Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Rejects Arsenic-Treated Lumber Ban (Used in almost all playgrounds)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Khephra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 01:01 PM
Original message
U.S. Rejects Arsenic-Treated Lumber Ban (Used in almost all playgrounds)
WASHINGTON -- Federal regulators Tuesday denied a request to ban arsenic-treated lumber used in playground equipment, which environmentalists say poses a health hazard.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission voted unanimously to adopt its staff's finding and recommendation that a ban was not needed because most manufacturers already have stopped using the treated wood and other makers soon will follow suit.

The lumber in question is treated with a pesticide, chromated copper arsenate, that protects it from decay and insect damage. Almost all wooden playground equipment has been treated with the pesticide. The concern is that children can get cancer-causing arsenic residue from the treated wood on their hands, then put their hands in their mouths.

Besides playgrounds, the treated wood has been used in picnic tables and decks.

MORE........

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-playgrounds-cancer,0,5820555.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gawwwd - ur Gov't sucks big time - no?


. . NO universal Health Care

. . Sends it's young off to die in unnecessary wars

. . Poor provisions for it's seniors, veterans, etc., etc.

and NOW -

Total lack of concern for it's YOUNGEST citizens health

Y'all need people in ur WH with HEARTS !

Can't you find some down there??

(sigh)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. We had one....
but he worked for a guy who "had a thing" for the ladies and the folks decided they liked the limp-dick the supreme court stuck them with better.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
4.  - GREAT move - now y'all got one who is screwing ur whole country !

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. i know that in Canada this pressured treaded lumber is sold and used also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. this and "air quality at ground zero" are why Whitman resigned!
Edited on Tue Nov-04-03 01:50 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
these "pressure treated lumber playgrounds cause lung, liver, kidney and bladder cancer in children" so does pinic tables and decks made from this lumber...i have done the research and we are now tearing down our elementary schools playground the lumber can not be sent to regular land fill it must be shipped to toxic wasted dump and the soil all around and under the playground MUST ...1 outbe remediated 1 in every 100 children who are exposed daily to this wood will develope cancer later in their 20/30s :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Thank You For Posting This Information.
I put up a wooden play center up for my children about two years ago. I'm going to have to call the mfg. and find out what they used to pressure treat the wood. Do you know how long it takes to absorb an amount large enough to cause problems? I'm so glad that playgrounds were made of steel and cement when I was a kid.

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. a childs hand is about 100 square centimeters ..and just 1 times exceeds
EPA's exceptable daily allounce in drinking water...now how many times does a child touch this equiptment?... i will post for you the documents and sites i have saved here in a few minutes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. a childs hand is about 100 square centimeters ..and just 1 time exceeds
Edited on Tue Nov-04-03 02:46 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
by 126 times the EPA's exceptable daily allounce in drinking water...now how many times does a child touch this equiptment?... i will post for you the documents and sites i have saved here in a few minutes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wellong Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. No good either
I'm so glad that playgrounds were made of steel and cement when I was a kid.

To many injuries. Not allowed anymore. Maybe we need to start having Nerf make any and all childrens playground equipment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I'll Take A Broken Bone Over Cancer Anyday -NT-
Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wellong Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Me Too
But thanks to government regulations, the playgrounds we grew up on are not around anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. I'm Not Real Sure Government Regulations Are The Cause.
In the case of the wood, wouldn't it be under regulation. In the case of cement and steel isn't it an insurance and liability issue? Nice try though.

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wellong Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Yes and yes
Yes it is an insurance thing and a government thing. Since often the playgrounds in question are on government property they dictated the the structures need to be replaced for 1) injury reasons, 2) insurance reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. some links
http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds/index.html

<snip>Arsenic is classified as a "known human carcinogen" by the U.S. EPA and the World Health Organization, and children are at greater risk from arsenic than adults because they are less able to metabolize the metal (NRC 1999). An average five-year-old, playing less than two weeks on a CCA-treated playset would exceed the lifetime cancer risk considered acceptable under federal pesticide law (see Endnote in Appendix for calculation details). A recent analysis by the University of Florida found that the lifetime increased risk of cancer for children regularly touching pressure-treated wood was as high as 1 in 1,000, a thousand times the risk deemed acceptable for pesticides under federal law (FDCA).

Study after study has confirmed the risks of arsenic wood preservatives, and over the past year there has been a flood of new evidence. It is clear that arsenic levels in commercially sold pressure-treated wood are high enough to pose an increased risk of cancer and other serious illness in the long term, and acute poisoning that could result in seizures or permanent nerve damage in the short term. Those risks are significantly increased for children, whose growing bodies are more susceptible to the harmful effects of arsenic.
http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds/es.html

Recommendations

To protect children from the harmful effects of arsenic-treated lumber, we recommend:
The immediate switch from CCA-treated wood to safer alternatives by all home improvement retailers and playground equipment manufacturers.
An immediate ban by the Consumer Product Safety Commission of all CCA-treated wood for use on playground equipment.
Emergency suspension by the Environmental Protection Agency of CCA as a wood treatment pesticide.
Prompt repeal by Congress of the hazardous waste exemption for arsenic-treated wood.
A boycott of CCA-treated wood by the construction industry, at a minimum for all situations where children might come into contact with the wood.

What You Can Do

To protect your family from CCA-treated wood:
Make sure that children wash their hands after playing on CCA-treated surfaces, particularly before eating.
Don't let children eat at CCA-treated picnic tables. At a minimum, cover the table with a plastic-coated tablecloth.
Seal CCA-treated wood structures every year with polyurethane or other hard lacquer.
In new construction, use products that do not contain arsenic. One option is ACQ-treated wood.

http://www.ewg.org/reports/poisonedplaygrounds/ch5.html

Executive Summary

The wood in most playground sets, picnic tables and decks contains potentially hazardous levels of the same poison at the center of the debate over the safety of America's drinking water: arsenic. An Environmental Working Group analysis finds that even if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency keeps its promise to lower permissible levels of arsenic in drinking water, it will not be able to protect the nation's children from arsenic unless it regulates a more pervasive source of arsenic in "pressure-treated" wood.

Outside of the wood products industry, it's a little-known fact that arsenic-laced wood is just about everywhere: in playground equipment, picnic tables, decks, fences, docks, foundations - basically, any outdoor use of lumber. Virtually all of the lumber sold for outdoor uses in the United States is pressure-treated, a misleading term that hides the fact that the wood is injected with vast amounts of toxic compounds to preserve the wood and kill termites.

The most common wood preservative used in the United States is chromated copper arsenate (CCA), an insecticide that is 22 percent pure arsenic. Numerous laboratory and field studies show definitively that potentially hazardous amounts of arsenic in CCA leach out of pressure-treated lumber, where it may be ingested or absorbed by people or animals, or may contaminate water sources or soil beneath the wood.

Our analysis of national data from 180 wood samples shows that treated wood is a much greater source of arsenic exposure for children than arsenic-contaminated drinking water. Based on an extensive review of the scientific literature, EWG estimates that a 40-pound child who plays daily on arsenic-treated wood could be exposed to more than five times the arsenic allowed under EPA's proposed drinking water standard (10 parts per billion) that has been delayed for more review by the Bush Administration (Figure 1). Less than 10 percent of all water systems in the U.S. contain arsenic at 10 ppb (USGS 2000), whereas the vast majority of American children have some contact with CCA-treated wood.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. thank you for posting this info,
... it is stunning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. Thanks Again -NT-
Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Native Donating Member (885 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-05-03 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. If you want to research this
go to the St. Pete Times website (sptimes.com). They broke the story with their initial investigation. There are some measures you can take - sealing the wood (not completely fool-proof), keeping your children from eating food on wooden tables, making sure they wash their hands after playing on the equipment, telling them not to put their fingers in their mouths, etc.. It also leaches into the dirt around the posts, which can be a problem if you have sand. Definitely check out this resource, they have oodles of information on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wellong Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Serious question
1 outbe remediated 1 in every 100 children who are exposed daily to this wood will develope cancer later in their 20/30s

A 1% rate. Ok. Whats the rate for children who do not come into contact with said wood products?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Without looking it up, it's a lot lower,
especially in that range. The most common cncer is probably lung cancer (other than the skin cancers) and that occurs at the rate of 75 cancers per 100,000 people per year in the US. All cancers will be higher, of course, but since we're talking young people, it'll be much lower. I would guess that the increased risk of cancer is life-long. Also, in toxicology in the US we tend to focus on cancer a lot - for years people have been trying to show that atrazine, for example, causes cancer. It doesn't seem to. However, it can cause any number of other nasty things, but those aren't as scary as cancer, I guess.

.............your freindly neighborhood epidemiologist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wellong Donating Member (219 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I just don't think
that this 1 in 100 is correct. This wood has been used for decades to build decks on homes and other structures. If it posed such a serious risk as to cause that high of a rate of cancer, it would have already happened and cancer would be rampant in the 20 to 30 year old group. It isn't.

And wouldn't the cancer rate among those who work with said wood on a daily basis for hours and hours, including breathing the saw dust of the cut wood have a cancer rate so high as to be astronomical? Yet they don't.

Sorry, but I am a little more than skeptical about this "1 in 100" claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. You're right about carpenters, including hobbiests -
they do have a much higher than ordinary cancer rate, and even spectacularly high rates of cancer are not necessarily noticeable because cancer is a rare disease, especially the types that wood-working puts you at risk for. So, okay, your cancer risk is increased 20 or 30 times - it's still rare enough that you don't see your friends all getting struck, and sometimes the people with the highest exposures are the hobby woodworkers. And sometimes something else has to happen. For instance, you can get lots of terrible diseases from heavy asbestos exposure. Years ago I knew a man who worked in the Bremerton (Washington) shpyards during WWII. He said that often the asbestos would be so thick in the air inside those hulls that you could barely see your hand in front of your face! Despite that, while you would certainly get a lot of long-term and immediate nasty illnesses from exposure of that nature, your risk of lung cancer, ie mesothelioma, was not elevated unless you were also a smoker. Odd, and counterintuitive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_bear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-05-03 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #24
31. You are incorrect
Even at that rate of cancer, you would not be counting dead bodies. In Chile, the arsenic in the water in many locations accounts for 1 in 10 deaths in men; 1 in 20 in women.

You still have to do extensive studies to determine this, though; you aren't going to find out from doctors reporting deaths due to arsenic, because cause and effect simply aren't obvious.

And then you have latency periods...if a particularly high exposure occurs during early life, the risk goes way up, but the death doesn't occur until later... so no cause and effect is drawn.

The standard for arsenic in our water in the U.S. is much less stringent for protection from cancer than for other cancer-causing chemicals, on the order of about 100, and I'm talking about the 10 ppb standard that won't even be in effect until 2006.

So don't be too quick to dismiss the cancer risk.

s_m



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_bear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-05-03 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. Early life exposure to arsenic is worse than adult exposure
Of course that may be true for most carcinogens -- certainly for mutagens -- but epi studies show it's true for arsenic. Lung cancers and bladder cancers (in addition to the skin cancers/lesions)....

It's nasty stuff, and a lot of people are getting a hefty dose from their tap water, depending upon where they are and their source of water.

It's a very complicated issue, isn't it.

s_m

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. So if it is hardly used anymore, why not ban it now?
I mean, it would have less effect than banning something that is used frequently, right?

Yeah, I can guess why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dfong63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
17. banning it would create pressure to replace existing playground eqpt
sure it's phasing out, but existing playground equipment is loaded with the stuff. if it was officially banned, the manufacturers would probably be sued for selling a dangerous product, and at the very least would probably have to replace the old cancer-causing products they foisted on the public.

read this statement from an industry spokesperson quoted in the article:
``...
But the wood industry cited Tuesday's commission decision as proof that their products are not dangerous.

"If these commissioners were really concerned that this was a safety problem, it wouldn't be an unanimous vote here," said Jim Hale, executive director of the Wood Preservative Science Council, an industry-funded research group. "This product has been around more than 70 years and there's not any disease associated with recreational exposure."
...''



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. See, this is the part that's interesting to me
"CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton said his agency and the EPA are studying ways of coating existing wood structures to seal in the arsenic. Because it will take some time to see if the sealants work, he said any solution to the problem of existing structures with the pesticide is still two years away. "

Does this sound like a job for Dupont, or any other Bush contributor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
15. 2 EPA reports read the second the March 24, 2003

http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=1253
EPA Report: Lumber Industry to Stop Pesticide Use on Wood

February 13, 2002

EPA Administrator Christie Whitman today announced a voluntary decision by industry to move consumer use of treated lumber products away from a variety of pressure-treated wood that contains arsenic by Dec. 31, 2003, in favor of new alternative wood preservatives. This transition affects virtually all residential uses of wood treated with chromated copper arsenate, also known as CCA, including wood used in play-structures, decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios and walkways/boardwalks. By Jan. 2004, EPA will not allow CCA products for any of these residential uses.

"This action will result in a reduction of virtually all residential uses of CCA-treated wood within less than two years," said EPA Administrator Christie Whitman. "Today's announcement greatly accelerates the transition to new alternatives, responding to market place demands for wood products that do not contain CCA. This transition will substantially reduce the time it could have taken to go through the traditional regulatory process."

"This is a responsible action by the industry," Whitman continued. "Today's action will ensure that future exposures to arsenic are minimized in residential settings. The companies deserve credit for coming forward in a voluntary way to undergo a conversion and retooling of their plants as quickly as possible. The transition to new alternatives will provide consumers with greater choice for their building needs."

The transition period will provide consumers with increasingly more non-CCA treated wood alternatives as the industry undergoes conversion and retooling of their industrial equipment and practices, while also allowing adequate time to convert treatment plants with minimal economic disruption for the industry's employees. Beginning immediately, and over the next 22 months, wood treatment plants will convert to new alternative wood preservatives that do not contain arsenic. In the current year, manufacturers expect a decline in production of CCA products for affected residential uses up to 25 percent, with a corresponding shift to alternatives. During 2003, the companies expect the transition away from CCA to continue and increase, with a decline in production of CCA products for affected residential uses up to 70 percent, with a corresponding shift to alternatives. New labeling will be required on all CCA products, specifying that no use of CCA will be allowed by the wood-treating industry for the affected residential uses after Dec. 31, 2003.

EPA has not concluded that CCA-treated wood poses unreasonable risks to the public for existing CCA-treated wood being used around or near their homes or from wood that remains available in stores. EPA does not believe there is any reason to remove or replace CCA-treated structures, including decks or playground equipment. EPA is not recommending that existing structures or surrounding soils be removed or replaced.

While available data are very limited, some studies suggest that applying certain penetrating coatings (e.g., oil-based semi-transparent stains) on a regular basis (one re-application per year or every other year depending upon wear and weathering) may reduce the migration of wood preservative chemicals from CCA-treated wood.

Arsenic is a known human carcinogen and, thus, the Agency believes that any reduction in the levels of potential exposure to arsenic is desirable. As always, when children play outside, whether around CCA-treated play structures or not, they should wash their hands prior to eating. Also, food should not be placed directly on any outside surface, including treated wood. CCA-treated wood should never be burned, as toxic chemicals may be released as part of the smoke and ashes. Consumers who work with CCA-treated wood are encouraged to use common sense in order to reduce any potential exposure to chemicals in the wood. Specific actions include sawing, sanding and machining CCA-treated wood outdoors, and wearing a dust mask, goggles and gloves when performing this type of activity. Clean up all sawdust, scraps and other construction debris thoroughly and dispose of it in the trash (i.e., municipal solid waste). Do not compost or mulch sawdust or remnants from CCA-treated wood. Those working with the wood should wash all exposed areas of their bodies thoroughly with soap and water before eating, drinking or using tobacco products. Work clothes should be washed separately from other household clothing before wearing them again.

Chromated copper arsenate, or CCA, is a chemical compound mixture containing inorganic arsenic, copper and chromium that has been used for wood preservative uses since the 1940s. CCA is injected into wood by a process that uses high pressure to saturate wood products with the chemicals. CCA is intended to protect wood from dry rot, fungi, molds, termites, and other pests that can threaten the integrity of wood products.

During the past several months, CCA-treated wood has been the subject of an EPA evaluation under provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which direct EPA to periodically reevaluate older pesticides to ensure that they meet current safety standards. The Agency is continuing to proceed with a risk assessment. EPA is also continuing to evaluate public comments and input from an external scientific review panel on methodologies to perform a risk assessment for residential settings and potential exposure to children from CCA.


Now read what the EPA says 1 year later!
(after Christer Todd Whitman resigns as head of the EPA)

http://www.injuryboard.com/view.cfm/Article=2911
EPA Report: EPA Finalizes Voluntary Cancellation Of Virtually All Residential Uses Of CCA-Treated Wood

March 24, 2003

On March 17, EPA granted the voluntary cancellation and use termination requests affecting virtually all residential uses of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) treated wood. Under this action, affected CCA products cannot be used after Dec. 30, 2003 to treat lumber intended for use in most residential settings. This transition affects virtually all residential uses of wood treated with CCA, including play structures, decks, picnic tables, landscaping timbers, residential fencing, patios and walkways/boardwalks. This action was proposed in February 2002 by the registrants of CCA-pesticide products used to treat wood.

Phase-out of the residential uses will reduce the potential exposure risks to arsenic, a known human carcinogen, thereby protecting human health, especially children's health and the environment. The current action follows up on the February 2002 publication of a notice of receipt of voluntary cancellation/use termination requests, which also provided an opportunity for public comments to be submitted to EPA. A notice of the cancellation order will be published shortly in the Federal Register, and that document will include the Agency's response to comments. Consumers may continue to buy and use the treated CCA wood for as long as it is available. The transition to using the new generation treatment products is well underway.

The Agency is deferring any action on two uses involved in the termination requests, therefore wood used in permanent wood foundations and fence posts for agricultural uses may continue to be treated with CCA at this time. EPA is working with the registrant community and other stakeholders to ensure that safer, comparable alternatives will be available. EPA is continuing its work on an ongoing comprehensive reevaluation of CCA-treated wood that has been underway as part of the Agency's effort to reevaluate older pesticides to ensure that they meet current health and safety standards.




Testimony before the Consumer Product Safety Commission
CCA Ban Petition HP01-3
Jane Houlihan
Vice President for Research
Environmental Working Group
Washington DC
March 17, 2003

I appreciate the extended time and the opportunity to present our viewpoints here.
My name is Jane Houlihan, and I am the Vice President for Research at the Environmental Working Group. EWG is a non-profit environmental research and advocacy organization with offices in Washington DC and Oakland, California. We are entirely foundation funded, we have no members, and we accept no industry or government money.

In May 2001 the Environmental Working Group and Healthy Building Network petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban the use of CCA-treated wood in playground equipment, because the research available at the time showed that arsenic was a potent carcinogen, that arsenic is present at significant concentrations on CCA-treated wood and in underlying soil, and that the health risks posed by this wood are greater than previously recognized.

Since we submitted our petition, new studies show that children who regularly contact CCA-treated wood face an even greater cancer risk than previously believed. These important studies were not used by CPSC in developing the risk estimates before you today. In light of this new information, we believe CPSC has substantially underestimated the cancer risk associated with CCA-treated wood.

Given the magnitude of risk, we disagree with CPSC's recommendation to defer action on this petition. Using authority under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, we recommend that CPSC immediately ban the use of CCA-treated wood in new playsets, a use that EPA estimates could continue for at least another year unless CPSC acts. We also recommend that CPSC immediately recall playsets on public playgrounds, and that using their authority under the Consumer Product Safety Act, Section 15(d)(3), CPSC require the treated wood industry to directly refund consumers who have purchased CCA-treated wood playsets.

EPA's New Assessment of Enhanced Potency of Carcinogens in Early Life. On March 3 2003 the EPA released cancer risk assessment guidelines showing that carcinogens are more potent in early life exposures. Through its review of 23 peer-reviewed studies of cancer incidence from the past 50 years, EPA has determined that infants up to age two are, on average, ten times more vulnerable to carcinogenic chemicals than adults, and for some cancer-causing agents are up to 65 times more vulnerable. The Agency also found that children from age two to 15 are three times more vulnerable to carcinogens than adults.
In developing these potency factors the Agency cites as key evidence a new National Cancer Institute study of cancer incidence from early life exposures to arsenic in lab animals (Waalkes et al. 2003). Under its new guidelines, the Agency will require its staff to incorporate these potency factors when assessing early life exposures to chemicals that cause genetic damage. These factors are not safety or uncertainty factors, rather they are based on a review of the literature that showed that 82% of mutagens were more carcinogenic when exposure occurred earlier in life and the median increased potency of mutagens was 10. CPSC has not taken this new information into account in its risk assessment, resulting in an underestimate of risk by a factor of about four.

National Cancer Institute study shows early life susceptibility cancers caused by arsenic, and supports a linear model for cancer risk. A 2003 study conducted by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NCI-NIEHS) found that a brief 10-day drinking water exposure to arsenic in utero at 42.5 and 85 parts per million (ppm) caused dramatic increases of malignant, benign and precancerous lesions at multiple sites in the mice in later life. Tumors sites included the lung, liver, adrenal gland and ovary. In addition, arsenic caused proliferative lesions to develop in the uterus and oviduct. Some of the tumor sites, such as lung and liver, overlap with known human arsenic target organs. Moreover, arsenic significantly increased the incidence of developing any type of tumor, including malignant tumors, which is also consistent with the human epidemiology findings.

Waalkes et al. suggest that arsenic is acting at the first stage of carcinogenesis as a tumor initiator, or mutagen, because arsenic dramatically increased tumor incidence at multiple sites following a 10-day exposure early in life. The short-term exposure argues against arsenic acting as a tumor promoter, which generally requires long-term exposure and shows reversibility of action when exposure stops. The early in life exposure argues against arsenic acting as a tumor progressor because tumor progressors typically act on cells that have already been neoplastically transformed, and progression, as a stage of carcinogenesis, is typically associated with concurrent existence of benign or malignant neoplasms. In summary, this new study supports prior decisions by various government agencies to assume that arsenic's mechanism of carcinogenicity produces a linear response.

New data show high and persistent arsenic residue levels on hundreds of wood structures. Since November 2001, consumers across the country have tested 598 playsets, picnic tables, decks, and treehouses across the country, and in some cases the arsenic-contaminated soil beneath them, through an at-cost testing kit sold through EWG's website, www.ewg.org. The samples are analyzed by the University of North Carolina - Asheville's Environmental Quality Institute. The sampling method is analogous to methods used by various government agencies in conducting residue sampling, and is included in this testimony as Attachment A.

The results of the consumer testing program show:
• Arsenic residue levels on 295 playsets ranged from 0 to 960 micrograms on an area the size of a four-year-old's handprint (100 cm2), with a median value of 8.3 ug/100cm2.
• Arsenic residue levels on 598 wood structures, including playsets, picnic tables, decks, and treehouses ranged from 0 to 2813 ug/100cm2, with a median value of 9.0 ug/100cm2. On ten structures the residue level exceeded 500 ug/100cm2.
• Older decks and playsets (seven to 15 years old) expose people to just as much arsenic on the wood surface as newer structures (less than one year old). The amount of arsenic that testers wiped off a small area of wood about the size of a four-year-old's handprint (100 square centimeters) typically far exceeds what EPA allows in a glass of water under the Safe Drinking Water Act standard (EWG 2002).
• Commercial deck sealants provide no long-term reduction in arsenic levels on the surface of arsenic-treated wood. Sealants appear to reduce arsenic levels for about six months, but surface arsenic levels on wood sealed more than six months ago are statistically indistinguishable from levels on wood that has never been sealed. Just after application, sealants begin to wear off through physical abrasion and weathering. The highest arsenic level measured from 300 samples, 1053 micrograms on a 100 cm2 wood surface, was found on a Houston, Texas structure sealed two years prior to testing.

These data show that CPSC has severely underestimated risk to some children, by not considering in their assessment the wide range of residue levels found on various structures. The data also point to the importance of CPSC giving the public comprehensive recommendations on mitigating risk from existing wood structures, including frequent sealing.

New study from EPA shows children put their hands in their mouths far more often than previously believed. Scientists from EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory compiled statistics on detailed observations of mouthing behavior among more than 300 children, and found that children put their hands in their mouths at nearly twice the rate previously believed - on average 16 times per hour for children over 2 years old, and 18 times per hour for children less than 2 years old. The study recorded hand-to-mouth behavior a maximum of 48 times per hour. Also of note in this study are two frequent behaviors that could dominate risk but are not included in CPSC's risk assessment: mouthing of playset surfaces (mean of 4 to 7 times an hour for the children studied), and mouthing of toys stored beneath playsets (such as sandbox toys), a behavior observed on average between 42 and 56 times an hour. This study is included as Attachment C.

New risk assessment from California shows the average residue on a hand-sized area of CCA-treated wood structure is 2000 times higher than safe levels (defined as a 1 in 1,000,000 cancer risk). On March 7 2003, California's branch of the EPA released new arsenic risk assessments that show a dramatically lower "safe" level for arsenic in drinking water than US EPA's new standard, setting their public health goal for arsenic at 0.004 micrograms per day (4 parts per trillion in water), 2500 times lower than EPA's new standard of 10 parts per billion, and 2000 times the average arsenic residue level on 100 cm2 of wood. California's risk assessment adds to the growing number of public health agencies that have confirmed the cancer-causing potential of very low doses of arsenic.

Risk assessment incorporating new findings shows average excess lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 500 for children who play on CCA-treated wood three times a week. In 2001 EWG constructed a risk assessment model incorporating Monte Carlo techniques that account for variability in arsenic residue levels, behavior patterns, and size of a child, and that compute the spectrum of risk across the population. We presented this model to the EPA's Scientific Advisory Panel in October 2001. The Panel recommended that EPA adopt this modeling technique in their assessment of risk from CCA wood, and the Agency is moving forward with a Monte Carlo style assessment. EWG's model methodology is attached as Attachment D. When we incorporate findings from the new studies described above, the model shows:
One in 500 children who play on CCA-treated playsets three times a week are expected to develop cancer from these exposures.
Ten percent of children who regularly play on CCA-treated playsets face an excess lifetime cancer risk greater than one in 100.

Conclusion and Recommendations. CCA in existing play structures is a public health problem very similar in magnitude and certainty to lead paint. Both present significant health risks that last long after regulatory action banning their sale and use. Both have been found to pose a greater health risk than believed when they were first sold. Both disproportionately affect children. In each case the regulated industries fought remedial action after the ban, and in each case, failing to take this remedial action would have very nearly completely undermined the effectiveness of the ban. Imagine the unnecessary harm to children that would have occurred had their been no remedial action to reduce lead exposures after the ban on lead in paint. The same level of harm will result from a failure on the part of commissioners to force remedial action to recall CCA-treated play structures on playgrounds.

We recommend that:
CPSC immediately ban the use of CCA-treated wood for new playsets.
CPSC immediately recall all play structures on public playgrounds, because these facilities clearly present the greatest long-term risk to children because of their long life and heavy use.
Using authority under the Consumer Product Safety Act, Section 15(d)(3), CPSC require the treated wood industry to directly refund consumers who have purchased CCA-treated wood playsets.
CPSC work with EPA to expedite studies of the effectiveness of sealants, and launch an aggressive consumer education campaign designed to teach people how to mitigate risk from CCA-treated playsets and other structures.

References
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Public Health Goal for Arsenic in Drinking Water. Draft. March 2003. Available online at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/press/AsPress.html
Consumer Product Safety Commission. 2003. Briefing Package. Petition to ban chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood in playground equipment (Petition HP 01-3). February 2003.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Cancer Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens (External Review Draft). USEPA EPA/630/R-03/003. 28 Feb 2003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 86 p. Available online at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=55446.
Tulve NS, JC Suggs, T McCurdy, EA Cohen Hubal, J Moya. 2002. Frequency of mouthing behavior in young children. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 12, 259-264.
Waalkes MP, JM Ward, J Liu, BA Diwan. 2003. Transplacental carcinogenicity of inorganic arsenic in the drinking water: induction of hepatic, ovarian, pulmonary, and adrenal tumors in mice. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 186, 7-17.

Attachments
Attachment A. EWG's Sampling Instructions, Home Testing Kit for Arsenic Treated Wood.
Attachment B. Waalkes MP, JM Ward, J Liu, BA Diwan. 2003. Transplacental carcinogenicity of inorganic arsenic in the drinking water: induction of hepatic, ovarian, pulmonary, and adrenal tumors in mice. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 186, 7-17.
Attachment C. Tulve NS, JC Suggs, T McCurdy, EA Cohen Hubal, J Moya. 2002. Frequency of mouthing behavior in young children. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. 12, 259-264.
Attachment D. Model Methodology. Cancer Risks from Children's Exposures to Arsenic-Treated Wood: Methodology for Monte Carlo Style Risk Analysis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. Fuckers want our kids sick
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. Bingo!
What will it take for Americans to realize that the BFEE DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT whether you're blown to bits or die a long-suffering painful death? The PNAC GOAL is to "reduce the excess population." GET WITH THE POGROM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
26. Thanks to ElsewheresDaughter - I did some googling
Here's an interesting article dated Aug o4, 2003, about the most current I could find

However, this article actually supplies NAMES of companies and distributors that handle "safe" wood

Suppliers are slow to switch from CCA



/snip/

Universal Forest Products, the nation's leading manufacturer and distributor of wood and wood-alternative products, for example, has begun converting some of its treating facilities from CCA to ACQ, a copper-based preservative considered less environmentally toxic, according to Scott Conklin, the company's vice president for wood preservation.

/snip/

EnviroSafe Plus:
A recent and local addition to the environmentally friendly pressure-treated wood product list, EnviroSafe Plus technology uses borate, an inorganic element harmless to humans, to ward off insects and pests. Silicate, a non-toxic glass-like mineral, provides an added defense against the rigors of outdoor environments.

EnviroSafe Plus wood is manufactured and marketed by EnviroSafe Wood Treatment Products of Altamonte Springs. For more information, visit the company's Web site at www.eswoodtreatment.com.

/snip/

Well,, at least SOME suppliers care !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damnraddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
27. A ban not needed because the industry is dropping the practice?
What nonsense! How about this: the needed ban would have no economic downside if the industry is already moving to comply with it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-04-03 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
28. I built three raised beds in my garden
using this stuff. :silly: :crazy: :spank:

I was horrified when I found out I could be eating arsenic laced broccoli! I use them for flowers now. Doesn't seem to affect the garden pests too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diamond14 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-05-03 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
33. bush* has destroyed the EPA and demolished all environmental
regulations....totally....if a Democrat can take the Presidency...it will still be years to remedy the damage caused by bush* and many will lose their lives from the environmental horrors....

air, water, soils, sewage treatment...bush* has demolished everything....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-05-03 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
34. Alternative to wood decking - Trex
I used own stock in this stuff coz I thought it
was a great alternative to chopping down trees...

http://www.trex.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-05-03 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Or gee, how 'bout that old fashioned stuff, "untreated" wood ?
. . ya - I know, - it doesn't last as long, but hmm - do you want your deck to outlive you or you children'w health ?

small price to pay if you have to replace the deck in 15 years instead of thirty I'd say

Jus a dumm Canuk thot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
realFedUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-05-03 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. this administration doesn't care about your health
or well-being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 05:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC