"dpb" wrote in message ...
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 ).

--

The only possible way to prove the stuff was harmful would've been to wait
and see if kids got sick from it. That means you're using kids as test
subjects without consent. I believe that's illegal, and it's certainly
unethical. Instead, the opposite happened: The formulation was changed.

Only lunatics expose their kids to substances whose long term effects are
not known.