View Single Post
  #6   Report Post  
Paul
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:59:35 +0100, "Brian Reay"
wrote:

What is your objection?



It's carcinogenic. Please see my follow-up link.


That's not a particularly accurate view, which is strongly contested.

It is true, that creosote naturally contains a minute amount of
benzo-a-pyrene, amongst other chemicals.

To put it in perspective though, cigarette smoke contains a considerably
greater proportion of it, and studies show that even for heavy smokers
most ingestion is actually dietary.

Benzo-a-pyrene is typically formed as a combustion product, and as such
finds it's way into the diet through vegetable matter that has taken it
up from the soil, and from food cooked at high temperatures. (Like your
barbecued/burnt burgers etc.)

That benzo-a-pyrene and other polycyclic aromatics have carcinogenic
tendencies is accepted, but the EU decision to declare benzo-a-pyrene
such an increased danger, was based on just one poorly conducted study
that didn't even address human epidemiology at all, and does not
correlate with other previous evidence. (It is a matter for conjecture
whether the nanny superstate just blindly accepted the results because
it also suits their anti-smoking stance.)

But back to creosote, centuries of experience have shown no evidence of
any noticeable carcinogenic risk among workers with even relatively high
occupational exposures. That is not to say it is an innocuous substance
- after all it is used as a preservative because of it's bio toxicity,
and there are good reasons for avoiding unnecessary prolonged contact
with it, and not using treated timber in inappropriate places. (The same
goes for most other effective preservatives, CCA for example.) However,
it doesn't kill wood boring insects by giving them cancer!

Even if there was a genuine case for further restricting exposure,
making criminals of ordinary folk for occasionally brushing a bit
creosote on their fences and sheds rather than addressing the safety of
those with significant levels of occupational exposure is just farcical.

--
Paul