According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to HeyBub :

No one, so far as I can tell, has ever died or gotten sick from treated
lumber.

There seems to be adequate evidence that people _have_ gotten
harmed by CCA lumber. But this isn't playground/back deck/cottage
dock etc contact.

This is people who routinely burn CCA (despite everything
telling you _not_ to burn CCA) or have long term exposure to
copious quantities of CCA sawdust without any precautions
whatsoever.

The latter is a hazard with untreated cedar too.

I agree it's overblown. But it isn't a complete myth.

Clevis

Is a metal pin. You seem confused.

thinks the old type of treated lumber should've been kept on the
market until children actually got sick and they became "data".

We've had several generations of children grow up with that stuff,
and not get sick.

There's actually more proof that cedar lumber can harm you (including
my own personal experiences). OSHA rates it as a carcinogen and
sensitizer.

Should we ban cedar too?
--
Chris Lewis,

Age and Treachery will Triumph over Youth and Skill
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"Chris Lewis" wrote in message
...
According to HeyBub :

No one, so far as I can tell, has ever died or gotten sick from
treated
lumber.

There seems to be adequate evidence that people _have_ gotten
harmed by CCA lumber. But this isn't playground/back deck/cottage
dock etc contact.

This is people who routinely burn CCA (despite everything
telling you _not_ to burn CCA) or have long term exposure to
copious quantities of CCA sawdust without any precautions
whatsoever.

The latter is a hazard with untreated cedar too.

I agree it's overblown. But it isn't a complete myth.

Clevis

Is a metal pin. You seem confused.

thinks the old type of treated lumber should've been kept on the
market until children actually got sick and they became "data".

We've had several generations of children grow up with that stuff,
and not get sick.

There's actually more proof that cedar lumber can harm you (including
my own personal experiences). OSHA rates it as a carcinogen and
sensitizer.

Should we ban cedar too?

I don't know. Has cedar ever been used as a method of murder?

lead was believed to be harmless for many years.

But PROVEN to be highly dangerous.

the danger in treated decks is the ground under the deck, the dirt
accumulates the chemicals and can be eaten by children

wrote:
lead was believed to be harmless for many years.

But PROVEN to be highly dangerous.

the danger in treated decks is the ground under the deck, the dirt
accumulates the chemicals and can be eaten by children

Agreed, pica by children is an issue that must considered. Also, bear in
mind the sale of a house to others with kids.

Chris Lewis wrote:
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"dpb" wrote in message ...

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.

This is getting really silly. You're not talking about the same thing.

There is no arsenic in ACQ. ACQ wasn't around (much) in 1994/95.
....

Yeah, I inadvertently used the ACQ initial when I meant CCA earlier.
Same difference to Joe, though...

--

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.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Chris Lewis wrote:
According to JoeSpareBedroom :
"dpb" wrote in message ...

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.

This is getting really silly. You're not talking about the same thing.

There is no arsenic in ACQ. ACQ wasn't around (much) in 1994/95.
...

Yeah, I inadvertently used the ACQ initial when I meant CCA earlier. Same
difference to Joe, though...

--

No. We're talking about arsenic. The initials weren't important.

Again: We are talking only about arsenic.

"dpb" wrote in message ...


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.

--


You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I need
an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure, WHAT
WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

" wrote:

lead was believed to be harmless for many years.

But PROVEN to be highly dangerous.

the danger in treated decks is the ground under the deck, the dirt
accumulates the chemicals and can be eaten by children

And how many kids eat enough dirt for that to be a problem?

That's the problem when you change the focus of schools from critical thinking
to political correctness. Instead of people who can think logically and make
intelligent value judgments, you get people who respond emotionally.

Can you cite any statistics on deaths of children due to lead (or arsenic)
poisoning? I searched and couldn't find any. Closest I could do is find
mortality records for Illinois from 2005. The largest causes were accidental and
motor vehicle.

http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/b...ngdeaths05.htm

Lead is perfectly safe when used, handled and stored properly. Parents with kids
are supposed to be smart enough to baby proof and kid proof their homes. And
supervising them so they aren't stuffing pounds of dirt down their throats. With
or without arsenic.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

lead was believed to be harmless for many years.

But PROVEN to be highly dangerous.

the danger in treated decks is the ground under the deck, the dirt
accumulates the chemicals and can be eaten by children

And how many kids eat enough dirt for that to be a problem?

That's the problem when you change the focus of schools from critical
thinking
to political correctness. Instead of people who can think logically and
make
intelligent value judgments, you get people who respond emotionally.

Can you cite any statistics on deaths of children due to lead (or arsenic)
poisoning? I searched and couldn't find any. Closest I could do is find
mortality records for Illinois from 2005. The largest causes were
accidental and
motor vehicle.

http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/b...ngdeaths05.htm

Lead is perfectly safe when used, handled and stored properly. Parents
with kids
are supposed to be smart enough to baby proof and kid proof their homes.
And
supervising them so they aren't stuffing pounds of dirt down their
throats. With
or without arsenic.


Arsenic trioxide is readily absorbed by the digestive system: toxic effects
are also well known after inhalation of the dust or fumes and after skin
contact. Elimination is rapid at first (half-life of 1-2 days), by
methylation to cacodylic acid and excretion in the urine, but a certain
amount (30-40% in the case of repeated exposure) is incorporated into the
bones, muscles, skin, hair and nails (all tissues rich in keratin) and
eliminated over a period of weeks or months.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure, WHAT
WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

Gee - How about evidence that there's a problem?

Not hypothetical's. Not emotional responses that arsenic is dangerous thus all
uses of it must be banned. Not anecdotal stores about a friends neighbors cousin
saw a kid on the deck next door licking the railing.

Hard evidence that a significant number of kids are dying or even affected by
long term illness when arsenic is used as a wood treatment on outdoor decking.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

"Rick Blaine" wrote in message
news
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure,
WHAT
WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

Gee - How about evidence that there's a problem?

Not hypothetical's. Not emotional responses that arsenic is dangerous thus
all
uses of it must be banned. Not anecdotal stores about a friends neighbors
cousin
saw a kid on the deck next door licking the railing.

Hard evidence that a significant number of kids are dying or even affected
by
long term illness when arsenic is used as a wood treatment on outdoor
decking.


Bingo. Now, one of you geniuses can explain why it would be unlikely that
kids in a country like this would reach the stage where they'd be sick
enough to become a statistic.

big business has a long history of denying and covering up hazards
they are well aware of. tobacco is a great example, second hand
smoke

I have a friend with somewhat retarded kids, that had high lead levels
when young, from their old lead based painted home.

Its sad the kids are nearly grown but will never be normal. Lead
DEFINETELY CAUSES RETARDATION in low levels.

No ddoubt one day workers in moon suits will be removing treated wood
and contaminated soil at great expense.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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 which contained all the lies about ARSENIC in children's
blood.

Arsenic can come from many sources. Including water.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.

A start would be to build a rat cage out of old style PT 2x4s and test
the rats for arsenic periodically. Next would be to do the same thing
but in some manner so that the rats could contact the PT but not eat
it.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic
exposure, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

Wrong question. It should be...

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic due to
exposure to or contact with *PT LUMBER*, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
..

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...


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.

--


You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I need
an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure, WHAT
WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?


I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there were
widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should be a
world of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of
problems which had as their underlying commonality some identified
connection to CCA usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There
wasn't any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.

--


--

"dadiOH" wrote in message
news:dAmSi.962$0l4.358@trnddc08...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic
exposure, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

Wrong question. It should be...

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic due to
exposure to or contact with *PT LUMBER*, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
dadiOH


That's reasonable.

"dadiOH" wrote in message
news:ftmSi.961$0l4.128@trnddc08...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.

A start would be to build a rat cage out of old style PT 2x4s and test
the rats for arsenic periodically. Next would be to do the same thing
but in some manner so that the rats could contact the PT but not eat
it.
dadiOH


Let's stick with human children, since there's always someone who'll say
"Yeah but rats are affected differently than people".

"dadiOH" wrote in message
news:NmmSi.959$0l4.362@trnddc08...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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 which contained all the lies about ARSENIC in children's
blood.

Arsenic can come from many sources. Including water.
dadiOH


I suspect that if researchers are testing for heightened levels in a
population, like 82 kids who used the same playground, they take "normal
levels" into account.

On Oct 20, 8:56?am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dadiOH" wrote in message

news:dAmSi.962$0l4.358@trnddc08...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic
exposure, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

Wrong question. It should be...

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic due to
exposure to or contact with *PT LUMBER*, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
dadiOH

That's reasonable.

when in doubt about something that may endager children and cause life
long troubles better safe than sorry

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

THE INVISIBLE KILLER:
Dihydrogen monoxide

zzzzzzzzzzz...........

So that doesn't concern you but a bit of arsenic in PT wood does?

How do you feel about wall to wall carpet? Not only the outgassing of
nasties but all the crud trapped therein...the fungi, spores, dead
skin, mites. Doesn't your mind boggle at the thought of a rugrat
snuffling along on a carpet and sucking in that stuff through his/her
little nostrils? Probably chomping on it too?

Of course, lead and asbestos are long gone and smokers are now demons
but what about all the noxious gasses spewed by the Detroit monsters?
California (and other states) now turn oil paint lovers into potential
criminals because of atmospheric pollution but they - and the populace
in general - seem to have few worries about auto emissions. It would
take an army of 3 pack a day smokers and a whole subdivision painted
with oil paint to even *begin* spewing as much crud as a few cars.
Yes, I know the government keeps tightning up on auto emissions but
why don't they just make autos/trucks/etc illegal? After all, it
would be "for the kids".

Kinda depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

Back to lead for a moment...lead paint is gone but unjacketed
ammunition isn't so be sure your offspring don't chew on bullets.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Rick Blaine wrote:

Lead is perfectly safe when used, handled and stored properly.
Parents with kids are supposed to be smart enough to baby proof and
kid proof their homes. And supervising them so they aren't stuffing
pounds of dirt down their throats. With or without arsenic.

WHAT???? You expect parents to be responsible? I thought that was
the government's job. To take care of us...to wipe our asses from the
cradle to the grave.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On Oct 20, 9:02?am, "dadiOH" wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
THE INVISIBLE KILLER:
Dihydrogen monoxide

zzzzzzzzzzz...........

So that doesn't concern you but a bit of arsenic in PT wood does?

How do you feel about wall to wall carpet? Not only the outgassing of
nasties but all the crud trapped therein...the fungi, spores, dead
skin, mites. Doesn't your mind boggle at the thought of a rugrat
snuffling along on a carpet and sucking in that stuff through his/her
little nostrils? Probably chomping on it too?

Of course, lead and asbestos are long gone and smokers are now demons
but what about all the noxious gasses spewed by the Detroit monsters?
California (and other states) now turn oil paint lovers into potential
criminals because of atmospheric pollution but they - and the populace
in general - seem to have few worries about auto emissions. It would
take an army of 3 pack a day smokers and a whole subdivision painted
with oil paint to even *begin* spewing as much crud as a few cars.
Yes, I know the government keeps tightning up on auto emissions but
why don't they just make autos/trucks/etc illegal? After all, it
would be "for the kids".

Kinda depends on whose ox is being gored, doesn't it?

Back to lead for a moment...lead paint is gone but unjacketed
ammunition isn't so be sure your offspring don't chew on bullets.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it athttp://mysite.verizon.net/xico

today vehicle exhaust is often cleaner than the air intake.

there was a newspaper story in pittsburgh of some sick kids from
arsenic poisioning, traced to their habit of playing under a large
deck, ground was super contanminated.....

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...


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.

--


You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I
need an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure,
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?


I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there were
widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should be a world
of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of problems which
had as their underlying commonality some identified connection to CCA
usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There wasn't
any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.

There WAS data showing increased arsenic levels in certain populations of
children.

There was NOT evidence showing that most kids were exhibiting advanced
stages of arsenic poisoning YET - the kind that would cause the police
and/or health department to begin questioning family members.

And, before some twit asks "Duh how about a controlled study?", it would be
impossible to find enough parents willing to allow their kids to be used for
such a study.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dadiOH" wrote in message
news:ftmSi.961$0l4.128@trnddc08...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.

A start would be to build a rat cage out of old style PT 2x4s and
test the rats for arsenic periodically. Next would be to do the
same thing but in some manner so that the rats could contact the
PT but not eat it.
dadiOH


Let's stick with human children, since there's always someone
who'll say "Yeah but rats are affected differently than people".

That's OK with me. Put kids in the cage.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dpb wrote:


I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there
were widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should
be a world of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of
problems which had as their underlying commonality some identified
connection to CCA usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There
wasn't any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.


Evidence is irrelevant to the true believer.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
dpb wrote:


I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there
were widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should
be a world of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of
problems which had as their underlying commonality some identified
connection to CCA usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There
wasn't any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.


Evidence is irrelevant to the true believer.


That works both ways. For instance, there are still a few who believe that
agricultural chemicals do not leach into groundwater, not anywhere, not
ever.

Evidence is irrelevant to the true believer.

That works both ways. For instance, there are still a few who believe that
agricultural chemicals do not leach into groundwater, not anywhere, not
ever.


yeah people prefer to ignore many risks.

and about smoking..... it should be illegal around children and one
day it will.

pure child abuse.

but back to the subject if it looks suspicious and its not 100%
completely understood its best to err on side of caution.

like global warming, we honestly dont know the cause, or more likely
causes but the risks of doing nothing are way too great.

you should always respect hazards you dont fully understand

wrote in message
oups.com...

Evidence is irrelevant to the true believer.

That works both ways. For instance, there are still a few who believe
that
agricultural chemicals do not leach into groundwater, not anywhere, not
ever.


yeah people prefer to ignore many risks.

and about smoking..... it should be illegal around children and one
day it will.

pure child abuse.

but back to the subject if it looks suspicious and its not 100%
completely understood its best to err on side of caution.

like global warming, we honestly dont know the cause, or more likely
causes but the risks of doing nothing are way too great.

you should always respect hazards you dont fully understand


That's logical, at least to normal people who weren't dropped on their heads
as children.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...


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.

--

You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I
need an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure,
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there were
widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should be a world
of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of problems which
had as their underlying commonality some identified connection to CCA
usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There wasn't
any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.

There WAS data showing increased arsenic levels in certain populations of
children.
....

Reference?

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...


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.

--

You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I
need an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure,
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?

I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there were
widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should be a
world of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of
problems which had as their underlying commonality some identified
connection to CCA usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There
wasn't any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.

There WAS data showing increased arsenic levels in certain populations of
children.
...

Reference?

We're going in circles. I told you earlier that the information came from my
kid's pediatrician. I also told you that if you wanted me to, I'd call him
and see if he still had the information. Do you remember this?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...


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.

--
You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I
need an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic exposure,
WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there were
widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should be a
world of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of
problems which had as their underlying commonality some identified
connection to CCA usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There
wasn't any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.
There WAS data showing increased arsenic levels in certain populations of
children.
...

Reference?

We're going in circles. ...

Yes we are and as I have earlier said repeating a previous thread almost
verbatim. Remember?

You want to add something, find some citable references and/or links.
You can do that however you choose; I have no preferences/requirement.

I will also repeat yet again I spent a fair amount of time looking and
came up empty. It was not, and was not intended to be, an exhaustive
and scholarly literature search. However, as noted before, if the
hazards of CCA were so egregious, it shouldn't take any effort at all to
find a large number of citations in the readily available literature.
If that were the case and I simply somehow made a bad effort, it
shouldn't take someone else more than about 30 seconds to counter the
argument.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...


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.

--
You're insisting you're correct. I might agree with you. But first, I
need an answer to the question that frightens you, apparently.

Here's the question again:

In order to show that health problems were caused by arsenic
exposure, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
I'm not insisting on anything other than pointing out that if there
were widespread health problems induced by use of CCA, there should be
a world of evidence. That evidence would be widespread reports of
problems which had as their underlying commonality some identified
connection to CCA usage. I have looked; can't find it. Can you?

I repeat--we had this same discussion only a few months ago. There
wasn't any evidence forthcoming then, and so far there's none now.
There WAS data showing increased arsenic levels in certain populations
of children.
...

Reference?

We're going in circles. ...

Yes we are and as I have earlier said repeating a previous thread almost
verbatim. Remember?

You want to add something, find some citable references and/or links. You
can do that however you choose; I have no preferences/requirement.

I will also repeat yet again I spent a fair amount of time looking and
came up empty. It was not, and was not intended to be, an exhaustive and
scholarly literature search. However, as noted before, if the hazards of
CCA were so egregious, it shouldn't take any effort at all to find a large
number of citations in the readily available literature. If that were the
case and I simply somehow made a bad effort, it shouldn't take someone
else more than about 30 seconds to counter the argument.

--

OK. Have a nice day.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
There WAS data showing increased arsenic levels in certain populations
of children.
...

Reference?

We're going in circles. I told you earlier that the information came from
my kid's pediatrician. I also told you that if you wanted me to, I'd call
him and see if he still had the information. Do you remember this?



Draw your own conclusions.

I took a few minutes and found these links. Off the top, you'd think that
there may be some relationship between pressure treaded wood and arsenic
levels in children.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2004/7197/abstract.html

http://clir.buffalo.edu/nycap/htm/pdf/Arsenic_WNY.pdf

http://www.sptimes.com/News/031301/C...s_surpri.shtml


Then I found this. Did they have pressure treated wood 5000 years ago?
http://www.pathology.vcu.edu/research/paleo/case2.html

http://www.gchd.us/Services/Environm...enicLevels.asp
Arsenic is a common, naturally occurring element in the Earth's crust.
Arsenic comes in two forms: organic and inorganic. Elevated levels of
inorganic arsenic, the more harmful form to humans, have been found in the
groundwater in some wells in Genesee County. Organic arsenic is not found in
groundwater.

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?

--

"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.

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?

--

"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?

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 ).

--