Topic: Home project warning/gotcha

[TwoTired]

So, my steel shed floor/platform collapsed on me, rotted.  I put it there about 30 years ago.
It was essentially a wood deck, and I used redwood, which has some inherent natural weather/ rot protection.  I don't recall if it was pressure treated.  Probably wasn't.  I don't think I really expected to be still living on this property all this time.  (I bought the house in 1975!)
Anyway, I lifted and suspended the 10x9 metal building, tore out the old deck/platform and built a new one.

I've used pressure treated lumber on other projects before.  The kind with a green tint and every cut off piece was brushed with a green copper based liquid to restore it's withstand to bugs and rot even with ground contact.

So, I go to the home improvement stores, Lowes and Home depot.  And, I find that all the green pressure treated lumber is absent.  All of it replaced with a red tint pressure treated lumber.  It's all they sell, claiming the EPA (Expensive Protection Agency, methinks) banned the proven working green treated lumber.  Home consumers can only get the red stuff.  So, I bought what I needed to build the deck.
During the build, I see a small tag on the end of the lumber with a code on it.   Curious, I looked it up in google during a work break.  With the deck half done, I find out that the "NEW" pressure treated wood is only for above ground use.  Essentially, they changed the function of "pressure treated" for the unsuspecting consumer, so all their projects will fail prematurely due to inferior pressure treating chemicals.

Luckily for me, I still had a gallon of creosote bought quite some time ago (EPA has now banned that for consumers, as well), so I was able to rescue my project without starting over completely.

Anyway, that's my learning experience story.  And the morale is, if you go shop for "pressure treated" lumber, beware.  If your project wood contacts the ground, the new "pressure treating" material won't protect the wood from premature rot or insect damage.

[kghost]

The green stuff was alkaline copper quat or chromated copper arsenate.

They still make it. I guess you just can't buy it retail

[754]

It was copper napthanate...that we had up here..

[TwoTired]

The 2x4s I bought have a red stain on them.  All the Pressure treated wood they had were like that.
I found the tiny label.  On it:

alkaline copper quat (ACQ-A)

ABOVE GROUND  AWPA  UC3B

[kghost]

I think they still make the high content acq stuff.....better

Creosote was the bestest stuff

[Retro Rocket]

Creosote was the bestest stuff

Just don't get it on your skin in direct sunlight, it burns pretty good...

[kghost]

Creosote was the bestest stuff

Just don't get it on your skin in direct sunlight, it burns pretty good...

I was told not to eat it or rub it on myself lol

[demon78]

That's odd we can still get the green stuff here in Ont the good both lumber and liquid. I just got some from the local Home Hardware.
Bill the demon

[70CB750]

I think that's a California thing, I did not read the PT lumber label latelly, but the green stuff is still available overhere.

I use it only when I really have to, don't like it.

My dad would use old engine oil to soak fence posts in - not sure if it helped or not, but I am sure EPA would go nuts over that one 

[kghost]

My dad would use old engine oil to soak fence posts in - not sure if it helped or not, but I am sure EPA would go nuts over that one 

It works.

I guess you could use hot tar as well......

[starsnbars89]

Here is western PA we can still get the green stuff. Just bought some two weeks ago. We also put used oil on fence posts--and mower decks, and truck frames, and ............. The EPA must LOVE us!

[333]

I'm thinking it a California thing as well.  I'll be at the Home Cheapo today, so I'll look.  BTW, the green stuff has arsenic in it.

[TwoTired]

I should have known/expected that an agency was involved.  Agencies love technicalities, particularly ones that are "behind the scenes".

http://www.awpa.com/references/homeowner.asp

Don't forget to check out the sponsors/beneficiaries. 

I tried to compare the effectiveness of each type of pressure treatment, in terms of longevity.  In this way, you could make a reasonable cost benefit assessment of the material you intend to buy, and perhaps make an intelligent buying decision.

I did find that the expected life of wood pressure treated with creosote was 40-50 years.  However, while I could find definite recommendations for use of substitute pressure treating chemicals, I could find no expected use time for woods treated with these chemicals, projected or tested.  Perhaps this is partly due to the longer period of time creosote treated products have been in use.  But, I find it odd (if a bit suspicious) that there is no data to actually compare the effectiveness of the newer, supposedly safer, chemically treated woods.

The data seems to be saying, "yes, the creosote really did the preservative job well.  But, of the substitutes you are allowed to obtain, it is what it is and you will just have to live with whatever performance it provides, and at a higher cost".

BTW, I'm aware that it is likely a California thing...for now.  I'm trying to give a heads up to everyone else, as two years ago I was able to buy the green treated ground contact wood here without an issue.  The California tail has been shown to wag the EPA dog many times.

Oh, btw, the new chemical treatments also have some fastener corrosion issues/warnings.

[kghost]

DDT was a really good pesticide too......

Just saying......

[jamesb]

I was cleaning out my garage at the shop and my boss had a old 1gal jug of DDT. I was like wholly sh!t. I've worked there 15yrs and wondered what was in that old brown glass jug and finally found out. The guys at the hazardous recycle station about crapped. 

[TwoTired]

DDT was a really good pesticide too......

Just saying......

I recall as a kid, they would fog the entire neighborhood with that for mosquito control.  'Twas great fun to run and ride our bikes through it.  Kinda like flying through clouds, we imagined. 

Creosote has been and still is used as a medicine.   Too, much of anything is "bad" for you, even the things that are essential to live daily.

I can't find any direct links of creosote to ailments.  But, it does smell bad.  Which I think has more to do with it's consumer ban than what is actually proven in direct ill effects.

But, if it kills bugs, fungi, and bacteria, how could it NOT hurt a biological being, provided mass amounts of exposure are involved, or assumed.
In my reading, they "tested" creosote on lab rats.  The method was to shave the skin and continually apply creosote to the shaved area for several weeks.  Sure enough some of the rats developed skin lesions, some benign and some cancerous.
They therefore concluded that creosote was "probably" cancerous to humans and restricted its availability to the public.  (Businesses can still use creosote).

What I found interesting, is that Ethanol reacts much the same way when lab rats are dosed the same way as the creosote test.  Yep, some get cancer.  But, the Fed, state, and locals collect far more in taxes on ethanol.  So, that is a "good" chemical, fit for public availability, and used in far more than just a drinking alcohol.  Duplicity sure seems to have an economic advantage. 

In contrast , Wikipedia says this about creosote:
"A 2005 mortality study of creosote workers found no evidence supporting an increased risk of cancer death, as a result of exposure to creosote. Based on the findings of the largest mortality study to date of workers employed in creosote wood treating plants, there is no evidence that employment at creosote wood-treating plants or exposure to creosote-based preservatives was associated with any significant mortality increase from either site-specific cancers or non-malignant diseases. The study consisted of 2,179 employees at eleven plants in the United States where wood was treated with creosote preservatives. Some workers began work in the 1940s to 1950s. The observation period of the study covered 1979- 2001. The average length of employment was 12.5 years. One third of the study subjects were employed for over 15 years."

Due to the odor, I wondered if my recent use of creosote may constitute a neighborhood health risk.  So, I spent quite some time finding research matter.  I'm now satisfied that whatever risk is associated with it, is minimal, if existent at all.  I was certainly the most exposed.  The vinyl gloves I used the first day leeched the stuff right though them and permeated my hands, not to mention freely breathing the fumes in a semi confined space.  No, it wasn't enjoyable, and I tried to avoid it by buying "approved" alternate materials.  But, those materials are not in the same class as the creosote I had avoided using for years. 

I assert that the EPA can't finish it's job until everything is controlled.  So, it's a job security thing which consumers pay twice for the "service".

Anyway the original point of this thread was to warn/educate about building materials, that were routinely obtained.  Beware of retail outlet substitutions, as well as labels and brands where the contents are changed without significant label changes.

[FunJimmy]

This is all very interesting TT and I find some irony in your lack of compassion for the environment when it effects your projects. Yes, I've read countless posts authored by non other than TT himself, criticizing members of this board for our reckless disregard for the environment (+ Honda engineers) by tossing various intake and anti-pollution components from our bikes. Nice to see you're normal. Welcome aboard.

[TwoTired]

This is all very interesting TT and I find some irony in your lack of compassion for the environment when it effects your projects.

Oh, I have compassion, as well as concern.  I suspect you've misread what I posted.  But, when the evidence is circumstantial and clearly inconclusive (unlike hydrocarbon pollutants), I find more of a money trail inducement over a genuine concern for populace well being.

It's no mystery or question about hydrocarbon detriments.  I still feel it irresponsible to remove the engine breather from our bikes as it is a win-win for both the engine and mammal lung health.  It is essentially a "free" benefit for both.

The EPA began out of necessity.  But, like so many agencies, they must continue to find something to justify their continuance rather than submit to disbanding when the job is really done or greatly minimized.

[kghost]

That would describe a whole lot of government......

[TwoTired]

That would describe a whole lot of government......

Without a doubt...

[BeSeeingYou]

This is all very interesting TT and I find some irony in your lack of compassion for the environment when it effects your projects.

The EPA began out of necessity.  But, like so many agencies, they must continue to find something to justify their continuance rather than submit to disbanding when the job is really done or greatly minimized.

This sounds naive at best.  Let's just let China sell us contaminated sheetrock and large corporate conglomerates can sell us whatever chemical contaminated and unsafe products they feel like just so they can save a few bucks.  They have our best interests at heart ya know.

[TwoTired]

This sounds naive at best.  Let's just let China sell us contaminated sheetrock and large corporate conglomerates can sell us whatever chemical contaminated and unsafe products they feel like just so they can save a few bucks.  They have our best interests at heart ya know.

Calling it naive sounds like a proclamation from the judgement impaired.

The corporate conglomerates and the government agencies are both founded on bureaucracies.  And, they both sell a product in exchange for income.  Neither will volunteer to curtail or block its own income.  Both claim to be righteous.  But, only one can issue edict, much like a monarchy.

If you are forwarding that a government funded agency could never be aligned with self interest rather than public interest, I find that blindly naive.  (And in total ignorance of historical facts.)

[Retro Rocket]

If you are forwarding that a government funded agency could never be aligned with self interest rather than public interest, I find that blindly naive.  (And in total ignorance of historical facts.)

I love the way to twist every thing around to suit your way of thinking Lloyd.... Steve also did NOT call it naive, "sounds like" is in a completely different context, but don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.....

[kghost]

If you are forwarding that a government funded agency could never be aligned with self interest rather than public interest, I find that blindly naive.  (And in total ignorance of historical facts.)

I love the way to twist every thing around to suit your way of thinking Lloyd.... Steve also did NOT call it naive, "sounds like" is in a completely different context, but don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.....

Cue the TSA........

Lol

[BeSeeingYou]

This sounds naive at best.  Let's just let China sell us contaminated sheetrock and large corporate conglomerates can sell us whatever chemical contaminated and unsafe products they feel like just so they can save a few bucks.  They have our best interests at heart ya know.

Calling it naive sounds like a proclamation from the judgement impaired.

The corporate conglomerates and the government agencies are both founded on bureaucracies.  And, they both sell a product in exchange for income.  Neither will volunteer to curtail or block its own income.  Both claim to be righteous.  But, only one can issue edict, much like a monarchy.

If you are forwarding that a government funded agency could never be aligned with self interest rather than public interest, I find that blindly naive.  (And in total ignorance of historical facts.)

   I'll just ignore the word salad (monarchy?) but what you said is that now that the EPA has done it's job it should be disbanded.  Remembering of course that it was government regulation that forced industry to stop dumping toxic pollutants in our water and air, got the lead out of gas and paint, cleaned up the food we eat, etc, etc.  Forced the car makers to clean up emissions and put airbags and seatbelts in the cars.   American corporate/industry interests did not do this out of the goodness of their hearts but had to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way.  I am sorry but to think that this would continue without some sort of regulatory agency...is ...well...just naive.
    Maybe you would feel better if Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Exxon,  or BP, or some giant Chinese manufacturing conglomerate  was guaranteeing that you had clean water to drink, clean air to breath, and food not laced with dangerous pesticides.  Youger folks may just take it for granted but I think you are old enough to remember what it was like in the 60's and early 70's.  I don't want to go back to smog choked cities, dead Lake Erie, rivers that caught on fire, and sewage and pollutants being dumped directly in our waterways.