I just found out today that, due to the corrosive nature of the
chemicals used in the new lumbers replacing the banned CCA materials,
standard zinc coated fasteners are not to be used with the new ACQ and
CBA materials. I thought others may be interested in this
information. See McFeely's web site at:
http://www.mcfeelys.com/acq.asp
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
On 16 Jun 2004 17:06:56 GMT, Hitch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
>> place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe
>> unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then
>> swallowed it.
>>
>
> Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to CCA-treated
> wood. See: http://www.bancca.org/
Got any links that aren't to an obviously biased source, by any chance?
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:12:58 -0400, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> The trouble with this sort of thing is that the proponents of the ban never
> give any thought to what will replace the banned substance. It looks like
> in this case the replacement is going to contain copper, which used to be
> used in marine anti-fouling paints but has been discontinued due to
> environmental damage.
Like switching from one heavy metal in plumbing solder to another,
for instance?
> Seems to me that before we ban anything we should have something to replace
> it with that is _proven_ to be less hazardous.
If it was scientists making the laws, you'd get that. It's lawyers doing
it, for the most part, and they only "know" what they are told by people
who may not have entirely factual or objective points of view.
This is the same thing that gives us "This product contains a chemical
known to the state of California to cause..." type of language, when in
reality, it just means "Some special interest group got the state legislature
to pass a law requiring this wording".
Dave "Not that I'm cynical or anything, mind you..." Hinz
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:48:13 -0400, Nova <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>I just found out today that, due to the corrosive nature of the
>chemicals used in the new lumbers replacing the banned CCA materials,
>standard zinc coated fasteners are not to be used with the new ACQ and
>CBA materials. I thought others may be interested in this
>information. See McFeely's web site at:
>
> http://www.mcfeelys.com/acq.asp
Considering the small price of the fasteners compared to the
project size (on a deck, maybe 1% difference?) going to all
stainless hardware seems like the natural thing to do anyway.
--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance
----------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Website Application Programming
Larry Jaques wrote:
> Considering the small price of the fasteners compared to the
> project size (on a deck, maybe 1% difference?) going to all
> stainless hardware seems like the natural thing to do anyway.
I agree and for the DIY type it's an inconvenience, at least in my area at
this time, to locate stainless steel fasteners.
I wonder how many contractors are loading SS nails into their framing
nailers before they knock out a 20' x 40' deck in an afternoon. I can see
the lawsuits coming.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
These folks look to me like a couple who are trying to find something to
blame bad genes on other than themselves. I don't see objectivity in
their actions.
RB
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2004 17:06:56 GMT, Hitch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
>>>place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe
>>>unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then
>>>swallowed it.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to CCA-treated
>>wood. See: http://www.bancca.org/
>
>
> Got any links that aren't to an obviously biased source, by any chance?
>
J. Clarke wrote:
> Hitch wrote:
>
>
>>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>>On 16 Jun 2004 17:06:56 GMT, Hitch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
>>>>>place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty
>>>>>safe unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then
>>>>>swallowed it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to
>>>>CCA-treated wood. See: http://www.bancca.org/
>>>
>>>Got any links that aren't to an obviously biased source, by any
>>>chance?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>WISH TV in Indianapolis:
>>http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=645785&nav=0Ra7JXq2
>>
>>BuilderOnline:
>>http://www.builderonline.com/Industry-news.asp?channelID=59§ionID=65
>>&articleID=24118
>>
>>EPA:
>>http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm
>>
>>EPA testimony:
>>http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ccatestimony1.htm
>>
>>The EPA said that while they hadn't determined that CCA was bad enough to
>>be banned, the industry had voluntarily decided to quit using it for
>>treating wood destined for residential use, and the EPA had signed a
>>"cancellation order" removing residential uses from the accepted uses on
>>CCA-treated wood, thus making it illegal to treat wood for residential
>>use with CCA, to be effective December 30, 2003.
>>
>>Obviously, there are opinions on both sides of the issue, but I'm glad
>>the industry has decided to voluntarily move on to preservatives which
>>appear to cause fewer problems. It doesn't seem that often that
>>manufacturers willingly cease profitable production and practices that
>>are apparently (or actually) harmful.
>
>
> The trouble with this sort of thing is that the proponents of the ban never
> give any thought to what will replace the banned substance. It looks like
> in this case the replacement is going to contain copper, which used to be
> used in marine anti-fouling paints but has been discontinued due to
> environmental damage.
Copper anti-fouling paint isn't banned, the U.S. Government still uses
it and I believe that commercial boats can use it (hull length over
perhaps 50 ft?). It's just you and me that have a hard time buying it.
But it is still out there... a bit harder to find but... ;-)
RB
>
> Seems to me that before we ban anything we should have something to replace
> it with that is _proven_ to be less hazardous.
>
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:48:13 -0400, Nova <[email protected]>
> calmly ranted:
>
>
>>I just found out today that, due to the corrosive nature of the
>>chemicals used in the new lumbers replacing the banned CCA materials,
>>standard zinc coated fasteners are not to be used with the new ACQ and
>>CBA materials. I thought others may be interested in this
>>information. See McFeely's web site at:
>>
>>http://www.mcfeelys.com/acq.asp
>
>
> Considering the small price of the fasteners compared to the
> project size (on a deck, maybe 1% difference?) going to all
> stainless hardware seems like the natural thing to do anyway.
Not in every case. If the deck, or portions of it are submerged for
extended periods (like during high tide) stainless may not be your
friend. In an anaerobic environment the native oxide needed to retard
corrosion doesn't form and stainless will corrode faster than hot dipped
galvanized.
RB
>
If I'd been doing it for years without ill effect, I would. If I hadn't
been doing for years and a Californian told me not to do it, I'd engage
in more research. Ralph Nader may not be from California but there are
a lot of nuts like him out there. The Corvair was just his first mistake.
rhg
Hitch wrote:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in news:dVNzc.6546$sj7.3000
> @newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>>"Tom Kohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
>>
>>place...always
>>
>>>seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe unless you took a
>>>bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then swallowed it.
>>
>>
>>I bet the ban originated in California. ;~)
>>
>>
>
>
> So if a Californian told you not to drink gasoline, would you do it anyway?
>
"RB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Not in every case. If the deck, or portions of it are submerged for
> extended periods (like during high tide) stainless may not be your
> friend. In an anaerobic environment the native oxide needed to retard
> corrosion doesn't form and stainless will corrode faster than hot dipped
> galvanized.
You know, there are a lot of stainless steel props on boat motors out
there....that stay submerged..
Not all stainless steels are created equally.
> Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
> place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe
> unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then
> swallowed it.
>
Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to CCA-treated
wood. See:
http://www.bancca.org/
Admittedly, the poisoning of our environment with CCA-treated wood is slow,
but is ongoing, and we should remove the product from our environmental as
fast as is practicable. Having said that, I am not going to rip out my
fairly new deck tomorrow, but I am going to explore surface treatments
which will slow down or eliminate CCA leaching from the deck lumber. I'm
not going to be Chicken Little about it, but we should pay attention to
those who raise alarms because they just might be right.
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in news:dVNzc.6546$sj7.3000
@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com:
>
> "Tom Kohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
> place...always
>> seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe unless you took a
>> bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then swallowed it.
>
>
> I bet the ban originated in California. ;~)
>
>
So if a Californian told you not to drink gasoline, would you do it anyway?
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 16 Jun 2004 17:06:56 GMT, Hitch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
>>> place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty
>>> safe unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then
>>> swallowed it.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to
>> CCA-treated wood. See: http://www.bancca.org/
>
> Got any links that aren't to an obviously biased source, by any
> chance?
>
>
WISH TV in Indianapolis:
http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=645785&nav=0Ra7JXq2
BuilderOnline:
http://www.builderonline.com/Industry-news.asp?channelID=59§ionID=65
&articleID=24118
EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm
EPA testimony:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ccatestimony1.htm
The EPA said that while they hadn't determined that CCA was bad enough to
be banned, the industry had voluntarily decided to quit using it for
treating wood destined for residential use, and the EPA had signed a
"cancellation order" removing residential uses from the accepted uses on
CCA-treated wood, thus making it illegal to treat wood for residential
use with CCA, to be effective December 30, 2003.
Obviously, there are opinions on both sides of the issue, but I'm glad
the industry has decided to voluntarily move on to preservatives which
appear to cause fewer problems. It doesn't seem that often that
manufacturers willingly cease profitable production and practices that
are apparently (or actually) harmful.
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
> Not in every case. If the deck, or portions of it are submerged for
> extended periods (like during high tide) stainless may not be your
> friend. In an anaerobic environment the native oxide needed to retard
> corrosion doesn't form and stainless will corrode faster than hot dipped
> galvanized.
>
That's right. A few years ago the Washington State Ferryies got into a
little trouble by installing a fire sprinkler system on a new boat made
from stainless. The problem is that the stainless they used corrodes very
quickly with static salt water under pressure, exactly what the system
used. If I remember correctly, there was an engineer who was forced to
look elsewhere for work after that.
--
John Snow
"If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
Jack
Yep, much more corrosive. Extra heavy zinc galvanived OR (better)
Stainless Steel should be used
John
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:48:13 -0400, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I just found out today that, due to the corrosive nature of the
>chemicals used in the new lumbers replacing the banned CCA materials,
>standard zinc coated fasteners are not to be used with the new ACQ and
>CBA materials. I thought others may be interested in this
>information. See McFeely's web site at:
>
> http://www.mcfeelys.com/acq.asp
Hitch wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 16 Jun 2004 17:06:56 GMT, Hitch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
>>>> place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty
>>>> safe unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then
>>>> swallowed it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to
>>> CCA-treated wood. See: http://www.bancca.org/
>>
>> Got any links that aren't to an obviously biased source, by any
>> chance?
>>
>>
>
> WISH TV in Indianapolis:
> http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=645785&nav=0Ra7JXq2
>
> BuilderOnline:
> http://www.builderonline.com/Industry-news.asp?channelID=59§ionID=65
> &articleID=24118
>
> EPA:
> http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm
>
> EPA testimony:
> http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ccatestimony1.htm
>
> The EPA said that while they hadn't determined that CCA was bad enough to
> be banned, the industry had voluntarily decided to quit using it for
> treating wood destined for residential use, and the EPA had signed a
> "cancellation order" removing residential uses from the accepted uses on
> CCA-treated wood, thus making it illegal to treat wood for residential
> use with CCA, to be effective December 30, 2003.
>
> Obviously, there are opinions on both sides of the issue, but I'm glad
> the industry has decided to voluntarily move on to preservatives which
> appear to cause fewer problems. It doesn't seem that often that
> manufacturers willingly cease profitable production and practices that
> are apparently (or actually) harmful.
The trouble with this sort of thing is that the proponents of the ban never
give any thought to what will replace the banned substance. It looks like
in this case the replacement is going to contain copper, which used to be
used in marine anti-fouling paints but has been discontinued due to
environmental damage.
Seems to me that before we ban anything we should have something to replace
it with that is _proven_ to be less hazardous.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
RB wrote:
>
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Hitch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 16 Jun 2004 17:06:56 GMT, Hitch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
>>>>>>place...always seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty
>>>>>>safe unless you took a bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then
>>>>>>swallowed it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, there is good evidence of environmental damage due to
>>>>>CCA-treated wood. See: http://www.bancca.org/
>>>>
>>>>Got any links that aren't to an obviously biased source, by any
>>>>chance?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>WISH TV in Indianapolis:
>>>http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=645785&nav=0Ra7JXq2
>>>
>>>BuilderOnline:
>>>http://www.builderonline.com/Industry-news.asp?channelID=59§ionID=65
>>>&articleID=24118
>>>
>>>EPA:
>>>http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/1file.htm
>>>
>>>EPA testimony:
>>>http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/ccatestimony1.htm
>>>
>>>The EPA said that while they hadn't determined that CCA was bad enough to
>>>be banned, the industry had voluntarily decided to quit using it for
>>>treating wood destined for residential use, and the EPA had signed a
>>>"cancellation order" removing residential uses from the accepted uses on
>>>CCA-treated wood, thus making it illegal to treat wood for residential
>>>use with CCA, to be effective December 30, 2003.
>>>
>>>Obviously, there are opinions on both sides of the issue, but I'm glad
>>>the industry has decided to voluntarily move on to preservatives which
>>>appear to cause fewer problems. It doesn't seem that often that
>>>manufacturers willingly cease profitable production and practices that
>>>are apparently (or actually) harmful.
>>
>>
>> The trouble with this sort of thing is that the proponents of the ban
>> never
>> give any thought to what will replace the banned substance. It looks
>> like in this case the replacement is going to contain copper, which used
>> to be used in marine anti-fouling paints but has been discontinued due to
>> environmental damage.
>
> Copper anti-fouling paint isn't banned, the U.S. Government still uses
> it and I believe that commercial boats can use it (hull length over
> perhaps 50 ft?). It's just you and me that have a hard time buying it.
> But it is still out there... a bit harder to find but... ;-)
Kind of like CCA then. Government and business get to use the good stuff
while the rest of us are stuck with the substitute.
> RB
>
>>
>> Seems to me that before we ban anything we should have something to
>> replace it with that is _proven_ to be less hazardous.
>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Tom Kohlman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first
place...always
> seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe unless you took a
> bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then swallowed it.
I bet the ban originated in California. ;~)
"Hitch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So if a Californian told you not to drink gasoline, would you do it
anyway?
He would never do that.
>
> --
> John Snow
> "If I knew what I was doing, I wouldn't be here"
Sad part about all of this is why CCA was banned in the first place...always
seemed to me that after it dried, you were pretty safe unless you took a
bite out of a chunk, chewed it a lot and then swallowed it.
"John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack
>
> Yep, much more corrosive. Extra heavy zinc galvanived OR (better)
> Stainless Steel should be used
>
> John
>
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:48:13 -0400, Nova <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I just found out today that, due to the corrosive nature of the
> >chemicals used in the new lumbers replacing the banned CCA materials,
> >standard zinc coated fasteners are not to be used with the new ACQ and
> >CBA materials. I thought others may be interested in this
> >information. See McFeely's web site at:
> >
> > http://www.mcfeelys.com/acq.asp
>