Thread: Retaining wall

treated pine is still treated - if you're going done the "organic" route I'd advise against it. my keyboard is stuffed, otherwiseI'd explain a little more...

We're about to do the same sort of thing, but with bessa blocks, bushrock, orsandstone

Nah - not all that a problem and if you are really concerned you need only use a painted (bituminous paints) or physical barrier (such as fibre cement or plastic sheeting) on the side facing the veggie patch soil. In any case there levels reported of leaching into soils and then into veggies are tiny - the risk levels are very low. See: http://www.tpaa.com.au/faqs.htm and http://www.tpaa.com.au/answers/gardening.htm or look at the NSW govt site: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/factshe...tedtimber.html which inter alia says even on CCA timber:
re there any health risks associated with CCA treated?

There is no evidence of adverse human health effects associated with normal product use. The greatest risk of adverse health effects arises from:
occupational exposure during the actual treatment of the wood
burning of treated wood.

CSIRO agrees: http://www.ensisjv.com/ResearchCapab...6/Default.aspx and says in part:
Crops
A number of studies have shown that CCA is not absorbed into above-ground food crops such as grapes (8), tomatoes and cucumber. There are, however, some reports of a slight increase in arsenic content in root crops such as carrots and beets grown against treated timber, although the arsenic is in a safe organic form and most of it is removed with peeling. Any possible concern can be eliminated by growing these vegetables more than 100 mm from treated-timber garden edgings, or by lining the edgings with plastic. This has the additional useful effect of reducing soil contact with the wood, which could further extend the wood's life.



In any case LOSP treated timber is available if you really are worried and prefer, anecdote, rumour and fear over evidence . . .

Originally Posted by Bloss

worried and prefer, anecdote, rumour and fear over evidence . . .

That’s a pretty ignorant comment, who do you think funds these studies?...actually lets not go there. There is a large body of work and published research on multiple chemical sensitivities. Also, we’re not just talking about the impact on humans, who might have higher tolerances to these things, there are millions of other essentials organisms which live in the eco system that get nuked by the slightest thing.

But of course it must be safe, because asbestos was….take milk for example, that has to be the biggest con in history – they say you “need” is for calcium, they fail to mention that humans are naturally lactose intolerant, don’t need the fat content of milk and also, we’re the only other species around that regulary consumes the milk of another – doesn’t happen anywhere else in nature….

But again I must be some lunatic because it’s against the norm, or what you’re being told via the media….I won’t bore you with my qualifications, but I’ll say there is weight behind this….

Erh, why do I bother? Suit yourself

BTW, I acknowledge how difficult it is to avoid this stuff, we’re about to finish a new home and its full of this stuff….fact of life/economics unfortunately.

who do you think funds these studies?

In the case of the CSIRO, you do.

I won’t bore you with my qualifications

Please enlighten us. At the moment you're just some anonymous individual making conspiracy claims on the Internet (don't see many of those around here, do you?). If you have a relevant qualification, you should tell us what it is, it might give what you say more weight than it presently carries.

What can I say, my retaining wall has taken a back seat and you guys opened my eyes to wider issues. Please keep it going as it's too educative to stop at that. Yes, these studies are funded by vested interests but so are almost any researches. That's the world we live in. Having said that, one can hardly avoid these things, just like the study which said teflon causes cancer. When they first started coating utensils with non-stick (teflon) it was supposed to be the best thing that happened to a cook. Now it's cancerous, apparantly.

Think about it - LOSP is/contains various fungicides and insecticides....

If you're trying to grow true organic plants - take air and water out of the equation, thats a situational thing

What is necessary for a proper eco system - insecticides are bad news in any quantity....look at what the cotton indsutry has done to water in north west NSW.....

OK, so you come along and tell us you wont bore us with your qualifications, which is a not too subtle way of telling us you believe you should be listened to over and above other people here, but you wont tell us what they are. Why mention them at all? At least half of the people on this forum have qualifications of one sort or another, it's almost impossible to get a job without these days, even I've got a degree. What makes your's special in this case? It's just a form of big-noting in my opinion, like people who say "I've got inside information" but wont tell you what it is or where they got it.

Originally Posted by silentC

In the case of the CSIRO, you do.

Actually that's wrong. While csiro still gets government funding they have had to find private funding for many years now. In the old days we got funds from industry via government levies, but in the late 80's they got us to go out and get funds directly on a project by project basis. The first target was 35%, we met that easily so they kept raising it until we had to do whatever in order to get funds. My last job we were about 90% external funded.

Having said that an unsupported rant about conspiricies is useless as you say.

2c: I would build your retaining wall using boulders, provided there is adequate access and you can afford the 2 feet or whatever you lose. I abosolutely love boulder walls. If you shop around for a good builder they are second only to timber in cheapness, but unlike timber they essentially last forever in any but the most reactive soils. Looks is a personal matter (I love them) but they are certainly inert, so regardless of any reaserch or claims and counter claims you can be pretty confident that a boulder wall won't cause you any concern.

Besser blocks are much dearer to erect and unless they are done really well can lean, crack and collapse in the same timeframes that timber will fail. Link bricks also often have a limited lifespan.

Build whatever makes you happy, but that's my 2c worth

My only problem is that it's against timber fence and pine wouldn't look too much out of place. Looks like treated pine logs with plastic sheet or bituman paint on the inside for me. Hopefully, Bunnings sell the the cheapest in my area.

csiro still gets government funding

So it's not entirely wrong, is it? They do spend some tax payers' money. According to the Annual report, they received $663,160,000 in government revenue last year, up about 50 mill from the year before.

So I guess what you are saying is that individual research projects may be funded externally up to 90%. I presume that the source of funding is disclosed? How does the CSIRO ensure it's results are objective in those cases?

who do you think funds these studies? In the case of the CSIRO, you do.

How wrong it is is debateable. It depends on many things. In some divisions the government funding barely covers the executive, while in others they get virtually no external funding. So for some projects they are basically 100% industry slaves. Your statment implied, although did not specifically say, that research projects by csiro are government funded. I simply wanted to clarify that.

As for objectivity, in theory research is peer reviewed. In practise the research industry is pretty corrupt. There are a lot of people doing the work who really believe in what they do and have high standards, but very often the people in power, the ones who call the shots are the sort who will say or do anything to promote themselves, get funding, etc.

Researchers, like indiginenous populations and any other group in society you care to identify are not homogenous. There are smartand dumb, corrupt and honest.

Having said all that I don't know who did the work above. I never bothered clicking the links because it doesn't matter. Someone somewhere claims the timber is safe. That's fine. I put it to you it doesn't matter who they are nor what organisation they represent, all that really matters is the content of the work. To make a properly informed assessment unfortunately you have to understand enough of the work to make your own assessment of it. Otherwise your doing exactly what those people did with storm finance and many others, trusting someone you don't know and putting your wellbeing in their hands.

I'm probably much more suspicious than most people, so maybe you and others are happy to take what someone says as correct. That's ok, but that's not what I do. Also understand I am not claiming the timber is dangerous. I don't know because I haven't done any experiments nor read the work available. I am only suggesting that natural rock has a very low likleyhood of contaminating the food.

As I said take my comments then do what you will. It's all good.

Your statment implied, although did not specifically say, that research projects by csiro are government funded. I simply wanted to clarify that.

Yeah I understand that, but saying flatly that I was wrong is making a black and white call on something that clearly isn't. I'm happy to stand corrected, in that I assumed most research conducted by CSIRO is funded by government grant. They don't go out of their way to correct that assumption.

Anyway, this is all by the by. The point here is that you have someone claiming to be an expert but who wont give us the credentials that establish them as such. So we are just supposed to take their word that "there is weight behind this". Who do we listen to? CSIRO or Elill? Which leads on to your next point...

To make a properly informed assessment unfortunately you have to understand enough of the work to make your own assessment of it.

I put it to you that the overwhelming majority of people have absolutely no way of establishing these things for themselves and so they have no alternative but to take advice from experts. In this case, there is a simple, albeit potentially quite expensive (have you priced bush rock lately?), alternative and so it's feasible to say "I don't know if CCA is harmful to my veggies, so I will avoid it". But as a general approach, I don't think it is feasible to research every single exposure to chemicals or whatever yourself. You will end up like Howard Hughes.

I'm not going to get into a tit for tat argue about this...my undergrad work was in environmental and organic chem and I have a specific interest in chemical sensitivities, its impact on eco systems in general and the biochemistry of the body...more as a "hobby" and to supplement some of the work being done by another family member

Just think about it logically, in the case of treated timber, they treat it so that termites cant get in/dont like it - this isn't like a membrane brocker which just keeps termites out and lets all the other beneficial insects in - its keeps them all away.

We're having a large number of sandstone block walls built by a guy from the central coast - about $350 a square metre and they look great - I dont have a photo on me, but if you send me a PM I'll give you his name/mobile number - highly recommended.

I'm not going to get into a tit for tat argue about this

I don't want that either. We get people on here every day of the week who claim to have knowledge of something but clam up when you ask them how they know.

I can't challenge you on the technicalities because I don't have the benefit of a science degree. What you say sounds reasonable on the face of it but it contradicts advice given by CSIRO, which was presumably researched by similarly qualified people. So your assertion implies a conspiracy of some sort between bodies like the CSIRO and industry. If you have evidence of that, then a bit of whistle-blowing might be in order.

As for the lactose-intolerance, I admit it seems a strange thing when you think about it to be drinking the milk from another animal - but if intolerance is as widespread as you say, I'm surprised to have only met a handful, if that, of lactose-intolerant individuals in the last 40 odd years.