Hello,

Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be appreciative of any
thoughts or opinions on.
Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and concerned.

Will probably have house painted this summer.
The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.
Present, and past paint has been Latex.
Hasn't been done in a very long time.

There is paint peeling, "here and there".

So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is peeling, and feather
the edges, etc.

But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of all the
present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood is problematical.

Any new paint, of course, never sees the wood itself, so cannot bond to
it. All it can bond to, I imagine, is the paint layer directly under,
which I am assuming has a "problematical" bond to the first paint layer
and/or the wood.

Am I looking at this correctly ?

This seems like a very typical concern, I would imagine.
Nobody wants a new fresh coat of paint to peel due to what it is
adhering to starts to peel.

How is this handled ?
Sure don't want to try and sand down all of the surface areas; totally
impractical.

Thoughts and comments would be most appreciated.

BTW: does pressure washing cause additional peeling ?
Good idea to ?
Caveats, such as a (very) low pressure, or...?

Thanks,
Bob

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 4/28/2014 11:36 AM, Bob wrote:
Hello,

Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be appreciative of any
thoughts or opinions on.
Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and concerned.

Will probably have house painted this summer.
The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.
Present, and past paint has been Latex.
Hasn't been done in a very long time.

There is paint peeling, "here and there".

So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is peeling, and feather
the edges, etc.

But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of all the
present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood is problematical.

Any new paint, of course, never sees the wood itself, so cannot bond to
it. All it can bond to, I imagine, is the paint layer directly under,
which I am assuming has a "problematical" bond to the first paint layer
and/or the wood.

Am I looking at this correctly ?

This seems like a very typical concern, I would imagine.
Nobody wants a new fresh coat of paint to peel due to what it is
adhering to starts to peel.

How is this handled ?
Sure don't want to try and sand down all of the surface areas; totally
impractical.

Thoughts and comments would be most appreciated.

BTW: does pressure washing cause additional peeling ?
Good idea to ?
Caveats, such as a (very) low pressure, or...?

Thanks,
Bob

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com


Is peeling mainly at ends of boards and joints? That is likely, and due
to moisture getting into the end grain. I have wood siding, but not
clapboard. First, I would prep/paint in dry weather; fall is best, IMP.
Scrape the loose paint and don't worry about what is adhering. After
scraping, prime bare wood. After priming, caulk joints, gaps between
siding where it meets doors, windows, plumbing/elect. entries. Paint
within two/three days of priming.

Pressure washing is routine with concrete block/stucco but I don't
believe it is with wood. Washing is important. Paint the side not
exposed to sun, withing temp limits on label.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:36:49 -0400, Bob wrote:

Hello,

Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be appreciative of any
thoughts or opinions on.
Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and concerned.

Will probably have house painted this summer.
The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.
Present, and past paint has been Latex.
Hasn't been done in a very long time.

There is paint peeling, "here and there".

So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is peeling, and feather
the edges, etc.

But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of all the
present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood is problematical.

Any new paint, of course, never sees the wood itself, so cannot bond to
it. All it can bond to, I imagine, is the paint layer directly under,
which I am assuming has a "problematical" bond to the first paint layer
and/or the wood.

Am I looking at this correctly ?

This seems like a very typical concern, I would imagine.
Nobody wants a new fresh coat of paint to peel due to what it is
adhering to starts to peel.

How is this handled ?
Sure don't want to try and sand down all of the surface areas; totally
impractical.

Thoughts and comments would be most appreciated.

BTW: does pressure washing cause additional peeling ?
Good idea to ?
Caveats, such as a (very) low pressure, or...?

Thanks,
Bob

Personally if the paint it "chalking" a likely sanding with an orbital
sander may be in order to freshen the surface, so paint adheres
better. I did this on my fascia trim a few years ago. Worked great.

Painters use - Savogran brand Trisodium Phosphate Cleaner (TSP in the
red box at HD in the paints section. Painter's use it to clean
woodwork before repainting.

http://www.nelsonpaint.com/S10621.html

See: _Learn The Causes and Remedies For Chalking Paint_

http://www.house-painting-info.com/chalking-paint.html

On Monday, April 28, 2014 11:36:49 AM UTC-4, Bob wrote:
Hello,



Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be appreciative of any

thoughts or opinions on.

Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and concerned.



Will probably have house painted this summer.

The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.

Present, and past paint has been Latex.

Hasn't been done in a very long time.



There is paint peeling, "here and there".



It's not unusual to have some paint peeling. If it's in certain
areas, you should try to identify why it's happening. Moisture
getting behind the wood is the biggest reason.



So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is peeling, and feather

the edges, etc.



For removing peeling paint, by far the best thing I've ever seen
is a Wagner Paint Eater. It's like a circular sander or grinder, but
the head is a tough composite material, kind of like a super tough
version of one of the scrubber pads for pots. It quickly takes the
loose paint off and unlike a sander, doesn't clog up, so you can just
keep going.

Another great product is XIM peel bond. The name is a bit misleading.
It won't bond peeling paint. But it's a very thick self-leveling primer.
The idea is that it helps smooth out the transitions from the areas
with sound paint to the lower spots where the paint is gone. The bare
wood should be primed anyway. If you use this stuff, it helps level
it back out. It still wont be perfect, but it will be a lot less
noticeable.





But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of all the

present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood is problematical.



Any new paint, of course, never sees the wood itself, so cannot bond to

it. All it can bond to, I imagine, is the paint layer directly under,

which I am assuming has a "problematical" bond to the first paint layer

and/or the wood.



Am I looking at this correctly ?



It's basically correct. You hope that the remaining paint stays
intact.




This seems like a very typical concern, I would imagine.

Nobody wants a new fresh coat of paint to peel due to what it is

adhering to starts to peel.



How is this handled ?

Sure don't want to try and sand down all of the surface areas; totally

impractical.



Thoughts and comments would be most appreciated.



BTW: does pressure washing cause additional peeling ?

Any paint that comes off with power washing you want to come
off, because it's ready to come off anyway. Painters do have to
be careful not to use too much pressure, because that can damage
the wood. I recommend using Jomax as the cleaner. It works well,
has a mildewcide in it too.




Good idea to ?

Caveats, such as a (very) low pressure, or...?



Thanks,

Bob



---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

For removing peeling paint, by far the best thing I've ever seen
is a Wagner Paint Eater. It's like a circular sander or grinder, but
the head is a tough composite material, kind of like a super tough
version of one of the scrubber pads for pots. It quickly takes the
loose paint off and unlike a sander, doesn't clog up, so you can just
keep going.

I had a bad experience with this tool. It broke after ~ the third
use. Pads do collect paint, but I was able to wash them with a water
hose to get them a little cleaner. They seem to wear fast, too. The
pads cost $15 each.

Reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-513040-0513040-PaintEater/product-reviews/B000FFYLJQ/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1

An orbital sander worked best for me to feather the paint out where it
peeled.

YMMV

Bob wrote:
Hello,

Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be appreciative of any thoughts or opinions on.
Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and concerned.

Will probably have house painted this summer.
The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.
Present, and past paint has been Latex.
Hasn't been done in a very long time.

There is paint peeling, "here and there".

So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is peeling, and feather the edges, etc.

But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of all the
present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood is problematical.

Any new paint, of course, never sees the wood itself, so cannot bond to
it. All it can bond to, I imagine, is the paint layer directly under,
which I am assuming has a "problematical" bond to the first paint layer and/or the wood.

Am I looking at this correctly ?

This seems like a very typical concern, I would imagine.
Nobody wants a new fresh coat of paint to peel due to what it is adhering
to starts to peel.

How is this handled ?
Sure don't want to try and sand down all of the surface areas; totally impractical.

Well, not _totally_ impractical. My neighbor took his entire 2 story
colonial down to the bare cedar singles, then primed and painted, 2 coats.
He used a heat coil and a scraper, a sanding disk on a drill, a right angle
grinder, whatever it took to get to wherever he was trying to get.

10 years later he sanded about 50% down to the bare shingles, primed the
entire house and changed the color, again using 2 coats.

After the second time he said it was his last time. Of course, he said the
same thing after the first time, but we're all a bit older now, so I
believe him.


Thoughts and comments would be most appreciated.

BTW: does pressure washing cause additional peeling ?
Good idea to ?
Caveats, such as a (very) low pressure, or...?

Thanks,
Bob

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

the paint job will cost a fortune if theres any lead based paint on your home.

no sanding permitted, since it can spread lead dust, all debris must be captured and disposed of properly.

I warned a buddy of mine about the new laws, he put the job off and costs doubled, he refused to get his home painted...

so just be prepared for some shocking costs, might be better to get home sided, soffit and fascia covered etc

On Monday, April 28, 2014 12:27:44 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:15:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:



For removing peeling paint, by far the best thing I've ever seen

is a Wagner Paint Eater. It's like a circular sander or grinder, but

the head is a tough composite material, kind of like a super tough

version of one of the scrubber pads for pots. It quickly takes the

loose paint off and unlike a sander, doesn't clog up, so you can just

keep going.



I had a bad experience with this tool. It broke after ~ the third

use. Pads do collect paint, but I was able to wash them with a water

hose to get them a little cleaner. They seem to wear fast, too. The

pads cost $15 each.



Reviews:

http://www.amazon.com/Wagner-513040-0513040-PaintEater/product-reviews/B000FFYLJQ/ref=dpx_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1



An orbital sander worked best for me to feather the paint out where it

peeled.



YMMV

It's kind of an even distribution on Amazon. Some people
are like me, saying it worked great. Others say is sucks.
Of the suckees, quite a few say their complaint is that
the motor died, like your experience. That may be legitimate,
unless they applied heavy pressure and bogged it down.
Some others seemed to have unrealistic expectations, like using
it to remove all paint and complaining that it didn't. AFAIK
it was never designed to strip paint, only to remove loose, peeling
paint. Whether the paint clogs it may depend on what kind of
paint. I never had to clean it doing all the trim on my house.

Some peeling is typical. You just scrape off
what's loose, wash, and then prime the bare areas.
You should really prime with a good linseed oil
primer. If it's latex paint now you can use either
more latex/acrylic paint or water-base "stain".

Pressure washing can cause more peeling, yes.
Depending on the surface, it can get in under the
edges and cause further peeling later.

In any case, if you don't trust the painter to make
these decisions then you might want to find another
painter.

"Bob" wrote in message
...
| Hello,
|
| Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be appreciative of any
| thoughts or opinions on.
| Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and concerned.
|
| Will probably have house painted this summer.
| The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.
| Present, and past paint has been Latex.
| Hasn't been done in a very long time.
|
| There is paint peeling, "here and there".
|
| So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is peeling, and feather
| the edges, etc.
|
| But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of all the
| present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood is problematical.
|
| Any new paint, of course, never sees the wood itself, so cannot bond to
| it. All it can bond to, I imagine, is the paint layer directly under,
| which I am assuming has a "problematical" bond to the first paint layer
| and/or the wood.
|
| Am I looking at this correctly ?
|
| This seems like a very typical concern, I would imagine.
| Nobody wants a new fresh coat of paint to peel due to what it is
| adhering to starts to peel.
|
| How is this handled ?
| Sure don't want to try and sand down all of the surface areas; totally
| impractical.
|
| Thoughts and comments would be most appreciated.
|
| BTW: does pressure washing cause additional peeling ?
| Good idea to ?
| Caveats, such as a (very) low pressure, or...?
|
| Thanks,
| Bob
|
| ---
| This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
| http://www.avast.com
|

| the paint job will cost a fortune if theres any lead based paint on your
home.
|

That statement needs to be detailed a bit. The
new law applies to houses built after 1979 only. The
requirements can add to the cost of the job, but not
necessarily a lot. The biggest factor is the extreme
use of ground coverings and cleanup required.

Also, there's an exemption clause. I needed to know
about this law for my own work as a contractor, so I
got a copy of it. There are a lot of informational
brochures available, but they only provide a general
explanation and are more scare tactics than informational.
Specifically, in all the information I found, nowhere was
the exemption mentioned. I only know about it because
I read the actual law. I ended up creating my own
legal form for people to sign, exempting the job from
the extreme deleading-like treatment detailed in the law,
as long as certain conditions are met. With most of my work
I can use this form. I've pasted the most relevant parts
below, which is enough to explain the details and links
where anyone can confirm the text of the law for themselves:

------------------------------------------------------
I confirm that the following statements are true:




1) I own and occupy the property.




2) There are no children under 6 years old currently living on the property.




3) There are no pregnant women currently living on the property.




4) I understand that the work will be done without following the
restrictions imposed by the

Federal Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program.




Owner signatu________________________________________ ______ Date:
____________________



This form is to confirm an exception from work requirements and restrictions
for carpentry, painting and other similar renovation work, according to the
following EPA Regulation:




Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745




In accord with the following specification:




"Finally, this regulation contains an exception for renovations in
owner-occupied target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman
resides, so long as the housing does not meet the definition of
"child-occupied facility". To claim this exception, the renovation firm must
obtain, before beginning the renovation, a signed statement from the owner
of the housing that states that the person signing is the owner of the
housing to be renovated, that he or she resides there,

that no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there, that the housing
is not a child-occupied facility, and that the owner understands that the
renovation firm will not be required to use the work practices contained in
this rule."




http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/...y-22/t8141.htm




In accord with the following requirements:




745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements:

(6) Any signed and dated statements received from owner-occupants
documenting that the requirements of §745.85 do not apply. These statements
must include a declaration that the renovation will occur in the owner's
residence, a declaration that no children under age 6 reside there, a
declaration that no pregnant woman resides there, a declaration that the
housing is not a child-occupied facility, the address of the unit undergoing
renovation, the owner's name, an acknowledgment by the owner that the work
practices to be used during the renovation will not necessarily include all
of the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's renovation, repair, and
painting rule, the signature of the owner, and the date of signature. These
statements must be written in the same language as the text of the
renovation contract, if any.




http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.13& idno=40

Bob[_44_]:

The standard procedure when repainting a house is to scrape off any paint that's not putting up a respectable fight to stay on the house, then sanding the edges of the sticking paint to eliminate "paint edges" showing through the top coat, priming the bare wood, and repainting.

Your point is well taken that any existing paint that's not sticking well will be the weakest link in the chain. But hopefully any paint that isn't sticking as well as it should would be discovered in the scraping phase at the start of the job.

Pressure washing, so far as I know, is a good way to remove any old paint. If the paint will withstand a pressure washing, it's sticking as well as could be expected, and removing it to apply new paint that's not going to stick any better is a waste of time and money.

Your point that the existing paint could start to peel in the future is also well taken. But, since you can't tell where those areas are now, you have no choice except to presume that anything that's sticking well now will stay stuck well. And, if it doesn't, then that paint will be removed the NEXT time you repaint your house.

On Monday, April 28, 2014 2:02:37 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| the paint job will cost a fortune if theres any lead based paint on your

home.

|



That statement needs to be detailed a bit. The

new law applies to houses built after 1979 only. The

requirements can add to the cost of the job, but not

necessarily a lot. The biggest factor is the extreme

use of ground coverings and cleanup required.



Also, there's an exemption clause. I needed to know

about this law for my own work as a contractor, so I

got a copy of it. There are a lot of informational

brochures available, but they only provide a general

explanation and are more scare tactics than informational.

Specifically, in all the information I found, nowhere was

the exemption mentioned. I only know about it because

I read the actual law. I ended up creating my own

legal form for people to sign, exempting the job from

the extreme deleading-like treatment detailed in the law,

as long as certain conditions are met. With most of my work

I can use this form. I've pasted the most relevant parts

below, which is enough to explain the details and links

where anyone can confirm the text of the law for themselves:



------------------------------------------------------

I confirm that the following statements are true:









1) I own and occupy the property.









2) There are no children under 6 years old currently living on the property.









3) There are no pregnant women currently living on the property.









4) I understand that the work will be done without following the

restrictions imposed by the



Federal Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program.









Owner signatu________________________________________ ______ Date:

____________________







This form is to confirm an exception from work requirements and restrictions

for carpentry, painting and other similar renovation work, according to the

following EPA Regulation:









Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



40 CFR Part 745









In accord with the following specification:









"Finally, this regulation contains an exception for renovations in

owner-occupied target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman

resides, so long as the housing does not meet the definition of

"child-occupied facility". To claim this exception, the renovation firm must

obtain, before beginning the renovation, a signed statement from the owner

of the housing that states that the person signing is the owner of the

housing to be renovated, that he or she resides there,



that no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there, that the housing

is not a child-occupied facility, and that the owner understands that the

renovation firm will not be required to use the work practices contained in

this rule."









http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/...y-22/t8141.htm









In accord with the following requirements:









745.86 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements:



(6) Any signed and dated statements received from owner-occupants

documenting that the requirements of �745.85 do not apply. These statements

must include a declaration that the renovation will occur in the owner's

residence, a declaration that no children under age 6 reside there, a

declaration that no pregnant woman resides there, a declaration that the

housing is not a child-occupied facility, the address of the unit undergoing

renovation, the owner's name, an acknowledgment by the owner that the work

practices to be used during the renovation will not necessarily include all

of the lead-safe work practices contained in EPA's renovation, repair, and

painting rule, the signature of the owner, and the date of signature. These

statements must be written in the same language as the text of the

renovation contract, if any.









http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.13& idno=40

Sorry I believe your mistaken. first the law doesnt matter for any homes built after 1979 because by that time lead in paint was illegal.but its definetely applies to all older homes

paintaing the outside of homes with lead pait endangers not only the residents but the neighbors.. lots of kids have brain damage from excess exposure to lead

while there is a exemption to homeowner work thats done only by the homeowner once you involve a contractor or even a handyan the law applies. or even a helper.

the entire area must be tarped to collect all paint chips, no sanding is permitted since it can create dust that becomes airborne.

these necessary laws have greatly increased the cost of repainting.

most around here get vinyl siding so they never have to paint again

"Mayayana" wrote:

....major snippage occurred...


"Finally, this regulation contains an exception for renovations in
owner-occupied target housing where no child under age 6 or pregnant woman
resides, so long as the housing does not meet the definition of
"child-occupied facility". To claim this exception, the renovation firm must
obtain, before beginning the renovation, a signed statement from the owner
of the housing that states that the person signing is the owner of the
housing to be renovated, that he or she resides there,
that no child under age 6 or pregnant woman resides there, that the housing
is not a child-occupied facility, and that the owner understands that the
renovation firm will not be required to use the work practices contained in
this rule."

....major snippage occurred...

So it doesn't matter that the houses on all sides of the house being sanded
are inhabited by a total of 14 kids age 5 and under and 6 pregnant females?
Some city houses are within a few feet of each other. The occupants of
those "child-occupied facilities" are not figured into the equation when
the exterior of a lead paint covered house is being sanded?

Are you sure that the exception, as posted, applies to the _exterior_ of a
house?

"Bob" wrote in message

Hello,

Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be
appreciative of any thoughts or opinions on.
Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and
concerned.
Will probably have house painted this summer.
The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.
Present, and past paint has been Latex.
Hasn't been done in a very long time.

There is paint peeling, "here and there".

So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is
peeling, and feather the edges, etc.

But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of
all the present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood
is problematical.

If ir resists scraping it is should be good to go. To assuage any lingering
doubt, the house could be sprayed with a thin, acrylic sealer such as
SealKrete. Yes, it is primarily for masonry but works well for wood
too...if the paint is chalking or otherwise porous it will firm it up
nicely; if it penetrates through the paint to the wood it will increase the
adhesion of the old paint.
_________________

BTW: does pressure washing cause additional peeling ?

Probably. Which isn't a bad thing.

My house is concrete block & stucco but there is some wood - fascia, etc -
which is pressure washed prior to painting. Just be sure all is dry before
painting.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

Sorry I believe your mistaken.

All I can say is read the law. I provided the links.

| Are you sure that the exception, as posted, applies to the _exterior_ of a
| house?

See the text of the law. You don't have to
take my word for it. It's true that there could
be cases where a house with kids is nearby,
but I didn't see anything about that. And the
law provides mainly for extensive ground
coverage, anyway. There's nothing about
not making dust that could float.

There's also an exemption for any situation
where there's less than 6 sq. ft. of surface
"disturbed" inside. I think the limit is 10 sq. ft.
outside.

But it does have to be owner-occupied. An
owner can't make that decision for a tenant,
and with multiple condos in a single building
they don't seem to say. For interior work each
condo is a separate unit, so that's OK. But for
exterior work I would imagine that all owners
must qualify and agree.

Bob wrote:
Hello,

Got to thinking about this a bit, and would be appreciative of any
thoughts or opinions on.
Probably a dumb question, but was wondering, and concerned.

Will probably have house painted this summer.
The typical wooden Colonial Clapboards style.
Present, and past paint has been Latex.
Hasn't been done in a very long time.

There is paint peeling, "here and there".

So, I guess, we have the Painter scrape where it is peeling, and
feather the edges, etc.

But, it is likely, I would imagine, that the adherence of all the
present paint to the initial paint job, and to the wood is
problematical.
Any new paint, of course, never sees the wood itself, so cannot bond
to it. All it can bond to, I imagine, is the paint layer directly under,
which I am assuming has a "problematical" bond to the first paint
layer and/or the wood.

Am I looking at this correctly ?

This seems like a very typical concern, I would imagine.
Nobody wants a new fresh coat of paint to peel due to what it is
adhering to starts to peel.

How is this handled ?
Sure don't want to try and sand down all of the surface areas; totally
impractical.

Thoughts and comments would be most appreciated.

When I have repainted parts of my house, I've gotten extremely good results by
heat stripping 60-70 years of paint using a handheld electric radiant paint
stripping tool and various putty knives or paint scrapers. It is very slow work,
but the result looks like new paint on brand new wood, and I have had no peeling
anywhere I've dons this.

This is the type of tool I use.
http://www.amazon.com/Warner-Manufac...=cm_cr_pr_pb_t

I hold the tool over the paint for about 5-8 seconds, then quickly slide the
putty knife under the bubbling paint and scrape off the area heated, then move
and repeat. I usually will do a quick scrape on the bottom edge of the board
above, then the face of the board I heated. This work especially well on
multiple layers of paint, not quite as well on just 1 layer. You have to use
care if using the tool over already scraped wood, as it is easy to burn the wood
if you do that. I sometimes us some sheet metal or a wide putty knife as a
shield to keep the heat off of certain areas. A light sanding with an orbital
sander afterwards will quickly remove most of the tiny bits of crisped paint
remaining before applying the oil based primer I use under the latex paint.

ultimately the painting contactor is required to follow the law...

so call some contractors and be prepared for a expensive repaint. or risk getting sued by your neighbors if you dont follow the law..

On Monday, April 28, 2014 6:57:16 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| Are you sure that the exception, as posted, applies to the _exterior_ of a

| house?



See the text of the law. You don't have to

take my word for it. It's true that there could

be cases where a house with kids is nearby,

but I didn't see anything about that. And the

law provides mainly for extensive ground

coverage, anyway. There's nothing about

not making dust that could float.



There's also an exemption for any situation

where there's less than 6 sq. ft. of surface

"disturbed" inside. I think the limit is 10 sq. ft.

outside.



But it does have to be owner-occupied. An

owner can't make that decision for a tenant,

and with multiple condos in a single building

they don't seem to say. For interior work each

condo is a separate unit, so that's OK. But for

exterior work I would imagine that all owners

must qualify and agree.

lets imagine a neighborhood with zero kids for 10 blocks.....

so you know threres no kids and ignore the law.

the day you finish scraping sanding etc the home next door gets new residents, with 10 little kids....

they get ill because you didnt follow the law

A light sanding with an orbital

sander afterwards will quickly remove most of the tiny bits of crisped paint

remaining before applying the oil based primer I use under the latex paint.

if theres lead in the paint your not supposed to sand it, it makes a lead particle dust cloud

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:32:52 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

ultimately the painting contactor is required to follow the law...


Requirement and following the law are not the same, Bob.

so call some contractors and be prepared for a expensive repaint. or risk getting sued by your neighbors if you dont follow the law..

I'm all shook up. I was once sued by a Nigerian Prince. He retreated,
withdrew his case, knowing he was wrong

OP has never said his home had lead paint within 20 miles of his
location. Did I miss something in his comment?

On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:41:15 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:32:52 -0700 (PDT), bob haller

wrote:



ultimately the painting contactor is required to follow the law...





Requirement and following the law are not the same, Bob.



so call some contractors and be prepared for a expensive repaint. or risk getting sued by your neighbors if you dont follow the law..



I'm all shook up. I was once sued by a Nigerian Prince. He retreated,

withdrew his case, knowing he was wrong



OP has never said his home had lead paint within 20 miles of his

location. Did I miss something in his comment?

the vast majority of homes have lead paint because of their age....

a high profile problem could hurt resale values for a entire neighborhood.....

people are sue happy these days......

these necessary laws have greatly increased the cost of repainting.
most around here get vinyl siding so they never have to paint again


Another thought: I think you're overreacting a bit.
The whole country is not going to go to vinyl just
because of the new lead paint laws. Many can't
realistically do that anyway. Vinyl siding is godawful
ugly. It can only be used in lower value neighborhoods.
(I'm actually looking at a job now where a woman
wants to strip off old aluminum siding and rebuild
the window trim.)

I saw a house being worked on recently. It was one
of those gigantic Victorian types with 4 or 6 apartments.
The crew had tacked plastic sheet under the bottom
row of clapboard, which hung down in front of the
cellar wall and extended out from the house. At the end
of the day they have to fold the sheet and dispose of
it. It can't be re-used. It's a big hassle, but not prohibitive.
Estimates I've seen are that it's likely to add 20% to the
cost of a job. The license for it requires about $300 and
a one-day workshop. I haven't got the license myself because
I just don't want to deal with that kind of hassle, and while
I do some painting jobs, what I mostly do is building and
renovations where I also do the painting. In many cases
there's a demo crew for that, so they're the ones who
have to deal with the requirements. Also, as I mentioned
above, most of my jobs qualify for the exemption.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:36:04 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

lets imagine a neighborhood with zero kids for 10 blocks.....

so you know threres no kids and ignore the law.

the day you finish scraping sanding etc the home next door gets new residents, with 10 little kids....

they get ill because you didnt follow the law

Can WE imagine for just a simple moment that the OP's house has no
lead based paint? Imagine that! OP can tell us. No need to make a big
deal of it until he tells us so.

Even though I played with dynamite and mercury, I'm almost normal.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:44:56 -0700 (PDT), bob haller
wrote:

On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:41:15 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:32:52 -0700 (PDT), bob haller

wrote:



ultimately the painting contactor is required to follow the law...





Requirement and following the law are not the same, Bob.



so call some contractors and be prepared for a expensive repaint. or risk getting sued by your neighbors if you dont follow the law..



I'm all shook up. I was once sued by a Nigerian Prince. He retreated,

withdrew his case, knowing he was wrong



OP has never said his home had lead paint within 20 miles of his

location. Did I miss something in his comment?

the vast majority of homes have lead paint because of their age....


Maybe in Pittsburgh, but not a vast majority here. Not saying there
isn't some or any, but it surely isn't a "vast majority".

a high profile problem could hurt resale values for a entire neighborhood.....


So never buy the house.

people are sue happy these days......

Nothing new.

| lets imagine a neighborhood with zero kids for 10 blocks.....
|
| so you know threres no kids and ignore the law.
|

No one is talking about ignoring the law. You keep
talking with authority about it, yet you haven't even
taken the time to read it. You also are apparently not
reading what I've been writing. I have read the law.
I'm a contractor and have to deal with these things.
If you want to talk about the text of the law then
please educate yourself about it first. If you want to
talk about what you think the law should be then that's
another story.

| the day you finish scraping sanding etc the home next door gets new
residents, with 10 little kids....
| they get ill because you didnt follow the law

Do you even have any idea what the law describes?

First of all, there's not a lot of lead paint around
these days. I live in a duplex house built in 1835. We
renovated the rental side before the new law went into
effect and tested for lead. The only lead paint in the
interior was the very first layer, next to the original
wood. Most of the outside work I do does not have lead
paint. There are occasional cases where I suspect lead paint,
but not many. I worked on a house recently that was
painted with latex. Last fall I restained a house built
in 1694. It's never had anything but oil-base stain.

But that aside, the law requires covering
the area with plastic and taking great care not to
lose any of the paint chips. So it will help to avoid
getting paint chips on grounds of the property being
painted. It will not affect any dust that happens to
drift to the property next door, where your theoretical
kids live. How are they going to get sick? By eating
the dirt in the yard next door? You're assuming that
I'm going to be a slob and scrape with no dropcloth,
then the kids are going to come over and eat the paint?
What about the tiny bits of peeling paint under the vinyl
siding on their own house, dropping occasionally to the
ground next to the foundation wall? Do you think you've
cured the lead problem by putting a plastic veneer over
the old, peeling paint?

| Can WE imagine for just a simple moment that the OP's house has no
| lead based paint? Imagine that! OP can tell us. No need to make a big
| deal of it until he tells us so.
|

He's already said that it's latex, but that doesn't
actually matter. The new lead paint law applies to
any house built before 1979, even if it obviously
has no lead paint, unless it's been certified lead-free
or deleaded, after being inspected by a licensed
deleading company.

bob haller wrote:
A light sanding with an orbital

sander afterwards will quickly remove most of the tiny bits of
crisped paint

remaining before applying the oil based primer I use under the latex
paint.

if theres lead in the paint your not supposed to sand it, it makes a
lead particle dust cloud

Did you miss the part where I removed almost all the paint first?

Do you think scraping and feathering (sanding) is better?

Using the heat, the paint comes off in large chunks, easy to collect and dispose
of.
..

On Monday, April 28, 2014 11:22:36 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| lets imagine a neighborhood with zero kids for 10 blocks.....

|

| so you know threres no kids and ignore the law.

|



No one is talking about ignoring the law. You keep

talking with authority about it, yet you haven't even

taken the time to read it. You also are apparently not

reading what I've been writing. I have read the law.

I'm a contractor and have to deal with these things.

If you want to talk about the text of the law then

please educate yourself about it first. If you want to

talk about what you think the law should be then that's

another story.



A quick search produced this, which sure seems to indicate the
exemption you are using was actually eliminated in 2010:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010...2010-10100.htm

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-8823-7]
RIN 2070-AJ55


Lead; Amendment to the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping Provisions in
the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing several revisions to the Lead Renovation,
Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that published in the Federal
Register on April 22, 2008. The RRP rule established accreditation,
training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work
practice standards on persons performing renovations for compensation
in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. In this
document, EPA is eliminating the ``opt-out'' provision that currently
exempts a renovation firm from the training and work practice
requirements of the rule where the firm obtains a certification from
the owner of a residence he or she occupies that no child under age 6
or pregnant women resides in the home and the home is not a child-
occupied facility. EPA is also requiring renovation firms to provide a
copy of the records demonstrating compliance with the training and work
practice requirements of the RRP rule to the owner and, if different,
the occupant of the building being renovated or the operator of the
child-occupied facility. In addition, the rule makes minor changes to
the certification, accreditation and state authorization requirements.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 6, 2010.


So, it looks like that exemption is gone. I'd also point out that
the federal EPA regulations are not the only regulations that govern.
States and some cities may have additional requirements.





| the day you finish scraping sanding etc the home next door gets new

residents, with 10 little kids....

| they get ill because you didnt follow the law



Do you even have any idea what the law describes?



Apparently he does and he's reasoning sounds reasonable. It seems
rather nuts to force someone who has a 5 year old to go through the
expense and rigour required to avoid old lead paint debris from flying
into the air, while allowing the neighbor's house that is 5ft or less
away to choose to exempt themselves, sand away and let the chips fall
where they may.



First of all, there's not a lot of lead paint around

these days. I live in a duplex house built in 1835. We

renovated the rental side before the new law went into

effect and tested for lead. The only lead paint in the

interior was the very first layer, next to the original

wood. Most of the outside work I do does not have lead

paint. There are occasional cases where I suspect lead paint,

but not many. I worked on a house recently that was

painted with latex. Last fall I restained a house built

in 1694. It's never had anything but oil-base stain.



Where did all the lead paint on houses built prior to the 1970's go?
It's hard to believe that they were all sanded down to bare wood.



But that aside, the law requires covering

the area with plastic and taking great care not to

lose any of the paint chips. So it will help to avoid

getting paint chips on grounds of the property being

painted. It will not affect any dust that happens to

drift to the property next door, where your theoretical

kids live. How are they going to get sick? By eating

the dirt in the yard next door? You're assuming that

I'm going to be a slob and scrape with no dropcloth,

then the kids are going to come over and eat the paint?

I guess that's part of what the EPA is worried about,
because otherwise they wouldn't care what you did with houses
that have old lead paint on the exterior. And as Bob pointed
out, if you sand the paint, the dust won't just stay right at
the house. Many times houses are right next to each other.
Seems very reasonable that if you do as you please with a house
with lead paint, some of the old lead paint can wind up on
the neighbor's property.




What about the tiny bits of peeling paint under the vinyl

siding on their own house, dropping occasionally to the

ground next to the foundation wall? Do you think you've

cured the lead problem by putting a plastic veneer over

the old, peeling paint?

I guess you should take that up with the EPA. I think their answer
will be that they are trying to minimize any lead paint from
making it's way off the house. Some is going to fall off from
peeling, but going at a house with lead paint with a scraper and
sander is going to release a lot of lead paint that can be contained.
Also, the neighbor's house may have been covered with siding and
the lead paint is no longer an issue, while someone taking a sander
to the lead paint on the house 5 ft away is likely to contaminate
their property.

| A quick search produced this, which sure seems to indicate the
| exemption you are using was actually eliminated in 2010:
|
| http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010...2010-10100.htm
|

Yes, you're right. Thank you. I found the full text of
the law in the updated version. There's still an exemption
for small areas disturbed (6 sf int, 20 sf ext) and there's
still an exemption if paint is tested by someone authorized
and found to be conforming in terms of lead content, but
the ooption to have the owner sign off is gone.

| Where did all the lead paint on houses built prior to the 1970's go?
| It's hard to believe that they were all sanded down to bare wood.
|

Much of the wood has just been replaced. I live in
New England and there are certainly plenty of old
Victorians here with lead paint, but much of the housing
stock has been renovated. Lead paint was banned about
35 years ago.

| You're assuming that
| I'm going to be a slob and scrape with no dropcloth,
| then the kids are going to come over and eat the paint?
|
| I guess that's part of what the EPA is worried about,
| because otherwise they wouldn't care what you did with houses
| that have old lead paint on the exterior.

Yes. I don't really have a problem with the law. Any
contractor with any sense wanted to be careful about
lead exposure before the law came into effect, and they
still want to now. In general I think the law is about as
reasonable as it can be, but it is bureaucratic, and that
has its limitations.
Following the law is not necessarilly the same thing as
being careful about lead exposure.

Rather than looking at me as a contractor who's trying
to skirt the requirements, I'd invite you to look at it from
your own point of view. The job I'm on right now involves
interior painting. There could be lead underneath. I don't
know. I know there's none in the top layers because I
painted it myself, 12 years ago. The paint is in good shape
with almost no loose bits. I can stay under the 6 sq. ft. per
room limit on scraping, but not if I sand the woodwork.
I could perhaps get by without much sanding, maybe just
relying on TSP washing, since the trim is a low sheen. Or I
could use toxic methylene chloride sanding liquid and a fumy
oil-base underbody if I'm worried about adhesion. Of course,
that would also add to the cost of the job. And it's not
especially healthy.

Now, imagine you're the customer. You've got a contractor
you like and trust. You want him to repaint the interior.
There's almost no peeling at all. He tells you, "Sorry, but
with this new law it's going to be a lot more expensive.
I have to wrap all furniture and HEPA vacuum all surfaces
every day." You and he both know that there's no risk of
actually being exposed to lead. (You might even know for
certain that the house has never had anything but latex
paint.) But none of that matters. Neither you nor your
contractor has the legal right to make a decision...
That's what most of my jobs are like. That's what I was
using the opt-out form for.

Next month I need to do repairs and restain on a deck
that I built myself. It's on a condo roof. The front half of
the condo building is 1800s. The back half, where my
customer is, was added in 1983. So I know there's no lead
in the condo or on the deck. But according to the law that
doesn't matter. The house was built before 1979. But if
I work on one of the decks in the other condo building,
(there are 2 on the property) which was entirely built in
1983, then I'm in the clear. Same condos. Same wood.
Same dates. Same builder. One is subject to deleading-type
protocols and the other isn't.
A job last month was in an old stone water pump building
that was converted to high-end condos about 5 years ago.
Every surface inside is new, but the building isn't. So, again,
I'd need to cover the whole room in plastic if I want to just,
say, change door frame moldings.

What if you were those customers? You'd be paying
extra costs pointlessly. I'm grateful this topic came up
because I need to stay legal, and I'm grateful to you for
your research, but it is a very awkward scenario for me,
and for people who want work done at a reasonable cost.
A bureaucratic solution is limited by the fact that it can
only operate by the letter of the law and doesn't allow for
common sense.
In the future I may get certified for lead work or I may
just limit my jobs. I'm not sure. The certification is not a
big deal, but the deleading-style work requirements are a
pain in the neck. With many of my jobs I can probably stay
under the 6/20 sq ft of disturbed paint requirement, so I
might just try to do that.... and hire demo crews for larger
renovations.

On the other hand, my back isn't getting any younger.
Maybe I should just switch to an easier, more lucrative
field, like Certified Lead Testing Technician.

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


Even though I played with dynamite and mercury, I'm almost normal.


I'm not certain that this has been reliably demonstrated...

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:09:28 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

Even though I played with dynamite and mercury, I'm almost normal.


I'm not certain that this has been reliably demonstrated...

Well, hell. Don't ask my bride about it. She wasn't there.

"Oren" wrote in message


Even though I played with dynamite and mercury, I'm
almost normal.

You too? I never messed with dynamite though, just because of lack of
opportunity. Did lots with home made gun powder though (sometimes with some
steel pipe), ditto powdered magnesium and also a concoction I used to make
with iodine crystals and ammonia (VERY unstable).

I kinda miss the days when you could buy the materials for such goodies at
the corner drug store. Maybe you still can?


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:29:45 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message


Even though I played with dynamite and mercury, I'm
almost normal.

You too? I never messed with dynamite though, just because of lack of
opportunity. Did lots with home made gun powder though (sometimes with some
steel pipe), ditto powdered magnesium and also a concoction I used to make
with iodine crystals and ammonia (VERY unstable).

I kinda miss the days when you could buy the materials for such goodies at
the corner drug store. Maybe you still can?

How did we ever survive? Back in the day you cold walk into a Sears,
Roebuck & Company store and buy a rifle dirt cheap

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:29:45 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message


Even though I played with dynamite and mercury, I'm
almost normal.

You too? I never messed with dynamite though, just because of lack of
opportunity. Did lots with home made gun powder though (sometimes with some
steel pipe), ditto powdered magnesium and also a concoction I used to make
with iodine crystals and ammonia (VERY unstable).

I kinda miss the days when you could buy the materials for such goodies at
the corner drug store. Maybe you still can?

How did we ever survive? Back in the day you cold walk into a Sears,
Roebuck & Company store and buy a rifle dirt cheap

I was recently outside Lancaster, PA and saw a help wanted sign for firearm
sales at an ACE Hardware store. Golly gee, Sarge!

--
Tekkie

On Thu, 1 May 2014 19:30:21 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:29:45 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message


Even though I played with dynamite and mercury, I'm
almost normal.

You too? I never messed with dynamite though, just because of lack of
opportunity. Did lots with home made gun powder though (sometimes with some
steel pipe), ditto powdered magnesium and also a concoction I used to make
with iodine crystals and ammonia (VERY unstable).

I kinda miss the days when you could buy the materials for such goodies at
the corner drug store. Maybe you still can?

How did we ever survive? Back in the day you cold walk into a Sears,
Roebuck & Company store and buy a rifle dirt cheap

I was recently outside Lancaster, PA and saw a help wanted sign for firearm
sales at an ACE Hardware store. Golly gee, Sarge!

Amish Mafia?
--
'...we don't wanna bring our guns, but ready if it goes there -- Madison Rising

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 2:39:44 PM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| You're assuming that

| I'm going to be a slob and scrape with no dropcloth,

| then the kids are going to come over and eat the paint?

|

| I guess that's part of what the EPA is worried about,

| because otherwise they wouldn't care what you did with houses

| that have old lead paint on the exterior.



Yes. I don't really have a problem with the law. Any

contractor with any sense wanted to be careful about

lead exposure before the law came into effect, and they

still want to now. In general I think the law is about as

reasonable as it can be, but it is bureaucratic, and that

has its limitations.

Following the law is not necessarilly the same thing as

being careful about lead exposure.



Rather than looking at me as a contractor who's trying

to skirt the requirements, I'd invite you to look at it from

your own point of view. The job I'm on right now involves

interior painting. There could be lead underneath. I don't

know. I know there's none in the top layers because I

painted it myself, 12 years ago. The paint is in good shape

with almost no loose bits. I can stay under the 6 sq. ft. per

room limit on scraping, but not if I sand the woodwork.

I could perhaps get by without much sanding, maybe just

relying on TSP washing, since the trim is a low sheen. Or I

could use toxic methylene chloride sanding liquid and a fumy

oil-base underbody if I'm worried about adhesion. Of course,

that would also add to the cost of the job. And it's not

especially healthy.



Now, imagine you're the customer. You've got a contractor

you like and trust. You want him to repaint the interior.

There's almost no peeling at all. He tells you, "Sorry, but

with this new law it's going to be a lot more expensive.

I have to wrap all furniture and HEPA vacuum all surfaces

every day." You and he both know that there's no risk of

actually being exposed to lead. (You might even know for

certain that the house has never had anything but latex

paint.) But none of that matters. Neither you nor your

contractor has the legal right to make a decision...

That's what most of my jobs are like. That's what I was

using the opt-out form for.



Next month I need to do repairs and restain on a deck

that I built myself. It's on a condo roof. The front half of

the condo building is 1800s. The back half, where my

customer is, was added in 1983. So I know there's no lead

in the condo or on the deck. But according to the law that

doesn't matter. The house was built before 1979. But if

I work on one of the decks in the other condo building,

(there are 2 on the property) which was entirely built in

1983, then I'm in the clear. Same condos. Same wood.

Same dates. Same builder. One is subject to deleading-type

protocols and the other isn't.

A job last month was in an old stone water pump building

that was converted to high-end condos about 5 years ago.

Every surface inside is new, but the building isn't. So, again,

I'd need to cover the whole room in plastic if I want to just,

say, change door frame moldings.



What if you were those customers? You'd be paying

extra costs pointlessly. I'm grateful this topic came up

because I need to stay legal, and I'm grateful to you for

your research, but it is a very awkward scenario for me,

and for people who want work done at a reasonable cost.

A bureaucratic solution is limited by the fact that it can

only operate by the letter of the law and doesn't allow for

common sense.


I was never arguing how reasonable the law was, only what it
says and why. I don't have lead paint here, but if I did, I'm
on an acre lot, with no kids, and I don't eat dirt or paint chips,
so I'd be very tempted to do what it sounds like you would, ie
take some reasonable steps during work, but not go nuts about it.

I was never arguing how reasonable the law was, only what it

says and why. I don't have lead paint here, but if I did, I'm

on an acre lot, with no kids, and I don't eat dirt or paint chips,

so I'd be very tempted to do what it sounds like you would, ie

take some reasonable steps during work, but not go nuts about it.

So just a week after your home gets painted. the home is sold, the new family with little kids moves in and the children get mental defects.....

upon investigation the high lead content is discovered..

your family get sued for the lead contamination....

| says and why. I don't have lead paint here, but if I did, I'm
|
| on an acre lot, with no kids, and I don't eat dirt or paint chips,
|
| so I'd be very tempted to do what it sounds like you would, ie
|
| take some reasonable steps during work, but not go nuts about it.
|

| So just a week after your home gets painted. the home is sold, the new
family with little kids moves in and the children get mental defects.....
| upon investigation the high lead content is discovered.
| your family get sued for the lead contamination....
|

You really are a fanatic about this, aren't you?
We're talking about a case where little if any lead
*could* be exposed during painting, because it's
under the layer being sanded.

And how is he going to get sued for lead contamination?
Anyone who grows a vegetable garden knows that
you should never plant it close to the house because
there is probably lead in the soil there from earlier
painting. (Not only scraping. Sixty-odd years ago
house paint was often made on-site by mixing white
lead oxide dust with linseed oil.)

There is another solution, though, that might be
worthwhile to some people. I'm thinking of checking
into it for my own work: If the house is certified
lead-free it's exempt from the new law. Alternatively,
if a contractor has obtained the required certificate to
conform with the new law, they can bypass the requirements
if they test all areas that will be worked on and find
no lead. I don't know what the cost is of lead-free
certification, but it could make sense for some people.

On the other hand, there's also a caveat with that:
Where I live, landlords can have adults without children
sign a waiver that says they don't know whether there's
lead in the house. As I understand it, if they get it tested
and find lead then they no longer "don't know", but I'm
not sure what the legal ramifications are at that point.

The whole thing is a very awkward and expensive problem.
The new lead law was actually passed decades ago, but
they apparently only got it passed by promising everyone
involved that the law wouldn't go into effect until they
were no longer affected by it. In Massachusetts, a landlord
who doesn't live in their own house of 3 units or less cannot
reject any tenant, yet if a child under 6 y.o. moves in they
must pay for the tenants to live somewhere else while the
entire unit (and up to 5 " high exterior) is deleaded. Some
landlords simply can't afford that, and the state doesn't
pay. Further, deleading usually involves ruining the woodwork
up to 5' high, so it often makes more sense to just replace
all trim, doors and windows in the unit.

What amazes me is that we never learn these lessons. Both
electricity and radiation were considered to be possible
wonder drugs when they first reached the public. As
I understand it, the Romans knew about lead poisoning.
We've known about mercury poisoning for hundreds of years,
yet new "green" fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. Many years
ago I raked blueberries as a job. The pesticide of choice was
lead arsenate. The growers would just stop applying it a few
weeks before harvest to make the crop safe! I also picked apples.
(During my itinerant hippie days.) Those received 12 different
sprays. They're considered the most toxic produce product to
this day, in terms of residue. We still don't learn. A
recent British study concluded there was no notable difference
between organic and non-organic foods! These are scientists
who should be thinking rationally. Yet they ignore the toxicity
of neuro-toxin and mutagenic residues on crops, focussing only
on vitamin content. Why? Probably because really coming to
terms with the problems of industrial farming is simply such a big
issue that the scientists can't bring themselves to think about it.
And also because there are close links between powerful
government people and big corporations like Monsanto, which
has actually patented seeds designed to withstand even more
of their toxic pesticides and herbicides ("roundup ready" seeds)
and then take non-customer farmers to court for patent
infringement when their crop gets infected with roundup ready
pollen.

So what do we do? You can't stop eating. We just have to be
educated and thoughtful, and do what's reasonable to avoid
the toxins. (Hopefully you eat organic as much as possible,
don't eat factory food or imported food from 3rd-world countries,
don't use moisturizers with parabens, don't eat from cans with
BPA lining, and don't use fluorescent bulbs, while you worry about
lead paint. And of course, you *have* eliminated your aluminum
pans, right?