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.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
There's a Forensic Files episode out there where a lady was given 400x the lethal dose of a heavy metal (I want to say thallium) by her doctor husband.

She survived, 'cause of the slow, methodical way she was exposed.

They probably don't mention the terrible life she led afterwards, and she probably still died of it sooner than later.

For a group of people dedicated to min maxing out the entirety of their game, it seems a bit odd that people are unwilling to min max this seemingly small tip.

 MajorTom11 wrote:

On top of it, the information I received was more specific than the above which is already known, and I cannot share it, but the concern is not anecdotal or theoretical. I know that is a trigger for some of you, as it would be for me, but please, if you could, just for a second try to reason out legitimate reasons why i couldn't say anything more. One that isn't malicious, or self-aggrandizing ego work, one that is ethically motivated. I am sure you could come up with one or two that make sense, so at least give me the possibility that it is something positive and respectful, not trollish or condescending.

No one seems to be doubting that brush licking is not the best habit, or that heavy metals are bad for you. What is in doubt is your assurance that there is hard, scientific, peer reviewed evidence that hobby paint, specifically hobby paint, caused cancer in someone.

As to what I quoted above, please... There are no legit reasons not to share what you claim to be publicly available information. And ethics should dictate that you reveal your source to get your warning across to as many people as possible. Morally, as well, probably. If we are talking professional ethics, then you should not have said anything at all.

Your reputation on this internet message board full of strangers means absolutely nothing when it comes to health and safety warnings.

Personally, I don't understand brush licking. I do understand the annoyance being broadcast at Tom though.

If there truly is a problem worth making a thread about let alone being alarmed about and warning others, the thought of then refusing to reveal the 'what' and the 'how' of this problem makes absolutely zero sense to me.

If you’ve never been caught by the short and curlies in an ethical conundrum, you’re lucky.

Guy says he’s stuck, no real reason to doubt him. Balance of probabilities, I’d say he’s trying to help.

I don’t agree with the position, but I don’t think he’s doing anything but trying to get people to reconsider consuming paint (to any degree).

Again, given the quantities I don’t believe it’s a harmful action. I can’t imagine possible health *benefits* either, but I’m not shaping a brush with my tongue for my health, but to get the shape I want.

There’s little value in attacking the person. Consider the value of the message.

Well said GBT, there are plenty of reasons why Tom would not be able to have total openness but the fact that he felt strongly enough about it to still post and open himself up to the criticism of the people here speaks volumes.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
There's a Forensic Files episode out there where a lady was given 400x the lethal dose of a heavy metal (I want to say thallium) by her doctor husband.

She survived, 'cause of the slow, methodical way she was exposed.

But yeah, you're totally gonna lose your hair and die with burning feet 'cause you licked a brush that might have been contaminated.

Because POISON, yo.

Thallium mostly leaves your body within days. Cadmium accumulates in your body for up to 20 or 30 years.


So yes, just like that one time handling mercury, you're not about to keel over immediately after sticking a paint brush in your mouth... but it's absolutely a good idea to avoid sticking potentially toxic paintbrushes into your mouth as a long-term habit.


Honestly, I've never understood the brush-licking thing anyway.

Assuming we are talking about cadmium, and with the caveat that my formal chemical education finished some years ago, it does appear that concerns are I'll founded.

A quick bit of research shows that the compound used in paints is cadmium sulphate, which is not considered that toxic, and because it's bound into a pigment it isn't particularly soluble in the body and therefore very little is absorbed.

The danger is present when using dry pigment and inhalation is possible, alongside things like chalk pastels coloured with cadmium derived pigment.

That essentially appears to be the reason why some paints till use it, technically there is increased risk, but is considered low enough that the much higher quality paint is worth it.

There is still a movement towards replacing it where possible, but the only issue seems to be if someone was using it and not making that known so people can't make an informed decision. The little bit I've seen specifically about Vallejo seems to suggest they've fulfilled their obligations in this regard, so even that doesn't seem to be an issue.

Vertrucio wrote:

They probably don't mention the terrible life she led afterwards, and she probably still died of it sooner than later..

She is interviewed, at length, in the show some four years after the fact. Her name is Deborah Pignataro and the episode is called 'Bad Medicine'. As far as I can tell, she is still alive nineteen or so years later. I doubt her life was great after, but I bet it had more to do with the fact her husband tried to kill her.

So, nyet.

insaniak wrote:
Thallium mostly leaves your body within days.

It's not really my area, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't. The CDC isn't conclusive, but seems to agree with me.

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750026.html

In any event, it was arsenic she was dosed with.

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.

 Polonius wrote:

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.

I would argue that it doesn't even say that. It doesn't say it was definitely probative, it doesn't even establish that the 'paper' was referred to or relied upon by the factfinder either in the ratio or the obiter. In the most generous interpretation possible, it says "it was deemed more probative than prejudicial and thus admissible".

Big whoop.

 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.

Good breakdown of cadmium. Now find every other chemical that is inside paint and do a similar break down of all of them.then take the results of all the indiviual chemicals and combine them for a net effect that paint can have on you.

Again. Licking your brush isnt licking 1 particular substance. Its an unknown amount of a great many substances.

Do you buy pearls in bulk, or do you just clutch the same ones over and over?

Ew, pre-clutched pearls? What are we, farmers?

It's possible to be civil, even when you disagree with someone, folks. I would recommend it.

Nurglitch wrote:
I do like that there's a strong "Keep on lickin'!" contingent though.

I thought this was pretty good

However, I also thought Polonius' breakdown was excellent, from the skeptical point of view. In the end, it's a piece of information, along with the comments about older Vallejo paint people posted from googling in this thread.

It doesn't mean everyone has to adjust, but for me, I actually Have Vallejo paint older than the change, so this was very useful. And if something like that could be the case as recently as 5 years ago, it stands to reason it could occur again (or already be occurring). So for myself, it's an easy, no brainer change to make.

Remembering also you can get a perfect brush tip without putting it in your mouth... there’s really nothing to lose.

Ps- respect to polonius for the research and breakdown, he is a clever man. I disagree with a few of the conclusions derived from it, but solid.

Weird, I just bought a Cadmium yellow ink yesterday. I'll try not to lick my brush, or indeed drink it.

Cadmium is very common in fine arts, it is hands down the best, purest source of yellow, orange and red primaries. That being said, in fine arts, no one is showing a 2 inch flat brush in their mouths, and in addition to that cadmium, there are all kinds of other no bueno for the body pigments. Cobalt, Titanium, zinc... all kinds of other stuff, heavy metals are common. So are things like bug shells and poo lol.

Which is kind of ultimately the only real point here. Most paints have no ingredients list. Nor do they say 'safe to ingest'. Some do, most don't. But we are living in an era where a lot of people are spreading their wings beyond GW paints and others lines are not designed to be kid friendly by a mega-corp. Go to an oil, or enamel (this should be obvious on those 2) or even a fine arts acrylic class and you won't see anyone sucking on brushes. If you airbrush you are supposed to wear a mask to avoid getting random nonsense in your lungs as a rule. It's only really this hobby in my anecdotal experience that is agnostic in it's attitude towards consuming art materials at any level. Everyone else avoids it. And if you are buying fine arts supplies and new paint companies, you have no idea what is in them. Like none. Beaver Anal glands makes for a lovely purple color, but do you really want to be eating it even if it isn't toxic?

All of you should ask yourselves what you really know about what is exactly in each and every one of your paints. If you generally have no idea, then why are you so casually licking it?

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Beaver Anal glands makes for a lovely purple color, but do you really want to be eating it even if it isn't toxic?

Yes, because it's a common ingredient in ice cream.

Used to be. Castoreum. But not for a good long while, they stopped because it was too expensive and difficult to produce, and couldn’t keep up with the market. And when people found out what castoreum was they thought it was fekking gross.

Now it is only really used in fragrances. So as stoked as you may be to chow down on some beaver ass unfortunately it’s not in the cards at baskin and robbins anymore lol... admire the enthusiasm though!

MajorTom11 wrote:Used to be. Castoreum. But not for a good long while, they stopped because it was too expensive and difficult to produce, and couldn’t keep up with the market. And when people found out what castoreum was they thought it was fekking gross.

True, but...

MajorTom11 wrote:Cadmium is very common in fine arts, it is hands down the best, purest source of yellow, orange and red primaries. That being said, in fine arts, no one is showing a 2 inch flat brush in their mouths, and in addition to that cadmium, there are all kinds of other no bueno for the body pigments. Cobalt, Titanium, zinc... all kinds of other stuff, heavy metals are common. So are things like bug shells and poo lol.

.. "bug shells" are a pretty common source of food colouring (and other purposes besides). Carmine. Perhaps best known as the reason why people following a kosher/halal/vegan diet do not eat red M&Ms. E120 in the EU. There's plenty of weird stuff in food, or used in the production of it, that people are unaware of, but as long as it's not dangerous, it doesn't really matter.

All of you should ask yourselves what you really know about what is exactly in each and every one of your paints. If you generally have no idea, then why are you so casually licking it?

I don't know what's in the bottle of amaretto in my cupboard. I don't know what KFC's secret herbs and spices are. I don't know what's in the paint on the walls of my house. I don't know what's in the air I'm breathing. Just because I don't know it, doesn't mean nobody does. It's good to be cautious, but consumer products, food and air quality are all subject to certain levels of safety monitoring. If my bottle of paint tells me it's "non-toxic" and "does not contain As, Cd, Co, Cr, Hg, Pb, Sb, Se", I'm quite willing to believe people have checked that, and I won't take out my own chemistry set to test it out. As said before, there are rather more pressing matters to worry about.

That was hyperbolic.

Nobody's telling you to bust out a chemistry set. Just suggesting that maybe paint doesn't belong in your mouth.


It's bizarre that there's even an argument about this.

 insaniak wrote:
That was hyperbolic.

Nobody's telling you to bust out a chemistry set. Just suggesting that maybe paint doesn't belong in your mouth.


It's bizarre that there's even an argument about this.

In my opinion the bizarness isn't the actual idea of putting paint in your mouth its the fact someone has "peer reviewed evidence that can stand up in court" without releasing it. Everything can kill you in certain doses, its this sort of scaremongering that made Anti-vax such a big thing. People hear about heavy metals in things and instantly freak out, and it should be banned and restricted and heaven forbid putting it in your mouth, that's instant death to you and your whole genetic family. When in the case such as this its in such a minute dose that it would never cause any harm UNLESS there is some sort of peer reviewed data which can stand in the court of law that someone has which has definitive proof which is then being withheld, for reasons???

Ayuh, I don't believe anybody has said "eating paint is a great idea and I endorse it".

The pushback has been against the ridiculous notion mentioned above and the strong contingent of Helen Lovejoys this board has apparently amassed.

*goes off to goggle Helen Lovejoy.

 Ratius wrote:
*goes off to goggle Helen Lovejoy.

Reverend Lovejoy's wife, from The Simpsons.

Springfield's premier pearl-clutcher.

Gotcha.

seems a little rich...

 MajorTom11 wrote:
Used to be. Castoreum. But not for a good long while, they stopped because it was too expensive and difficult to produce, and couldn’t keep up with the market. And when people found out what castoreum was they thought it was fekking gross.

Now it is only really used in fragrances. So as stoked as you may be to chow down on some beaver ass unfortunately it’s not in the cards at baskin and robbins anymore lol... admire the enthusiasm though!

Then maybe if you're going to scaremonger about additives you shouldn't pick something that's actually food safe to clutch your pearls about.

Here's my peer reviewed findings about things that are toxic.

https://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/20-toxic-things-you-probably-use-every-day.html

Essentially, we are all on borrowed time.