In article , tomj wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:26:20 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

" EPA is reviewing CCA under two different tracks which will result in the
most rigorous risk assessment ever done on a wood preservative pesticide...
It is important to note.. that EPA has not concluded that CCA-treated wood
poses unreasonable risks to the public for existing structures made with
CCA-treated wood."



Effective December 31, 2003, the use of CCA-treated wood will be
limited to certain industrial and commercial applications. This change
reflects increased concerns in the marketplace about the safety of
treated wood containing arsenate and chromium, particularly in
applications such as playground equipment. Residential applications
affected by the change include play structures, decks, picnic tables,
landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios, and
walkways/boardwalks


It could be that the little "EPA never banned CCA" chappy was lying on
purpose, or it may be like a lot of other arguing-in-favor-of-big-business
in this thread, if it is "true" the ban never occurred, it becomes so by
playing convoluted semantic games avoiding actualities. The industry did a
proper end-run in agreeing with EPA to voluntarily stop selling the
product -- thereby making any EPA ban a unecessary. This is how EPA usualy
gets bad stuff off the market, years & years of negotiation rather than
strong-arming. The industry comes out ahead on two levels, first, by
settlement they got to select the phase-out period & keep selling all
existing stocks of CCA lumber for a couple more years & even make more of
it for market right up to the end of 2003. Second, for lawsuits already in
progress & more certain to occur in the future, the industry won't have
the issue of the EPA having forced them against their will. A settlement
is not a ban -- a ban would only follow a failure to compromise --
therefore, semantically speaking, EPA having forced the industry to stop
poisoning people isn't the same as EPA banning the industry from doing so.
Semantics are feeble things for covering lies, but it permits the lies to
be carried over even into courts of laws without some judge slamming the
attorneys in the clink.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/