Charlie wrote:
> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
Ooops! This stuff is the next asbestos, arsenic, copper and chromic all
into one neat bundle. You cannot dump it, leaches into water table,
cannot burn, arsenic will eventually fall, maybe into your garden. This
has been used for over 100 years now, there are multi million lawsuits
in the offing. There are expensive treatments to treat the stuff but
they are rare and it seems from the other reply that it will be left
for our children to deal with.
Charlie wrote:
> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
Build some planter boxes or benches?
Landscape edging?
Pitch in with some neighbors and rent a dumpster?
Fireplace?
Cut it smaller and get black trash bags?
Hermetically seal and store it until a cure can be found?
If it is the new stuff, bury it and it will rot in a few years.
Locutus wrote:
> "Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>
> Cut it up into small pieces and burn it.
>
> It wont kill anyone.
I cannot believe that a group of woodworkers would be so offhand about
something they apparently know nothing about. Do not take my word ,
look at http://www.bancca.org/
Locutus wrote:
> "Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>
> Cut it up into small pieces and burn it.
>
> It wont kill anyone.
Locutus, you're kidding, I hope.
CCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromated_copper_arsenate
ACQ: http://www.ufpi.com/product/ptlumber/handuse.htm
"Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>
In California,
http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/Furnisher/TrWood.htm#laws
LAWS AND GUIDELINES
California Statute
California law [Chapter 597, Statutes of 2004 (Matthews, AB 1353)] requires
treated wood waste to be disposed of in either a class I hazardous waste
landfill or in a composite-lined portion of a solid waste landfill unit that
meets specified requirements. All variances granted by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control before January 1, 2005 governing the management of
treated wood waste are inoperative and have no further effect.
Ya gotta love California!
Dave
Dave Balderstone wrote:
SNIP
> There'll be another study in 10 years that "proves" the old PT is
> better for us and the environment than the new CCX stuff.
>
> Just like everthing else...
Sadly, that is probably more true than I would like to think. Then all
the attorneys that sharpened their claws on the old stuff can now
switch gears and sue for the new stuff.
I have no trouble imagining that...
Robert
>> "Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> In California,
snip
>>> requires treated wood waste to be disposed of in either a class I
>>> hazardous waste landfill or in a composite-lined portion of a solid
>>> waste landfill unit that meets specified requirements.
snip
>>> Ya gotta love California!
>>>
>>> Dave
>>Leon said
>> What is it about California that makes its population have such a low
>> tollerance to disease??? "~)
>>
>>
>>
> "Henry St.Pierre"
> The Ninth Curcuit Court decreed it so.
>
ROTFLMAO!!!!
No truer statement has been said!
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
>>Teamcasa
> All variances granted by the Department of
>>Toxic Substances Control before January 1, 2005 governing the management
>>of
>>treated wood waste are inoperative and have no further effect.
>>
>>Ya gotta love California!
>>
>>Dave
>>
> ==========
> That is "the" REPUBLIC OF KALIFORNIA....
> Honestly I would never ever even think of living in that Republic...
> Period. !
>
> Bob G.
> in the land of pleasent living on the shores of the Chesapeak Bay
>
I guess this is the land of fruits and nuts! However, I've never had an ice
storm, blizzard, tornado, baseball sized hail or a hurricane at my house.
If I want to visit the snow, in 45 minutes I can be at 8000' and see all of
it I want. I could also drive for 45 minutes the other direction and be
surfing, sailing or fishing. I can work all year long in my shop without a
heater or an air conditioner.
Yes, the housing costs are high, lawyers run the State, two of our governors
were actors and we have earthquakes and big fires. However, I'm happy to be
working in my shop, loving the weather, and realizing that I made a ten fold
profit on my properties here on the Left Coast!
Dave
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
david wrote:
> Locutus wrote:
> > "Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
> >
> > Cut it up into small pieces and burn it.
> >
> > It wont kill anyone.
>
> I cannot believe that a group of woodworkers
Not a group. Just one. DAGS "troll".
--
FF
Prometheus wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:44:00 -0400, Charlie <greatviewcsc at hotmail
> dot com> wrote:
>
> >How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>
> ...
>
> I swear, people seem to think that if you follow all the *rules for
> healthy living*, you'll live forever. How is it really any better
> that we lock up garbage and forget about it so somebody's kids can
> deal with it later?
Lock it up as opposed to what, burying it so somebody's kids
can deal with a contaminated water table some day?
The problem with a lot of 'disposal' methods is that it does NOT
dispose of the hazard at all. It just makes it a lot harder to
deal with down the road.
Regading the PT lumber scraps, I am reminded of an old saying
that there is no such thing as a scrap 2 x 4. Keep it for the
next time you need rot-resistant shims or some such.
--
FF
Ken Muldrew wrote:
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm still of the opinion (yes, opinion- I'm not going to do an
> >> in-depth scientific study for a 60-second rant) that there was nothing
> >> wrong with the old PT lumber, and somebody from the screw factories
> >> got into bed with the EPA so that we have to buy triple-coated or
> >> stainless steel fasteners for $20+ a box because the CCX lumber eats
> >> metal.
> >
> >There'll be another study in 10 years that "proves" the old PT is
> >better for us and the environment than the new CCX stuff.
>
> A surprising number of people were burning scraps of the old stuff and
> sitting around the fire breathing the smoke. Arsenic is a potent
> neurotoxin and some people got pretty sick. The widespread use of CCA
> treated wood without a widespread understanding of the necessity of
> disposing of it in a landfill was a bad idea and will remain so for
> more than the next 10 years.
Back when I was a kid my mother suggested that for a July 4 cookout
we use some of that "wood that's just laying around that we're never
going to use." instead of charcoal. Since we had several chords of
firewood just rotting away, I agreed that was a good idea.
On the day of the party I discovered a big pile of painted wood scraps
and plywood in the barbeque.
Oh, my mother was a registered nurse.
--
FF
Prometheus wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 10:54:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Lock it up as opposed to what, burying it so somebody's kids
> >can deal with a contaminated water table some day?
>
> Here's the problem, Fred- Assuming you don't have all the money in the
> world, like most folks, PT lumber is where it's at for decking and
> landscaping timpers, as well as sill plates on a lot of houses and
> garages. Whether it's the old arsenic version, or the newer CCX, a
> lot of that wood is in contact with the ground and exposed to the air
> for long periods of time. If the problem is seepage into the water
> table, it's going to be a problem no matter what you do- I've never
> seen anyone suggesting (though I'm sure there are some) that when you
> put in a deck, the posts must be wrapped in kevlar-impreganted rubber
> to protect the ground from the toxins.
In general inroganics supposedly adsorb (yes with a 'd') well onto soil
particals so that what leaches out of the lumber is not expected to
travel far through the soil.
> Nor have I seen the DNR or EPA
> demanding that all PT lumber be painted with a sealing epoxy or
> similar to keep rainwater runoff from being contaminated by it.
>
Personally, I expect that disposing of CCA lumber and lot of
other things as well, including some radioactive waste, in
a proper clay-lined landfill is not a problem.
I have a bit of a problem with the implied attitude, that everybody
BUT the person who wants to dispose of something has the
responsibility to take care of the problem.
A while back most local governments quit taking automobile
batteries and auto tires, and come places require that those
who sell them accept them back when they are worn out.
The result is that batteris and tires are being recycled into
batteries and tires. That might be more expensive in the long
run than making them out of virgin material and dumping them
in landfills but that extra expense is being borne by the consumers
who use those products, instead of everyone else.
>...
> >
> >Regading the PT lumber scraps, I am reminded of an old saying
> >that there is no such thing as a scrap 2 x 4. Keep it for the
> >next time you need rot-resistant shims or some such.
>
> Truth be told, that's what I do- but the OP was looking for a way to
> toss it out. Those scraps have a way of building up.
--
FF
Prometheus wrote:
> On 1 Jun 2006 19:05:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Prometheus wrote:
>
> >> Here's the problem, Fred- Assuming you don't have all the money in the
> >> world, like most folks, PT lumber is where it's at for decking and
> >> landscaping timpers, as well as sill plates on a lot of houses and
> >> garages. Whether it's the old arsenic version, or the newer CCX, a
> >> lot of that wood is in contact with the ground and exposed to the air
> >> for long periods of time. If the problem is seepage into the water
> >> table, it's going to be a problem no matter what you do- I've never
> >> seen anyone suggesting (though I'm sure there are some) that when you
> >> put in a deck, the posts must be wrapped in kevlar-impreganted rubber
> >> to protect the ground from the toxins.
> >
> >In general inorganics supposedly adsorb (yes with a 'd') well onto soil
> >particals [oh crap, I meant 'particles') so that what leaches out of the
> lumber is not expected to
> >travel far through the soil.
>
> Doesn't this contradict the concern about burying them? I'll buy the
> party line of not burning them-
The adsorbtivity of soil is not unlimited. So there is a difference
between using landscaping timbers and burying a pile of scraps.
Leach rate is also strongly dependent on surface area so that
sawdust and chips will leach at a rate that is several orders of
magnitude higher than a 2 x 4. There is no guarantee that
the soil itself is going to stay put either.
The other issue is that by not traveling far, the soil near the
wood stays contaminated indefinately. Consider the adhomition
about growing root vegetables in close proximinity to CCA
treated wood. After the property has changed hands a few
times, how is anybody going to remember where the
treated wood used to be?
Also Woods scraps buried
in a landfill are not buried in soil, they are buried in garbage which
loaded with a pethora of other chemicals that compete with eh arsenic
and chromium ions for sites on those soil particles.
> >
> >Personally, I expect that disposing of CCA lumber and lot of
> >other things as well, including some radioactive waste, in
> >a proper clay-lined landfill is not a problem.
>
> Ok, I'll buy that as well- it sounds just fine. But the OP was about
> the city not accepting PT lumber. When there is no venue for disposal
> availible, excavating and lining a personal landfill is a little out
> of the reach of your average homeowner, and even if it were feasable,
> I suspect we'd have far more problems as a result. So, what is a
> person supposed to do? AFAIK, there are no disposal companies
> dedicated to the removal and storage of PT lumber, so the only options
> I can see are:
>
> 1. Keep piles of scrap forever
1.5 keep them until he finds somewhere that does accept them.
1.75 Make something else out of them.
> 2. Sneak them into the trash
> 3. Bury them in the yard (or)
> 4. Burn them
>
> >I have a bit of a problem with the implied attitude, that everybody
> >BUT the person who wants to dispose of something has the
> >responsibility to take care of the problem.
>
> No, the person who wants to dispose of something should make a
> reasonable effort to do the right thing. But sometimes there is no
> real option because legislation is put into place to prevent sane
> disposal methods without offering any solution in their place.
The material in question is HIS property. Dealing with it is HIS
responsibility.
>
> Now, I can't say for sure what is in the trash of any given city's
> landfill- but it seems a fairly safe bet that there are any number of
> things at least as bad or worse than construction lumber. Old
> household cleaners, rat poision, used motor oil, circuit boards, old
> mercury thermostats and god only knows what else are almost certainly
> in any given dump site whether they are supposed to be there or not,
> so it seems prudent that the garbage collection cost should cover the
> price of making any given landfill equal to the task intended for it-
> namely, disposing garbage.
>
> I don't know about you, but the garbage company doesn't allow me to
> dicker with them over prices, I just have to pay what they tell me it
> costs. So if they add a $2 a month (or $20, for that matter)
> surcharge to the bill to make a better landfill, that's all there is
> to it- I'll pay it, and for that fee, I expect them to know their
> business. My responsibilty is to pay for the disposal, and theirs is
> to do the disposing in the proper manner.
Mine doesn't dicker with me over what I am allowed to
put in my garbage either. Tires, and used motor oil
are handled by the people who sell them. It becomes
part of their cost of doing business.
>
> It should not be incumbent on every member of a specialized society to
> know every aspect of every product that directly or indirectly touches
> their life. I don't know a thing about growing wheat- but I do eat
> bread; there is no way that I would be able to track the pesticide use
> of every farmer that sends grain to every mill that produces the bread
> I purchase, and the same concept applies to scrapping.
No it doesn't. The farmer is certianly responsiblity for how he
uses his pesticides, just like you are for the pesticides you
use. Ditto for wood scraps. The difference between trace
trace contaminants that aren''t even listed on the label of the
product you buy, and the product itself, is obvious.
I have absolutely no sympahty for people who refuse to
read the labels on the products they buy. I have considerable
sympathy for people who cannot read the fine print.
> I don't have
> room in my house or my head to keep track of an itinerary of each and
> every household chemical under the sink and it's proper neutralizing
> agent,
You don't have to, that information is on the label of pretty much
every product sold. That's part of why I pay taxes, to suport
public schools to teach you how to read. As an aside, the
number of questions about products that are asked in this
newsgroup and can be answered by reading the label is truly
appalling.
Damn near everthign bought today includes disposal instructions,
usually where they can be read before opening the package.
If you aren't willing to follow them, don't buy the product.
>
> That is the garbage company's job, and they need to do it. If they
> have to charge more to do it, fine- but merely saying "no" doesn't cut
> it.
Fine, so long as YOU properly label everything you put in your
garbage. After all, it was properly labeled when you bought it,
right?
>
> >A while back most local governments quit taking automobile
> >batteries and auto tires, and come places require that those
> >who sell them accept them back when they are worn out.
> >The result is that batteris and tires are being recycled into
> >batteries and tires. That might be more expensive in the long
> >run than making them out of virgin material and dumping them
> >in landfills but that extra expense is being borne by the consumers
> >who use those products, instead of everyone else.
>
> Tell ya what- if they want to do that with lumber, they can do that.
> It might slow construction down, but if needs to happen then it needs
> to happen.
Agreed.
> They can stamp an 800 number on the planks so I know where
> to get rid of them, just like the batteries on my cordless tools, and
> it'll be just fine. But if there is no other option, the stuff is
> going in the trash with the rest of the crap.
I'm quite sure that you have the option to hold on to it for a few
months while looking for a solution.
--
FF
[email protected] wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tim Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Tim Taylor wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> And red meat is still causing cancer in lab rats. Don't waste good meat
> >>> on
> >>> the rats!!!!
> >>
> >> Did you ever wonder if lab rats casue cancer?
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> FF
> >>
> >Well now that you mention it, I have laid awake many nights wondering that!
> >:~)
> >
> >
>
> It's not the rats, its the cages.
>
Many years ago I attended a Coloquim given by the head
of the toxicology department at Carnegie Melon. He described
in considerable detail, the infrastructure they used to protect
their animals from environmental toxins. The life expectancy
of their lab mice was 50% longer than at most most other labs.
When asked about the incidence of cancer in their controls he
replied that in his twenty years at CM he had not observed a
single malignancy in a control subject.
OTOH, in some labs the mice breathe city air and drink tap water.
There may even be chrome or nickle plating in their cages.
--
FF
Prometheus wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2006 08:26:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> <<snip>>
>
> >You don't have to, that information is on the label of pretty much
> >every product sold. That's part of why I pay taxes, to suport
> >public schools to teach you how to read. As an aside, the
> >number of questions about products that are asked in this
> >newsgroup and can be answered by reading the label is truly
> >appalling.
>
> Does it really seem as though I can't read? 1ts n0t like i am 1 of
> th0se 3lit3 haxors lol. ur mabbr a lttle off bas here.
Do you think I'm being a jerque?
>
> >Damn near everthign bought today includes disposal instructions,
> >usually where they can be read before opening the package.
> >If you aren't willing to follow them, don't buy the product.
>
> I don't know where you get your lumber, but I've never got a package
> with a pile of deck boards or 2x timbers. I'm willing to follow them,
> but the fact remains that there is no literature that comes with the
> product, and the information I found looking for this said that they
> were landfill safe.
Wrong. The fact is that everyone who sells treated lumber is
required to provide that literature upon request. All you had to
do was ask the folks who sold you your lumber.
> Where does your garbage go, if not the landfill?
AFAIK we're still allowed to put CCA treated lumber in
with the other garbage. But I don't. I'm still in the process
of making the 'scraps' into smaller scraps.
>
> >> That is the garbage company's job, and they need to do it. If they
> >> have to charge more to do it, fine- but merely saying "no" doesn't cut
> >> it.
> >
> >Fine, so long as YOU properly label everything you put in your
> >garbage. After all, it was properly labeled when you bought it,
> >right?
>
> Treated lumber? Nope. Usually has a stamp or two, but says nothing
> about disposal. Most scraps still have a stamp on them somewhere, at
> least enough on one of them to identify the pile.
All you ever had to do was ask. It turns out you acted responsibly
by researching the matter anyhow. Why shouldn't anyone else
do the same?
> Far as the other
> stuff goes, the residue goes out in the package it came in, so I
> suppose it *is* properly labeled, right?
All I ask is that you read the label and follow the instructions
for proper disposal. *I* don't think that's a big deal.
>
> >I'm quite sure that you have the option to hold on to it for a few
> >months while looking for a solution.
>
> Me personally? Sure- I make shims and blocking out of cutoffs. But I
> have an acre of yard and a woodshop in the basement and garage. A
> little pile of leftover scraps in the back corner doesn't matter much
> between the pallet or two of recycled bricks I usually keep after a
> demo job, the turning stock and the firewood.
I daresay OP is doing the same--that's why he posted here.
Maybe he should ask a local contractor what he does with the
scraps.
>
> But Joe Public in Anywhere, USA with a postage-stamp sized yard and a
> small house may not have the room to store a pile of cutoffs for a few
> months. If someone is renting, they may be prohibited from storing
> such things- if they live in a gated community, the powers that be
> might not allow piles of scrap of any size. I see plenty of threads
> from people who have to cram a workspace into tiny space, be it a
> sliver of garage, a deck, or god forbid- the living room. It is they
> for whom I am arguing. Not everyone is a millionaire or
> waste-management specialist- a lot of people are just regular folks,
> and they'd like to live their respective lives unmolested by constant
> streams of nonsense.
It is all but impossible to imagine a homeowner who would have the
need (as he sees it) and the space to use the product, but not have
the space to stash the scraps. Did he build a porch, a deck or
outside
stairs? Well, then he has a crawspace where he can stack the
scraps. If they are prohibitted from storing it, well they violated
that
prohibition when they bought it.
>
> The fact still remains that they are bits of wood- not some
> radioactive sludge with pockets of anthrax and serin gas in it.
Chromium and arsenic are chemical elements. Unlike sarin,
anthrax and a lot of radioactive waste they do not degrade into
harmlessness, ever.
> And
> the manufacturers and gov't site cited earlier in the thread as an
> admonition not to burn the stuff both say it's fine in the landfill.
> So how is throwing the stuff in the trash wrong?
It is only wrong if the owners/operators of the landfill refuse it.
Surely you don't argue that they have no rights concerning
thier own property.
>
> I just get tired of California coming up with stuff that is far beyond
> sanity and common sense, and then trying to guilt the rest of the
> world into meekly following along. It looks like a park where I live,
> and we work to keep it that way- the air and roadways are clean, the
> water is drinkable and the trees are intact. Even the frogs are
> largely mutation-free, and sing us a nice tune in the evenings.
> Tourists pay a lot of money and drive insane distances to come to my
> neck of the woods to fish, hunt and camp. And people have been living
> here a long time- they burn things, and throw stuff in landfills. It
> not that nobody cares, it's just that not everything a human ever
> touched is inherantly evil, and sometimes plain common sense is what
> you need. We still have plenty of stuff that is criminal elsewhere,
> and it's working out just fine.
>
> Wood is wood, for cripes' sake. Even if you inject copper into it,
> it's still just wood.
The copper doesn't worry me either. The chromium and arsenic
do, but as I said before, I'm not troubled by disposing of that
in a properly lined landfill.
> What's next- are we going to need to replace
> our yards with plastic greenery made from eco-friendly recycled pop
> bottles because there is a trace amount of some chemical in grass that
> is going to give us all cancer?
So long as you keep reading those labels and follow the disposal
instructions I think we'll be OK. That same advice works for
household cleaners, treated lumber and tablesaws.
--
FF
"Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
Cut it up into small pieces and burn it.
It wont kill anyone.
"david" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Locutus wrote:
>> "Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>>
>> Cut it up into small pieces and burn it.
>>
>> It wont kill anyone.
>
> I cannot believe that a group of woodworkers would be so offhand about
> something they apparently know nothing about. Do not take my word ,
> look at http://www.bancca.org/
>
Ok, instead I will take the word of a site called "Ban CCA". I am sure they
are quite unbiased.
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> So pretty please, with sugar on top, let's just be people again.
> Sometimes that means just taking out the trash and calling it a day.
>
Do you realize what sugar does to the human body? Diabetes and obesity are
just the tip of the iceberg<G>.....Rod
In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Taylor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Tim Taylor wrote:
>>> >
>>> And red meat is still causing cancer in lab rats. Don't waste good meat
>>> on
>>> the rats!!!!
>>
>> Did you ever wonder if lab rats casue cancer?
>>
>> --
>>
>> FF
>>
>Well now that you mention it, I have laid awake many nights wondering that!
>:~)
>
>
It's not the rats, its the cages.
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm still of the opinion (yes, opinion- I'm not going to do an
> in-depth scientific study for a 60-second rant) that there was nothing
> wrong with the old PT lumber, and somebody from the screw factories
> got into bed with the EPA so that we have to buy triple-coated or
> stainless steel fasteners for $20+ a box because the CCX lumber eats
> metal.
There'll be another study in 10 years that "proves" the old PT is
better for us and the environment than the new CCX stuff.
Just like everthing else...
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm still of the opinion (yes, opinion- I'm not going to do an
>> in-depth scientific study for a 60-second rant) that there was nothing
>> wrong with the old PT lumber, and somebody from the screw factories
>> got into bed with the EPA so that we have to buy triple-coated or
>> stainless steel fasteners for $20+ a box because the CCX lumber eats
>> metal.
>
>There'll be another study in 10 years that "proves" the old PT is
>better for us and the environment than the new CCX stuff.
A surprising number of people were burning scraps of the old stuff and
sitting around the fire breathing the smoke. Arsenic is a potent
neurotoxin and some people got pretty sick. The widespread use of CCA
treated wood without a widespread understanding of the necessity of
disposing of it in a landfill was a bad idea and will remain so for
more than the next 10 years.
That is not to say that the latest "cure" isn't worse than the
disease; just that there was a serious problem with CCA that had to be
addressed. Personally, I would have gone for public education against
burning the stuff, but I guess the industry had different concerns.
Ken Muldrew
[email protected]
(remove all letters after y in the alphabet)
"Daniel H" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Locutus wrote:
>> "Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>>
>> Cut it up into small pieces and burn it.
>>
>> It wont kill anyone.
>
> Locutus, you're kidding, I hope.
> CCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromated_copper_arsenate
> ACQ: http://www.ufpi.com/product/ptlumber/handuse.htm
>
I'm from the country, we burn everything. ;)
"Tex" <tex@my_isp.net> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>>
>> "david" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > Charlie wrote:
>> >> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>> >
>> > Ooops! This stuff is the next asbestos, arsenic, copper and chromic all
>> > into one neat bundle. You cannot dump it, leaches into water table,
>> > cannot burn, arsenic will eventually fall, maybe into your garden. This
>> > has been used for over 100 years now, there are multi million lawsuits
>> > in the offing. There are expensive treatments to treat the stuff but
>> > they are rare and it seems from the other reply that it will be left
>> > for our children to deal with.
>> >
>> Get a freaking life tree hugger!!!
>>
>>
> Gotta better for suggestions for the tree huggers -- the next time you
> fill you gas tank, save on gasoline - stuff a tree hugger in the tank!
> That way, we can drill where we know oil is and get rid of tree huggers
> at the same time -- damned bunch of hypocrites that use hydrocarbons,
> etc. but still gripe and cause trouble.
AMEN BROTHER!!!
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> There'll be another study in 10 years that "proves" the old PT is
>> better for us and the environment than the new CCX stuff.
>>
>> Just like everthing else...
>
> Sadly, that is probably more true than I would like to think. Then all
> the attorneys that sharpened their claws on the old stuff can now
> switch gears and sue for the new stuff.
>
> I have no trouble imagining that...
>
> Robert
>
And red meat is still causing cancer in lab rats. Don't waste good meat on
the rats!!!!
On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:44:00 -0400, Charlie <greatviewcsc at hotmail
dot com> wrote:
>How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
Well, you can wrap it in plastic, then seal it in a metal drum labeled
"biohazard", and store it in an earthquake proof lead-lined concrete
bunker- or you could hide it under some other crap in your trash can
and get on with your day. Or you could burn it- no, it's not good for
you or the environment, but what the hell else are you supposed to do
with the stuff? Just don't roast marshmallows over the fire, and
you'll live to see tomorrow.
I'm still of the opinion (yes, opinion- I'm not going to do an
in-depth scientific study for a 60-second rant) that there was nothing
wrong with the old PT lumber, and somebody from the screw factories
got into bed with the EPA so that we have to buy triple-coated or
stainless steel fasteners for $20+ a box because the CCX lumber eats
metal.
I swear, people seem to think that if you follow all the *rules for
healthy living*, you'll live forever. How is it really any better
that we lock up garbage and forget about it so somebody's kids can
deal with it later?
"david" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Charlie wrote:
>> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>
> Ooops! This stuff is the next asbestos, arsenic, copper and chromic all
> into one neat bundle. You cannot dump it, leaches into water table,
> cannot burn, arsenic will eventually fall, maybe into your garden. This
> has been used for over 100 years now, there are multi million lawsuits
> in the offing. There are expensive treatments to treat the stuff but
> they are rare and it seems from the other reply that it will be left
> for our children to deal with.
>
Get a freaking life tree hugger!!!
"Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In California,
>
> http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/Furnisher/TrWood.htm#laws
>
> LAWS AND GUIDELINES
> California Statute
> California law [Chapter 597, Statutes of 2004 (Matthews, AB 1353)]
> requires treated wood waste to be disposed of in either a class I
> hazardous waste landfill or in a composite-lined portion of a solid waste
> landfill unit that meets specified requirements. All variances granted by
> the Department of Toxic Substances Control before January 1, 2005
> governing the management of treated wood waste are inoperative and have no
> further effect.
>
> Ya gotta love California!
>
> Dave
What is it about California that makes its population have such a low
tollerance to disease??? "~)
That's ok, nobody else will date you ...
:)
Clint
> I'm going to date myself, but... A long time ago in IBM world a suggestion
> was made to remove the muffin fans from 2311 disk drives. It was done and
> the suggestor became wealthy. After much failure of 2311 disk drives, a
> suggestion was made to add a muffin fan to 2311's to prevent overheating.
> Much wealth was dispensed for this suggestion. I really hope the same
> person made both suggestions, but I doubt it.
> Hank
I can see that being a problem for the plutonium impregnated lumber.
Our local Waste Management took a boatload of CCA treated lumber no problem
in the dumpster we rented when we demod some backyard stairs. We even asked
before hand and they said it was no problem. No cement, paint, gas,
plutonium.....but CCA was no problem.
"Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
Gimme a break. So long as you don't chew on it, or use it instead of cedar
for cooking your salmon on, I highly doubt it's as dangerous as you make it
out to be. The fact that there's millions of dollars in lawsuits coming up
means nothing besides you live in a litigious society.
Clint
"david" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Charlie wrote:
>> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>
> Ooops! This stuff is the next asbestos, arsenic, copper and chromic all
> into one neat bundle. You cannot dump it, leaches into water table,
> cannot burn, arsenic will eventually fall, maybe into your garden. This
> has been used for over 100 years now, there are multi million lawsuits
> in the offing. There are expensive treatments to treat the stuff but
> they are rare and it seems from the other reply that it will be left
> for our children to deal with.
>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "Teamcasa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In California,
>>
>> http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/Furnisher/TrWood.htm#laws
>>
>> LAWS AND GUIDELINES
>> California Statute
>> California law [Chapter 597, Statutes of 2004 (Matthews, AB 1353)]
>> requires treated wood waste to be disposed of in either a class I
>> hazardous waste landfill or in a composite-lined portion of a solid
>> waste landfill unit that meets specified requirements. All variances
>> granted by the Department of Toxic Substances Control before January
>> 1, 2005 governing the management of treated wood waste are
>> inoperative and have no further effect.
>>
>> Ya gotta love California!
>>
>> Dave
>
> What is it about California that makes its population have such a low
> tollerance to disease??? "~)
>
>
>
The Ninth Curcuit Court decreed it so.
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
news:310520061858563555%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:
> In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm still of the opinion (yes, opinion- I'm not going to do an
>> in-depth scientific study for a 60-second rant) that there was nothing
>> wrong with the old PT lumber, and somebody from the screw factories
>> got into bed with the EPA so that we have to buy triple-coated or
>> stainless steel fasteners for $20+ a box because the CCX lumber eats
>> metal.
>
> There'll be another study in 10 years that "proves" the old PT is
> better for us and the environment than the new CCX stuff.
>
> Just like everthing else...
I'm going to date myself, but... A long time ago in IBM world a suggestion
was made to remove the muffin fans from 2311 disk drives. It was done and
the suggestor became wealthy. After much failure of 2311 disk drives, a
suggestion was made to add a muffin fan to 2311's to prevent overheating.
Much wealth was dispensed for this suggestion. I really hope the same
person made both suggestions, but I doubt it.
Hank
On 1 Jun 2006 10:54:08 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Lock it up as opposed to what, burying it so somebody's kids
>can deal with a contaminated water table some day?
Here's the problem, Fred- Assuming you don't have all the money in the
world, like most folks, PT lumber is where it's at for decking and
landscaping timpers, as well as sill plates on a lot of houses and
garages. Whether it's the old arsenic version, or the newer CCX, a
lot of that wood is in contact with the ground and exposed to the air
for long periods of time. If the problem is seepage into the water
table, it's going to be a problem no matter what you do- I've never
seen anyone suggesting (though I'm sure there are some) that when you
put in a deck, the posts must be wrapped in kevlar-impreganted rubber
to protect the ground from the toxins. Nor have I seen the DNR or EPA
demanding that all PT lumber be painted with a sealing epoxy or
similar to keep rainwater runoff from being contaminated by it.
I'm not trying to just be a PITA, it's just that there are plently of
things to worry about in the world without adding bits of scrap wood
to the ever-growing list of things that are going to kill us all. Put
the junk on a pile in a tapped gravel pit, and let it rot. Arsenic
comes from nature, and I'm sure it'll find a way to go back to it.
And for that matter, there isn't even any arsenic in the new stuff to
worry about- so now we're getting worked up over copper salts. Last
time I checked, they get copper out of the ground as well. Some folks
even heat it up a lot to make metal out of it, though I've never much
worried about that, either.
>The problem with a lot of 'disposal' methods is that it does NOT
>dispose of the hazard at all. It just makes it a lot harder to
>deal with down the road.
>
>Regading the PT lumber scraps, I am reminded of an old saying
>that there is no such thing as a scrap 2 x 4. Keep it for the
>next time you need rot-resistant shims or some such.
Truth be told, that's what I do- but the OP was looking for a way to
toss it out. Those scraps have a way of building up.
On 2 Jun 2006 08:26:56 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
<<snip>>
>You don't have to, that information is on the label of pretty much
>every product sold. That's part of why I pay taxes, to suport
>public schools to teach you how to read. As an aside, the
>number of questions about products that are asked in this
>newsgroup and can be answered by reading the label is truly
>appalling.
Does it really seem as though I can't read? 1ts n0t like i am 1 of
th0se 3lit3 haxors lol. ur mabbr a lttle off bas here.
>Damn near everthign bought today includes disposal instructions,
>usually where they can be read before opening the package.
>If you aren't willing to follow them, don't buy the product.
I don't know where you get your lumber, but I've never got a package
with a pile of deck boards or 2x timbers. I'm willing to follow them,
but the fact remains that there is no literature that comes with the
product, and the information I found looking for this said that they
were landfill safe. Where does your garbage go, if not the landfill?
>> That is the garbage company's job, and they need to do it. If they
>> have to charge more to do it, fine- but merely saying "no" doesn't cut
>> it.
>
>Fine, so long as YOU properly label everything you put in your
>garbage. After all, it was properly labeled when you bought it,
>right?
Treated lumber? Nope. Usually has a stamp or two, but says nothing
about disposal. Most scraps still have a stamp on them somewhere, at
least enough on one of them to identify the pile. Far as the other
stuff goes, the residue goes out in the package it came in, so I
suppose it *is* properly labeled, right?
>I'm quite sure that you have the option to hold on to it for a few
>months while looking for a solution.
Me personally? Sure- I make shims and blocking out of cutoffs. But I
have an acre of yard and a woodshop in the basement and garage. A
little pile of leftover scraps in the back corner doesn't matter much
between the pallet or two of recycled bricks I usually keep after a
demo job, the turning stock and the firewood.
But Joe Public in Anywhere, USA with a postage-stamp sized yard and a
small house may not have the room to store a pile of cutoffs for a few
months. If someone is renting, they may be prohibited from storing
such things- if they live in a gated community, the powers that be
might not allow piles of scrap of any size. I see plenty of threads
from people who have to cram a workspace into tiny space, be it a
sliver of garage, a deck, or god forbid- the living room. It is they
for whom I am arguing. Not everyone is a millionaire or
waste-management specialist- a lot of people are just regular folks,
and they'd like to live their respective lives unmolested by constant
streams of nonsense.
The fact still remains that they are bits of wood- not some
radioactive sludge with pockets of anthrax and serin gas in it. And
the manufacturers and gov't site cited earlier in the thread as an
admonition not to burn the stuff both say it's fine in the landfill.
So how is throwing the stuff in the trash wrong?
I just get tired of California coming up with stuff that is far beyond
sanity and common sense, and then trying to guilt the rest of the
world into meekly following along. It looks like a park where I live,
and we work to keep it that way- the air and roadways are clean, the
water is drinkable and the trees are intact. Even the frogs are
largely mutation-free, and sing us a nice tune in the evenings.
Tourists pay a lot of money and drive insane distances to come to my
neck of the woods to fish, hunt and camp. And people have been living
here a long time- they burn things, and throw stuff in landfills. It
not that nobody cares, it's just that not everything a human ever
touched is inherantly evil, and sometimes plain common sense is what
you need. We still have plenty of stuff that is criminal elsewhere,
and it's working out just fine.
Wood is wood, for cripes' sake. Even if you inject copper into it,
it's still just wood. What's next- are we going to need to replace
our yards with plastic greenery made from eco-friendly recycled pop
bottles because there is a trace amount of some chemical in grass that
is going to give us all cancer?
Science is great for a lot of things- but it can also be a monster of
abstraction misused to frighten trusting people into cowed submission
when they should be more concerned about living their lives. Maybe
then everyone wouldn't need Ambien to sleep, Diet pills to wake up and
burn off the Doritos, Ritalin to soothe those jangled nerves from the
diet pills, statins to fix the high blood pressure and cholesterol
from McDonald's, Paxil to face the neighbors at the WalMart, and a
Viagra to make them pretend they're still human, and not a just
chemical and bullshit repository. We're so shrink-wrapped, sterilized
and individually packaged these days that genuine human beings are
becoming an endangered species.
So pretty please, with sugar on top, let's just be people again.
Sometimes that means just taking out the trash and calling it a day.
"Rod & Betty Jo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > So pretty please, with sugar on top, let's just be people again.
> > Sometimes that means just taking out the trash and calling it a day.
> >
> Do you realize what sugar does to the human body? Diabetes and obesity are
> just the tip of the iceberg<G>.....Rod
Hey, just the fact of living is eventually going to kill you. Every food out
there has negative consequences if it's eaten out of proportion.
"Locutus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm from the country, we burn everything. ;)
>
>
Pretty much the same here. We also stand upwind of the smoke.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:310520061858563555%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Prometheus
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm still of the opinion (yes, opinion- I'm not going to do an
>> in-depth scientific study for a 60-second rant) that there was nothing
>> wrong with the old PT lumber, and somebody from the screw factories
>> got into bed with the EPA so that we have to buy triple-coated or
>> stainless steel fasteners for $20+ a box because the CCX lumber eats
>> metal.
>
> There'll be another study in 10 years that "proves" the old PT is
> better for us and the environment than the new CCX stuff.
>
> Just like everthing else...
Just like the new Freon used in today's cars. Better for the ozone, worse
for the humans.
"Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
Have no idea where you are located but each state and local gov't usually
has instructions on how to safely dispose of treated lumber (CCA)
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/sldwaste/cca.html
Do a search for your locale and you should find who to contact.
Bob S.
"david" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Locutus wrote:
>> "Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
>>
>> Cut it up into small pieces and burn it.
>>
>> It wont kill anyone.
>
> I cannot believe that a group of woodworkers would be so offhand about
> something they apparently know nothing about. Do not take my word ,
> look at http://www.bancca.org/
>
Again, get a life!!!! It's fucken wood!!!
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tim Taylor wrote:
>> >
>> And red meat is still causing cancer in lab rats. Don't waste good meat
>> on
>> the rats!!!!
>
> Did you ever wonder if lab rats casue cancer?
>
> --
>
> FF
>
Well now that you mention it, I have laid awake many nights wondering that!
:~)
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "david" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Charlie wrote:
> >> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
> >
> > Ooops! This stuff is the next asbestos, arsenic, copper and chromic all
> > into one neat bundle. You cannot dump it, leaches into water table,
> > cannot burn, arsenic will eventually fall, maybe into your garden. This
> > has been used for over 100 years now, there are multi million lawsuits
> > in the offing. There are expensive treatments to treat the stuff but
> > they are rare and it seems from the other reply that it will be left
> > for our children to deal with.
> >
> Get a freaking life tree hugger!!!
>
>
Gotta better for suggestions for the tree huggers -- the next time you
fill you gas tank, save on gasoline - stuff a tree hugger in the tank!
That way, we can drill where we know oil is and get rid of tree huggers
at the same time -- damned bunch of hypocrites that use hydrocarbons,
etc. but still gripe and cause trouble.
On 1 Jun 2006 19:05:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>Prometheus wrote:
>> Here's the problem, Fred- Assuming you don't have all the money in the
>> world, like most folks, PT lumber is where it's at for decking and
>> landscaping timpers, as well as sill plates on a lot of houses and
>> garages. Whether it's the old arsenic version, or the newer CCX, a
>> lot of that wood is in contact with the ground and exposed to the air
>> for long periods of time. If the problem is seepage into the water
>> table, it's going to be a problem no matter what you do- I've never
>> seen anyone suggesting (though I'm sure there are some) that when you
>> put in a deck, the posts must be wrapped in kevlar-impreganted rubber
>> to protect the ground from the toxins.
>
>In general inroganics supposedly adsorb (yes with a 'd') well onto soil
>particals so that what leaches out of the lumber is not expected to
>travel far through the soil.
Doesn't this contradict the concern about burying them? I'll buy the
party line of not burning them- I don't do it, though I don't raise a
stink if someone else does, and I've seen it more than a couple of
times.
>> Nor have I seen the DNR or EPA
>> demanding that all PT lumber be painted with a sealing epoxy or
>> similar to keep rainwater runoff from being contaminated by it.
>>
>
>Personally, I expect that disposing of CCA lumber and lot of
>other things as well, including some radioactive waste, in
>a proper clay-lined landfill is not a problem.
Ok, I'll buy that as well- it sounds just fine. But the OP was about
the city not accepting PT lumber. When there is no venue for disposal
availible, excavating and lining a personal landfill is a little out
of the reach of your average homeowner, and even if it were feasable,
I suspect we'd have far more problems as a result. So, what is a
person supposed to do? AFAIK, there are no disposal companies
dedicated to the removal and storage of PT lumber, so the only options
I can see are:
1. Keep piles of scrap forever
2. Sneak them into the trash
3. Bury them in the yard (or)
4. Burn them
>I have a bit of a problem with the implied attitude, that everybody
>BUT the person who wants to dispose of something has the
>responsibility to take care of the problem.
No, the person who wants to dispose of something should make a
reasonable effort to do the right thing. But sometimes there is no
real option because legislation is put into place to prevent sane
disposal methods without offering any solution in their place.
Now, I can't say for sure what is in the trash of any given city's
landfill- but it seems a fairly safe bet that there are any number of
things at least as bad or worse than construction lumber. Old
household cleaners, rat poision, used motor oil, circuit boards, old
mercury thermostats and god only knows what else are almost certainly
in any given dump site whether they are supposed to be there or not,
so it seems prudent that the garbage collection cost should cover the
price of making any given landfill equal to the task intended for it-
namely, disposing garbage.
I don't know about you, but the garbage company doesn't allow me to
dicker with them over prices, I just have to pay what they tell me it
costs. So if they add a $2 a month (or $20, for that matter)
surcharge to the bill to make a better landfill, that's all there is
to it- I'll pay it, and for that fee, I expect them to know their
business. My responsibilty is to pay for the disposal, and theirs is
to do the disposing in the proper manner.
It should not be incumbent on every member of a specialized society to
know every aspect of every product that directly or indirectly touches
their life. I don't know a thing about growing wheat- but I do eat
bread; there is no way that I would be able to track the pesticide use
of every farmer that sends grain to every mill that produces the bread
I purchase, and the same concept applies to scrapping. I don't have
room in my house or my head to keep track of an itinerary of each and
every household chemical under the sink and it's proper neutralizing
agent, the correct way to prevent outgassing from the shower curtain
if it is mixed with shellac, Windex and drain cleaner, whether it's
all right to deposit substance "A" in the trash, or if I need to treat
it with a .05% solution of subtance "B" to render it inert first.
That is the garbage company's job, and they need to do it. If they
have to charge more to do it, fine- but merely saying "no" doesn't cut
it.
>A while back most local governments quit taking automobile
>batteries and auto tires, and come places require that those
>who sell them accept them back when they are worn out.
>The result is that batteris and tires are being recycled into
>batteries and tires. That might be more expensive in the long
>run than making them out of virgin material and dumping them
>in landfills but that extra expense is being borne by the consumers
>who use those products, instead of everyone else.
Tell ya what- if they want to do that with lumber, they can do that.
It might slow construction down, but if needs to happen then it needs
to happen. They can stamp an 800 number on the planks so I know where
to get rid of them, just like the batteries on my cordless tools, and
it'll be just fine. But if there is no other option, the stuff is
going in the trash with the rest of the crap.
"Charlie" <greatviewcsc at hotmail dot com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> How do you dispose of left over PT wood when the town won't take it?
Cut it into 24 - 30" lengths. Bundle into manageable sized bundles. When
the next town over has trash collection, you go out the night before and
leave it by the curb at a vacant house. With people starting to vacation,
should be easy to spot. .
. All variances granted by the Department of
>Toxic Substances Control before January 1, 2005 governing the management of
>treated wood waste are inoperative and have no further effect.
>
>Ya gotta love California!
>
>Dave
>
==========
That is "the" REPUBLIC OF KALIFORNIA....
Honestly I would never ever even think of living in that Republic...
Period. !
Bob G.
in the land of pleasent living on the shores of the Chesapeak Bay