"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:12:09 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

wrote in message
...

The whole thing
with this treated lumber irks me to no end. What we had worked just
fine.
Whattya mean by "what we had"? Are you referring to the older types
of
treated lumber?

YES

OK. Well, it worked fine in mechanical terms, but unfortunately, stupid
people used it in places where kids would come into direct contact with
it often. Since nobody can control what stupid people do, the only
option was to change the product.
But there was little if any documented evidence of there being any
injury owing to the treatment. I've done a fairly extensive search and
found no epidemiology indicating any problems from playground equipment,
decks, etc., causing any adverse affects...

The reaction seemed to be way overblown in consideration of the problem.

Precautions are sometimes good. All smart people notice that kids put
their hands in their mouths. And, all smart observant people noticed (in
the past, and maybe now) that treated lumber was sometimes still slightly
moist. Finally, all smart people and doctors know that arsenic is
dangerous.

But, if it (ACQ-treated lumber) were so dangerous, given the ubiquitous
nature of its usage for 20+ years and the millions of children putting
their hands in their mouths, if there were a significant health risk
wouldn't you expect to find at least _one_ documented case? AFAICT, there
is a single one.

There *WAS* documented data on mercury detected in children's blood. That's
step 1. Step 2 would be to prove it was harmful. If you think about that for
a moment, you'll realize how absurd it would be to expect such proof. I'll
wait & see if you come up with the answer.