In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:43:03 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

There are now on the market pressure-treated rot-resistant woods that do
not have arsenic & copper & are environmentally safe. The only part of a

What do they treat them with? Garlic maybe?

Bob

Most of the alternatives are organic-based formulations & if they migrate
out of the wood will (unlike arsenic & chromium) break down in the
environment. These formulations typically include one or the other of the
following: citrate, amonia, pentachlorophenol, sodium, naphthenate,
tebuconazole, & copper azole (this last in the easily obtained
"wolmanized" lumber). Most but not all the new formulations still contain
copper (& I should have said "do not arsenic & chromium & are
environmentally safe"). Copper is not the same hazard as arsenic, though
not 101% harmless (even copper pennies are deadly if one gets picky enough
about possibilities). Copper "sets" the preservative in a manner that
slows down natural degradation of the preservative itself, & the wood; the
copper does not migrate to the soil because it bonds molecularly to wood
in the heat-pressure process, though in the 60-100 years it may take for
the wood to break down if in contact with soil, the copper will eventually
enter the environment, just not while the wood is intact. Some of the
preservative alternatives are not appropriate for ground-contact (zinc and
borate are used mainly in composit wood, & are not safely placed in
contact with the environment, but are tyically used in barriered home
construction such as under housewrap).

Here are the facts about wood treated with arsenic & chromium:
http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/o...Treated%20Wood
All vendors of course tell a different story, & have citations of
"scientists" the industry personally funded or "research" done in-house &
vanity published without peer review. Fact is, it's dangerous, dangerous
stuff. The industry is doing a veritable BLITZ of propoganda to keep their
sales from evaporating before December 2003, when any CCA wood left in the
lumberyard will have to be "safely" destroyed. The indstry facing
inevitable legal bans entered into an agreement with the EPA to
"voluntarily" stop selling poisoned wood IF the EPA would promise not to
place the government's stamp of disapproval on the product. To EPA it was
worth getting rid of the terrible stuff so they agreed not to make strong
statements against it, & from the industry point of view, EPA's wishywashy
posture limits the chances of the pending class action suits costing the
industry billions in court. Several years ago the industry talked their
way out of being banned (there was a temporary ban) by some first-rate
lobbying of congress about how EPA was going to deprive Americans of good
jobs, & promising to distribute informative warning sheets with their
product. But no wholesaler or retailer ever seriously distributed these
warnings, so the industry didn't have to waste trees printing many of them
up.

Of course plastic lumber as an altenrative is environmentally friendly
ONLY because it recycles something that is environmentally catastrophic --
the reality is that plastic is environmentally among the WORST things
humans use, first because of the manufacture methods, & second because of
the impossibility of safely elminating plastic from the environment. And
someday someone may really want to get rid of even those eternal plastic
fenceposts, & it won't be safely done on the cheap. So even if you want
your fence to be plastic so as to better match your trailer house & that
old Ford truck rusting in the grass, you're not seriously doing the
environment any favors. If money's no option, & wood won't do, build a
fence of art-masonry & wrought iron. Though be warned that cement in
foundations or masonry construction can severely alkalinize the
environment so maybe we should just stack some rocks loosely....

Some of the alternatives may indeed, over time, & from independent studies
rather than industry-generated studies, prove to be themselves problems,
probably none, at worst, as big a problem as standard house paints, & so
far, my own organic & natural tendencies have not bannished house paint. I
do not want aluminum siding & plastic fences, nor will I replace my
collection of deadly monkshoods with plastic flowers. I will certainly be
watching for independent studies of the organic-formulation pressure
treated woods because I'm naturally cynical, but for the time being glad
to know arsenic treated woods are being phased out in favor of organic
formulations. If I could get the rarer formulations without copper binders
I would, but unless some new information indicts the pennies in my piggy
bank at levels far greater than has been shown in the past century, I
won't religiously avoid formulations with copper the way I always have
avoided arsenic treated wood.

One of the most credible approaches might be to begin with completley
natural cedar or redwood posts, & treat by hand with oil-based
preservatives only that portion of the post that goes into a hole. This
would maximize the lifespan of the post while minimalizing the overall
amount of wood preservative. I already had good fences when I bought the
place but I do use a redwood-colored preservative oil on some of the
trellises (hand built or purchased), & don't feel I'm harming the
environment as I would be if I had been buying arsenic-treated wood. If I
were setting posts I would obtain the newer pressure-treated woods that do
not have arsenic.

Since I make only such things as trellises & arbors, I've found it easy to
seek out woods that are naturally rot-resistant (cedars, yellow cypress,
redwood) & since I don't worry about insect attack, treat the wood either
with nothing or with oil-based anti-mildew dyes. But I wouldn't fear to
use the new organic formulations for pressure-treated wood if I needed to
build something more substantial like a six-foot fence, deck, or a shed --
I will be making a large pergola either this year or next year, & will
probably use very few natural 4x4 posts set on masonry blocks, so even for
that won't need treated wood because it won't quite touch the ground, but
will still use the mildew-retarding oils. I think it's always wise to be
on guard that some of the alternative perservatives will be harmful -- as
in the case of naphthenate treated wood, as dangerous as mothballs, could
well make it harmful to breathe the air inside the shed, so at least one
"alternative" is rather unacceptable). But the truly paranoid will have to
forgo housepaint & gasoline while they're at it, & probably just shoot
themselves to get it over with, because nothing's 100% certain except
death.

-paghat

--
"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/

Michael Bruss wrote:


Of course there are other types of posts like steel pipe, T-posts,
concrete, and usenet which all have their advantages and disadvantages.

Mike

Too much rot in usenet posts. Tried inflating them with hot air, to no avail.