# Worried about VOC's??



## Islandbound53

As proffesional lifelong painters is anyone worried about VOC's and other harmful chemicals we all are exposed to? Furthermore is there any real concrete answers to what kind of damage these things do?


----------



## JNLP

Good question. I was recently thinking about the possible long term effects of being a painter. Then I decided I might not want to know. Painting is the only thing I know enough to make decent money, and more importantly the only thing I enjoy doing. If I heard something really bad that could happen to me 30 years down the road, I might run off to working retail or something. Then my luck I'd get shot up by some crazy teenager while selling perfume, wishing I would've took the risks of painting.

:laughing:


----------



## Tonyg

I'm not worried at all! I figure the formaldihyde I have in my system now the better I will look when I'm dead . Besides, todays paints are like vitamens compared to even twenty years ago. I even had this theory that the more MEK I use to clean my hands with the more I will look like the Marlboro man! Women dig it . Specially that rawhide touch!


----------



## MAK-Deco

Won't we all get cancer anyway?? How the person who never smoked and they get lung cancer... I here stories all the time about weird things and cancer... We are all are expose to stuff no matter what we do.


----------



## Z paint

thats why i try to eat pretty healthy and eat alot of things with antioxidents...and i also go trail running and when u sweat alot through exercise it releases alot of toxins...sweatng heavily is also the best way to get lead out o ur system..suanas work too


----------



## MAK-Deco

I should be good then cause I sweat something fierce in the summer while working outside.


----------



## Tonyg

MAK-Deco said:


> I should be good then cause I sweat something fierce in the summer while working outside.


You have to actually be moving for that to happen 
lol.


----------



## MAK-Deco

Tonyg said:


> You have to actually be moving for that to happen
> lol.


Then i would really be sweating!


----------



## daArch

One of the reasons I stopped painting was the intolerance I developed to the fumes. I was having headaches, kidney pains, and a metallic taste in my mouth. Also in the early 80's during a blood test, I had elevated lead levels - if I remember correctly, in the high 50's ppm.

Yah, for many years I denied and rationalized, but when I felt the results of my bodily filters taking a beating, I decided life was more profitable than polluting my system with poisons. 

There are many valid arguments debunking the VOC laws in relation to saving the planet, but the fact is that those who work so close to solvents day in and day out will suffer adverse health issues over time.


----------



## KeirK

There are thousands of documented cases related to VOC's and there are even names for paint related ones like "painters Syndrome" etc. The issue comes to blame, if a Dr said it was the paint, the paint manufacturer will blame the carpet, the carpet manufacturer the Insulations, etc...
We are in the beggining stages of realizing the effects of these toxic chemicals, and each person reacts differently to each chemical. Think about the fact that if you walk into your neighbors house who painted last year, you are being exposed to offgassing even then. Shopping in the mall, same thing, on and on and on. 
The idea is to start making changes now, so that our future will have less exposure and most importantly less exposure to our children.
It is alarming how many children are being born with autism, degenerative diseases, and abnormalities that have never been seen before. There are new words invented every year to name these issues. Dr's know its exposure to chemicals that is having this alarming effect on our population, but what to do. Unfortunately the answer is everything, we need to do everything we can, we need to make it part of our thought process so that we do it second nature. I am not talking about going crazy, but just being concious about our decisions. 
I just found out last week that my 4 month old daughter was born without the part of the brain that connects the left and right side its called Dysgenises of the Corpus Colosum (DCC). She has the potential to be completely normal (God willing), but exposure to the wrong chemical and that could be the breaking point. 
2 years ago I didnt know what a VOC was, it took me literally 6 months to finally understand about VOC's and other toxins, I suspect the average person will probably not be as interested. It is the complexity that gives everyone the ability to shrug it off. We as a company are trying to break that complexity down so that people can understand the issues quickly and simply. 
So to answer your question is anyone worried?
I am.


----------



## Rustbuster

I recently read an article stating that the painting trade is considered a carcinogenic job. The other job listed in this aticle as being cancer causing is firefighting. 

I can't say that I know of many old painters enjoying retirement but I can say that I have known a lot of painters who have died premature deaths from various causes but probably can mostly be attributed to their jobs.

Yes I worry about VOC's and their health hazards. I bought myself a really good full face respirator years ago and use it quite a bit. One of the best investments I have ever made.


----------



## daArch

Rustbuster said:


> I can't say that I know of many old painters enjoying retirement but I can say that I have known a lot of painters who have died premature deaths from various causes but probably can mostly be attributed to their jobs.


And as we all know, painters do not drink or smoke - so those habits can't be attributed to health issues


----------



## Formulator

KeirK said:


> There are thousands of documented cases related to VOC's and there are even names for paint related ones like "painters Syndrome" etc. The issue comes to blame, if a Dr said it was the paint, the paint manufacturer will blame the carpet, the carpet manufacturer the Insulations, etc...
> We are in the beggining stages of realizing the effects of these toxic chemicals, and each person reacts differently to each chemical. Think about the fact that if you walk into your neighbors house who painted last year, you are being exposed to offgassing even then. Shopping in the mall, same thing, on and on and on.
> The idea is to start making changes now, so that our future will have less exposure and most importantly less exposure to our children.
> It is alarming how many children are being born with autism, degenerative diseases, and abnormalities that have never been seen before. There are new words invented every year to name these issues. Dr's know its exposure to chemicals that is having this alarming effect on our population, but what to do. Unfortunately the answer is everything, we need to do everything we can, we need to make it part of our thought process so that we do it second nature. I am not talking about going crazy, but just being concious about our decisions.
> I just found out last week that my 4 month old daughter was born without the part of the brain that connects the left and right side its called Dysgenises of the Corpus Colosum (DCC). She has the potential to be completely normal (God willing), but exposure to the wrong chemical and that could be the breaking point.
> 2 years ago I didnt know what a VOC was, it took me literally 6 months to finally understand about VOC's and other toxins, I suspect the average person will probably not be as interested. It is the complexity that gives everyone the ability to shrug it off. We as a company are trying to break that complexity down so that people can understand the issues quickly and simply.
> So to answer your question is anyone worried?
> I am.


I understand that Mythic makes good paint and bases much of that on being non-toxic. Let's be honest though. You are kind of over-dramatizing what a VOC is and what its effect is on you.

Propylene Glycol is a VOC. It is in childrens cough syrup, ketchup, and even Ritz Crackers I believe.

Ethanol is a VOC. Who doesn't like a good beer? 

While we relate what is and isn't relatively safe, let's also be realistic about correlating VOCs to health concerns. 

Take this for instance: Sodium Chloride (table salt) when supplied in technical grade form states that it is a possible carcinogen and if there is a spill to flush it with copious amounts of water. So what the regulations and labelling is forced to say isn't always a realistic indicator of danger.


edit: I'll get you guys the exact definition of what constitutes a VOC tomorrow

Don't let unrealistic alarmism dictate how you spend your money.


----------



## KeirK

Unfortunately, the health concerns are real. There are indeed products that are VOC's that might not be effective. However VOC's are measured for Environmental concerns not human. There are exempt solvents that are not considered VOC's and Paint manufacturers dont have to include them in the measurement. I have met several people with extreme cases of toxic exposure due directly to paint. You cant argue with reality, liver damage, migranes, skin issues. There are tons of issues related to the toxins in paint. 
There is no unrealistic alarmism at all, given the choice, would you paint your infants room with paint with toxins or paint without? Now why would you treat yourself any different?
Keir


----------



## vermontpainter

KeirK said:


> You cant argue with reality, liver damage, migranes, skin issues. There are tons of issues related to the toxins in paint.
> Keir


What types of skin issues have you heard of?


----------



## Formulator

vermontpainter said:


> What types of skin issues have you heard of?


 
Some coatings may have a large quantity of amine in them. I have gotten the straight amine on me before and it really leaves a rashy looking area where it gets you. Plus some of the VOCs can really dry out your skin. (just for reference, water is technically a VOC)


----------



## vermontpainter

Formulator said:


> Some coatings may have a large quantity of amine in them. quote]
> 
> What types of coatings have large quantities of amine? Is it more present in oil or latex? Solids or clears?


----------



## KeirK

vermontpainter said:


> What types of skin issues have you heard of?


from the EPA Site:
*Health Effects*
Eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea; damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause cancer in animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans. Key signs or symptoms associated with exposure to VOCs include conjunctival irritation, nose and throat discomfort, headache, allergic skin reaction, dyspnea, declines in serum cholinesterase levels, nausea, emesis, epistaxis, fatigue, dizziness.
The ability of organic chemicals to cause health effects varies greatly from those that are highly toxic, to those with no known health effect. As with other pollutants, the extent and nature of the health effect will depend on many factors including level of exposure and length of time exposed. Eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual disorders, and memory impairment are among the immediate symptoms that some people have experienced soon after exposure to some organics​


----------



## KeirK

vermontpainter said:


> Formulator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some coatings may have a large quantity of amine in them. quote]
> 
> What types of coatings have large quantities of amine? Is it more present in oil or latex? Solids or clears?
> 
> 
> 
> Waterborne for sure, i dont know about oil.
> from paint emulsion descriptor site:
> 
> A method for improving emulsion paint which is characterized in that 1 to 40 parts by weight as solids of aqueous acrylic resin solution is added to 100 parts by weight as resin solids of emulsion paint, said aqueous acrylic resin solution being produced from ethylenically unsaturated monomer having tertiary *amine* group, ethylenically unsaturated monomer having carboxyl group(s) and other ethylenically unsaturated monomer. The improved emulsion paint thereby formed has a low thixotropic property and an excellent coating property, and forms excellent coating film with good water resistance, moisture resistance and chemical resistance.
> 
> From the Tech forum:
> 
> Recent enhancements in waterborne resin system polymers as well as the way they are formulated have produced paints with a set of barrier properties that are superior to their standard solventborne analogs. New generation waterborne epoxy and curing agent dispersions, and the paints formulated from them, have been introduced with changes from older generation waterbornes. These changes include (1) totally nonionically dispersed paints in place of the older ionically dispersed types, (2) quicker coalescing, mutually soluble epoxy/amine vehicle resins rather than the former slow coalescing, highly branched epoxy/*amine systems*, and (3) utilization of stable, water compatible additives and fillers that complement the nonionic epoxy/*amine* resin vehicles.
Click to expand...


----------



## KeirK

Worth a read to see how industry is approaching the issue. Not too concerned with us, more concerned with getting around legislation. 

http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/sec_solvents.asp?CID=1484&DID=5852


----------



## CApainter

Are Volatile Organic Compounds still an issue once the coating has cured? 

With any of these materials, the proper Personal Protective Equipment should be worn to minimize exposure.


----------



## KeirK

VOC's can take up to 6 years to stop offgassing after application. Less than 50% of that offgassing occurs in the first year.


----------



## CApainter

Thanks


----------



## Formulator

KeirK said:


> VOC's can take up to 6 years to stop offgassing after application. Less than 50% of that offgassing occurs in the first year.


 
Keirk,

You are not referring to VOCs as defined by the EPA. A VOC will volatilize in one hour at 110C. 

So you have a mixture that is 50% VOC. You weigh out the complete mixture and say you have 100grams. In one hour at 110C, if you reweighed it, then you should have 50 grams remaining. 

Water is "exempt" by EPA definitions.


----------



## Formulator

CApainter said:


> Are Volatile Organic Compounds still an issue once the coating has cured?
> 
> With any of these materials, the proper Personal Protective Equipment should be worn to minimize exposure.


 
They shouldn't be. After a complete cure, you should have, what is by VOC definitions, solids left.


----------



## KeirK

You are completely incorrect. A lot of VOC's are released at application. However less than 50% in the first year. The remaining VOC's are encapsulated in the plastic latex spheres and release upon degradation which can take up to 6 years. paint films on the exposed side, and doesnt completly "Cure" until all the spheres are melted together. Water is not a voc, water can hold voc's well though, and most water contain some. by definition there is no C in H2O. 
http://homerepair.about.com/od/interiorhomerepair/ss/low_voc_paint_3.htm


----------



## Formulator

KeirK said:


> Unfortunately, the health concerns are real. There are indeed products that are VOC's that might not be effective.


 
Keirk, 

You just stated in the previous post that you were so concerned about VOCs in paint that you would only go with a non-voc paint. Then you come back and re-state that VOCs are just for environmental reasons. 

I am simply pointing out that if we are to help contractors, we need to be consistent. You said, "Unfortunately, the health concerns are real." Sure, with some VOCs it is!

My point of contention is that say I have a paint with 50 VOC that is made up of propylene glycol and ethanol, is it really a health concern? I wouldn't want that misinformation out there that VOC = human danger across the board. 

To press the VOC issue even further, one of the worst VOCs in paint is water from an environmental perspective, but I don't think anyone can argue that water is necessarily bad. 


Sorry if I'm all over the place, but I am just kind of writing this during breaks in a project I'm working on. I really think an honest and reasonable discussion of what the true dangers in paints are is in order and I don't think that quoting governmental labelling guidelines is a true indicator of any real danger <see my salt comment in a previous post>.


----------



## Formulator

KeirK said:


> You are completely incorrect. A lot of VOC's are released at application. However less than 50% in the first year. The remaining VOC's are encapsulated in the plastic latex spheres and release upon degradation which can take up to 6 years. paint films on the exposed side, and doesnt completly "Cure" until all the spheres are melted together. Water is not a voc, water can hold voc's well though, and most water contain some. by definition there is no C in H2O.
> http://homerepair.about.com/od/interiorhomerepair/ss/low_voc_paint_3.htm


 
I'm talking about the test to determine VOC content. According to the test result, it is a VOC, however for all practical purposes it's just considered exempt.


----------



## KeirK

Formulator said:


> Keirk,
> 
> You just stated in the previous post that you were so concerned about VOCs in paint that you would only go with a non-voc paint. Then you come back and re-state that VOCs are just for environmental reasons.
> 
> ***Rediculous, Paint legislation of VOC's is only Envirenmental per the EPA. Always said that.
> 
> I am simply pointing out that if we are to help contractors, we need to be consistent. You said, "Unfortunately, the health concerns are real." Sure, with some VOCs it is!
> 
> ***Are you kidding me? The VOC's in question exempt or not are absolutely harmful. There are some that arent but the biggies like PG are harmful.
> 
> *PROPYLENE GLYCOL Hazard Summary*
> 
> *CAS Number*: ​
> • Skin sensitizer - can instigate immune system response that can include itching, burning, scaling, hives, and blistering of skin.​
> • Penetration enhancer: alter(s) skin structure, allowing other chemicals to penetrate deeper into the skin, increasing the amounts of other chemicals that reach the bloodstream.​
> 
> 
> My point of contention is that say I have a paint with 50 VOC that is made up of propylene glycol and ethanol, is it really a health concern? I wouldn't want that misinformation out there that VOC = human danger across the board.
> 
> To press the VOC issue even further, one of the worst VOCs in paint is water from an environmental perspective, but I don't think anyone can argue that water is necessarily bad.
> 
> 
> Sorry if I'm all over the place, but I am just kind of writing this during breaks in a project I'm working on. I really think an honest and reasonable discussion of what the true dangers in paints are is in order and I don't think that quoting governmental labelling guidelines is a true indicator of any real danger <see my salt comment in a previous post>.


***Everything counts, and there are many chemicals that induce or exhibit issues that are being investigated. Your lack of understanding the real issue and comparing it to water is absurd. I am here to provide real information, I take offense to lightening of serious issues.


----------



## KeirK

Formulator said:


> I'm talking about the test to determine VOC content. According to the test result, it is a VOC, however for all practical purposes it's just considered exempt.


It would need to be considered a VOC to be exempt. its not.

http://www.multipureco.com/voclist.htm


----------



## vermontpainter

Not to muddy the waters of this great exchange, but Formulator referred to EPA standards, which to my understanding are primarily geared to smog control. 

While that is an important environmental issue, I am much more concerned with the interior air quality that my crew and customers are exposed to. Why would I not want to err on the side of caution in product selection?


----------



## Formulator

*Potential Acute Health Effects:​*​​Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of
inhalation.​
*Potential Chronic Health Effects:​*CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast.
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available.
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available.​Repeated or prolonged exposure is not known to aggravate medical condition.

*Eye Contact:​*Check for and remove any contact lenses. In case of contact, immediately flush eyes with plenty of water for at
least 15 minutes. Cold water may be used. Get medical attention.​*Skin Contact:​*Wash with soap and water. Cover the irritated skin with an emollient. Get medical attention if irritation develops.
Cold water may be used.​*Serious Skin Contact:​*​​Not available.​
*Inhalation:​*If inhaled, remove to fresh air. If not breathing, give artificial respiration. If breathing is difficult, give oxygen. Get
medical attention if symptoms appear.​*Serious Inhalation:​*​​Not available.​
*Ingestion:​*Do NOT induce vomiting unless directed to do so by medical personnel. Never give anything by mouth to an
unconscious person. Loosen tight clothing such as a collar, tie, belt or waistband. Get medical attention if
symptoms appear.​*Serious Ingestion: *Not available.

*Section 6: Accidental Release Measures​Small Spill:​*Use appropriate tools to put the spilled solid in a convenient waste disposal container. Finish cleaning by
spreading water on the contaminated surface and dispose of according to local and regional authority
requirements.​*Large Spill:​*Use a shovel to put the material into a convenient waste disposal container. Finish cleaning by spreading water



I'll let you guys guess what that is in reference to. 

Again Keirk, you can quote all the required MSDS information you can find, however I am talking about what is a REALISTIC hazard.


----------



## Formulator

vermontpainter said:


> Not to muddy the waters of this great exchange, but Formulator referred to EPA standards, which to my understanding are primarily geared to smog control.
> 
> While that is an important environmental issue, I am much more concerned with the interior air quality that my crew and customers are exposed to. Why would I not want to err on the side of caution in product selection?


 
Yeah VP. EPA and VOC is for environmental concerns. I think to really understand what is and isn't dangerous we need to talk about toxicity. 

I would say as a general rule, you should consider high amounts of ammonia, acetone, or any of the traditional solvents you would find in "old school" paints to be more dangerous with regards to air quality. Solvents like acetone and some propellants can really go to work on your liver. Really if it has that solvent smell you can tell how bad it will be for you.

This is what I think Mythic paint is great for from the sounds of it. Just based on what I've read of people reviewing their interior and exterior wall paints, it is a product that sounds top-notch.

Keirk, I am actually interested in having a look at a quart or gallon of your glossiest paint. Rust-Oleum is NOT a competitor for you in the slightest. We are simply a small project paint company. My interest is purely professional and we are "going green" so there could be mutually beneficial possibilities for both parties in the future. Just pm me and let me know what ya think.


----------



## vermontpainter

Formulator said:


> Yeah VP. EPA and VOC is for environmental concerns. I think to really understand what is and isn't dangerous we need to talk about toxicity.


Form

Wasnt it you who said that non-toxic was a crock?


----------



## vermontpainter

Formulator said:


> *
> *I'll let you guys guess what that is in reference to.
> ​




You know how we feel about guessing games! :no:​


----------



## Formulator

vermontpainter said:


> Form
> 
> Wasnt it you who said that non-toxic was a crock?


 
Ok, so it was the MSDS for salt. 

Pretty much everything has a "lethal dose". So in essence everything is "toxic" to some extent. People die from drinking too much water. That's the way I see it now, but perhaps someone can enlighten me on what the criteria are to be able to call a paint that you sell "Non-Toxic"?


edit: I'm probably thinking about it incorrectly or something, but that's just the way I would interpret it now.


----------



## KeirK

If you THINK paint does not pose a realistic hazard, then you haven't done your homework. Please search these forums and the WWW and you'll find all sorts of valuable information. As for toxic, do the same, there is enough info on PT to keep you busy for a while.


----------



## Formulator

KeirK said:


> If you THINK paint does not pose a realistic hazard, then you haven't done your homework. Please search these forums and the WWW and you'll find all sorts of valuable information. As for toxic, do the same, there is enough info on PT to keep you busy for a while.


 
#1 Paint is a generic term. Paint from when? 

#2 I said a realistic discussion of hazards is in order based on reason and not overblowing the 1 in a million chance of something occurring.

#3 I get that one of your selling points is the safety of your product. However showing me MSDS and CAS info is not a 100% legitimate indicator of hazard.


----------



## NEPS.US

Formulator said:


> Ok, so it was the MSDS for salt.
> 
> Pretty much everything has a "lethal dose". So in essence everything is "toxic" to some extent. People die from drinking too much water. That's the way I see it now, but perhaps someone can enlighten me on what the criteria are to be able to call a paint that you sell "Non-Toxic"?
> 
> 
> edit: I'm probably thinking about it incorrectly or something, but that's just the way I would interpret it now.


If I owned Rustolem I would not be very happy if a employee that that has declared himself as my employee and company representation (boss ok'ed it) made comments like this on a public forum using my logo as a avatar.


----------



## vermontpainter

NEPS.US said:


> If I owned Rustolem I would not be very happy if a employee that that has declared himself as my employee and company representation (boss ok'ed it) made comments like this on a public forum using my logo as a avatar.


 
Actually, if you think of the millions of aerosol cans they have put into the world, they may not worry too much about it. That might explain the Mythic bashing.


----------



## bikerboy

Here is my two cents from a "real world laboratory" not some testing on rats. My family has been in the painting trades as related to the housing industry for over fifty years. Needless to say we know and have employed hundreads of painters. Not one that we can think of died directly from paint. 
I have seen people work without respirators for years, (father, uncles, brothers and many more) who are still alive. Yes some people I know died from cancer and liver disese, but they also smoked and drank. In fact, the painting trade, like it or not, tends to draw drunks, druggies and lots of people with little or no common sense or regards for thier health, in large quantities. Does your so called science take that in to consideration? 
My main point is so many people skew the facts to fit thier agenda that you have to wonder who you can trust. You guys may be right. Mythic may be the greatest thing since sliced beef. But when you got a dog in the fight, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. (guess I am a pessimist)
SO my question is, do we worry about the paint? Or the lifstyle that some painters lead? Does that really get accounted for? OR does that part get tossed aside in favor of making the statistics fit the outcome? (sorry, that is 4 questions)


----------



## KeirK

Bikerboy,
We used to paint with Lead paint too. Unfortunately, alot of the problems associated with paint could be blamed on other things. Paint could also compound other problems. Exposure levels of toxins is real, there are more and more toxic products and they can all add up. So you wont be able to say it was the paint, or pinpoint the problem, but there also wont be an explanation for it either. What about the smoker that got cancer but may not have if he wasn't a painter? The science is there to prove the issues with paint, the issue is that everyone has there own chemistry and it may take more or less exposure for the problem to set in. 
Not scare tactics, this is reality. 
The answers to your questions,
Dont worry about the paint, but be concious of it. Use products that are safer for you as long as they dont degrade your performance. Always protect yourself and your customers by reading instructions and thinking.
Painters lifestyles dont come into play, there are far too many differences between the chemistry in each human to try to associate a lifestyle stereotype to it.
Look at the statistics for sheer toxicity, if you know that you will die from ingesting 1.5 oz of cyanide, how much can you pour on your skin before it is absorbed and has the same effect just over a longer period of time?


----------



## Formulator

vermontpainter said:


> Actually, if you think of the millions of aerosol cans they have put into the world, they may not worry too much about it. That might explain the Mythic bashing.


 
I'm not Mythic bashing. I am actually very impressed from what I've heard. I simply think that making sweeping statements about the sky falling is somewhat disingenuous. From the great reviews I've read of the product from you guys, I would probably buy Mythic paint to paint my house.


----------



## KeirK

Formulator said:


> #1 Paint is a generic term. Paint from when?
> 
> #2 I said a realistic discussion of hazards is in order based on reason and not overblowing the 1 in a million chance of something occurring.
> 
> #3 I get that one of your selling points is the safety of your product. However showing me MSDS and CAS info is not a 100% legitimate indicator of hazard.


 
1. Todays Paint
2. Do your research, I'm not going to tell you again. its not 1 in a million, its a compounded exposure issue. plenty of info on the www.
3. I did way more than that, I have provided you with ample of research and starting points so you can come to your own conclusions. You have chosen to ignore them. You have also chosen not to search this site where there is tons of additional info.

I'm starting to think you are on a mission on this site now.....


----------



## vermontpainter

Testing the waters?


----------



## KeirK

Formulator said:


> I'm not Mythic bashing. I am actually very impressed from what I've heard. I simply think that making sweeping statements about the sky falling is somewhat disingenuous. From the great reviews I've read of the product from you guys, I would probably buy Mythic paint to paint my house.


I never said the sky was falling......
I never said DONT USE XXXXX it will kill you.
I merely provide facts and links to data that support what everyone already knew. Solvents and toxins are NOT good for you. reducing exposure is a smart thing to do wherever you can. 


Think for a second...
They outlawed Lead Paint...Why???? 
They are outlawing Oil based paints...... Why???? 
Now.......Waterbourne paint and VOC's.....
There is rational behind it, if its bad for the trees do you think its good for us?
Why is California constantly bringing the levels down, and enforcing Prop 65 Regs? To make us all aware of the dangers in things we never knew.


----------



## Formulator

NEPS.US said:


> If I owned Rustolem I would not be very happy if a employee that that has declared himself as my employee and company representation (boss ok'ed it) made comments like this on a public forum using my logo as a avatar.


 
So what do you take issue with? I've never developed a completely "non-toxic" paint. I've read of some "natural" or organic paints. But I simply wanted to chime in here about reasonable exposure levels and the realistic dangers involved during normal use.


----------



## vermontpainter

Formulator said:


> But I simply wanted to chime in here about reasonable exposure levels and the realistic dangers involved during normal use.


My trucks have seatbelts and airbags. I have never been in an accident. Should I even have this gear in the trucks?


----------



## Formulator

KeirK said:


> 1. Todays Paint
> 2. Do your research, I'm not going to tell you again. its not 1 in a million, its a compounded exposure issue. plenty of info on the www.
> 3. I did way more than that, I have provided you with ample of research and starting points so you can come to your own conclusions. You have chosen to ignore them. You have also chosen not to search this site where there is tons of additional info.
> 
> I'm starting to think you are on a mission on this site now.....


 
I'm honestly not "on a mission". I haven't said a disparaging word about anyone's products here. In fact, I think your product is very exciting and sounds great. This is not your doing at all keirk. I simply am trying to have an intelligent discussion about the fact that everything that we have to list as a VOC or a hazard does not necessarily mean that at that level of exposure, you will die from it. I understand your point about repeated exposure etc... and that may be true in many cases, but not all. 

Me saying this is not in specific defense to ANY companies products. 


"Think for a second...
They outlawed Lead Paint...Why???? 
They are outlawing Oil based paints...... Why???? 
Now.......Waterbourne paint and VOC's.....
There is rational behind it, if its bad for the trees do you think its good for us?
Why is California constantly bringing the levels down, and enforcing Prop 65 Regs? To make us all aware of the dangers in things we never knew."

Well, first of all, lead paint is dangerous. Yes, it is. Everyone knows it's bad. That is a clear cut case.

Oil based paints are not quite as bad if used in properly ventilated areas as is always instructed. 
Water based paints and VOC levels. 

So you want to know why "they" are outlawing oil-based and waterborne paints? Well, they are outlawing based on inconclusive evidence that these compounds that participate in photoreaction significantly contribute to global warming. Everyone takes for granted that global warming is not fact. Global warming appears to be a religion or political movement more than something that has been scientifically proven and a consensus reached in the scientific community. Of course that's just my opinion.

With regards to what I said above, I am a firm believer that making paint safer and better for you to work around and better for the environment is a good thing. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue against that. However, I think sometimes we need to be more realistic about exposure and what is and isn't safe.


----------



## vermontpainter

Formulator said:


> Oil based paints are not quite as bad if used in properly ventilated areas as is always instructed.


 
Form

I can see that we have alot of work to do in educating you. Thats ok. Thats what we are here for.

Oil based paints are more dangerous in their dust form than as liquids, or even as their components evaporate during the drying process. I dont expect you to know the dangers associated with even minimal exposure to crystalline silica or stoddard solvent in dust form. And I surely dont expect you to know that good painters spend as much time sanding their coats in between applications as they do spreading the paint. But I do expect you to appreciate the fact that you are speaking to an audience of people who do know these things. That is our business.


----------



## DeanV

I do think lowering VOC's is a good thing and it is good to err on the side of caution, but in today's culture, if it is scary it is news. It may be reporting some household good can cause cancer, but the tests were done at such high levels of exposure that it is ridiculous. Some carcinogens are threshold carcinogens, some have a linear relationship. Sometimes, the thresholds are so high, that it really is not an issue. The linear threats can be a bigger issue, but again, levels of exposure are important. I really feel that better information needs to be readily available to painters. I want to be able to see what levels of exposure we are subject to during various painting activities, what quantities are worth being concerned about, what type of relationships there are between exposure and affects. The more information painters have, and the better, but it needs to be based on realistic levels of exposure.


----------



## KeirK

Form,
Please for your own liability, try not to oversimplify the toxicology isssue. I doubt that would ever be in your best interest. Realistic and exposure levels is different for everyone, just admit that any exposure heightens the possability of aggravating or causing a health issue. 
Have you ever heard of painters syndrome?

http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/10/655


----------



## DeanV

I do not doubt that alkyds are bad long term or lacquer and other finishings with a lot of acetone, etc in them. But, I do not know how bad realistically your typical interior latex trim paint by BM, SW, PPG is for painters. Also, are lacquers worse than alkyds? They seem worse when you use them, but there is little talk about them.


----------



## KeirK

DeanV said:


> I do think lowering VOC's is a good thing and it is good to err on the side of caution, but in today's culture, if it is scary it is news. It may be reporting some household good can cause cancer, but the tests were done at such high levels of exposure that it is ridiculous. Some carcinogens are threshold carcinogens, some have a linear relationship. Sometimes, the thresholds are so high, that it really is not an issue. The linear threats can be a bigger issue, but again, levels of exposure are important. I really feel that better information needs to be readily available to painters. I want to be able to see what levels of exposure we are subject to during various painting activities, what quantities are worth being concerned about, what type of relationships there are between exposure and affects. The more information painters have, and the better, but it needs to be based on realistic levels of exposure.


I follow you completely, but if there is an amount of exposure that shows detectible levels, that means that things are still happening that may not be detectible. What if your painting toxicology threshold has been met, no side affects, then you get exposed to petrochemicals from pumping gas and that throws your own levels to high for your body and starts to have side effects. The number of toxins we are exposed to is increasing each year, there are many NEW unexplained health issues. This can get frightening, but that is not my point, the point is to be aware of what you expose yourself to and why.
Keir


----------



## Formulator

vermontpainter said:


> Form
> 
> I can see that we have alot of work to do in educating you. Thats ok. Thats what we are here for.
> 
> Oil based paints are more dangerous in their dust form than as liquids, or even as their components evaporate during the drying process. I dont expect you to know the dangers associated with even minimal exposure to crystalline silica or stoddard solvent in dust form. And I surely dont expect you to know that good painters spend as much time sanding their coats in between applications as they do spreading the paint. But I do expect you to appreciate the fact that you are speaking to an audience of people who do know these things. That is our business.


 
SEE! Great info. I love hearing about stuff like that from you guys. I would never have thought of that. I just think about things in their wet and dry forms. I never considered sanding and releasing it as a dust. 

Thanks a lot VP. And yes, I do have a lot to learn. I will give you a little bit of info about myself. I'm rather new to making final paint formulas. I've worked on pigment dispersions in the past for automotive coatings. Currently I've been working on a technology that is relatively new to the industry and have completed about 1000 hours work on it. I care deeply about the quality of my work and I hope that I can hear some feedback sooner rather than later from you guys.


----------



## Formulator

KeirK said:


> Form,
> Please for your own liability, try not to oversimplify the toxicology isssue. I doubt that would ever be in your best interest. Realistic and exposure levels is different for everyone, just admit that any exposure heightens the possability of aggravating or causing a health issue.
> Have you ever heard of painters syndrome?
> 
> http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/10/655


 
Absolutely. I can agree with that. I think at the end of the day we would agree on most everything. What you have is for a different market and has different requirements than what I work on. 

The challenges to me sometimes can't be overcome with the current technology without the addition of something that I would prefer not to have in there if I didn't have to. I would never put anything in that was terribly dangerous, but there are some things you wouldn't want to drink a gallon of in there. That's the challenge facing our industry as a whole too I guess.


----------



## CApainter

Do coatings that cure through coalescence contribute to longer releases of VOC's over time then those that cure through co-reactive means.

Some single component paints still can't perform as needed compared to other catalyzed coatings.


----------

