Painting wood fence with used motor oil?
PaigeTurnr
I'm preparing to build my first 1-acre paddock. I plan to use diamond mesh
fencing (woven wire) and 4x4 square oak posts (because that's what I have
already), with telephone poles for corner and gate posts. There will be a 1x6
top rail, probably oak.
My soil is hard clay, and I plan to set the posts directly in the ground - no
concrete, just compacted clay. So I'm painting the ends of the posts with used
motor oil to preserve them. (And yes, I realize it isn't the most ecologically
sound practice, but it's got to be better than arsenic "pressure treated"
lumber, right? Or not preserving them at all?)
And I'm thinking, this looks pretty nice. And it's free, since used motor oil
is a waste product. So, is there a reason why I couldn't paint the completed
fence with oil? How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it? Compared
to, say, creosote or barn paint. Does anyone know whether horses LIKE the taste
of used motor oil? Any other problems I should be aware of before I decide to
do it?
Please email me, as I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup (anymore).
Thanks!
Phylosophy
>is a waste product. So, is there a reason why I couldn't paint the completed
>fence with oil? How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it? Compared
>to, say, creosote or barn paint. Does anyone know whether horses LIKE the
taste
>of used motor oil? Any other problems I should be aware of before I decide to
>do it?
Why even take a chance? Just don't do it! Used motor oil
is a waste product, yes, and a "toxic waste" product at that.
There are regulations about properly disposing of it for a
reason. By law it must be kept out of landfills so it doesn't
contaminate ground water. Now isn't that enough to dissuade
you from putting it right on the fence right under your horse's
noses? Hope so.
Better safe than sorry.
Phyllis
Dawn Lawson
PaigeTurnr wrote:
> So I'm painting the ends of the posts with used
> motor oil to preserve them.
Doesn't work all that well.
> (And yes, I realize it isn't the most ecologically
> sound practice, but it's got to be better than arsenic "pressure treated"
> lumber, right? Or not preserving them at all?)
Depends how you define "better". If you want the fence to stay standing longer,
the pressure treated is the way to go. Compare arsenic with some of the toxins
that can be found in used motor oil, and you may not feel it is better if safety is
your objective.
> And I'm thinking, this looks pretty nice. And it's free, since used motor oil
> is a waste product. So, is there a reason why I couldn't paint the completed
> fence with oil?
No reason why you _couldn't_ I suppose, but plenty of reasons why you _shouldn't_,
the law in your area likely to be one of them, since in most areas, used motor oil
is considered hazardous or toxic waste. It smells bad. It stains clothes and
horses. It doesn't dry.
> How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it? Compared
> to, say, creosote or barn paint.
Creosote is illegal in many areas. It isn't necessarily the oil that is the
problem, but the crap that is IN the oil, from being used in motors, and heated.
Perhaps contact your local agricultural extension office for some better ideas?
R Bishop
paige...@aol.com (PaigeTurnr) wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm preparing to build my first 1-acre paddock. I plan to use diamond mesh
>fencing (woven wire) and 4x4 square oak posts (because that's what I have
>already), with telephone poles for corner and gate posts. There will be a 1x6
>top rail, probably oak.
>
>My soil is hard clay, and I plan to set the posts directly in the ground - no
>concrete, just compacted clay. So I'm painting the ends of the posts with used
>motor oil to preserve them. (And yes, I realize it isn't the most ecologically
>sound practice, but it's got to be better than arsenic "pressure treated"
>lumber, right? Or not preserving them at all?)
Don't set them in clay. All that tamping is a bitch. And clay tends to get
really soupy when wet. Just dump gravel around the post after you set it.
Much easier, much tighter and you don't have to tamp.
>
>And I'm thinking, this looks pretty nice. And it's free, since used motor oil
>is a waste product. So, is there a reason why I couldn't paint the completed
>fence with oil? How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it? Compared
>to, say, creosote or barn paint. Does anyone know whether horses LIKE the taste
>of used motor oil? Any other problems I should be aware of before I decide to
>do it?
Not a good idea. But I'm sure someone else will explain it to you.
>
>Please email me, as I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup (anymore).
>Thanks!
Sue, busy resetting fence posts.
"It was said she held a grudge until it died
of old age and then had it stuffed and mounted."
David Weber
(ten points to anyone who remembers the title
of the book)
Terry von Gease
>Hello,
>I'm preparing to build my first 1-acre paddock. I plan to use diamond mesh
>fencing (woven wire) and 4x4 square oak posts (because that's what I have
>already), with telephone poles for corner and gate posts. There will be a 1x6
>top rail, probably oak.
>My soil is hard clay, and I plan to set the posts directly in the ground - no
>concrete, just compacted clay. So I'm painting the ends of the posts with used
>motor oil to preserve them. (And yes, I realize it isn't the most ecologically
>sound practice, but it's got to be better than arsenic "pressure treated"
>lumber, right?
Wrong.
>Or not preserving them at all?)
Really wrong.
Pressure treated lumber is orders of magnitude superior than anything
you can apply by yourself. Motor oil, used or new, is about as effective
as coating the posts in pancake syrup.
>And I'm thinking, this looks pretty nice. And it's free, since used motor oil
>is a waste product. So, is there a reason why I couldn't paint the completed
>fence with oil? How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it?
I thought you were coating the ends that go in the ground. Are you
contemplating having your horses dig them up the better to chew on them?
>Compared
>to, say, creosote or barn paint. Does anyone know whether horses LIKE the taste
>of used motor oil? Any other problems I should be aware of before I decide to
>do it?
The biggest problem with used motor oil is not some sort of plutonium-like
toxicity. Rather it messy, smells awful, and isn't particularly effective.
If you were dumping vast quantities in the local watter supply someone
might have cause to be concerned. Painting a few fence posts, as well as
your barn and perhaps your entire family isn't going to seriously
affect the course of history.
Despite the shrieks of horror your proposal is certain to evoke from
the legions of yuppie ecco-weenies, if you do use motor oil, you're
not going to destroy civilization as we know it. It's not that it's
particulary harmful in the miniscule ammounts you'd be using, it's just
that it's useless.
I use used motor oil all the time in chainsaw bar oilers. As you
pointed out, the price is right and I'm sufficiently perverse to take
some small pleasure in the abject political incorrectness and the
unctious posturing of any representitive of the safe generation
that might be thus generated.
>Please email me, as I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup (anymore).
>Thanks!
Your loss.
--
Terry
Time is nature's way of keeping everything
from happening at once.
John Hasler
> So I'm painting the ends of the posts with used motor oil to preserve
> them. (And yes, I realize it isn't the most ecologically sound practice,
> but it's got to be better than arsenic "pressure treated" lumber, right?
Wrong. It will cause about as much pollution as would pressure treated
wood (i.e., none), but it will do nothing to preserve the wood. There are
bacteria in the soil that eat petroleum. The oil will be gone in days.
> So, is there a reason why I couldn't paint the completed fence with oil?
And repaint it every few months?
> How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it?
About as toxic as the chemicals used for pressure treating. Which is to
say "not very".
> Compared to, say, creosote or barn paint.
Creosote is more toxic. On the other hand, it does preserve wood.
> Any other problems I should be aware of before I decide to do it?
How well do you like the smell?
> Please email me, as I'm not a regular reader of this newsgroup
No.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Jane H. Kilberg
>John Hasler wrote in message <8767279...@hasler.dhh>...
>
>>> How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it?
>>
>>About as toxic as the chemicals used for pressure treating. Which is to
>>say "not very".
>
>
>A family friend of ours bought this mare (QH, I think) that was completely
>hairless. She was a good riding horse but then she lost all her hair and
>was subsequently sold dirt-cheap. The only plausible explanation given for
>her hair loss was that she somehow became allergic to her hair (at least,
>that's what we were told). Anyway, he got her body hair and some mane to
>grow back by rubbing burned (used) motor oil all over her body.
Better than used motor oil that contains all sorts of contaminents is
vaseline with as much sulfur as one can put into the vasaline. The horse
will be yellow but it helps in regrowing the hair coat.
down the spotted trails. . . in the great nation of Tejas
jane h. kilberg and her gang of spots (GOS)
member: ApHC, Montgomery County Adult Horse Committee
editor/publisher: Appaloosa Network
Jen
John Hasler wrote in message <8767279...@hasler.dhh>...
>> How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it?
>
>About as toxic as the chemicals used for pressure treating. Which is to
>say "not very".
A family friend of ours bought this mare (QH, I think) that was completely
hairless. She was a good riding horse but then she lost all her hair and
was subsequently sold dirt-cheap. The only plausible explanation given for
her hair loss was that she somehow became allergic to her hair (at least,
that's what we were told). Anyway, he got her body hair and some mane to
grow back by rubbing burned (used) motor oil all over her body. She even
got a few hairs on her tail. (He made a fake tail for her with hairs
donated from some of his other horses.) I know he didn't get that advice
from a vet -- probably from some old farmer in this area. Anyway, she never
showed any signs of being adversely affected by the motor oil. Of course, I
doubt if she actually ingested any, but I'm sure plenty was absorbed through
her skin.
Jen
Jen
Jane H. Kilberg wrote in message ...
>Better than used motor oil that contains all sorts of contaminents is
>vaseline with as much sulfur as one can put into the vasaline. The horse
>will be yellow but it helps in regrowing the hair coat.
He tried all sorts of different ointments previously--I'm not sure if the
Vasoline/sulfur combo was one of them--the motor oil was a last resort. How
does it work? Does it work no matter what the cause of the hair loss? Any
ideas on how the motor oil worked? Does motor oil that has not been used
have the same contaminants and the same "therapeutic" effects?
Jen
Phylosophy
>Anyway, he got her body hair and some mane to
>grow back by rubbing burned (used) motor oil all over her body.
This was a joke post, right?
How would motor oil cause hair to grow back? Time might
cause hair to grow back, however.
Phyllis
SHuc540722
>How would motor oil cause hair to grow back? Time might
>cause hair to grow back, however
This used to be a common cure for mange in dogs. It would probably work on
other small parasites. May not be the best way to do it. I always used Happy
Jack mange medicine and it worked on everything but boy did it stink!
Jane H. Kilberg
>Jane H. Kilberg wrote in message ...
>
>>Better than used motor oil that contains all sorts of contaminents is
>>vaseline with as much sulfur as one can put into the vasaline. The horse
>>will be yellow but it helps in regrowing the hair coat.
>
>He tried all sorts of different ointments previously--I'm not sure if the
>Vasoline/sulfur combo was one of them--the motor oil was a last resort. How
>does it work?
Sulfur will kill many micro-organisms around the hair root, thus enables
the hair to grow back.
>Does it work no matter what the cause of the hair loss?
Depends on the underlying cause, but the cause needs to be eliminated.
Most hair loss is due to micro-organisms.
>Any
>ideas on how the motor oil worked? Does motor oil that has not been used
>have the same contaminants and the same "therapeutic" effects?
Depends on the additives in the motor oil. Most are metallic and can be
harmful. This is why people have stopped using motor oil over the years.
Krammes61
>
>>> How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it?
>
If you can, get used diesel oil instead of oil from gasoline engines. Try the
truck stops. I've tried both kinds of oil and for whatever reason, the used
diesel oil seems to work better.
It's quite messy to apply, so wear old clothes and some type of gloves!
John Hasler
>John Hasler wrote in message <8767279...@hasler.dhh>...
>
>>> How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it?
I did not write that.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
jo...@dhh.gt.org Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
PaigeTurnr
>
>No.
>--
>John Hasler
>jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
>Dancing Horse Hill
>Elmwood, WI
>
>
>
opinions. Fascinating.
I'd like to know when arsenic became "not very" toxic. Or did you not know
that's what they "pressure treat" lumber with?
And since there are bacteria in the soil that eat petroleum, it should follow
that it's safe to dump waste oil into the ground? Great! I'll just do that, and
then go spend a fortune on arsenic treated lumber to build my fence, stalls,
and playground equipment.
Anyway, I WOULD like to thank those who responded with actual facts and
personal experiences - the email I received was surprisingly positive and
friendly, given the rabid nature of this newsgroup that made me stop reading it
regularly some time ago. I really appreciate the help and advice!
Nicole
Janet L. Keyes
PaigeTurnr wrote in message
<19990824225720...@ng-xa1.aol.com>...
>I'd like to know when arsenic became "not very" toxic. Or did you not know
>that's what they "pressure treat" lumber with?
>
Chromated copper arsenate is used to pressure treat lumber. The substance
itself is hazardous - but it is not mobile (that is, it doesn't leach out of
the treated wood at any significant rate). Freshly treated wood (still wet)
is a hazard to handle. And, as an industrial hygienist, I caution employees
who cut or saw significant amounts of the wood to take precautions to avoid
inhalation. But installed as posts, used for fencing (provided the horses
aren't nibbling on it) - there's really no hazard. Keep in mind that hazard
is determined by toxicity and - emphasis needed here - bioavailability.
Arsenic isn't a hazard unless it can get into the body.
>And since there are bacteria in the soil that eat petroleum, it should
follow
>that it's safe to dump waste oil into the ground?
Bad argument, missing an understanding of some key points. Yes, the little
critters very considerately do eat petroleum. In fact, that's one form of
bioremediation, and we need to be extremely grateful to the bacteria for
cleaning up our messes. BUT - (a) waste oil has a number of nasty
contaminants, such as metals, that bacteria cannot eat; (b) bans on dumping
waste oil on the ground are not to protect the soil, but to protect the
ground water. How readily oil (or the various contaminants in it,
including, likely, the leukemogen benzene) migrate into the ground water
depends on the soil characteristics; (c) unless I've monitored the
conditions, I wouldn't trust the bacteria to be present in amounts high
enough to rapidly consume the oil. If you want a better argument than I can
give, I'd be happy to get hold of an expert in bioremediation.
I also caution that good hygiene is needed when handling used motor oil -
there is a risk of skin cancer, primarily from the contaminants it has
picked up. And dermatitis, of course, and oil acne.
Janet L.
Keyes, CIH
Looking
Glass Farm
Woodbury, Minnesota
Krammes61
>From: John Hasler jo...@dhh.gt.org
>Date: Tue, 24 August 1999 01:52 PM EDT
>Message-id: <87aerhd...@hasler.dhh>
>
>Krammes61 misquotes:
>
>>John Hasler wrote in message <8767279...@hasler.dhh>...
>>
>>>> How toxic is it to horses, should they nibble on it?
>
>I did not write that.
>--
>John Hasler
So sorry, John! I guess I got "highlight happy" and missed the original
message.
Cindy
Charles A Hall
> I'd like to know when arsenic became "not very" toxic. Or did you not know
> that's what they "pressure treat" lumber with?
>
>
Living in an area where just about everything made of wood is made with
pressure treated lumber (termites ya' know), I did not know that it was
treated with arsenic. That must be why everyone around here uses mostly
"hog" wire for their pastures.
Diane
Pam Wilson
The Horse's Mouth wrote:
> "Janet L. Keyes" <lgl...@minn.net> wrote:
>
> >Chromated copper arsenate is used to pressure treat lumber. The substance
> >itself is hazardous - but it is not mobile (that is, it doesn't leach out of
> >the treated wood at any significant rate).
>
> Your substantiation for that would be _?_
>
> Nobody wants splinters from such wood on themselves or anyone else,
> including of course the livestock. It is also not good for raised garden
> beds, except for ornamental plants only.
>
Janet L. Keyes
>See http://www.awpi.org/
>
Thank you, Pam, for the response (referencing the American Wood Preservative
Institute). I have not seen the request for citations/substantiation from
"The Horse's Mouth."
Another site (cite?) which states that CCA is not mobile is
http://www.umass.edu/bmatwt/preserve.html (an article by Stephen Smulski,
Ph.D., Wood Science Specialists Inc.).
http://www.state.ia.us/government/dnr/organiza/forest/cca.htm, from Iowa's
DNR, references several other studies. These are, of course, summaries of
research, rather than the original research papers. I will track the
original papers down, if requested by email.
The Iowa document states: "A common recommendation of garden magazines is to
not use green-colored, pressure-treated lumber around raised bed gardens,
compost bins, decks and playground equipment. The reason given is that the
toxic, chromated copper arsenate (CCA) used to treat the lumber will leach
out of the wood and be absorbed by vegetables or through the skin. However,
this theory is not correct according to the USDA Forest Products Laboratory,
the American Wood Preservers Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency
and several major universities...."
I would be very interested in reputable, peer-reviewed documentation
disproving the lack of mobility of CCA, if "The Horse's Mouth" or others
have that to offer.
>The Horse's Mouth wrote:
>
>> "Janet L. Keyes" <lgl...@minn.net> wrote:
>> >Chromated copper arsenate is used to pressure treat lumber. The
substance
>> >itself is hazardous - but it is not mobile (that is, it doesn't leach
out of
>> >the treated wood at any significant rate).
>>
>> Your substantiation for that would be _?_
The Horse's Mouth
>...I have not seen the request for citations/substantiation from
>"The Horse's Mouth."...
When I ask for some, it won't be met with mere advertising.
You're way behind in your reading, Janet.
Start with the EPA Consumer Information Sheet on CCA, ACA, and ACZA Treated Wood,
at http://members.primary.net/~silvest/garden/ccamsds.html, then keep going:
***Quote***
Wood treatment linked to dangers
by Don Hopey, Post-Gazette Staff Writer
reprinted from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
January 25, 1998 edition
A forester in Indiana got deathly sick sawing pressure-treated wood to build picnic tables.
Three quarterhorses in Clay County, Fla., fell ill after “cribbing” or biting repeatedly on a pressure-treated wood fence. Two died.
You could pick up more than just a splinter from the chemically impregnated wood widely used to build backyard decks, playground equipment, picnic tables, lawn furniture, fences, gazebos, and boat
docks.
The dense, gray-green wood can make you sick, pollute the environment and isn’t as durable as the treated wood industry claims, said Edward Polaski, who compiled a review of research on
pressure-treated wood for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
“My report should be a wake-up call,” said Polaski, who until recently worked for the department as a wood use adviser. “Certainly use of this wood needs more study.”
According to Polaski’s research, chromate-copper-arsenate, or CCA, the highly toxic chemical pesticide widely used as a wood preservative, can seep out of the wood. Those cancer-causing chemicals
could pose a health concern and an environmental threat during the wood’s useful life and after its disposal.
Polaski thinks the CCA-treated wood - comprising more than 90 percent of the $2.5 billion a year treated wood market - should be banned or its use severely restricted to areas where people won’t
regularly touch it.
[...] growing number of court cases and jury verdicts have blamed the chemicals for causing harm.
In one case, James Sipes, a U.S. Forest Service worker in the Hoosier National Forest in Indiana, was saw CCA-treated wood to build picnic tables one spring when he got so sick that he vomited up half
the blood in his body.
Doctors didn’t identify the cause of his problem until he went back to work. The next spring he was given the same job and he started vomiting blood again. A jury said the chemicals in the wood caused
the problems and awarded him $100,000. Twenty-six companies involved with production and supply of the chemicals and wood settled out of court, paying Sipes $667,200.
“The problem with CCA exposure is that you can’t show a history, you could have people getting ill and thinking it’s any number of things - arthritis, the flu,” said David McCray, an Indiana lawyer
who has won three claims involving injuries from CCA-treated wood.
“The effects of CCA exposure can be insidious and can range from hair loss, to itching skin, bleeding, nerve damage. Chemical exposure health problems are difficult to pinpoint and can mimic many
things.”
Polaski’s report on CCA-treated wood, and another one critical of the state Bureau of Forestry’s fledgling Timber Bridge Program, were done when he worked for the state.
The bridge program, developed to promote use of Pennsylvania hardwoods for small bridge projects, uses the preservative creosote, which is toxic to humans.
The DCNR has disowned both reviews, initiated by Polaski in the early 1990’s with the approval of James C. Nelson, then Pennsylvania’s state forester, to determine if CCA-treated wood is safe. The
first draft of the CCA-treated wood review wasn’t completed until June 1994, after James Grace became state forester.
Grace asked the U.S. Forest Service to critique Polaski’s CCA review. In August 1994, Thomas Hamilton, director of the Forest Service’s Forest Products Laboratory, wrote to Grace saying that “although
there are some legitimate concerns about the use of CCA-treated wood, [Polaski] overstates the literature and makes assumptions that are not supported by scientific fact.”
“The Forest Service had negative comments and no one has told us his research is valid,” said Gretchen Leslie, a DCNR spokeswoman.
Polaski was fired from the Forestry Bureau job he had held since 1981 in August, four months before his retirement. Polaski said he was let go because of his work on the reports and resulting pressure
from the wood products industry, a charge the state denies.
Polaski’s CCA-treated wood report cited studies showing 20 percent, 30 percent, even more than 50 percent of the chemical can “leach” out of the wood. Much of the problem is caused by impure or
improperly applied chemicals used in the wood treatment process, causing incomplete “fixing” of the chemicals within the wood.
Studies also show that exposure to acidic rainfall increases the risk of chemical leaching. “Given the acid rainfall in our state,” Polaski said, “the amount of these toxic CCA chemicals leached may
increase over time.” Determining the actual leaching rate, however, will require studies of lumber stockpiles and of wood sent to landfills,” he added.
Samuel Rotenberg, a toxicologist at the EPA’s Philadelphia regional office, said the chemical do leach from the wood, but there have been no studies of production conditions and their effects on
leaching rates.
He warned that individuals who cut, saw, or sand the wood can be exposed to high levels of toxic chemicals and should protect themselves by wearing a breathing filter over their noses and mouths.
“As far as using a boardwalk or deck built from CCA wood, I don’t think that would present an unreasonable risk,” Rotenberg said. “But I would not build a children’s sandbox out of the stuff because
arsenic can leach into the sand and be eaten by children. I also wouldn’t build a sandbox under such a deck because we know now that there can be increased arsenic levels in those areas from sawdust
produced during construction.”
Polaski said the high volume of treated wood produced increases potential hazards. More than 50 billion board feet of chemically treated wood has been produced over the last decade at 550 different
production plants. About 17 percent of all softwood lumber is pressure-treated today.
Each year, commercial wood treatment infused wood with 137.5 million pounds of chemicals.
John Hall, a spokesman for the American Wood Preservers Association, said that while there are more than 90 standards governing the wood preservative industry and treatment processes, there are none
setting acceptable CCA leaching levels.
“There are no standards that specify a level for minimal or maximum migration of chemical pesticides from wood,” Hall said. “Those studies that show a high rate, well, 40 or 50 percent sounds
unbelievable.”
CCA-treated wood, first used in India in 1933 and approved by the American Wood Preservers Association for use by Bell Telephone Co. in 1950, is resistant to insect infestation and rot. The copper and
arsenic are fungicides and insecticides. The chromium is primarily a “fixing” agent, bonding the chemicals to the wood.
Older wood preservatives - “penta” or pentachlorphenal and creosote - pose considerable health risks to users of the wood, but CCA-treated wood is supposed to be safer in part because the toxins are
“fixed” in the wood.
The raw lumber is placed in a pressure cylinder where a vacuum sucks air and water from the wood cells. The cylinders is then filled with a mix of water and pesticides and pressure is increased to
refill the wood’s cells with the mixture. As the wood dries, the chemicals are trapped inside.
Arsenic and chromium are carcinogens and mutagens, according to the EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Exposure can occur through breathing or through repeated skin contact.
High or repeated exposure can cause cancer, fetal toxicity and birth defects, neurotoxicity, including paralysis, warty skin growths, and liver and kidney failure.
Nevertheless, the EPA has certified that CCA-treated wood “does not pose unreasonable risks to children or adults” exposed to the wood or surrounding soils, based on tests of laboratory prepared wood
samples conducted in the 1980s.
However, in 1988 the agency was concerned enough about the effects on workers who come in contact with CCA on a daily basis that it required protective clothing and respirators to reduce their
exposure.
Polaski said the EPA’s CCA certification tests were invalid because they don’t reflect real and disparate commercial manufacturing conditions. Production of environmentally safe, CCA-treated products
involve complex chemical reactions that can be compromised in commercial production, resulting in less than complete chemical “fixing” and increased leaching.
Wilbur concedes that CCA leaching does occur, and it happens more when treatment standards aren’t followed.
“As in any product line, there are good and not so good manufacturers, so [Polaski] has a point,” Wilbur said. “There may be folks that take shortcuts. That’s not appropriate, and we do not condone
that, but we have no policing powers.”
Polaski’s CCA research review draws on a number of leaching studies. Among them:
- A 1994 study at the University of Turin in Italy found exposure of CCA-treated wood sawdust to rain water resulted in significant release of the chemicals and was potentially hazardous.
- A 1984 study of the biological impact of CCA-treated wood on honeybees found that the bees had elevated arsenic levels and poorer winter survival when kept in CCA-treated hives.
- A 1991 study by researchers at Rutgers University found leaching of CCA-treated wood in to sea water retarded the growth of fiddler crabs and algae, and resulted in higher death rates for fish and
snails.
- The leaching research of David E. Stilwell, an analytic chemist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station of New Haven, Conn., found elevated levels of copper, chromium and arsenic in soil
samples under seven wood decks built with CCA-treated wood.
Stilwell’s 85 soil samples showed arsenic levels two to four times greater than allowable standards, and showed signs of increasing over time. That could harm yard and garden plants.
A playground exposure study he is working on isn’t finished, but thus far indicates that use of CCA-treated wood should be avoided wherever possible in the playground, especially on surfaces children
touch regularly.
“If alternative materials are available,” Stilwell said,” why not use them and remove toxic materials away from children’s paths.”
He said sealing the deck or playground equipment retards leaching and minimizes the amount of arsenic that is picked up by contact. It would be even better to replace or cover handrails and play
equipment with plastic or a wood-polymer composite like Trex.
His view is supported by the California Health Department, which recommends that play surfaces of recreational equipment be coated every two years with an outdoor-grade polyurethane sealant.
Stilwell also questioned why the EPA requires risk warning stickers of CCA-treated lumber, but not on products such as picnic tables or playground equipment manufactured from the wood.
“There is always the benefit vs. risk question to be answered in these situations and that got lost in the promotion of CCA-treated wood,” Stilwell said. “It’s now being promoted for applications
beyond its original scope, and some of those are not a good idea.”
Stilwell concedes that the longer life of CCA-treated wood is reducing pressure to cut endangered trees, such as redwoods. But he said treated wood should either be sealed better or treated with safer
chemicals.
One of the biggest selling points for CCA is that it extends the life of wood, saving billions in both dollars and trees.
More than 90 percent of treated wood is yellow southern pine. Without preservative treatment, the wood would only last one to three years, Wilbur said. Wood properly treated with CCA can last 10, 20,
even 30 years.
Polaski found, however, that the preservation chemicals sometimes weaken southern soft woods and shorten their lifespans.
“The wood’s structural integrity is attacked by the preservative chemicals, probably the acid in the treating solutions,” he said. “That’s weakening the wood, and certainly, given that many of these
decks are built high, creating the potential for disaster if they break.”
Although he admits there are few reports of decks collapsing, Polaski said many built a decade ago are showing signs of decay and should be inspected.
“We’d have to look at that on an individual basis,” said Wilbur, the industry spokesman, “but 99 percent of the deck failures we’ve seen are due to improper construction, not wood failure.”
Disposal and burning of the treated wood creates other problems.
If the treated wood catches fire, Polaski says, smoke from the combustion would contain “copious amounts of poisonous chemicals.” Residual ashes would contain hazardous chemicals that could be
absorbed through the skin or leach through soil to contaminate ground water.
In December, Wisconsin’s environmental agency fined John Menard, owner of the 200-store Menard’s home improvement chain, $1.7 million for burning CCA scraps to heat the company’s lumber production
facility. Menard was caught carting the ash from that facility to his home, where his disposed of it with the family trash.
In Minnesota, 22 cows were killed when a farmer spread fireplace ashes from CCA-treated wood in the field where they were grazing.
Polaski’s review cites two incidents, reported in 1988 and 1990 newspaper articles, of people harmed by using treated wood for fuel. In both cases, the people developed neurological problems, numbness
in the arms and legs, loss of hair, skin rashes and gastrointestinal upsets.
“Burning any of the wood in a fireplace or outside is a bad thought, and presents a clear exposure route to toxic chemicals that should absolutely be avoided,” the EPA’s Rotenberg said.
Despite government and manufacturers’ warnings, the dangers associated with burning CCA wood still aren’t widely known, according to Keith Solomon, a toxicologist at the University of Guelph in
Ontario, Canada. His research found that acid rain caused the chemicals to quickly wash out of the wood.
“The public should be better informed,” he said. “While camping, I watched a family at a nearby campsite build a fire with scraps of the stuff. The blue-green flames produced by the chemicals were
very attractive, but the kids were cooking hot dogs in the smoke. Not a good idea.”
The recommended method of disposing of construction scraps is by placing them in the trash and taking them to a landfill. That works for now, but what happens over the next several decades, as the
decks, fences and docks built in the 1970s and 1980s are replaced and the old wood is sent to landfills?
Based on a 30-year service life, a study by the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wis., estimated that 2.5 billion board feet of treated wood are entering the waste stream today. That will
increase to 8 billion board feet by the year 2020.
Landfills owned by Minnesota have already stopped taking CCA-treated wood scraps because of concerns about chemical leaching and water contamination.
“We believe there will be a tremendous problem with CCA disposal in the future. Landfills don’t want EPA-listed hazardous chemicals or know carcinogens,” said Pat Bischel, president of Northern
Crossarm Co., a Wisconsin treated-wood producer.
Northern Crossarm last fall stopped making and distributing CCA-treated wood. Instead, Bischel’s firm is now using ACQ - ammoniacal copper quaternary - which contains no hazardous chemicals.
Polaski’s report identifies several safer alternatives, including borate-treated wood, which has been used in Australia and several other countries since the 1940s for bridges, home decking and
playground equipment. A half-dozen CCA pressure-treating plants in Hawaii have converted to borates.
Northern Crossarm, Rhode Island-based BB&S, Treated Lumber of New England, and six other wood treatment companies have switched or are switching from CCA to ACQ, a chemical compound produced by
Chemical Specialties Inc., one of the nation’s major producers of CCA.
“I believe we will see a transformation of the treated wood industry and within a few years the majority of treatments will use an alternative to CCA,” Bischel said. “CCA won’t be outlawed, but like
creosote and penta will be in decline. And like those two treatments, the switch from CCA will be consumer driven.”
Germany banned CCA lumber in the mid-1970s, substituting wood treated with chromium, copper and fluoride. In 1994, New Jersey restricted use of CCA-treated wood in some marine construction to prevent
contamination of shellfish beds.
Environmental Building News and the American Institute of Architects both recently recommended that builders consider CCA alternatives.
The nation’s three major producers of CCA have developed their own copper-based alternatives to CCA, each eliminating the most toxic components of arsenic and chromium.
Polaski said a re-evaluation of the safety of pressure-treated lumber by federal and state agencies would hasten the switch to alternatives.
“My intent in compiling information on CCA and related hazardous wood preservatives is not to condemn wood preservatives in general,” he said. “I hope through my efforts, I will encourage the
development of reliable, safe wood preservatives.”
***End Quote*** from: http://www.business-opportunity.com/Environment/ccaarticle.htm
This is to entertain and not for those who want to be abused/harassed.
This is to encourage at most only lawful/legal and pragmatic actions.
This is to respond to/on a precedent topic not advertise commerce.
This is to expect only appropriate resource use in response.
This is to add that if you don't like that, well, tough shit.
The Horse's Mouth
Pam Wilson <wil...@utahlinx.com> wrote:
>See http://www.awpi.org/
>
>The Horse's Mouth wrote:
>
>> "Janet L. Keyes" <lgl...@minn.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Chromated copper arsenate is used to pressure treat lumber. The substance
>> >itself is hazardous - but it is not mobile (that is, it doesn't leach out of
>> >the treated wood at any significant rate).
>>
>> Your substantiation for that would be _?_
>>
>> Nobody wants splinters from such wood on themselves or anyone else,
>> including of course the livestock. It is also not good for raised garden
>> beds, except for ornamental plants only.
>>
>