Epoxy

[TeddyDiver]

Tar epoxy is banned in Europe.

No it's not... Some restrictions concerning about quantities of some ingredients, but not banned..

 

[dskira]

Tar epoxy is banned in Europe.

SigmaCover 300 - High Build Coal Tar Epoxy
This is in England.

Boatpaint Ltd.
12 Charlesbury Ave,
Gosport,
Hants. PO12 3TG

Daniel

 

[dskira]

When do you estimate you will float your houseboat, Daniel?

I hope to finish the whole boat before the snow, and my son will come in October to give me a hand.
So the launching date is around April next year, when the harbor is free of ice and weather start to be nice.
Some pictures are comminig next week.
Daniel

 

[gonzo]

I was told it wasn't available any longer. I was asking for VC-Tar

 

[dskira]

I was told it wasn't available any longer. I was asking for VC-Tar

VC-TAR


Fountain Street House
Fountain Street
Ulverston
Cumbria
LA12 7EQ
England

£96.81 Incl VAT (EU)
£82.39 Excl VAT (Outside EU)

Daniel

 

[Crag Cay]

http://secure.international-coatings.com/pds/yacht/GB_ISO_M_5000103.htm

However although VC Tar is readily available, there's no coal tar in it. There's no coal tar in any of the products as it was completely banned years ago for being highly carcinogenic. They all contain synthetic tar which at least don't bleed through every top coating.

 

[MindanaoTech]

Suspected carcinogen...some rats who had there ears COATED with coal twice a day for two weeks developed “lesions”...whether these were malignant tumors has not yet been disclosed to the public. NO documented tests on humans have been undertaken. There have been no class action suits filed by billions of human who had rubbed 100x theoretical exposure limits on their scalps for decades. That should be a definitive mark against the Greenazis, but no... maybe in 50 years when the earth still hasn’t cared one whit about “global warming” they will give up the ghost.

 

[MindanaoTech]

Coming soon test results of 1x20 double diagonal ply (any length possible!) made by cold laminating scrap pallets (+/-30) with a 90% Henrys 071 and 10% Chinese doming epoxy.

 

[MindanaoTech]

Cheap mass quantities of bamboo still out of reach...but the probabilities of a successful coal tar/“random width and length” bamboo slivers/nylon monofilament built 140ft saling trimaran built within the next two years will increase drastically based upon positive results from the coal tar/scrap pallet experience.

 

[rwatson]

Suspected carcinogen...some rats who had there ears COATED with coal twice a day for two weeks developed “lesions”...whether these were malignant tumors has not yet been disclosed to the public. NO documented tests on humans have been undertaken. There have been no class action suits filed by billions of human who had rubbed 100x theoretical exposure limits on their scalps for decades. That should be a definitive mark against the Greenazis, but no... maybe in 50 years when the earth still hasn’t cared one whit about “global warming” they will give up the ghost.

One post wrong on so many counts :-/

"Which cancers are associated with exposure to coal tar and coal-tar pitch?
Occupational exposure to coal tar or coal-tar pitch increases the risk of skin cancer. Other types of cancer, including lung, bladder, kidney, and digestive tract cancer, have also been linked to occupational exposure to coal tar and coal-tar pitch.

National Toxicology Program. Coal Tars and Coal-Tar Pitches, Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition. Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health and Safety, 2016. Also available online. Last accessed December 28, 2018."

"Cancer Studies in Humans Numerous studies, mostly case reports, have found that occupational exposure to coal tars or coal-tar pitches (coal-tar distillates) is associated with skin cancer, including scrotal cancer; workers in these studies have included patent-fuel (coal-briquette) workers, pitch loaders, workers in electrical trades, and optical-lens polishers (IARC 1985, 1987). A 1946 study in the United Kingdom found that patent-fuel workers were 500 times as likely as other workers to die of scrotal cancer"
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/coaltars.pdf

 

[MindanaoTech]

Hilarious. what exactly is “Cancer Studies in Humas Numerous “ ? Is that an organization? Or just some bold type paragraph heading for a surface level justification of “implying” to the public that coal tar is in fact carcinogenic because unrelated studies have been made? I went deeper into that specific source and although I confused mice with rats it was fairly obvious it in no way related to cancer in humans, or about as much as too much water causing cancer.
Sorry for trolling but that’s not the info I was looking for. I had already read your source. My mind is made up- my chances of contracting cancer will not go up by using coal tar/wood tar/creosote or the likes in future yacht construction. And for sure they are not illegal, they are not petroleum based.
Does anybody know how long a hot application of coal tar pitch will stick to wood. I read some epoxy modified coal tar “pitch” (applied without solvents so must have been a higher fraction or mix than near solid roofing stick) pulled “concrete” apart in a floor application. I would like to use cutback adhesive without the asbestos in it but it is asphalt(petroleum based) and IS in effect banned by the EPA because your liable for a $10,000 per day fine if someone spots an “oil slick” near your yacht.

 

[rwatson]

"Hilarious. what exactly is “Cancer Studies in Humas Numerous “ ? Is that an organization"

When you learn to read, you will be able to go to the link, and see that the research has been done by "U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the 14th Report on Carcinogens on November 3, 2016"

At the end of the study, it quotes the sources of the "Numerous Human Studies"

I recommend you start with some remedial spelling courses, starting with "Humas ", and progress on to more academic publications.


References
ATSDR. 2002. Toxicological Profile for Wood Creosote, Coal Tar Creosote, Coal Tar, Coal Tar Pitch, and Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR - ToxProfiles - Redirect http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/ tp85.pdf. 354 pp. ChemSources. 2009. Chem Sources - Chemical Search. Chemical Sources International. Boat Design Net - the Boat Design and Boat Building Site http://www. chemsources.com/chemonline.html and search on coal tar and coal tar pitch. Last accessed: 10/22/09. DermNet NZ. 2010. Coal Tar. New Zealand Dermatological Society. Last updated: 8?27/10. Boat Design Net - the Boat Design and Boat Building Site http://www. dermnetnz.org/treatments/coaltar.html. EPA. 2001. National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coke Ovens: Pushing Quenching, and Battery Stacks – Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-453/R-01-006. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA. 2003. Pesticide reregistration performance measures and goals. Fed Regist 68(146): 44767-44776. Hammond EC, Selikoff IJ, Lawther PL, Seidman H. 1976. Inhalation of benzpyrene and cancer in man. Ann N Y Acad Sci 271: 116-124. HSDB. 2009. Hazardous Substances Data Bank. National Library of Medicine. TOXNET http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/ cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB and search on CAS number. Last accessed: 10/22/09. IARC. 1984. Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, Part 3. Industrial Exposures in Aluminum Production, Coal Gasification, Coke Production, and Iron and Steel Founding. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, vol. 34. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. 219 pp. IARC. 1985. Coal-tars and derived products. In Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, Part 4, Bitumens, Coaltars and Derived Products, Shale-oils and Soots. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, vol. 35. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. pp. 83-159. IARC. 1987. Coal-tar pitches and coal-tars. In Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, suppl 7. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. pp. 174-176. NIOSH. 1973. Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Coke Oven Emissions. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 73-11016. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Boat Design Net - the Boat Design and Boat Building Site http://www. cdc.gov/niosh/73-11016.html. NIOSH. 1976. National Occupational Hazard Survey (1972-74). DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-114. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH. 1977. Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Exposure to Coal Tar Products. DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-107. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. http://www.cdc. gov/niosh/78-107.html.

 

[MindanaoTech]

Ok. I’m not going to argue that there are no sources available to trump up a case against coal tar. But facts are facts- nobody gets non skin nor skin related cancers any more regularly than if they didn’t massage a 3% SUSPECTED carcinogen into their hair regularly on average 300 times!!

Nor do I imagine will I expose myself to anywhere near that level laminating sawed pallets and other scrap lumber into 16” by 32 ft sheets of 3/4” to 1 1/4” 2ply “marine ply” or even 7ply 4 1/2inch thick 2 foot by 100+ft “keels”.
It is a mess, but it is cheap, nearly waterproof and sticky, disadvantages can be dealt with. It is LEGAL to use in Washington (as long as not on your driveway(another high human contact surface- I regularly get a can of mineral spirits and roll around on my coal tar driveway sealer and take a spongebath - don’t you?)). This ban does not apply to the flipping government- both FAA and DOT can spread it wherever pleases them. Don’t know the situation in Australia. peace out.

 

[rwatson]

Ok. I’m not going to argue that there are no sources available to trump up a case against coal tar.

So, your "NO documented tests on humans have been undertaken. " was indeed made up nonsense.

But you just have to have the last silly word "trump up a case against coal tar." when the studies show thousands of cases of cancer.

But facts are facts- nobody gets non-skin nor skin related cancers any more regularly than if they didn’t massage a 3% SUSPECTED carcinogen into their hair regularly on average 300 times!!

Who said they DID ????

{massage a 3% SUSPECTED carcinogen into their hair}

"Neutrogena T/Gel is available as a shampoo containing 0.5% coal tar (Neutrogena T/Gel Therapeutic Shampoo) or 1% coal tar (Neutrogena T/Gel Shampoo Extra Strength). "

Current medical opinion.

"To date, studies fail to show an increased risk of cancer in people who use coal tar to treat psoriasis or atopic dermatitis (eczema). People who work with industrial coal tar, however, have an increased risk of developing cancer of the lungs, *******, and skin."
Psoriasis treatment: Coal tar | American Academy of Dermatology https://www.aad.org/public/diseases/scaly-skin/psoriasis/diagnosis-and-treatment-of-psoriasis/coal-tar

 

[MindanaoTech]

What are those seven asterisks? “*******” cancer? I believe it was Denorex that had the 3%, home remedies had much more, one old man on the internet eats about 1 gram of creosote(plant origin).
You don’t need to defend your sources. They are published. They stand for what the contain. No one is doing studies on the minimal or no existent threat of coal tar...If one is hypersensitive about walking into a smoking allowed casino or bar then they should follow all your sources and “stay safe”. If otherwise (myself included), I don’t see any harm in using (I would prefer wood tar) a perfectly legal substances that cost about 2% of epoxy (unmodified). Also you can make your own coal tar epoxy at about 10% the price of off the shelf coal tar epoxyby mixing 8% of epoxy into two halves of coal tar...maybe some fine clay if you like also.
Anyone following this may need to run their OWN sources if they feel necessary. I say “may” because even if the did they probably would the same knowledge and didn’t need to check...
ALL internet sources(about commercial products) are there not to show you a less expensive alternative but to sell their product at max profit.
Epoxy itself isn’t free of any drama related to cancer, BUT it is marketed a huge profit so it is immune from naysayers at the moment. Phenol FORMALDAHYDE (very inexpensive also) CHOH (or H2O+C (lol) yes I know about double bonds) escapes its deadly sins because it outgasses less phenol than melamine formaldehyde and it’s extremely limited use by home builders (no market potential). It is not your safety that is a concern to almost all “safety research”, it’s your wallet that is of concern. It’s ALL proprietary bs. Try what works yourself.