# Speedheater vs. Silent paint remover



## PRC (Aug 28, 2014)

Is one better quality than the other? I'll be completely stripping old 9 light casement sashes.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

PRC said:


> Is one better quality than the other? I'll be completely stripping old 9 light casement sashes.


I recall a lengthy discussion here in the past. Give the SEARCH function a try.


http://www.painttalk.com/f12/speedheater-vs-silent-paint-remover-27960/


----------



## PRC (Aug 28, 2014)

Gough said:


> I recall a lengthy discussion here in the past. Give the SEARCH function a try.
> 
> 
> http://www.painttalk.com/f12/speedheater-vs-silent-paint-remover-27960/


Thanks Gough. Forgive my laziness, it's been a long week.


----------



## premierpainter (Apr 17, 2007)

Use a stripper and scraper. You will have better results. Both heaters are very slow and when you heat glass, you can break the panes very easily.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

Not to be contrary, but we prefer using heat to using chemical strippers. You do have to be careful around the glazing, but we felt that the relative slowness of the technique was more than offset by the lack of mess and fumes/chemical burns, YMMV.


----------



## Brian C (Oct 8, 2011)

I dont bother with my speedheater anymore. Its too slow and the burning paint fumes are bad even with a dust mask. I use the paintshaver for timber siding and a heat gun for window frames.


----------



## eews (Apr 18, 2007)

one thing to consider is when using heat to strip old paint, you will most likely create lead dust; that has it's own set of problems.
By using a chemical stripper, you'll keep everything wet, and not create lead dust. 
if you follow RRP, the guidelines allow for the certified renovator to determine the level of masking/protection required(with certain minimums). If you are not creating dust, containment is easier.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Does using heat produce lead fumes? I know that burning lead paint produces the highest level of exposure out of all methods of removal.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

CApainter said:


> Does using heat produce lead fumes? I know that burning lead paint produces the highest level of exposure out of all methods of removal.


Both of these tools operate in the temperature range allowed by RRP which is below the temp to volatilize Lead. Depending on the material being removed, it can still be pretty smelly.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

After listening to Tamara Rubin (a lead paint activist) on a podcast called builder link radio, I'd be having serious concerns using anything producing heat.

Check out the sites left side for podcast 006 for more info.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

CApainter said:


> After listening to Tamara Rubin (a lead paint activist) on a podcast called builder link radio, I'd be having serious concerns using anything producing heat.


Thanks.

In any case, we wear P100/organic vapor cartridges in our respirators when we use heat to remove paint.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

CApainter said:


> After listening to Tamara Rubin (a lead paint activist) on a podcast called builder link radio, I'd be having serious concerns using anything producing heat.
> 
> Check out the sites left side for podcast 006 for more info.


Thanks for posting that link. Tamara's family was poisoned by a unscrupulous contractor who used open-flame burning and dry scraping to remove LBP from her house. If he'd just used unshrouded sanders, he could have completed the worst-practices LBP trifecta. She didn't mention it in the podcast, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had. I can't believe he took that approach in what, 2011???

Don't get me wrong, her family's story is certainly a cautionary tale and a must listen for anyone thinking that RRP is some sort of tax grab.

It was also interesting that she's had better luck with enforcement by contacting OSHA, rather than the EPA, or the state equivalents.


----------



## GreenGirl (Apr 22, 2013)

Thanks for restoring not dumping and replacing your sashes! Very dry paint when heated or scraped can create dust and heating any type of paint does have nasty fumes. Even "green", non-toxic chemicals have nasty fumes. Organic vapor masks with replaceable cartridges can manage those. 

Low heat (less than 600) does NOT make lead fumes. Traditional high heat guns, which is usually what Tamara is talking about, about DO.

Letting a layer of raw linseed oil soak on dry paint overnight or water misting paint and wood right before heating will stop most of the dust when scraping. ALL methods of paint stripping make toxic lead paint waste. It's all about containing it in whatever form it ends up.


----------



## PRC (Aug 28, 2014)

I've decided to use chemical strippers. Right now Piranha Nexstrip PRO and Piranha 4. 

This is a commercial building but we'll still be using proper containment.

Thanks for the feedback!


----------



## Brian C (Oct 8, 2011)

the speedheater does create noxious fumes from burning paint. I have first hand experience with using it.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

Brian C said:


> the speedheater does create noxious fumes from burning paint. I have first hand experience with using it.


We found that ventilation and appropriate respirators makes the difference when we use them inside. Outside, there's usually enough air movement that it's not an issue.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Gough said:


> Thanks for posting that link. Tamara's family was poisoned by a unscrupulous contractor who used open-flame burning and dry scraping to remove LBP from her house. If he'd just used unshrouded sanders, he could have completed the worst-practices LBP trifecta. She didn't mention it in the podcast, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had. I can't believe he took that approach in what, 2011???
> 
> Don't get me wrong, her family's story is certainly a cautionary tale and a must listen for anyone thinking that RRP is some sort of tax grab.
> 
> It was also interesting that she's had better luck with enforcement by contacting OSHA, rather than the EPA, or the state equivalents.


So the podacast touched on many important points concerning lead hazards, and awareness. Unfortunately, Mrs. Rubin had to endure not only the serious effects of lead poisoning among her family members, but she apparently had difficulty seeking culpability from the contractor, according to other blogs she wrote.

And although the message of lead awareness is important, along with making certain that contractors are trained and certified to handle materials containing lead, I didn't hear anything regarding the costs incurred by the contractors who comply. The emphasis was instead focused on marketing ones self as a RRP certified contractor, which doesn't automatically translate to higher costs for homeowners who want a "simple" paint job. 

There absolutely needs to be more accountability by the homeowners of these targeted homes, in terms of understanding the lead hazards when working on the homes themselves, and understanding the costs associated with contractors who follow lead abatement best practices.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

CA, having followed the OSHA lead rules since they went into effect, we found the additional costs of RRP to be trivial. OTOH, there were only two people at my RRP class who even knew the the Lead in Construction Rule existed: the trainer and me.

One reminder, if you're just doing RRP, don't use the "a" word (abatement). That's a whole different critter.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Gough said:


> CA, having followed the OSHA lead rules since they went into effect, we found the additional costs of RRP to be trivial. OTOH, there were only two people at my RRP class who even knew the the Lead in Construction Rule existed: the trainer and me.
> 
> One reminder, if you're just doing RRP, don't use the "a" word *(abatement).* That's a whole different critter.


I thought I would be called on that. However, according to the HUD site I visited to determine what consitutes abatement, I discovered "abatement" can be refered to the following:


1.) Encapsulation

2.) Enclosure

3.) Removal

I'm currently working with a contractor on a lead abatement project where paint encapsulation using a Type 3 lead fiber lock is the method of abatement. Albeit without the longevity expectations.


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

CApainter said:


> I thought I would be called on that. However, according to the HUD site I visited to determine what consitutes abatement, I discovered "abatement" can be refered to the following:
> 
> 
> 1.) Encapsulation
> ...


It all goes back to Set Theory.. Those are all subsets of the set "abatement".

All of those three have safety expectations for the site in the wake of the job, RRP is only designed not to add to the problem.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Gough said:


> It all goes back to Set Theory.. Those are all subsets of the set "abatement".
> 
> All of those three have safety expectations for the site in the wake of the job, RRP is only designed not to add to the problem.


I accept that. But I don't agree that complying with lead safe work practices adds only trivial expenses/time when considering the following:

1. Certification
2. Marketing as RRP Certified
3. Lead testing
4. Containment material/labor to install
5. PPE/wash stations/safe work plans
6. Special equipment/supplies/accessories/maintenance
7. Training
8. Medical evaluation
9. Respirator program
10. Disposal of contaminated debris
11. Decontamination time of equipment
12. Administration and record keeping associated with compliance


----------



## Gough (Nov 24, 2010)

CApainter said:


> I accept that. But I don't agree that complying with lead safe work practices adds only trivial expenses/time when considering the following:
> 
> 1. Certification
> 2. Marketing as RRP Certified
> ...


Absolutely, but there's a lot more to lead-safe work practices than RRP. Most of the expenses on your list were required for 15 years before RRP went into effect.

When we added RRP, the only things that changed were nos. 1, and some minor changes to 4 and 12. We don't do any marketing, so #2 is moot.

The point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that the regulations and expenses of RRP, designed to reduce contamination of clients' homes, were minor compared to those long required by 1226.62.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

I understand Gough. It just bothers me that it's hard enough to be compensated, or allowed time to perform a good paint job, let alone being tasked with the responsibility of managing hazards that have the potential to cause life long injury or disability to the children who will inevitably occupy the space you've been entrusted to make safe.


----------

