ACQ wood

Yes it is. The "new" treated lumber puts out an odor that make you both
very sick. If you cut this type of wood indoors it can also explode.
The new wood is very dangerous so be careful. I'm told it also contains
carcinagens ( cancer causing agents). I would not reccommend using it
indoors. My husband is the manager at a local Lowe's and we did alot
of research on this wood. Most of our answers came from OSHA.


ddabney67 wrote:
> Greetings. My spouse and I want to build a large shelving project for
> the unfinished section of our basement. We were going to use 2 by 2s
> of ACQ treated wood. I cannot get a straight answer as to whether that
> application would be okay. Is the enclosed space an issue with the new
> wood treatment?

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Nancy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Yes it is. The "new" treated lumber puts out an odor that make you both
> >very sick. If you cut this type of wood indoors it can also explode.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!

Yeah, aside from basic imporbability of it explodign in the first
place,
if it was going to explode, how would cutting it outdoors stops it
from
exploding?

>
> >The new wood is very dangerous so be careful. I'm told it also contains
> >carcinagens ( cancer causing agents).

Such as?


--

FF

You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
we found on the internet. If you are cutting this type of wood inside
and you happen to have a spark of any kind it can explode, try it maybe
you will blow up!
Call Hazmat and ask for a MSDS form on this wood if you don't believe
me!!!!!

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, "Nancy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Yes it is. The "new" treated lumber puts out an odor that make you both
> >very sick. If you cut this type of wood indoors it can also explode.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!
>
> >The new wood is very dangerous so be careful. I'm told it also contains
> >carcinagens ( cancer causing agents). I would not reccommend using it
> >indoors. My husband is the manager at a local Lowe's and we did alot
> >of research on this wood. Most of our answers came from OSHA.
>
> And OSHA told you it could explode if cut indoors?
>
> Next time someone asks a question, and you don't know the answer, keep still.
> Don't just make up a bunch of crap.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Nancy wrote:
> You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
> we found on the internet.
>
> Doug Miller wrote:
> >
> > Next time someone asks a question, and you don't know the answer, keep still.
> > Don't just make up a bunch of crap.
> >

Um, and if it's posted on the internet, it must be true.

Yeah.

Or, you could follow Doug's advice and not post about things that you
don't know anything about.

I know more about ACQ wood in my little finger than you guys have in
your entire brain. Obviously if a woman knows something on this site it
must be wrong. I agree with the other gentleman that said this site is
obviously not one I want to be a part of. You are all too assanine for
me.



Mike wrote:
> Nancy wrote:
> > You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
> > we found on the internet.
> >
> > Doug Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Next time someone asks a question, and you don't know the answer, keep still.
> > > Don't just make up a bunch of crap.
> > >
>
> Um, and if it's posted on the internet, it must be true.
>
> Yeah.
>
> Or, you could follow Doug's advice and not post about things that you
> don't know anything about.

Nancy wrote:
> You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
> we found on the internet.

Where did you find this on the internet? A URL would be helpful.

> If you are cutting this type of wood inside
> and you happen to have a spark of any kind it can explode, try it maybe
> you will blow up!

What exactly is it that would explode?
Why would it make a difference if you are indoors or out?
Don't you agree that one needs to understand a hazard inorder to
protect oneself from it/

> Call Hazmat and ask for a MSDS form on this wood if you don't believe
> me!!!!!

I've read the MSDS. And I've looked into the carcinogenicity
of the chemicals in AQC treated wood. They are listed as
'probably not' carcinogens, or 'unknown'. I do find it a bit dis-
concerting that the product is widely available but has not been
tested for carcinogenicity. But I do not understand how you
got from unknown to carcinogenic. Can you explain?

Wood dust in general, even untreated is considered to contain
carcinogens. Some, like Western Red Cedar more so than others.

And of course wood dust in general is an explosion hazard though
it is difficult to get conditions condusive to an explosion under
normal
shop condidtions. But if you try throwing a can full of sawdust onto
a bonfire the result may be exciting.

--

FF

Nancy wrote:
> I know more about ACQ wood in my little finger than you guys have in
> your entire brain. Obviously if a woman knows something on this site it
> must be wrong. I agree with the other gentleman that said this site is
> obviously not one I want to be a part of. You are all too assanine for
> me.
>

Would you agree that I have been polite?

WIll you respond to my questions?

--

FF

[email protected] wrote:
> Guys, you are not looking at the big picture here. Obviously Nancy is
> talking about cutting this wood in a shop equipped with an ungrounded
> dust collection system.....

Yeah! And sawstops suck. Maybe it wouldn't asplode if she used a
right tilt saw like God intended.

brian

Well said, CW. Tom
CW wrote:
> So that's the reason for bottom posting, comprehension problems. I thought
> it was Alzheimer's.
>
> "Robert Allison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:qG18h.4915$Uz.2549@trnddc05...
> > But
> > when you are just the second response, then there is a
> > response to your response, etc., etc., it is impossible to
> > follow.

Here is "Nancy's" posting history:

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=EH_9JhYAAAAAqd9KYIhEX5gsOEnrBPMFys9p7FBvuYqcsrUPIQKVkQ&hl=en&filter=0

--

FF

Nosnibor wrote:
>... For instance, this post
> is not about the original subject, so I have cut all but what relates to
> my comments (also changed the subject so readers an choose to ignore this
> side thread.
> ...
>
>
> Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote in news:1L06h.3626$5P2.2870
> @trnddc02:
>
> >
> > OK, Nancy, let me explain this to you. First of all, you are
> > a top poster, which everyone who is familiar with usenet knows
> > is a good way to make gibberish out of any thread. It also
> > illustrates that the top poster is a newbie.
> >

Well, at first that may seem to be OK, but have you considered
the choices available to someone who follows-up to your article?

--

FF

tom wrote:
> Well said, CW. Tom
> CW wrote:
> > So that's the reason for bottom posting, comprehension problems. I thought
> > it was Alzheimer's.
> >
> > "Robert Allison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:qG18h.4915$Uz.2549@trnddc05...
> > > But
> > > when you are just the second response, then there is a
> > > response to your response, etc., etc., it is impossible to
> > > follow.

No, not comprehension problems. Comprehension non-problems.

--

FF

Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Here is "Nancy's" posting history:'
>
> And there's 5 seconds of my life that are gone forever.
>

FWIW, was that not less time than you wated reading Nancy's articles?

--

FF

In article <[email protected]>, Doug
Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Nancy"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
> >we found on the internet.
>
> Ohhhhh... so it MUST be true, huh?
>
> > If you are cutting this type of wood inside
> >and you happen to have a spark of any kind it can explode, try it maybe
> >you will blow up!
>
> Do you have any actual source for this claim? Other than your own fevered
> imagination, I mean.

She's projecting from the idiotic warning about wood dust maybe forming
an explosive mix in air on the msds sheet.

Nancy... Try and find ANY documented case of a wood dust explosion in a
home, ever. You can't because it has never happened. It is
theoretically possible, in much the same way as it's theoretically
possible that a black hole could form in the center of the Earth and
destroy the solar system.

In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Here is "Nancy's" posting history:'

And there's 5 seconds of my life that are gone forever.

Given that "Nancy's" "posting history" equals exactly NOTHING, I want
to thank you for just that.

And now, as Joat sez... Eat recycled food and enjoy the afterlife.

Nancy wrote:

> I know more about ACQ wood in my little finger than you guys have in
> your entire brain. Obviously if a woman knows something on this site it
> must be wrong. I agree with the other gentleman that said this site is
> obviously not one I want to be a part of. You are all too assanine for
> me.

OK, Nancy, let me explain this to you. First of all, you are
a top poster, which everyone who is familiar with usenet knows
is a good way to make gibberish out of any thread. It also
illustrates that the top poster is a newbie.

Second, when those of us who have been working in this field
for the last 35 years hear something that we KNOW to be
incorrect, we like to point it out. Take me for instance, I
have purchased and used over $50,000.00 worth of ACQ treated
lumber in the past year. It has been used in a variety of
applications, including situations indoors. It has never been
a problem, except for the attention to detail in regards to
fasteners that must be paid to its use.

Last month we built, in an indoor workshop, a set of stairs
for a deck along with the metal handrails for both the deck
and the stairs. We had people sawing ACQ treated lumber right
beside people using grinders and cutting torches. No
explosion. When we were through, we swept up a wheel barrow
full of sawdust and metal shavings. If it won't explode in
that environment, I doubt that it will.

Being that I and my employees have and will continue to use
this material for the foreseeable future, it is my job to be
educated on the issue. This is not for curiosity sake, but
because my livelihood depends on being able to use it safely
and effectively. If you think that you know more about it
than I do, you are mistaken. If you get it wrong, no problem.
If I get it wrong, projects may not be built correctly, sick
employees may sue me, clients may sue me for shoddy work and I
may go out of business. Who do you think has more of a stake
in the knowledge base?

You may have read about this a bit, but I have read everything
that I can find about it and even if I hadn't educated myself,
I would know from experience that what you posted about it is
uninformed bullshit.

Sorry if you don't like that, but it is the truth.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

>
> Mike wrote:
>
>>Nancy wrote:
>>
>>>You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
>>>we found on the internet.
>>>
>>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>>Next time someone asks a question, and you don't know the answer, keep still.
>>>>Don't just make up a bunch of crap.
>>>>
>>
>>Um, and if it's posted on the internet, it must be true.
>>
>>Yeah.
>>
>>Or, you could follow Doug's advice and not post about things that you
>>don't know anything about.
>
>

What happens when the thread started out top posted? (Sorry, I just had
to ask.)

Puckdropper
--
Wise is the man who attempts to answer his question before asking it.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm




Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote in news:vcl6h.1239$5F2.379
@trnddc04:

> It changes the normal flow of the thread and makes it
> difficult to follow.
>
> Why is top posting bad?
>
>

So, this guy sets out to put you in your place then proceeds to stick his
head up his ass. Priceless.

"Robert Allison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1L06h.3626$5P2.2870@trnddc02...
>
> OK, Nancy, let me explain this to you. First of all, you are
> a top poster, which everyone who is familiar with usenet knows
> is a good way to make gibberish out of any thread. It also
> illustrates that the top poster is a newbie.
>

"brianlanning" wrote in message
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Guys, you are not looking at the big picture here. Obviously Nancy is
> > talking about cutting this wood in a shop equipped with an ungrounded
> > dust collection system.....
>
> Yeah! And sawstops suck. Maybe it wouldn't asplode if she used a
> right tilt saw like God intended.

Naaah ... obviously it only explodes if you're a top poster!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/29/06

In article <[email protected]>, "Nancy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Yes it is. The "new" treated lumber puts out an odor that make you both
>very sick. If you cut this type of wood indoors it can also explode.

ROTFLMAO!!

>The new wood is very dangerous so be careful. I'm told it also contains
>carcinagens ( cancer causing agents). I would not reccommend using it
>indoors. My husband is the manager at a local Lowe's and we did alot
>of research on this wood. Most of our answers came from OSHA.

And OSHA told you it could explode if cut indoors?

Next time someone asks a question, and you don't know the answer, keep still.
Don't just make up a bunch of crap.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On 12 Nov 2006 07:50:29 -0800, "ddabney67" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>We were going to use 2 by 2s
>of ACQ treated wood. I cannot get a straight answer as to whether that
>application would be okay. Is the enclosed space an issue with the new
>wood treatment?

It is something I would not do, but not because of the treatment
chemicals, but because of the treatment. Treated wood is very wet and
it warps, cracks and checks as it dries. If your concern is to wetness
in the basement, the feet of the shelves would be the place for
treated wood.

I would probably use 2x4s though.

Mark
(sixoneeight) = 618

So that's the reason for bottom posting, comprehension problems. I thought
it was Alzheimer's.

"Robert Allison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:qG18h.4915$Uz.2549@trnddc05...
> But
> when you are just the second response, then there is a
> response to your response, etc., etc., it is impossible to
> follow.

In article <[email protected]>, "Nancy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I know more about ACQ wood in my little finger than you guys have in
>your entire brain. Obviously if a woman knows something on this site it
>must be wrong. I agree with the other gentleman that said this site is
>obviously not one I want to be a part of. You are all too assanine for
>me.

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

I prefer top-posting because, when following a thread, I don't have to
scroll through tons of gibberish that I have already read in order to
find the gem of wisdom at the bottom. Bottom posting would work if all
followup posters would do some selective cuts. For instance, this post
is not about the original subject, so I have cut all but what relates to
my comments (also changed the subject so readers an choose to ignore this
side thread.

Can we just say that different folks process info in different ways and
no posting order is right or wrong.


-G (who was messing with USNET before spam was invented - hardly a
newbie)

Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote in news:1L06h.3626$5P2.2870
@trnddc02:

>
> OK, Nancy, let me explain this to you. First of all, you are
> a top poster, which everyone who is familiar with usenet knows
> is a good way to make gibberish out of any thread. It also
> illustrates that the top poster is a newbie.
>

In article <[email protected]>, "Nancy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
>we found on the internet.

Ohhhhh... so it MUST be true, huh?

> If you are cutting this type of wood inside
>and you happen to have a spark of any kind it can explode, try it maybe
>you will blow up!

Do you have any actual source for this claim? Other than your own fevered
imagination, I mean.

>Call Hazmat and ask for a MSDS form on this wood if you don't believe
>me!!!!!

I did. I don't. You're FOS.
http://www.ufpi.com/literature/acqmsds-200.pdf

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Markem" <markem(sixoneeight)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Nov 2006 07:50:29 -0800, "ddabney67" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>We were going to use 2 by 2s
>>of ACQ treated wood. I cannot get a straight answer as to whether that
>>application would be okay. Is the enclosed space an issue with the new
>>wood treatment?
>
> It is something I would not do, but not because of the treatment
> chemicals, but because of the treatment. Treated wood is very wet and
> it warps, cracks and checks as it dries. If your concern is to wetness
> in the basement, the feet of the shelves would be the place for
> treated wood.
>
> I would probably use 2x4s though.

If it's going with certainty to be damp then ipe would be good for the
bases--if it's purely a precaution white oak or walnut should be fine.
>
> Mark
> (sixoneeight) = 618

"Nancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I know more about ACQ wood in my little finger than you guys have in
> your entire brain. Obviously if a woman knows something on this site it
> must be wrong. I agree with the other gentleman that said this site is
> obviously not one I want to be a part of. You are all too assanine for
> me.

Well, if your husband is anything like you then it explains much about
Lowes.

Next time you're getting information from OSHA, get information about plain
old ordinary pine and then compare what they say about that and about ACQ
and I think you're going to find that you know a lot less than you thought
you did.

I would not have noticed that you were a woman if you had not specifically
mentioned it--nobody cares whether you are a woman, what matters is that you
are full of crap.

> Mike wrote:
>> Nancy wrote:
>> > You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
>> > we found on the internet.
>> >
>> > Doug Miller wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Next time someone asks a question, and you don't know the answer,
>> > > keep still.
>> > > Don't just make up a bunch of crap.
>> > >
>>
>> Um, and if it's posted on the internet, it must be true.
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>> Or, you could follow Doug's advice and not post about things that you
>> don't know anything about.
>

Nancy wrote:

> You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
> we found on the internet. If you are cutting this type of wood inside
> and you happen to have a spark of any kind it can explode, try it maybe
> you will blow up!
> Call Hazmat and ask for a MSDS form on this wood if you don't believe
> me!!!!!
>

The fire/explosion hazards don't appear to be any different than any
other wood substance.

http://www.ufpi.com/literature/acqmsds-200.pdf

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Here is "Nancy's" posting history:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=&start=0&scoring=d&enc_author=EH_9JhYAAAAAqd9KYIhEX5gsOEnrBPMFys9p7FBvuYqcsrUPIQKVkQ&hl=en&filter=0
>
> --
>
> FF

I don't give shit if one top posts or not. At time it's a pain in the arch
to some times have to scan down to the bottom to read a reply. I rarely if
ever top post and I don't get all bent out of shape if one does. If I want
to know what the original question was I click on show all messages, then I
find out what the question was. I primarily use OLE. I say to one who
constantly complains about it, lighten up life's too short. You are liable
to have a stroke and die young.

"Nosnibor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bottom posting would work if all
> followup posters would do some selective cuts.

Right
>
> Can we just say that different folks process info in different ways and
> no posting order is right or wrong.

No, if we all do thing differently, it gets even more confusing.

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:48:54 GMT, Robert Allison
<[email protected]> wrote:

>How does that help you?
>
>Agreed!
>
>No, top posting quickly disintegrates into gibberish. If you
>were the ONLY response to the thread, then it might work. But
>when you are just the second response, then there is a
>response to your response, etc., etc., it is impossible to
>follow.

That's just retarded.

You're arguing about the order of the thread by asserting that someone
would write their own material in reverse order. Why didn't you write:

>?you help that does How

Or even more ridiculous (but consistent with your lame argument):

>?uoy pleh taht seod woH
>
>!deergA

Because it's not the same thing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Top posting would never
have come into vogue if those so obsessed with bottom posting would be
courteous and thoughtful enough to edit out the 300 lines of material
just to post "I agree" at the bottom. Most don't. That's the class of
people in which you anti-top-posters are lumped. So long as there are
so many of them, you'll never make a legitimate case against top
posting regardless of how much you stomp your feet.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

How does that help you?

Agreed!

No, top posting quickly disintegrates into gibberish. If you
were the ONLY response to the thread, then it might work. But
when you are just the second response, then there is a
response to your response, etc., etc., it is impossible to
follow.

Nosnibor wrote:

> I prefer top-posting because, when following a thread, I don't have to
> scroll through tons of gibberish that I have already read in order to
> find the gem of wisdom at the bottom.

How does that help you?

Bottom posting would work if all
> followup posters would do some selective cuts. For instance, this post
> is not about the original subject, so I have cut all but what relates to
> my comments (also changed the subject so readers an choose to ignore this
> side thread.

Agreed!

> Can we just say that different folks process info in different ways and
> no posting order is right or wrong.

No, top posting quickly disintegrates into gibberish. If you
were the ONLY response to the thread, then it might work. But
when you are just the second response, then there is a
response to your response, etc., etc., it is impossible to
follow.


> -G (who was messing with USNET before spam was invented - hardly a
> newbie)
>
> Robert Allison <[email protected]> wrote in news:1L06h.3626$5P2.2870
> @trnddc02:
>
>
>>OK, Nancy, let me explain this to you. First of all, you are
>>a top poster, which everyone who is familiar with usenet knows
>>is a good way to make gibberish out of any thread. It also
>>illustrates that the top poster is a newbie.
>>


--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

In article <[email protected]>,
Nancy <[email protected]> wrote:
>I know more about ACQ wood in my little finger than you guys have in
>your entire brain. Obviously if a woman knows something on this site it
>must be wrong. I agree with the other gentleman that said this site is
>obviously not one I want to be a part of. You are all too assanine for
>me.
>
>
>
>Mike wrote:
>> Nancy wrote:
>> > You and your smart ass reply's can kiss my ass. I was only saying what
>> > we found on the internet.
>> >
>> > Doug Miller wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Next time someone asks a question, and you don't know the answer,
>keep still.
>> > > Don't just make up a bunch of crap.
>> > >
>>
>> Um, and if it's posted on the internet, it must be true.
>>
>> Yeah.
>>
>> Or, you could follow Doug's advice and not post about things that you
>> don't know anything about.
>

Guys, you are not looking at the big picture here. Obviously Nancy is
talking about cutting this wood in a shop equipped with an ungrounded
dust collection system.....


--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin
Larry Wasserman - Baltimore, Maryland - [email protected]

It changes the normal flow of the thread and makes it
difficult to follow.

Why is top posting bad?


--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Nosnibor <[email protected]> writes:

> I prefer top-posting because, when following a thread, I don't have to
> scroll through tons of gibberish that I have already read in order to
> find the gem of wisdom at the bottom.

The problem is that people don't EDIT/DELETE lines from earlier postings.

>Bottom posting would work if all
> followup posters would do some selective cuts.

It's always useful to edit - top posting or bottom posting.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.