Aaaurgh!
I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
SOB!! Some other states have done thyis already, did you wreckers move
out of those states, or what?
Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
alcohol are examples.
The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
that can last long enough to get that far up in the atmosphere.
Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone? Never!
Where can I sign up against this stupid law!?!?
James
[email protected]
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:35:43 GMT, Ba r r y
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:10:14 -0700, Richard Clements
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> As usual, nobody wins but the oil companies..
>>
>>and how do the oil company's benefit?
>>they don't make the additive
>
>Mileage drops, more fuel is used.
Price goes up 10% for adding alcohol, mileage drops 10% from the less
potent alcohol, fuel sales increase 10% as a result. Who loses? US!
Who wins? Oil companies, on both sides of the equation.
==============================================================
Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord.
http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
==============================================================
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Aaaurgh!
>
>I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
>all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
Before you go off the deep end, ask at a reputable paint or finishing
products dealer. Local news reporters have been known to be wrong.
States have been known to limit who can sell certain products, with
"pro" suppliers able to continue to sell them. Since home centers and
hardware stores fall into the "banned" category, it gets reported in
the mass media as an overall ban.
Other places have gone "low VOC" with often means the addition of "Do
Not Thin" to the label instructions and a thicker product.
The lacquers, dyes, and stains that I like to use are *made* in your
area.
If it is true, there's always mail order. <G>
Barry
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:41:14 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"brocpuffs" writes:
>
>> Aaaurgh!
>>
>> I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
>> all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>
>Welcome to the real world.
>
>If you want something that will really rot your shorts, be a sailor or power
>boater.
>
>"Bottom paint" on a boat is a misnomer. It is not really a paint but rather
>a poisonous coating deigned to keep critters from attaching them selves to
>the bottom of the boat.
>
>Basic problem:
>
>The good bottom paints have been banned.
>
>The replacements are not nearly as good.
>
>Result:
>
>More of the poor performance products are required which ends up adding more
>pollution to the environment than if you had used the good stuff in the
>first place.
>
>Save us from the well intended, but sometimes misguided.
>
>Lew
>
>
>
sort of like the "gas" in Calif....
they add things that are supposed to cut pollution (though they poison
the ground water table) but they make your engine run so poorly that
you need more of it to travel the same distance..
As usual, nobody wins but the oil companies..
>I'll never put something that looks like milk on
my products.
You haven't take the time to look at quality water borne product, have you?
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Battleax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rumpty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > >Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone?
> >
> > Many of us have been using "water borne" finishing products for years
> > because of health concerns (ours) and these products work well if not
> better
> > than solvent based products.
> >
> > It's time to take a step forward.
>
>
>
> Water based clear finishes are horrible (imo). Even high gloss is poor at
> best.
> When my clients see it compared to oil based clear coats
> they always choose the oil. I'll never put something that looks like milk
on
> my products.
> That being said, water based clear coat for floors is acceptable when time
> and smell are a concern.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rumpty
> >
> > Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> >
> > "brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Aaaurgh!
> > >
> > > I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
> > > all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
> > >
> > > SOB!! Some other states have done thyis already, did you wreckers move
> > > out of those states, or what?
> > >
> > > Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
> > > alcohol are examples.
> > >
> > > The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
> > > fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
> > > that can last long enough to get that far up in the atmosphere.
> > >
> > > Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone? Never!
> > >
> > > Where can I sign up against this stupid law!?!?
> > >
> > > James
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
brocpuffs wrote:
> Aaaurgh!
>
> I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
> all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
What station was the report on? There has been no mention of such a ban
on any of the Buffalo, NY TV stations' news reports and nothing in the
local newspaper. I also did a "Google" search and can find nothing.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
Joe Willmann wrote:
...
> Maybe the answer is to ban all cities with a size greater than
> 1,000,000! That will do lots of things! Solve the urban blight
> problem, solve the red/blue state problem. The only places that really
> lean strongly democratic are those huge urban areas.
>
> It would also go a long way toward solving lots of other problem.
>
> If we can legaly re-distribute wealth then why can't we legally re-
> distribute people?
If only redistribute, the we will simply be run over out here...I'm all
for keeping them in their enclaves--in fact, I'd just as soon move some
of ours to there... :) OTOH, a large earthquake or a strategic sinking
of a portion of the NE could do wonders... :)
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> If only redistribute, the we will simply be run over out here...I'm all
> for keeping them in their enclaves--in fact, I'd just as soon move some
> of ours to there... :) OTOH, a large earthquake or a strategic sinking
> of a portion of the NE could do wonders... :)
Which portion of Nebraska do you want to sink?
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
"Australopithecus scobis" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> For the doubters, remember that what may not be a big problem when the
> population was small and dispersed is indeed a big problem when the
> population is large and concentrated. Pack several million people
> together, each releasing a teeny tiny amount of these chemicals, and
> voila, you have a problem.
>
> --
> "Keep your ass behind you"
> vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
>
Goes with the sig line, but millions of people farting produce more
chemicals than a few thousand hobbyist woodfinishers.
Same principle as allowing millions of pollution-spewing automobiles to
drive each day in LA and banning gas lawnmowers?
Think. Industrial use is regulated, personal use <1qt, isn't.
Clear enough?
"GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 07:19:02 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
> >
> >Goes with the sig line, but millions of people farting produce more
> >chemicals than a few thousand hobbyist woodfinishers.
>
> And they are the only ones using "chemicals ?" Or they
> are the ones who are doing something so important that
> they should be exempted ?
Rumpty wrote:
>
>>> I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
>> small puppies, too...
>
> You radical republicans really ought to grow up and stop doing that to old
> folks.
> --
>
> Rumpty
but they make funny sounds as the bounce off the stairs, and don't knock
eating live puppies unless you've tried it!
>
> Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
>> small puppies, too...
>>
mac davis wrote:
>cadditives 09 Dec 2004 00:41:14 GMT, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"brocpuffs" writes:
>>
>>> Aaaurgh!
>>>
>>> I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
>>> all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>>
>>Welcome to the real world.
>>
>>If you want something that will really rot your shorts, be a sailor or
>>power boater.
>>
>>"Bottom paint" on a boat is a misnomer. It is not really a paint but
>>rather a poisonous coating deigned to keep critters from attaching them
>>selves to the bottom of the boat.
>>
>>Basic problem:
>>
>>The good bottom paints have been banned.
>>
>>The replacements are not nearly as good.
>>
>>Result:
>>
>>More of the poor performance products are required which ends up adding
>>more pollution to the environment than if you had used the good stuff in
>>the first place.
>>
>>Save us from the well intended, but sometimes misguided.
>>
>>Lew
>>
>>
>>
> sort of like the "gas" in Calif....
> they add things that are supposed to cut pollution (though they poison
> the ground water table) but they make your engine run so poorly that
> you need more of it to travel the same distance..
>
> As usual, nobody wins but the oil companies..
and how do the oil company's benefit?
they don't make the additive
You obviously don't understand much about gasoline economics. The winner
is - The US! They invest nothing, transport nothing, refine nothing, market
nothing, yet they and the states profit more than anyone else in the chain.
Now let's talk cigarettes....
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Price goes up 10% for adding alcohol, mileage drops 10% from the less
> potent alcohol, fuel sales increase 10% as a result. Who loses? US!
> Who wins? Oil companies, on both sides of the equation.
>
You certainly do love to talk. Of course, it'd be better if you were saying
something meaningful.
When you can come up with anything but crap to show that a twenty minute
weekly stint with a lawnmower pollutes like a four hour/five-day commute,
you let me know, hey?
Then we'll talk about the difference between a quart of solvent finish in
one in fifty houses three times a year versus daily factory use of drums.
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Nova wrote:
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>> If only redistribute, the we will simply be run over out here...I'm all
>> for keeping them in their enclaves--in fact, I'd just as soon move some
>> of ours to there... :) OTOH, a large earthquake or a strategic sinking
>> of a portion of the NE could do wonders... :)
>
> Which portion of Nebraska do you want to sink?
>
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
ALL of it, just let me get buy up a bunch of the Corn commodities here in
ID,
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:16:17 -0500, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>
>What station was the report on? There has been no mention of such a ban
>on any of the Buffalo, NY TV stations' news reports and nothing in the
>local newspaper. I also did a "Google" search and can find nothing.
Hi Jack,
It was broadcast on Rochester WOKR Channel 13 (ABC) on the 6PM news,
maybe a few days ago.
I hope somebody made a mistake. That would sure be egg on Don Alhart's
face, though!
PS I just did a somewhat superficial search on WOKR TV's page and
didn't find anything!?
James
[email protected]
>Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone?
Many of us have been using "water borne" finishing products for years
because of health concerns (ours) and these products work well if not better
than solvent based products.
It's time to take a step forward.
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Aaaurgh!
>
> I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
> all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>
> SOB!! Some other states have done thyis already, did you wreckers move
> out of those states, or what?
>
> Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
> alcohol are examples.
>
> The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
> fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
> that can last long enough to get that far up in the atmosphere.
>
> Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone? Never!
>
> Where can I sign up against this stupid law!?!?
>
> James
> [email protected]
>
>
On 9 Dec 2004 06:22:50 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
>small puppies, too...
... not until the Cabinet finishes rolling over.
"brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Everything has an LD50. Water, too. Does not mean water is toxic
> normally.
No.
But I do get what you're driving at.
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 07:19:02 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
>Goes with the sig line, but millions of people farting produce more
>chemicals than a few thousand hobbyist woodfinishers.
And they are the only ones using "chemicals ?" Or they
are the ones who are doing something so important that
they should be exempted ?
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:13:39 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>You certainly do love to talk. Of course, it'd be better if you were saying
>something meaningful.
>
>When you can come up with anything but crap to show that a twenty minute
>weekly stint with a lawnmower pollutes like a four hour/five-day commute,
>you let me know, hey?
>
The following seems to be pretty balanced. The basis of its info
appears to be the "Outdoor Power Equipment Institute:"
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/Bioreng/agtopics/topics-septoct-99.html
The claim there is that an "average automobile" will generate apx.
10 times the "smog-formingemissions" that a lawnmower is likely
to produce, based on realworld usage. Of course, that's talking
about "average autos," not 10 mpg pig SUVs.
>Then we'll talk about the difference between a quart of solvent finish in
>one in fifty houses three times a year versus daily factory use of drums.
>
Formany people, reducing pollution is always Someone Else's
Problem.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
> small puppies, too...
>
And steal candy from babies.
Wayne
"brocpuffs" writes:
> Aaaurgh!
>
> I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
> all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
Welcome to the real world.
If you want something that will really rot your shorts, be a sailor or power
boater.
"Bottom paint" on a boat is a misnomer. It is not really a paint but rather
a poisonous coating deigned to keep critters from attaching them selves to
the bottom of the boat.
Basic problem:
The good bottom paints have been banned.
The replacements are not nearly as good.
Result:
More of the poor performance products are required which ends up adding more
pollution to the environment than if you had used the good stuff in the
first place.
Save us from the well intended, but sometimes misguided.
Lew
>I guess water based products will be good on chipboard, particle board
and hardboard. Those are all such a step forward, aren't they?
We used Hydrocote Resistane on hardwood furniture, oak, cherry, maple etc
and it works fine. I defy anyone to tell the difference.
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 22:06:53 -0500, "Rumpty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >>I'll never put something that looks like milk on
> >my products.
> >
> >You haven't take the time to look at quality water borne product, have
you?
>
> I have tried them, not many because I feel they are vastly inferior to
> oil based products. Most people still do.
>
> A step forward or a step back? Kind of an individual thing, but this
> legislation is upper US and way too general.
>
> I guess water based products will be good on chipboard, particle board
> and hardboard. Those are all such a step forward, aren't they?
>
> James
> [email protected]
>
"Rumpty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone?
>
> Many of us have been using "water borne" finishing products for years
> because of health concerns (ours) and these products work well if not
better
> than solvent based products.
>
> It's time to take a step forward.
Water based clear finishes are horrible (imo). Even high gloss is poor at
best.
When my clients see it compared to oil based clear coats
they always choose the oil. I'll never put something that looks like milk on
my products.
That being said, water based clear coat for floors is acceptable when time
and smell are a concern.
>
> --
>
> Rumpty
>
> Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
> "brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Aaaurgh!
> >
> > I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
> > all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
> >
> > SOB!! Some other states have done thyis already, did you wreckers move
> > out of those states, or what?
> >
> > Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
> > alcohol are examples.
> >
> > The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
> > fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
> > that can last long enough to get that far up in the atmosphere.
> >
> > Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone? Never!
> >
> > Where can I sign up against this stupid law!?!?
> >
> > James
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
>
>
On 9 Dec 2004 06:22:50 -0800, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
> small puppies, too...
>
I hear he's a giant chicken.
*collective gasp*
Any other Animaniacs fans around?
>> I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
> small puppies, too...
You radical republicans really ought to grow up and stop doing that to old
folks.
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
> small puppies, too...
>
Richard Clements wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>
>
>>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If only redistribute, the we will simply be run over out here...I'm all
>>>for keeping them in their enclaves--in fact, I'd just as soon move some
>>>of ours to there... :) OTOH, a large earthquake or a strategic sinking
>>>of a portion of the NE could do wonders... :)
>>
>>Which portion of Nebraska do you want to sink?
>>
>>--
>>Jack Novak
>>Buffalo, NY - USA
>>(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
>
> ALL of it, just let me get buy up a bunch of the Corn commodities here in
> ID,
The entire sperm whale population of ne NE thanks you.
And speaking of ID, how is the wizard doing anyhow?
j4
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Australopithecus scobis wrote:
>
>> For the doubters, remember that what may not be a big problem when
>> the population was small and dispersed is indeed a big problem when
>> the population is large and concentrated. Pack several million people
>> together, each releasing a teeny tiny amount of these chemicals, and
>> voila, you have a problem.
>
> In Los Angeles or other areas prone to temperature inversions and
> still air you have a problem. In the rest of the world much less so.
>>
>
Maybe the answer is to ban all cities with a size greater than
1,000,000! That will do lots of things! Solve the urban blight
problem, solve the red/blue state problem. The only places that really
lean strongly democratic are those huge urban areas.
It would also go a long way toward solving lots of other problem.
If we can legaly re-distribute wealth then why can't we legally re-
distribute people?
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:06:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Doesn't mean anything. Jack Daniels is made in a dry county.
>
>
>>
>> Barry
The time I toured the Jack Daniel's distillery, I was told they could
make it and drink it there, they just couldn't buy it there.
"brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
> alcohol are examples.
????
There's an LD50 associated with Acetone. It sure as hell ain't fun nor
helpful to inhale. Are they worried about the Ozone layer or just trying to
make some progress now that waterborne finishes are arguably as good as ...
?
"brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Aaaurgh!
>
> I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
> all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>
> SOB!! Some other states have done thyis already, did you wreckers move
> out of those states, or what?
>
> Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
> alcohol are examples.
>
> The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
> fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
> that can last long enough to get that far up in the atmosphere.
>
> Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone? Never!
>
> Where can I sign up against this stupid law!?!?
>
> James
> [email protected]
it may not hurt the ozone, but the states are probably more worried about
the smog instead, given the epa restrictions on states.
Australopithecus scobis wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs wrote:
>
>> The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
>> fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
>
> Sorry, wrong information. Chlorofluorocarbons mess up the stratospheric
> ozone layer. That's "ozone = O3". For some reason, the brown crud in the
> lower tropospher, which does contain some O3, is called "ozone."
> Petrochemicals of various kinds are photoreactive. So, come a hot summer
> day, you get *cough* that nasty brown haze.
>
> For the doubters, remember that what may not be a big problem when the
> population was small and dispersed is indeed a big problem when the
> population is large and concentrated. Pack several million people
> together, each releasing a teeny tiny amount of these chemicals, and
> voila, you have a problem.
In Los Angeles or other areas prone to temperature inversions and still air
you have a problem. In the rest of the world much less so.
>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Richard Clements wrote:
> Rumpty wrote:
>
>>
>>>> I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
>>> small puppies, too...
>>
>> You radical republicans really ought to grow up and stop doing that to
>> old folks.
>> --
>>
>> Rumpty
>
> but they make funny sounds as the bounce off the stairs, and don't knock
> eating live puppies unless you've tried it!
"Wok your puppy" --Robin Williams, "Good Morning Vietnam".
>
>
>>
>> Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> I heard they're going to push old people down the stairs and torture
>>> small puppies, too...
>>>
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
brocpuffs wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:22:08 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs wrote:
>>
>>> The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
>>> fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
>>
>>Sorry, wrong information. Chlorofluorocarbons mess up the stratospheric
>>ozone layer. That's "ozone = O3". For some reason, the brown crud in the
>>lower tropospher, which does contain some O3, is called "ozone."
>>Petrochemicals of various kinds are photoreactive. So, come a hot summer
>>day, you get *cough* that nasty brown haze.
>
> The chlorofluorocarbons are the main culprit re the OZONE layer, which
> is how the media described the problems oil based materials cause.
>
> The brown crud is smog, not ozone, do other people really call it
> ozone? Shame on them for such misinformation. Smog is a different
> breed of cat, not at all better, but different. I believe automobile
> and factory emissions are a real major cause of this.
Here's a link to a newspaper article
<http://fltimes.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=6604&SectionID=38&SubSectionID=121&S=1>.
Looks like they think that the VOCs in paint _create_ ozone somehow. I
think there's confusion here on the part of the press. Of course the New
York State Government's search engine is hosed.
>
> James
> [email protected]
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George wrote:
> Same principle as allowing millions of pollution-spewing automobiles to
> drive each day in LA and banning gas lawnmowers?
>
> Think. Industrial use is regulated, personal use <1qt, isn't.
Well, actually, if you measure the emissions, you might be surprised at the
relative quantities of pollution "spewed" by those automobiles vs the lawn
mowers. The engines in lawn mowers are pretty much the same today as they
were in 1965--maybe the gaskets and spark plugs are better, but not much
else is different. There is certainly no attempt at emission control. The
engines in those cars though are more complex than anything that Ferrari
put on the Formula 1 circuit in 1965, and most of that complexity is
related to emission control, then there's a platinum catalyst in the
exhaust to catch anything that makes it through the engine controls (that
by the way is why leaded gas is unavailable for automotive use in the
US--the lead destroys the catalyst). The actual amount of CO, oxides of
nitrogen, and unburned hydrocarbons emitted by a modern car that is not
broken in some way is quite remarkably small.
> Clear enough?
Less clear than you seem to think. Industry can handle contact neurotoxins
in carload quantities for example. Private citizens generally are
discouraged from handling them in any quantity.
> "GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 07:19:02 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Goes with the sig line, but millions of people farting produce more
>> >chemicals than a few thousand hobbyist woodfinishers.
>>
>> And they are the only ones using "chemicals ?" Or they
>> are the ones who are doing something so important that
>> they should be exempted ?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ba r r y wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Aaaurgh!
>>
>>I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
>>all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>
> Before you go off the deep end, ask at a reputable paint or finishing
> products dealer. Local news reporters have been known to be wrong.
> States have been known to limit who can sell certain products, with
> "pro" suppliers able to continue to sell them. Since home centers and
> hardware stores fall into the "banned" category, it gets reported in
> the mass media as an overall ban.
>
> Other places have gone "low VOC" with often means the addition of "Do
> Not Thin" to the label instructions and a thicker product.
>
> The lacquers, dyes, and stains that I like to use are *made* in your
> area.
Doesn't mean anything. Jack Daniels is made in a dry county.
> If it is true, there's always mail order. <G>
>
> Barry
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
George wrote:
> You certainly do love to talk. Of course, it'd be better if you were
> saying something meaningful.
>
> When you can come up with anything but crap to show that a twenty minute
> weekly stint with a lawnmower pollutes like a four hour/five-day commute,
> you let me know, hey?
Run the numbers and see what you get. First look on the nice little piece
of paper you got last time you took your car in for emissions inspection
and see what it _really_ does compared to what the law allows.
> Then we'll talk about the difference between a quart of solvent finish in
> one in fifty houses three times a year versus daily factory use of drums.
However, since you choose to be insulting rather than arguing the facts, I'm
not wasting any time on you.
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
GregP wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:13:39 -0500, "George" <george@least> wrote:
>
>>You certainly do love to talk. Of course, it'd be better if you were
>>saying something meaningful.
>>
>>When you can come up with anything but crap to show that a twenty minute
>>weekly stint with a lawnmower pollutes like a four hour/five-day commute,
>>you let me know, hey?
>>
>
> The following seems to be pretty balanced. The basis of its info
> appears to be the "Outdoor Power Equipment Institute:"
>
>
> http://www.agnr.umd.edu/users/Bioreng/agtopics/topics-septoct-99.html
>
> The claim there is that an "average automobile" will generate apx.
> 10 times the "smog-formingemissions" that a lawnmower is likely
> to produce, based on realworld usage. Of course, that's talking
> about "average autos," not 10 mpg pig SUVs.
Kind of short on actual numbers though. And is that based on allowable
emissions or actuall emissions? My "10 mpg pig SUV" generally shows about
a tenth the allowable levels in the state-required emission tests.
>
>>Then we'll talk about the difference between a quart of solvent finish in
>>one in fifty houses three times a year versus daily factory use of drums.
>>
>
> Formany people, reducing pollution is always Someone Else's
> Problem.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
brocpuffs <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 22:06:53 -0500, "Rumpty" <[email protected]>
: wrote:
:>>I'll never put something that looks like milk on
:>my products.
It only looks milky until it dries.
:>
:>You haven't take the time to look at quality water borne product, have you?
: I have tried them, not many because I feel they are vastly inferior to
: oil based products. Most people still do.
Let's see. They dry faster. They're repairable, unlike oil-based poly finishes.
They don't automatically tint and amber the wood you put them on (although
you can easily add color if you want). They're better for your health.
Yup, inferior products all right!
: A step forward or a step back? Kind of an individual thing, but this
: legislation is upper US and way too general.
: I guess water based products will be good on chipboard, particle board
: and hardboard. Those are all such a step forward, aren't they?
The WB products also look great on walnut, quilted maple, etc.
-- Andy Barss
Joe Willmann <[email protected]> wrote:
: Maybe the answer is to ban all cities with a size greater than
: 1,000,000! That will do lots of things! Solve the urban blight
: problem, solve the red/blue state problem. The only places that really
: lean strongly democratic are those huge urban areas.
Or... the only places that really lean republican are those dinky little
towns in states that get more from the federal government than they pay
in.
Perspective is everything.
-- Andy Barss
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 22:06:53 -0500, "Rumpty" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>I'll never put something that looks like milk on
>my products.
>
>You haven't take the time to look at quality water borne product, have you?
I have tried them, not many because I feel they are vastly inferior to
oil based products. Most people still do.
A step forward or a step back? Kind of an individual thing, but this
legislation is upper US and way too general.
I guess water based products will be good on chipboard, particle board
and hardboard. Those are all such a step forward, aren't they?
James
[email protected]
As a native Californian borm prior to the start of the great
depression I was raised on oil based paints and SUFFERED through the
growing pains of the waterbased evolution. I've since switched to WB
entirely although Sherwin Williams was still able to stock Qts of oil
based quick dry varnish but not gallons. Our painter was able to use
oil based paint when he painted our kitchen 4 years ago. I find WB
stuff MUCH easier to use all of the way around. NOW I feel the switch
from oil was beneficial!
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 02:54:22 GMT, Lazarus Long
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Time to lay in a few cases of my favorite varieties. And a lot of
>Bloxygen too. At my level of consumption, that works out to around 40
>or 50 quarts to last the rest of my life. I guess that's just too
>much for the neo nazi environmentalists.
>
>Does this also mean no lacquer thinner? How will I/we clean up epoxy?
>Will epoxy be effectively banned as well?
>
>Maybe we'll go back to the old days of mixing our own finishes ala
>Stradivari.
>
>BTW, "all oil base products" covers an enormous territory, not limits
>to finish applied to wood. There's also a lot of food products that
>are oil base or have oil in them.
Time to lay in a few cases of my favorite varieties. And a lot of
Bloxygen too. At my level of consumption, that works out to around 40
or 50 quarts to last the rest of my life. I guess that's just too
much for the neo nazi environmentalists.
Does this also mean no lacquer thinner? How will I/we clean up epoxy?
Will epoxy be effectively banned as well?
Maybe we'll go back to the old days of mixing our own finishes ala
Stradivari.
BTW, "all oil base products" covers an enormous territory, not limits
to finish applied to wood. There's also a lot of food products that
are oil base or have oil in them.
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Aaaurgh!
>
>I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
>all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>
>SOB!! Some other states have done thyis already, did you wreckers move
>out of those states, or what?
>
>Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
>alcohol are examples.
>
>The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
>fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
>that can last long enough to get that far up in the atmosphere.
>
>Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone? Never!
>
>Where can I sign up against this stupid law!?!?
>
>James
>[email protected]
>
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:46:33 -0500, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>As a native Californian borm prior to the start of the great
>depression I was raised on oil based paints and SUFFERED through the
>growing pains of the waterbased evolution. I've since switched to WB
>entirely although Sherwin Williams was still able to stock Qts of oil
>based quick dry varnish but not gallons. Our painter was able to use
>oil based paint when he painted our kitchen 4 years ago. I find WB
>stuff MUCH easier to use all of the way around. NOW I feel the switch
>from oil was beneficial!
>
Are there any waterbase products that function like Waterlox? I'm not
partial to film finishes. That doesn't mean I don't or haven't used
them, I prefer oil for a finish. Sutherland Welles tung oil finishes
are very good too. Or were, I haven't had a can of that for quite a
while.
I've also used waterbase. It worked o.k., but I still like Waterlox
more.
BTW, I'm not in California, my area doesn't have those problems.
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:48:12 GMT, mac davis <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>sort of like the "gas" in Calif....
>they add things that are supposed to cut pollution (though they poison
>the ground water table) but they make your engine run so poorly that
>you need more of it to travel the same distance..
>
>As usual, nobody wins but the oil companies..
Not only that, but here in SE Wisconsin, some of the gas has been
wrecking fuel injectors resulting in very expensive injector
replacements on quite a few vehicles. Nice stuff, huh?
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 00:56:47 GMT, "patrick conroy"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"brocpuffs" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Solvents are NOT harmful just because they;re volatile! Acetone and
>> alcohol are examples.
>
>????
>There's an LD50 associated with Acetone. It sure as hell ain't fun nor
>helpful to inhale. Are they worried about the Ozone layer or just trying to
>make some progress now that waterborne finishes are arguably as good as ...
Everything has an LD50. Water, too. Does not mean water is toxic
normally.
While you're at it, what IS the LD50 of acetone, compared to other
Volatile 0rganic Solvents?
This argument on toxicity of acetone came up before, and is nonsense,
my man.
James
[email protected]
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:10:14 -0700, Richard Clements
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> As usual, nobody wins but the oil companies..
>
>and how do the oil company's benefit?
>they don't make the additive
Mileage drops, more fuel is used.
Barry
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:08:07 -0500, "Battleax"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Rumpty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >Overdone doowah! All the best finishes and varnishes, gone?
>>
>> Many of us have been using "water borne" finishing products for years
>> because of health concerns (ours) and these products work well if not
>better
>> than solvent based products.
>>
>> It's time to take a step forward.
>
>
>
>Water based clear finishes are horrible (imo). Even high gloss is poor at
>best.
>When my clients see it compared to oil based clear coats
>they always choose the oil. I'll never put something that looks like milk on
>my products.
>That being said, water based clear coat for floors is acceptable when time
>and smell are a concern.
>
I've never seen or tried water based clear coat, but I've gone mostly
to water based stains...
I seem to get the same results as oil based and easier cleanup..
It would be a bitch trying to use tung water or danish water, though..
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:59:12 -0500, Nova <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Duane Bozarth wrote:
>
>> If only redistribute, the we will simply be run over out here...I'm all
>> for keeping them in their enclaves--in fact, I'd just as soon move some
>> of ours to there... :) OTOH, a large earthquake or a strategic sinking
>> of a portion of the NE could do wonders... :)
>
>Which portion of Nebraska do you want to sink?
You beat me to it! <G>
Barry
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 02:24:42 GMT, Lazarus Long
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>Are there any waterbase products that function like Waterlox? I'm not
>partial to film finishes. That doesn't mean I don't or haven't used
>them, I prefer oil for a finish. Sutherland Welles tung oil finishes
>are very good too. Or were, I haven't had a can of that for quite a
>while.
Use 2 coats of Waterlox as a wipe-on finish and it doesn't build much
of a film. Degloss it with 0000 steel wool and paste wax and it gives
you a baby's-butt smooth finish that simply cannot be beat, IMHO.
I'll give up my Waterlox and oil-based finishes only when they can pry
them from my cold, dead hands.
>I've also used waterbase. It worked o.k., but I still like Waterlox
>more.
The only waterborne product I use is in my kitchen. Future acrylic
floor finish. Great stuff.
>BTW, I'm not in California, my area doesn't have those problems.
I had Waterlox bootl^H^H^H^H^Hshipped into the state when I lived
there. Not a problem.
==============================================================
Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord.
http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online
==============================================================
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs wrote:
> The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
> fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
Sorry, wrong information. Chlorofluorocarbons mess up the stratospheric
ozone layer. That's "ozone = O3". For some reason, the brown crud in the
lower tropospher, which does contain some O3, is called "ozone."
Petrochemicals of various kinds are photoreactive. So, come a hot summer
day, you get *cough* that nasty brown haze.
For the doubters, remember that what may not be a big problem when the
population was small and dispersed is indeed a big problem when the
population is large and concentrated. Pack several million people
together, each releasing a teeny tiny amount of these chemicals, and
voila, you have a problem.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:02:30 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
> In Los Angeles or other areas prone to temperature inversions and still air
> you have a problem. In the rest of the world much less so.
Yah. I was thinking NY as I wrote the original, and deliberately omitted
LA because of the inversions. The City of the Angels had smog when nobody
but a few hunter gatherers lived there. Nevertheless, "much less so" is
still an awful lot. Beijing, Shanghai, eastern Europe, Mexico City
(another smog bowl), and others come to mind. Photochemical smog happens
in many, many places. Do you have "Ozone Action Days" where you live?
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:20:24 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
> Looks like they think that the VOCs in paint _create_ ozone somehow.
In discussions of ground-level air pollution, the word "ozone" is misused.
I don't know why, and I deplore it because of the confusion it causes.
However, that's the usage. The VOCs contribute to photochemical smog, and
that brown crud is called by some "ozone." So, you have to watch the
context to know if what's being discussed is O3 or crud.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:06:30 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Ba r r y wrote:
>> The lacquers, dyes, and stains that I like to use are *made* in your
>> area.
>
>Doesn't mean anything. Jack Daniels is made in a dry county.
Right. I just find it funny when stuff like that happens.
Barry
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:22:08 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs wrote:
>
>> The damage to the ozone layer was done most entirely by Freon and
>> fluorocarbons, as far as I know, because those are the only solvents
>
>Sorry, wrong information. Chlorofluorocarbons mess up the stratospheric
>ozone layer. That's "ozone = O3". For some reason, the brown crud in the
>lower tropospher, which does contain some O3, is called "ozone."
>Petrochemicals of various kinds are photoreactive. So, come a hot summer
>day, you get *cough* that nasty brown haze.
The chlorofluorocarbons are the main culprit re the OZONE layer, which
is how the media described the problems oil based materials cause.
The brown crud is smog, not ozone, do other people really call it
ozone? Shame on them for such misinformation. Smog is a different
breed of cat, not at all better, but different. I believe automobile
and factory emissions are a real major cause of this.
James
[email protected]
>Before you go off the deep end, ask at a reputable paint or finishing
products dealer. Local news reporters have been known to be wrong.
States have been known to limit who can sell certain products, with
"pro" suppliers able to continue to sell them.
Well folks, don't worry, according to recent reports the Bush administration
is about to turn back 30+ years of air pollution standards. Take you last
breath of clean air folks......
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Ba r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 18:28:16 -0500, brocpuffs <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Aaaurgh!
> >
> >I just picked up on the local news, that NY State is banning sales of
> >all oil-based products at the end of this year, 2004.
>
> Before you go off the deep end, ask at a reputable paint or finishing
> products dealer. Local news reporters have been known to be wrong.
> States have been known to limit who can sell certain products, with
> "pro" suppliers able to continue to sell them. Since home centers and
> hardware stores fall into the "banned" category, it gets reported in
> the mass media as an overall ban.
>
> Other places have gone "low VOC" with often means the addition of "Do
> Not Thin" to the label instructions and a thicker product.
>
> The lacquers, dyes, and stains that I like to use are *made* in your
> area.
>
> If it is true, there's always mail order. <G>
>
> Barry