What is a window sill typically made of? I'm more interested in standard
construction rather than custom endangered species rainforest wood or
something like that.

I'm just about ready to start replacing my windows and I'm looking at the
window sill and framing material - 3/4" plywood. Seems pretty damn chintzy
to me, especially around something that will in all likelyhood get damp or
wet at some point. I'm personally not going to replace it with plywood, but
I wanted to level set my thinking here and make sure I'm not being overly
harsh on the contractor who built the place. 1960 is the build date for
this house.

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
. ..
What is a window sill typically made of? I'm more interested in standard
construction rather than custom endangered species rainforest wood or
something like that.

I'm just about ready to start replacing my windows and I'm looking at the
window sill and framing material - 3/4" plywood. Seems pretty damn
chintzy to me, especially around something that will in all likelyhood get
damp or wet at some point. I'm personally not going to replace it with
plywood, but I wanted to level set my thinking here and make sure I'm not
being overly harsh on the contractor who built the place. 1960 is the
build date for this house.


Who cares what it's made of? No matter what, you will paint or otherwise
coat it as if it was a piece of balsa wood lashed to the mast of a sailboat
about to go around the world eight time. You'll use the best paint you can
find in your town, or marine grade polyurethane, because as you said, that
wood's going to be exposed to moisture. And, as you did not say, it'll be
exposed to sunlight.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"Eigenvector" wrote in message
. ..
What is a window sill typically made of? I'm more interested in standard
construction rather than custom endangered species rainforest wood or
something like that.

I'm just about ready to start replacing my windows and I'm looking at the
window sill and framing material - 3/4" plywood. Seems pretty damn
chintzy to me, especially around something that will in all likelyhood
get damp or wet at some point. I'm personally not going to replace it
with plywood, but I wanted to level set my thinking here and make sure
I'm not being overly harsh on the contractor who built the place. 1960
is the build date for this house.


Who cares what it's made of? No matter what, you will paint or otherwise
coat it as if it was a piece of balsa wood lashed to the mast of a
sailboat about to go around the world eight time. You'll use the best
paint you can find in your town, or marine grade polyurethane, because as
you said, that wood's going to be exposed to moisture. And, as you did not
say, it'll be exposed to sunlight.

Well maybe I used the wrong terminology here. I mean the framing on the
INSIDE of the window, the window box material. Guess I'm not totally sure
what to call it. It isn't automatically painted, the front window of my
house has a piece of cedar for a sill.

On Mar 3, 7:33 pm, "Eigenvector" wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

news




"Eigenvector" wrote in message
...
What is a window sill typically made of? I'm more interested in standard
construction rather than custom endangered species rainforest wood or
something like that.

I'm just about ready to start replacing my windows and I'm looking at the
window sill and framing material - 3/4" plywood. Seems pretty damn
chintzy to me, especially around something that will in all likelyhood
get damp or wet at some point. I'm personally not going to replace it
with plywood, but I wanted to level set my thinking here and make sure
I'm not being overly harsh on the contractor who built the place. 1960
is the build date for this house.

Who cares what it's made of? No matter what, you will paint or otherwise
coat it as if it was a piece of balsa wood lashed to the mast of a
sailboat about to go around the world eight time. You'll use the best
paint you can find in your town, or marine grade polyurethane, because as
you said, that wood's going to be exposed to moisture. And, as you did not
say, it'll be exposed to sunlight.

Well maybe I used the wrong terminology here. I mean the framing on the
INSIDE of the window, the window box material. Guess I'm not totally sure
what to call it. It isn't automatically painted, the front window of my
house has a piece of cedar for a sill.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I usually use clear douglas fir or pine if it is to be painted.

"Eric9822" wrote in message
ups.com...
| On Mar 3, 7:33 pm, "Eigenvector" wrote:
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| news |
|
|
|
|
| "Eigenvector" wrote in message
| ...
| What is a window sill typically made of? I'm more interested in
standard
| construction rather than custom endangered species rainforest
wood or
| something like that.
|
| I'm just about ready to start replacing my windows and I'm
looking at the
| window sill and framing material - 3/4" plywood. Seems pretty
damn
| chintzy to me, especially around something that will in all
likelyhood
| get damp or wet at some point. I'm personally not going to
replace it
| with plywood, but I wanted to level set my thinking here and make
sure
| I'm not being overly harsh on the contractor who built the place.
1960
| is the build date for this house.
|
| Who cares what it's made of? No matter what, you will paint or
otherwise
| coat it as if it was a piece of balsa wood lashed to the mast of a
| sailboat about to go around the world eight time. You'll use the
best
| paint you can find in your town, or marine grade polyurethane,
because as
| you said, that wood's going to be exposed to moisture. And, as you
did not
| say, it'll be exposed to sunlight.
|
| Well maybe I used the wrong terminology here. I mean the framing on
the
| INSIDE of the window, the window box material. Guess I'm not
totally sure
| what to call it. It isn't automatically painted, the front window
of my
| house has a piece of cedar for a sill.- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
| I usually use clear douglas fir or pine if it is to be painted.



just to add my 2 cents............ because I can.
spanish cedar, fir, yellow pine, mahogany, spruce are all used for
window sils.
heck, I've even seen pressure treated used also.




|

"3G" wrote in message ...

"Eric9822" wrote in message
ups.com...
| On Mar 3, 7:33 pm, "Eigenvector" wrote:
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| news |
|
|
|
|
| "Eigenvector" wrote in message
| ...
| What is a window sill typically made of? I'm more interested in
standard
| construction rather than custom endangered species rainforest
wood or
| something like that.
|
| I'm just about ready to start replacing my windows and I'm
looking at the
| window sill and framing material - 3/4" plywood. Seems pretty
damn
| chintzy to me, especially around something that will in all
likelyhood
| get damp or wet at some point. I'm personally not going to
replace it
| with plywood, but I wanted to level set my thinking here and make
sure
| I'm not being overly harsh on the contractor who built the place.
1960
| is the build date for this house.
|
| Who cares what it's made of? No matter what, you will paint or
otherwise
| coat it as if it was a piece of balsa wood lashed to the mast of a
| sailboat about to go around the world eight time. You'll use the
best
| paint you can find in your town, or marine grade polyurethane,
because as
| you said, that wood's going to be exposed to moisture. And, as you
did not
| say, it'll be exposed to sunlight.
|
| Well maybe I used the wrong terminology here. I mean the framing on
the
| INSIDE of the window, the window box material. Guess I'm not
totally sure
| what to call it. It isn't automatically painted, the front window
of my
| house has a piece of cedar for a sill.- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|
| I usually use clear douglas fir or pine if it is to be painted.



just to add my 2 cents............ because I can.
spanish cedar, fir, yellow pine, mahogany, spruce are all used for
window sils.
heck, I've even seen pressure treated used also.

Pressure treated is only a good idea if humans, especially kids will never
come into contact with it. This is regardless of any safety claims the
manufacturers might make for the newest products.

Pressure treated is only a good idea if humans, especially kids will never
come into contact with it. This is regardless of any safety claims the
manufacturers might make for the newest products.


For that value of "come into contact" that means "eat".

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Pressure treated is only a good idea if humans, especially kids will never
come into contact with it. This is regardless of any safety claims the
manufacturers might make for the newest products.


For that value of "come into contact" that means "eat".



You're saying treated lumber was always safe for people to handle without
protection? Especially kids?

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:59:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
.. .


Pressure treated is only a good idea if humans, especially kids will never
come into contact with it. This is regardless of any safety claims the
manufacturers might make for the newest products.


For that value of "come into contact" that means "eat".



You're saying treated lumber was always safe for people to handle without
protection? Especially kids?

For any reasonable definition of "handle", yes.

I am saying that PT lumber is not a significant environmental hazard.
Even if it's not maintained, you're more likely to break or leg or
stab yourself when it fails than poison yourself. Don't burn it,
don't chew on it, and don't use it in a vegetable garden and you'll
be fine. Even if you're using copper arsenate. Even if you're
using creosote.

--Goedjn

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:59:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
. ..


Pressure treated is only a good idea if humans, especially kids will
never
come into contact with it. This is regardless of any safety claims the
manufacturers might make for the newest products.


For that value of "come into contact" that means "eat".



You're saying treated lumber was always safe for people to handle without
protection? Especially kids?

For any reasonable definition of "handle", yes.

I am saying that PT lumber is not a significant environmental hazard.
Even if it's not maintained, you're more likely to break or leg or
stab yourself when it fails than poison yourself. Don't burn it,
don't chew on it, and don't use it in a vegetable garden and you'll
be fine. Even if you're using copper arsenate. Even if you're
using creosote.

--Goedjn


What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:37:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:59:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...


Pressure treated is only a good idea if humans, especially kids will
never
come into contact with it. This is regardless of any safety claims the
manufacturers might make for the newest products.


For that value of "come into contact" that means "eat".



You're saying treated lumber was always safe for people to handle without
protection? Especially kids?

For any reasonable definition of "handle", yes.

I am saying that PT lumber is not a significant environmental hazard.
Even if it's not maintained, you're more likely to break or leg or
stab yourself when it fails than poison yourself. Don't burn it,
don't chew on it, and don't use it in a vegetable garden and you'll
be fine. Even if you're using copper arsenate. Even if you're
using creosote.

--Goedjn


What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?

Won't hurt them a bit.

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:37:50 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:59:43 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
m...


Pressure treated is only a good idea if humans, especially kids will
never
come into contact with it. This is regardless of any safety claims the
manufacturers might make for the newest products.


For that value of "come into contact" that means "eat".



You're saying treated lumber was always safe for people to handle
without
protection? Especially kids?

For any reasonable definition of "handle", yes.

I am saying that PT lumber is not a significant environmental hazard.
Even if it's not maintained, you're more likely to break or leg or
stab yourself when it fails than poison yourself. Don't burn it,
don't chew on it, and don't use it in a vegetable garden and you'll
be fine. Even if you're using copper arsenate. Even if you're
using creosote.

--Goedjn


What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?

Won't hurt them a bit.


That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference two
weeks ago. Congratulations.

Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?

Won't hurt them a bit.


That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference two
weeks ago. Congratulations.

Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.


And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical will you
pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say very
little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you have any
links to research?

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?

Won't hurt them a bit.


That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference two
weeks ago. Congratulations.

Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.


And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical will you
pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say very
little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you have
any links to research?



Apparently, concerns were enough to rebuild quite a few playground, removing
all the PT lumber.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?

Won't hurt them a bit.


That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference two
weeks ago. Congratulations.

Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.


And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical will you
pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say very
little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you have
any links to research?


By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be properly tested
for safety. The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
have our kids used as laboratory rats.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
Apparently, concerns were enough to rebuild quite a few playground,
removing all the PT lumber.

That is not conclusive of anything. People often panic about chemicals for
no sane reason. About a year ago, it was discovered that a school here in
CT has asbestos ceilings. The school was evacuated. Yes, EVACUATED when
this was found out. Not even closed at the end of the day. The school is
75 years old and has been continuously used all those years. Does that make
sense?

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:4_kHh.101$Ah.85@trnddc07...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
Apparently, concerns were enough to rebuild quite a few playground,
removing all the PT lumber.

That is not conclusive of anything. People often panic about chemicals
for no sane reason. About a year ago, it was discovered that a school
here in CT has asbestos ceilings. The school was evacuated. Yes,
EVACUATED when this was found out. Not even closed at the end of the day.
The school is 75 years old and has been continuously used all those years.
Does that make sense?


There is one, and only one definition for testing chemicals that people will
be exposed to. It involves exposing the people to the chemical in question,
under controlled conditions. We (theoretically) do this with medicines. It
cannot be done with things like wood treatments, pesticides, etc.
Therefore, the only safe option, especially when kids are involved, is to
avoid contact.

Incidentally, we *do* know a bit about arsenic.

On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:03:46 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?

Won't hurt them a bit.


That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference two
weeks ago. Congratulations.

Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.


And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical will you
pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say very
little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you have any
links to research?

There is, in fact, at least one case that APPEARS to be from straight
contact, poisoning. Of course, that was a set of lumber that turned
out to have an order of magnitude more CCA than the industry standard.
The lumber in question was described as "oozing".

Generally, to have a noticable health effect from treated lumber,
you have to eat it, burn it, or use power tools on it without
a breath-mask in a closed environment. The worst predictable effect
from skin contact is dermatitis.

I s'pose its possible that the stuff in more dangerous than
I think it is, but if so, you'd think that the web-sites
of people pushing the meme would point to better evidence
than they do. When you have to hunt all over the planet
for horror stories, it's kind of hard to take the threat
seriously.

--Goedjn

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned
|
|

"3G" wrote in message ...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned


It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life" that
would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "3G" wrote in message
...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| | news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
| |
| | "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
| |
| | What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
| |
| | Won't hurt them a bit.
| |
| |
| | That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press
conference
| two
| | weeks ago. Congratulations.
| |
| | Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
| |
| |
| | And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT
chemical
| will you
| | pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd
say
| very
| | little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do
you
| have
| | any links to research?
| |
| |
| | By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be
properly
| tested
| | for safety.
|
|
| The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| | have our kids used as laboratory rats.
|
| thats the doctors job
| take your medicine.
|
| todays PT is arsenic free
| would't you know that................ if you are so concerned
|
|
| It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life"
that
| would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?
|
|

Two new compounds will be, at least for the time being, the
preservatives of choice for pressure-treating lumber. The most common is
ACQ - Amine Copper Quat - which will still utilize copper as its primary
ingredient. Gone will be the chromium and arsenic, which are being
replaced by a solution of ammonia. Manufacturers state that ACQ-treated
lumber will look very much the same as CCA-treated wood, with perhaps a
slightly browner color.

The second, copper-azole, has been used in Europe and Japan for some
time but is fairly new in the United States. As with ACQ, copper-azole
compounds do not contain any chemicals that are listed with the EPA as
carcinogens, and are in fact utilized by some growers for the treatment
of fruit. Wood treated with copper-azole will have a slightly greenish
tint that manufacturers say weathers to a brownish tone.

"3G" wrote in message ...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "3G" wrote in message
...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
| ...
| | "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| | news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
| |
| | "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
| |
| | What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
| |
| | Won't hurt them a bit.
| |
| |
| | That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press
conference
| two
| | weeks ago. Congratulations.
| |
| | Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
| |
| |
| | And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT
chemical
| will you
| | pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd
say
| very
| | little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do
you
| have
| | any links to research?
| |
| |
| | By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be
properly
| tested
| | for safety.
|
|
| The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| | have our kids used as laboratory rats.
|
| thats the doctors job
| take your medicine.
|
| todays PT is arsenic free
| would't you know that................ if you are so concerned
|
|
| It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life"
that
| would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?
|
|

Two new compounds will be, at least for the time being, the
preservatives of choice for pressure-treating lumber. The most common is
ACQ - Amine Copper Quat - which will still utilize copper as its primary
ingredient. Gone will be the chromium and arsenic, which are being
replaced by a solution of ammonia. Manufacturers state that ACQ-treated
lumber will look very much the same as CCA-treated wood, with perhaps a
slightly browner color.

The second, copper-azole, has been used in Europe and Japan for some
time but is fairly new in the United States. As with ACQ, copper-azole
compounds do not contain any chemicals that are listed with the EPA as
carcinogens, and are in fact utilized by some growers for the treatment
of fruit. Wood treated with copper-azole will have a slightly greenish
tint that manufacturers say weathers to a brownish tone.




Which of these chemicals has been tested (the way drugs are tested) on
humans, especially children?

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:28:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"3G" wrote in message ...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned


It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life" that
would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?



According to this study by the state of Connecticut:
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/PlantSci.../arsenic99.htm

A rough approximation of the amount of arsenic you can expext to
ingest by virtue of playing on a PT playset and licking your hands
is somewhere in the vicinity of: 5 micro-grams per day.


From:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/...tionNumber:2.2

The smallest recorded lethal dose of arsenic ever was about 70 mg.
From the same source:
"With long-term exposure, significant toxic effects can be
expected to occur above a daily oral intake of 100-200 µg."

(µg being micrograms)

=======================
FWIW, My understanding is that the current regulatory changes
against CCA are more about the fact that the arsenic eventually
ends up in the aquifers than that it's dangerous in use.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it *IS* a toxic chemical, and you
shouldn't be going out of your way to expose yourself to it,
but the same is true of most household cleaners,
the gasoline you put in your car, permanant felt-tip
markers, and galvanized hand railings. (well, ok,
the human tolerance for zink about 10 times higher
than for arsenic, but still..)

--Goedjn

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:28:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"3G" wrote in message ...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned


It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life"
that
would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?



According to this study by the state of Connecticut:
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/PlantSci.../arsenic99.htm

A rough approximation of the amount of arsenic you can expext to
ingest by virtue of playing on a PT playset and licking your hands
is somewhere in the vicinity of: 5 micro-grams per day.


From:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/...tionNumber:2.2

The smallest recorded lethal dose of arsenic ever was about 70 mg.
From the same source:
"With long-term exposure, significant toxic effects can be
expected to occur above a daily oral intake of 100-200 µg."

(µg being micrograms)

=======================
FWIW, My understanding is that the current regulatory changes
against CCA are more about the fact that the arsenic eventually
ends up in the aquifers than that it's dangerous in use.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it *IS* a toxic chemical, and you
shouldn't be going out of your way to expose yourself to it,
but the same is true of most household cleaners,
the gasoline you put in your car, permanant felt-tip
markers, and galvanized hand railings. (well, ok,
the human tolerance for zink about 10 times higher
than for arsenic, but still..)

--Goedjn


We tend to keep kids away from dangerous chemicals because any given dose
affects them more. This is why playgrounds are being rebuilt without PT
lumber.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:17:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:28:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"3G" wrote in message ...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned


It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life"
that
would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?



According to this study by the state of Connecticut:
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/PlantSci.../arsenic99.htm

A rough approximation of the amount of arsenic you can expext to
ingest by virtue of playing on a PT playset and licking your hands
is somewhere in the vicinity of: 5 micro-grams per day.


From:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/...tionNumber:2.2

The smallest recorded lethal dose of arsenic ever was about 70 mg.
From the same source:
"With long-term exposure, significant toxic effects can be
expected to occur above a daily oral intake of 100-200 µg."

(µg being micrograms)

=======================
FWIW, My understanding is that the current regulatory changes
against CCA are more about the fact that the arsenic eventually
ends up in the aquifers than that it's dangerous in use.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it *IS* a toxic chemical, and you
shouldn't be going out of your way to expose yourself to it,
but the same is true of most household cleaners,
the gasoline you put in your car, permanant felt-tip
markers, and galvanized hand railings. (well, ok,
the human tolerance for zink about 10 times higher
than for arsenic, but still..)

--Goedjn


We tend to keep kids away from dangerous chemicals because any given dose
affects them more. This is why playgrounds are being rebuilt without PT
lumber.


Hysteria and politics are why playgrounds are being rebuilt without
PT lumber. Any sensible human who was concerned about it would
just paint the damn things.

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:17:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:28:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"3G" wrote in message ...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press
conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd
say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do
you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be
properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned


It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life"
that
would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?



According to this study by the state of Connecticut:
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/PlantSci.../arsenic99.htm

A rough approximation of the amount of arsenic you can expext to
ingest by virtue of playing on a PT playset and licking your hands
is somewhere in the vicinity of: 5 micro-grams per day.


From:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/...tionNumber:2.2

The smallest recorded lethal dose of arsenic ever was about 70 mg.
From the same source:
"With long-term exposure, significant toxic effects can be
expected to occur above a daily oral intake of 100-200 µg."

(µg being micrograms)

=======================
FWIW, My understanding is that the current regulatory changes
against CCA are more about the fact that the arsenic eventually
ends up in the aquifers than that it's dangerous in use.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it *IS* a toxic chemical, and you
shouldn't be going out of your way to expose yourself to it,
but the same is true of most household cleaners,
the gasoline you put in your car, permanant felt-tip
markers, and galvanized hand railings. (well, ok,
the human tolerance for zink about 10 times higher
than for arsenic, but still..)

--Goedjn


We tend to keep kids away from dangerous chemicals because any given dose
affects them more. This is why playgrounds are being rebuilt without PT
lumber.


Hysteria and politics are why playgrounds are being rebuilt without
PT lumber. Any sensible human who was concerned about it would
just paint the damn things.


Let's try a different angle here. Your kid's got an ear infection. He
doesn't get them often. The doctor says "Any antibiotic would work. But,
just for grins, let's try this new drug. It's barely been tested, and only
on rats."

What do you say?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:17:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:28:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"3G" wrote in message ...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press
conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd
say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do
you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be
properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned


It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life"
that
would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?



According to this study by the state of Connecticut:
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/PlantSci.../arsenic99.htm

A rough approximation of the amount of arsenic you can expext to
ingest by virtue of playing on a PT playset and licking your hands
is somewhere in the vicinity of: 5 micro-grams per day.


From:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/...tionNumber:2.2

The smallest recorded lethal dose of arsenic ever was about 70 mg.
From the same source:
"With long-term exposure, significant toxic effects can be
expected to occur above a daily oral intake of 100-200 µg."

(µg being micrograms)

=======================
FWIW, My understanding is that the current regulatory changes
against CCA are more about the fact that the arsenic eventually
ends up in the aquifers than that it's dangerous in use.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it *IS* a toxic chemical, and you
shouldn't be going out of your way to expose yourself to it,
but the same is true of most household cleaners,
the gasoline you put in your car, permanant felt-tip
markers, and galvanized hand railings. (well, ok,
the human tolerance for zink about 10 times higher
than for arsenic, but still..)

--Goedjn


We tend to keep kids away from dangerous chemicals because any given dose
affects them more. This is why playgrounds are being rebuilt without PT
lumber.


Hysteria and politics are why playgrounds are being rebuilt without
PT lumber. Any sensible human who was concerned about it would
just paint the damn things.


Let's try a different angle here. Your kid's got an ear infection. He
doesn't get them often. The doctor says "Any antibiotic would work. But,
just for grins, let's try this new drug. It's barely been tested, and only
on rats."

What do you say?


sucking on lollipops for 12 hours/day is bad for your teeth.

here's one and it's your allowance for the week.

what do you say?

"charlie" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Goedjn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:17:15 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Goedjn" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:28:54 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"3G" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
| "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
| news:mWiHh.50$zh.30@trnddc08...
|
| "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
|
| What if kids touch it, and put their hands in their mouths?
|
| Won't hurt them a bit.
|
|
| That's the stupidest thing I've heard since a Bush press
conference
two
| weeks ago. Congratulations.
|
| Who told you to say that? I need links to research. Now.
|
|
| And the truth is probably in between. How much of the PT
chemical
will you
| pick up on your had if you touch it? Once dried for a time, I'd
say
very
| little. Are there cases of poisonings from just touching? Do
you
have
| any links to research?
|
|
| By the way, the chemicals we're dealing with in PT cannot be
properly
tested
| for safety.


The real reason for avoiding it is that some of us prefer not to
| have our kids used as laboratory rats.

thats the doctors job
take your medicine.

todays PT is arsenic free
would't you know that................ if you are so concerned


It doesn't really matter. Whatever is in it is designed to stop "life"
that
would eat the wood. Do you know what's in it now?



According to this study by the state of Connecticut:
http://www.caes.state.ct.us/PlantSci.../arsenic99.htm

A rough approximation of the amount of arsenic you can expext to
ingest by virtue of playing on a PT playset and licking your hands
is somewhere in the vicinity of: 5 micro-grams per day.


From:
http://www.inchem.org/documents/hsg/...tionNumber:2.2

The smallest recorded lethal dose of arsenic ever was about 70 mg.
From the same source:
"With long-term exposure, significant toxic effects can be
expected to occur above a daily oral intake of 100-200 µg."

(µg being micrograms)

=======================
FWIW, My understanding is that the current regulatory changes
against CCA are more about the fact that the arsenic eventually
ends up in the aquifers than that it's dangerous in use.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it *IS* a toxic chemical, and you
shouldn't be going out of your way to expose yourself to it,
but the same is true of most household cleaners,
the gasoline you put in your car, permanant felt-tip
markers, and galvanized hand railings. (well, ok,
the human tolerance for zink about 10 times higher
than for arsenic, but still..)

--Goedjn


We tend to keep kids away from dangerous chemicals because any given
dose
affects them more. This is why playgrounds are being rebuilt without PT
lumber.


Hysteria and politics are why playgrounds are being rebuilt without
PT lumber. Any sensible human who was concerned about it would
just paint the damn things.


Let's try a different angle here. Your kid's got an ear infection. He
doesn't get them often. The doctor says "Any antibiotic would work. But,
just for grins, let's try this new drug. It's barely been tested, and
only on rats."

What do you say?


sucking on lollipops for 12 hours/day is bad for your teeth.

here's one and it's your allowance for the week.

what do you say?



I say go get your GED and come back later.