          |
   |
|
Forums | Environmental Impact | ACQ |
| Author | Message |
aheberer | Posted - 20 December 2002 10:47    Your representation of ACQ as a non-toxic preservative is still in my opinion misleading. You state that ACQ sawdust is not hazardous. The Material Safety Data Sheet for ACQ wood states otherwise. Your readers should also know that your group is recommending a product which is diclaimed by the manufacturer. I am holding a brochure on ACQ produced by CSI (Chemical Specialties Inc.), the manufacturer of the ACQ chemical. After many wonderful things are said about ACQ in the brochure the following statement appears-- "The information contained herein is intended to provide general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult legal or environmental counsel to determine how laws apply to your specific situation. CSI disclaims any and all liabilities for any damages, losses, costs, expenses, claims, fines or penalties of any nature whatsoever arising out of, or in connection with, any use of, or reliance upon this information." Does this disclaimer sound as if the manufacturer has confidence in the product? I believe that any reasonably minded individual would question why your group is recommending such a product. I will be happy to send a copy of the brochure to anyone that requests it from me. My question to you is, how could your group not see this disclaimer or ignore it. Has your group asked for an explanation from CSI as to why they disclaim their ACQ product? How can you continue to recommend this product? I look forward to your comments. |
mobrien | Posted - 4 March 1999 20:55 I'd like to put in my two cents about ACQ. I have no involvement with any wood treatment products. ACQ stands for Ammonium Copper Quaternary. It's classified as a pesticide by the EPA. It compares in performance to other wood preservatives that can be much more toxic to humans and the environment, such as copper chromium arsenate or pentachloroethylene. In that sense it is a "safer" option. I don't know why the company makes such a comprehensive disclaimer, but my guess would be that they are concerned about legal liabilities. All treated wood should be handled properly but my observations are that construction workers and do-it- yourselfers routinely ignore safety precautions. For the person who refuses to wear gloves or a use a respirator, I think ACQ really is a safer alternative. That's not the same thing as a safe alternative! When wood treated with heavy metals is burned, the combustion byproducts may be hazardous. Where I live there are no effective controls to keep treated wood scrap from being burned. I regularly see treated wood in the dumpsters on construction sites that go to recyclers to be turned into hog fuel. Personally, I'd rather see ACQ burned than CCA. There are safer alternatives to ACQ, such as plastic composite "lumber". I recently used one (Trex) to rebuild my deck. It cost more than treated wood, but I don't have to worry about the safety of people building, using or disposing of the deck. Mike |
aheberer | Posted - 5 March 1999 16:54 Instead of debating the merits of one product over another, we would be better served to help educate people on the safe use of these products. Your comments about not worrying about how people use or dispose of trex lumber is not accurate. Users of Trex should wear gloves, goggles and dust masks just as with treated wood. Also, many vinyl and plastic wood products should not be burned because of toxic gas. My biggest concern is that PATH portrays ACQ as being non-toxic, then later say it is less toxic (which is it) and now your comments lead readers to think that with products such as trex there are no worries. You may want to read a MSDS on these types of wood substitutes before you so quickly recommend that there are no worries with them. All product have some handling precautions, most of them including treated wood are common sense precautions that PATH could help educate users about. |
cbrewton | Posted - 28 January 2000 19:11 Insert new message here... Did you ever get any response from theses guys RE: ACQ and the company disclaimers? See you in a couple of weeks in Griffin- Christine! |