Own brand wood treatments

66 views
Skip to first unread message

Keith Dunbar

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 10:13:33 AM7/13/07
to
I have a vast area of exterior wood to treat - a built on wooden "shed"
about 30 feet by 9 feet, approx surface 300 sq.ft. I guess I'd need to take
out a mortgage to treat it with Sadolins!

It suddenly occurred to me that the own brand wood treatments sold in the
DIY warehouses must presumably be made by one or other of the reputable
manufacturers, and therefore presumably of reasonable quality.

Any thoughts?

Keith


Scruffyhippo

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 10:30:16 AM7/13/07
to
Well it's certainly cheaper, have you thought of using a fence
treatment?
That way you get a named brand and the job done!

Keith Dunbar

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 1:17:19 PM7/13/07
to

"Scruffyhippo" <pgw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1184337016.6...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> Well it's certainly cheaper, have you thought of using a fence
> treatment?
> That way you get a named brand and the job done!
>

Although entirely wooden and very shed like it is very much attached to the
house, and needs smartening up a bit, which is why I was thinking in terms
of a standard wood treatment rather than a fence treatment. Although, I
have to admit I've never really been sure of the difference - except cost of
course!

Keith


fred

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 4:27:47 PM7/13/07
to
In article <zsOli.35043$_14....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>, Keith Dunbar
<k.du...@virgin.net> writes
How about 20quid/2.5l?
http://www.decoratingdirect.co.uk/viewprod/t/TORTCEW/
Just got some of this but haven't tried it yet, the lads at dec direct describe
it as one of their best sellers (scary I know) but it is microporous and so
should last for a bit. Note: the comments about restricted can sizes in
certain shades are out of date, email them to get the true story, also don't
expect delivery within a week.
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

Andy Hall

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 4:51:27 PM7/13/07
to
On 2007-07-13 15:13:33 +0100, "Keith Dunbar" <k.du...@virgin.net> said:

> I have a vast area of exterior wood to treat - a built on wooden "shed"
> about 30 feet by 9 feet, approx surface 300 sq.ft. I guess I'd need to take
> out a mortgage to treat it with Sadolins!

Not particularly. You can shop around for a good price. Sikkens also
make good products and Jotun is another.

30 square metres is not a huge area at all.

>
> It suddenly occurred to me that the own brand wood treatments sold in the
> DIY warehouses must presumably be made by one or other of the reputable
> manufacturers, and therefore presumably of reasonable quality.
>
> Any thoughts?


There is a price/performance trade off. I have exterior woodwork on
the house (window frames and trims) that I require to be stained rather
than painted. Sadolin has always been used for these. Quite simply,
it lasts well. If I compare with other exterior wood that was in the
past treated with unknown shed preservatives there is no comparison at
all. I would estimate that Sadolin lasts 3-4 times as long before
retreatment is required.

Even on that equation, buying the unknown stuff is a false economy.
Once other costs such as labour (which is the same) and incidentals
such as scaffolding are taken into account, there is no point in buying
other than the best quality coating materials.

The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are water
based and garish colours. a) water based is less effective than
solvent based and b) the result looks like a three year old's colouring
book. It then fades in patches and looks like total cr@p.

Frank Erskine

unread,
Jul 13, 2007, 6:28:26 PM7/13/07
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:51:27 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
wrote:


>The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are water
>based and garish colours. a) water based is less effective than
>solvent based and b) the result looks like a three year old's colouring
>book. It then fades in patches and looks like total cr@p.
>

I still prefer real coal-tar creosote for the shed.

(And it smells lovely)!...

--
Frank Erskine

Stuart Noble

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 5:14:33 AM7/14/07
to
I don't believe any of it slows the natural decay of wood (apart
possibly from creosote), it just presents a more acceptable appearance.
UV is the killer, and only opaque finishes offer any protection against
that.

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 6:41:48 AM7/14/07
to
On 13 Jul, 21:51, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:

This is so true. Having tried some shed stuff I was given once, I
wouldnt use it again if it were free. It just isnt worth it.

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Wood_Preservatives


NT

fred

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 7:46:35 AM7/14/07
to
In article <4697...@nt1.hall.gl>, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
writes
Does that include Sadolin's own water based stain? It claims 6 year life:
Sadolin Quick Drying Exterior Woodstain

Pete C

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 8:44:40 AM7/14/07
to
On Jul 13, 6:17 pm, "Keith Dunbar" <k.dun...@virgin.net> wrote:
.> Although entirely wooden and very shed like it is very much

attached to the
> house, and needs smartening up a bit, which is why I was thinking in terms
> of a standard wood treatment rather than a fence treatment. Although, I
> have to admit I've never really been sure of the difference - except cost of
> course!

Is it planed or rough sawn wood? Is anything on it already or is it
grey and weathered? Does it look crap already?

Do ya feel... lucky???

cheers,
Pete.

Andy Hall

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 11:55:53 AM7/14/07
to
On 2007-07-14 12:46:35 +0100, fred <n...@for.mail> said:
>>
>> The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are water
>> based and garish colours. a) water based is less effective than
>> solvent based and b) the result looks like a three year old's colouring
>> book. It then fades in patches and looks like total cr@p.
>>
> Does that include Sadolin's own water based stain? It claims 6 year life:
> Sadolin Quick Drying Exterior Woodstain

No idea. I have never used it. Generally, their products have a
better solids content than others which is supposed to be one of the
reasons for longevity. However, I would still only select a solvent
based product.

dennis@home

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 3:44:03 PM7/14/07
to

"Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1tuf93h0vgs76rrmm...@4ax.com...

I prefer something that works myself.
Its also preferable if its not carcinogenic too.


Frank Erskine

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 3:50:47 PM7/14/07
to

Do you have any statistics for the number of people who've died as a
result of creosoting their sheds/fences?

--
Frank Erskine

dennis@home

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 4:47:18 PM7/14/07
to

"Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h2ai9396aqrsasvth...@4ax.com...

Do you have a way of identifying which cancer was caused by which
carcinogen?
Why not adopt the standard smoker technique.. "people die of cancers that
aren't caused by smoking therefore smoking doesn't cause cancer"?


The Medway Handyman

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 6:27:30 PM7/14/07
to
dennis@home wrote:
> "Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:h2ai9396aqrsasvth...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:44:03 +0100, "dennis@home"
>> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1tuf93h0vgs76rrmm...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:51:27 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are
>>>>> water based and garish colours. a) water based is less
>>>>> effective than solvent based and b) the result looks like a three
>>>>> year old's colouring book. It then fades in patches and looks
>>>>> like total cr@p.
>>>> I still prefer real coal-tar creosote for the shed.
>>>>
>>>> (And it smells lovely)!...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer something that works myself.
>>> Its also preferable if its not carcinogenic too.
>>>
>> Do you have any statistics for the number of people who've died as a
>> result of creosoting their sheds/fences?
>
> Do you have a way of identifying which cancer was caused by which
> carcinogen?
> Why not adopt the standard smoker technique.. "people die of cancers
> that aren't caused by smoking therefore smoking doesn't cause cancer"?

Oh dear, here we go again, a completely misinformed raving anti smoking
nutter.

There is a proven link between smoking & lung cancer, no doubt. There is no
proven link whatsoever between passive smoking and lung cancer. Smokers die
of one specific form of lung cancer, alleged passive smokers die from a
completely different for of lung cancer which could not possibly be
attributed to smoking.

Sorry to disappoint you by bringing scientific facts into your emotional
argument.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257


clot

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 6:30:49 PM7/14/07
to

This links into the "Apex roof" asbestos nonsense also on this group.
T'is Nanny State gone rampant. Yes, we do need to be concerned but not
go OTT!

dennis@home

unread,
Jul 14, 2007, 6:54:31 PM7/14/07
to

"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f7bikl$1d3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

Well don't start it then.. this has nothing to do with smoking it was just
an example of why you can't prove a cancer was caused by a specific thing.


Chris George

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 5:48:25 AM7/15/07
to

Dear Keith
Re- own brands: All wood preservatives sold in the UK (and EC) are
subject to the COPRegulations 1986 and to efficacy testing
requirements. Such tests are pretty expensive and as a result many
"traditional" preservatives have fallen by the wayside. This has
meant that only larger organisations have survived in the production
of active ingredients and formulations of these. Thus, all
preservatives are and have to be "fit for purpose" and "safe to use
as directed" so what you are getting is the result of bulk purchase
and sale by a supermarked specialist.
What does not seem to have been addressed in the trail below is to ask
the following questions:
Against what organisms do you wish to treat this wood? THIS is the
key question when determining what preservative to use.
Also What species of wood? Hard or soft? durable or perisable?
permiable or impermiable? All questions which will result in an answer
which is needed to decide the preservative to be used.
Preservatives are used to protect against the following:
Insect attack
Mould
Precursor soft rot staining fungi
Fungal decay such as wet and dry rots
UV damage

The active ingredients for these are different.
To protect against insect attack you need an insecticide such as
permethrin or cypermethrin
To protect against fungi you need a fungicide and there are about 10
or so "regular" ones on the market and consist of heavy metal ions
normally associated with complex organic molecules or simply boron
based active ingredients
To protect against UV you need a UV blocker
Most decent coatings have some form of water repellant as fungi cannot
survive in dry wood and if you keep the wood dry it will not rot,
So, if you want to PRESERVE the wood (as oppose to protect) then you
would best be advised to put on (in accordance with the instructions)
a preservative and there are combination ones (Insecticide /
fungicide) on sale. I would unhesitatingly go for an OS (organic
solvent) based one and apply it only on a late afternoon of a sunny
dry day when the wood is at as high a temp as possible. As it cools
down the air within will contract and bring in more of the
preservative to the inner parts of the wood. Lateral penetration into
the side grain could be as much as a mm or two if the right product is
used in the right way in a permeable softwood such as Scots pine. You
would get very little penetration to most hardwoods.
The application of more than one coat will increase the loading and
protective effect.
I suspect that what you are really after is a protecitve coating and
as far as I am concerned after more than 30 years in the business I
would go for Sikkens /Saddolins from AKZO Nobel. It will require re
treating every couple of years but this can be done very very easily
as no scraping or serious preparation is needed and it can be done
with brush or spray.
Chris

Stuart Noble

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 5:51:46 AM7/15/07
to
dennis@home wrote:
> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f7bikl$1d3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> dennis@home wrote:
>>> "Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h2ai9396aqrsasvth...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:44:03 +0100, "dennis@home"
>>>> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1tuf93h0vgs76rrmm...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:51:27 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are
>>>>>>> water based and garish colours. a) water based is less
>>>>>>> effective than solvent based and b) the result looks like a three
>>>>>>> year old's colouring book. It then fades in patches and looks
>>>>>>> like total cr@p.
>>>>>> I still prefer real coal-tar creosote for the shed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (And it smells lovely)!...
>>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer something that works myself.

Creosote works very well. It is that unique combination of a transparent
coating with a good natural colour that the manufacturers of substitute
products haven't been able to get close to.
The smell, however, is something else. Last time I used it you could
smell it all down the street for at least 2 days

dennis@home

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 6:43:22 AM7/15/07
to

"Stuart Noble" <stuart_no...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:S6mmi.8601$XR....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

> Creosote works very well. It is that unique combination of a transparent
> coating with a good natural colour that the manufacturers of substitute
> products haven't been able to get close to.

You say it works but tests show it has little if any benifit.
My fence has never been creosoted and my neighbour did his every year for
twenty years.. both are still there after 25 years.
Both are identical as they are part of the same run of featheredge put up by
the builders.
I suggest that the creosote has done nothing, just like field tests suggest.

> The smell, however, is something else. Last time I used it you could smell
> it all down the street for at least 2 days

I am very happy since he left and the new neighbour uses a nice water based
dye.
No smell and it keeps its colour for years.


meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 7:12:40 AM7/15/07
to
On 15 Jul, 10:48, Chris George <ch...@atics.co.uk> wrote:

> Re- own brands: All wood preservatives sold in the UK (and EC) are
> subject to the COPRegulations 1986 and to efficacy testing
> requirements. Such tests are pretty expensive and as a result many
> "traditional" preservatives have fallen by the wayside. This has
> meant that only larger organisations have survived in the production
> of active ingredients and formulations of these. Thus, all
> preservatives are and have to be "fit for purpose" and "safe to use
> as directed"

Having used shed water based wood preservatives as directed, then
watched little fungi sprouting from the wood whenever it rains, I can
safely say it was not fit for purpose.

There are ways to convince people somethig is fit for purpose when it
isnt. Playing with the definitions is one way. You are being rather
optimistic imho.


NT

Pete C

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 9:23:08 AM7/15/07
to
On Jul 15, 12:12 pm, meow2...@care2.com wrote:
> On 15 Jul, 10:48, Chris George <ch...@atics.co.uk> wrote:

> Having used shed water based wood preservatives as directed, then
> watched little fungi sprouting from the wood whenever it rains, I can
> safely say it was not fit for purpose.
>

Did you use it from new?

Why not name the product?

cheers,
Pete.

Julian

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 4:39:44 PM7/15/07
to

<meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:1184497960....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> On 15 Jul, 10:48, Chris George <ch...@atics.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Re- own brands: All wood preservatives sold in the UK (and EC) are
>> subject to the COPRegulations 1986 and to efficacy testing
>> requirements. Such tests are pretty expensive and as a result many
>> "traditional" preservatives have fallen by the wayside. This has
>> meant that only larger organisations have survived in the production
>> of active ingredients and formulations of these. Thus, all
>> preservatives are and have to be "fit for purpose" and "safe to use
>> as directed"
>
> Having used shed water based wood preservatives as directed, then
> watched little fungi sprouting from the wood whenever it rains, I can
> safely say it was not fit for purpose.

I have to say I agree with you entirely. I've just had about 500 yards of
post and rail wooden fencing creosoted - or so I thought. The first 200
yards or so was done and we ran out of product - it was then that I noticed
that the product was called 'Creotreat' (IIRC). Cross with myself I made
enquiries and found a fencing stockist who would sell me proper coal tar
creosote and finished the rest of the fence with it.

About 3 months later the 'Creotreated' fence has got the litchins and mosses
growing again on the wood and most of the product seems to have been washed
off. OTOH the creosoted fence still looks good with no crap growing on it.

Julian.


Pete C

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 5:58:42 PM7/15/07
to
On Jul 15, 9:39 pm, "Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote:

> I have to say I agree with you entirely. I've just had about 500 yards of
> post and rail wooden fencing creosoted - or so I thought. The first 200
> yards or so was done and we ran out of product - it was then that I noticed
> that the product was called 'Creotreat' (IIRC). Cross with myself I made
> enquiries and found a fencing stockist who would sell me proper coal tar
> creosote and finished the rest of the fence with it.
>
> About 3 months later the 'Creotreated' fence has got the litchins and mosses
> growing again on the wood and most of the product seems to have been washed
> off. OTOH the creosoted fence still looks good with no crap growing on it.

Not suprised! :

<http://www.fmb.org.uk/publications/masterbuilder/june00/4c.asp>

Usually the MSDS tells what 'goodies' there are in there...

Something like this would be a fair comparison with creosote:

<http://www.bartoline.co.uk/CREOSOTE%20SUBSTITUTE%20EBONY%20BLACK
%20(05)%20Edition%201.pdf>

cheers,
Pete.

Frank Erskine

unread,
Jul 15, 2007, 6:23:47 PM7/15/07
to
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:47:18 +0100, "dennis@home"
<den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>
>"Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:h2ai9396aqrsasvth...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:44:03 +0100, "dennis@home"
>> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1tuf93h0vgs76rrmm...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:51:27 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are water
>>>>>based and garish colours. a) water based is less effective than
>>>>>solvent based and b) the result looks like a three year old's colouring
>>>>>book. It then fades in patches and looks like total cr@p.
>>>>>
>>>> I still prefer real coal-tar creosote for the shed.
>>>>
>>>> (And it smells lovely)!...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I prefer something that works myself.
>>>Its also preferable if its not carcinogenic too.
>>>
>> Do you have any statistics for the number of people who've died as a
>> result of creosoting their sheds/fences?
>
>Do you have a way of identifying which cancer was caused by which
>carcinogen?

So that's a 'no' then?

--
Frank Erskine

Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 1:53:25 AM7/16/07
to

"Pete C" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184536722....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...

Thanks, that's very interesting. I'll not be caught out again and tricked
into using one of these ineffective 'modern' products!

Julian.


Chris George

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:32:43 AM7/16/07
to
On 15 Jul, 10:51, Stuart Noble <stuart_nobleNOS...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
> > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:f7bikl$1d3$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> >> dennis@home wrote:
> >>> "Frank Erskine" <frank.ersk...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

> >>>news:h2ai9396aqrsasvth...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:44:03 +0100, "dennis@home"
> >>>> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Frank Erskine" <frank.ersk...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

> >>>>>news:1tuf93h0vgs76rrmm...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:51:27 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are
> >>>>>>> water based and garish colours. a) water based is less
> >>>>>>> effective than solvent based and b) the result looks like a three
> >>>>>>> year old's colouring book. It then fades in patches and looks
> >>>>>>> like total cr@p.
> >>>>>> I still prefer real coal-tar creosote for the shed.
>
> >>>>>> (And it smells lovely)!...
>
> >>>>> I prefer something that works myself.
>
> Creosote works very well. It is that unique combination of a transparent
> coating with a good natural colour that the manufacturers of substitute
> products haven't been able to get close to.
> The smell, however, is something else. Last time I used it you could
> smell it all down the street for at least 2 days- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Stuart
I may be wrong but am pretty sure creosote has been banned for general
use since 2003 and can only be used under certain professional
circumstances, probably railway sleepers and telegraph poles and the
like.
I am pretty sure (but by no means 100% certain) that the products sold
as creosote-like have absolutely no relationship to creasote proper in
that all the said active ingredients worth having have been removed!
As a fan of creosote, with its 200 odd active (many carcinogenic)
ingredients, for its efficacy I am not altogether sad that it has been
withdrawn for amateur use as it was a particularly unfriendly
sledgehammer envirionmentally speaking...
chris
See this link
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2003/20031511.htm

Chris George

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:53:36 AM7/16/07
to
On 15 Jul, 11:43, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
> "Stuart Noble" <stuart_nobleNOS...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

>
>
> You say it works but tests show it has little if any benifit.
>
Dear Dennis
I have been in the wood-preserving field for some decades and am
unaware of any field tests published to this effect
I am aware, having worked with both Dr Bravery and Dr Carey at the BRE
that not inconsiderable data do exist to show that, provided the
loading of the preservative is adequate, creosite does in inhibit
fungal growth
See, for example
http://www.bfafh.de/inst4/43/ppt/4critval.pdf
I can probably cite 30 or 40 other papers and tests over the last
century supporting this view.
Please can you cite the source of the tests in question? I like to
keep up with this field and your email post has rather caught me out!
Your empirical example is not scientifically sound in that there is no
data on the origin of the fence which could well have been double
vacuum or even CCA treated which would make any treatment redundant.
If it has lasted outside for this length of time without treatment and
has no precursor fungi it is either composed of a durable heart wood
(not likely) or is CCA treated (very likely).
Chris

dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:55:49 AM7/16/07
to

"Frank Erskine" <frank....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ph7l93hth4qm9vo0i...@4ax.com...

Its the same no as in smoking.. there is lots of evidence that say some of
the cancers are caused by the product but its difficult to say which ones.
If you want to ignore the evidence then that's up to you.. use creosote near
me and I will do what I can to prevent it.

There is also plenty of evidence that painting anything with creosote is a
waste of time and money so you can only want to do it to be a nuisance.


dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:04:33 AM7/16/07
to

"Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:pJDmi.33866$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

>
> Thanks, that's very interesting. I'll not be caught out again and tricked
> into using one of these ineffective 'modern' products!
>

The best way to treat existing wood is to prevent it from being wet all the
time.
New wood can be pressure treated.

If the fence is thin enough to dry out a few times a year it won't rot very
fast if at all.
The posts will as they don't dry out, even pressure treated ones.
Putting them in a concrete shell keeps them wet so they rot quicker than if
you dig a small diameter hole and pack it with gravel.
Sheds need a good overlap on the roof to keep them dry.

If you don't like the colour of the old wood just dye it, its quick and
easy.


Chris George

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:05:35 AM7/16/07
to

Dear Meow2
Water-based wood preservatives are mostly only for professional use
(generally as emusions with the water used as a carrier fluid) and I
do not know of any sold for Amateur use as a brush on product. I
would (from firt principles) have thought a brush on external
presevative based on water to be largely useless in my opinion (see my
post above recommending OS-based) because you get next to no
penetration of the active ingredient into the side grain.

I suspect that what you get sprouting are moulds not wood destroying
fungi and that it is possible that careful reading of the contents of
the alleged wood preservative has some sort of get-out clause (e.g.
that it is only to be used in x, y, z environments [internal use?] for
a,b,c purposes) and that it is not suitable for an exterior garden
shed! Close examination of the claims and terms are required when
choosing such products as the unscrupulous manufacturers do dress it
up a lot to sell to the poor unsuspecting public who think one
preservative is just as good as another.

Are you sure it was not a Water Repellant Preservative Stain (WRPS) as
opposed to a pesticide preservative? I should be interested in the
name of the product - just to warn others off!
Chris

Chris George

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:17:25 AM7/16/07
to
On 15 Jul, 21:39, "Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote:
> <meow2...@care2.com> wrote in message

Creotreat is an oil-based timber stain containing tar acids (phenols)
designed to fool the consumer into thinking it is a creosote
substitute.
To preserve a fence or timber you need a preservative NOT "treatment"
which is basically decorative
See the sucessful action by the Creosote Council in 2000 against the
manufacturers which I quote below

"
Council forces retreat on ad slogan
Manufacturers of a wood treatment product have been forced to drop a
statement from its packaging following a complaint from the Creosote
Council. The council raised the issue with trading standards, unhappy
that 'Creotreat', a petroleum-based product marketed by Cromar
Building Products Ltd, carried the statement 'old traditional type
treatment for outside use' on its packaging. It believed this slogan,
coupled with the product name, misled the trade into thinking they had
purchased a creosote-based product.

A spokesman for the Creosote Council said that creosote was regarded
as 'the traditional wood preservative'.

"To refer to Creotreat, even as merely a tradition type treatment, was
unhelpful. Many members of the public were not aware of the difference
between a 'treatment, which is mainly cosmetic, and a 'preservative'
which actually protects the wood. The protection, in creosote's case,
is achieved by preventing the wood from drying out and splitting,
inhibiting the growth of fungi and by destroying insects which would
otherwise destroy the wood. Protection of this nature could not be
achieved with this petroleum-based 'treatment'," concluded the
spokesman.
"

Chris George

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:22:27 AM7/16/07
to

Pete is spot on target on both counts. My own advice is to buy the
fence or timber pressure impregnated first and any supplementary
application has to do less work and provides a greater factor of
safety

Chris

Chris George

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:31:44 AM7/16/07
to
On 14 Jul, 20:50, Frank Erskine <frank.ersk...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 20:44:03 +0100, "dennis@home"
>
>
>
>
>
> <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>
> >"Frank Erskine" <frank.ersk...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

> >news:1tuf93h0vgs76rrmm...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:51:27 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>The other issue is that most of the shed own brand products are water
> >>>based and garish colours. a) water based is less effective than
> >>>solvent based and b) the result looks like a three year old's colouring
> >>>book. It then fades in patches and looks like total cr@p.
>
> >> I still prefer real coal-tar creosote for the shed.
>
> >> (And it smells lovely)!...
>
> >I prefer something that works myself.
> >Its also preferable if its not carcinogenic too.
>
> Do you have any statistics for the number of people who've died as a
> result of creosoting their sheds/fences?
>
> --
> Frank Erskine- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Frank
They don't need to die...The data used to ban creosote from general
use in June 2003 were generated in Germany (they have an active Green
party and were responsible for the removal of many of our active
ingredients in the '80s and 90s'. All that is required is "potential"
harm.... !

"
This Directive is the latest measure brought in by the European Union
for creosote/coal tar creosote. In 1994, controls on the specification
of creosote that could be sold to the general public were implemented
due to concerns over the carcinogenic potential of certain
constituents of creosote. New information has led the EU to believe
that creosote/coal tar creosote may have a greater potential to cause
cancer than previously thought and as a precautionary measure the EU
has decided to take action to prohibit the use of creosote/coal tar
creosote wood preservatives by the general public. To bring this
about, the DTI instructed the HSE to remove the Control of Pesticides
Regulations approvals for these products to the following timetable:

Approval for advertisement and sale of amateur creosote/coal tar
creosote products by the product Approval Holder and their agents
expired on the 28th February 2003.

Approval for advertisement and sale of amateur creosote/coal tar
creosote products by anyone other then the product Approval Holder or
their agents expired on the 30th April 2003.

Approval for supply, storage and use of amateur creosote/coal tar
creosote products expires on the 30th June 2003.

The "Elfin Safety" are alive and kicking and can be found not only in
Ireland but on the continent!
Chris

Frank Erskine

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:38:35 AM7/16/07
to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:31:44 -0700, Chris George <ch...@atics.co.uk>
wrote:


>Frank
>They don't need to die...The data used to ban creosote from general
>use in June 2003 were generated in Germany (they have an active Green
>party and were responsible for the removal of many of our active
>ingredients in the '80s and 90s'. All that is required is "potential"
>harm.... !

Well, I still have a source of the proper stuff (from a real
ironmonger!).

--
Frank Erskine

Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 5:15:15 AM7/16/07
to

"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:f7f8qj$5k5$1...@news.datemas.de...

>
> "Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
> news:pJDmi.33866$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
>>
>> Thanks, that's very interesting. I'll not be caught out again and tricked
>> into using one of these ineffective 'modern' products!
>>
>
> The best way to treat existing wood is to prevent it from being wet all
> the time.

I'm sure that's true, I'll have a word with god and ask if he can keep the
rain off my fences :-)

> New wood can be pressure treated.

It's 15 years old minimum.

>
> If the fence is thin enough to dry out a few times a year it won't rot
> very fast if at all.

See my OP, it's post and rail to keep horses in, made from half round about
6'' dia.


> The posts will as they don't dry out, even pressure treated ones.
> Putting them in a concrete shell keeps them wet so they rot quicker than
> if you dig a small diameter hole and pack it with gravel.

Post and rail, you bang em in with a post knocker - concrete and gravel?? I
suspect that's for your back garden stuff.


>
> If you don't like the colour of the old wood just dye it, its quick and
> easy.

Colour is of no consequence, preservation is important, I don't think
anything is better than creosote for my purposes. It also stops the horses
chewing the wood due to its nasty taste.

Julian.


Stuart Noble

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 6:01:48 AM7/16/07
to

Interesting thread. Anything as fine and penetrating as creosote has to
be a health risk I would have thought. I doubt there's a mask capable of
filtering the fumes, which linger in clothing etc.
The fact remains that wood rots at the base, whatever it is, and
whatever it's treated with. The gravel/cement mix should help in theory,
though I haven't tried it yet.

Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 6:13:41 AM7/16/07
to

"Stuart Noble" <stuart_no...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gmHmi.33876$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...

> Interesting thread. Anything as fine and penetrating as creosote has to be
> a health risk I would have thought. I doubt there's a mask capable of
> filtering the fumes, which linger in clothing etc.

What tommy rot! Brown kipers are carcinogenic, so is burned toast - I wish
the safety Nazis would keep things in perspective and preferably stay in bed
where they can subject themselves to zero risk.


> The fact remains that wood rots at the base, whatever it is, and whatever
> it's treated with. The gravel/cement mix should help in theory, though I
> haven't tried it yet.

It tends to go quickest at the air/ground interface. You can pull out old
posts that have been pushed into heavy wet clay and the underground part of
the wood is as good as new.

Julian.


dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 7:07:26 AM7/16/07
to

"Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:DGGmi.28179$%Z3.1...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

> Colour is of no consequence, preservation is important, I don't think
> anything is better than creosote for my purposes. It also stops the horses
> chewing the wood due to its nasty taste.

You do protect the horses from the stuff until its safe don't you.


Stuart Noble

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 7:41:21 AM7/16/07
to
Julian wrote:
> "Stuart Noble" <stuart_no...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:gmHmi.33876$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>
>> Interesting thread. Anything as fine and penetrating as creosote has to be
>> a health risk I would have thought. I doubt there's a mask capable of
>> filtering the fumes, which linger in clothing etc.
>
> What tommy rot! Brown kipers are carcinogenic, so is burned toast - I wish
> the safety Nazis would keep things in perspective and preferably stay in bed
> where they can subject themselves to zero risk.

I agree in general, but I make an exception with creosote, which I
suspect is evil, a) because of the length of time it hangs around and b)
the fineness of its chemical composition. Kippers and toast are not
quite the same thing.
A good example of a straw man argument.

Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 8:45:53 AM7/16/07
to

"Stuart Noble" <stuart_no...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BPImi.8894$XR....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...

> Julian wrote:
>> "Stuart Noble" <stuart_no...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:gmHmi.33876$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>>
>>> Interesting thread. Anything as fine and penetrating as creosote has to
>>> be a health risk I would have thought. I doubt there's a mask capable of
>>> filtering the fumes, which linger in clothing etc.
>>
>> What tommy rot! Brown kipers are carcinogenic, so is burned toast - I
>> wish the safety Nazis would keep things in perspective and preferably
>> stay in bed where they can subject themselves to zero risk.
>
> I agree in general, but I make an exception with creosote, which I suspect
> is evil,

Only suspect - hmmm in this country I thought it was innocent until proven?


a) because of the length of time it hangs around and b)
> the fineness of its chemical composition. Kippers and toast are not quite
> the same thing.

They are the exact same thing if they are the cause of a cancer. Kippers,
toast and creosote are proven carcinogens (so the safety Nazis say) , they
all carry risk, so let's ban them all and be done with it!

Julian.


Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 8:46:02 AM7/16/07
to

"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:f7fjhg$am1$1...@news.datemas.de...

No. Once they've gotton their tongue on it the once they won't repeat the
exercise - just like an electric fence.

Julian.


dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 10:02:34 AM7/16/07
to

"Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:5MJmi.21900$_l6....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

> They are the exact same thing if they are the cause of a cancer. Kippers,
> toast and creosote are proven carcinogens (so the safety Nazis say) , they
> all carry risk, so let's ban them all and be done with it!

Kippers are not carcinogens.
BFK is carcinogenic.
Why anyone needs bright orange dye on a kipper is beyond me.


dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 10:12:47 AM7/16/07
to

"Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:eMJmi.21901$_l6....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...

IIRC creosote can cause skin burns and other nasties.. you have to keep pets
away from it.


Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 10:16:22 AM7/16/07
to

"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:f7ftpu$dpd$1...@news.datemas.de...

>
> "Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
> news:5MJmi.21900$_l6....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
>> They are the exact same thing if they are the cause of a cancer. Kippers,
>> toast and creosote are proven carcinogens (so the safety Nazis say) ,
>> they all carry risk, so let's ban them all and be done with it!
>
> Kippers are not carcinogens.

Do keep up at the back Hoskins, I did originally say _brown_ kippers. Must I
use the word 'brown' everytime to keep the pendants at bay :-)

But, because you mention it, I bet that kippers (sic) are carcinogenic. AIUI
they're smoked, so the tars and stuff from the wood shavings must create
risk?

> BFK is carcinogenic.
> Why anyone needs bright orange dye on a kipper is beyond me.

Sometimes when staying at hotels I have kippers for breakfast, I think that
without the brown FK dye they look grey and un interesting. I've never been
offered a choice though, it's brown or nothing....

Julian.


Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 10:19:16 AM7/16/07
to

"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:f7fud2$fhl$1...@news.datemas.de...
You're welcome to come an inspect our horses tongues anytime. AAMOF the
horse dentist came last week and after rasping their teeth gave them all a
clean bill of health. £40/horse for 10 minutes work - not a bad rate IMO.

Julian.


dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 10:32:04 AM7/16/07
to

"Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:E7Lmi.18136$oa7....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

>>
> You're welcome to come an inspect our horses tongues anytime. AAMOF the
> horse dentist came last week and after rasping their teeth gave them all a
> clean bill of health. £40/horse for 10 minutes work - not a bad rate IMO.
>

I'm not qualified to inspect horses.. however if you let us know when and
where you are creosoting a suitable inspection could be arranged.


Stuart Noble

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 10:46:13 AM7/16/07
to

Ban everything, ban nothing, I really don't give a shit

Pete C

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 11:12:42 AM7/16/07
to
On Jul 16, 11:01 am, Stuart Noble <stuart_nobleNOS...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

> The fact remains that wood rots at the base, whatever it is, and
> whatever it's treated with.

Even wood soaked in creosote? ;)

cheers,
Pete.

Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 11:23:01 AM7/16/07
to

"dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:f7fvhb$j4j$1...@news.datemas.de...

It will be soon, to re-do the fence that I did with Creotrete!

Since this thread started I've been looking at the fence every time I pass
by (about 50 times now at a guess) and the difference between the
Creotreated and creosoted sections is staggering. The former has almost
entirely vanished after about 2 months or so and looks like it has never
been touched. I'm really quite angry and have half a mind to take action
against Creotreat for selling a product that I consider not fit for purpose.
I think I'll try and ring them tomorrow and see what they have to say for
themselves.

Julian.


meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 1:38:12 PM7/16/07
to
On 15 Jul, 14:23, Pete C <petecn...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 15, 12:12 pm, meow2...@care2.com wrote:
> > On 15 Jul, 10:48, Chris George <ch...@atics.co.uk> wrote:

> > Having used shed water based wood preservatives as directed, then
> > watched little fungi sprouting from the wood whenever it rains, I can
> > safely say it was not fit for purpose.

> Did you use it from new?

I dont know what that means. I could not have used it once it was
used.

> Why not name the product?

B&Q but I dont remember the exact product name. Doesnt matter though,
I avoid all the water based stuff now.


NT

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 2:18:53 PM7/16/07
to

OK, when I next get access I'll see if the tin's still there, and give
you the details if it is. Maybe then you can tell us more about it.

Meanwhile I've found 50/50 new engine oil and paraffin to work
impressively well, keeping even constantly wet softwood alive for
years, without the famous problems of creosote.


NT

Chris George

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 2:22:43 PM7/16/07
to
On 16 Jul, 11:01, Stuart Noble <stuart_nobleNOS...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> though I haven't tried it yet.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Fence posts for motorways treated to 8 kgs per cubic metre with CCA
(before it was banned) had a design life of 50 years. Evidence to date
supports a greater life expectancy.
Fence posts rot at the ground interface as a result of a variety of
factors
Work was done by Ed Baines at Imperial College in the early 1970s that
showed nitrogen (from salts) being preferentially deposited in the
area just at ground level having wicked up the endgrain buried in the
ground and evaporated as the post became aerated. This increase in
richness of available nitrogen allowed the devolopment of precursor
moulds and stain fungi, then soft rots and eventually various
basidomycetes which rotted the wood. Wood that is anerobic (in the
mud) will only have the pit membranes and other minor parts of the
cell destroyed by bacteria and will remain largely intact - CV the
Mary Rose
Wood that is open to ventilation and below 18% MC (the post) will not
decay.

The key to preserving fence posts is to protect the end grain from
wicking and water if possible.
The Romans used to char the ends in an attempt to do this (as well as
vinegar and other attempts at preservative!)
I have found that a good bitumastic paint, a dpm and IF the water
table is not high the previously suggested gravel below to be
effective but do use concrete at ground level. My hardwood poles of
non durable but treated timber have lasted 25 years to date. My CCA
treated soft wood (when I had to remove a post for other reasons)
showed only very minor surface softening.
Chris

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 2:27:04 PM7/16/07
to
On 16 Jul, 09:05, Chris George

> shed! Close examination of the claims and terms are required when


> choosing such products as the unscrupulous manufacturers do dress it
> up a lot to sell to the poor unsuspecting public who think one
> preservative is just as good as another.

Sounds like you'd be just the chap to comment on this, with a view to
improving its accuracy:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Wood_Preservatives


NT

Pete C

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:03:56 PM7/16/07
to
On Jul 16, 7:18 pm, meow2...@care2.com wrote:

> Meanwhile I've found 50/50 new engine oil and paraffin to work
> impressively well, keeping even constantly wet softwood alive for
> years, without the famous problems of creosote.

Engine oil contains detergents, so some of it can wash out which may
not be a Good Thing.

I've had good results with Cuprinol Green/copper napthenate BTW.

cheers,
Pete.


The Medway Handyman

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:05:40 PM7/16/07
to
dennis@home wrote:
> The posts will as they don't dry out, even pressure treated ones.
> Putting them in a concrete shell keeps them wet so they rot quicker
> than if you dig a small diameter hole and pack it with gravel.

How good a method is that? Does it keep post in place in a high wind? Tell
me more please!


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257


The Medway Handyman

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:09:20 PM7/16/07
to

Soon they will ban eating kippers indoors, due to the risk of passive kipper
eating.

The TV will be full of adds for patches designed to help you give up
kippers.........

dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:17:07 PM7/16/07
to

"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f7gfi5$llp$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

> dennis@home wrote:
>> The posts will as they don't dry out, even pressure treated ones.
>> Putting them in a concrete shell keeps them wet so they rot quicker
>> than if you dig a small diameter hole and pack it with gravel.
>
> How good a method is that? Does it keep post in place in a high wind?
> Tell me more please!

It works with telephone poles.
Remember gravel is sharp and pointy not little round pebbles.


dennis@home

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 3:18:28 PM7/16/07
to

"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f7gfp2$m5j$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

>
> Soon they will ban eating kippers indoors, due to the risk of passive
> kipper eating.
>
> The TV will be full of adds for patches designed to help you give up
> kippers.........
>

You don't need patches to give up.. just duct tape over the mouth and nose.


Stuart Noble

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:30:42 PM7/16/07
to

You mean no cement at all presumably. I guess if it's compacted enough....

Stuart Noble

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:42:24 PM7/16/07
to

Interesting stuff


>
> The key to preserving fence posts is to protect the end grain from
> wicking and water if possible.
> The Romans used to char the ends in an attempt to do this (as well as
> vinegar and other attempts at preservative!)
> I have found that a good bitumastic paint, a dpm and IF the water
> table is not high the previously suggested gravel below to be
> effective but do use concrete at ground level.

I maintain paraffin wax is the best way to achieve this as it doesn't
form a film which might be compromised as the wood moves, but is about
as hydrophobic as you can get. I believe they use it in forestry to
prevent premature drying of logs

Julian

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 4:55:28 PM7/16/07
to

"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f7gfp2$m5j$1...@registered.motzarella.org...

> Julian wrote:
>> "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
>> news:f7ftpu$dpd$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>>
>>> "Julian" <j...@supanet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5MJmi.21900$_l6....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>>> They are the exact same thing if they are the cause of a cancer.
>>>> Kippers, toast and creosote are proven carcinogens (so the safety
>>>> Nazis say) , they all carry risk, so let's ban them all and be done
>>>> with it!
>>>
>>> Kippers are not carcinogens.
>>
>> Do keep up at the back Hoskins, I did originally say _brown_ kippers.
>> Must I use the word 'brown' everytime to keep the pendants at bay :-)
>>
>> But, because you mention it, I bet that kippers (sic) are
>> carcinogenic. AIUI they're smoked, so the tars and stuff from the
>> wood shavings must create risk?
>>
>>> BFK is carcinogenic.
>>> Why anyone needs bright orange dye on a kipper is beyond me.
>>
>> Sometimes when staying at hotels I have kippers for breakfast, I
>> think that without the brown FK dye they look grey and un
>> interesting. I've never been offered a choice though, it's brown or
>> nothing....
>
> Soon they will ban eating kippers indoors, due to the risk of passive
> kipper eating.

And grapefruit too. In today's (gutter) press is an article proving a link
between breast cancer and grapefruit eating. Perhaps creosoting the fence
while drinking a glass of grapefruit cordial will result in instant death...

Julian.


The Medway Handyman

unread,
Jul 16, 2007, 7:18:07 PM7/16/07
to

Absolutely. Mr G obviously knows his stuff.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages