[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Plants that remove N/P
Jim Selegean wanted to know:
> -Are certain plants better at removing certain water quality parameter
> (N,P,C)?
> -Have removal rates been established for various plants?
> -Are any plants of commercial value?
I don't know anything on the subject but you might look at the article below
describing the use of microalgae to remove N & P in effluent from power plants
(I realize these are not the type of plants that prompted Jim's question).
Wilde EW, Benemann JR, Weissman JC, Tillett DM (1991). J Appl Phycol
3:159-167. Cultivation of algae and nutrient removal in a waste
heat utilization process.
John Benemann has done a lot of work looking at the commercial value of algae
to treat wastewater in a variety of settings. Jim might look up some of his
articles.
In addition, it seems to me that Elisha Tel-Or tried to commercialize Azolla
as a means of cleaning up nutrients from the effluent of power plants. I don't
know any publications that came from the project, but his address is:
Elisha Tel-Or, Agric. Botony, Hebrew University, Rehovot 76100 Israel
I, like Jim, would like to hear about other applications.
Jeff Elhai
Article 2368 of alt.sustainable.agriculture:
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!oit-mail2news-gateway
From: steved@ncatfyv.uark.edu (Steve Diver)
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Subject: Re: architect seeks info on ecological fishfarming
Date: 22 Feb 1994 21:41:43 -0500
Organization: sustag-public mailing list
Lines: 47
Sender: daemon@samba.oit.unc.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <m0pZ8UC-000AMbC@ncatfyv.uark.edu>
References: <CL2uEw.D0u@westminster.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: samba.oit.unc.edu
Content-Type: text
Thomas--
The New Alchemy Institute ceased functions in 1991 due
primarily to financial problems. Just recently, New
Alchemy publications have become available through a
group of former New Alchemists who still live in the
area. The Green Center can provide a list of for-sale
publications.
Talk about a history of appropriate technology and
alternative agriculture, New Alchemy's publications still
provide a decent introduction to aquaculture systems, composting
greenhouses, bioshelters, cover crops for the Northeast, etc.
Contact:
The Green Center
237 Hatchville Rd.
East Falmouth, MA 02536
(508) 564-6301
Re: ecological fishfarming. Some of the most advanced
models of water purification and sustainable food production
are the 1) solar aquatic ponds (pioneered in part by
John Todd, formerly of New Alchemy) that use plants like water
hyacinth to purify waste water and 2) recirculating hydroponic
systems in which vegetable beds are fertigated with
effluent from tilapia aquaculture.
>
> Hi, are you involved with ecological fishfarming ? I'd be
> interested in ecological fishfarming and waterpurification.
> Please don't hold back your most precious information.
> As a postgraduate student I'm doing a architectural project
> on fishfarming.
> Do you know the phone or fax number of the NEW ALCHEMY INSTITUTE
> East Falmouth, Massachusetts 02536 USA ????
> Do they have an e-mail address ???
>
> Thank you for your help!!!
>
> You can contact me at the UoW FAX: 071-911 5190 PHONE: 071-911 5000 ext 3332
>
> Thomas Reinke, Arch. Dip. I
>
>
Sat 20 Feb 93 9:10
By: ALLAN BALLIETT
Re: New Alchemy/Ocean Arks
Here's documentation from the founder himself, John Todd, that New
Alchemy is dead, but the spirit goes on living and WORKING towards a
sustainable future!
==================================================
January 1 993
Dear Friends of New Alchemy
As you know, last summer the New Alchemy Institute officially closed
its doors. You may also know, however, that neither the vision nor the
work that began there have been lost. With the founding of Ocean Arks
International in 1983. there began a new phase in the research and
implementation of the ideas that first took form at New Alchemy.
Like New Alchemy, Ocean Arks was founded by John Todd and Nancy Jack
Todd and is a nonprofit research and education organization dedicated
to the creation and dissemination of the thinking and the technologies
fundamental to a sustainable future. Drawing on what we learned of the
ecology of aquatic ecosystems at New Alchemy, we since have created a
family of living technologies that now are restoring waters polluted
by human and industrial wastes to drinking water standards.
Working through The Center for the Restoration of waters at Ocean
Arks, we have created one of the most advanced ecologically engineered
waste treatment systems in the world which, after a few years of
extensive verification, is now legally permitted in two states. We
have begun to restore a highly polluted pond in Massachusetts w ith
our new floating Living Machine, Lake Restorer 1, opening a channel
for its use on water bodies the world over. Our Providence, RI and
Marion, Me research facilities have been making ground-breaking
discoveries in purifying industrial and toxic wastes. We have
demonstrated, on a laboratory scale, that Living Machines can break
down such highly toxic wastes as those found in Chattanooga Creek, for
which we have attracted the attention of Vice President-elect Al Gore.
We have also received continuing support from Congressman Gerry Studds
and Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy and
Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island, to name a few, giving us a strong
vote of encouragement with the political leaders in Washington. Our
education program is reaching professionals and students with courses
in ecological design skills, aquaculture, food production, waste
treatment and environmental repair. Recently, we were granted the
Discover Award for Technological Innovation and the Teddy Roosevelt
Conservation Award by President Bush.
We have managed not only to survive but to move ahead with these
developments during a period when the environment was a low priority
in the eyes of government and most industry. But we have done so at
the cost of incurring considerable debt believing that the ideas were
too important to let die. Now, with the renewed promise of the
incoming administration and because of your support for New Alchemy
over the years, we are again turning to you to ask you to remain a
part of keeping its mission alive.
If you were willing, each of you could help us in some way. It would
be wonderful if you would consider any of the following suggestions:
1. Contribute towards a debt reduction fund or to our general support.
2. Help us to create an endowment, which would secure a future for our
work.
3. Help us find customers/clients in industry and in various
communities who need help cleaning up pollution and repairing
environments. Living Machines can upgrade drinking water reservoirs,
restore polluted water bodies and purify wastewaters.
4. Help spread the word. Subscribe to our publication, "Annals of Earth" an
updated equivalent of the old "Journals of the New Alchemists " .
1992 was a tough year for us. Salaries weren't always paid, yet our
morale remained high. We are a committed and talented organization -
dedicated to the Earth and to the training of its stewards. We are
ready with the skills and technologies to make things happen. It is
our hope that there will be a new environmental agenda over the next
decade and we want to play a key role in it. Please help us.
Sincerely,
John Todd, president
P.S. Your contribution is tax deductible. We now accept MC/VISA and
American Express.
================================================== Annals of Earth
The exchange of ideas feeds the roots of new thought. To this end the
Center for the Restoration of Waters publishes "Annals of Earth" to
disseminate the ideas and practice of ecological sustainability
throughout the world. It seeks, through written communication, to
foster the emergence of a new global culture. Published 3 times
yearly, "Annals" has an international roster of scholarly,
philosophical and ecological writers who deal with planetary issues
from a wide range of perspectives. While "Annals" covers and
chronicles the Center's activities, it also publishes articles that
range in subject from the philosophy of ecology, basic biology, hands
on environmental projects, to the Gaia Hypothesis. Distributed
world-wide, "Annals" is an intellectual forum for the presentation of
leading edge environmental thought.
A Publication Of Ocean Arks International and the Lindisfarne
Association Volume X, Number 2, 1992
$? Contribution
$15 Student/unwaged member
$30 Individual member
$35 Canadian member
$ 40 Foreign member
$ 50 Family member
$100 Supporting member $1000 Patron member
Membership includes subscription to "Annals", course announcements and
contributes to the work of OAI. Please make checks payable to Ocean
Arks International. We now accept MC/VISA & American Express. To renew
by phone, please call 508-510-6801.
A Publication of Ocean Arks International and The Lindisfarne
Association
OCEAN ARKS INTERNATIONAL
* Origin: The Twilight Clone (1:109/70.914)
Article 25759 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: PT Lumber
From: jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <36.4196.2552.0N41F04A@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:40:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Info Center 612-654-8372 hst 656-0678 v.32bis
Lines: 102
This message was originally addressed to Karen Ann Woodfork
and a carbon copy was sent to you.
----------------------------------------
Karen wrote;
>I don't need to be convinced not to put arsenic in my back yard,
>but I was wondering if you could give me the references for those
>facts and figures you gave about the hazards of PT sawdust and
>the eventual disposal problems of PT wood.
My source(s) include the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Hazardous
Waste Section, the tests of the Benton County Solid Waste District
(Foley Minnesota), and independent laboratory analysis conducted under
the supervision of the MNPCA. I have also provided several samples to
independent laboratories on my own and have confirmed the arsenic and
lead levels. The 21 dead cows were verified by the State Veterinarian,
actually ordered to be destroyed by him due to the diagnosis of arsenic
poisoning and arsenic in the milk.
The cases of humans overcome by arsenic smoke I have from conducting
an electronic search of various national newspapers for the word
"arsenic". You can imagine sifting through the reports on the reported
poisoning of President Zachary Taylor and reviews of various
presentations of the play, "Arsenic and old Lace".
The EPA standards on arsenic levels in compost and sludge are from the
EPA 503 sludge rules (11 PPM vs 3000 PPM in PTwood) which are published
in the Federal Register and available from your regional EPA office.
The toxicity reactions of arsenic, symptoms, and treatment are from any
good medical encyclopedia, my copy from toxicity reference documents
used at the Mayo Clinic here in Minnesota.
You can also find a copy of "Arsenic, Chromium, and Copper Poisoning
form Burning Treated Wood" in "The New England Journal of Medicine" June
2, 1983 which reports the effects of arsenic poisoning in a family
exposed to burning arsenic (treated) wood in the fireplace. According to
the three doctors at the University of Wisconsin, the family had
"symptoms of conjunctivitis, bronchitis, pneumonia, sensory
hyperesthesia of the arms and legs, muscle cramps, dermatitis of over
the arms and legs and soles of the feet, nosebleeds, ear infections,
blackouts and seizures, gastrointestinal disturbances, and severe
alopecia."
"Investigation revealed the presence of high amounts of arsenic in the
hair of the parents (12 to 87 PPM; normal less than .65) levels in the
fingernails 100 to 5,000 ppm; normal .9) Samples of dust in the home
revealed levels of arsenic up to 2,000 ppm."
You can look at an article called "The Phone Poles that Will Not Die"
from "MSW Management" Nov/Dec 1992. Check also "Env Pollution" 14.213
26 by C. Grant and A.J. Dobbs "The growth and metal content of plants
grown in soil contaminated by a copper chromium arsenic wood
preservative". I also have references (Woodson 1971, Chisolm 1972, Hess
and Blanchar 1977) that arsenic at 2500 PPM is a complete soil sterilant
and that sensitive plants show phytotoxicity from 1 PPM to 50 PPM if the
arsenic is in an extractable form.
Arsenic reacts with plants being substituted for phosphorous (Asher and
Reay 1979) and its effects can be limited by supplemental applications
of phosphate.
I would like to try to
>convince someone not to use any more of the stuff for picnic
>tables and the like and I need cold hard facts!
I believe that it is nearly impossible to convince people of the
biohazard of treated lumber, which is the major reason why I am calling
for its removal from public use. They seem to refuse to believe that
the words "treated" or "pressure" means arsenic, or believe that arsenic
is indeed a poison. People simply want to believe that since the
product is at the lumber yard, it is the same as regular lumber. One
neighbor I tried to keep from burning scraps insisted that the wood was
"salted" and that salt was "OK".
KAW>I had always been concerned about the problem of leaching because
>of the O.G. articles, but now I am more concerned about the vast
>quantities of this stuff being used for non-gardening structures
>-
>(kids jungle-gyms, decks, etc.) .... I need to convince my
>neighbor not to put the scraps in the "burn pile" -
There is an architect named Cameron Duncan who has led a "one man" fight
against treated lumber in school play equipment. He has been
intimidated, threatened, slandered, and has had lost business as a
result of his efforts. There has been virtually no support for his
efforts aside from the National Coalition against the Misuse of
Pesticides, which will provide information at a fee. Their number is
202-543-5450.
KAW>Your help is greatly appreciated! >-Karen
I am taking the liberty of posting this note on the public conference.
Mr Compost~~~
Jim McNelly~~~
Granite Information Service 612-654-8372-HST 656-0678 v.32bis
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
---
* January 24th - I may not act wisely, but at least I act.
cc: ALL
Article 25760 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: arsenic soil contaminatio
From: jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <36.4197.2552.0N41F04B@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 00:40:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Info Center 612-654-8372 hst 656-0678 v.32bis
Lines: 31
This message was originally addressed to Catherine Albert
and a carbon copy was sent to you.
----------------------------------------
CA>Jim,
>Hi, my name is Catherine. I live in Colorado Springs, CO in a rental home a
CA>am curious about HOW TO TEST some LUMBER used for a retaining wall in the
>backyard. My concern is that this wood is also a defining edge of my
>vegetable
>garden. Is there somewhere I could send a chunk of this wood to have it
>analyzed? I have no idea if it was treated lumber or not; I suspect it was.
CA>Thank you for the information...
Hi Catherine,
Try the local Agricultural extension office, the university, an
agricultural testing laboratory, or a private laboratory. Have them
test for soil mineral content, making sure that there is a test for
copper in the bunch. Arsenic testing is expensive.
Mr Compost~~~
Jim McNelly~~~
Granite Information Service 612-654-8372-HST 656-0678 v.32bis
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
---
* January 25th - Auntie Em: Hate you. Hate Kansas. Took the Dog. Dorothy.
cc: all
Article 25586 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
From: jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <36.4050.2552.0N41EEC3@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
References: <CJuG2r.FoJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 16:27:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Info Center 612-654-8372 hst 656-0678 v.32bis
Lines: 38
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
Ray Foster to All - Wednesday, January 19th:
Discussing: Re: Pressure Treated Lumber
RF>OK, a question from someone to whom this is all new: how can you tell if lum
>has been treated with CCA?
RF>We bought a house this past summer. The previous owner had built some raised
>gardens beds using wood. How can I tell whether this is pressure treated woo
Ray, you bring up the chief reason why I believe that arsenic amended
wood should be installed only by licensed pesticide professionals and
that its installation should be clearly identified in the deed of the
property, with full chain of custody like hazardous materials in the
commercial arena.
Aside from the distinctive green or brown tint, there really is no way
to tell. You may try notching or scratching the wood and see if it is
still stained, since the arsenic, lead, copper, and chromium penetrate
to the core of the wood.
This is just one more piece of evidence why I believe the product should
be banned. At least the wood could be imprinted with the words
"danger - arsenic" burned into every surface.
Testing for copper is much cheaper than arsenic, if you care to have the
wood analyzed.
Jim McNelly~~~
Granite Cities BBS 612-654-8372-HST 656-0678 v.32bis
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
---
* January 19th - COMPOSTING: Because a rind is a terrible thing to waste.
Article 25634 of rec.gardens:
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sgiblab!sgigate.sgi.com!olivea!koriel!news2me.EBay.Sun.COM!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!ichthous!mcgrew
From: mcgrew@ichthous.Eng.Sun.COM (Darin McGrew)
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
Date: 21 Jan 1994 18:10:02 GMT
Organization: Sun
Lines: 18
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <mk06jqINNkjc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
References: <CJuG2r.FoJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <36.4050.2552.0N41EEC3@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ichthous
jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly) writes:
>This is just one more piece of evidence why I believe the product should
>be banned. At least the wood could be imprinted with the words
>"danger - arsenic" burned into every surface.
I think you'll have better luck getting its presence recorded on
the deed. DIY handymen (and probably some professionals) would
try to remove the warning from visible surfaces with a plane, and
then you have toxic wood shavings in addition to the toxic
sawdust and wood scraps.
BTW, thanks for pointing out that the big problem isn't whether
or not the toxins leach into the garden soil, but what becomes of
the treated wood after its useful life.
Darin.McGrew@Eng.Sun.COM The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth?
Who makes him deaf or dumb? Who gives him sight
Soli Deo Gloria! or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"
Article 25575 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!psinntp!daneel!seldon!nathan
From: nathan@seldon.foundation.tricon.com (Number 6)
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
Message-ID: <1994Jan19.003211.22232@daneel.foundation.tricon.com>
Organization: Triicon Systems, Inc., Lompoc, CA
References: <2gvb3a$q0k@news.u.washington.edu> <36.3795.2552.0N41E078@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 00:32:10 GMT
Lines: 32
I think the *best* way to get people to realize the dangers of
pressure treated lumber is the one suggested by "Mr. Compost" (sorry,
I'm in my "primitive" news reader now...so I can't get the real name).
Here in California and probably just about everywhere else, you have
to sign your life away on lead paint. It is a requirement for most
types of loans (mostly Federal Gov't backed ones). We had to sign so
many disclosures to buy this house it was incredible but I was glad
that they TOLD us what we were getting into (possibly). [We don't
have lead paint, btw]. So, a first step is getting the state or the
federal government to look at the research and then draft up a
disclosure statement that must be signed by all homeowners when
applying for the loan. This does NOT mean that people will actually
read it, unfortunately. But, if they sign it, and then try to sue
somebody, it'll fly back into their face for not reading it.
Also, I think all landfills that are unlined should just stop taking
the stuff. We get all our water from the ground and I shudder to
think what the local toxic waste dump cleanup that's in progress is
finding out! (Not to mention what Unocal Oil is dumping into our
water).
btw does anyone know how to tell pressure treated lumber? I may have
some of that in my garden hope not. I don't think it is because
it's falling apart and rotting and is not all that old. ("Railroad"
ties as an edging material).
***********************************************************************
Nathan D. Lane, VP Triicon Systems. Lompoc, CA (805) 7331849
NaN != 6, 6 == 1. I am not a number, I am a free list!
I'm a programmer my computers are more valuable than my cars.
Article 25595 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
From: jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <36.4061.2552.0N41EEDF@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
References: <2hjpvk$pvc@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 22:50:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Info Center 612-654-8372 hst 656-0678 v.32bis
Lines: 153
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
Pauls@Pender.Ee.Upenn.Edu to All - Wednesday, January 19th:
Discussing: Re: Pressure Treated Lumber
>jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim McNelly) writes:
P>>...
>>I say it is time to blow the whistle on arsenic in the back yard and put
>>a stop to it once and for all, and dedicate our environmental efforts to
>>ensure safe ultimate disposal.
P>Jim
P>I still have not seen any conclusive evidence that treated wood is
>harmful. There is evidence that arsenic leaches out into the soil.
>So what? I have seen no evidence that it is in harmful quantities.
>Can you site any conclusive experiments to support you position on CCA
>lumber?
Paul,
I believe your question is valid. Due to the lack of evidence that I
believe is substantive, I have not made the claim that arsenic leaching
from treated wood to the soil is a biohazard. Organic Gardening and
other sources may make that claim, but I have not. As to whether or not
arsenic is harmful, you *must* be kidding.
My problem with treated wood is its uncontrolled use, its misuse, and
its ultimate disposal. The uncontrolled use problem is the situation
where it is used for building decks and other outdoor applications not
in contact with the soil. Conventional treating of pine with water
sealants is adequate without adding an arsenic load to the biosphere.
Treated wood is designed for direct soil contact where the soil is
moist. Other applications are not advised, but people use arsenic wood
because they are too lazy to seal pine. Arsenic wood should be sealed
anyway, but too few do it.
One misuse is in its manufacture, of which the 400 manufacturing sites
in the US are largely unregulated. Many are Superfund sites waiting to
happen. Another misuse is the spreading of sawdust and shavings into
the soil. These *do* leach arsenic, especially as sawdust floats in
stormwater runoff. Arsenic is being found in ponds and surface water.
Sawdust run off has been linked to deaths of exotic fish in back yard
ponds. Sudden kills of Koi after installing a deck or other arsenic
landscape project are being increasingly reported.
The worst misuse is from burning arsenic treated wood scraps and arsenic
in ash from house fires. This form of arsenic is no longer bound in the
wood fiber and is highly volatile at 3000 parts per million. Arsenic
ash is a class 1 carcinogen as rated by the EPA. By law, arsenic ash
must be sent to a hazardous waste disposal site. Currently it is not.
I call that misuse.
I have documentation from the Minnesota Hazardous Waste Management
Department of 24 dairy cows killed from eating arsenic ash from
uncontrolled burning of treated lumber. I have news reports of three
other cattle poisonings, and several cases of deer-kills from eating
arsenic ash. There are three documented cases of families being
overcome or exposed to arsenic requiring medical attention from arsenic
fumes from burning treated wood in fireplaces and outdoor fires. I have
copies of medical textbooks outlining the effects of arsenic poisoning
and treatment, of which diarrhea and neural damage come from ingestion.
The most significant danger to humans is arsenic on the skin, which even
in small quantities can cause skin cancer. The doubling of the rate
of skin cancer (albeit coincidentally) parallels the time period when
arsenic wood was introduced to the environment. The pathways of
exposure can come from working with the wood without gloves or
protective clothing or getting the dust on the body. It can also come
from walking on treated wood with bare feet or mouthing the wood,
especially cut ends and nicks. Ash contact with the skin, even from a
fire miles away can cause skin cancer.
Children playing in the dirt where arsenic sawdust was left years
previously can be a means of arsenic exposure. The arsenic levels under
treated wood play equipment have been tested at 200 times background
levels. The documentation on the use of treated wood tell users to wear
protective clothing, shower after working, vacuum the sawdust, refrain
from smoking and eating, and to send the scraps to the landfill. How
often are buyers give the instructions for safe use? How many follow
the recommended practices? Hardly any, which is why I call it a product
out of control.
P>Garden built with x square feet of CCA treated wood in various stages
>of decomposition: new, old, severly decayed, chips/sawdust. Then test
>soil at various levels and distances from the wood and test the
>vegetables.
The data I have seen has shown me that the arsenic is not leaching into
the soil, and the pathway of ingestion is difficult to substantiate. If
anyone has evidence to the contrary, I have yet to see it. Until I see
firm documentation, I will not claim that arsenic leaching from properly
treated wood is the problem. The treated wood industry has repeatedly
engaged me on other Bulletin Boards in arguing the issue of
leachability, of which I concede their points. Frankly I am surprised
they are not here on rec.gardens with their party line of "no leach in
soul equals safe" argument. My argument is not leachability and uptake
by plants, it is the issue of the widespread abuse of the product that I
am concerned about.
P>This combined with a clear explaination of what levels are considered
>harmful to humans in food would be conclusive.
The harmful levels in food are not the issue as I mentioned previously.
The harm is in uncontrolled sawdust, waste, and ash. The rate of
decomposition of treated wood is understood, but the wood has only been
on the market for about fifty years, with 90% of total sales within the
past fifteen. The wood has yet to rot to the point of being a leaching
problem...... yet. No one denies that it is a matter of time when it is
a leaching problem. Then we will have arsenic on root vegetables,
children eating arsenic contaminated soil, children playing in arsenic
rotted wood, airborne arsenic dust, arsenic silt run off and so forth.
It will be a major problem around the year 2025. A sad legacy because
people won't take the effort to seal pine when building decks, in my
opinion.
P>Has such a test been conducted? If not, Why not?
The tests have been conducted, and they show the arsenic not to be
leaching. But the wood *will* eventually rot, and then the arsenic will
start leaching. The treated lumber industry only gives the wood a 60
year life expectancy in the soil. Which means in 60 years, the next
generation will be dealing with disposing of leaching, rotting, arsenic
contaminated wood mould rather than stable boards.
Again my point of last week is to identify the location of the wood and
ensure that it is well marked and not accidentally removed and disposed
of improperly. When it does age, let's use the figure of 40 years, it
should be removed from the soil before it rots and taken to a hazardous
waste disposal site. I say to stop its uncontrolled sale and reserve its
use for applications that are demonstrated to require a biocide treated
wood. Then to track its location and ultimate disposal, just like any
other biohazard is managed in commercial use. The household exemption
for hazardous waste can no longer be swept under the rug. What goes
into the environment has to be accounted for.
I do not consider myself to be an environmental extremist and work with
scientific principles regarding metal accumulations in soil on a regular
basis in my professional capacity as an organic matter management
specialist. Arsenic levels have become a concern in wood scrap grinding
operations as levels over 11 PPM are not allowed to go into the soil in
compost, sludge, or fuel. I can document many cases of wood scrap
recyclers having to send tens of thousands of tons of wood chips to
landfills because of treated wood contamination
Mr Compost~~~
Jim McNelly~~~
Granite Information Service 612-654-8372-HST 656-0678 v.32bis
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
---
* January 19th - It is not logical, but it is often true.
Article 25581 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!hawnews.watson.ibm.com!news
From: os2user@brdiller.houston.ibm.com (Barry Diller)
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
Sender: news@hawnews.watson.ibm.com (NNTP News Poster)
Message-ID: <CJwHpI.3tz2@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 23:39:18 GMT
Lines: 95
Reply-To: brdiller@vnet.ibm.com (Barry Diller)
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM.
References: <2gvb3a$q0k@news.u.washington.edu> <36.3795.2552.0N41E078@gcbb.granite.mn.org> <2hjpvk$pvc@netnews.upenn.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: brdiller.houston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Federal Sector Services Company, Houston, Texas
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v0.20 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
In <2hjpvk$pvc@netnews.upenn.edu>, pauls@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Richard J. Pauls) writes:
>In article <36.3795.2552.0N41E078@gcbb.granite.mn.org> jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly) writes:
>
>>...
>>I say it is time to blow the whistle on arsenic in the back yard and put
>>a stop to it once and for all, and dedicate our environmental efforts to
>>ensure safe ultimate disposal.
>>
>>How about it, rec.garden members?
>>
>>Mr Compost~~~
>>
>>Jim McNelly~~~
>
>Jim
>
>I am very concerned about arsenic poisoning, and I plan to remove the treated
>wood from around my gardens this spring just to be safe. That is, just
>IN CASE it actually is harmful. I can due without the wood, so why take
>any chance is my position.
I think that this pretty well summarized my opinion on this matter until I
read Jim McNelly's post, which you've partially quoted above.
>
>I still have not seen any conclusive evidence that treated wood is
>harmful. There is evidence that arsenic leaches out into the soil.
>So what? I have seen no evidence that it is in harmful quantities.
I think you're missing what I considered to be Mr. McNelly's main point:
"Properly processed treated wood does not leach arsenic under
normal conditions. How we, the public and the environmental
community, focused on this one narrow issue and missed the
rest of the story, the story about the sawdust, the scraps, the
ash, and the ultimate disposal is shameful."
Now, we can all argue here about how much arsenic actually leaches
into our garden soil from CCA lumber under different conditions, and
we can talk about what PPM of arsenic in our garden soil might be an
intolerable amount, and so forth - and those would probably be some
very useful discussions - but the larger issue is what is to become of
all our CCA lumber when we're finished with it.
Is CCA lumber going to be the 'asbestos' of the 1990's or 2000's?
>Can you site any conclusive experiments to support you position on CCA
>lumber? The warning label that comes on the wood is not conclusive.
>In reading this group, there seem to be more posts
>saying the wood is ok than there are saying it is harmful. Without
>conclusive evidence from multiple sources I do not believe we or any
>other group will have a chance of removing this poison from common
>houshold use in decks and gardens. I heard about the article in Organic
>Gardening, but have not yet read it. I also heard that it was not
>quantitative. I want more than just scare tactics from the environmentally
>extreme. I want the facts. Is this wood dangerous or not? Until the
>facts are revealed, I will not be using treated lumber just in case.
>If there is so much concern about this stuff why arn't there more tests?
>I want answers like this:
>
>Garden built with x square feet of CCA treated wood in various stages
>of decomposition: new, old, severly decayed, chips/sawdust. Then test
>soil at various levels and distances from the wood and test the vegetables.
>Then publish results:
>
<deletions>
>
>This combined with a clear explaination of what levels are considered
>harmful to humans in food would be conclusive.
And if the levels of leached arsenic proved acceptable to you, will you
then go out and buy a couple of tons of CCA lumber and place it in your
backyard?
Are you prepared to handle the lumber properly during construction? What
are you going to do with the sawdust and scraps - send them to your
local landfill? Burn them? And what will you do in 20 years when the
lumber has turned to mush, or in 5 years when you decide to remodel or
re-landscape?
Please re-read Jim McNelly's note. Arsenic 'leaching' is not CCA
lumber's biggest liability.
>
>Has such a test been conducted? If not, Why not?
>
>
>
>Rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barry R. Diller IBM Federal Sector Sevices Company
EMail address: brdiller@vnet.ibm.com Houston, Texas USA
Article 25621 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
From: jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <36.4079.2552.0N41EF4E@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 00:02:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City Info Center 612-654-8372 hst 656-0678 v.32bis
Lines: 119
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumb
Pauls@Pender.Ee.Upenn.Edu to All - Wednesday, January 19th:
Discussing: Re: Pressure Treated Lumber
>jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim McNelly) writes:
P>>...
>>I say it is time to blow the whistle on arsenic in the back yard and put
>>a stop to it once and for all, and dedicate our environmental efforts to
>>ensure safe ultimate disposal.
P>Jim
P>I still have not seen any conclusive evidence that treated wood is
>harmful. There is evidence that arsenic leaches out into the soil.
>So what? I have seen no evidence that it is in harmful quantities.
>Can you site any conclusive experiments to support you position on CCA
>lumber?
Paul,
I believe your question is valid. Due to the lack of evidence that I
believe is substantive, I have not made the claim that arsenic leaching
from treated wood to the soil is a biohazard. Organic Gardening and
other sources may make that claim, but I have not.
My problem with treated wood is is uncontrolled use, its misuse, and its
ultimate disposal. The uncontrolled use problem is the situation where
it is used for building decks and other outdoor applications not in
contact with the soil. Conventional treating of pine with water
sealants is adequate without adding an arsenic load to the biosphere.
Treated wood is designed for direct soil contact where the soil is
moist. Other applications are not advised.
One misuse is in its manufacture, of which the 400 manufacturing sites
in the US are largely unregulated. Many are Superfund sites waiting to
happen. Another misuse is the spreading of sawdust and shavings into
the soil. These *do* leach arsenic, especially as sawdust floats in
stormwater runoff. Arsenic is being found in ponds and surface water.
The worst misuse is from burning arsenic treated wood scraps and arsenic
in ash from house fires. This form of arsenic is no longer bound in the
wood fiber and is highly volatile at 3000 parts per million. Arsenic
ash is a class 1 carcinogen as rated by the EPA. By law, arsenic ash
must be sent to a hazardous waste disposal site. Currently it is not.
I call that misuse.
I have documentation from the Minnesota Hazardous Waste Management
Department of 24 dairy cows killed from eating arsenic ash from
uncontrolled burning of treated lumber. I have news reports of three
other cattle poisonings, and several cases of deer-kills from eating
arsenic ash. There are three documented cases of families being
overcome from arsenic fumes from burning treated wood in fireplaces and
outdoor fires. I have copies of medical textbooks outlining the effects
of arsenic poisoning and treatment, of which diarrhea and neural damage
come from ingestion.
The most significant danger to humans is arsenic on the skin, even in
small quantities which the main symptom is skin cancer. This is caused
from working with the wood without gloves or protective clothing and
getting the dust on the body. It can also come from walking on treated
wood with bare feet. Ash contact with the skin, even from a fire miles
away can cause skin cancer.
P>Garden built with x square feet of CCA treated wood in various stages
>of decomposition: new, old, severly decayed, chips/sawdust. Then test
>soil at various levels and distances from the wood and test the
>vegetables.
The data I have seen has shown me that the arsenic is not leaching into
the soil, and the pathway of ingestion is difficult to substantiate. If
anyone has evidence to the contrary, I have yet to see it. Until I see
firm documentation, I will not claim that arsenic leaching from properly
treated wood is the problem.
P>This combined with a clear explaination of what levels are considered
>harmful to humans in food would be conclusive.
The harmful levels in food are not the issue as I mentioned previously.
The harm is in uncontrolled sawdust and ash. The rate of decomposition
of treated wood is understood, but the wood has only been on the market
for about fifty years, with 90% of total sales within the past fifteen.
P>Has such a test been conducted? If not, Why not?
The tests have been conducted, and they show the arsenic not to be
leaching. But the wood *will* eventually rot, and then the arsenic will
start leaching. The treated lumber industry only gives the wood a 60
year life expectancy in the soil. Which means in 60 years, the next
generation will be dealing with disposing of leaching, rotting, arsenic
contaminated wood mould rather than stable boards.
Again my point of last week is to identify the location of the wood and
ensure that it is well marked and not accidentally removed and disposed
of improperly. When it does age, let's use the figure of 40 years, it
should be removed from the soil before it rots and taken to a hazardous
waste disposal site.
I do not consider myself to be an environmental extremist and work with
scientific principles regarding metal accumulations in soil on a regular
basis in my professional capacity as an organic matter management
specialist. Arsenic levels have become a concern in wood scrap grinding
operations as levels over 11 PPM are not allowed to go into the soil in
compost, sludge, or fuel. I can document many cases of wood scrap
recyclers having to send tens of thousands of tons of wood chips to
landfills because of treated wood contamination
Mr Compost~~~
Jim McNelly~~~
Granite Information Service 612-654-8372-HST 656-0678 v.32bis
jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
---
* January 19th - Another conundrum to ponder
Article 25573 of rec.gardens:
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.service.uci.edu!biivax.dp.beckman.com!falstaff.css.beckman.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumber (YIKES)
Message-ID: <2hk1s4$ckv@falstaff.css.beckman.com>
From: heffron@falstaff.css.beckman.com (Matt Heffron)
Date: 19 Jan 1994 11:32:20 -0800
Reply-To: heffron@falstaff.css.beckman.com
References: <2h7pm3$dvj@news.u.washington.edu> <1994Jan17.153042.14505@nicmad.uucp>
Distribution: world
Organization: Scientific Services, Beckman Instruments, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: falstaff.css.beckman.com
Lines: 185
In <1994Jan17.153042.14505@nicmad.uucp> Bob Klebba
<nicmad!klebba%astroatc.uucp@spool.cs.wisc.edu> writes:
>In article <2h7pm3$dvj@news.u.washington.edu> Schooder,
>bene@u.washington.edu writes:
>>I read an article in Organic Gardening...a couple months ago,
>>can't find the issue right now...that said more nasties DO leach
>>out of PT wood than the industry would like you to know.
The "more than the industry would like you to know" phrase was Schooder's,
it's not in the article.
>How much is more than we would like to know? Is it 1 ppb, 5 ppb or is it
>a ppm?
It looks like the numbers are in the low ppm to very high ppb range.
(They aren't directly stated but can be inferred from other numbers in
the article.)
> I don't want to defend the wood products industry, but in my
>experience, OG isn't known for their absolute quantitative accuracy. How
>much can leach out before we need to be concerned vis a vis all the other
>pollutants we expose ourselves to everyday?
I've typed in some excerpts (about half) of the Organic Gardening
article, attached below. I'm glad I haven't built my raised beds yet.
Matt Heffron
----------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from the Organic Gardening article:
"TREATED WOOD: Yes, it's still toxic!"
by Cheryl Long and Mike McGrath
(Jan 94, pp 71-74)
Recently, a Texas count extension agent pronounced
pressure-treated wood safe to use in raised bed gardens.
Newspapers, industry magazines such as _Nursery News_, and
even another major American gardenign magazine all reported
this finding not only as truth, but as the final word on
the subject.
...Many readers have written to ask if we have changed
our opinion on treated wood and/or to comment on this new
report from Texas.
No, we haven't changed our opinion and that Texas report
was not a true scientific study. It was a half thought-out
experiment conducted by a local extension agent and an
extension vegetable specialist after gardeners in their
region became concerned following our reports about the
dangers of using "pressure-treated" wood (which is actually
made with two heavy metals and arsenic, not "pressure" as
the companies that produce this stuff would like you to
think).
Anyway, these two guys took 15 soil samples from raised
bed gardens framed with CCA (chromated copper arsenic)
treated wood and had them tested. Despite the fact that
two different labs found measurable amounts of arsenic in
every instance, these two rocket scientists still concluded
that the tests had somehow "confirmed that arsenic was not
leaching from the timbers."
...In a _real_ study, the arsenic levels found in the
treated-wood soil would have been compared to the amount
(if any) of arsenic found in similar soil that wasn't
surrounded by treated wood. All they _can_ say for sure
from their limited testing is that there was definately
arsenic in every soil sample taken near treated wood. How
they determined that the arsenic did not come from the
treated wood is beyond us.
...
We, on the other hand, have continued our research on
"pressure-treated" wood and are even _more_ convinced than
ever that this stuff should not be used in organic gardens.
Here are excerpts from some of the additional scientific
studies we've reviewed recently:
* "This study suggests that leaching of metals from treated
wood in acidic waters (natural or resulting from acidic
precipitation) _[Editor's Note: acid rain]_ may present an
unacceptable environmental risk...Leaching of metals from
weathered wood found to be very similar to that from new
wood...Results from this study suggest that organic acids
may cause greater leaching from CCA-treated wood than
mineral acids...Organic acids are present in...soils, bogs
and wetland areas."
-- Warner and Solomon, _Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry_, 1990
* "It has been shown that organic acids may cause
significant leaching of all components of CCA...CCA-treated
jack pine blocks exposed to vegetable compost had greater
leaching losses (12 to 13 percent CCA leached) than matched
samples in distilled water (4 to 6 percent leached),
exterior weathering (2 to 8 percent) or exterior soil burial
(1 to 6 percent.)"
-- Cooper and Ung, _Forest Products Journal_, Sept. 1992
...
* "Even after two years of exposure to rain and snow, the
leaching of chromium, copper and arsenic from CCA-treated
wood roofing is too high to allow collected water from such
roofing to be used as drinking water according to the
Norwegian requirements."
-- Evans, International Working Group on Wood
Preservation, 1987
* "The amount of arsenic alone that leached from a
2-by-2-inch piece of wood in one week in our studies is
enough...to kill a mouse...Just think how much is being
leached from piers and bulkheads."
-- Sanders, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
1991
...
Once again: The simple truth is that _there is no question
that chromium, copper and arsenic all leach from treated
wood--even the treated wood industry itself admits that
much._
...
Garn Wallace, Ph.D., a biochemist at Wallace
Laboratories in El Segundo, Calif., who with his fater has
been studying the effects of heavy metals on soils and
plants for over 20 years, explains that levels as low as
_1 part per million_ soluble arsenic (which is equal to
about 20 ppm "total arsenic") have been reported to be
toxic to some plants. ...Unfortunately, he explains, "the
organic acids in compost greatly increase the solubility of
arsenic."
When we asked Dr. Wallace his opinion of the Texas "CCA
is Safe" report, he stated that some of the arsenic levels
they reported finding could be toxic to plants and added
that "if these levels were found in my garden, I would
definitely be concerned _and_ I sould certainly avoid
eating root vegetables grown in those soils." (Arsenic
accumulation in plants occurs mainly in the roots.)
New data shows that even _very_ low levels of arsenic in
drinking water can cause severla kinds of cancer; and so
the EPA is currently deciding how much to _lower_ the
currently limit of 50 parts per _billion_ for arsenic in
drinking water. (That's right--the "harmless" levels found
in soil by the Texas guys were hundreds of times higher
that the levels that the EPA is now saying are too high for
water.)
...
We have now cited two dozen scientific studies and
government reports that document the dangers of arsenic and
the leaching of all three toxins from treated wood. Send
us a stamped, self-addressed envelope and we'll send you a
list if you want to look them up yourself.
...
So what should _you_ do next time somebody tells you
treated wood is safe? Take a simple cotton cloth--say
their handkerchief--and rub it over a piece of treated
wood; a raised bed timper or a piece of playground
equipment that a child may touch a hunderd times in an hour.
Show the person that cloth and explain that it now has
detectable levels of arsenic on it. Who says? Both
American (U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commision) _and_
Canadian (Health and Welfare Canada and Geological Survey
of Canada) government researchers who performed this simple
"wipe test" themselves on treated-wood playground equipment
of varying ages. They never failed to find arsenic on the
cloth afterwards.
----------------------------------------------------------
--
Matt Heffron heffron@falstaff.css.beckman.com
Beckman Instruments, Inc. voice: (714) 961-3128
2500 N. Harbor Blvd. MS X-10, Fullerton, CA 92634-3100
I don't speak for Beckman Instruments unless they say so.
Article 25673 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!owlnet.rice.edu!segura
From: segura@owlnet.rice.edu (Chad James Segura)
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumber (YIKES)
Message-ID: <CJzvw1.70C@rice.edu>
Sender: news@rice.edu (News)
Organization: Rice University
References: <2h7pm3$dvj@news.u.washington.edu> <1994Jan17.153042.14505@nicmad.uucp> <2hk1s4$ckv@falstaff.css.beckman.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 19:38:22 GMT
Lines: 103
In article <2hk1s4$ckv@falstaff.css.beckman.com>, heffron@falstaff.css.beckman.com (Matt Heffron) writes:
A lot deleted.
|>
|> ...
|>
|> * "Even after two years of exposure to rain and snow, the
|> leaching of chromium, copper and arsenic from CCA-treated
|> wood roofing is too high to allow collected water from such
|> roofing to be used as drinking water according to the
|> Norwegian requirements."
|> -- Evans, International Working Group on Wood
|> Preservation, 1987
I wouldn't drink water from any roof of any type.
|>
|> * "The amount of arsenic alone that leached from a
|> 2-by-2-inch piece of wood in one week in our studies is
|> enough...to kill a mouse...Just think how much is being
|> leached from piers and bulkheads."
|> -- Sanders, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
|> 1991
Enough to kill a mouse, but in what concentration. Pure?
|>
|> ...
|>
|> Once again: The simple truth is that _there is no question
|> that chromium, copper and arsenic all leach from treated
|> wood--even the treated wood industry itself admits that
|> much._
They do? Of course, there is some leaching, but it is the
amount that matters and not that it does.
|>
|> ...
|>
|> Garn Wallace, Ph.D., a biochemist at Wallace
|> Laboratories in El Segundo, Calif., who with his fater has
|> been studying the effects of heavy metals on soils and
|> plants for over 20 years, explains that levels as low as
|> _1 part per million_ soluble arsenic (which is equal to
|> about 20 ppm "total arsenic") have been reported to be
|> toxic to some plants. ...Unfortunately, he explains, "the
|> organic acids in compost greatly increase the solubility of
|> arsenic."
|>
|> When we asked Dr. Wallace his opinion of the Texas "CCA
|> is Safe" report, he stated that some of the arsenic levels
|> they reported finding could be toxic to plants and added
|> that "if these levels were found in my garden, I would
|> definitely be concerned _and_ I sould certainly avoid
|> eating root vegetables grown in those soils." (Arsenic
|> accumulation in plants occurs mainly in the roots.)
|>
|> New data shows that even _very_ low levels of arsenic in
|> drinking water can cause severla kinds of cancer; and so
|> the EPA is currently deciding how much to _lower_ the
|> currently limit of 50 parts per _billion_ for arsenic in
|> drinking water. (That's right--the "harmless" levels found
|> in soil by the Texas guys were hundreds of times higher
|> that the levels that the EPA is now saying are too high for
|> water.)
That amount in soil is not the same as that amount in water.
I do not eat soil.
|>
|> ...
|>
|> We have now cited two dozen scientific studies and
|> government reports that document the dangers of arsenic and
|> the leaching of all three toxins from treated wood. Send
|> us a stamped, self-addressed envelope and we'll send you a
|> list if you want to look them up yourself.
And were there any which you ignored, because their findings
didn't match your conclusions?
|>
|> ...
|>
|> So what should _you_ do next time somebody tells you
|> treated wood is safe? Take a simple cotton cloth--say
|> their handkerchief--and rub it over a piece of treated
|> wood; a raised bed timper or a piece of playground
|> equipment that a child may touch a hunderd times in an hour.
|>
|> Show the person that cloth and explain that it now has
|> detectable levels of arsenic on it. Who says? Both
|> American (U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commision) _and_
|> Canadian (Health and Welfare Canada and Geological Survey
|> of Canada) government researchers who performed this simple
|> "wipe test" themselves on treated-wood playground equipment
|> of varying ages. They never failed to find arsenic on the
|> cloth afterwards.
Chad
Article 25699 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Path: bigblue.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.kei.com!news.byu.edu!cwis.isu.edu!mica.inel.gov!guinness!guinness!ajh
From: ajh@diamond.idbsu.edu (Andrew Huang)
Subject: Re: Pressure Treated Lumber (YIKES)
In-Reply-To: segura@owlnet.rice.edu's message of Fri, 21 Jan 1994 19:38:22 GMT
Message-ID: <AJH.94Jan23131419@diamond.idbsu.edu>
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Nntp-Posting-Host: diamond
Organization: Boise State Mathematics Department
References: <2h7pm3$dvj@news.u.washington.edu> <1994Jan17.153042.14505@nicmad.uucp>
<2hk1s4$ckv@falstaff.css.beckman.com> <CJzvw1.70C@rice.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 94 13:14:19
Lines: 21
Chad James Segura) writes:
I wouldn't drink water from any roof of any type.
In Bermuda, you have no choice. Building codes _require_ the
inclusion of cisterns that collect rain water from the roofs for
domestic use.
That amount in soil is not the same as that amount in water.
I do not eat soil.
Yes, but your children and their friend do. And if you garden, you
will get it on your skin, which turns out to be a good way to absorb
As.
And were there any which you ignored, because their findings
didn't match your conclusions?
Don't needle the poster - the posting was clearly marked as an excerpt
from Organic Gardening.
-andy