[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: bap@lists.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Stockpile chemsponges
- From: Richard Boyden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 12:55:43 -0400
- Message-Id: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-bap@lists.Stanford.EDU
This is an exhange of messages within NARA set off by a message on
the ConDist listserv. Any comments re whether BAPNet would want to
maintain a supply of chem sponges in a future stockpile? My inclination
would be to say "no."
>From Diana Alper-Roley, NARA Preservation Division, Wash., DC:
Several Centers have purchased "chemical" sponges as part of the
workshop materials. I think it's very important to have them so
participants can handle them and learn about their usefulness in certain
circumstances. It's also a great lesson in using the right tool for the job --
people often try to use them to blot water or brush debris from wet
records with disastrous results.
I wouldn't recommend stock-piling large quantities, however. Their
shelf-life is (reportedly) not infinite and they are really for restoration not
salvage. I generally think of disaster supply cashes as containing things
you'll need in the first 48 hours. In most disasters, except one that is
exclusively puff-back, soot cleaning is a lower priority than removal of
standing water, documenting damage, inventorying holdings and
removing them to safety, stabilizing the environment, etc. Once you
identify a need for "chemical" sponges you should have time to have
fresh ones delivered before all that work is done.
>>> Richard Boyden 08/14/96 11:21am >>>
Here is an item from the Conservation Listserv on chem sponges. This is
of interest because last year in the Contra Costa Courthouse fires,
Munters had 125 temporary workers wiping sooted records page by
page, front and back with these sponges! They must have cornered the
national market for them. These sponges are very expensive according
towhat I've been told. Question: shold they be stockpiled as disaster
Date: 12 Aug 96
From: Mark Vine <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Sootmaster sponge
In Conservation DistList Instance: 10:15 I wrote:
>>A client of ours recently advised by a co-worker to use a product
>>called a Sootmaster Sponge made by Unger Enterprises Inc., to
>>graffiti from a fragile sandstone rock face.
>I have just finished speaking with the manufacturer (who is not
>Unger Enterprises) and I am pleased to confirm that Sootmaster is
>just another brand name for what is otherwise known as a Smoke
>Smoke sponges are made of vulcanized rubber, they are not toxic and
>do not contain any chemicals or additives.
I am advised by the makers of Chemical sponges that whilst they told me
the product was a natural composition it does in fact contain some
traces of soap. Apparently the inclusion of soap, albeit in a miniscule
proportion (approximately 1 ounce to every 1000 pounds of sponge
manufactured) is designed to improve the containment properties.
My apologies to one and all for the misleading information supplied, it was
provided in good faith after talking with the makers.
Interestingly the makers also told me that the product relaunched with the
words 'chemical treated' actually ensured improved sales, users
apparently felt that it must clean better as a result.
The product does however contain no other chemical products.
Mark G. Vine
Conservation Resources, England
This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
server. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
message body of "unsubscribe bap" to email@example.com