Leaf paint
dw
Oops, I forgot. Brenchley doesn't think lead paid is a problem.
NickKnight
>I think it did note in the article that the current owners were told in
>the documents about the paint. In the UK it's caveat emptor, which is
>why people usually get a professional survey done.
You've never bought a house have you? You get
notified....on a sheet of paper buried in a pile
of about 300 other sheets of paper.
And if you get a house inspection it is buried in with about
500 other items. Very easy to miss.
--------------------------------------------
To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
my e-mail address.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
c.st...@ntlworld.remove.com
<NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On despam....@ntlworld.com (Chris Street) wrote:
>
>>I think it did note in the article that the current owners were told in
>>the documents about the paint. In the UK it's caveat emptor, which is
>>why people usually get a professional survey done.
>You've never bought a house have you?
Two actually both within the last three years.
> You get
>notified....on a sheet of paper buried in a pile
>of about 300 other sheets of paper.
>
>And if you get a house inspection it is buried in with about
>500 other items. Very easy to miss.
>--------------------------------------------
>To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
>my e-mail address.
>
Not my experience here in the UK - there was no special requirement to
notify as my house was built less than fifteen years ago. The survey
came to about forty pages, and lead (or rather lack of) was fairly
easy to spot.
Bob Brenchley.
>On Sun, 09 Feb 2003 21:27:30 -0500, NickKnight
><NickKnight...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On despam....@ntlworld.com (Chris Street) wrote:
>>
>>>I think it did note in the article that the current owners were told in
>>>the documents about the paint. In the UK it's caveat emptor, which is
>>>why people usually get a professional survey done.
>>You've never bought a house have you?
>
>Two actually both within the last three years.
>
>> You get
>>notified....on a sheet of paper buried in a pile
>>of about 300 other sheets of paper.
>>
>>And if you get a house inspection it is buried in with about
>>500 other items. Very easy to miss.
>>--------------------------------------------
>>To send me e-mail exorcise NO Spam from
>>my e-mail address.
>>
>
>Not my experience here in the UK - there was no special requirement to
>notify as my house was built less than fifteen years ago. The survey
>came to about forty pages, and lead (or rather lack of) was fairly
>easy to spot.
>
It is a subject covered before, in the UK we seem to take enough pride
in our homes that few will still have 15 year old paint in them - let
alone 25 year old paid which is how old it would have to be to still
have lead in it.
--
Bob.
Anything on the ground is a cat toy. Anything not there yet, will be.
Nan
"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
news:vg5f4vogbmj6odqfd...@4ax.com...
> It is a subject covered before, in the UK we seem to take enough pride
> in our homes that few will still have 15 year old paint in them - let
> alone 25 year old paid which is how old it would have to be to still
> have lead in it.
down to the bare wood, plaster, etc. when they repaint? Painting over
lead-based paint does not get rid of the problem. It just covers it up.
Nan
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>
>"Bob Brenchley." <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote in message
>news:vg5f4vogbmj6odqfd...@4ax.com...
>> It is a subject covered before, in the UK we seem to take enough pride
>> in our homes that few will still have 15 year old paint in them - let
>> alone 25 year old paid which is how old it would have to be to still
>> have lead in it.
>Are you saying that everyone in the UK takes their woodwork, walls, etc.
>down to the bare wood, plaster, etc. when they repaint?
Of course you would not have oil paint on plaster, but on wood, well
not every time, but I would do it myself every other repaint.
>Painting over
>lead-based paint does not get rid of the problem. It just covers it up.
True, but then you only need protection while it is being removed. In
addition you have to go back about 50 years to get lead paint that has
really high levels that would require special precautions when
stripping.
>
>Nan
>
--
Bob.
Cats know what we feel. They don't always care, but they know.
Nan
"Just Bob" <unspe...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1mif4vsrjq67pvh2a...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:59:06 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
> <B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Of course you would not have oil paint on plaster, but on wood, well
> >not every time, but I would do it myself every other repaint.
>
> in the sash area. As the sash wood is rubbed by the opening and
> closing of the window, the lead paint wears into a fine powder. This
> is the source of contamination for more children... not large flakes
> from unpainted woodwork.
>
> >>Painting over
> >>lead-based paint does not get rid of the problem. It just covers it up.
> >
> >True, but then you only need protection while it is being removed. In
> >addition you have to go back about 50 years to get lead paint that has
> >really high levels that would require special precautions when
> >stripping.
>
> sure those in the UK go back even farther. To remove the hazard,
> the old paint has to be removed. Since lead paint issues were
> not well regulated until just 15 or 20 years ago, there are many,
> many houses where the lead paint has simply been painted over. As
> noted above, this does *not* cure the problem.
>
> JB
We were told by our real estate agent when we were in the process of selling
our house that latex paint prior to the 1970's also had lead in it. The
house I live in now was built in 1931 and the woodwork was just painted over
and over without removing any of the old paint. Now it is starting to chip
and peal off and this old senior citizen doesn't have the energy to strip it
all at once.
Nan
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:59:06 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
><B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Of course you would not have oil paint on plaster, but on wood, well
>>not every time, but I would do it myself every other repaint.
>
>You are ill-informed as usual, Mr. Brenchley. The old paint in located
>in the sash area. As the sash wood is rubbed by the opening and
>closing of the window, the lead paint wears into a fine powder. This
>is the source of contamination for more children... not large flakes
>from unpainted woodwork.
>
But is the paint is situated in a high wear area like the sashes of a
window, then it will have worn away and been repainted long ago.
>>>Painting over
>>>lead-based paint does not get rid of the problem. It just covers it up.
>>
>>True, but then you only need protection while it is being removed. In
>>addition you have to go back about 50 years to get lead paint that has
>>really high levels that would require special precautions when
>>stripping.
>
>We have many houses in the USA that go back hundreds of years. I'm
>sure those in the UK go back even farther. To remove the hazard,
>the old paint has to be removed. Since lead paint issues were
>not well regulated until just 15 or 20 years ago, there are many,
>many houses where the lead paint has simply been painted over. As
>noted above, this does *not* cure the problem.
And as I said, that is true. However, it is only pre-WWII paint that
contains really high amounts of lead. Both during the war, and just
after, lead was reduced in paint because a) other additives we cheaper
and b) there was a war on, and lead was needed for the war effort.
As a result you would need to look at paint that had not been stripped
for at least 50 years for it to be a real health risk - and it is
stretching things a bit to claim Merkins have so little pride in their
homes that there are many houses like that around.
>
>JB
--
Bob.
I tell you what, you should be on educational TV, you certainly make
me feel so much smarter..?
Sherry
>our house that latex paint prior to the 1970's also had lead in it. The
>house I live in now was built in 1931 and the woodwork was just painted over
>and over without removing any of the old paint. Now it is starting to chip
>and peal off and this old senior citizen doesn't have the energy to strip it
>all at once.
>
>Nan
>
sell your house, or you have paint-chip-eating grandchildren. I've remodeled
older homes before. The thought of stripping 50 years worth of paint off
baseboards makes me tired just to think about!
Sherry
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>> >True, but then you only need protection while it is being removed. In
>> >addition you have to go back about 50 years to get lead paint that has
>> >really high levels that would require special precautions when
>> >stripping.
>>
>> We have many houses in the USA that go back hundreds of years. I'm
>> sure those in the UK go back even farther. To remove the hazard,
>> the old paint has to be removed. Since lead paint issues were
>> not well regulated until just 15 or 20 years ago, there are many,
>> many houses where the lead paint has simply been painted over. As
>> noted above, this does *not* cure the problem.
>>
>> JB
>
>We were told by our real estate agent when we were in the process of selling
>our house that latex paint prior to the 1970's also had lead in it.
What do you mean by "latex" paint?
>The
>house I live in now was built in 1931 and the woodwork was just painted over
>and over without removing any of the old paint.
I do hope you got a major discount on the house as it was so poorly
maintained.
> Now it is starting to chip
>and peal off and this old senior citizen doesn't have the energy to strip it
>all at once.
>
>Nan
--
Bob.
Call my cat? No, I just run the can opener.
Bob Brenchley.
>Any point you make will be wasted on Mr. Brenchley. He's just trying to
>flamebait (as usual). I can only guess that Mr. Brenchley keeps a
>dreadfully filthy home if he feels compelled to repaint as often as he
>suggests he does.
Nice, bright, clean and repainted at least once every 3 years.
>
>Regarding lead paint safety, some builders claim that covering up
>lead paint with newer paint makes it safe. However I still took the lead
>paint off my fixer-upper's woodwork when I bought it in 1999. I used a
>product called Peel-Away, which is one of the safest ways to remove layers
>of old paint. Sanding and using a heat gun is potentially dangerous as the
>lead may become airborne.
For once you actually post something honest. Wonders will never cease.
--
Bob.
Not the brightest crayon in the box, now are you?
veru...@yahoo.com
> On 10 Feb 2003 16:56:53 GMT, veru...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >"Nan" <kittie3...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >flamebait (as usual). I can only guess that Mr. Brenchley keeps a
> >dreadfully filthy home if he feels compelled to repaint as often as he
> >suggests he does.
> >
> >lead paint with newer paint makes it safe. However I still took the lead
> >paint off my fixer-upper's woodwork when I bought it in 1999. I used a
> >product called Peel-Away, which is one of the safest ways to remove
> >layers of old paint. Sanding and using a heat gun is potentially
> >dangerous as the lead may become airborne.
>
> slowly into the body (and leaves even slower). It's also not likley to
> get very airborne unless you sand it to death - heat stripping is
> probably as safe as a chemical remover.
Actually I checked into this - heat stripping can also put lead dust and
vapors into the air, so you'd have to wear a respirator when using a heat
gun. Which is something I didn't want to do. (Of course I'd already bought
the heat gun - woops. At least my husband uses it when he's changing out
golf club shafts.)
Peel-Away not only removes up to 20-30 layers at a time, it turns all the
paint layers into one gloppy mass that you remove by peeling off the paper
that's applied on top of the product. Here's a page from their Web site:
http://www.peelaway.com/html/peelaway.htm
> The big danger is the cumulative effects, ie the powdered residue coming
> off old sashes etc. as has been noted already somewhere in the thread.
True, which is why I had to remove every single double-hung window to strip
the paint properly. Took me forever.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:51:14 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
><B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But is the paint is situated in a high wear area like the sashes of a
>>window, then it will have worn away and been repainted long ago.
>
>Yes, it was repainted... with lead paint, multiple times until
>the 1970's.
Well then, by now it will not be a problem then will it.
>
>>As a result you would need to look at paint that had not been stripped
>>for at least 50 years for it to be a real health risk - and it is
>>stretching things a bit to claim Merkins have so little pride in their
>>homes that there are many houses like that around.
>
>Very few houses from the 1800's and early 1900's have had the paint
>removed from the doors and windows as part of a restoration or
>remodeling.
No, it would be done as part of normal decorating.
>Typically the existing paint was sanded and another
>coat applied on top.
Which could only be done a few times before it was necessary to strip
to bare wood and start again.
>Very few houses have undergone a "back to the
>wood" restoration.
Any house redecorated on a regular basis would have had to undergo
such work - or by now none of the doors or windows would be usable.
> Hence lead exists in any that have not
>specifically been de-leaded.
Only in a very tiny number of very neglected 'slums'. Of course that
is just the sort of place I would expect a smelly troll like you to
live.
>
>JB
--
Bob.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:07:25 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
><B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Only in a very tiny number of very neglected 'slums'. Of course that
>>is just the sort of place I would expect a smelly troll like you to
>>live.
>
>I see this is just another "Brenchely makes a ridiculous contrarian
>stand just to argue".
>
>Get it through your fat, thick, head Brenchely, houses that were
>painted with lead paint constitute a *documented* hazard to
>young kids. You really are a worthless POS.
>
>JB
I give you the facts TrollSlob, nothing more and nothing less. You, on
the other hand, just troll.
--
Bob.
You need to find a quiet corner and have a word with yourself.
Cheryl
>
> What do you mean by "latex" paint?
>
paint, based on its content. Please do read up on paint types before
you reply to lead paint posts and make a fool of yourself.
Eric Lee Green
>>We were told by our real estate agent when we were in the process of selling
>>our house that latex paint prior to the 1970's also had lead in it.
>
> What do you mean by "latex" paint?
http://www.google.com/search?q=latex+paint
A type of paint that is water-thinnable and that can be cleaned up by
water. Can be purchased in semi-gloss or non-glossy versions. The most
commonly available are based around acrylic or vinyl resins. Lead was
common added in years past to make it spread more smoothly. This is
especially true of formulations intended for wood.
Really, you should be able to do a Google search yourself without me
having to hold you by your nose ring and lead you there...
--
Eric Lee Green GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg
mailto:er...@badtux.org Web: http://www.badtux.org
Eric Lee Green
>>Typically the existing paint was sanded and another
>>coat applied on top.
>
> Which could only be done a few times before it was necessary to strip
> to bare wood and start again.
Why is that? Just curious. My grandfather was a carpenter and painter.
My father was a carpenter and painter. I'm *NOT* a carpenter and painter,
but I helped my father many years in my youth, and we never, NEVER stripped
to bare wood. The reason we never stripped to bare wood is because then we
would have had to prime the wood -- i.e., double the labor, and double
the cost. This is even on houses that were 100+ years old. We sanded or
wire brushed them smooth, and applied more paint.
>>Very few houses have undergone a "back to the
>>wood" restoration.
>
> Any house redecorated on a regular basis would have had to undergo
> such work - or by now none of the doors or windows would be usable.
We sanded the doors and windows to the point where they were usable
after repainting. We did not go beyond that. We most certainly didn't
strip things to bare wood. Our clients were not willing to pay for
that service, and we sure as hell weren't going to do something we
weren't being paid to do. For the most part the door and windowframes
were already "pre-sanded" by the normal up-down open-close of the
doors and windows anyhow.
>> Hence lead exists in any that have not
>>specifically been de-leaded.
>
> Only in a very tiny number of very neglected 'slums'. Of course that
> is just the sort of place I would expect a smelly troll like you to
> live.
I know that you consider the entire United States a neglected 'slum',
but, unfortunately, it is where some 300 million people live, as vs. the
35 million or so who live on your dank out-of-the-way backwards little
island, where, I understand, most people do not even own a clothes dryer.
How primitive!
--
Eric Lee Green GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg
mailto:er...@badtux.org Web: http://www.badtux.org
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
Latex paint is a very specialist paint, and has never contained lead.
I think what was being referred to was vinyl emulsions paint, the type
that is "washable". This also has never contained lead.
Older (and I do mean really old) distemper type wall paints may have
contained some lead, but only in certain colours. This type of paint
went out of use long before WWII because cheaper colour stabilizers
were found.
Apart from oil paint (gloss, the type used on wood or metal) you will
not find lead post the late 1930s.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.
Bob Brenchley.
>In article <ilpf4v418r9og4c6v...@4ax.com>, Bob Brenchley ruminated:
>>>We were told by our real estate agent when we were in the process of selling
>>>our house that latex paint prior to the 1970's also had lead in it.
>>
>> What do you mean by "latex" paint?
>
>http://www.google.com/search?q=latex+paint
>
>A type of paint that is water-thinnable and that can be cleaned up by
>water. Can be purchased in semi-gloss or non-glossy versions. The most
>commonly available are based around acrylic or vinyl resins.
Another example of America's misuse of the English language. There is
no latex in the paint, though there are vinyl resins - hence ICI (the
inventors) giving the title "Vinyl Paint" to the formulation.
>Lead was
>common added in years past to make it spread more smoothly. This is
>especially true of formulations intended for wood.
Lead has never been added to vinyl type paints. Lead was not added to
oil based paint to help spreading.
>
>Really, you should be able to do a Google search yourself without me
>having to hold you by your nose ring and lead you there...
Really you should learn something about paint.
--
Bob.
Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).
Sherry
>but, unfortunately, it is where some 300 million people live, as vs. the
>35 million or so who live on your dank out-of-the-way backwards little
>island, where, I understand, most people do not even own a clothes dryer.
>How primitive!
>
>--
e
Sherry
Sherry
>not find lead post the late 1930s.
>
>--
>Bob.
It's been suggested the name of this thread be now changed to "Leaf Post"
Bob Brenchley.
>In article <kd8g4vkplje2773qq...@4ax.com>, Bob Brenchley ruminated:
>>>Typically the existing paint was sanded and another
>>>coat applied on top.
>>
>> Which could only be done a few times before it was necessary to strip
>> to bare wood and start again.
>
>Why is that? Just curious.
Because paint has a thickness.
> My grandfather was a carpenter and painter.
>My father was a carpenter and painter. I'm *NOT* a carpenter and painter,
>but I helped my father many years in my youth, and we never, NEVER stripped
>to bare wood.
Not very good at their jobs then were they.
> The reason we never stripped to bare wood is because then we
>would have had to prime the wood -- i.e., double the labor, and double
>the cost.
But necessary or paint will build to the level where it will stop
doors/ windows opening/closing, build to the level where the thickness
of paint will make the wood look horrible.
> This is even on houses that were 100+ years old. We sanded or
>wire brushed them smooth, and applied more paint.
Very poor workmanship.
>
>>>Very few houses have undergone a "back to the
>>>wood" restoration.
>>
>> Any house redecorated on a regular basis would have had to undergo
>> such work - or by now none of the doors or windows would be usable.
>
>We sanded the doors and windows to the point where they were usable
>after repainting.
That will work once or twice, but will not go on working. It is also
very labour intensive.
> We did not go beyond that. We most certainly didn't
>strip things to bare wood.
Not very good workmanship.
> Our clients were not willing to pay for
>that service, and we sure as hell weren't going to do something we
>weren't being paid to do. For the most part the door and windowframes
>were already "pre-sanded" by the normal up-down open-close of the
>doors and windows anyhow.
Oh sure they were.
>
>>> Hence lead exists in any that have not
>>>specifically been de-leaded.
>>
>> Only in a very tiny number of very neglected 'slums'. Of course that
>> is just the sort of place I would expect a smelly troll like you to
>> live.
>
>I know that you consider the entire United States a neglected 'slum',
Not at all, just the parts cowboy painters like your family worked on.
>but, unfortunately, it is where some 300 million people live,
Bit high.
> as vs. the
>35 million
VERY low.
> or so who live on your dank out-of-the-way backwards little
>island, where, I understand, most people do not even own a clothes dryer.
>How primitive!
If our country was actually as large as yours our economy would not be
in 4th place in the world - it would be so far ahead of yours you
would be getting charity handouts from us. The paints your family
misused were invented in the UK, as were so many other things you take
for granted. I don't know a single household without a tumble dryer -
however, most don't get much use as we prefer to dry clothes outdoors,
thereby doing our bit to be green.
Sorry, but if you want to argue country against country - you can bet
the UK will end up on top in most things.
--
Bob.
I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself, and
your family, in public.
veru...@yahoo.com
Afraid so. My Pom ex-husband, spoiled from his years in the US, bought a
dryer when he was transferred back to the UK. Hardly any UK homes have a
laundry room or any type of dryer vent, so you end up hanging the vent out
of a window or just steaming up the whole place.
And if you'd like that, you'd LOVE the UK fridge/freezers that hold exactly
two ice trays and nothing else.
Sherry
>with the same brush.
>
Good point. But, Bob kind of brings it on himself by flaming all things
American the way he does. Truthfully, when the slob first appeared on this
newsgroup, I thought he was representive of the entire country. I was relieved
to find out, he is not.
Sherry
Lyn
Here's a good link from the EPA regarding buying or renting a home
that contains lead paint:
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/leadinfo.htm#buy
If your home was built prior to 1978, it may contain led paint.
Owners are required by law to disclose the presence (or lack of) lead
paint in a home, if the home was built prior to '78.
-L.
(Who is current on real estate law!)
N. Thornton
Why not...
>It is a subject covered before, in the UK we seem to take enough
pride
>in our homes that few will still have 15 year old paint in them - let
>alone 25 year old paid which is how old it would have to be to still
>have lead in it.
Most Victorian houses still have lead paint in them. Stripping paint
completely is something mostly not done. This is common knowledge.
A few still have original arsenic pigment paint in: that stuff makes
lead look like a vitamin enriched breakfast.
>I wouldn't worry too much about it, Nan. It's not a problem unless
you plan to
>sell your house, or you have paint-chip-eating grandchildren.
Apparently lead dust comes off the window frames and causes known
health problems: its not as innocuous as once thought.
Latex is the american term for what we call emulsion.
>But is the paint is situated in a high wear area like the sashes of a
>window, then it will have worn away and been repainted long ago.
no its usually still got plenty of lead paint on.
> However, it is only pre-WWII paint that
>contains really high amounts of lead. Both during the war, and just
>after, lead was reduced in paint because a) other additives we
cheaper
>and b) there was a war on, and lead was needed for the war effort.
>
>As a result you would need to look at paint that had not been
stripped
>for at least 50 years for it to be a real health risk
Actually lead paint was still standard stuff for metal frames in the
70s.
>- and it is
>stretching things a bit to claim Merkins have so little pride in
their
>homes that there are many houses like that around.
There are over 10 million in the UK.
>>Yes, it was repainted... with lead paint, multiple times until
>>the 1970's.
>
>Well then, by now it will not be a problem then will it.
Completely Illogical.
>>Very few houses from the 1800's and early 1900's have had the paint
>>removed from the doors and windows as part of a restoration or
>>remodeling.
>
>No, it would be done as part of normal decorating.
in most cases it has never been done.
>Typically the existing paint was sanded and another
>coat applied on top.
>
>Which could only be done a few times before it was necessary to strip
>to bare wood and start again.
nope.
>>Very few houses have undergone a "back to the
>>wood" restoration.
>
>Any house redecorated on a regular basis would have had to undergo
>such work - or by now none of the doors or windows would be usable.
Many Victorian windows are indeed unusable. Its a common problem.
Mostly people avoid that problem by just not painting quite to the
edge. Crude, but common practice.
>> Hence lead exists in any that have not
>>specifically been de-leaded.
>
>Only in a very tiny number of very neglected 'slums'. Of course that
>is just the sort of place I would expect a smelly troll like you to
>live.
No, in most Victorian properties in the UK.
>I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
public.
>Get it through your fat, thick, head Brenchely, houses that were
>painted with lead paint constitute a *documented* hazard to
>young kids.
exactly.
>I give you the facts TrollSlob, nothing more and nothing less.
ha!
>I don't know a single household without a tumble dryer -
then you dont know much. The majority of Brits dont have a tumble
dryer.
Bob, I do wonder where you get your 'information' from. Youre clearly
just a troll. Good trolls are at least credible.
Regards, NT
Bob Brenchley.
>Hi.
>
>Why not...
>
>>It is a subject covered before, in the UK we seem to take enough
>pride
>>in our homes that few will still have 15 year old paint in them - let
>>alone 25 year old paid which is how old it would have to be to still
>>have lead in it.
>
>Most Victorian houses still have lead paint in them.
Hohohohohahahahaha. Talk about stupidity.
>Stripping paint
>completely is something mostly not done. This is common knowledge.
Only to people who don't care for their properties.
>
>A few still have original arsenic pigment paint in: that stuff makes
>lead look like a vitamin enriched breakfast.
>
>
>
>>I wouldn't worry too much about it, Nan. It's not a problem unless
>you plan to
>>sell your house, or you have paint-chip-eating grandchildren.
>
>Apparently lead dust comes off the window frames and causes known
>health problems: its not as innocuous as once thought.
>
>
>Latex is the american term for what we call emulsion.
No it isn't.
>
>
>>But is the paint is situated in a high wear area like the sashes of a
>>window, then it will have worn away and been repainted long ago.
>
>no its usually still got plenty of lead paint on.
What part of "repainted long ago" goes over your head?
>
>
>> However, it is only pre-WWII paint that
>>contains really high amounts of lead. Both during the war, and just
>>after, lead was reduced in paint because a) other additives we
>cheaper
>>and b) there was a war on, and lead was needed for the war effort.
>>
>>As a result you would need to look at paint that had not been
>stripped
>>for at least 50 years for it to be a real health risk
>
>Actually lead paint was still standard stuff for metal frames in the
>70s.
By the early 70s there was no lead paint (except, as today, for very
specialist uses). Of course during the war years there was very little
paint, but as production resumed post WWII the high value of lead
meant that other additives were used instead, though small amounts of
lead were still included.
>
>
>>- and it is
>>stretching things a bit to claim Merkins have so little pride in
>their
>>homes that there are many houses like that around.
>
>There are over 10 million in the UK.
10 million what?
>
>
>>>Yes, it was repainted... with lead paint, multiple times until
>>>the 1970's.
>>
>>Well then, by now it will not be a problem then will it.
>
>Completely Illogical.
Facts cause you a problem?
>
>
>>>Very few houses from the 1800's and early 1900's have had the paint
>>>removed from the doors and windows as part of a restoration or
>>>remodeling.
>>
>>No, it would be done as part of normal decorating.
>
>in most cases it has never been done.
Between then and now it will almost certainly have been done many
times.
>
>
>>Typically the existing paint was sanded and another
>>coat applied on top.
That will work a couple of times. But in the end you have to strip the
wood. Try watching a few DIY programmes.
>>
>>Which could only be done a few times before it was necessary to strip
>>to bare wood and start again.
>
>nope.
Facts cause you a problem?
>
>
>>>Very few houses have undergone a "back to the
>>>wood" restoration.
>>
>>Any house redecorated on a regular basis would have had to undergo
>>such work - or by now none of the doors or windows would be usable.
>
>Many Victorian windows are indeed unusable. Its a common problem.
>Mostly people avoid that problem by just not painting quite to the
>edge. Crude, but common practice.
>
>
>>> Hence lead exists in any that have not
>>>specifically been de-leaded.
>>
>>Only in a very tiny number of very neglected 'slums'. Of course that
>>is just the sort of place I would expect a smelly troll like you to
>>live.
>
>No, in most Victorian properties in the UK.
Liar.
>
>
>>I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in
>public.
>
>
>>Get it through your fat, thick, head Brenchely, houses that were
>>painted with lead paint constitute a *documented* hazard to
>>young kids.
>
>exactly.
>
>
>>I give you the facts TrollSlob, nothing more and nothing less.
>
>ha!
>
>
>>I don't know a single household without a tumble dryer -
>
>then you dont know much. The majority of Brits dont have a tumble
>dryer.
Hohohoho!
>
>
>Bob, I do wonder where you get your 'information' from. Youre clearly
>just a troll. Good trolls are at least credible.
Facts cause you a problem?
>
>Regards, NT
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Lyn
Thanks for debunking Bop'em's "holier-than-thou-Brit" schtick. We've
had his number for quite a long time, now, but it's nice to see a
fellow Brit debunk his trolling blowhole.
-L.
Sherry
>had his number for quite a long time, now, but it's nice to see a
>fellow Brit debunk his trolling blowhole.
>
>-L.
>
it's nice to see others from the UK post once in a while. We have some great
posters contribute to the newsgroup from the UK, which serve as a reminder to
the rest of us that Bop'm certainly *isn't* representive of the entire country.
Note to Newbies: I'd forgotten about this, but "Bop'm" is the name Bob earned
for himself long ago by advocating hitting cats as discipline)
Sherry
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:27:27 +0000, Bob Brenchley.
><B...@format.publications.ukf.net> wrote:
>
>>Facts cause you a problem?
>
>
>I can see that they don't cause any problem for you as you never
>bother to deal with them.
I work with facts TrollSlob, they are not my facts, they are not your
facts - they are just FACTS.
>
>Translation: You're a dickhead. Here's yet another issue where
>you shown yourself to be nothing but a mega-dickhead.
>
>JB
Bob Brenchley.
>>Thanks for debunking Bop'em's "holier-than-thou-Brit" schtick. We've
>>had his number for quite a long time, now, but it's nice to see a
>>fellow Brit debunk his trolling blowhole.
>>
>>-L.
>>
>Bob seems to be more of an embarrassment to his countrymen than anything. But
>it's nice to see others from the UK post once in a while. We have some great
>posters contribute to the newsgroup from the UK,
Yes, and except for a few liars and trolls (which of course you really
love to support) all of them tell the same story that I do.
>which serve as a reminder to
>the rest of us that Bop'm certainly *isn't* representive of the entire country.
Glad to say cat hater Riddles is not representative of her country -
it is just a pity there are far too many like her.
>Note to Newbies: I'd forgotten about this, but "Bop'm" is the name Bob earned
>for himself long ago by advocating hitting cats as discipline)
Liar!
>
>Sherry
--
Bob.
N. Thornton
> big...@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote in message news:
> > Bob, I do wonder where you get your 'information' from. Youre clearly
> > just a troll. Good trolls are at least credible.
>
> Thanks for debunking Bop'em's "holier-than-thou-Brit" schtick. We've
> had his number for quite a long time, now, but it's nice to see a
> fellow Brit debunk his trolling blowhole.
>
> -L.
Hi Lyn.
Its bizarre to see his reply to what I wrote. I really wonder what his
motivation is. I wonder. Maybe he's 12 and cant get over not being an
expert, I dont know. You get people like him in electronics, but this
is relatively straightforward stuff, common knowledge some of it. I
dont know who he's fooling - other than himself.
I bet he'll reply...
Regards, NT
Lyn
> Pri...@user.kingsnake.com (Lyn) wrote in message news:<4077c591.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > big...@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote in message news:
>
> > > Bob, I do wonder where you get your 'information' from. Youre clearly
> > > just a troll. Good trolls are at least credible.
> >
> > Thanks for debunking Bop'em's "holier-than-thou-Brit" schtick. We've
> > had his number for quite a long time, now, but it's nice to see a
> > fellow Brit debunk his trolling blowhole.
> >
> > -L.
>
>
> Hi Lyn.
>
> Its bizarre to see his reply to what I wrote. I really wonder what his
> motivation is. I wonder
It's obvious:
Teeny Penis Syndrome.
-L.
Eric Lee Green
> http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/leadinfo.htm#buy
>
> If your home was built prior to 1978, it may contain led paint.
> Owners are required by law to disclose the presence (or lack of) lead
> paint in a home, if the home was built prior to '78.
But there is a hole in that requirement that you can drive a semi-trailer
through: The "don't know" hole. All you have to do is refuse to test
for lead in the paint, and you can check the "Don't Know" box on the
standard lead-based-paint disclosure form. This is a lot less scarey
to most buyers than a "Yes", so sellers have no incentive to do testing
for lead-based paint, and every incentive to turn down offers that are
contingent upon testing negative for lead-based paint.