA is so dangerous and linking it to increases in cancer. You really have no clue what you are talking about. What piffin said is correct, the CCA scare was unfounded and an over-reaching environment policy that is based on theory not fact. Unless you plan on eating the CCA then I don't think you'll be getting cancer from it.
Tell me this, if CCA was so dangerous and the arsenic such a problem then why wouldn't the government recall all the product that was out there for sale instead of setting a date for the end of CCA and why wouldn't the government force people to remove any existing CCA structures and replace it with ACQ? If it were the danger you see to think it is and causing soil contamination then why shouldn't the millions of structures built with CCA be removed right now?
Sounds like storm has met his D-day.
"I can't say I was ever lost, but I was bewildered once for three days."
>>With all due respect, you have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about. LOL>>Tell me this, if CCA was so dangerous and the arsenic such a problem then why wouldn't the government recall all the product that was out there for sale instead of setting a date for the end of CCA and why wouldn't the government force people to remove any existing CCA structures and replace it with ACQ? If it were the danger you see to think it is and causing soil contamination then why shouldn't the millions of structures built with CCA be removed right now?It's called influence, lobbying, and balancing competing interestsIn the real world, the "best" solution isn't often the one invoked, for a number of reasons.You might as well ask why weren't all cars without seatbelts required to be junked when seatbelt laws were enacted.And may I suggest you do some research on the subject before jumping in on one side or the otherThere is a lot of evidence supporting the view that arsenic treated wood presents significant health risks.There is some evidence to the contrary, as well. Few things in life are subject to 100% certainty.And yes, Piffen is a prolific poster here, and he is knowledgeable on a range of subjects.He is not always right, however.Finally, as someone who has only been here for a few months yourself, you might might to reconsider the appropriatness of lambasting other newbies.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Well, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it is all based on having read every trade journal article I have seen for four or five years pertaining to the subject, all written by people who know more than either of us.I know that I personally have had serious reactions to the new ACQ and that I never had any problems with the CCAI know there was never any proof offered anywhere that the CCA product was inherently dangerous. There is no law the manufacturers ignored. As a matter of fact, the govt study preliminary to potentially ordering removal of the product concluded that when used appropritately, there was no reason to fear contamination. That was when the envirowhackos ramped up the threats of l;awsuit when they realized that they could not get the gofvt to obnjectively and scientifically do their dirty work for them. Yopu mention epidemiologists who can show toxic results. Nobody ever seems to have that evidence available. just threats and unsubstasntiated rumours like this"Lessee: do you vacuum up all the CCA sawdust? wear a mask so you don't inhale it? I know I didn't. Do you make damn sure none of it gets burned? I sure didn't - I used to burn CCA when I was a kid (it burns a nice green color...)"
So you use it irresponsibly and that is a good reason for denying the rest of us the right to use it responsibly. I pay for your sins. IOntrerwesting legal theory there. and remember - I'm supposedly the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about.you cite all sorts of things like pesticides, your own misuse of product, breast cancer, etc as though your fearfull attitude is a good reason for outlawing products. That is reactionary junk science and I don't think you have the faiontest idea what I am talking about when I suggest using objective evidence for a basis of action.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
OK, so for whatever reason, the stuff is here. We have to deal with it.
The builders here STILL don't see a problem using regular foundation bolts or using regular gun nails attaching TJIs to sill plates.
Ehmmm.
When the EPA was created (in 1972, under Nixon) the existing laws on the books were rolled into the EPA's jurisdiction and the chemicals currently in use were grandfathered in. As new laws have arrived, this same basic situation prevailed: the old chemicals were grandfathered in until they got tested. The game then, is to never test the chemicals to the new standards, as long as you don't test, they can stay on the market and that is *exactly* what's happened here. CCA was on the market because a comprehensive risk assessment *never happened* The lawsuits are all about getting the EPA to *test the stuff in the first place* (Actually, to be more accurate, since there's no question about the toxicity of CCA, the issue wasn't basic toxicity testing but rather modeling of exposures, the other half of the toxicity equation).In 1996 congress passed the FQPA which replaces the old testing regime and congress mandated that the EPA re-test all chemical/crop combinations on the books. So you know what they did? They tested all the chemicals that were *least* used first. Why? So they wouldn't have to take anything off the market. So NRDC sued the EPA and forced them to follow the law, and test the most toxic and the most used chemicals, so, now under court order, the EPA is now slogging through the backlog but slowly, slowly. That has always been the game and it's why environmentalist will keep suing the EPA and why they will keep winning the legal fights.I was about 12 when I was burning CCA, irresponsible use? perhaps, but then again, assuming that 100% of CCA wood will be properly disposed of is a fantasy. Mind you, that *is* what the industry assumes and the law allows them to get away with. The key law is FIFRA: if it's not used according to label it's not the manufacturer's fault - which sound reasonable until you realize that that means it's *never* the manufacturers fault. The law assumes 100% compliance, 100% best practices and that 100% gets disposed of properly - does that sound like the world you live in? Just to put the scale of this in perspective, in 1996, 467 *million* cubic feet of wood was treated with CCA. Is it good public health policy to assume 460 million cubic feet of treated wood is properly used and disposed of?How about we get rid of seat belts and bumpers because if everyone just follows the traffic rules there won't be any more accidents, eh? You can see how absurd it is, but it's the law of the land for pesticides: the rules are on the side of the bottle, those directions are certified by the EPA and the manufacturers are absolved of all responsibility.Incidentally, here are the use instructions for CCA wood:"These efforts are especially important when conducting activities that generate sawdust from treated wood, since there is a greater likelihood of exposure to arsenic and/or chromium from such activities than there is from ordinary contact to wood surfaces. - Consumers working with arsenic and/or chromium-treated wood should wear long-sleeve shirts, long pants, and gloves impervious to the chemicals, such as vinyl-coated gloves. If sawdust accumulates on clothes, wash them separately from other household clothes before reuse.- Avoid frequent or prolonged inhalation of sawdust from treated wood. Wear a dust mask when sawing and machining. Always wear goggles to protect your eyes from flying particles - when power-sawing and machining. If possible, work outdoors to avoid indoor accumulation of sawdust from treated wood. - Wash exposed body areas thoroughly with soap and water after working with treated wood. - Clean-up thoroughly before eating, drinking or using tobacco products. "Now, the law assumes that you are *exactly* following these instructions, if you aren't, then you might be getting exposed in levels above what's been found to be safe. How realistic do you think this is? Do you always were long sleeve shirts? use vinyl gloves?The problems you are having with ACQ are acute problems which may seem to be more dramatic, but my response is that this is basically irrelevant, acute problems are the tip of the iceberg and are not a reliable guide to the chronic toxicity of a chemical. CCA was not pulled due acute toxicity OR due to worker exposures, it was pulled due to children's exposures.You sling around this industry talking point 'junk science' but I don't see you providing citations and for the life of me I don't get why someone like you, who probably works for a living, would want to defend these guys. It's never the industry people who get poisoned by these things, it's farm workers or people who work in plants or guys like you who work with the stuff.As Bob said earlier, there's always evidence on both sides of any debate, the thing that really gets me here though is that you're so deeply prejudiced against environmentalists -folks who actually care about you and yours and who are trying to check an industry that sells toxic chemicals for a living. Of course chemical companies would never lie or hide evidence of problems, not them! And yet you seem to hate environmentalists and trust the chemical companies - it's just weird.
Hey, i'm an environmentalist too. It is the whackos that have no sense of balance that are ruining life.The change to ACQ is unbalanced. You cited things about how dangerous copper is for people and defend the increaseduse of it in the new product. balanced? Nope.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Hi Piffin, I don't know what's going on with ACQ, the two issues with copper that I know about is hard water in copper pipes causing acute copper toxicity (people actually hospitalized over this) and second that copper is highly toxic to fish (like really toxic). I don't know what the splinter thing is but I've heard about it from a bunch of people now. I'll keep my eye out - I no longer do this stuff for a living. I will say that mostly the focus is on chronic toxicity not acute toxicity because you need so much less for chronic toxicity to be an issue.
"I will say that mostly the focus is on chronic toxicity not acute toxicity because you need so much less for chronic toxicity to be an issue."I honestly don't understand this statement. It reads like what you are looking for is issues, not solutions to problems. Why not focus on acute problems when they are both common and severe.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
But they aren't severe. I've watched three friends go through chemotherapy and one of them is dead now and I'm sorry, a painful splinter doesn't cut it. You may not accept the reality of birth defects and cancer but it's all around me. I'll focus on the big issues, thank you, and wear gloves if I have to. ACQ use says you're supposed to wear gloves anyway. Remember, the safety studies of the stuff assume you do:
http://www.osmose.com.au/naturewoodacq.html
You still seem to be confused and mixing up between the cancer and the CCA. There has still not been any objective link to any definite health problem cause by CCA, yet you seem to want to blame all cancer deaths on CCA lumber.As to your comment on using gloves - my reactions have been mostly in legs, right through the fabric. I can't wear gloves on my thighs. Maybe the instructions should say to wear a leather apron, leather chaps, etc, and to throw it away every week.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>Well, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it is all based on having read every trade journal article I have seen for four or five years pertaining to the subject, all written by people who know more than either of us.>>I know that I personally have had serious reactions to the new ACQ and that I never had any problems with the CCA>>I know there was never any proof offered anywhere that the CCA product was inherently dangerousI'm not sure what "inherently dangerous" means to him"Ordinarily, EPA considers a cancer risk as excessive when it's higher than 1 in a million. On average, kids exhibiting extensive hand-to-mouth behaviors who live in warm environments face a 2.5 in 100,000 cancer risk—or more than 10 times the risk that triggers EPA concern. The agency now projects that for the top 5 percent of exposed children, the cancer risk could be 1.4 in 10,000, or more than 100 times the value that might be deemed acceptable. An EPA report dated Nov. 10, 2003, outlines the details of these calculations"http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040131/bob9.asp
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
It's a industry wide problem that is corrected by hiring a Professional contractor who keeps up to date with the changes in materials & building pratices. Blood sucker are everywhere waiting to strike wouldn't you agree?