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.



There was no forced change. The EPA did study after study,
and did not find evidence to even put a warning (other than
the one that existed) on PT lumber. The manufacturers
voluntarily chose to change the formulation, not due to
regulation, but due to the fear of lawsuits from idiots.

I have worked with CCA for over 30 years. I have been exposed
to it for that amount of time in a manner that would cause far
more than the minimal contact that a child would ever get,
yet, I am fine. So are all of the other 400 or so carpenters
that I know or have known personally. So where did you get
your data again. How long do you think that I have to live?

Due to the fact that I was forced to be exposed to it, I have
done extensive research on the subject and I can tell you that
you are simply wrong. Unless you burn it, you have nothing to
fear from the old CCA. And neither does anyone else.

Worry about lightning. Or your salt intake. It will be far
more productive.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

"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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
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.
....
That's just absolute nonsense. It was in _WIDESPREAD_ use for years.
The test subjects were already there. Effects (if any) were there to be
observed (or not).

So you're saying doing a posterior study would be illegal is why the
epidemiology isn't available? That's simply ludicrous at best.

As for why the formulation was changed, see Robert Allison's response.
I hadn't thought of that as the root cause, but certainly goes far in
explaining why there's no findable citation on the EPA web site (which
always puzzled me because, like many, I had _presumed_ the change was
mandated).

Wouldn't be the first time, certainly. The cost of litigation became so
onerous that for a time there were no single-engine prop civilian-market
aircraft being made in the US for precisely that reason.

--

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

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

No, it's emotional. It appears to the same people who think a theory is the same
as a proven fact. It comes from not being able to think critically.

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

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 would be the same trial lawyers who scour medical literature looking for
the next thing they can file class action lawsuits for?

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

Robert Allison wrote:

The manufacturers
voluntarily chose to change the formulation, not due to
regulation, but due to the fear of lawsuits from idiots.

Succinctly put.

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

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
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.
...
That's just absolute nonsense. It was in _WIDESPREAD_ use for years. The
test subjects were already there. Effects (if any) were there to be
observed (or not).


So you're saying doing a posterior study would be illegal is why the
epidemiology isn't available? That's simply ludicrous at best.


Ludicrous? If you cannot enlist test subjects, how can you conduct a
controlled study? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. What would you
study if you didn't have a population to study?

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a product's
safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.

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

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

No, it's emotional. It appears to the same people who think a theory is
the same
as a proven fact. It comes from not being able to think critically.


So, if you find out that your kid has a toy which was later recalled due to
high levels of lead, you let the kid keep the toy?

Yes or no.

Do you let the kid keep the toy?

On Oct 20, 10:43 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
...
...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.


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

There is middle ground between wholesale elimination & building swing
sets or using it for deck boards.

Have I used CCA materials? Yes
Was I careful? Yes
Did I burn it? No
Did I take every opportunity to caution about splinters & burning? Yes

Would I (did I) use it for deck boards or swing sets? No


We'll see if the switch away from CCA results in fatal structure
failures from corrosion of improper fasteners.

Life is about risk & sensible risk assessment........ the latter seems
in rather short supply, while hysteria appears to be wide spread.

Basic everyday lifestyle choices; diet, back yard pools & the
automobile are way more dangerous than CCA ever was.

It's important to identify & address real risks not imagined ones.

cheers
Bob

"BobK207" wrote in message
oups.com...


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

There is middle ground between wholesale elimination & building swing
sets or using it for deck boards.

Have I used CCA materials? Yes
Was I careful? Yes
Did I burn it? No
Did I take every opportunity to caution about splinters & burning? Yes

Would I (did I) use it for deck boards or swing sets? No

Then, you're smarter than about 54% of the population at large. Good.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
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.
...
That's just absolute nonsense. It was in _WIDESPREAD_ use for years. The
test subjects were already there. Effects (if any) were there to be
observed (or not).


So you're saying doing a posterior study would be illegal is why the
epidemiology isn't available? That's simply ludicrous at best.


Ludicrous? If you cannot enlist test subjects, how can you conduct a
controlled study? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. What would you
study if you didn't have a population to study?

This futile, of course, but I'll make one last stab at gaining at least
a tiny bit of understanding...

Were the studies of lead ingestion in toddlers and infants in the
tenement housing in Chicago controlled studies?

Since the weren't, I presume they're to be considered bogus? (And,
parenthetically, since the "test subjects" weren't provided the
opportunity to sign a waiver a priori, obviously the authors were guilty
of a crime or at a minimum, grossly unethical behavior in pointing this
out I gather from your previous words?)

What you're obviously missing is observational epidemiology.

When there becomes an occurrence of any medical phenomenon, folks start
looking for root-cause explanations. They start out by collecting as
many cases of similar symptoms from similar circumstances as possible
and looking for patterns and statistically significant incidence rates
above background and correlations w/ conditions.

If these screening studies show up stuff that is the least bit
suspicious, they move on to more and more extensive and detailed
analyses. Eventually, sometimes, as in the case of the lead, they do
actually uncover problems with long-accepted practices and make changes
based on those findings.

OTOH, not always are the studies positive--that is, sometimes despite a
hypothesis that a particular product or action is potentially harmful,
an analysis of results simply doesn't support that conclusion.

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a product's
safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.

Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
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.
...
That's just absolute nonsense. It was in _WIDESPREAD_ use for years.
The test subjects were already there. Effects (if any) were there to be
observed (or not).


So you're saying doing a posterior study would be illegal is why the
epidemiology isn't available? That's simply ludicrous at best.


Ludicrous? If you cannot enlist test subjects, how can you conduct a
controlled study? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here. What would you
study if you didn't have a population to study?

This futile, of course, but I'll make one last stab at gaining at least a
tiny bit of understanding...

Were the studies of lead ingestion in toddlers and infants in the tenement
housing in Chicago controlled studies?

Since the weren't, I presume they're to be considered bogus? (And,
parenthetically, since the "test subjects" weren't provided the
opportunity to sign a waiver a priori, obviously the authors were guilty
of a crime or at a minimum, grossly unethical behavior in pointing this
out I gather from your previous words?)

What you're obviously missing is observational epidemiology.

When there becomes an occurrence of any medical phenomenon, folks start
looking for root-cause explanations. They start out by collecting as many
cases of similar symptoms from similar circumstances as possible and
looking for patterns and statistically significant incidence rates above
background and correlations w/ conditions.

If these screening studies show up stuff that is the least bit suspicious,
they move on to more and more extensive and detailed analyses.
Eventually, sometimes, as in the case of the lead, they do actually
uncover problems with long-accepted practices and make changes based on
those findings.

OTOH, not always are the studies positive--that is, sometimes despite a
hypothesis that a particular product or action is potentially harmful, an
analysis of results simply doesn't support that conclusion.

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a product's
safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.

Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...

Well, that's what competent parents do. Even many animals do the same.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
So, if you find out that your kid has a toy which was later recalled due
to high levels of lead, you let the kid keep the toy?

Yes or no.

Do you let the kid keep the toy?

If the kid is beyond the chewing stage, why not? Touching or being near it
won't harm you. Scout badges were recalled because the yellow trim had
too much lead. If a cub or boy scout is chewing his badges, there are other
problems.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
. net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
So, if you find out that your kid has a toy which was later recalled due
to high levels of lead, you let the kid keep the toy?

Yes or no.

Do you let the kid keep the toy?

If the kid is beyond the chewing stage, why not? Touching or being near it
won't harm you. Scout badges were recalled because the yellow trim had
too much lead. If a cub or boy scout is chewing his badges, there are
other problems.


OK. The kid's still in the chewing stage. Do you let him keep the toy?

for a gazillion years smokers said hey it didnt kill me therefore
smoking is safe, blamimg lung cancer and other nasties on other
things.........

today we know for a FACT that smoking KILLS, fact is big tobacco knew
and covered it up for many years

Big tobacco did their own studies.

treated wood manufacturers did their own studies, its highly possible
they proved the hazards.

now would they admit it??? heavens know that will just bring on
lawsuits

better to change the formula and hope for the best!

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

So what? Increased Arsenic levels are not indicative of a health problem.


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.

So you agree that increased Arsenic levels mean almost nothing.


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.

The parents don't have to be involved that way. Test kids who've hung out on
wood playsets vs kids who've played on metal playsets.

The reasons this kind of testing hasn't been done is that it would be a
waste of money, not that that's ever bother the government and any
researcher who published such findings would be laughed out of the
profession.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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?

And I told you your pediatrician is probably an idiot. An appeal to
authority works only if the "authority" IS an authority. Pediatricans (in
general) are more driven by emotion and political correctness than objective
fact.

Bottom line: We reject your "expert." Come up with another.

Robert Allison wrote:

There was no forced change. The EPA did study after study,
and did not find evidence to even put a warning (other than
the one that existed) on PT lumber. The manufacturers
voluntarily chose to change the formulation, not due to
regulation, but due to the fear of lawsuits from idiots.

I have worked with CCA for over 30 years. I have been exposed
to it for that amount of time in a manner that would cause far
more than the minimal contact that a child would ever get,
yet, I am fine. So are all of the other 400 or so carpenters
that I know or have known personally. So where did you get
your data again. How long do you think that I have to live?

Due to the fact that I was forced to be exposed to it, I have
done extensive research on the subject and I can tell you that
you are simply wrong. Unless you burn it, you have nothing to
fear from the old CCA. And neither does anyone else.

Worry about lightning. Or your salt intake. It will be far
more productive.

He got his information from a pediatrician. The fact that pediatricians poll
their young patients over gun handling by the parents is sufficient evidence
to conclude pediatricians are loons and can safely be ignored in areas
outside their experience. Inasmuch as no pediatrician anywhere has ever
experienced a medical problem originating from CCA, I'd say their competence
on this score is zero.

But it's worse. There are people who run their lives based on the statements
of loons.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.

So the long term effects of the new formulation are known?
Geez...quick.

--

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:

So, if you find out that your kid has a toy which was later recalled due to
high levels of lead, you let the kid keep the toy?

Yes or no.

Do you let the kid keep the toy?

Sure. My kids don't chew on their toys. This lead paint thing on toys is
getting blown way out of proportion.

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

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a
product's safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.

Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...

Well, that's what competent parents do.

Competent parents didn't do it (change PT formulation), government
did.


--

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:

OK. The kid's still in the chewing stage. Do you let him keep the toy?

Probably not. That's a decision that I make as a critical thinking adult who can
balance cost vs. benefit. I do not need a government acting on my behalf banning
all uses of a useful substance just because some parent somewhere was incapable
of making a similar judgement.

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a product's
safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.

We as individual parents can make the decisions necessary as we see fit. We do
not need a third party (either government or trial lawyers) making those
decisions for us.

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

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Well, that's what competent parents do.

Prescisely. They do not need a nanny doing it for them.

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

dadiOH wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a
product's safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.
Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...
Well, that's what competent parents do.

Competent parents didn't do it (change PT formulation), government
did.

Well, that's not at all clear to me. I could not find any actual
directive from EPA, CPSC, OSHA, ... that actually does that.

As Robert Allison noted, it appears the change was made through the
manufacturers' associations of the various producers.

--

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

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a product's
safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.

We as individual parents can make the decisions necessary as we see fit.
We do
not need a third party (either government or trial lawyers) making those
decisions for us.


Two relatively recent and accurate polls indicate that 54% of the population
is NOT capable of making good decisions. I'm OK with Darwin's principles
shaving a few off the population, but 54% is a bit too much.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
So, if you find out that your kid has a toy which was later recalled due
to high levels of lead, you let the kid keep the toy?

Yes or no.

Do you let the kid keep the toy?

If the kid is beyond the chewing stage, why not? ...

Joe, otoh, being a totally responsible parent would of course, not allow
his kids to have toys on the presumption they _would_ contain lead.

Although in reality, I must presume that being such a stellar protector
of the young he thought even farther ahead and has therefore ensured he
doesn't have any in order to fully protect them from all of these
inevitable hazards.

--

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Robert Allison wrote:

There was no forced change. The EPA did study after study,
and did not find evidence to even put a warning (other than
the one that existed) on PT lumber. The manufacturers
voluntarily chose to change the formulation, not due to
regulation, but due to the fear of lawsuits from idiots.

I have worked with CCA for over 30 years. I have been exposed
to it for that amount of time in a manner that would cause far
more than the minimal contact that a child would ever get,
yet, I am fine. So are all of the other 400 or so carpenters
that I know or have known personally. So where did you get
your data again. How long do you think that I have to live?

Due to the fact that I was forced to be exposed to it, I have
done extensive research on the subject and I can tell you that
you are simply wrong. Unless you burn it, you have nothing to
fear from the old CCA. And neither does anyone else.

Worry about lightning. Or your salt intake. It will be far
more productive.

He got his information from a pediatrician. The fact that pediatricians
poll their young patients over gun handling by the parents is sufficient
evidence to conclude pediatricians are loons and can safely be ignored in
areas outside their experience. Inasmuch as no pediatrician anywhere has
ever experienced a medical problem originating from CCA, I'd say their
competence on this score is zero.

I asked you yesterday to list the various professions in YOUR family. No
answer yet. Why are you ashamed to tell us?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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?

And I told you your pediatrician is probably an idiot. An appeal to
authority works only if the "authority" IS an authority. Pediatricans (in
general) are more driven by emotion and political correctness than
objective fact.

Without data to back up your statements, they are now delusions.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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

So what? Increased Arsenic levels are not indicative of a health problem.


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.

So you agree that increased Arsenic levels mean almost nothing.


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.

The parents don't have to be involved that way. Test kids who've hung out
on wood playsets vs kids who've played on metal playsets.

The reasons this kind of testing hasn't been done is that it would be a
waste of money, not that that's ever bother the government and any
researcher who published such findings would be laughed out of the
profession.


And, you are professionally involved in this type of research....HOW?

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

OK. The kid's still in the chewing stage. Do you let him keep the toy?

Probably not. That's a decision that I make as a critical thinking adult
who can
balance cost vs. benefit. I do not need a government acting on my behalf
banning
all uses of a useful substance just because some parent somewhere was
incapable
of making a similar judgement.


That's a nice belief, but 54% of the country is known to be stupid. Do their
kids deserve to be the victims of parental ignorance?

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
So, if you find out that your kid has a toy which was later recalled due
to high levels of lead, you let the kid keep the toy?

Yes or no.

Do you let the kid keep the toy?

If the kid is beyond the chewing stage, why not? ...

Joe, otoh, being a totally responsible parent would of course, not allow
his kids to have toys on the presumption they _would_ contain lead.

Although in reality, I must presume that being such a stellar protector of
the young he thought even farther ahead and has therefore ensured he
doesn't have any in order to fully protect them from all of these
inevitable hazards.

--

Until the recent spate of recalls, did you expect that modern toys would
have lead paint on them?

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Two relatively recent and accurate polls indicate that 54% of the
population is NOT capable of making good decisions. I'm OK with
Darwin's principles shaving a few off the population, but 54% is a
bit too much.

It used to be only 8%, but then the government protected them which allowed
them to reproduce. It's time to thin the herd :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Two relatively recent and accurate polls indicate that 54% of the
population is NOT capable of making good decisions. I'm OK with
Darwin's principles shaving a few off the population, but 54% is a
bit too much.

It used to be only 8%, but then the government protected them which
allowed them to reproduce. It's time to thin the herd :-)


Hopefully before the next poll (also known as the presidential election).

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:


That's a nice belief, but 54% of the country is known to be stupid.

And that pretty much summarizes the paternalistic viewpoint of the modern
Democrat party. Them darn citizens are too dumb for their own good, so we need
to run things for them.

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

In , JoeSpareBedroom wrote in part:

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.

One step at a time - do you believe arsenic is harmless?

Let's say lots of exposure to ocean water in 1942, and I have a table
with that day saying anywhere from .003 to .024 ppm then. I surely doubt
anyone even with heavy exposure to ocean water and high seafood
consumption had any ill effects from the arsenic there. So I would think
tere is a safe amount.

I am also amazed that people think of formaldehyde as something so
dangerous that zero tolerance is required. Better not eat any live green
plants being exposed to light then - formaldehyde is the output of the
first chemical reaction of photosynthesis.

- Don Klipstein )

dpb wrote:
dadiOH wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a
product's safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.
Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...
Well, that's what competent parents do.

Competent parents didn't do it (change PT formulation), government
did.

Well, that's not at all clear to me. I could not find any actual
directive from EPA, CPSC, OSHA, ... that actually does that.

As Robert Allison noted, it appears the change was made through the
manufacturers' associations of the various producers.

I have a tendency to blame government for most all things. It comes
from experience

I'm perfectly happy to accept Mr. Allison's statement since it means
that the change still wasn't instigated by "competent parents".

--

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

(Don Klipstein) wrote:

I am also amazed that people think of formaldehyde as something so
dangerous that zero tolerance is required.

Isn't that amazing? The same people have no clue that water, salt or a million
other substances will kill you if you injest too much. Hence the girl who died
after that water drinking radio contest a few months ago.

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

dadiOH wrote:
dpb wrote:
dadiOH wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Never mind. I suppose you're right. If there are doubts about a
product's safety, especially for kids, we should do nothing.
Ah yes, the ultimate weapon..."Do it for the kids"...
Well, that's what competent parents do.
Competent parents didn't do it (change PT formulation), government
did.
Well, that's not at all clear to me. I could not find any actual
directive from EPA, CPSC, OSHA, ... that actually does that.

As Robert Allison noted, it appears the change was made through the
manufacturers' associations of the various producers.

I have a tendency to blame government for most all things. It comes
from experience

I'm perfectly happy to accept Mr. Allison's statement since it means
that the change still wasn't instigated by "competent parents".

Of course, it also implicates the trial lawyers and the "nanny-ness" of
the self-appointed protectors of us all in that it still doesn't appear
to be based on any actual demonstrated excessive risk...

--

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:47:20 -0700, Jack
wrote:

On Oct 19, 6:45 am, ransley wrote:
On Oct 19, 6:18 am, wrote:



I know that awhile back they removed the arsenic from treated lumber
and the new lumber was almost all copper treated. I read that this
new variety was extremely destructive to nails and screws, and one had
to use expensive stainless steel fastners. I just bought some treated
2x6s for a small deck and asked the store clerk what fastners to use.
He said just common nails or screws would work. I told him what I had
read about the new variety of treated wood, when he told me the lumber
I am buying is not corrosive. This was at a big box home center, and
although this guy is the store manager, not just some 20 year old kid,
I had my doubts about his advice.

I went to another local lumberyard, which is strictly only a lumber
yard and told the guy I wanted fastners that dont corrode from the new
treated lumber. He told me that if I bought it in the past month or
so, I could likely just use common fastners. I asked why "in the last
month". He said they changed the formula AGAIN. He could not tell me
much more but said this recently occurred.

OK, now I have 2 guys who said this.....

What's the deal? How did they change this lumber? What can I use now
for fastners?

Thanks
Alvin

Its amazing that stores dont know what they sell, and that your deck
or whatever can fail eventualy from the fasteners failing, if you use
the wrong ones. Your wood should have tags stapled on the ends or
contact the store where you purchased it and then the manufacturer.
But the store should get you the right answer. I think stainless is
fine or the screws treated for decks, but I dont know. In 10-20 years
we will likely have porches falling down killing people from fasteners
failing. You would think stores would have this issue noted with signs
so they are not liable when decks fail from people using the wrong
products.


My two cents worth. I was in the lumber treating business for a period
of ten years ,70-80. The best long treatment back then was Penta, but
then the EPA decided it was to toxic to use. Since, they have came up
with different formulas. Really, I don't think any are worth their
cost. a good coat of paint is your best protection.

I remember Penta, in fact I think I have a few gallons of it in my
garage yet. Before that there was Creosote, which seems to have
always worked. Heck, my original barn is built from posts that are
creosote coated power poles. The barn was built in the 60's. The
posts were probably used power poles. All but one of them is still in
great shape. (One was rotten at the ground level and I had to install
another post next to it and bolt them together). These poles are
probably 60 or more years old. They also banned creosote, (except for
power poles). I really could never understand how coal tar could be
so toxic. Although creosote is pretty messy. I agree on the paint,
but underground that dont help (as in posts).

What gets me is that I have never met any person that eats lumber.
Yet, I have had horses chew up (the old) treated wood adn they never
died from it. These days I only use hardwood around them, or cover
the treated wood with metal. So, while we people that dont eat lumber
are now safe if we do, we will in 10 years or so, fall to our deaths
when the nails fail on our upper porches, and if that dont happen,
ConAgra will kill us with their constantly contaminated food of late.

By the way, I looked at one board that I have near the house and it
says C2 C9. I assume that means copper treatment, thus needs the
special fastners. This is NOT the stuff I just bought which is not
put away at the moment.

************___________________ ************