I bought a small bottle of Tung oil (low gloss). I decided not to use
it for a current project after calling the company for info on it's
properties. Why use Tung instead of Blo, or mineral oil, or other oils?
I'm wondering if they are interchangeable enough that there's no need
to stock/use different products. I know about the need for "food safe"
products like mineral oil, etc. But for non food items, why does one
guy swear by Tung oil, while another is content with BLO? I could see
ZERO difference between mineral oil and Tung on walnut or maple.

Dave

David wrote:

I bought a small bottle of Tung oil (low gloss). I decided not to use
it for a current project after calling the company for info on it's
properties. Why use Tung instead of Blo, or mineral oil, or other oils?
I'm wondering if they are interchangeable enough that there's no need
to stock/use different products. I know about the need for "food safe"
products like mineral oil, etc. But for non food items, why does one
guy swear by Tung oil, while another is content with BLO? I could see
ZERO difference between mineral oil and Tung on walnut or maple.

Tung v. BLO
BLO faster cure
Tung non-ambering
Tung better filling properties (I have heard) because thicker
Tung pleasant and not overly strong smell
Tung no heavy metal driers (Pure Tung v. BLO)
Tung more expensive

Tung and BLO will polymerize, while mineral oil will not.


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

Read nice article on the subject in FWW magazine this month.

....because it protects better than ear wax?

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:16:38 -0700, David wrote:

Why use Tung instead of Blo, or mineral oil, or other oils?

Linseed goes much more yellow.

You can also use tung raw, without added metal driers. Linseed (more
than one coat) is problematic if you do this.

"David" wrote in message
...
I know about the need for "food safe" products like mineral oil, etc.
But for non food items, why does one guy swear by Tung oil, while another
is content with BLO? I could see ZERO difference between mineral oil and
Tung on walnut or maple.

Dave

They are all food save when cured

Even oils with metallic driers?

Dave

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...

I know about the need for "food safe" products like mineral oil, etc.
But for non food items, why does one guy swear by Tung oil, while another
is content with BLO? I could see ZERO difference between mineral oil and
Tung on walnut or maple.

Dave


They are all food save when cured

"David" wrote in message
...
Even oils with metallic driers?

Dave


I don't recall the place I read it, but it was some government thing (and
you know you can trust them) that once cured, any finishes are considered
food safe. I'm not a chemist so I can't tell you what happens to the
driers. They are catalyst and evaporate to my limited knowledge.

http://www.violinvarnish.com/linseed.htm

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
om...

"David" wrote in message
...
Even oils with metallic driers?

Dave


I don't recall the place I read it, but it was some government thing (and
you know you can trust them) that once cured, any finishes are considered
food safe. I'm not a chemist so I can't tell you what happens to the
driers. They are catalyst and evaporate to my limited knowledge.

http://www.violinvarnish.com/linseed.htm


The driers become part of the great indigestible polymer called finish. If
the finish is intact chemically, they're unavailable.

The reference is 21CFR175.300 indirect additives to food.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:59:28 -0700, David wrote:

Even oils with metallic driers?

Which metal ? What's "food safe" ?

A few decades age we had a reaction against lead-pigmented paint in
childrens' toys. Now that's a pretty sensible reaction -- 20%-30% of the
paint might be a lead pigment, and they're getting chewed.

For oil though, the drying agent is about 0.25% and it's likely to be
used on items where the finish is left undisturbed (barring marauding
chinchillas). So even lead-dried oils are nothing like the toxicity
hazard of pigmented paints - however the upper lead limit on a saleable
finish is something like 0.2%, so they're still forbidden.

Lead oils (for centuries) were usually a mixture of lead and manganese
driers, as this gives the best resultant oil. Shrinkage is reduced and
they dry in all weathers. When lead fell from favour, the first response
was to simply omit the lead and use manganese alone. The problem with
these is that they need a dry climate to cure and will remain
perpetually sticky on the surface if used in Wales or Seattle. They're
also too inflexible to be used on oilcloth, and have some tendency to
shrinkage cracking.

The modern replacement for lead was cobalt. This is an effective drier,
although the resultant finish isn't as robust as a lead-dried oil. We're
recently starting to see toxicity concerns over cobalt too - the element
itself is regarded most dubiously, although I haven't heard too much
concern raised yet over its use as a drier.

As a general finish for furniture, the only linseed oil I use is either
raw or lead/manganese dried. I don't much like either as finishes, so I
only use them on repro work - I make the lead-dried oil myself. For
most work I'd rather use tung, and avoid the yellowing. As toxicity is
concerned though, I don't much worry about either - I wouldn't use them
as a finish for kitchenware or toys, but furniture is no significant
risk.

--
Inbreeding - nature's way of always giving you enough fingers to count your cousins

J wrote:
...because it protects better than ear wax?

Even better than nose grease?

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:52:38 -0700, "J" wrote:



...because it protects better than ear wax?

if you pour it in one ear, does it run out of the other one?



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

Andy Dingley says...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:59:28 -0700, David wrote:

Even oils with metallic driers?

Which metal ? What's "food safe" ?

A few decades age we had a reaction against lead-pigmented paint in
childrens' toys. Now that's a pretty sensible reaction -- 20%-30% of the
paint might be a lead pigment, and they're getting chewed.

For oil though, the drying agent is about 0.25% and it's likely to be
used on items where the finish is left undisturbed (barring marauding
chinchillas). So even lead-dried oils are nothing like the toxicity
hazard of pigmented paints - however the upper lead limit on a saleable
finish is something like 0.2%, so they're still forbidden.

Lead oils (for centuries) were usually a mixture of lead and manganese
driers, as this gives the best resultant oil. Shrinkage is reduced and
they dry in all weathers. When lead fell from favour, the first response
was to simply omit the lead and use manganese alone. The problem with
these is that they need a dry climate to cure and will remain
perpetually sticky on the surface if used in Wales or Seattle. They're
also too inflexible to be used on oilcloth, and have some tendency to
shrinkage cracking.

The modern replacement for lead was cobalt. This is an effective drier,
although the resultant finish isn't as robust as a lead-dried oil. We're
recently starting to see toxicity concerns over cobalt too - the element
itself is regarded most dubiously, although I haven't heard too much
concern raised yet over its use as a drier.

Good information, but I would take exception to the scare over cobalt.
It's a little known exotic sounding element, so it must be toxic, right?
Not necessarily. I am a chemist and I worked for three years testing
drinking water for EPA regulated contaminants. Last I heard, there was
no maximum contaminant level regulation for cobalt and only recommended
concentration goals for manganese. Neither are acutely toxic in the
same sense as some other so-called 'heavy metals' such as lead, mercury,
cadmium, thallium and arsenic. The term heavy metal is an artifact of
the media as far as I can tell, and was never mentioned at any point in
my long, grueling years as a chemistry student. There may have been
some cases of industrial workers being debilitated by breathing large
amounts of the dust, but similar health catastrophes can happen with
coal dust (black lung), rock dust (silicosis) or even wood fiber dust.
I have heard of other health effects like enlarged thyroid with cobalt
and restricted iron uptake with manganese, but exposure levels must be
hundreds of times what is normal in food and water over a long period of
time. Both are essential minerals for the maintenance of life and
probably have much the same function in our bodies as they do in
oxidizing finishes as catalysts. Too much of just about anything can
have adverse health reactions including calcium and some vitamins.

So let's do some math on what we might be exposed to using a salad bowl
finished with something that contains these driers. 0.25% = 2500ppm
(parts per million). If we use 1/20 of a liter of finish for our bowl
and assume that the density is about 80% that of water, then our bowl
has about 100mg of combined cobalt and manganese in its finish. If we
further assume that only 1/2 the surface is food contact area and we
consume 0.1% of the finish with each use, then our exposure to combined
cobalt and manganese comes to about 0.05mg per meal. That would be
approximately the same as drinking a liter of good quality treated
water, with the additional point that neither of these metals is
regulated with a maximum contaminant level from the US EPA. Conclusion:
intake of cobalt and manganese from food contact items using finishes
containing these driers would only be a fraction of normal intake from
food and water. We all have much bigger fish to fry for improving our
health than this.

Hax Planx wrote in
.net:
snip
Conclusion: intake of cobalt and manganese from food contact
items using finishes containing these driers would only be a fraction
of normal intake from food and water. We all have much bigger fish to
fry for improving our health than this.


This is the wReck. What standing do science and logic have here? ;-)

Thanks, Hax.

Patriarch

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:42:29 -0500, Patriarch wrote:
Hax Planx wrote in
.net:
snip
Conclusion: intake of cobalt and manganese from food contact
items using finishes containing these driers would only be a fraction
of normal intake from food and water. We all have much bigger fish to
fry for improving our health than this.

This is the wReck. What standing do science and logic have here? ;-)

Yeah, watch out for that stuff, goes straight to your liver.
Oh wait, was that the other froup?

Dave Hinz wrote in
:

This is the wReck. What standing do science and logic have here? ;-)

Yeah, watch out for that stuff, goes straight to your liver.
Oh wait, was that the other froup?


Maybe the shellac thread?

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:15:55 -0500, Patriarch wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in
:

This is the wReck. What standing do science and logic have here? ;-)

Yeah, watch out for that stuff, goes straight to your liver.
Oh wait, was that the other froup?

Maybe the shellac thread?

Nope, the acetone one. Much quoting of MSDS's, alarmist rants, the
usual crap. Or did I imagine it?

Hax Planx wrote:

snip good analysis of heavy metals risk
We all have much bigger fish to fry for improving our
health than this.
Baked is better for you. g
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

"Hax Planx" wrote in message
.net...
Conclusion:
intake of cobalt and manganese from food contact items using finishes
containing these driers would only be a fraction of normal intake from
food and water. We all have much bigger fish to fry for improving our
health than this.

Watch out for those big fish. They contain mercury.

-j

You stole my post idea!! But nose grease lubes fishing rod sections for
easy assembly with no lingering slipperiness!!


"dadiOH" wrote in message
news:zLhqe.18$lb5.3@trnddc04...
J wrote:
...because it protects better than ear wax?

Even better than nose grease?

--
dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

"Hax Planx" wrote in message
.net...
Andy Dingley says...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:59:28 -0700, David wrote:

Even oils with metallic driers?

Which metal ? What's "food safe" ?

A few decades age we had a reaction against lead-pigmented paint in
childrens' toys. Now that's a pretty sensible reaction -- 20%-30% of the
paint might be a lead pigment, and they're getting chewed.

For oil though, the drying agent is about 0.25% and it's likely to be
used on items where the finish is left undisturbed (barring marauding
chinchillas). So even lead-dried oils are nothing like the toxicity
hazard of pigmented paints - however the upper lead limit on a saleable
finish is something like 0.2%, so they're still forbidden.

Lead oils (for centuries) were usually a mixture of lead and manganese
driers, as this gives the best resultant oil. Shrinkage is reduced and
they dry in all weathers. When lead fell from favour, the first response
was to simply omit the lead and use manganese alone. The problem with
these is that they need a dry climate to cure and will remain
perpetually sticky on the surface if used in Wales or Seattle. They're
also too inflexible to be used on oilcloth, and have some tendency to
shrinkage cracking.

The modern replacement for lead was cobalt. This is an effective drier,
although the resultant finish isn't as robust as a lead-dried oil. We're
recently starting to see toxicity concerns over cobalt too - the element
itself is regarded most dubiously, although I haven't heard too much
concern raised yet over its use as a drier.

Good information, but I would take exception to the scare over cobalt.
It's a little known exotic sounding element, so it must be toxic, right?
Not necessarily. I am a chemist and I worked for three years testing
drinking water for EPA regulated contaminants. Last I heard, there was
no maximum contaminant level regulation for cobalt and only recommended
concentration goals for manganese. Neither are acutely toxic in the
same sense as some other so-called 'heavy metals' such as lead, mercury,
cadmium, thallium and arsenic. The term heavy metal is an artifact of
the media as far as I can tell, and was never mentioned at any point in
my long, grueling years as a chemistry student. There may have been
some cases of industrial workers being debilitated by breathing large
amounts of the dust, but similar health catastrophes can happen with
coal dust (black lung), rock dust (silicosis) or even wood fiber dust.
I have heard of other health effects like enlarged thyroid with cobalt
and restricted iron uptake with manganese, but exposure levels must be
hundreds of times what is normal in food and water over a long period of
time. Both are essential minerals for the maintenance of life and
probably have much the same function in our bodies as they do in
oxidizing finishes as catalysts. Too much of just about anything can
have adverse health reactions including calcium and some vitamins.

So let's do some math on what we might be exposed to using a salad bowl
finished with something that contains these driers. 0.25% = 2500ppm
(parts per million). If we use 1/20 of a liter of finish for our bowl
and assume that the density is about 80% that of water, then our bowl
has about 100mg of combined cobalt and manganese in its finish. If we
further assume that only 1/2 the surface is food contact area and we
consume 0.1% of the finish with each use, then our exposure to combined
cobalt and manganese comes to about 0.05mg per meal. That would be
approximately the same as drinking a liter of good quality treated
water, with the additional point that neither of these metals is
regulated with a maximum contaminant level from the US EPA. Conclusion:
intake of cobalt and manganese from food contact items using finishes
containing these driers would only be a fraction of normal intake from
food and water. We all have much bigger fish to fry for improving our
health than this.

You are absolutely correct about the relatively small quantity of cobalt
exposure. The reason the EPA has no limit on cobalt in drinking water is
that it has not been recognized as a problem. At least, not yet. It seems
like every year, another limit is placed on some contaminant, for good or
bad.
The term "heavy metal" is a really soft term that was applied to just a
few metals many moons ago. Since that time, it has come to mean anything on
the Periodic table that is left after chopping off the appropriate groups
like halogens, alkali metals, etc. As a result, the term includes so many
metals that it is essentially worthless.

As for finishes being food safe once fully cured, that is correct. The
issue is the term "food safe". That means the finish can be in contact with
food. It does not mean that the finish is safe to eat. As was pointed out,
lead paint was banned because children were actually eating it. It also
happens that lead from various pigments can be leached out when in contact
with acidic food so it really was not "food safe". The metallic driers in
modern finishes are safe when used in a finish that fully cures and the
finish is not actually eaten.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:29:19 -0500, Hax Planx wrote:

The term heavy metal is an artifact of
the media as far as I can tell, and was never mentioned at any point in
my long, grueling years as a chemistry student.

Was mentioned in mine.
--
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the preciptitate."
MIT '79

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:29:45 -0400, alexy wrote:

snip good analysis of heavy metals risk
We all have much bigger fish to fry for improving our
health than this.
Baked is better for you. g

Just to add some more froth the the fi I'm perusing "New Artist's
Handbook" (which is really very good). It tells us that "oil-soluble
phenolic resins are usually based on a mixture of linseed and tuna oil."
So now we have to look for a dolphin-safe icon on the varnish can?

Relevant to this and similar threads, I just stumbled upon
http://www.homesteadfinishing.com/htdocs/msds.htm which has MSDS pdfs for
several manufacturers' products (T&T, Waterlox, etc.)

--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:49:03 +0000, dadiOH wrote:

...because it protects better than ear wax?

Even better than nose grease?

But excessive use of elbow grease may degrade the finish.

--
"Wax on, wax off"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 20:44:05 -0400, C & M wrote:

You stole my post idea!! But nose grease lubes fishing rod sections for
easy assembly with no lingering slipperiness!!

You might be jesting, can't tell. I do use nose grease to lubricate
scrapers whilst turning the hook. I have used it to assemble fishing rods.
No, you weren't jesting, were you!

--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com

Hax Planx wrote:
Andy Dingley says...

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:59:28 -0700, David wrote:


Even oils with metallic driers?

Which metal ? What's "food safe" ?

A few decades age we had a reaction against lead-pigmented paint in
childrens' toys. Now that's a pretty sensible reaction -- 20%-30% of the
paint might be a lead pigment, and they're getting chewed.

For oil though, the drying agent is about 0.25% and it's likely to be
used on items where the finish is left undisturbed (barring marauding
chinchillas). So even lead-dried oils are nothing like the toxicity
hazard of pigmented paints - however the upper lead limit on a saleable
finish is something like 0.2%, so they're still forbidden.

Lead oils (for centuries) were usually a mixture of lead and manganese
driers, as this gives the best resultant oil. Shrinkage is reduced and
they dry in all weathers. When lead fell from favour, the first response
was to simply omit the lead and use manganese alone. The problem with
these is that they need a dry climate to cure and will remain
perpetually sticky on the surface if used in Wales or Seattle. They're
also too inflexible to be used on oilcloth, and have some tendency to
shrinkage cracking.

The modern replacement for lead was cobalt. This is an effective drier,
although the resultant finish isn't as robust as a lead-dried oil. We're
recently starting to see toxicity concerns over cobalt too - the element
itself is regarded most dubiously, although I haven't heard too much
concern raised yet over its use as a drier.


Good information, but I would take exception to the scare over cobalt.
It's a little known exotic sounding element, so it must be toxic, right?
Not necessarily. I am a chemist and I worked for three years testing
drinking water for EPA regulated contaminants. Last I heard, there was
no maximum contaminant level regulation for cobalt and only recommended
concentration goals for manganese. Neither are acutely toxic in the
same sense as some other so-called 'heavy metals' such as lead, mercury,
cadmium, thallium and arsenic. The term heavy metal is an artifact of
the media as far as I can tell, and was never mentioned at any point in
my long, grueling years as a chemistry student. There may have been
some cases of industrial workers being debilitated by breathing large
amounts of the dust, but similar health catastrophes can happen with
coal dust (black lung), rock dust (silicosis) or even wood fiber dust.
I have heard of other health effects like enlarged thyroid with cobalt
and restricted iron uptake with manganese, but exposure levels must be
hundreds of times what is normal in food and water over a long period of
time. Both are essential minerals for the maintenance of life and
probably have much the same function in our bodies as they do in
oxidizing finishes as catalysts. Too much of just about anything can
have adverse health reactions including calcium and some vitamins.

So let's do some math on what we might be exposed to using a salad bowl
finished with something that contains these driers. 0.25% = 2500ppm
(parts per million). If we use 1/20 of a liter of finish for our bowl
and assume that the density is about 80% that of water, then our bowl
has about 100mg of combined cobalt and manganese in its finish. If we
further assume that only 1/2 the surface is food contact area and we
consume 0.1% of the finish with each use, then our exposure to combined
cobalt and manganese comes to about 0.05mg per meal. That would be
approximately the same as drinking a liter of good quality treated
water, with the additional point that neither of these metals is
regulated with a maximum contaminant level from the US EPA. Conclusion:
intake of cobalt and manganese from food contact items using finishes
containing these driers would only be a fraction of normal intake from
food and water. We all have much bigger fish to fry for improving our
health than this.


Fish? If you are a fisherman or hunter, you have
much more to worry about, especially if the
streams have any contamination from insecticides
and herbicides and the fields are sprayed with the
same. One fish out of the Snake River or any
other river used for irrigation would have a
larger dose of any "heavy metal" in organic form
than your salad bowl coating. Heck, eating
recommendations for Pheasant in some places is
down to 1 every 2 week or none for pregnant women.

Baron says...

You are absolutely correct about the relatively small quantity of cobalt
exposure. The reason the EPA has no limit on cobalt in drinking water is
that it has not been recognized as a problem. At least, not yet. It seems
like every year, another limit is placed on some contaminant, for good or
bad.

I don't know of any maximum contaminant level (MCL) regulation that is
unreasonable. If a water source has an MCL violation, you can rest
assured that the concentrations of that contaminant are very high
compared to what is normally encountered with clean water.
Concentrations of cobalt are typically in the microgram/liter (ppb)
range for clean drinking water, so an MCL regulation would probably be
nearer the mg/L (ppm) range considering its low toxicity by ingestion,
if such a regulation were ever instituted. It would all depend on what
conclusions were on the study that prompted the hypothetical regulation.
But what I've been able to dredge up from the Net is that continued
ingestion of more than 30mg per day is required to see negative health
problems.

The term "heavy metal" is a really soft term that was applied to just a
few metals many moons ago. Since that time, it has come to mean anything on
the Periodic table that is left after chopping off the appropriate groups
like halogens, alkali metals, etc. As a result, the term includes so many
metals that it is essentially worthless.

A useless media coined term. Gold is heavier in atomic weight and
denser compared to arsenic, yet it is non-toxic and inert. There are
many other examples. I don't see how manganese at 25 on the periodic
table and cobalt at 27 could be considered heavy metals, whatever that
means. Of course, Andy Dingley didn't mention that term in his post,
but others have in previous threads.

As for finishes being food safe once fully cured, that is correct. The
issue is the term "food safe". That means the finish can be in contact with
food. It does not mean that the finish is safe to eat. As was pointed out,
lead paint was banned because children were actually eating it. It also
happens that lead from various pigments can be leached out when in contact
with acidic food so it really was not "food safe". The metallic driers in
modern finishes are safe when used in a finish that fully cures and the
finish is not actually eaten.

Yes, but in my worst case scenario I wanted to assume that part of the
finish is actually ingested. Yet even in this worst case scenario
exposure levels were in the microgram range. I think we can forget
about manganese entirely since both of the multi-vitamins in my house
have 2mg of manganese per tablet, a couple of orders magnitude greater
than my worst case scenario. Also the driers are used only in
polymerizing finishes and even if small chips of the finish were
consumed, it isn't at all clear to me that those polymers are digestible
or that the driers could be leached from them. So not only are the
driers safe for ingestion, the exposure amounts are at worst small, but
quite possibly negligible.

C & M apparently said,on my timestamp of 11/06/2005 10:44 AM:
You stole my post idea!! But nose grease lubes fishing rod sections for
easy assembly with no lingering slipperiness!!

One of the best lubes for fishing rod sections, in fact.
No polymerization, so no sticking.


--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
am

"Hax Planx" wrote in message
.net...

I don't know of any maximum contaminant level (MCL) regulation that is
unreasonable. If a water source has an MCL violation, you can rest
assured that the concentrations of that contaminant are very high
compared to what is normally encountered with clean water.
Concentrations of cobalt are typically in the microgram/liter (ppb)
range for clean drinking water, so an MCL regulation would probably be
nearer the mg/L (ppm) range considering its low toxicity by ingestion,
if such a regulation were ever instituted. It would all depend on what
conclusions were on the study that prompted the hypothetical regulation.
But what I've been able to dredge up from the Net is that continued
ingestion of more than 30mg per day is required to see negative health
problems.

The EPA tends to overreact to preliminary studies. For example, the
recent lowering of exposure limits to methylene chloride is just one
example. At least there is some hope that the EPA will actually reevaluate
that one.


A useless media coined term. Gold is heavier in atomic weight and
denser compared to arsenic, yet it is non-toxic and inert. There are
many other examples. I don't see how manganese at 25 on the periodic
table and cobalt at 27 could be considered heavy metals, whatever that
means. Of course, Andy Dingley didn't mention that term in his post,
but others have in previous threads.


The term "heavy metal" has been in use way before the "media" could have
coined the term. It can be found in all sorts of analytical chemistry
textbooks that date back to before the 1940s and was used in the open
literature before that time. Way back, it actually did have something to
do the with density of a metal but it quickly became applied to all sorts of
metals. It definitely has nothing to do with a metal's atomic weight.
By the way, gold can be quite toxic when in something other than its
elemental form. Just ask anyone who has to take gold containing arthritis
treatment drugs. Keep in mind it is not so much the elemental lead that is
so toxic, it is what it rapidly turns into in the human body. There will
always be certain metals that are way more toxic than others because they
severly
interfere with the human body's biochemical mechanisms.


Yes, but in my worst case scenario I wanted to assume that part of the
finish is actually ingested. Yet even in this worst case scenario
exposure levels were in the microgram range. I think we can forget
about manganese entirely since both of the multi-vitamins in my house
have 2mg of manganese per tablet, a couple of orders magnitude greater
than my worst case scenario. Also the driers are used only in
polymerizing finishes and even if small chips of the finish were
consumed, it isn't at all clear to me that those polymers are digestible
or that the driers could be leached from them. So not only are the
driers safe for ingestion, the exposure amounts are at worst small, but
quite possibly negligible.

I agree 100%. The amounts are so small as to be insignificant when
compared to accepted limits.

Baron says...

By the way, gold can be quite toxic when in something other than its
elemental form. Just ask anyone who has to take gold containing arthritis
treatment drugs. Keep in mind it is not so much the elemental lead that is
so toxic, it is what it rapidly turns into in the human body. There will
always be certain metals that are way more toxic than others because they
severly
interfere with the human body's biochemical mechanisms.

Yes, but those are some highly artificial organic salts designed to take
gold where no gold has gone before. I think it is misleading to compare
gold and lead toxicity. There is no comparison. But that is topic
drift. I think everybody has too much information now.