5 ms·
The article is credited "by Georgia Institute of Technology", so it is a press release. This is just early research, but presumably the problems of toxicity are
by bitslayer 7y ago
The article is credited "by Georgia Institute of Technology", so it is a press release. This is just early research, but presumably the problems of toxicity are what inspired the study in the first place. But, they can't make any claims yet, because lawyers. And cost would be a huge factor, unless regulation were involved. There is a potential public good in reducing toxins in the environment. But what about their idea of using it for framing lumber? Nobody uses pressure treated for framing today, do they? It would help insulate, they say, but there's no way that would make any sense unless the cost were much lower than today's treated lumber, which... well it's just an early research project.
- sidewndr46 7y agoThe thing about toxins in treated lumber, it isn't a bug in the product. It is actually the feature. Treated lumber is just as porous and traps water like any other lumber. It has so much copper compounds trapped in it that almost nothing can ever break it down. If you bury treated lumber in the ground you will find it sterilizes a small layer of soil around it. This is why it is so effective. Anything trying to reduce the toxicity of treated lumber by swapping on a coating runs into the same problem as traditional methods like painting the lumber: a single tiny hole in the coating allows the entire piece of lumber to be compromised.