JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
...
...If that were the case ... it shouldn't take someone else more than
about 30 seconds to counter the argument.

OK. Have a nice day.
So, I take it you're off on a literature search?

--
Of course not. I suggest that you gather your conclusions and present
them to the appropriate parties who were involved in forcing a change in
the chemicals used to make PT lumber. You obviously have better
information than they did.
That's the fundamental thing -- I can't _FIND_ this supporting
information. You know where it is?

--

No I don't. But, I also do not believe the formulation was changed without
good reasons. Do you?

Well, lacking the evidence to the contrary, yeah, I think the reaction
was overblown at the least.

I've made the previous analogy to the lead-in-paint issue -- it's not at
all difficult to find epidemiological studies establishing the link.
Why do you suppose that isn't so for CCA? Could it perhaps be that the
decision wasn't made on an actual established link but on a more
political or general basis? As I've said before, I don't know for
certain, but it certainly appears that way to me. Who actually were the
"appropriate parties", anyway. I really don't have a clear picture of
that from what searching I did at the EPA site. Do you know how it all
"came down", so to speak?

You see, this came about because one day long ago, even before the
previous exchange along this line, the subject came up in a different
usenet group. I don't recall whether I see your monikor there or not,
but that's kinda' immaterial. It was midwinter, we were having a
blizzard, I was stuck in the house, the cattle were in the corrals as
best as could be accommodated adn we still had power so I had time.
(Right now, we're shut down because it's too dry to drill wheat and the
milo isn't ready to cut yet, so I've also got some time, but anyway...).

So, I had always been surprised form the git-go that CCA was removed
from the market because I had never heard of there being a problem other
than the occasional dermatitis and the splinter thingie. Of course, we
all know it isn't wise to burn/inhale it, but surely that couldn't be
the cause, could it? Therefore, I thought I'd look into it some
figuring I'd learn all about it. Thing is, the more I looked I still
found no great mass of reports of health issues nor studies documenting
same. So, I still had the question of what _was_ the real problem being
addressed? As near as I could tell, it was a gross solution to a fairly
minimal problem, if that.

So, we're back full circle. Can you provide that "missing link"?

And, to short circuit, I know the response is that no, you don't, but
you're confident "they" knew what "they" were doing, so we can let alpha
meet omega and go on (unless, of course, you really do have a place that
provides the information and you've been sandbagging ).

--