How bad is putty really?

AJB93, see my post below yours. You are being paranoid.

BTW: legally, anything not proven beyond an unreasonable doubt to be toxic may be labeled as "non-toxic."

Become educated. Become informed. Think wisely, not in fear. 

Bill,

Obviously you are approaching this from an extremely conservative aspect, and I applaud your stand.  Likewise, I didn't model with my children sitting on my lap.  As you suggest, a non- or less-toxic substitute is certainly one way to go, and that is indeed good practice (You would make a good IH!); however, I believe given a small apartment, waiting until the baby has gone into its room (or at least left the immediate area), and using the existing putty as it is intended would not signficantly affect exposures one way or the other.  Amounts used + air dilution factor for the apartment volume = LOWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww concentrations.  I would be willing to bet that applying aftershaves, colognes, and nail polish removers/polish would provide higher overall organic vapor concentrations more consistently and more often than the intermittent application of modelling putty.

Gip

...reminds me of when I used to take the general elevator with an handful of samples in my hand, in my lab coat, and some secretary would give me hassle over that (carrying closed tubes in the elevator) as she was going outside to SMOKE.... "safety" can be relative in the mind (and nose) of the beholder...

And acrylics are NOT 100% safe, you still need a respirator as inhalation of particulate matter (even if chemically relatively inert) will inflame your lower respiratory tree as your lung immune system eats up the plastic aerosolized acrylic... make that aerosol larger and fiber-like instead of "round", and you can call that asbestos disease.... same disease mechanism! Sorry, I have to chime in with this info everytime I read someone stating that acrylics are 100% safe (of course, only applies to aerosolized acrylics, not hand brushed).

styrene wrote:

Bill, Obviously you are approaching this from an extremely conservative aspect, and I applaud your stand.  Likewise, I didn't model with my children sitting on my lap.  As you suggest, a non- or less-toxic substitute is certainly one way to go, and that is indeed good practice (You would make a good IH!); however, I believe given a small apartment, waiting until the baby has gone into its room (or at least left the immediate area), and using the existing putty as it is intended would not signficantly affect exposures one way or the other.  Amounts used + air dilution factor for the apartment volume = LOWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww concentrations.  I would be willing to bet that applying aftershaves, colognes, and nail polish removers/polish would provide higher overall organic vapor concentrations more consistently and more often than the intermittent application of modelling putty. Gip

LOL, I'm not sure what's in your shaving cream, but mine is the old fashioned soap and brush!

Nail Polish often contains toluene in higher concentrations, so I would agree with your assessment. I am being extremely conservative in my opinion, but you are certanly the expert here on such matters.

TLP......thanks for the kind words about the trade....as you know, there is no a/c in summer until we turn it on....then we leave.....same with the heat. So this is our brutal time of year here in CT. But today we were in the 50's....so not too bad.

Yes, we get to know those 'contractors' that just walk in and declare the patient DOA....and others that can't figure something out. No one is perfect, of course, but the bad tradesmen become known......unfortunately not always to the consumer.

Haven't met anyone in your line before. Interesting.

The sig pic was your previous one! I wasn't sure if it was a pic of you that had been doctored in Paintshop or what. Those anguished eyes! Brrrrrr.....!

Nam 

Bgrigg wrote:

styrene wrote: Bill, Obviously you are approaching this from an extremely conservative aspect, and I applaud your stand.  Likewise, I didn't model with my children sitting on my lap.  As you suggest, a non- or less-toxic substitute is certainly one way to go, and that is indeed good practice (You would make a good IH!); however, I believe given a small apartment, waiting until the baby has gone into its room (or at least left the immediate area), and using the existing putty as it is intended would not signficantly affect exposures one way or the other.  Amounts used + air dilution factor for the apartment volume = LOWWWWWWWWWWwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww concentrations.  I would be willing to bet that applying aftershaves, colognes, and nail polish removers/polish would provide higher overall organic vapor concentrations more consistently and more often than the intermittent application of modelling putty. Gip LOL, I'm not sure what's in your shaving cream, but mine is the old fashioned soap and brush! Nail Polish often contains toluene in higher concentrations, so I would agree with your assessment. I am being extremely conservative in my opinion, but you are certanly the expert here on such matters.

JMart wrote:

...reminds me of when I used to take the general elevator with an handful of samples in my hand, in my lab coat, and some secretary would give me hassle over that (carrying closed tubes in the elevator) as she was going outside to SMOKE.... "safety" can be relative in the mind (and nose) of the beholder... And acrylics are NOT 100% safe, you still need a respirator as inhalation of particulate matter (even if chemically relatively inert) will inflame your lower respiratory tree as your lung immune system eats up the plastic aerosolized acrylic... make that aerosol larger and fiber-like instead of "round", and you can call that asbestos disease.... same disease mechanism! Sorry, I have to chime in with this info everytime I read someone stating that acrylics are 100% safe (of course, only applies to aerosolized acrylics, not hand brushed).

yes, acrylics are not 100% safe, I still use a respirator when I spray. I always wet sand no matter what. Triarus: Paranoid is a bit harsh. I do not live my life in fear, so by that definition, I am not paranoid. I'm not sure about the "non-toxic" thing. Does this apply if it has the "conforms to ASTM whatever" label? I DO have a definite aversion to all chemicals. I just don't like them, I can't explain it. 

AJB93 wrote:

Triarus: Paranoid is a bit harsh. I do not live my life in fear, so by that definition, I am not paranoid. I'm not sure about the "non-toxic" thing. Does this apply if it has the "conforms to ASTM whatever" label? I DO have a definite aversion to all chemicals. I just don't like them, I can't explain it.

Sorry, I didn't mean it harshly, I was just in a hurry at the moment. I should perhaps have said "You are being a little too paranoid." A little paranoia, now and then, is a good thing, IMHO. Your unexplained aversion to chemicals may not be what a shrink would call rational, but I'm sure not going to criticize it—even someone as overexposed as I've been could use a little more of that attitude.

Conforming to an ASTM standard does not necessarily mean anything with regard to toxicity—ASTM does not test for toxicity, it promulgates standards for testing, some of which are related to toxicity. ASTM stands for American Society for Testing Materials.