Arsenic Poisoning a concern.. The other side of the story.
I recently brought a story to you entitled "Arsenic Poisoning a Concern on Australian Playgrounds". The article started like this_ THE state is still riddled with playgrounds containing timber play equipment laced with arsenic, three years after the federal regulatory body found its safety could not be assured, particularly for young children.Such is the concern about copper chrome arsenate-treated timber that the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority banned its use in new playgrounds and picnic areas from March last year, prompting a costly rush by local councils to remove old equipment.
It has always been my experience that there are 2 (or more) sides to EVERY story, and sensationalism sells newspapers. It is my pleasure to bring you the other side of this story, as brought to my attention by Mr. Peter Carruthers.
Referencing "Arsenic Poisoning a Concern on Australian Playgrounds", Peter Carruthers Of Koppers Arch offers the following response.
The articles above contains a number of innaccuracies (probably too many to detail here) regarding treated wood.
The APVMA did not say that CCA treated wood is directly shown to be linked to cancer in children or anyone else. They did say that there was insufficient evidence and scientific information available to be sufficiently assured of the safety of CCA treated wood, particularly in the case of children as follows from the review report executive summary;
"As a result, the APVMA could not resolve the concerns raised in new overseas and Australian information. It could not determine, for Australian conditions, whether or not exposure to CCA treated timber posed an unacceptable public health risk for some specified uses. Consequently it is not satisfied that there is no undue risk from the continuing use of products containing CCA to treat timber that is used in the manufacture of equipment and structures with which the public, particularly children, are likely to come into frequent and intimate contact."
On the other hand the did not say that there was significant direct evidence of undue risk either. Quoting from section 3 of the toxicology report;
"However, based on a consideration of the exposure to CCA-treatment timber products, in particular children's play equipment, there was no compelling evidence from the available data to conclude that there was likely to be an unacceptable risk to public health from exposure to arsenic from CCA-treated timber. Based on this finding, there would not seem to be any good justification for taking immediate action to remove existing CCA-treated playground structures."
I am sure you can appreciate that these statements (and many other similar statements in their review reports) do not constitute a proof of harm potential as reason for the restriction.
During the lengthy review process in which the timber industry consulted extensively with the APVMA, they referred to the “precautionary principle”, which in this case meant in the absence of definitive information either way and since economic alternatives to CCA for the designated products were available and the with the model of recent overseas practice, the restriction was implemented with the broad industry support and cooperation (including from importers of product not subject to direct authority of the APVMA). The APVMA were satisfied that with other reforms contained in the review findings, CCA treated wood products are safe for general structural and low human contact applications as indicated from the following extract from the executive summary;
"However, there is no evidence to justify stopping the use of CCA chemical products to treat timber for materials such as telegraph poles, fence posts, fence palings or other structural timbers, where frequent contact is unlikely. For these uses, the level of exposure, and consequently risk, is considered to be low."
Like other overseas regulators, the APVMA has not recommended the dismantling of existing CCA treated wood structures even though of course a number of other authorities and jurisdictions have elected to do so in their own cases. I agree with Professor Wayne Smith and the Department of Education, the risk to children’s health posed by existing structures is low and there are higher priorities. For example, if it cost $5,000 to replace a treated wood play set in a school, or use the same money to improve road safety outside the same school, I know where the money would be better spent – improving road safety of course which would have a guaranteed benefit in terms of improving children’s safety. Also I think your assertion that Professor Smith’s position is in disagreement with the APVMA is incorrect. I would put it that Professor Smith is correctly interpreting the APVMA’s technical report.
You also seem to have been provided with a number of misleading references from Mary Scott, or you have not quoted her correctly. Either way the inferences about leaching, painting and disposal are incorrect. I am also dubious about your reference to and statements by an “APVMA spokesman”. This is not new information. These are the statements that APVMA issued in 2003 when first announcing and establishing the scope of the review and which have been repeated in different versions many times since. I don’t believe that APVMA’s position stands that far apart from the other authorities (who would have been contributors in the original review) except for your apparent attempt to cast them in that light. Who did you actually speak to and when?
In further correspondence Mr Carruthers refers us to the following links for further information.
APVMA for the original documentation.
There is also information available (industry sources) at www.tpaa.com.au and www.ensisjv.com/Portals/0/KinderWeb.pdf (ensis is a CSIRO joint venture research organisation specialising in forest and wood products).
Further to this story, Dr. Harry Greaves, technical committee chairman of the TPAA states the following.
The article contains unnecessary implications about the potential impacts of CCA-treated timber on the public. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) did restrict the use of CCA in new playgrounds and picnic areas from March last year but they did so as a precautionary stance, since they could find no evidence that such timber posed an unacceptable risk to public health. Not only that, but their report made no recommendation to pull down existing treated structures. Also, the enHealth Council, which represents state health bodies, took a similar stance: “Whilst the intentions of (the) APVMA in eliminating a source of environmental contamination are acknowledged, there is no evidence that existing CCA treated timber structures in parks and throughout the community pose a risk to public health, or that replacement or removal of these existing structures is warranted.” This would explain why the NSW Department of Education has not been pulling down its playgrounds containing the treated timber.
It is not true that the timber is “potentially poisonous”. Arsenic is not absorbed through the skin and it does not freely leach out of the wood – if it did there would be widescale rot and white ant attack of timber strictures everywhere! Neither can it cause cancer, as your article claims. No link between CCA treated timber and cancer has ever been established.
It is not true that treated timber (and other timber waste) is burned at landfills. CCA treated timber should only be combusted in approved and licensed industrial facilities with the appropriate pollution control equipment. Your articles also imply that 350,000 tonnes of CCA wood waste is disposed of in landfills in Sydney. This is not the case. A recent study by the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change estimated that only 3,500 tonnes of wood waste audited was found to be treated with CCA.
It is not true that consumers are not warned about the preservative - CCA-treated timber that is produced in accordance with national standards is clearly marked as such and the consumer is advised that it has been treated with copper chrome arsenic.
The timber preservation industry has been broadly supportive of the APVMA regulatory changes, including timber importers who are not directly governed by the APVMA. The industry will continue to provide environmentally safe and fit-for-purpose treated commodities, including CCA and alternative preservatives, to treat timber for a broad range of purposes that are endorsed by the APVMA.
Dr. Harry Greaves
Chairman, Technical Committee
Timber Preservers Association of Australia
I thank Mr. Carruthers and Dr. Greaves for giving us some insight into this issue.
.
It's becoming more obvious every day that we can not protect ourselves from exposure to heavy metals and toxins (herbicides, pesticides, pollution,etc). We need to be more AWARE of our exposures, and we should be removing the heavy metals from or body with a zeolite detox.
Click to learn more about Zeolites. Your health could depend on it.
Answers to Liquid Zeolite Frequently Asked Questions
Order Liquid Zeolite to remove heavy metals. Click on join and pay a one time $29.95 for member's WHOLESALE price.
http://www.DivaMentors.com
The statements above have not been evaluated by the FDA. If you are unwell or taking medication, we recommend you seek the advice of a qualified healthcare practitioner before starting a zeolite program. Liquid zeolite is not a medicine, and is not intended for the treatment/prevention of disease.
