JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"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.
Hg is not ACQ so has no bearing on the subject under discussion.

As I now recollect, you're the one we went around with on this same
subject only a few months ago. You couldn't come up with any health
risks/problems then, and I doubt you can now. The end result is a
proverbial tempest in a teapot with an extreme overreaction by the
government over an emotionally driven as opposed to real problem.

Sorry. I meant arsenic, and the information came from my son's
pediatrician. If you'd like, I can email him and find out the source ...
All I've asked for is any refereed reference to epidemiology indicating
ACQ was the root cause for a health problem in the general population of
people using the results of facilities constructed w/ ACQ-treated lumber.

--

I can't give that to you. My information came from a recommendation from a
pediatrician who mentioned the subject because HE had seen data indicating
arsenic in kids who'd spent time in contact with playground structures built
with treated lumber. This conversation took place 1994-1995. This is all the
information I can give you right now.

Now, we're going to talk in circles because I'm going to ask you again what
would be required in order to show health problems as a result of exposure.

That's what epidemiologists do for a living. They're prolific on lead,
etc., but for CCA common as hen's teeth.

--