Saw this in the local paper:
We are a local lawfirm investigating potential accelerated corrosion and potential premature failure of outdoor deck connectors and/or fasteners,including screws, joist hangers, brackets, and nails which were purchased at Home Depot, Lowes, and other retail outlets after January 1, 2004 and used with pressure treated wood on outdoor decks or other outdoor applications. A class action lawsuit … If you used connectors … and would like to have your connectors inspected free of charge …
The ad lists a lawfirm in Nashville (stewart, estes & Donnell) to contact so obviously it’s not a local firm. You supose they’re going after the retailers for failing to adequately warn the DIY world about some of the finer points of construction?
“When asked if you can do something, tell’em “Why certainly I can”, then get busy and find a way to do it.” T. Roosevelt
Replies
Sounds a little like. I almost think good for them. The information was readily available by then for anyone willing to open their eyes to it, and you'd talk to real lumberyards about it and get the deer in the headlights look. Frankly I expect better of any supplier.
"Sometimes when I consider what tremendous consequences come from little things, I am tempted to think -- there are no little things" - Bruce Barton
They're gonna go after everybody. Manufacturers, ad agencies, distributors, retailers, GC's, carps, you name it. To paraphrase the old motto from Vietnam--"Sue 'em all; let the judge sort 'em out...."
I told all youse guys not to use that crap. (I'm such a weenie when I'm right, I can't stand myself....)
Hey Mike! You and Piffin can hide up at my joint.
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not brought
low by this? For thine evil pales before that which
foolish men call Justice....
See message 35389.1 I heard an intersting story the other day.It seems that someone's deck fell down recently. The builder (don't know if homeowner or GC) got the materials from HD. HD lost the court case, and after that, Simpson went in and changed the entire display etc.I'm sure that suing GCs and lumber yards is going to be big business.Quality repairs for your home.
AaronR ConstructionVancouver, Canada
Decks fall down every year, especially in June when graduation parties overload them with drunken dancing revelors.I sometimes visit the bob Villa boards. They used to have a deck design CAD program there, along with a kitchen design, etc. The deck program has been taken down. My imagination tells me it has something to do with liabilities.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Yeah, decks fall for all sorts of reasons. Overloaded with people, the one posted here a year or so back of a kids swimming pool on a small "stair landing" style deck (that was a bit poorly contructed but probably sufficient for its intended purpose), and then the ever-popular nailed-on ledger. There were several deck failures in the Twin Cities about 8 years back due to contractor-built decks with nailed-on ledgers, so it's not always a DIYer that mucks it up.And yes, the major support structures should be reasonably redundant -- either with doubled-up hangers somehow, or, better, stuff let in, through bolted, stacked, etc.If you think about it, there are few places in conventional home frame construction where fasteners are relied on to do the entire job, vs "stacking" components. Even with things like joist hangers, it would generally take the failure of 3-4 in a row to cause any sort of collapse, due to the multiple layers of floor and wall tying things together. But decks don't usually have these layers.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
I started myself a folder for deck failures back when that one with the swimming pool on it took the big dump. I have those pictures.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
It's the deep pockets they'll go after, and I predicted this way back then.When I learned from this forum via photos someboidy posted heere, I had just finished my first deck with the new ACQ a week before. I drove right back over there and craweled around under it to refasten with SS nails and screws. Now that I thi9nk of it, I oughta go back and check it out. The owner was impressed with my reaction to the information and offered to pay me for the extra work.Since then, whenever I can, I design the decks so as not to be entirely dependent on the fasteners and hangers, such as by running joists across a beam instead of hanging from a rim joist set and ledger. Gravity holds it all together that way.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Since then, whenever I can, I design the decks so as not to be entirely dependent on the fasteners and hangers, such as by running joists across a beam instead of hanging from a rim joist set and ledger.
I have always stacked joists on top of beams and ledgers. It's a basic design philosophy I've got. There is just no way even the best toenailing or tin strapping can possibly provide the support of a piece of solid wood sitting under the joist.
I'm too dumb to have gone to school to learn how strong the engineers say joist hangers are, so I think I've used joist hangers once in all these years: I used them to support the inboard end of the porch roof rafters on my own house, because I didn't want a ledger showing below the soffit and the soffit was cathedraled. I could have toenailed them in...but I had one of my two hired carps do those because I was upstairs framing the dormers that day, and he wanted to use hangers. I didn't have time to argue....
But there's no PT wood in this house anywhere...so those hangers ought not to melt away into incoherent ions anytime soon.
And this whole thing is yet another example of why we should all be so careful accepting whatever new 'wonder product' the manufacturers are pushing this week....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
And this whole thing is yet another example of why we should all be so careful accepting whatever new 'wonder product' the manufacturers are pushing this week....
Don't forget that it wasn't the manufacturers who pushed for the replacement of cca with acq. It was our EPA. Corroding joist hangers (and don't forget corroding ledger bolts) are just fallout from the law of unintended consequences.
I'd be very curious to see in say, 20 years, a study comparing the number of deaths attributable to arsenic from cca as opposed to the number of deaths caused by acq corrosion induced deck collapses. It might be an interesting lesson in risk analysis, something most people are very bad at.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
I'm guessing that deck collapses cause fewer than ten deaths a year, and that number is likely to go down, not up, as contractors become more liability conscious.Though it's hard to say specifically for CCA, a given toxin can cause thousands of deaths a year without being noticed. Even more serious are the children that may be brain-damaged by certain toxins.It is true, however, that the US public is lousy at risk analysis. Just look at how we fret over the nearly non-existant threat of terrorism, yet kill thousands on our highways without blinking an eyelash.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
It would be interesting.
As far as I know, there's virtually no mortality associated with the arsenic in cca. Sure, there could be latent damage that hasn't surfaced yet, but we've been using the stuff heavily for thirty years.
Which isn't to say that arsenic is a good idea. We've hardly begun to dispose of those old decks.
DDT is one of my favorites, if you want to talk about bad risk analysis. The stuff is essentially harmless to humans, and it's probably the best mosquitocide known to man. The single study linking to cancer in humans was refuted several times, but that data came in post ban. Its chief detraction is that, when overused, it concentrates in the food chain and makes raptor egg shells thin. Used indoors, say in Africa where human deaths from malaria spiked after DDT's ban, the environmental damage would likely be minimal to un-measurable, and human death and misery could be substantially reduced. But no, we pretty much threw out the baby with the bathwater on that one due to the political momentum of Rachael Carson's Silent Spring. Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
I think bad risk analysis is one of those regrettable but true traits of humans and democracy.
It seems that in a good capitalist system, the cost of insuring for risks could be figured into the price of a good, or the price of adopting a new technology.
So maybe the price of ACQ would go up to reflect the cost of ensuring high quality fasteners were used, and the price of CCA might go up with the cost of proper disposal.
I always think about how the true costs of things like coal power and car driving are accepted, not because they have particularly low risks, but because they are risks we have come to accept and ignore over the years. As opposed to nuclear power, for example, which has a low risk (albeit of a different kind, the rare catastrophe instead of the constant deaths from coal smoke and mining accidents), which is not acceptable to most people.
Where's the technocratic party cantidate when you need them?zak
"so it goes"
I always think about how the true costs of things like coal power and car driving are accepted, not because they have particularly low risks, but because they are risks we have come to accept and ignore over the years. As opposed to nuclear power, for example, which has a low risk (albeit of a different kind, the rare catastrophe instead of the constant deaths from coal smoke and mining accidents), which is not acceptable to most people.
Good point. Because we're a politcal society, our actions are often democratic in nature (either intentionally or just because that's the way most of the herd goes). So it's perceived risk rather than analyzed risk that vectors us.
Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
Edited 9/4/2006 4:00 pm ET by Andy_Engel
>>Its chief detraction is that, when overused, it concentrates in the food chain and makes raptor egg shells thin. It appears that the negative effects were far more widespread than "thin raptor eggshells."See, e.g. http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/pest/effects.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/actives/ddt.htm (I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the "Pesticide News" is not likely to be hysterically anti-DDT)
http://onlineethics.org/moral/carson/pesticides.html>>Used indoors, say in Africa where human deaths from malaria spiked after DDT's ban,And how would use be so limited? And would restricting use to indoors control mosquito breeding and thus reduce malaria?
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
The African mosquitos most likely to carry malaria are mainly nocturnal. DDT, in addition to killing the buggers, is an excellent repellent. When sprayed inside a dwelling, it has the twin effects of keeping out mosquitos, and killing the ones who get in.
When the manufacture of DDT ceased, well, mostly ceased, worldwide deaths from malaria spiked. Mostly in third world countries. Efforts today depend on bed nets and drugs. Drug resistant strains of malaria are pretty common, necessitating the use of more expensive replacements.
I don't advocate wholesale use of DDT. It's effects on birds and fish are well known, as well as the fact that any insecticide used indiscriminately disrupts complex natural systems. It's persistent, lasting for decades. But its effects on humans read more like allegations than facts. I'd argue that its limited use in some places is justified.
Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
Edited 9/4/2006 9:07 pm ET by Andy_Engel
I heard a "featurette" on NPR ATC ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944 ) today about the very procedure you mentioned: "interior spraying."So it turns out I was under/mis-informed: some environmental groups (I think they mentioned Sierra Club) are endorsing that approach being advocated by the UN's WHO.
“Experience doesn’t bring wisdom, experience evaluation does. When you fail, stay down there for a while and figure out what went wrong. Don’t run away from your failures, evaluate them and learn from them.â€
Dr. John C. Maxwell
Andy ... get the letter?
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
Yes, thank you.Andy
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." Robert A. Heinlein
"Get off your dead #### and on your dying feet." Mom
CCA is harmless in the form used in the lumber. It is only when the arsenic is released through heat ( like fire) or acid ( like from manure in a raised garden, or stomach acid after eating the CCA treated wood)) that it has any chance of being damaging to human health. Modest amounts of arsenic are good for you. Arsenic compounds are used in cancer treatment. Arsenic is found naturally in many fruit seeds that people ingest daily. I can gaurantee you I have ingessted more arsenic from my food than from CCA. There is arsenic in the soil in much of the world.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the impetus for the CCA change started in california, like so many other pro-environment issues. And in many cases it's more of a kneejerk reaction, or the manufacturer not wanting to fight bunch of idiots. But I wish just once someone would stand up and say their product is only going to be sold in 49 states and the he11 with California.
"When asked if you can do something, tell'em "Why certainly I can", then get busy and find a way to do it." T. Roosevelt
>>Modest amounts of arsenic are good for you. Arsenic compounds are used in cancer treatment.Errrrr, cancer treatments aren't especially "good" for you. If you are lucky, the treatments kill the cancers before they kill you, so they are "good for you" in the same sense, perhaps, that a quick death is "better" than a slow death>>I can gaurantee you I have ingessted more arsenic from my food than from CCA. There is arsenic in the soil in much of the world.Inorganic or organic? They have different toxicities, you know.http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic20.htm
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
Notice that I didn't say that CCA **was** harmful. Rather, I've seen arguments on both sides and haven't had the time or need to sort through and decide who was spinning the most.But other ubiquitous toxins such as TE lead have been shown to be quite harmful, so I'm not going to discount the hazards outright, though I tend to suspect, as you say, that the risks are greatly overstated.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. --James Madison
Actually, the EPA did their studies under pressure from enviro groups, and found that the scientific facts are that there was no discernable danger from the CCA when used properly and they determined not to force a chance,Then various consumer advocate groups started with the lawsuit threats and the industry caved in, knowing that it would cost more to fight the suits than it was worth to them. Strange paradox how now, there are a pile of liabilities anyway.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
>>Actually, the EPA did their studies under pressure from enviro groups, and found that the scientific facts are that there was no discernable danger from the CCA when used properly and they determined not to force a chance,>>Then various consumer advocate groups started with the lawsuit threats and the industry caved in, knowing that it would cost more to fight the suits than it was worth to them. Strange paradox how now, there are a pile of liabilities anyway.Having participated professionally in the federal regulatory process for many years (primarily in the banking arena, but also in the environmental area, since changes in environmental regs affected our corporate customers and thus credit analyses of them), I can assure you that, as a general rule, industry has a potent role to play in the process.And tales of the effects of threatened litigation by consumer groups, are, in my experience, exaggerated.I'm curious as to your sources for the views that you expressed.
Fighting Ignorance since 1967
It's taking way longer than we thought
I'd be very curious to see in say, 20 years, a study comparing the number of deaths attributable to arsenic from cca as opposed to the number of deaths caused by acq corrosion induced deck collapses. It might be an interesting lesson in risk analysis, something most people are very bad at.
You are dead right about that last comment, Andy. Most people think that Occam's Razor is what the Spanish Barber used to shave Don Quixote....
I would point out that the real question is not whether cca is less or more deadly than acq, but whether the use of either (or any subsequent replacement yet to be invented) (a) is necessary, or (b) presents a viable alternative to using untreated wood.
An important ancillary question needs to be addressed as well, to wit: Is death the primary criterion to be used in judging the principle questions? If so, is the concern catastrophic, imminent, individual death--or collective, long-term, racial/planetary death?
One could argue that using PT wood is not necessary in the usual sense of that word, and I often do. I maintain that there are naturally rot-resistant species which will perform as well or better than anything we have yet managed to cook up in a laboratory. I also maintain that good design can render the necessity for rot-resistant structural members moot, in that a building can, with appropriate forethought, be designed and built so that rot cannot occur even in rot-susceptible species. In simple terms, if you design to keep your structure well-drained and dry, you won't have to worry about rot.
Using those criteria, PT wood is not necessary; rather, it is a convenience which allows us to build and design less carefully and 'get away with it' (but only under certain circumstances and only for an undetermined but limited period of time).
This has an effect which is, unfortunately, paramount in modern thinking...and that effect is almost entirely economic. There is nothing wrong with wanting to save time, money, and effort--it's called financial efficiency--but when that consideration becomes the driving force motivating all our decision-making, it is devastating. Many (some would say all) of the ills of modern society can be traced to this attitude.
Secondly, we can examine the question of whether PT lumber presents a viable alternative to untreated lumber. This needs to be done in light of a lot of different criteria, and is more complicated than the basic question as to its necessity.
We need to consider the short- and long-term effects on (a) the end-use sites; (b) the manufacturing sites; and (c) the disposal sites.
We need to consider the market effect of diverting large quantities of untreated timber stock into the treating tanks.
We also need to consider the long-term effect on design and construction thinking.
When considering the effects the use of PT lumber has on the three primary sites in which it is found, we also need to decide which criterion shall be used as the benchmark of non-viability.
If we go to those extremes, we might find ourselves ethically obliged to get rid of such a plethora of products that we'd wind up back in the days of board sheathing, sawdust & straw insulation, thatch roofing and leather weatherstripping. If we take a more liberal approach and consider that only a statistically significant number of deaths/adverse health reactions qualify the product as dangerous, we could pass to the next question.
If we refuse to take the first path, we will have the loved ones of those individuals affected on our conscience. If we balance global convenience against individual harm and take the other, we risk fooling ourselves into thinking that if no significant evidence has yet shown up, none will. Thus it is necessary to define the historical period to be used.
A liberal approach would allow the use of computer modeling to forecast long-term performance and effects (what is actually done today with new engineered products before they are launched on the market); a conservative approach would demand the experimental use of a product over at least three generations to determine if there are any pass-along genetic effects. Somewhere between those two extremes may be the 'best' answer...but it's important to understand this is still an assumption until history proves it otherwise.
Ironically, much technology does not survive its evaluation period intact, and that which does tends to be of a relatively low order of complexity.
I'm not going to do a full analysis of all the questions we need to address to 'solve' this issue; doing that would require an entire book. But I'll come back to the principle of Occam's Razor at the end.
Occam's Razor is the 'tool' used in logic to cut through the crap and find the 'best' answer among many alternatives. The principle is stated thusly: Use the argument that contains fewer assumptions. In the common parlance, this translates to "K.I.S.S."
It should be obvious from the long screed above that all the complex assumptions that would be needed to justify PT lumber as a viable alternative to untreated lumber (and I only went into some of them!) make that theory immeasureably more complex than the theory that it is not necessary to use it. Thus, Occam's Razor puts a thumbs down in the stuff.
When we add in all the undesireable traits it has, it becomes, in my opinion, a spherical loser (ie: a loser any way you look at it)....
Dinosaur
How now, Mighty Sauron, that thou art not broughtlow by this? For thine evil pales before that whichfoolish men call Justice....
Two of my local Home Depots first had ACQ for sale but not a SS fastner or hanger in sight. They did have a large display of Simpson Galvanized fastners and hangers.
Then a week later, they had a little informational poster about how you needed to use SS with ACQ. And yet? STill no SS to be found in the store.
How many people do you think built thier own decks on the weekend, with the help of a buddy from work and a case of beer, having no idea they were using the wrong stuff or the consequences of doing so?
One of our local HD's still has a big bin of galvanized stuff in the pressure treated lumber isle. The other one has galvanized only in the framing lumber isles.
I suppose they're going after the retailers because they have the deepest pockets and the lawyers are looking to take advantage of the situation. After all someone has to pay right?
While I'm not much of a fan of HD, I find it wrong and, for lack of a better word, unfair.
I'd be all for finding these guys and giving them a few good solid kicks in the asz
I'd agree a bit about the unfair, but that depends on the details. As soon as it was known that the older methods and materials were in danger of failure, the retailers to DIYS ( HDs main customer base) like HD and Lowes had an obligation to inform them of the proper connections to use. My gues is that the case would argue that HD continued to sell the older hangers because they had them in stock, while knowing that they were likely to fail and HD will argue that they had no responsibility for how the materials were used once it left their establishment. If it can be shown that HD was aware that the older hangers were destined to fail, the suit will win. 'course it will probably be settled out of court, with each plaintiff recieving a pittance and the legal firm taking the big dollars home.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Your last line pretty well summed it up.
I don't feel HD or Lowes has responsibility in the matter though. I think it would also be pretty easy to argue the fact that hangers can be used for any number purposes and not only intended to use with PT wood.
The box stores are retailers, they sell a number of goods, and I think this would set a bad precedent. To me, it's the same as suing gun makers for the crimes committed by the people who purchase their products
It's just a BS way to line someone else's pocket.
I got some mail recently from a class-action law firm asking me to sign and send in a form so that I could get a few bucks. Apparently they've got Dell Computer over a barrel and anyone who opened a Dell account can get paid off. Had no problems with Dell, they owe me nothing, I paid no interest or fees or anything, I was not wronged. I tossed the paperwork, not worth getting blood on my hands no matter whose it is.
I've thrown 3-4 of those various class action things in the trash.OTOH, I got a check from AMEX for 15 or 20 bucks where they were apparently overcharging on some fees. I never actively joined in that suit, but I got paid. That was one I'd agree with. They really do fees bigtime.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
I got one of those from a different company, for kicks I read quite a bit of it and it stated that the payoff would not exceed $100 to any individual that did collect.
Wonder what the lawyer was going to make!
I dont even recall the poor b-----d being sued.
Doug
I got the same letter.
I never followed up with it either.Don't call me daughter.
Lets differentiate between HD now and when it was a small Atlanta builders yard. Back then, they might not have known unless their suppliers told them. Now, there is no excuse, but they moove a lot more slowly because of their level of adminisration.
The smaller yard I spoke with and do a lot of business with, also did not have the better stuff 3 years ago - but they got it in, right fast!
I also deal with a bigger, wholesale yard who, when I mentioned that they needed a particular product, and why, the boss said "I guess we should get it in - it sounds like a good product."
He did not have to go to a regional centre to get approval.Quality repairs for your home.
AaronR ConstructionVancouver, Canada
I was in the insulation isle of home depot and they had a display of comfort masks next to the fiberglass. I pointed it out to an assosiate. he looked at me like I was nuts. I said, look at the label, it is not for insulation. went back and it was still there. I doubt the DIY know any better. I think we all need to read the labels and not count on retailers to clue us in. It's our responsibility in the end.
Lawsuits, especially "class action" ones have become just another form of "mud slinging" extortion- you keep throwing stuff, and see what sticks!
Local law firms typically will enter into a contract with a dedicated firm, where the local firm gets a commission for every client they refer. The monster can feed on itself; that is, more possible claimants makes the case sound legit, and thus attracts even more....
There are millions of decks out there. Since decks are something of an after-thought, and not considered as critical as, say, roof trusses, they are often not engineered, have no permit or inspections, and are often constructed by less qualified parties.
Combine that with an identifiable target with deep pockets, like a retailer or a manufacturing conglomerate, and you have an incentive.... especially if the parties make any suggestion as to how the products can be used.
It's a good thing I'm not on the jury. I would be thankful if ANY attempt were made to lessen corrosion. I would endorse ANY effort to provide information on the correct use of a product. I would give great weight to the argument that "cheap" ought not be expected to perform as well as "best." Throw in a complicating factor... such as combining salt-soaked 'treated' wood with any kind of steel fastener... add some damage from tool bits, etc.... and my response would be "so? What did you expect?"
And I wouldn't care a bit, if they paraded all sorts of engineering geeks to pick apart a DIY, as cheap as possible, project.