Just bought some PT lumber today. Both Home Despot and the local
lumberyard had the same stuff: dark brown. Looks kinda nice, actually,
kinda like it's pre-stained. (Didn't buy at Home Despot 'cause all they
had were 20' lengths in most sizes, whereas my
only-slightly-higher-priced local yard had 8s, 10s, 12s, ... FAIL!)

Does anyone know what the chemical agent is in this new brown stuff? I
assume it's less toxic than the bad old copper arsenate.

Like they say, it looks like brown is the new green.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

David Nebenzahl wrote in .com:

Just bought some PT lumber today. Both Home Despot and the local
lumberyard had the same stuff: dark brown. Looks kinda nice, actually,
kinda like it's pre-stained. (Didn't buy at Home Despot 'cause all they
had were 20' lengths in most sizes, whereas my
only-slightly-higher-priced local yard had 8s, 10s, 12s, ... FAIL!)

Does anyone know what the chemical agent is in this new brown stuff? I
assume it's less toxic than the bad old copper arsenate.



That "bad old copper arsenate" was effective, cheap, and far less toxic
than the current scare stories would have you believe.



Like they say, it looks like brown is the new green.




Some info in this PDF, from the USDA:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/techline/whats-in-that-pressure-treated-wood.pdf

Your brown wood is probably the same sort of brown coloring
they use to decorate mulch, overlaid on regular green non-copper PT.


--
Tegger

On Jun 16, 2:19�am, Tegger wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote rs.com:

Just bought some PT lumber today. Both Home Despot and the local
lumberyard had the same stuff: dark brown. Looks kinda nice, actually,
kinda like it's pre-stained. (Didn't buy at Home Despot 'cause all they
had were 20' lengths in most sizes, whereas my
only-slightly-higher-priced local yard had 8s, 10s, 12s, ... FAIL!)

Does anyone know what the chemical agent is in this new brown stuff? I
assume it's less toxic than the bad old copper arsenate.

That "bad old copper arsenate" was effective, cheap, and far less toxic
than the current scare stories would have you believe.



Like they say, it looks like brown is the new green.

Some info in this PDF, from the USDA:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/techline/whats-in-that-pressure-tre...

Your brown wood is probably the same sort of brown coloring
they use to decorate mulch, overlaid on regular green non-copper PT.

--
Tegger

I think it's some sort of chromium salt they use now.
Brown is just to differentiate in the trestment plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure-treated_wood.

The main danger not mentioned in Wiki is if the treated wood is
burned. The smoke and ash contains the poisonous minerals. Soil once
contaminated with arsenic for example cannot be "rehabilitated".
Arsenic can appear in food crops grown on bonfire sites.

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
Just bought some PT lumber today. Both Home Despot and the local
lumberyard had the same stuff: dark brown. Looks kinda nice, actually,
kinda like it's pre-stained. (Didn't buy at Home Despot 'cause all they
had were 20' lengths in most sizes, whereas my
only-slightly-higher-priced local yard had 8s, 10s, 12s, ... FAIL!)

Does anyone know what the chemical agent is in this new brown stuff? I
assume it's less toxic than the bad old copper arsenate.
...snipped...

Request an MSDS from HD or the product manufacturer. It very likley may
be available on line as well.



--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

harry wrote in
:


The main danger not mentioned in Wiki is if the treated wood is
burned. The smoke and ash contains the poisonous minerals. Soil once
contaminated with arsenic for example cannot be "rehabilitated".
Arsenic can appear in food crops grown on bonfire sites.



In quantities /well/ below the threshold for human harm.

If you think arsenic in the soil of bonfire sites is such a threat, go add
it to Wiki yourself. You can, you know.

--
Tegger

harry wrote in
:


Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.



Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does not
carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the poison,
remember.


--
Tegger

On Jun 17, 1:41*pm, Tegger wrote:
harry wrote :

Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.

Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does not
carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the poison,
remember.

--
Tegger

There are some poisons your body can't excrete. (Like many heavy
metals)
So you can in take enough to kill you in one shot or in as many small
doses as it takes. The name of it is self explanatory. You just
gradually get more ill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_poison

There is a theory that Napoleon Bonaparte died of cumulative Arsenic
poisoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic...leon_Bonaparte

How is that complete nonsense?
Where did you learn your science?

On 6/18/2010 8:10 AM harry spake thus:

On Jun 17, 1:41 pm, Tegger wrote:

harry wrote in
:

Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.

Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does not
carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the poison,
remember.

There are some poisons your body can't excrete. (Like many heavy
metals)
So you can in take enough to kill you in one shot or in as many small
doses as it takes. The name of it is self explanatory. You just
gradually get more ill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_poison

There is a theory that Napoleon Bonaparte died of cumulative Arsenic
poisoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic...leon_Bonaparte

How is that complete nonsense?
Where did you learn your science?

Well, speaking of where one learns things, Harry, I have to say that you
do yourself no favors by constantly referring to Wikipedia as if it's
actually a credible source of information.

It isn't. I call it "the 'encyclopedia' any pimply-faced 7th grader
can--and does--edit". Not only that, but those pimply-faced junior high
schoolers and high schoolers often become "admins", who are the ones who
have to power to resolve disputes and even get editors kicked off the
Wiki. Feh.

Don't take my word for it: please read http://wikipediareview.com, for
example. (Hint: lots of Wiki admins read and even post here.)

Or he
http://www.wired.com/software/webser.../2006/04/70670

Or he http://parkerpeters.livejournal.com

Or just search for information on the "Siegenthaler story". That'll tell
you all you need to know about this so-called "encyclopedia".

The problem is far worse than just Wikipedia itself: since it's
considered the #1 source of information by many, including Google
itself, its information is endlessly "scraped" by other sites that just
scoop up Wiki articles and widely disseminate its disinformation.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On 6/15/2010 5:14 PM David Nebenzahl spake thus:

Just bought some PT lumber today. Both Home Despot and the local
lumberyard had the same stuff: dark brown. Looks kinda nice, actually,
kinda like it's pre-stained. (Didn't buy at Home Despot 'cause all they
had were 20' lengths in most sizes, whereas my
only-slightly-higher-priced local yard had 8s, 10s, 12s, ... FAIL!)

Does anyone know what the chemical agent is in this new brown stuff? I
assume it's less toxic than the bad old copper arsenate.

Well, I did find out about the wood I bought, no thanks to anyone who
replied to this thread so far, except for Tegger, who despite their
dismissive attitude towards toxics did provide a link to a document that
actually had at least some of the information I was looking for.

The label on the lumber identified it as "Alkaline Copper Quarternary
Type D". The USDA document
(http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/te...eated-wood.pdf)
has this to say about it:

Alkaline copper quat (ACQ) is one of several recently developed wood
preservatives. It contains copper and a quaternary ammonium
compound. ACQ protects against decay fungi and insects but has not
been standardized for use in marine applications. Multiple variations
of ACQ have been or are in the process of being standardized.

ACQ-B is an ammoniacal copper quat formulation; ACQ-D is an amine
copper quat formulation; and ACQ-C is formulated with either ammonia
or amine and a slightly different quat compound. Currently ACQ-D is
the most commonly used formulation. Like ACZA, ACQ-B is able to
penetrate Douglas-fir and other difficult-to-treat wood species and
is used primarily on the West Coast. Wood treated with ACQ-B has a
dark greenish-brown color. ACQ-D is manufactured with amine copper,
which gives the treated wood a light brown color. ACQ-D is not as
effective as ACQ-B in penetrating difficult-to-treat woods. Both
ACQ-B- and ACQ-D-treated wood can be painted or stained.

Still says nothing about the toxicity of the wood. My customer asked me
if it would be OK to burn the wood scraps; I told him it probably wasn't
such a great idea.

I guess the next step is to find the MSDS.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

On Jun 18, 8:51*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 6/18/2010 8:10 AM harry spake thus:







On Jun 17, 1:41 pm, Tegger wrote:

harry wrote in
:

Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.

Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does not
carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the poison,
remember.

There are some poisons your body can't excrete. *(Like many heavy
metals)
So you can in take enough to kill you in one shot or in as many small
doses as it takes. *The name of it is self explanatory. *You just
gradually get more ill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_poison

There is a theory that Napoleon Bonaparte died of cumulative Arsenic
poisoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic...leon_Bonaparte

How is that complete nonsense?
Where did you learn your science?

Well, speaking of where one learns things, Harry, I have to say that you
do yourself no favors by constantly referring to Wikipedia as if it's
actually a credible source of information.

It isn't. I call it "the 'encyclopedia' any pimply-faced 7th grader
can--and does--edit". Not only that, but those pimply-faced junior high
schoolers and high schoolers often become "admins", who are the ones who
have to power to resolve disputes and even get editors kicked off the
Wiki. Feh.

Don't take my word for it: please readhttp://wikipediareview.com, for
example. (Hint: lots of Wiki admins read and even post here.)

Or hehttp://www.wired.com/software/webser...ttext/2006/04/...

Or hehttp://parkerpeters.livejournal.com

Or just search for information on the "Siegenthaler story". That'll tell
you all you need to know about this so-called "encyclopedia".

The problem is far worse than just Wikipedia itself: since it's
considered the #1 source of information by many, including Google
itself, its information is endlessly "scraped" by other sites that just
scoop up Wiki articles and widely disseminate its disinformation.

--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The stuff I refer to in Wiki is stuff I already knew so I can verify
it's accuracy. You're quite right, there is some dodgy info. in Wiki
too. Often though, you can see it's dodgy by the writing skills/tone
of the contributer. But it always makes a good starting point for
stuff I don't know & there are some good links to elsewhere.

On Jun 17, 1:41*pm, Tegger wrote:
harry wrote :

Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.

Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does not
carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the poison,
remember.

--
Tegger

Radiation poisoning is cumulative too. Including X-rays.

harry wrote in
:

On Jun 17, 1:41*pm, Tegger wrote:
harry wrote
innews:580d54bf-481d-4334-8f24-7f8eb07f
:

Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.

Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does
not carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the
poison, remember.




Radiation poisoning is cumulative too. Including X-rays.




But there is /still/ a threshold below which there is no physiological or
neurological harm. That's how workplace-exposure limits are decided.


--
Tegger

On Jun 19, 1:41*pm, Tegger wrote:
harry wrote :





On Jun 17, 1:41*pm, Tegger wrote:
harry wrote
innews:580d54bf-481d-4334-8f24-7f8eb07f
:

Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.

Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does
not carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the
poison, remember.

Radiation poisoning is cumulative too. Including X-rays.

But there is /still/ a threshold below which there is no physiological or
neurological harm. That's how workplace-exposure limits are decided.

--
Tegger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course that's true. But some things, after a while your body
removes them, others it can't. That's why permissable limits are very
low indeed for the cumulative ones. Or, they try to phase them out
all together. Which is why they've given up using arsenic to protect
wood.
The Xray technician gets to wear a lead suit and may operate the
machine from behind a screen (esp. in days of yore). The patient gets
nothing.
The reason is the effects of Xrays are also cumulative, without his
apron he would get well over the limit during his career.. The
patient only has a small cumulative dose even though he/she is the one
getting zapped.
In days of extreme yore, this was not understood and X-ray machine
operators had short lives.

Bit more here on heavy metal accumulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_m...ng_org anisms

On 6/19/2010 5:41 AM Tegger spake thus:

harry wrote in
:

On Jun 17, 1:41 pm, Tegger wrote:

harry wrote:

Arsenic is a cumulative poison. There is no "safe" level. As with
lead, cadmium and mercury.

Scientifically, that's complete nonsense.

For /all/ substances there is a threshold below which exposure does
not carry physiological or neurological harm. The dose makes the
poison, remember.

Radiation poisoning is cumulative too. Including X-rays.

But there is /still/ a threshold below which there is no physiological or
neurological harm. That's how workplace-exposure limits are decided.

Ackshooly, that's not true, at least regarding radiation, and was
debunked many years ago by the BEIR (biological effects of ionizing
radiation) panel, who demonstrated that there is essentially *no* lower
limit of (ionizing) radiation that does not cause cumulative effects.

You could look it up.


--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.

- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)

David Nebenzahl wrote in
.com:

On 6/19/2010 5:41 AM Tegger spake thus:



But there is /still/ a threshold below which there is no
physiological or neurological harm. That's how workplace-exposure
limits are decided.

Ackshooly, that's not true, at least regarding radiation, and was
debunked many years ago by the BEIR (biological effects of ionizing
radiation) panel, who demonstrated that there is essentially *no*
lower limit of (ionizing) radiation that does not cause cumulative
effects.


Cumulative GOOD effects, or cumulative BAD effects? You do not say which.



You could look it up.




I just did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis


--
Tegger

On Jun 23, 1:24*am, Tegger wrote:
David Nebenzahl wrote rs.com:

On 6/19/2010 5:41 AM Tegger spake thus:

But there is /still/ a threshold below which there is no
physiological or neurological harm. That's how workplace-exposure
limits are decided.

Ackshooly, that's not true, at least regarding radiation, and was
debunked many years ago by the BEIR (biological effects of ionizing
radiation) panel, who demonstrated that there is essentially *no*
lower limit of (ionizing) radiation that does not cause cumulative
effects.

Cumulative GOOD effects, or cumulative BAD effects? You do not say which.



You could look it up.

I just did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis

--
Tegger

I can see you're into dodgy pseudo-sciences.
Have a look at this one while you're at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiati...clear_b odies
Completely rubbishes the idea.
I bet you believe in homeopathy too!