??Treated Lumber for Outdoor Furniture??
Quickstep
| Posted in General Discussion on
I’m planning to make some picnic tables for my community. I generally build furniture for indoors, so making furniture withstand the elements is sort of new to me. For reasons of cost and durability, my first inclination was to use pressure treated, but people have told me that it is so prone to warping, checking and cupping that it would be a bad choice. I was planning to make the tables out of 2 x 6 and 2 x 8 lumber. I thought lumber of that size would be fairly stable. Any opinions on this are really appreciated. I intend the tables to be big, bulky and durable. Nothing fancy. Also, based on local pricing, materials like cedar or teak blow my budget.
Replies
Chuck,
I can't comment an any stability issues with preasure treated wood but will give my reasons for not using it.
Can you use red wood without blowing your budget?
Will
I would suggest ipe - sometimes called ironwood. Where I am in Baltimore it is being imported for use for outside decks. I made a nice table and bench with it. Incredibly heavy, dense material. And quite inexpensive. (no comment on use of wood from central/south america).
Really excellent outdoor material.
Regards, Tom
Who would want to set on furniture made of pressure treated pine, or who would want to eat off such a table. YUK! It warps badly cause they use boards from relatively small timber so the boards are close to the center (small growth rings).
PlaneWood by Mike_in_Katy
PlaneWood
Can you find black locust? It is a great outdoor wood and never rots. It looks nice. It splinters a little, but otherwise is nice.I believe it stains well too. The off cuts arewondeful to burn.
Frank
Chuck,
I've built several picnic tables of PT 2x material over the years and have not had any significant problems with cupping, warping or checking. I couldn't address the issue of eating off a PT picnic table, since I make a habit of using a plate (ha, ha).
BCK
I believe that the cemicals used to pressure treat wood have proven to be a carcinogenic. I would NOT use it at all. It has been proven to cause health problems at playgrounds. It leaches into the ground.
I am no expert on this. I suggest that you look further into this before using it.
Mike
Mike, you are absolutely correct. I guess arsenic is a bit of a hazard. As a matter of fact, the curren method of treating wood has been banned and is being replaced by a new process. There were a few posts about this in the past. Anywho, if it is not in contact with the ground, you don't need it.
Steve - in Northern California
If the doctor says you have Attention Deficit Disorder, do you pay attention to him?
First, let me say that I'm a tree hugging environmentalist.
Now, CCA. I thought the article I read indicated that industry groups were voluntarily removing this product from the market, not that it had been banned. Please let me know if you know otherwise.
I'd be interested to know exactly where it has been "proven" that CCA is a serious hazard to human health or the environment. Please give me the works; author, publication, . . . The research I've read points in the opposite direction. Take a look at the USDA FPL reference list for some info on this.
There have been a few posts with links to articles concerning the use of CCA. To the best of my knowledge, manufacturers are begining to move away from it now and offering an alternative. I can't remember what the name of the alternative is off hand. The reason that it is being banned is because it leaches out of the wood it is applied to. Again, I don't have the facts on the harm it causes. If I get time, I add another post with more factual information or links to sites.
Steve - in Northern California
If the doctor says you have Attention Deficit Disorder, do you pay attention to him?
bck is correct; it is a voluntary recall. And it only affects residential and consumer products. Industrial and commercial products using CCA will still be manufactured after the December 31, 2003 deadline. The alternatives are ACQ and CBA, which of course, are more expensive. (from Engineering News Record, February 25, 2002).
Here's an excerpt from a report by some experts. The report is from the USDA ForestProducts Laboratory and is titled Assessment of the Environmental Effects Associated with Wooden Bridges Preserved with Creosote, Pentachlorophenol, or Chromated Copper Aresenate. Here's an excerpt from their conclusions:
"This study was designed to assess the environmental risks associated with timber bridges selected to represent the worst case conditions. In each case, preservative was lost from the bridges and could be detected in sediments but not in the water column. Sediment levels of
contaminants were moderately high for the newer creosote-treated bridge and below TEL's for all other bridges. No adverse biological effects were observed in either the invertebrate community or in laboratory bioassays at any of these bridges.
These results suggest that there are minimal environmental risks associated with preservatives lost from timber bridges. . . ."
Clearly not the same as a playground. But, . . ., we have enough really serious, really scary environmental problems that we should focus on them first. I'm no expert and haven't read more than this one report, but I must wonder if this isn't more of a phsycological fear thing rather than a real problem.
O.K. Here's the link to the EPA. This spells it out very clearly. I can see where it may raise some eye brows but it appears to be purely a precautionary move to avoid future lawsuits.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/citizens/1file.htm
Steve - in Northern California
If the doctor says you have Attention Deficit Disorder, do you pay attention to him?
Steve,
Thanks for the link. Got to dig through the facts before you can understand what's going on in any argument. A quick skim of the SAP report (and they tried to tell us this stood for "Scientific Advisory Panel"; yah right) seemed to indicate that they just don't know. No solid evidence one way or another for playground exposure. Thanks again for doing the legwork for me.
BCK
A lot of pressure treated timber is used here. Primarily because the plantation grown Radiata Pine has very low rot resistence and there are few natural alternatives.
I went to the timber yard once for some pressure treated posts for a deck. I asked for straight dry ones. I was told ' you can have straight and wet, or bent and dry, ya cant have both'.
That pretty much summed up how the stuff behaves here.
I use macrocarpa for outdoor furniture as it is naturally rot resistent and looks good. you might know it as Monterey cypress. there are some rain forest timbers that work too, but I have a problem with using those simply because of where they come from. You could maybe use a cedar?
Wood Hoon
Try redwood (soft and brittle), teak (very good, very expensive), or cypress (if you can get it). Treated wood just isn't a good idea for furniture.
The California legislature is considering, and will enact, I think, bills to prohibit contact uses of arsenical treated wood such as wood treated with chormated copper asenate etc (in spite of the money donated by treated wood interests!). You don't want to use creosote for obvious reasons - like aunt mary sticking to the bench! Pentachlorophenol or copper napthenate is great if you like carcinomas! Not the usual picnic treat!
Seriously, treated wood is good for docks, fence posts, and mud sills. You don't want to handle it, you don't want to cut and sand it, and you don't want to be around smoke (like from my pitched up blade).
There's plenty of reasons to not use treated wood and I avoid it unless the wood is going to be in contact with the ground, but I don't think we have to be all that scared of it.
What the California legislature does, says or thinks shouldn't influence anyone to the right of california or on top of it as I don't think they have a great track record of using good logic, kinda wacko ya know :)
Will
Edited 3/30/2002 11:26:22 PM ET by Will O'Brien
I'm kinda stirrin' the pot here, goin' off on a tandem, as it were. But we are worried about a bit of arsenic on the bench we sit on and we feed arsenic to our chickens. Now the chickens don't use their food very efficiently, so then we feed the chicken sh.. 'scuse me, the chicken litter to beef cattle. It's all OK if this scintilating menu is withdrawn 15 days before slaughter. In all fairness, laboratory tests conducted by the approving authorities report no arsenic residues in the meat of the chickens or the beeves if the appropriate withdrawal protocols are observed.
I'm not just making this up, you know. Honest. It was hashed over by the gardeners in Sprout Off a while back. Rosebud did the research and cited the cogent documents.
Gardening, cooking and woodworking in Southern Maryland
OK. Here's a report from the real world. I live near Orlando, FL where cedar, redwood, cypress, pine and nearly anything that isn't concrete, plastic or ipe will either rot in place within a couple of summer months or attract and feed subterranean termites in less than 6 weeks. CCA has been the treated lumber of choice for builders and homeowners both above and below ground since WWII. Fresh and salt water docks and boathouses standing on CCA timbers abound. I have a 1,000 sq ft backyard deck out of treated lumber that was built nearly twenty years ago, and only now is it showing any rot (at some of the cut ends). There are a number of benches throughout my back yard, all of CCA treated #2 pine, built at the same time as the deck, and they are holding up like the deck. In addition, there is a six-foot "picnic" table with matching benches plus other deck furniture -- all treated. We've had many family events using the deck and its furniture over the years and never had a health problem related to it, and most of us have had at least several blood workups. The downside is that it isn't attractive, doesn't hold finish well, requires occasional applications of bleach to keep down the fungus, is somewhat nasty to work with, is only available in lesser grades -- BUT, we ain't dead yet and there's no decline in any of the biological forms I've been able to observe in 36 years of living here. Sure, if there were better alternatives I would choose them, but in the meantime I hear a lot of voices in the wilderness who don't have to live in the real world I do.
Interesting....
Just noticed the other night, at Home Depot, that they will not cut any pressure treated wood.
Personally, if forced to make a choice, I'd rather use "plastic" wood than work on and eat off of, pressure treated wood. Ugly, nasty stuff.
Cedar, cypress, redwood come to mind. Teak is durable, but not very attractive when it weathers.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
ChuckT - how about Cypress? It machines well and looks great. Last time I checked it was about $2.50 / bd. ft.
You might check with your local supplier for #1common white oak-
white oak is a very good outdoor wood because of the tanin acid
content - keep the bugs and insects away. You can coat the bottoms
of your project with a two part epxoy to keep the water damage
to a min.
You won't get the wide boards and will have to glue up for the
tops and seats. Total up the board footage for the entire project
and it may suprise you - I live and work in Central Texas and
buy #1 common white oak for around $1.50 per BF for 4/4 random
width and lenght. Add $0.20 a BF for s2s skin passed or to 13/16".
The reason for the treated materials reaction is that it comes
WET and I mean very wet, so as it dries it starts moving and keeps
on moving. As the board dries the end checking starts and then
splits the lenght of the board.
Just a thought....
Robert
Chuck,
In the latest issue of Woodworkers Journal there is a short discusion about wood Warning from the EPA Part of goes like this:
"According to the terms of agreement reached with the Evironmental Protection Agency (EPA) this February, Amrican manufacturers will no longer be using arsenic treated wood for decks and playgrounds by the end of next year. The transition affects virtually all residential uses of wood treated with cromated copper arsenate, known as CCA. While the EPA claims they have not concluded there is unreasonable risk to the public from these products, they do believe that "any reduction in exposure toarsenic is desirable."
The EPA offers a list of guidlines at their site http://www.eps.gov/pesticides/citizens/cca_transition.htm
Which include do's and don'ts.
Hope this helps. Will copy the article for you if you want and e-mail it to you.
Terry
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled