Hello,

I have just removed the wallpaper ready to redecorate. It looks as
though at some point in the past (1) the plaster was painted. At a
later point, (2) the paint must have been papered over. Then this
paper was (3) removed and took half of the paint off with it. It seems
whoever lived here at the time then (4) emulsioned over the wall and
(5) papered on top. I have just removed this paper.

I am concerned that the jagged patches of paint from (2) and (3) will
show through my new paper. I think the new paper is much thinner that
what I have taken off and I know from using it in other parts of the
house, it is not very tolerant of anything left on the wall behind it.

I'm thinking that lining the wall with lining paper might be the
easiest way forward. What do you think? Is there another way to remove
the paint (2) under the paint (4)?

I was wondering whether it could sand off, but that would take longer
than lining it, I think.

I'm not sure a wire brush and the group favorite: angle grinder, would
help as it might be too harsh and damage the plaster too.

I can't steam it effectively because the jagged paint is underneath a
second coat of paint.

Thanks in advance,
Stephen.

Stephen coughed up some electrons that declared:

Hello,

I have just removed the wallpaper ready to redecorate. It looks as
though at some point in the past (1) the plaster was painted. At a
later point, (2) the paint must have been papered over. Then this
paper was (3) removed and took half of the paint off with it. It seems
whoever lived here at the time then (4) emulsioned over the wall and
(5) papered on top. I have just removed this paper.

I am concerned that the jagged patches of paint from (2) and (3) will
show through my new paper. I think the new paper is much thinner that
what I have taken off and I know from using it in other parts of the
house, it is not very tolerant of anything left on the wall behind it.

I'm thinking that lining the wall with lining paper might be the
easiest way forward. What do you think? Is there another way to remove
the paint (2) under the paint (4)?

I was wondering whether it could sand off, but that would take longer
than lining it, I think.

I'm not sure a wire brush and the group favorite: angle grinder, would
help as it might be too harsh and damage the plaster too.

I can't steam it effectively because the jagged paint is underneath a
second coat of paint.

Thanks in advance,
Stephen.

Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough. Otherwise
lining paper would be the normal solution.

Have you enough spare new paper just to hang a piece and see how it turns
out when dry? Unless the paper is really thin and fine, I wouldn't normally
imagine paint on plaster would show through.

Cheers

Tim

Tim S wrote:

Have you enough spare new paper just to hang a piece and see how it turns
out when dry? Unless the paper is really thin and fine, I wouldn't normally
imagine paint on plaster would show through.


I _thought_ I'd get away with hanging paper over a surface like that - I
didn't - it showed through.

Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I have just removed the wallpaper ready to redecorate. It looks as
though at some point in the past (1) the plaster was painted. At a
later point, (2) the paint must have been papered over. Then this
paper was (3) removed and took half of the paint off with it. It seems
whoever lived here at the time then (4) emulsioned over the wall and
(5) papered on top. I have just removed this paper.

I am concerned that the jagged patches of paint from (2) and (3) will
show through my new paper. I think the new paper is much thinner that
what I have taken off and I know from using it in other parts of the
house, it is not very tolerant of anything left on the wall behind it.

I'm thinking that lining the wall with lining paper might be the
easiest way forward. What do you think? Is there another way to remove
the paint (2) under the paint (4)?

I was wondering whether it could sand off, but that would take longer
than lining it, I think.

I'm not sure a wire brush and the group favorite: angle grinder, would
help as it might be too harsh and damage the plaster too.

I can't steam it effectively because the jagged paint is underneath a
second coat of paint.

Thanks in advance,
Stephen.

Polyskim and a sander is your fiend

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Polyskim and a sander is your fiend

Rough little devil.

Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I have just removed the wallpaper ready to redecorate. It looks as
though at some point in the past (1) the plaster was painted. At a
later point, (2) the paint must have been papered over. Then this
paper was (3) removed and took half of the paint off with it. It seems
whoever lived here at the time then (4) emulsioned over the wall and
(5) papered on top. I have just removed this paper.

I am concerned that the jagged patches of paint from (2) and (3) will
show through my new paper. I think the new paper is much thinner that
what I have taken off and I know from using it in other parts of the
house, it is not very tolerant of anything left on the wall behind it.

I'm thinking that lining the wall with lining paper might be the
easiest way forward. What do you think? Is there another way to remove
the paint (2) under the paint (4)?

Heavy duty lining paper, no question.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In message , Tim S
writes
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough. Otherwise
lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead based
paint.
Have you enough spare new paper just to hang a piece and see how it turns
out when dry? Unless the paper is really thin and fine, I wouldn't normally
imagine paint on plaster would show through.

Cheers

Tim

--
Clint Sharp

In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough.
Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead based
paint.

On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used distemper.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Stephen wrote:
Hello,

I have just removed the wallpaper ready to redecorate. It looks as
though at some point in the past (1) the plaster was painted. At a
later point, (2) the paint must have been papered over. Then this
paper was (3) removed and took half of the paint off with it. It seems
whoever lived here at the time then (4) emulsioned over the wall and
(5) papered on top. I have just removed this paper.

I am concerned that the jagged patches of paint from (2) and (3) will
show through my new paper. I think the new paper is much thinner that
what I have taken off and I know from using it in other parts of the
house, it is not very tolerant of anything left on the wall behind it.

I'm thinking that lining the wall with lining paper might be the
easiest way forward. What do you think? Is there another way to remove
the paint (2) under the paint (4)?

Heavy duty lining paper, no question.



Or skim with filler if your plastering skills are up to it. I prefer it
to the Polyskim finish and it holds up very well in a thin layer.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough.
Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead based
paint.

On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used distemper.

Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test before
sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it *should* be
distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on woodwork...

I've seen painted plaster in houses around here (1930s era) that was
definitely not distemper. It's cheap insurance to find out before you
start sanding on unknowns.
--
Clint Sharp

Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough.
Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead based
paint.

On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used distemper.

Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test before
sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it *should* be
distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on woodwork...

Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.

I've seen painted plaster in houses around here (1930s era) that was
definitely not distemper.

It wasn't lead either.

It's cheap insurance to find out before you
start sanding on unknowns.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough.
Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead
based paint.

On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used
distemper.
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it
*should* be distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on
woodwork...
Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.


Agreed, it is repeated exposure that could be an issue. There is an issue
with young children who could ingest lead containing dust.

This issue is just as overblown as the nonsense about asbestos and mercury
from CFLs these days.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Clint Sharp wrote:
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it *should*
distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on woodwork...

Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.
OK, fair enough. I'm quite happy for you to go fill your lungs with it.

I know it's not that bad in small one off doses but I choose to be
careful, I have small children around here and would take reasonable
care to identify unknown paints, a test kit is cheap and the houses are
old enough to potentially contain lead paint.


I've seen painted plaster in houses around here (1930s era) that was
definitely not distemper.

It wasn't lead either.
Possibly not but not being a paint chemist or expert in the
identification of unknown paints I rationalised that actually knowing
would be better than taking a chance given that the test kits are fairly
cheap. Care to tell me how you know?


--
Clint Sharp

In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used distemper.

Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test before
sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it *should* be
distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on woodwork...

How many old houses have you worked on? Lead paint was *far* more
expensive than water based stuff and no one with any sense would use it on
an ordinary plastered wall. Only one you might find it on is direct to
brick.

I've seen painted plaster in houses around here (1930s era) that was
definitely not distemper. It's cheap insurance to find out before you
start sanding on unknowns.

My comment applies even more to houses of that era.

It makes sense to take precautions when sanding anything.

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Clint Sharp wrote:
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it *should*
distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on woodwork...

Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.
OK, fair enough. I'm quite happy for you to go fill your lungs with it.

I know it's not that bad in small one off doses but I choose to be
careful, I have small children around here and would take reasonable
care to identify unknown paints, a test kit is cheap and the houses are
old enough to potentially contain lead paint.


I've seen painted plaster in houses around here (1930s era) that was
definitely not distemper.

It wasn't lead either.
Possibly not but not being a paint chemist or expert in the
identification of unknown paints I rationalised that actually knowing
would be better than taking a chance given that the test kits are fairly
cheap. Care to tell me how you know?


Because I remember how lead paints look and feel.

"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough.
Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead
based paint.

On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used
distemper.
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it
*should* be distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on
woodwork...
Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.


Agreed, it is repeated exposure that could be an issue. There is an issue
with young children who could ingest lead containing dust.

This issue is just as overblown as the nonsense about asbestos and mercury
from CFLs these days.


It can't be all that bad if the government is willing to put amalgam
fillings in your teeth!

Fredxx wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough.
Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead
based paint.
On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used
distemper.
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it
*should* be distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on
woodwork...
Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.

Agreed, it is repeated exposure that could be an issue. There is an issue
with young children who could ingest lead containing dust.

This issue is just as overblown as the nonsense about asbestos and mercury
from CFLs these days.


It can't be all that bad if the government is willing to put amalgam
fillings in your teeth!




As part of some purely private research into as it happened, nuclear
energy, I had occasion to attempt to understand issues surrounding
toxicity limits and teh handling of 'dangersous stuff'

Now, from rusty memory, it seems to go like this

Substance X is identified as being a health hazard because people or
mice have been shown to die more readily when heavily dosed with it.
Substitute lead?mercury/plutonium or whatever for X.

A graph of mortality over levels of substance X is drawn up.

A level such that any death over random would be totally buried in the
noise, and assuming linear extrapolations of high doses to zero doses is
valid, is set up. Usually so that the level is less than 1% of the level
that produces ANY noticeable change in mortality or indeed in health.

So at that point the "recommended dose" is in fact about a hundred times
less than that which does anything detectable.

At that point, the legislation kicks in, and every use of that material
that could conceivably result in exceeding that 1% limit is surrounded
in dire warnings, safety equipment and the like. Viz most of us lived
happily with asbestos for years, and haven;'t died yet: deaths were
largely occurring in people who had high and CONTINUOUS exposure to it.
There is a large body of evidence that suggests that the body is in
fact quite capable of ridding itself of poisons provided the systems are
not overloaded by continuous high exposure.

And finally, if there is no commercial reason to keep on using substance
X, because better (and presumably safer) substances exist, then its
banned from general use. This is very much the case with mercury
thermometers and barometers, asbestos in insulation and brake pads, and
lead in petrol (which WAS actually a Bad Thing in urban environments and
did cause detectable problems. Not half so much as diesel particulates
do now, mind you).

Lead in fishing weights has also been banned, because eating a bloody
great ball of lead DID kill wildlife.

IO am not sure anyone has ever died, or become ill as a part of
ingesting lead paint.

Or small quantities of mercury, either. The people who suffered were
hatters, who used it on a daily basis, or miners..


The point here being that most of these so called 'dangerous' compounds
are not. Not in the very small and very occasional exposure to which we
might be subject: The Law is there because of pretty suspect and very
extended extrapolations from very sketchy data, for which there is very
little evidence that the extrapolation is in fact justified. So the Law
errs way on the cautionary side, as do all the dire warnings.

There is a world pof difference between 'failing to provide proper
labelling on a product which might just, if gallons were ingested, prove
fatal' and being harmed by a splash on your skin, or a moments fume
inhalation..

As with all things, context and perspective is important.

Apropos nothing much, have a look here


http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_168.shtml

The actual facts are that nuclear energy is in fact far safer and kills
less people than any other energy source.

Is that your perception however?

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Possibly not but not being a paint chemist or expert in the
identification of unknown paints I rationalised that actually knowing
would be better than taking a chance given that the test kits are
fairly cheap. Care to tell me how you know?


Because I remember how lead paints look and feel.
Ahh, you have an advantage over me, I don't have that experience hence
the use of test kits where I'm not sure and sanding/dust creation is
unavoidable.


--
Clint Sharp

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in
enough. Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead
based paint.
On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used
distemper.
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it
*should* be distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on
woodwork...
Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.

Agreed, it is repeated exposure that could be an issue. There is an
issue with young children who could ingest lead containing dust.

This issue is just as overblown as the nonsense about asbestos and
mercury from CFLs these days.


It can't be all that bad if the government is willing to put amalgam
fillings in your teeth!




As part of some purely private research into as it happened, nuclear
energy, I had occasion to attempt to understand issues surrounding
toxicity limits and teh handling of 'dangersous stuff'

Now, from rusty memory, it seems to go like this

Substance X is identified as being a health hazard because people or
mice have been shown to die more readily when heavily dosed with it.
Substitute lead?mercury/plutonium or whatever for X.

A graph of mortality over levels of substance X is drawn up.

A level such that any death over random would be totally buried in the
noise, and assuming linear extrapolations of high doses to zero doses
is valid, is set up. Usually so that the level is less than 1% of the
level that produces ANY noticeable change in mortality or indeed in
health.
So at that point the "recommended dose" is in fact about a hundred
times less than that which does anything detectable.

At that point, the legislation kicks in, and every use of that
material that could conceivably result in exceeding that 1% limit is
surrounded in dire warnings, safety equipment and the like. Viz most
of us lived happily with asbestos for years, and haven;'t died yet:
deaths were largely occurring in people who had high and CONTINUOUS
exposure to it. There is a large body of evidence that suggests that
the body is in fact quite capable of ridding itself of poisons
provided the systems are not overloaded by continuous high exposure.

And finally, if there is no commercial reason to keep on using
substance X, because better (and presumably safer) substances exist,
then its banned from general use. This is very much the case with
mercury thermometers and barometers, asbestos in insulation and brake
pads, and lead in petrol (which WAS actually a Bad Thing in urban
environments and did cause detectable problems. Not half so much as
diesel particulates do now, mind you).

Lead in fishing weights has also been banned, because eating a bloody
great ball of lead DID kill wildlife.

IO am not sure anyone has ever died, or become ill as a part of
ingesting lead paint.

Or small quantities of mercury, either. The people who suffered were
hatters, who used it on a daily basis, or miners..


The point here being that most of these so called 'dangerous'
compounds are not. Not in the very small and very occasional exposure
to which we might be subject: The Law is there because of pretty
suspect and very extended extrapolations from very sketchy data, for
which there is very little evidence that the extrapolation is in fact
justified. So the Law errs way on the cautionary side, as do all the
dire warnings.

That sounds exactly like the passive smoking argument...

(hides behind sofa)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in
enough. Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead
based paint.
On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used
distemper.
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it
*should* be distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on
woodwork...
Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.
Agreed, it is repeated exposure that could be an issue. There is an
issue with young children who could ingest lead containing dust.

This issue is just as overblown as the nonsense about asbestos and
mercury from CFLs these days.

It can't be all that bad if the government is willing to put amalgam
fillings in your teeth!



As part of some purely private research into as it happened, nuclear
energy, I had occasion to attempt to understand issues surrounding
toxicity limits and teh handling of 'dangersous stuff'

Now, from rusty memory, it seems to go like this

Substance X is identified as being a health hazard because people or
mice have been shown to die more readily when heavily dosed with it.
Substitute lead?mercury/plutonium or whatever for X.

A graph of mortality over levels of substance X is drawn up.

A level such that any death over random would be totally buried in the
noise, and assuming linear extrapolations of high doses to zero doses
is valid, is set up. Usually so that the level is less than 1% of the
level that produces ANY noticeable change in mortality or indeed in
health.
So at that point the "recommended dose" is in fact about a hundred
times less than that which does anything detectable.

At that point, the legislation kicks in, and every use of that
material that could conceivably result in exceeding that 1% limit is
surrounded in dire warnings, safety equipment and the like. Viz most
of us lived happily with asbestos for years, and haven;'t died yet:
deaths were largely occurring in people who had high and CONTINUOUS
exposure to it. There is a large body of evidence that suggests that
the body is in fact quite capable of ridding itself of poisons
provided the systems are not overloaded by continuous high exposure.

And finally, if there is no commercial reason to keep on using
substance X, because better (and presumably safer) substances exist,
then its banned from general use. This is very much the case with
mercury thermometers and barometers, asbestos in insulation and brake
pads, and lead in petrol (which WAS actually a Bad Thing in urban
environments and did cause detectable problems. Not half so much as
diesel particulates do now, mind you).

Lead in fishing weights has also been banned, because eating a bloody
great ball of lead DID kill wildlife.

IO am not sure anyone has ever died, or become ill as a part of
ingesting lead paint.

Or small quantities of mercury, either. The people who suffered were
hatters, who used it on a daily basis, or miners..


The point here being that most of these so called 'dangerous'
compounds are not. Not in the very small and very occasional exposure
to which we might be subject: The Law is there because of pretty
suspect and very extended extrapolations from very sketchy data, for
which there is very little evidence that the extrapolation is in fact
justified. So the Law errs way on the cautionary side, as do all the
dire warnings.

That sounds exactly like the passive smoking argument...

I would say so yes..except for one thing. I do smoke but when I gave up
for ten years I found secondhand smoke exceptionally likely to instigate
asthma.

So I have sympathy.

BUT I get similar effects from many people wearing deodorants.

Can I have my deodorant free area?

Not a chance..

These things are at the whim of fashion and politics: there is no real
cost benefit analysis done..

Has the banning of handguns had an appreciable effect on the use of
weapons in crime? No.

Has there been a reduction in the number of mauled babies as a result of
the dangerous Dogs act? No.

The list it seems is endless of politically motivated legislation that
essentially does nothing, or makes things worse.

There are a few exceptions: yes, lead free petrol probably has saved
urban kids from being more brain dead than they are already. Maybe. Its
hard to tell.

Yes, we dont have holes in the ozone layer anymore since CFCs were banned.

Yes, raptors are back after DDT was taken off the market. So is malaria.
You takes yer choice there.


(hides behind sofa)

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:16:39 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Path: s01-b008!cyclone01.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!pe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk!blueyonder!tex t.news.virginmedia.com!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: The Medway Handyman
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
References:
Subject: Envoonmental health guidelines (was unpleasant surprise behind wallpaper)
Lines: 101
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Message-ID:
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:16:39 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 77.96.243.253
X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com
X-Trace: text.news.virginmedia.com 1247591799 77.96.243.253 (Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:16:39 BST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:16:39 BST
Xref: Hurricane-Charley uk.d-i-y:634495
X-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:16:39 UTC (s01-b008)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in
enough. Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead
based paint.
On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used
distemper.
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it
*should* be distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on
woodwork...
Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.

Agreed, it is repeated exposure that could be an issue. There is an
issue with young children who could ingest lead containing dust.

This issue is just as overblown as the nonsense about asbestos and
mercury from CFLs these days.


It can't be all that bad if the government is willing to put amalgam
fillings in your teeth!




As part of some purely private research into as it happened, nuclear
energy, I had occasion to attempt to understand issues surrounding
toxicity limits and teh handling of 'dangersous stuff'

Now, from rusty memory, it seems to go like this

Substance X is identified as being a health hazard because people or
mice have been shown to die more readily when heavily dosed with it.
Substitute lead?mercury/plutonium or whatever for X.

A graph of mortality over levels of substance X is drawn up.

A level such that any death over random would be totally buried in the
noise, and assuming linear extrapolations of high doses to zero doses
is valid, is set up. Usually so that the level is less than 1% of the
level that produces ANY noticeable change in mortality or indeed in
health.
So at that point the "recommended dose" is in fact about a hundred
times less than that which does anything detectable.

At that point, the legislation kicks in, and every use of that
material that could conceivably result in exceeding that 1% limit is
surrounded in dire warnings, safety equipment and the like. Viz most
of us lived happily with asbestos for years, and haven;'t died yet:
deaths were largely occurring in people who had high and CONTINUOUS
exposure to it. There is a large body of evidence that suggests that
the body is in fact quite capable of ridding itself of poisons
provided the systems are not overloaded by continuous high exposure.

And finally, if there is no commercial reason to keep on using
substance X, because better (and presumably safer) substances exist,
then its banned from general use. This is very much the case with
mercury thermometers and barometers, asbestos in insulation and brake
pads, and lead in petrol (which WAS actually a Bad Thing in urban
environments and did cause detectable problems. Not half so much as
diesel particulates do now, mind you).

Lead in fishing weights has also been banned, because eating a bloody
great ball of lead DID kill wildlife.

IO am not sure anyone has ever died, or become ill as a part of
ingesting lead paint.

Or small quantities of mercury, either. The people who suffered were
hatters, who used it on a daily basis, or miners..


The point here being that most of these so called 'dangerous'
compounds are not. Not in the very small and very occasional exposure
to which we might be subject: The Law is there because of pretty
suspect and very extended extrapolations from very sketchy data, for
which there is very little evidence that the extrapolation is in fact
justified. So the Law errs way on the cautionary side, as do all the
dire warnings.

That sounds exactly like the passive smoking argument...

(hides behind sofa)

I was very glad that the smoking ban came in. Although I have asthma and
sarcoidosis affecting my lungs, I've never had a problem in that respect
and was not overly concerned about the health effects of passive smoking. I
did however hate coming home with stinging eyes, a sore throat and stinking
clothes.

No smoking areas were of little help, as smoke does tend to drift around
and more of a problem is that many smokers can be very selfish - if we went
out as a group, even though only a small proportion smoked, they would
insist on us being in the smoking areas or they'd sulk and ruin the
evening.

SteveW

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

These things are at the whim of fashion and politics: there is no real
cost benefit analysis done..

Has the banning of handguns had an appreciable effect on the use of
weapons in crime? No.

Has there been a reduction in the number of mauled babies as a result of
the dangerous Dogs act? No.

The list it seems is endless of politically motivated legislation that
essentially does nothing, or makes things worse.

There are a few exceptions: yes, lead free petrol probably has saved urban
kids from being more brain dead than they are already. Maybe. Its hard to
tell.

There is a thought that the consequent aromatic content of fuel, ie benzene
and similar compounds, with it's carcinogenic properties has run counter to
any improvement in health from the removal of lead in petrol.


Yes, we dont have holes in the ozone layer anymore since CFCs were banned.

Yes, raptors are back after DDT was taken off the market. So is malaria.
You takes yer choice there.

I wasn't aware that the use of DDT reduced the incidence of malaria!

Clint Sharp wrote:

I know it's not that bad in small one off doses but I choose to be
careful, I have small children around here and would take reasonable
care to identify unknown paints, a test kit is cheap and the houses are
old enough to potentially contain lead paint.

About the only time I've ever heard of lead based paint being a problem
was kids toys. They chew them... so you're right to be careful.

Andy

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:02:09 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Path: s01-b008!cyclone02.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feeder.news-service.com!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!news.k-dsl.de!news.albasani.net!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y
Subject: Envoonmental health guidelines (was unpleasant surprise behind wallpaper)
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:02:09 +0100
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 115
Message-ID:
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net rgwlCgXdnPSaYgm00KWO8x1ggBq0IC2ltDZWzaLAYK+iQro4f6 m+zPuWYl9uAKUFqlWYlTk/CqF2vGDEczbSqBWDCqcyrONkq53tAlr0KAcQ0y4AddTkIKyX/L2D2R6o
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:02:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-User-ID: /ilz+Y67IjeeIXuD7qv0pb76MWCVx8AVV+OVyJ27G60=
In-Reply-To:
Cancel-Lock: sha1:mn2ccejLN3BcgAXpcN6pCQcfbaY=
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090302)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 4RuwNvLLjXIpDJb0O6JA1JfgBrNN3rCGWYMaOxkHdvE=
Xref: Hurricane-Charley uk.d-i-y:634452
X-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:02:01 UTC (s01-b008)

Fredxx wrote:
"Clot" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Clint Sharp wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Clint Sharp wrote:
Perhaps an orbital sander might blend the paint edges in enough.
Otherwise lining paper would be the normal solution.

Need to be wary of doing this if the house is old, possibly lead
based paint.
On a wall? I doubt it. Woodwork, yes. Walls and ceilings used
distemper.
Wouldn't want to put money on that, I'd definitely do a lead test
before sanding it down if it appears to be . Just because it
*should* be distemper and lead based pain *should* only be used on
woodwork...
Oh FFS. Lead isn't that poisonous.

Agreed, it is repeated exposure that could be an issue. There is an issue
with young children who could ingest lead containing dust.

This issue is just as overblown as the nonsense about asbestos and mercury
from CFLs these days.


It can't be all that bad if the government is willing to put amalgam
fillings in your teeth!




As part of some purely private research into as it happened, nuclear
energy, I had occasion to attempt to understand issues surrounding
toxicity limits and teh handling of 'dangersous stuff'

Now, from rusty memory, it seems to go like this

Substance X is identified as being a health hazard because people or
mice have been shown to die more readily when heavily dosed with it.
Substitute lead?mercury/plutonium or whatever for X.

A graph of mortality over levels of substance X is drawn up.

A level such that any death over random would be totally buried in the
noise, and assuming linear extrapolations of high doses to zero doses is
valid, is set up. Usually so that the level is less than 1% of the level
that produces ANY noticeable change in mortality or indeed in health.

So at that point the "recommended dose" is in fact about a hundred times
less than that which does anything detectable.

At that point, the legislation kicks in, and every use of that material
that could conceivably result in exceeding that 1% limit is surrounded
in dire warnings, safety equipment and the like. Viz most of us lived
happily with asbestos for years, and haven;'t died yet: deaths were
largely occurring in people who had high and CONTINUOUS exposure to it.
There is a large body of evidence that suggests that the body is in
fact quite capable of ridding itself of poisons provided the systems are
not overloaded by continuous high exposure.

And finally, if there is no commercial reason to keep on using substance
X, because better (and presumably safer) substances exist, then its
banned from general use.

Unfortunately the replacements aren't always better or even as good when
the original is banned, although they may become so later.

This is very much the case with mercury
thermometers and barometers, asbestos in insulation and brake pads, and
lead in petrol (which WAS actually a Bad Thing in urban environments and
did cause detectable problems.

Although I have heard that there may be some difficulty in determining if
there has been much of an improvement since leaded petrol was banned, as
any improvement may have been swamped by the removal of lead pipes (and/or
the addition of chemical to stop soft water absorbing the lead in remaining
pipes).

Not half so much as diesel particulates
do now, mind you).

This is one of the reasons given for us having higher taxation on diesel
than the rest of Europe does. Although I do remember a Green Party
spokesman declaring that particulates from diesel engined cars were not
really a problem and it was the particulates from lorries and buses that
needed to be controlled.

Lead in fishing weights has also been banned, because eating a bloody
great ball of lead DID kill wildlife.

IO am not sure anyone has ever died, or become ill as a part of
ingesting lead paint.

Or small quantities of mercury, either. The people who suffered were
hatters, who used it on a daily basis, or miners..

The point here being that most of these so called 'dangerous' compounds
are not. Not in the very small and very occasional exposure to which we
might be subject: The Law is there because of pretty suspect and very
extended extrapolations from very sketchy data, for which there is very
little evidence that the extrapolation is in fact justified. So the Law
errs way on the cautionary side, as do all the dire warnings.

Unfortunately amplified by the sensationalist press.

There is a world pof difference between 'failing to provide proper
labelling on a product which might just, if gallons were ingested, prove
fatal' and being harmed by a splash on your skin, or a moments fume
inhalation..

As with all things, context and perspective is important.

Apropos nothing much, have a look here


http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_168.shtml

The actual facts are that nuclear energy is in fact far safer and kills
less people than any other energy source.

Is that your perception however?

It *is* my perception, but there again, I am an engineer and am used to
factoring potential effects against likelihood and have done a small amount
of design work for the nuclear industry. I've also looked at reports of
Chernobyl (back in my student days) and the design and operations faults
that would not be permitted here. Much of the emotion around nuclear power
is driven by Chernobyl and the problems of Windscale/Sellafied, but
Windscale was an early system, rushed into operation primarily for the
military and has very little relationship to modern design and practice for
civil use.

SteveW

Steve Walker wrote:
SNIP

I was very glad that the smoking ban came in. Although I have asthma
and sarcoidosis affecting my lungs, I've never had a problem in that
respect and was not overly concerned about the health effects of
passive smoking. I did however hate coming home with stinging eyes, a
sore throat and stinking clothes.

No smoking areas were of little help, as smoke does tend to drift
around and more of a problem is that many smokers can be very selfish
- if we went out as a group, even though only a small proportion
smoked, they would insist on us being in the smoking areas or they'd
sulk and ruin the evening.

I'm all for positive legislation defining smoking & non smoking areas
provided an element of choice is involved. Entirely possible to allow
smoking areas with extraction & filteration.

On your latter point, my youngest daughter (24) doesn't smoke tobacco, but
most of her friends do. When they go to the pub, most of her mates nip
outside for a fag leaving her sitting on her own. She now goes out with
them to share the social experience.

Positive legislation would work, punative legislation is simply spiteful.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Fredxx wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
These things are at the whim of fashion and politics: there is no real
cost benefit analysis done..

Has the banning of handguns had an appreciable effect on the use of
weapons in crime? No.

Has there been a reduction in the number of mauled babies as a result of
the dangerous Dogs act? No.

The list it seems is endless of politically motivated legislation that
essentially does nothing, or makes things worse.

There are a few exceptions: yes, lead free petrol probably has saved urban
kids from being more brain dead than they are already. Maybe. Its hard to
tell.

There is a thought that the consequent aromatic content of fuel, ie benzene
and similar compounds, with it's carcinogenic properties has run counter to
any improvement in health from the removal of lead in petrol.

It wouldn't surprise me ...if all the girls in Plaistow were laid end to
end..
Yes, we dont have holes in the ozone layer anymore since CFCs were banned.

Yes, raptors are back after DDT was taken off the market. So is malaria.
You takes yer choice there.

I wasn't aware that the use of DDT reduced the incidence of malaria!


Gaps! you didnt know that global malaria was about 2 years from TOTAL
eradication as the malarial swamps were being taken down with DDT..

Then on account of European concerns, it was banned in AFRICA!!

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Fredxx wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
These things are at the whim of fashion and politics: there is no
real cost benefit analysis done..

Has the banning of handguns had an appreciable effect on the use of
weapons in crime? No.

Has there been a reduction in the number of mauled babies as a
result of the dangerous Dogs act? No.

The list it seems is endless of politically motivated legislation
that essentially does nothing, or makes things worse.

There are a few exceptions: yes, lead free petrol probably has
saved urban kids from being more brain dead than they are already.
Maybe. Its hard to tell.

There is a thought that the consequent aromatic content of fuel, ie
benzene and similar compounds, with it's carcinogenic properties has
run counter to any improvement in health from the removal of lead in
petrol.
It wouldn't surprise me ...if all the girls in Plaistow were laid end
to end..

Oi! I were born & raised in Plaistow.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Steve Walker wrote:
..

Apropos nothing much, have a look here


http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...page_168.shtml

The actual facts are that nuclear energy is in fact far safer and kills
less people than any other energy source.

Is that your perception however?

It *is* my perception, but there again, I am an engineer and am used to
factoring potential effects against likelihood and have done a small amount
of design work for the nuclear industry. I've also looked at reports of
Chernobyl (back in my student days) and the design and operations faults
that would not be permitted here. Much of the emotion around nuclear power
is driven by Chernobyl and the problems of Windscale/Sellafied, but
Windscale was an early system, rushed into operation primarily for the
military and has very little relationship to modern design and practice for
civil use.


And yet even Chernobyl is peanuts compared to - say Bhopal, or what
global warming would do, or indeed what having to rely on renewables
would do, in terms of removing great slices of population..

In the same way that UK combat deaths in afghanistan now exceed 'al
qaeda' inspired UK terrorist deaths..

And the car still remains the greatest killer, along with alcohol..


SteveW

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
Steve Walker wrote:
SNIP

I was very glad that the smoking ban came in. Although I have asthma
and sarcoidosis affecting my lungs, I've never had a problem in that
respect and was not overly concerned about the health effects of
passive smoking. I did however hate coming home with stinging eyes, a
sore throat and stinking clothes.

No smoking areas were of little help, as smoke does tend to drift
around and more of a problem is that many smokers can be very selfish
- if we went out as a group, even though only a small proportion
smoked, they would insist on us being in the smoking areas or they'd
sulk and ruin the evening.

I'm all for positive legislation defining smoking & non smoking areas
provided an element of choice is involved. Entirely possible to allow
smoking areas with extraction & filteration.

It doesn't work.. there is always a stupid smoker that will deliberately
walk across the no smoking area with his drug spilling everywhere.

Now we need to have non smoking areas outside so that non smokers can enjoy
unpolluted air outside as well as in.

It really would be simpler to get rid of fags.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
Steve Walker wrote:
SNIP

I was very glad that the smoking ban came in. Although I have asthma
and sarcoidosis affecting my lungs, I've never had a problem in that
respect and was not overly concerned about the health effects of
passive smoking. I did however hate coming home with stinging eyes, a
sore throat and stinking clothes.

No smoking areas were of little help, as smoke does tend to drift
around and more of a problem is that many smokers can be very selfish
- if we went out as a group, even though only a small proportion
smoked, they would insist on us being in the smoking areas or they'd
sulk and ruin the evening.

I'm all for positive legislation defining smoking & non smoking areas
provided an element of choice is involved. Entirely possible to allow
smoking areas with extraction & filteration.

It doesn't work.. there is always a stupid smoker that will deliberately
walk across the no smoking area with his drug spilling everywhere.

Now we need to have non smoking areas outside so that non smokers can
enjoy unpolluted air outside as well as in.

It really would be simpler to get rid of fags.




Nah, teh answer is to make smoking compulsory.

On Jul 14, 11:17*pm, "The Medway Handyman"


punative legislation is simply spiteful.

Unfortunately, it's what we get when we vote in a party riddled with
spite and class envy that want to pull the drawbridge up after
themselves.

I'm not saying the other lot are neccessarily any better...;-)

MBQ

On Jul 14, 11:33*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:

It doesn't work.. there is always a stupid smoker that will deliberately
walk across the no smoking area with his drug spilling everywhere.

A very sensitive and localised sprinkler system would sort that out.

Now we need to have non smoking areas outside so that non smokers can enjoy
unpolluted air outside as well as in.

Ban all traffic whilst you're at it. Diesel fumes are far worse on
most busy urban streets.

It really would be simpler to get rid of fags.

Previous attempts at prohibition prove you wrong on that one.

MBQ

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

And yet even Chernobyl is peanuts compared to - say Bhopal, or what
global warming would do, or indeed what having to rely on renewables
would do, in terms of removing great slices of population..

In the same way that UK combat deaths in afghanistan now exceed 'al
qaeda' inspired UK terrorist deaths..

And the car still remains the greatest killer, along with alcohol..

I don't know the death rate for alcohol but in recent years hospital
acquired infections have resulted in substantially more deaths than RTAs
(some of which can't be blamed on the car).

Roger Chapman wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

And yet even Chernobyl is peanuts compared to - say Bhopal, or what
global warming would do, or indeed what having to rely on renewables
would do, in terms of removing great slices of population..

In the same way that UK combat deaths in afghanistan now exceed 'al
qaeda' inspired UK terrorist deaths..

And the car still remains the greatest killer, along with alcohol..

I don't know the death rate for alcohol but in recent years hospital
acquired infections have resulted in substantially more deaths than RTAs
(some of which can't be blamed on the car).

Well there you go., That's what the government wants with all this
'investment' into the NHS.

YouthinAsia Innit?