??f7, F8, Mpg?????

**Marc** · 17th August 2003, 10:23 AM

As usual we are not at the forefront rather on the bandwagon of any health concerns.

It was Europe and the US who first voiced their concern about CCA treated pine a decade ago. Far from being "green" it is a health hazard, and the court case I mentioned is public record in NSW, the cabin was built in Berry south of Wollongong for a solicitor who subsequently became acutely ill from living in the house just one year.

It is interesting to do a search on CCA danger or similar strings on Google and look at the date on the report you find. Anything older than a year and originated by an Australian government departments will sing praise and safety to the product, ha ha so much for looking after the population health.

Unfortunately politics is the art of purchasing votes to perpetuate oneself in the job, and this people are desperate to remain in the job since they would have a hard time to make it in the real world that demands consistency and results.

Usually the process goes like this: An industry is found to be either dangerous for our health or the environment or any other problem with it.

The politician weights up the possible loss of votes from the closure or ban, plus the loss of support from the captains of that industry. If the loss is even marginally significative the covering up process starts with purchased "reports" from industry friendly researchers.

If lobbyists become more powerful and noise becomes too high, the revers process applies how many votes we can gain by the ban. Usually after the noise is rather high, the "gain" is in the black and the politician announces triumphant that the forces of evil have been defeated once more, democracy has prevailed and the world as we know it will continue to be as safe as ever, providing we keep on voting XXX. Of course any cover up process will be blaimed on the nasty ignorant advisers (who did what they were told in the first place.)

A sad state of affairs.

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/media/0603/chromate.htm

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/cca.html

http://www.dhfs.state.wi.us/eh/HlthHaz/fs/TrtdWood.htm

http://www.noccawood.ca/docs/cca_wood_app2.html

http://www.moea.state.mn.us/campaign/toxics/

http://www.grassrootsinfo.org/pych_pamphlet.pdf

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/handbook-home.htm

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise...rso/report.pdf

**kenmil** · 17th August 2003, 10:58 AM

A solicitor sued the builder. Now that's news !
But what was the outcome of the case ?

**Marc** · 17th August 2003, 01:39 PM

Ha ha Ken, I'm with you on that one.

Unfortunately or fortunately the days I use to know cases by heart are long gone, you will have to search public record if you are interested, but as far as I remeber the builder's insurance paid to strip all treated wood and rebuild with conventional timber.

We can draw some good lessons from this:

The obvious one is that treated pine is dangerous for the end user, should always be painted and should never be used indoors (Burning of course remains a well known hazard), and that there is a much higher risk than admitted for the wood worker that builds with it, since we handle it new, cut it, plane it an I confess to even router it to make balusters for a balcony.

Another lesson is that the ministry for health is not interested in our health but only in pretending they are looking after our health and pocket the pay in exchange, It is up to us to be aware of potential health hazards for us, family and others, and to pass on information even at risk at being labelled paranoid or conspirator theorist ... believe me I know.

The only reason that makes me a bit more assertive then others besides personal interest for conspiracies is that I have a sort of in house consultant . . . . Mainly my wife is a doctor specialising in substance abuse rehabilitation and public health.

**journeyman Mick** · 17th August 2003, 10:02 PM

Just getting back to John G's questions, I can't see the need to use teated pine at any rate. If there is a termite problem then using treated pine will only stop them eating that particular bit of framing, it won't stop them getting stuckinto the rest of the subfloor. If the previous water damage was caused by lack of ventilation rather than leaks then this needs to be rectified also. Again, you may not end up with fungal decay in the treated pine but it will get the rest of your subfloor. Fungus thrives in damp conditions as do termites. I've never ever seen pine used for floor framing, it may be done down south (I hear they even use pine trusses) but I would not want a floor laid on it unless it was screwed down. Nails have bugger all holding power in pine and the stresses imposed by foot traffic would have a floor nailed onto pine squeaking like crazy in short time.

Mick

**Theva** · 18th August 2003, 10:43 AM

Journeyman,

John's concern was about the stability of CCA treated pine and my comment was in relation to that. I wasn't recommending or advocating use of anything except compressed cement sheets (probably a must for tiled areas if you are redoing the floor).

Structural pine is the thing used by builders for all sort of things in this part of the world (unexposed areas, trusses included). In my place, I used unseasoned hardwood to match the existing stuff.

Previous owners of John's place obviously did not do a proper job in the first place.

Unseasoned hardwood: Follow BCA / AS 1684 with proper spacing, span and appropotiate blocking (and ventelation). If the subfloor is left exposed to elements then it will deform; flooring should be installed soonafter to stop this and to ensure dimensional stability of subfloor.

Seasoned / unseasoned harwood / softwood all can be used if done properly as per BCA / AS1684.

The choice is up to the user. My personal preference is unseasoned hardwood used properly; rather than more expenive F17 or CCA treated pine. What ever make on tick I suppose.

Regards,

Theva

Thread: ??f7, F8, Mpg?????

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions