BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"T. Gale" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
The listserv where the buildings do the talking <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:05:59 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
I recall we were on a related subject back in December.  The warning 
issued then was not to use heat to remove lead-based paint.  Forgive me 
if I'm a little lead tainted but at the time I assumed the warning had 
something to do with generating a lead health hazard (with kids in an 
old house we have been alerted to the risks and consequences of 
over-exposure).  Later I started to wonder if the warning was merely 
what is being discussed now, that heat creates the threat of fire.  I 
should have asked earlier but now that we have come back to paint 
removal, can someone clarify the risk of using heat on lead paint?

Signed,
Chip Peel

John Leeke wrote:

> That's the sixth fire cause by heat paint removal I've heard of this 
> year, and the year is not even half over. Links and discussion here:
> 
> http://historichomeworks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=482
> 
> John
> 
> -- 
> To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
> uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
> <http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>
> 

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2