Roofers I've talked to say that re-roofing a house that had an ice and
water membrane put on it 10 or 15 years ago is a pain. Ripping the
old membrane off frequently leads to replacing parts of the plywood
deck.

I don't understand why these Ice and Water membranes have to be "peel
and stick". Seems they would work just fine if you rolled them out
and put a few nails on them to keep them in place before the shingles
go down (ie same as tar paper).

Does anyone make an Ice and Water membrane that's NOT peel and stick?
(Tamko Nail Fast seems like it but Tamko doesn't exactly call it an
Ice and Water shield even though it's made of the same SBS material).

Joe wrote:
Roofers I've talked to say that re-roofing a house that had an ice and
water membrane put on it 10 or 15 years ago is a pain. Ripping the
old membrane off frequently leads to replacing parts of the plywood
deck.

I don't understand why these Ice and Water membranes have to be "peel
and stick". Seems they would work just fine if you rolled them out
and put a few nails on them to keep them in place before the shingles
go down (ie same as tar paper).

Does anyone make an Ice and Water membrane that's NOT peel and stick?
(Tamko Nail Fast seems like it but Tamko doesn't exactly call it an
Ice and Water shield even though it's made of the same SBS material).

Here I go again! A properly insulated and ventilated attic and properly
installed roof system doesn't need any of that stuff. Building codes for your
area could possibly spec some type of underlayment to extend at least 3 feet
beyond the inside walls of the house, or even the entire deck. Depending on the
pitch, the sticky stuff can be dangerous enough for a roofer to walk on, moreso
with just a few nails holding it on. Tom
Work at your leisure!

DY (Tom) wrote:
Here I go again! A properly insulated and ventilated attic and properly
installed roof system doesn't need any of that stuff. Building codes for your
area could possibly spec some type of underlayment to extend at least 3 feet
beyond the inside walls of the house, or even the entire deck. Depending on the
pitch, the sticky stuff can be dangerous enough for a roofer to walk on, moreso
with just a few nails holding it on. Tom
Work at your leisure!


Well I guess that is just end of discussion, huh?

In reality, many of us have roofs that have, well, less than ideal
designs. Mine is 50 years old, rather flimsy, cape-cod style. Many
existing roofs are very hard to insulate and ventilate properly. Due
to cost, historic building restriction, aesthetics, and many other
reasons, many of us just have to find a way to keep our houses
leak-free, despite a poorly designed roof system. It is always an
uphill battle, of course.

Tarpaper is next to useless when it comes to ice and water buildup.
I'd personally love some ice-and-water peel and stick on our roof.
When we redo, we'll put some down. Nails will leak sooner than
adhesive. You really want something that is water proof, not just
something that uses gravity to direct water down the roof. Our house,
for instance, can get ice dams (if we are not very attentive, and let
things go) about 10" to 14" thick, which leads to a pool of water as
much as several feet back from the edge. This will submerge the nailed
edge of whatever you have down, and leak. The sticky tape will do a
better job, hopefully.

kevwalsh wrote:In reality, many of us have roofs that have, well, less than
ideal
designs. Mine is 50 years old, rather flimsy, cape-cod style. Many
existing roofs are very hard to insulate and ventilate properly. Due
to cost, historic building restriction, aesthetics, and many other
reasons, many of us just have to find a way to keep our houses
leak-free, despite a poorly designed roof system. It is always an
uphill battle, of course.

Tarpaper is next to useless when it comes to ice and water buildup.
I'd personally love some ice-and-water peel and stick on our roof.
When we redo, we'll put some down. Nails will leak sooner than
adhesive. You really want something that is water proof, not just
something that uses gravity to direct water down the roof. Our house,
for instance, can get ice dams (if we are not very attentive, and let
things go) about 10" to 14" thick, which leads to a pool of water as
much as several feet back from the edge. This will submerge the nailed
edge of whatever you have down, and leak. The sticky tape will do a
better job, hopefully.

I'm betting "cost" is the major restriction to a proper roof, especially to the
builder. Historic building restrictions? Would that apply to the attic
insulation, too? I'd love an historic roof, especially cedar shingles over
scabboards. Of course, it doesn't get very close to ice dam situations here in
Southern AZ, at my altitude. How do you attend to your ice dams to keep 'em
down? I've chopped at them, but it's dicey. Too easy to damage the shingles.
Tom
Work at your leisure!

On 15 Oct 2004 18:38:52 GMT, DY (Tom) wrote (with
possible editing):

Here I go again! A properly insulated and ventilated attic and properly
installed roof system doesn't need any of that stuff. Building codes for your
area could possibly spec some type of underlayment to extend at least 3 feet
beyond the inside walls of the house, or even the entire deck. Depending on the
pitch, the sticky stuff can be dangerous enough for a roofer to walk on, moreso
with just a few nails holding it on. Tom
Work at your leisure!

Well, I respectfully disagree. If that were so, then ice dams
wouldn't form on unheated buildings and they do. Not being an expert,
I can only guess that it's got to do with the color of the roof, the
pitch and its direction, along with the amount of direct sunlight to
which the roof is exposed.

--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

On 14 Oct 2004 22:25:48 -0700, (Joe) wrote (with
possible editing):

Roofers I've talked to say that re-roofing a house that had an ice and
water membrane put on it 10 or 15 years ago is a pain. Ripping the
old membrane off frequently leads to replacing parts of the plywood
deck.

I don't understand why these Ice and Water membranes have to be "peel
and stick". Seems they would work just fine if you rolled them out
and put a few nails on them to keep them in place before the shingles
go down (ie same as tar paper).

Does anyone make an Ice and Water membrane that's NOT peel and stick?
(Tamko Nail Fast seems like it but Tamko doesn't exactly call it an
Ice and Water shield even though it's made of the same SBS material).

Just a suggestion from an amateur: perhaps you could leave the paper
backing on? (never tried it)

We used Grace Ice and Water Shield over the entire roof along with
shingles guaranteed for 30 years. We did this because even though the
roof is properly insulated and vented with proper vent, soffit and
ridge vents, we have eyeballs (recessed lights) in the cathedral
ceilings and found that the heat from them was enough to melt snow
above them which would run down a bit and then freeze. Eventually
this would cause ice dams, pooling, etc. and water would leak between
the sheathing and the finished ceiling. Of course, if I had it to
do over again, I wouldn't use eyeballs.

--

Larry
Email to rapp at lmr dot com

I see my main point (or question) has been missed.

Some here are arguing that you don't need any sort of advanced
underlayment under the shingles - even over the eaves where flowing
water can freeze and/or back up and get under the shingles on
low-slope roofs. If you feel that ice/water membranes are a gimic or
aren't needed, fine. You don't have to follow this thread.

For those (like me) that think an ice/water membrane (as opposed to
tar paper) is the smart thing to put over the eaves, all I'm wondering
is why the membrane has to be peel-and-stick instead of just being
nailed down. It is the FUTURE situation of dealing with the membrane
being stuck to the deck that I'm wonding about (and apparently IS
causing problems in re-roofing situations).

Look. They used to "glue" 2 sheets of 15-lb felt tar paper together
and use that over the eaves. But even in that case the resulting
sheet was never "glued" to the wood deck - it was nailed.

Again, it's NOT the membrane (water-impervious-ness) that I'm
questioning. I just don't see why it has to have an adhesive surface
and become essentially glued to the plywood deck. If it was just
nailed down, with the shingles put on top, then I don't see how water
would EVER get under the membrane and contact the wood.

I've been told that the first membrane sheets that came out for
Ice/Water had a smooth top side (10 to 15 years ago). That's why
you're seeing smooth membranes now in re-roofing jobs because your
seeing these original membrane sheets.

The membranes now are coated (sanded, granular) and I think it's
because roofers were slipping on the smooth membranes so the granules
make it non-slip. These have been available for maybe 10 years now
and the odd job is coming across these membranes.

I don't buy the argument that the granules are there to be able to
un-roll it (the peel-away backing will prevent it sticking while
rolled up). In theory, the granules serve NO purpose to help the
membrane shed water and actually make it hard for the shingles to bond
to the membrane when the granules are in the way of making a good
bond.

It is said that the asphalt (in the membrane) softens when heated and
migrates around the granules and adheres to the underside of the
shingles. Why go through all that hassle? Seems the granules are
more trouble than they're worth if you need this heating/asphalt
migration thing to happen.

So basically the use of a granular-top-coated peel-and-stick IS a pain
in the butt when it comes to re-roofing and that you can't tear off
old shingles WITHOUT ripping the membrane to hell (yes?) and even more
- that you can expect to destroy or pull up the wood decking. Seems
like a VERY high price to pay - and I'm not sure what the benefit is
(to using THAT kind of membrane).

If I understand this correctly:

If you put on a granular-top-coated peel-and-stick membrane now, then
in 15 or 20 years (when you need to re-roof) that:

(1) the shinges won't release easily from the membrane (because the
membrane NEEDS an asphalt layer to flow through the granules and bond
to the underside of the shingles!)

(2) the membrane won't release easily from the deck

(3) you've essentially got a sandwitch of shingles/membrane/deck that
can't be separated without lots of effort and destruction of the
surface of the wood deck so much so that it becomes more cost
effective to rip the plywood deck off and replace.

Have I got that right?

If so, then the solution is

(a) use a membrane with a smooth top surface with no asphalt layer to
become permanently bonded to the shingles (does anyone make such a
membrane ?)

(b) use a membrane (with a granular top layer or not) but without a
peel-and-stick bottom side (so that you can rip it off later without
messing up the wood deck). Again, does anyone make a NON
peel-and-stick membrane? (seems not).

(c) use a peel-and-stick membrane BUT leave the release sheet on.
Unroll the membrane and nail it down. Then in 10 or 15 years it will
come off easily.

I'm thinking that accidents, law suits, and product liability issues
have played a LARGE role in the design of the currently-available
ice/water membranes.

Think about it - peel-and-stick underside, granular coated top side -
both serve basically ONE purpose - to prevent the roofer from sliping
and falling off the roof. Neither the adhesive underside or the
granular coated top side help AT ALL in helping the membrane perform
it's function of preventing water that gets under the shingles from
making contact with the wood deck.

However, both the peel-and-stick bottom side and
granular/asphalt-coated top side are a MAJOR pain when it comes to
re-roofing.

Comments?

Joe wrote:Think about it - peel-and-stick underside, granular coated top side
-
both serve basically ONE purpose - to prevent the roofer from sliping
and falling off the roof. Neither the adhesive underside or the
granular coated top side help AT ALL in helping the membrane perform
it's function of preventing water that gets under the shingles from
making contact with the wood deck.

However, both the peel-and-stick bottom side and
granular/asphalt-coated top side are a MAJOR pain when it comes to
re-roofing.

Comments?
Correct, Joe. Only for the relative safety of the roofer (Which I thought I'd
covered in my original reply to the OP, BTW). The membrane doesn't NEED to be
stuck down to the deck to perform it's function, but only to the drip edge and
any neighboring pieces of i&w shield. You can get away with a 3 inch lap. And
yes, it's hell to tear off old i&w shield. Tom
Work at your leisure!

snip
And yes, it's hell to tear off old i&w shield.

Ok, my stupid question: couldn't one just stick a new layer of the same
stuff over the old (assuming the old isn't all torn up)? Just wondering
since I'm planning to use some of this under my concrete roof tile...

DY (Tom) wrote in message

both serve basically ONE purpose - to prevent the roofer from sliping
and falling off the roof. Neither the adhesive underside or the
granular coated top side help AT ALL in helping the membrane perform
it's function of preventing water that gets under the shingles from
making contact with the wood deck.

However, both the peel-and-stick bottom side and
granular/asphalt-coated top side are a MAJOR pain when it comes to
re-roofing.

Comments?
Correct, Joe. Only for the relative safety of the roofer (Which I thought I'd
covered in my original reply to the OP, BTW). The membrane doesn't NEED to be
stuck down to the deck to perform it's function, but only to the drip edge and
any neighboring pieces of i&w shield. You can get away with a 3 inch lap. And
yes, it's hell to tear off old i&w shield. Tom
Work at your leisure!

My shingles are going up next week (IKO Chateau).

The installer knows I'm concerned about the "peel-and-stick" part of
the membrane installation. I'm probably going to have to replace
quite a bit of the old eave decking as it is (and they charge $$$ for
doing it). It would **** me off to think that the peel-and-stick part
of the membrane will mean the investment in the new decking will be
lost when the wood gets torn up in 20 years when I re-roof.

Should I stick to my guns and tell them to leave the release membrane
ON and nail the membrane down?

Joe wrote: Should I stick to my guns and tell them to leave the release
membrane
ON and nail the membrane down?

The roofers might find that to be a PITA, especially if they need to traverse
it often. And it'll still need to be adhered at the edges. I say skip the I&W
shield, and a good 30# felting will do. Tom
Work at your leisure!

(Joe) wrote:

(Tom) wrote in message

both serve basically ONE purpose - to prevent the roofer from sliping
and falling off the roof. Neither the adhesive underside or the
granular coated top side help AT ALL in helping the membrane perform
it's function of preventing water that gets under the shingles from
making contact with the wood deck.

However, both the peel-and-stick bottom side and
granular/asphalt-coated top side are a MAJOR pain when it comes to
re-roofing.

Comments?
Correct, Joe. Only for the relative safety of the roofer (Which I thought I'd
covered in my original reply to the OP, BTW). The membrane doesn't NEED to be
stuck down to the deck to perform it's function, but only to the drip edge and
any neighboring pieces of i&w shield. You can get away with a 3 inch lap. And
yes, it's hell to tear off old i&w shield. Tom
Work at your leisure!

My shingles are going up next week (IKO Chateau).

The installer knows I'm concerned about the "peel-and-stick" part of
the membrane installation. I'm probably going to have to replace
quite a bit of the old eave decking as it is (and they charge $$$ for
doing it). It would **** me off to think that the peel-and-stick part
of the membrane will mean the investment in the new decking will be
lost when the wood gets torn up in 20 years when I re-roof.

Should I stick to my guns and tell them to leave the release membrane
ON and nail the membrane down?

No, let them do the job right. IMHO from watching the roofers on
Monday, the peel and stick is more for holding it down during the
install. It was kinda unweildy for them, until it was stuck down, then
it was like part of the decking, as the underlayment and shingles were
installed.

The next re-roof should be another layer of shingles, without a tear
off, so you shouldn't have to tear it off for 30-40 years, at which time
the shield has done its job, and the roof needs to be torn down to the
sheathing, for inspection and repair.

We just had our roof torn off and re-shingled. The old Ice & Water shield
was well bonded to the plywood and cannot be removed. They simply installed
another layer bonded over the first layer to achieve the seal needed.

"John Hines" wrote in message
...
(Joe) wrote:

(Tom) wrote in message

both serve basically ONE purpose - to prevent the roofer from sliping
and falling off the roof. Neither the adhesive underside or the
granular coated top side help AT ALL in helping the membrane perform
it's function of preventing water that gets under the shingles from
making contact with the wood deck.

However, both the peel-and-stick bottom side and
granular/asphalt-coated top side are a MAJOR pain when it comes to
re-roofing.

Comments?
Correct, Joe. Only for the relative safety of the roofer (Which I
thought I'd
covered in my original reply to the OP, BTW). The membrane doesn't NEED
to be
stuck down to the deck to perform it's function, but only to the drip
edge and
any neighboring pieces of i&w shield. You can get away with a 3 inch
lap. And
yes, it's hell to tear off old i&w shield. Tom
Work at your leisure!

My shingles are going up next week (IKO Chateau).

The installer knows I'm concerned about the "peel-and-stick" part of
the membrane installation. I'm probably going to have to replace
quite a bit of the old eave decking as it is (and they charge $$$ for
doing it). It would **** me off to think that the peel-and-stick part
of the membrane will mean the investment in the new decking will be
lost when the wood gets torn up in 20 years when I re-roof.

Should I stick to my guns and tell them to leave the release membrane
ON and nail the membrane down?

No, let them do the job right. IMHO from watching the roofers on
Monday, the peel and stick is more for holding it down during the
install. It was kinda unweildy for them, until it was stuck down, then
it was like part of the decking, as the underlayment and shingles were
installed.

The next re-roof should be another layer of shingles, without a tear
off, so you shouldn't have to tear it off for 30-40 years, at which time
the shield has done its job, and the roof needs to be torn down to the
sheathing, for inspection and repair.

The roofers might find that to be a PITA, especially if they
need to traverse it often. And it'll still need to be adhered
at the edges. I say skip the I&W shield, and a good 30#
felting will do.

So tell me why nailing down felt is somehow not a problem, but try to
suggest nailing down the Ice/Water membrane and all of a sudden it's a
different story. ???

And why does I/W needs to be adhered to the edges, when felt doesn't
(because it can't)? If felt doesn't have a peel-and-stick backing,
and if you'd suggest it in place of I/W, then why can't I get away
with nailing I/W and NOT using it's sticky part?

In other words, just because the I/W membrane has a sticky backing why
does that mean I have to USE the sticky backing? The I/W membrane is
a membrane NOT BECAUSE OF THE STICKY BACKING. It's special because of
what it's made of - not because it has a sticky backing. The sticky
backing does not make it work better. I think the membrane part is
great! I think the sticky backing is for **** because of what it
means for re-roofing later.

It was kinda unweildy for them, until it was stuck down,

I'll bet it takes less time to take an I/W membrane, LEAVE THE RELEASE
SHEET ON, unroll it and position it, and then nail it. Vs taking the
release sheet off and wrestling with it while it's all sticky and
trying to get it into position. Come on - nailing it down should be
no more difficult than if it was felt.

The next re-roof should be another layer of shingles, without
a tear off,

Yabbut, his first layer will be a dimensional roof, very
convoluted compared to your typical 3-tab. They don't usually
take well to a roof-over.

Yes- these are single-tab shingles, and I'm looking at a weight of 300
lbs per square (vs 215 lbs for your average 3-tab).

Also, the problem with the I&W shield sticking to the
decking(then trying to tear it off 20 years from now)
is the OP's main beef.

Yes. I guess it wouldn't be so bad if in 20 years when I take the
shingles off that they release easily from the I/W shield so that
basically the shield could stay put on the roof and I just throw new
shingles over them. But if the shield needs to come off, then I
SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TEAR UP THE PLYWOOD when I'm at it.

I have yet to hear a clear technical reason why these I/W membranes
have a sticky underside that essentially glues them to the wood deck.
They don't need that in order to act as an I/W membrane to keep water
from getting to the deck by backing up under the shingles.

All I can imagine (and hear some people observing) that the sticky
part of these I/W membranes are bad news when it comes time to
re-roof. Lots of down-side to the sticky back-side, and no up-side.

I'm thinking the sticky backside is all for product liability reasons
and not for technical / performance reasons.

We just had our roof torn off and re-shingled. The old
Ice & Water shield was well bonded to the plywood and
cannot be removed. They simply installed another layer
bonded over the first layer to achieve the seal needed.

Your old I/W shield probably had a smooth top surface.

The kind they use today have a granular top surface.

Does anyone have any observations of roofers laying new I/W shield
over top of old GRANULAR I/W ???

Again, I think that both the sticky underside and the granular top
side of these membranes is only for product liability. Any roofer
walking on a properly applied granular-top-coated I/W membrane will
have plenty of grip.

That's nice if you make these membranes, and I'm sure it's nice for
roofers working on the high-sloped mansions that are all the rage now
aday's, but it means SQUAT for the low-slope home owner that has to
deal with tearing the hell out of his decking in 20 years because of
friggin sticky-back membrane. (!)

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
We just had our roof torn off and re-shingled. The old
Ice & Water shield was well bonded to the plywood and
cannot be removed. They simply installed another layer
bonded over the first layer to achieve the seal needed.

Your old I/W shield probably had a smooth top surface.

The kind they use today have a granular top surface.

Does anyone have any observations of roofers laying new I/W shield
over top of old GRANULAR I/W ???

Again, I think that both the sticky underside and the granular top
side of these membranes is only for product liability. Any roofer
walking on a properly applied granular-top-coated I/W membrane will
have plenty of grip.

That's nice if you make these membranes, and I'm sure it's nice for
roofers working on the high-sloped mansions that are all the rage now
aday's, but it means SQUAT for the low-slope home owner that has to
deal with tearing the hell out of his decking in 20 years because of
friggin sticky-back membrane. (!)

The purpose of an I/W membrane is to keep out the ice dams which often GROW
from the bottom up. If you don't have the membrane adhered to the
substrate, the ice can grow between the substrate and the membrane, making
the whole thing useless. Even with proper drip flashing, this could be a
problem. With the adhered membrane, you can't get any water between it and
the substrate, thus making it an effective system. Nailing it down is as
effective as having felt.

I'm thinking the sticky backside is all for product liability reasons
and not for technical / performance reasons.







I beleive the sticky backing does need to be there. on the front edge of the
roof it seals itself to the edge of the plywood to prevent any water or ice
from getting to the wood. with out it being sticky. water or ice could easily
get under it at the edge

Joe wrote:
I'm thinking the sticky backside is all for product liability reasons
and not for technical / performance reasons.

Well, what did I tell you the first time you broached this subject? It helps
keep the roofer from falling off the roof. Tom
Work at your leisure!

sal wrote:

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:49:52 -0600, "3D Peruna"
wrote:

===============Snip================

That's nice if you make these membranes, and I'm sure it's nice for
roofers working on the high-sloped mansions that are all the rage now
aday's, but it means SQUAT for the low-slope home owner that has to
deal with tearing the hell out of his decking in 20 years because of
friggin sticky-back membrane. (!)

The purpose of an I/W membrane is to keep out the ice dams which often GROW

from the bottom up. If you don't have the membrane adhered to the

substrate, the ice can grow between the substrate and the membrane, making
the whole thing useless. Even with proper drip flashing, this could be a
problem. With the adhered membrane, you can't get any water between it and
the substrate, thus making it an effective system. Nailing it down is as
effective as having felt.




Nope, common sense over rules here.

What common sense?


where the heck do you think the nails for the shingles go though? so
nailing down would not compromise I/W membrane.

The membrane is quite flexible and will seal around nails very nicely.
Just like having an o-ring.


the reason you have ice shield is so that the melted water penetrating
the roof surface (top layer of shingles) does not reach the decking.

Yep, you are with the program so far.


the ice would build up and when the snow/ice continues to melt, the
resulting water would never reach the top edge of the I/W, because of
the roofs' pitch. The ice dam that is there would also melt as the
melting snow. so the water would be carried away over the top of the
ice.

my guess again why its has an adhesive backing is. for the ultimate
protection. the manufactures doesn't give a rats ass about the guy
doing the reroof 20 to 40 years down the road.

The adhesive gives one more layer of protection by keeping any water
than happens to get under the shield from migrating between the membrane
and the roof sheathing.


you do not need to stick the **** down. the bond is not that good and
certainly not strong enough to stop the expansion of ice. which btw is
never the problem. the problem is ice on the surface not below the ice
shield.

If the bond isn't that good, then why are you complaining about the
tear-off of this stuff?


Matt

"sal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:49:52 -0600, "3D Peruna"
wrote:

===============Snip================
That's nice if you make these membranes, and I'm sure it's nice for
roofers working on the high-sloped mansions that are all the rage now
aday's, but it means SQUAT for the low-slope home owner that has to
deal with tearing the hell out of his decking in 20 years because of
friggin sticky-back membrane. (!)

The purpose of an I/W membrane is to keep out the ice dams which often
GROW
from the bottom up. If you don't have the membrane adhered to the
substrate, the ice can grow between the substrate and the membrane, making
the whole thing useless. Even with proper drip flashing, this could be a
problem. With the adhered membrane, you can't get any water between it
and
the substrate, thus making it an effective system. Nailing it down is as
effective as having felt.



Nope, common sense over rules here.

Yes...it does. Come and look at my gutters in Minnesota about January and
tell me that I don't need my I/W glued to the plywood. Common sense tells
me that I should wrap the I&W over the fascia, too, before installing any
drip edge, flashing or fascia. Water, in the form of ice, will make its way
uphill and can cause all sorts of problems. That's why we want it glued
down tight.

{

no wrote:

wal-la

???

Walla Walla, Washington?
or
voilá?

the bottom line. the water SHOULD never reach that point (plywood
sheathing) regardless, sticking it down or not sticking it down. but
that's not how it always goes, even in a perfect world.

Let me ask you this... if sticking it down doesn't matter, why isn't the
stuff sold without the adhesive as an alternative? Some marketing ploy?
Lawyers?

I'm still sticking it down on my new house...

3DPeruna wrote:Let me ask you this... if sticking it down doesn't matter, why
isn't the
stuff sold without the adhesive as an alternative? Some marketing ploy?
Lawyers?

Bituthane _is_ sticky. Tar _is _sticky. It's the sticky stuff that seals up
around nails. Yeesh. Tom
Work at your leisure!