Switch Theme:

PSA - Warning - Do NOT put brushes in your mouth to sharpen the point anymore  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in jp
Boosting Black Templar Biker





Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan

So it was Vallejo all along, and the information has been public knowledge all along? Is this the paint, and the company you were referring to all along, yet unable to disclose?

   
Made in nz
[MOD]
Villanous Scum






That reddit post brings up an interesting point about airbrushing as whilst I am sure everyone wears their PPE whilst using an airbrush I do wonder if the various safety regulations/warnings take them into account. Anyone know?

On parle toujours mal quand on n'a rien à dire.
Keeping the flame of Babylon 5 A Call to Arms alive, check it out;
Babylon 5 ACTA campaign log
Babylon 5 ACTA Painting log
Backfire wrote:
Nobody kills his dad and participates in genocide just for cosplay.
 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

 posermcbogus wrote:
So it was Vallejo all along, and the information has been public knowledge all along? Is this the paint, and the company you were referring to all along, yet unable to disclose?


Not only that, but this is information that has been out for quite some time.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in jp
Boosting Black Templar Biker





Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan

How very worth the cloak and dagger intrigue.

   
Made in ca
[DCM]
Acolyte of Goodwin






Sunny SoCal

Well, I said it was available to find online easily on the first page while making it clear it couldn't come from me, whether I wanted to or not. You could have just, y'know, looked.

Let me ask 2 things here for everyone -
1.) Does it bother you that you didn't know about it?
2.) Are you surprised that you didn't hear about it?

If the answer is yes to either, that is why this thread exists. What happened there is an object lesson about why it is worth being careful at all times, to whatever degree you are comfortable with. And more importantly very illustrative of the point I have been trying to make all along: We almost always don't know what is in the paint. Be it heavy metals, beaver anal juice, poo, crushed flower petals, dragon scabs, lemonade or a powdered lock of Scarlett Johansson's hair, you almost always don't know.

Some of you have called it 'fearmongering' to say that. I kinda feel like being in opposite is 'OKmongering', saying it's all fine when you yourself have little to no idea what is in the product you are saying is fine.

We don't need to be terrified of paint, but imho we do need to stop acting like it's all the same and none of it can be bad for you as a 100% certainty. It shouldn't be 'fearful' to take some basic steps to educate yourself about the stuff in front of you. This goes up exponentially when talking about lacquers, enamels, oils and other pro fine arts supplies outside of the acrylic mini paint realm.

Discount everything I said if you want, but at least pay attention to the other data right in front of you multiple times now. Those links Orlanth put up pretty much say what you should need to hear. And they have absolutely nothing to do with me.

   
Made in jp
Boosting Black Templar Biker





Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan

"I was only pretending to be fear mongering to make you all afraid!"

Didn't someone bring up Vallejo super early on? You could have chosen then to drop the pretences, and murky threat that any number of us could unknowingly be possessing carcinogenic material rather than beat on about sources you were unable to cite for reasons you weren't allowed to provide.

This was trolling and I think the mods ought to treat it as such.

   
Made in fr
Longtime Dakkanaut




There was some talk about legal actions/toxicity held up in court.
I know that in some countries (US mostly), you can sue for basically no reason and try to hold other people accountable for your own stupidity, but I can't see how any of the stuff we're talking about could hold up in court.
Paint is not meant to be ingested, so you can't sue a paint company if you get sick for using their products wrongfully. The same way you can't sue a bleach company if you drink a bottle of the stuff and end up in the hospital. You could, however, sue them if you got sick from normal use, which would include having a little bit on your skin, or breathing a small amount of airbrushed paint.

It was mentioned that paint has been established as the main cause of a few people's cancers (even if that statement in itself doesn't mean much). I very much doubt that there was a scientific study on the subject just for research reasons (and if there was, it would be published in peer-reviewed article). It could, however, be a study done to support an action in court, which would mean that the people had good reasons to believe they could win the case. Which brings me to my first point. If someone indeed got cancer mostly because of brush licking, I really don't see how they could hope to win a trial, as that's not how you're supposed to use the paint.
Maybe you could try and say it's marketed for children (which usually means vastly different safety requirements) or that there was inadequate warnings, but it still seems pretty unlikely.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 posermcbogus wrote:
"I was only pretending to be fear mongering to make you all afraid!"

Didn't someone bring up Vallejo super early on? You could have chosen then to drop the pretences, and murky threat that any number of us could unknowingly be possessing carcinogenic material rather than beat on about sources you were unable to cite for reasons you weren't allowed to provide.

This was trolling and I think the mods ought to treat it as such.

The mods aren't treating it as trolling because they understand that the purpose of the thread wasn't to point fingers at a specific company, but to create an awareness that maybe sticking paint in your mouth isn't a good idea, even if you believe it's safe.


Clearly that message has been misconstrued, but there was no hidden agenda here.


   
Made in us
[DCM]
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Maybe it's time to lock this up? MT has provided as much information as he has said he is going to, the gaps have been filled in by other parties, and the PSA is available.

The only things left to do in this thread are cast aspersions on MT's motivations and sources, which might be fun and even warranted... but not very productive. He's been clear from the very beginning he feels a legal or professional duty to not fill in those gaps, and from a moral perspective, Orlanth has already done the what and Polonius has done the probably-why. There is nothing more to be done here but the namecalling and accusations.


Once we hit the point we were discussing eating beaver buttholes, I think this thread peaked.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 09:49:04


 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

 Ouze wrote:
Maybe it's time to lock this up?

I think so...

For anyone who hasn't participated in the thread, here are a few excellent posts for reference.

Polonius' deep dive into Cadmium safety:
Spoiler:
 Polonius wrote:
Okay, well, this thread has spurred me to go on a dive into Cadmium safety. Here's what I found out:

Cadmium is toxic, with various ailments arising acutely after exposure. However, this is usually in an industrial capacity, and inhalation is far more dangerous than ingestion. The NIH does say that cadmium can cause lung cancer, which is a double whammy because smoking also increases your cadmium intake. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/cadmium

As for cadmium pigments, which are compounds with cadmium in them, the dry pigments are generally seen as toxic and dangerous, again especially when inhaled. Outside of a few fringe sources, nobody seems terribly concerned with the actual paint, since the emulsifier would really limit absorption. It's worth noting that the EU, despite having a hair trigger for banning even borderline toxic substances, still allows cadmium pigments.

For a fun read, this artist talks about the time his cat walked through cadmium paint, and began licking it up, all with no ill effects. https://www.danschultzfineart.com/is-cadmium-paint-toxic/

I found some sites very eager to link cadmium to cancer, but one was literally called "Cancer wisdom," and no kidding, talking about how a person had a filling improperly removed, and then got cancer on a finger the next day. https://www.cancerwisdom.net/heavy-metal-toxicity-and-cancer/

Okay, so looking at the actual warning here, it's easy to say, "well, better safe than sorry" and accept it at face value. And, sure, there's probably no real loss in utility to stop shaping brushes by mouth.

However, I think that the OP is either drastically overstating the certainty of his claim that hobby paint gave people cancer, or overstating his duty to avoid revealing more information. The reason I think that is because based on what I could find about cadmium, it's toxicity, it's pigments, and it's use, a claim that a hobby paint caused cancer requires a few leaps. First, it requires the leap that a compound which is generally seen as safe when not inhaled caused cancer through ingestion. Second, it requires medical certainty that this fairly uncommon metal caused the cancer, instead of any other factors. Third, it requires pigments, which are generally not absorbed when emulsified, to be absorbed at a higher rate than normal.

All of this seems unlikely, especially given the rationale provided by the OP in a follow up:
 MajorTom11 wrote:
But yes, reputable medical source, peer reviewed and proven with sufficient rigour and cause to stand in a court of law.


So, peer review is a term of art use in academics, which is unlikely here. Now, assuming the OP meant "verified by second opinion," that's fine, but what really worries me is that final clause. "proven with sufficient rigour and cause to stand in a court of law." That... does not mean much. That means that they had enough medical testimony to convince a finder of fact (jury or judge) that the paint, more likely than not, caused the cancer. Keep in mind that neither the judge nor jury knows anything about heavy metal toxicity or cancer.

Even if a hobby paint with cadmium caused cancer in a few people, that doesn't mean it will be generally dangerous. And based on what I've read, the biggest danger wouldn't be brush licking, which is essentially ingesting highly diluted pigment, but airbrushing, which would involve inhalation, the more dangerous route of absorption.

As for the "ethical quandary," I dunno. Usually people cannot reveal specifics due to ethical rules (medical or legal privacy), a signed NDA, or because they are a journalist who needs to protect a source. But he's not making a general warning. He's pretty clearly saying "Vallejo paints gave people cancer." And then saying, "but I can't tell you how I know that." Given what I've noted above, the only real way to know this would be a fairly extensive scientific study, if the OP had access to peoples medical files, or active litigation. The problem is, if he was involved in treatment or litigation, he shouldn't be saying anything. That's not an ethical conundrum, that's just the rules.

Based on the line about proving it in a court of law, I'm going to take a guess that the OP knows one or more people who have had cancer, and sued a paint company over it, and received a settlement with a non disclosure agreement. Which means that he wouldn't be able to say why he knows without risking those settlements. If this is the case, than there's all more reason to doubt the certainty of the claims. Company's settle cases all the time, especially if the settlement would be lower than the cost of litigation.

I know this was a lot, and I certainly don't think the OP is being malicious, but I think that the level of concern is both misguided and overstated.

Orlanth's manufacturer comparison thoughts:
Spoiler:
 Orlanth wrote:
No matter what some think about raising controversy on this issue we should take a responsible attitude and disclose any safety concerns. Now armed with a 'suggestion' that Vallejo paints may be responsible I did a quick search and found this:

https://forum.reapermini.com/index.php?/topic/28534-toxicity-of-vallejo-paints/
https://www.reddit.com/r/minipainting/comments/9vx7q0/psa_recent_vallejo_model_color_paint_is/

....and did a search on GW paints, GW themselves list them as non-toxic and have found no evidence to the contrary. Frankly this didn't surprise me, I will not shy from bashing Geedubs when warranted, but also credit where credit is due. The company has always made product quality its watchword, and have an exemplary manufacturing safety record. GW were early adaptors of materials changes, being amongst others the first major manufacturer to stop using lead based metals, and also abandoning molten metal casting in favour of hot metal pressing, which releases far fewer volatiles. There are downsides to that, GW metal miniatures were not fully molten when cast, hence why the metal crumbles like metallic flapjacks when cut - and a metallurgist I encountered expressed strong concerns over product longevity. But it is a much safer and more healthy production process which is an acceptable counterpoint.

As I posted earlier, I had never thought about any of this before, and actually have Vallejo paints from before the change. So, this was an extremely useful thread for me personally! However, I think we'd be better off rebooting it in the future if folks want to continue the discussion, particularly with a focus on anything that might not have been identified yet. As Tom noted, many hobbyists are branching out into different types of paints, with applications where the manufacturer would never consider that someone might put it in their mouth. It's a habit I, personally, will be kicking...

With that, I'll lock this up for now. If I missed any good research / summary links, please PM me!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/18 10:12:07


 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: