"AAvK" wrote in message

An old-timer once told me that he used talc on his cast iron saw table,
so I
tried some pool cue talc. And with good results. Talc repels moisture,
but
without the potential residue of oil. I've used it on all my cast iron
saw
tables and on my drill press table for years. It helps materials to
slide
on the table, it allows my cutoff sled to slide more easily in the
groove of
my table saw, and it has prevented corrosion. I replenish about every
two
months or so. I haven't tried it on the ways of the lathe, mostly
because
the headstock, tailstock, and banjo all slide on them. For those I use
medium machine oil with good success, aside from the oil/wood dust
residue
that builds up. FWIW.


There, now from your actual experience I am learning something. Thank you!
What kind* and brand* and model* of lathe is it?

Jet 1442. I initially considered buying a more expensive lathe, but decided
to invest somewhat more lightly to see if turning was for me. I'll probably
upgrade some day, but for the time being, it's a great lathe at a great
price. Not perfect, but it does everything fairly well and nothing poorly.
It's all cast iron and weighs roughly 360lbs. with the cast legs. With the
sand bags I added to a shelf between the legs it probably totals around
450lbs. Hope this helps.

Max

Andrew Barss writes:
In rec.crafts.woodturning Andy Dingley wrote:: On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:13:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
: wrote:

: Talc and asbestos are both amphibole minerals (a whole lot of minerals
: are amphiboles - if it's a calcium / magnesium silicate, chances are
: that it's an amphibole). _Some_ talc deposits have associated asbestos
: deposits with them. _Some_ talc minerals have been mined from these
: deposits, leading to contamination with asbestos.

: If you're selecting talc to make cosmetic grade talcum powder, you
: didn't use these deposits anyway. You wanted something that milled
: finely, and the last thing you need is some tough old fibre in there.

Thanks for the correction.

I did a quick Google search, and found this:

http://www.preventcancer.com/consume...etics/talc.htm

Not necessarily an accurate or unbiased source. Calling asbestos
a "potent carcinogen" is disingenious at best.

Scaremongering of the worst sort ("Talc kills babies every year!").

http://www.doctorgeorge.com/article.php?sid=688

And this one is priceless.

"another research undertaken in 1988 showed that 52%
of respondents with ovarian cancer _regularly_ used
talc"

I'll bet 52% of respondents with ovarian cancer regular
drink water with breakfast too. But that has no correlation
with cancer risk.

Now it may indeed be that talc and ovarian cancer are
linked, but nothing on either of these two sites provides
convincing evidence thereof.

We do know now that the dangers of asbestos to the general
public (i.e. non-miners) is wildly overinflated.

More on asbestos available he http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/content/111202.shtml


scott

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:34:45 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

I did a quick Google search, and found this:

Preserve me from students armed witha quick blast of Google !

http://www.preventcancer.com/consume...etics/talc.htm
http://www.doctorgeorge.com/article.php?sid=688

which cite studies suggesting that talc by itself is a carcinogen.

First of all, one of those refs cites one study that suggest a
possibility of talc as a carcinogen. Now carcinogenity is always a
tricky thing to prove, and especially so in rodent studies. Ever kept
rats ? They develop tumours if you look at them funny! The natural
state of a rat is to either be eaten or to develop skin tumours. A
one-off rodent study alone just isn't convincing proof.

Secondly, did you look at the exposure mechanisms ?

First of all there's inhalation. We're trying to _wipe_ the tablesaw
here, not to pretend it's Columbian Rustproofing.

Secondly - well, if you're doing _that_ with your tablesaw, you really
need to get out more.

Finally you're into "tampons considered harmful" territory. Americn
medical science is bad enough at the best of times, there being so
many vested interests trying to skew the results. Since TSS was
recognised, the veracity and independence of _anything_ involving
tampon health risks is just a minefield of checking who paid for the
study, and who is trying to rubish competitors products.

Dust exposure in a woodworking workshop is a serious issue. This week
I've been exposed to epoxy (fume and sanding dust), a variety of
timbers being sanded, spalted timbers (spores), damp timbers (spores),
eroding firebricks, many sorts of asbestos sheet, silver-solder flux
(which is pure evil in powder form) and the ever-present risk of my
unearthed dust collector exploding. I've even got a jar of silex in
there - air float silica, one of the nastiest inhalation hazards you
can find. Just yesterday someone even lit up a cigarette in there.

So I'm going to worry about _talc_ somewhere between earthquake, flood
and Attack By Giant Flying Robots.

--
Smert' spamionam

Jim Polaski wrote:
Talc is hazardous because if you get a quantity of it in the air, mixed
with oxygen, it can be an explosive mixture! Just like a grain elevator.


And imagine this scenario. Talc in the air, the dust
collector is collecting and you went and used PVC pipe.

Makes Grandma flying jets (over the Sinai of course) while
putting on make-up kinda pale by comparison.

UA100

Andrew Barss wrote:

In rec.crafts.woodturning Andy Dingley wrote:: On
Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:13:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
: wrote:

: Talc and asbestos are both amphibole minerals (a whole lot of minerals
: are amphiboles - if it's a calcium / magnesium silicate, chances are
: that it's an amphibole). _Some_ talc deposits have associated asbestos
: deposits with them. _Some_ talc minerals have been mined from these
: deposits, leading to contamination with asbestos.

: If you're selecting talc to make cosmetic grade talcum powder, you
: didn't use these deposits anyway. You wanted something that milled
: finely, and the last thing you need is some tough old fibre in there.

Thanks for the correction.

I did a quick Google search, and found this:

http://www.preventcancer.com/consume...etics/talc.htm
http://www.doctorgeorge.com/article.php?sid=688

which cite studies suggesting that talc by itself is a carcinogen.

Try the material safety data sheet, not some random web site sponsored by
God knows who with God knows what agenda. The big problem with the
internet is that any nut can put up a web site and there's no way to tell
the nuts from the reliable without doing more investigation than most
people are willing to do. Applying Sturgeon's law (90% of _anything_ is
crap) one assumes that any information contained on a web site put up by
any body that doesn't have an established record of responsible behavior
and reasonable accuracy is automatically suspect.

You can find the MSDS for talc at
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/t0026.htm.

Note that it is _silica_ that is the suspected carcinogen, not talc. That's
like, beach sand. Also note the allowable exposure--20 million particles
per cubic foot or 2 mg/cubic meter. That's for chronic exposure, and
that's actually quite a lot of talc.

-- Andy Barss

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message

I'll bet 52% of respondents with ovarian cancer regular
drink water with breakfast too. But that has no correlation
with cancer risk.

A few years ago a spoof study was released stating that dihydrogen oxide, a
primary constituent in certain types of foam, such as that used in the foam
take-home food containers at restaurants, might be responsible for certain
types of cancer. As you can imagine, the media ran with the story, creating
a minor furor. A few environmental organizations even asked Congress to
look into the matter.

Max

"Maxprop" wrote:


"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message

I'll bet 52% of respondents with ovarian cancer regular
drink water with breakfast too. But that has no correlation
with cancer risk.

A few years ago a spoof study was released stating that dihydrogen oxide, a
primary constituent in certain types of foam, such as that used in the foam
take-home food containers at restaurants, might be responsible for certain
types of cancer. As you can imagine, the media ran with the story, creating
a minor furor. A few environmental organizations even asked Congress to
look into the matter.

LOL!

A local talk show host had someone in from the city water bureau and
hit him with the rumors of dihydrogen monoxide being detected in our
local water supply. The rumor was emphatically denied!

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net...
"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message

I'll bet 52% of respondents with ovarian cancer regular
drink water with breakfast too. But that has no correlation
with cancer risk.

A few years ago a spoof study was released stating that dihydrogen oxide, a
primary constituent in certain types of foam, such as that used in the foam
take-home food containers at restaurants, might be responsible for certain
types of cancer.

I remember a parody of that sort from back when I was in high school
in the early 1970's. That was back when there were pull-tabs on beer
and soda cans and there was an UL about collecting them to fund
dialysis. Pull-tabs are long gone, but the UL survives.

As you can imagine, the media ran with the story, creating
a minor furor. A few environmental organizations even asked Congress to
look into the matter.


That sounds like more UL to me. I've never seen even one story, let
alone one falling for the spoof, in any media.

--

FF

(Fred the Red Shirt) wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net...
"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message

I'll bet 52% of respondents with ovarian cancer regular
drink water with breakfast too. But that has no correlation
with cancer risk.

A few years ago a spoof study was released stating that dihydrogen oxide, a
primary constituent in certain types of foam, such as that used in the foam
take-home food containers at restaurants, might be responsible for certain
types of cancer.

I remember a parody of that sort from back when I was in high school
in the early 1970's. That was back when there were pull-tabs on beer
and soda cans and there was an UL about collecting them to fund
dialysis. Pull-tabs are long gone, but the UL survives.

As you can imagine, the media ran with the story, creating
a minor furor. A few environmental organizations even asked Congress to
look into the matter.


That sounds like more UL to me. I've never seen even one story, let
alone one falling for the spoof, in any media.

There wasn't one on Snopes, either. But at
http://www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm, there is a story about a Jr.
High student who won a science fair with a project of testing students
for their gullibility to this story. That page also includes one
version of a report on the dangers of DHMO. An update included this
item:

:Update: In March 2004 the California municipality of Aliso Viejo
a suburb in Orange County) came within a cat's whisker of falling for
:this hoax after a paralegal there convinced city officials of the
:danger posed by this chemical. The leg-pull got so far as a vote
:having been scheduled for the City Council on a proposed law that
:would have banned the use of foam containers at city-sponsored events
:because (among other things) they were made with DHMO, a substance
:that could "threaten human health and safety."
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

(Fred the Red Shirt) writes:
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net...

As you can imagine, the media ran with the story, creating
a minor furor. A few environmental organizations even asked Congress to
look into the matter.


That sounds like more UL to me. I've never seen even one story, let
alone one falling for the spoof, in any media.

Penn and Teller did this on their Showtime show (Bull***t). They
got people to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide and had
several "spokespersons" for various enviro orgs endorsing their
efforts. Would have been funny, if it wasn't so tragic.

scott


--

FF

I use turps and candle wax mix. On my table saw and band saw. Haven't had
any rust yet. My work shop is just a roof and three sides, at times it gets
a bit damp in there.


"Leon" wrote in message
news

"RonB" wrote in message
news:jH8dd.5652$EZ.2170@okepread07...
Kinda Interesting:

I was unpacking my new Powermatic 54A Jointer yesterday evening and
noticed Powermatic's suggestion for table rust protection. Sprinkle
talcum powder on the table and rub it in with a blackboard eraser. They
say the fine powder fills pores in the metal and blocks moisture
intrusion. Should be done weekly.


Weekly? Sounds more like a minimum preventative method. IMHO there are
much better methods.

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in message om...
(Fred the Red Shirt) writes:
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net...

As you can imagine, the media ran with the story, creating
a minor furor. A few environmental organizations even asked Congress to
look into the matter.


That sounds like more UL to me. I've never seen even one story, let
alone one falling for the spoof, in any media.

Penn and Teller did this on their Showtime show (Bull***t). They
got people to sign a petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide and had
several "spokespersons" for various enviro orgs endorsing their
efforts. Would have been funny, if it wasn't so tragic.


I have a videoclip in which Senator John McCain accuses Karl Rove of
dynamiting the Old Man in the Mountain in New Hampshire to revenge
Bush's loss in the year 2000 primary.

I'm sure that spokesmen for environmental organizations enjoy a good
joke as much as anyone else. Penn and Teller are famous.

They are also stage magicians, entertainers. Stage Magicians often
use shills. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be confused
with reality.

So though I remain amused, I also remain unconvinced.

--

FF

(Fred the Red Shirt) writes:
(Scott Lurndal) wrote in message om...

They are also stage magicians, entertainers. Stage Magicians often
use shills. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be confused
with reality.

However, their showtime show is _not_ about magic, and _is_
about reality. No shills. The idiots were all real people
(cherrypicked, perhaps, like Leno does, but real).

scott


So though I remain amused, I also remain unconvinced.

--

FF

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in message .com...
(Fred the Red Shirt) writes:
(Scott Lurndal) wrote in message om...

They are also stage magicians, entertainers. Stage Magicians often
use shills. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be confused
with reality.

However, their showtime show is _not_ about magic, and _is_
about reality. No shills. The idiots were all real people
(cherrypicked, perhaps, like Leno does, but real).


I think you missed my point entirely.

The show is a show, it doesn't have to be about magic to take
advantage of traditional magic methods. Uri Gellar's shows
were not about magic either, that didn't stop him from using
traditional magic methods either. I tend to think that Penn
and Teller probably are more honest than Gellar but they are
still in it for the money.

Supposing Penn or Teller stops you in the street and asks you
to sign a petition to stop dihydrogen oxide. If you 'get it'
you probably also realize that you won't get on TV unless you
play along.

Faith healers work the same way.

--

FF

I'm Kinda sorry I started this.

IOW, You are Ron Brogan and you DON'T approve that message?

Turn to Safety, Arch

Fortiter,


http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings