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
"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
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.
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.
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.
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-
Show All Forums |