Tax dollars put into materials that quickly rot out?
Dear Barbados Free Press,
Check this one out for yourself. I’m looking at The Nation article “Schools on target for September“ with a photo titled “An elevated view of the Blackman-Gollop Primary School, showing a part of the inner courtyard.”
The article starts “THE TWO SCHOOLS currently under a multimillion-dollar education sector enhancement programme will be ready for class come September.”
We’re spending millions of dollars and I think I see much of the construction being done using cheap ordinary, non-pressure treated pine. I see a few pieces of pressure-treated wood but that emphasizes that the majority of the wood is ordinary. It looks that way to me.
Surely this is not what was specified? There is something wrong here if it is untreated pine and untreated plywood I see in the photo!
Fools might use this unsuitable wood for home projects, but surely the people who handle the construction of our schools, specify the materials and determine the use of our tax dollars are not fools?
Penny wise and pound foolish?
This is Barbados: untreated wood has only a fraction of the life-expectancy of pressure-treated commercial-use products. Are we pennywise and pound foolish?
I know very little about the construction or architectural industries. Surely architect Laura McClean of Gillespie & Steel who is interviewed in the newspaper wouldn’t approve of untreated ordinary pine in her Barbados projects? Would someone who knows about these things please reassure me that what I see in the photo is proper and that our tax dollars aren’t being put into materials that are destined to quickly rot out?
Barbados Free Press 
He can tell it’s untreated by looking at the photo?
There is nothing wrong with untreated lumber.
Don’t let anyone fool you
BFP Are you thinking they should be using (more expensive) Greenheart?
Barbados is broke and can afford to buy only what it can afford!
Not necessarily what might be best,
we are not Trinidad with oodles of Oil-Bux!
Take a look at the two workers in the picture “see any safety arresting equipment”, oh yes I forgot medicals FREE on the island.
You can tell a lot by looking at the photo! I suppose the answer will be that the timber was treated with a colorless preservative applied under pressure …. or brushed on, so all is well. Government is notoriously lax in maintaining its physical plant and for this reason only the best quality materials should be used in construction
I am postle so what I know. Buy treated more expensive. So buy untreated, wait till the first signs of the termite attack; call in my buddy who is my friend and he gee he the contract. Tell he pelt in a few grand for my efforts and wallah. We buy cheap but still get we cash large
Yes you can usually tell by looking, as most treated lumber has a greenish or dark brown cast to it.
However, in the photo provided, the material is being used in a roof, and therefore not coming into direct contact with the ground. Termites cannot survive exposure to sunlight, and must build “trails” to travel in when coming to the surface.
ASSUMING the foundation has been treated for termites, it is unlikely that those timbers will be affected by termites. So it is quite possible that the architect did spec that material.
NB. I am not an architect, carpenter, chemist, or contractor.
In addition.
There is a clear treatment (borate) which can be used for timbers which are not exposed to the elements, as Borate is water soluble and easily leeches out of the timber should it become wet.
NB. Clear treated lumber is usually more expensive than the other treatments.