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

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.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:45:22 -0700, 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.

I completely agree. I will have to look at the label. Then I will
likely use galv. nails and add a few stainless screws too. I
presonally can not stand using screws to build framing. How in the
hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place, hold the screw
and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once. I have been building with
nails for 40 years, and am not going to change now. The whole thing
with this treated lumber irks me to no end. What we had worked just
fine. Now we got more government scares to ruin what worked. I dont
believe this new treated wood is as good as the old stuff was, then we
may have failing decks and stuff, (like you said) and who knows what
else, not to mention that the tr. lumber is more costly, and at $10 a
lb for stainless screws, that's outrageous. First we had the asbestos
scare, then radon, now treated wood. I wonder what will be next. Are
they going to say that coffee causes cancer too? Oh wait, they
already did that....

The REAL #1 cause of cancer is politicians !!!!!

By the way, are those gold colored coated screws supposed to be safe
for the new treated wood? I may consider screwing the deck boards.
That I dont mind as much, even if my hammer is faster. But for
framing, there is no way. I wonder if they make stainless nails?

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.

wrote:
....
I completely agree. I will have to look at the label. Then I will
likely use galv. nails and add a few stainless screws too.
....
By the way, are those gold colored coated screws supposed to be safe
for the new treated wood? I may consider screwing the deck boards.
That I dont mind as much, even if my hammer is faster. But for
framing, there is no way. I wonder if they make stainless nails?

http://www.southernpine.com/pt07_use...asteners.shtml

The color isn't necessarily important, read the information on the box
for what they are and for what they're intended.

Of course there are SS fasteners of any almost any variety one wants.

On the general question, won't say there isn't something that has been
introduced recently, but I do not believe there has been a general
industry-wide shift to new process or anything mandated by EPA other
than the ban/restrictions on CCA for residential/deck use.

--

wrote:


I presonally can not stand using screws to build framing. How in
the
hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place, hold the
screw and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once.

About the same way one holds the lumber, nail and hammer

--

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 19, 9:34 am, "dadiOH" wrote:
wrote:
I presonally can not stand using screws to build framing. How in
the
hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place, hold the
screw and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once.

About the same way one holds the lumber, nail and hammer

--

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

There is cheap galvanised and the good stuff that might work, look
into it before you buy. I believe the cheap galvanised will fail
eventualy.

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?

On Oct 19, 9:34 am, "dadiOH" wrote:
wrote:
I presonally can not stand using screws to build framing. How in
the
hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place, hold the
screw and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once.

About the same way one holds the lumber, nail and hammer

--

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

There is cheap galvanised and the good stuff that might work, look
into it before you buy. I believe the cheap galvanised will fail
eventualy.

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

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.

In article ,
"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.

Ah, so you've met my brother. Bought him (and his wife and kids) a
"build your own picnic table" kit for Christmas a number of years ago.
Had all the metal framing and hardware, just add wood.

Yep, he told me later that he used that "green wood that won't rot."

Or just accept the fact that sometimes people do stupid things!

But apparently that's not an option these days.

Eric Law

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ...
Since nobody can control what stupid people do, the only option was to change the product.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"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.

Ah, so you've met my brother. Bought him (and his wife and kids) a
"build your own picnic table" kit for Christmas a number of years ago.
Had all the metal framing and hardware, just add wood.

Yep, he told me later that he used that "green wood that won't rot."

They're everywhere. It's a plague. I had a neighbor who planted a big patch
of green beans, and one day, one leaf out of 1000 had a little hole in it,
so she completely covered the plants with some sort of poisonous powder from
Ortho. Same day, I'm outside working, and she asks me what I think made the
hole. Her 3 year old daughter was running around the yard and was covered
with sweat. She runs past the bean plants, hitting the leaves, and the
powder gets all over her, sticking to her sweat. She starts coughing. The
mother says "C'mere - let me wipe you off". Duh. I called our poison control
center, and was told to get the kid to the hospital ASAP. From all outward
appearances, she was OK. They took some blood samples & whatever.

Next day, the mother asks me "How could they sell the stuff if it's not
safe?" It never dawned on her that you're not supposed to dust your kid in
it like a veal cutlet before cooking.

"Eric" wrote in message
g.com...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
Since nobody can control what stupid people do, the only option was to
change the product.




Or just accept the fact that sometimes people do stupid things!

But apparently that's not an option these days.

Eric Law

Fine, but I don't think little kids should be the victims of stupid adults
who use treated lumber to build playground equipment, deck railings and
picnic tables.

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.

--

"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.

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.

--

dpb wrote:
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.

AFAICT, there is a single one.

That, of course was supposed to be AFAICT, there is _NOT_ a single one.

--

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


I used some of that new corrosive green-treated lumber to build some
raised beds in my garden a few years ago. I used 16d bright common
nails in a nail gun to fasten them. They haven't failed yet. I'm gonna
knock one of the beds apart soon to see if there's any significant
corrosion.

The problem might be poorly-galvanized fasteners. (Challenge: just try
to find any hot dipped galvanized roofing nails)

Bob

On Oct 19, 8:18 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

I wasn't aware of a new Pressure Treated(PT) lumber, but as a former
salesman of fasteners we had to label our boxes with the ACQ (or CCA)
approval. There was a mention of using Yellow screws. I would not
recommend them for exterior use but then again our brand wasn't meant
to be used outside. Our competitors had a yellow screw and they said
it was PT approved but I wouldn't trust my nieces on that swing set!

This PT that is corrosive to some metals was used in Europe and later
banned because of other products used to make ACQ/CCA treated wood.

Here is a list of manufacturers that are ACQ approved:
http://superiorwoodtreating.com/docs/fastener_ACQ.pdf
here is a clip from that PDF:
"Fasteners for pressure-preservative treated wood shall be of hot-
dipped galvanized steel, stainless steel, silicon bronze or
copper...."
Our product (national manu.) was not hot dipped or SS, but did have a
epoxy (not ceramic) coating on it. The epoxy was better than the
ceramic. Our competitor apparently had the ceramic fasteners approved
but they are not listed on the pdf list above. Yes Stainless is the
best, but wow $$.

SO, if you are using PT use the proper fasteners for the wood you are
using. At least use exterior wood screws in wet/damp conditions.

Nails, well... fill your boots, if you are using twisted ardox
nails... as long as they are hot dipped and not just common you are
fine. I used common ardox this summer and they started to rust.
Because the nails were shipped to the location and the slip said they
were galv. I figured that they were... i now have nice rusty lines on
the framing of my deck. (Luckily I was able to hide them all with trim
and added a #10 screw here and there just in case)

If the guy at the store doesn't know, ask for the buyer. Only the
buyer knows (should) what lumber was ordered. Don't trust the guy that
doesn't know the difference between hot dipped galv and electro galv.

PT is still not 100% guaranteed to not rot. Like another post said,
use plain wood and paint/stain. Eventually you will still have to re-
treat your PT wood. PT might outlast the plain/natural wood but i
probably won't be there to see it as long as i stain or paint!


cln
(to avoid hammering your thumb, use both hands on the hammer)

On 19 Oct, 09:35, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:45:22 -0700, 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.

I completely agree. I will have to look at the label. Then I will
likely use galv. nails and add a few stainless screws too. I
presonally can not stand using screws to build framing. How in the
hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place, hold the screw
and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once. I have been building with
nails for 40 years, and am not going to change now. The whole thing
with this treated lumber irks me to no end. What we had worked just
fine. Now we got more government scares to ruin what worked. I dont
believe this new treated wood is as good as the old stuff was, then we
may have failing decks and stuff, (like you said) and who knows what
else, not to mention that the tr. lumber is more costly, and at $10 a
lb for stainless screws, that's outrageous. First we had the asbestos
scare, then radon, now treated wood. I wonder what will be next. Are
they going to say that coffee causes cancer too? Oh wait, they
already did that....

The REAL #1 cause of cancer is politicians !!!!!

By the way, are those gold colored coated screws supposed to be safe
for the new treated wood? I may consider screwing the deck boards.
That I dont mind as much, even if my hammer is faster. But for
framing, there is no way. I wonder if they make stainless nails?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How in the hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place,
hold the screw and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once.

I do it all the time with these: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...NL._AA280_.gif

"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.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:17:12 -0700, DerbyDad03
wrote:

On 19 Oct, 09:35, wrote:

-snip-

How in the hell can one person hold the pieces of lumber in place,
hold the screw and hold a clumbsy screw gun all at once.

I do it all the time with these: http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/...NL._AA280_.gif

That and a magnetic bit and you don't even have to put your beer down.

Jim

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.

--

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

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

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.

--

"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.

Ready?

What would need to happen?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

do you believe arsenic is harmless?

In the ground? Yes.
In building materials? Yes.
Ingested by humans? Depends on the level.

Before you get your knickers in a twist about arsenic, you should go after
something much more dangerous:

THE INVISIBLE KILLER:
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and _kills_
uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are
caused by inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do
not end there. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating
and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body
electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO
withdrawal means certain death.

DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE:
* Is also known as hydric acid, and is a major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the greenhouse effect.
* may cause severe burns.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile
brakes.
* has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.

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

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
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.

Arsenic is NOT dangerous per se. It is a scare-word designed to invoke fear
and stoke the fires of irrationality.

Arsenic IS dangerous in the appropriate concentrations. So is water. So is
bleach. So is traffic!

No one, so far as I can tell, has ever died or gotten sick from treated
lumber. A LOT of people, however, have had sleepless nights and had to go on
tranquilizers from worrying about it. The reason there are a LOT of people
wringing their hands over the subject is a statement like "all smart
poeple... know that arsenic (sic) is dangerous."

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

do you believe arsenic is harmless?

In the ground? Yes.
In building materials? Yes.
Ingested by humans? Depends on the level.

Before you get your knickers in a twist about arsenic, you should go after
something much more dangerous:

THE INVISIBLE KILLER:
Dihydrogen monoxide

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

According to :

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

According to an article I read not too long ago, there are
approximately 5 competing technologies. ACQ just being the
most common one on the market - it eats fasteners.

There's at least one more type that's fairly common, depending on
where you are.

The rest, at the time, were either still in development and/or
very limited distribution.

They had different characteristics, including some that didn't
eat fasteners like ACQ does.

May be that the batch you bought from was the "other kind".
Or they were just confused.

The labels should help.
--
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.

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

Arsenic is NOT dangerous per se. It is a scare-word designed to invoke
fear and stoke the fires of irrationality.

Arsenic IS dangerous in the appropriate concentrations. So is water. So is
bleach. So is traffic!

No one, so far as I can tell, has ever died or gotten sick from treated
lumber. A LOT of people, however, have had sleepless nights and had to go
on tranquilizers from worrying about it. The reason there are a LOT of
people wringing their hands over the subject is a statement like "all
smart poeple... know that arsenic (sic) is dangerous."


You're unaware of the fact that dangerous levels are often reached slowly,
and because it's rare, most doctors don't know what to look for nowadays.

Tell ya what: You experiment with arsenic on YOUR kids. Let us know how that
goes, Clevis.

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.

There is arsenic in CCA. CCA is the treatment that has been
"discouraged", and what your pediatrician was talking about.

Now, figure out between yourselves which one you were really talking
about ;-)
--
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.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

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.
Ready?

What would need to happen?

A report from a pathologist citing Arsenic posioning from treated lumber as
the cause of death.

Any recollection from a pediatrician is garbage. They are more "socially
aware" than librarians in promulgating absurd and agenda-driven (i.e., no
scientific basis) ideas.

For example:
http://www.aap.org/family/tipp-firearms.htm

And
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ull/116/3/e370

In medicine, pediatricians are toward the bottom of the pecking order: below
tattoo-removal dermatologists and only slightly higher than chiropractors.

Take NOTHING a pediatrician says at face value. Reliance on same as
authorative has as much credence as crop-circle conjecture.

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.
--
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 :
"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.

There is arsenic in CCA. CCA is the treatment that has been
"discouraged", and what your pediatrician was talking about.

Now, figure out between yourselves which one you were really talking
about ;-)
--
Chris Lewis,

I'm referring to the older version, and waiting for him to catch up. He
keeps asking about ACQ. You'd think the word "arsenic" would cause him to
step backward through the messages and see what's what.

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

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.
Ready?

What would need to happen?

A report from a pathologist citing Arsenic posioning from treated lumber
as the cause of death.

Any recollection from a pediatrician is garbage. They are more "socially
aware" than librarians in promulgating absurd and agenda-driven (i.e., no
scientific basis) ideas.


The question was not directed at you, Clevis. But, as long as you've been
activated, tell me about some of the honorable professions in YOUR family.
You, your wife, kids, grandkids, etc.

According to zxcvbob :

I used some of that new corrosive green-treated lumber to build some
raised beds in my garden a few years ago. I used 16d bright common
nails in a nail gun to fasten them. They haven't failed yet. I'm gonna
knock one of the beds apart soon to see if there's any significant
corrosion.

As contrary sample, my sister-in-law's ACQ deck had railing spindles
randomly falling off in less than 3 years because the screws
had rotted through. These are those yellow colored ones, not
bare "brights", so they should have _some_ protection.

Weather and other individual details are going to matter.
--
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 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.
--
Chris Lewis,


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