Brushlickers unite - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Brushlickers unite

  1. #21

    Default

    from the leader of the brushlickers for global domination: all non lickers shall bow to our awesome might AND large testicular fortitude due to the consumption of even more paint. we bawk at disease and lick our brushes for the greater good of the paint. besides we get a better point from licking.

  2. #22

    Default

    Some people do, I think most just shape the brush after cleaning it though.
    Sometimes I use saliva to wet the paint while painting, but only when doing small details, not with a 'big dob' on the brush. XD
    Quote Originally Posted by TrystanGST View Post
    The secret? Practice, and a desire to get better. A little talent goes a long way, but as long as you're open to advice, you can do amazing things.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Einion View Post
    Oh and about the non-ecological food, a report published recently comparing the benefits of the much-vaunted organic foodstuffs with conventionally-farmed equivalents. The summary makes for some interesting reading, although the title of the BBC article on it pretty much says it all, Organic 'has no health benefits'.
    Completely of topic. Without sounding too condescending this is very good example of why general public should avoid reading articles about reviews like this. Nobody in the right mind would claim the nutritional value (counted as concentration of nutrients, vitamins and minerals) should be different in organic food vs "inorganic" - genetically, they are the same. What would be interesting to know whether the amount on non-nutrition compounds such as - heavy metals, pesticide, xenobiotics etc differs between the two. After all this is the major claim difference between organic vs inorganic.
    We should not be interested in whether one has health benefits over the other but rather is there potential harm. This is completely different question that actually matters (as opposed to health benefit).

    So, as a result after wasting considerable amount of time and money wrong and essentially pointless question was successfully answered.

    I am willing to bet that withing a week it will be reproduce somewhere as positive proof that conventional food is as safe as organic - something that really doesn't follow from this particular piece.

    As for "safety" of brush-licking. Let's put it this way. GW is a toy company and is regulated as such, at least in USA. In theory, products manufactured by toy companies should be safe even for internal use. Now, many modeling companies are not regulated as toy company and I have no doubt that their products are not safe to ingest, some of them are not safe to be around in poorly ventilated room.
    Last edited by skeeve; 11-06-2009 at 02:29 PM.

  4. #24

    Default

    This is a pretty good synopsis of Penn & Teller's show http://notstepfordwives.com/?p=1132 dealing with organic food, season 7 episode 6. If you get the chance to see it, it's fairly enlightening.

    A couple of salient points they raise about organic methods of farming related to potential toxins:
    1. Fertilizers and pesticides used may not have been properly tested for human consumption.
    2. Due to lower potency, more of each are usually required. This may create greater exposure to introduced toxins.

    From a general green standpoint, the current methods of organic farming would mean a substantial proportion of the world's population would have to starve due to the inefficiency/poor yield of this method of farming, and also a substantial increase in the use of water. In my opinion, this whole movement is almost diametrically opposed to the sustainable use of our resources, and is more a luxury than anything else.
    I like it firm and fruity!

  5. #25

    Default

    skeeve, thank you so much for reading the article carefully. "So, as a result after wasting considerable amount of time and money wrong and essentially pointless question was successfully answered." AMEN.

    I lick my brush... how the hell else are you supposed to get a fine point on the brush after you are done using it?

    I DO NOT use spit for blending my paints or dampening my brush. I clean in water, then lick to a fine point. I suppose I'm technically a brush mouther not a brush licker. Licking implies the tongue touches the brush, which really isn't what I do. However, I feel any further dissemenation of the minutia of how much and where a brush come in contact with ones body is not only in bad taste (pun intended), but a rather personal question each individual should consider carefully before making any long term commitments or decissions regarding their lick, non-lick, mouther orrientation.

    cheers!

    pez
    WARNING: Painting all of your miniatures may lead to death.

    "There comes a day in every man's life when he has to get off the couch... and kill some zombies."

  6. #26

    Default

    Hmm. I always thought the crease in my hand and some sweat did a better job than my mouth.

  7. #27

    Default

    I probably get as much paint on my tongue as I do on the mini. Sometimes that little touch to the tip of the tongue is just right for controlling brush load / paint thickness.

    And please don't let the quality of my painting sour you to brushlicking.

  8. #28

    Default

    Evil,

    You REALLY don't want that last post taken out of context.
    That's begging to wind up on a signature somewhere.

    CFW

  9. #29
    Superfreak!!! Dragonsreach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Bolton, Lancs, UK (A Geordie in Exile)
    Posts
    17,300
    Rep Power
    38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cfwheeler58 View Post
    Evil,

    You REALLY don't want that last post taken out of context.
    That's begging to wind up on a signature somewhere.

    CFW
    Ah but what about this one?............

    Quote Originally Posted by pez5767 View Post
    ...a rather personal question each individual should consider carefully before making any long term commitments or decissions regarding their lick, non-lick, mouther orrientation.
    Now you know that is going to be taken out of context.
    I believe in Karma, what you give, is what you get returned. Affirmation; Savage Garden
    Oh look my IQ results came in:-
    , and proud of it.

  10. #30

    Default

    i can't seem to edit my name under my picture, why is this??

  11. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nick232 View Post
    i can't seem to edit my name under my picture, why is this??
    It's a perk for the premium members (supporters of the site).
    Combibo vestri peniculus quod fio a melior pictor.
    My gallery - go have a look!

  12. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrome View Post
    @Einion: Your point is valid and I won't argue against it. One thing though, while most companies have gone over to white metal, there are quite a few left that do cast in lead-based metals.
    Which ones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrome View Post
    And the skin is certainly not a good barrier against such small particles, most cases of lead poisoning comes from handling lead, not eating it.
    To put it in Wikipedia terms, citation needed.

    I'm sorry but it's well known that lead poisoning is largely due to ingestion, with inhalation being the secondary risk. The risk from getting it (or lead compounds) on the skin is from then putting the fingers in the mouth or transferring it to something that is subsequently ingested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chrome View Post
    And about the paints being poisonous, more and more of the ranges go through extreme testings nowadays to ensure that there are no dangerous toxins in them since so many young actually eat them for real.
    It's not about being directly poisonous as we'd generally understand it, it's about effects that may show up over the long term, particularly due to synergistic toxicity which is where a lot of the trouble lies.

    But quite apart from that, one can't assume that the danger to each of us as an individual is low since it might be much higher than the norm - this is exactly why one lucky guy can smoke five packs of cigs a day for 60 years and die quietly in their sleep aged 81 and another person who is only exposed to secondhand smoke gets lung cancer and dies in their 30s.


    Quote Originally Posted by Avelorn View Post
    Yes not licking your brush will make you flaccid. That is our bottom line. Flaccid!
    ROFL

    Oh and

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    Completely of topic. Without sounding too condescending this is very good example of why general public should avoid reading articles about reviews like this. Nobody in the right mind would claim the nutritional value (counted as concentration of nutrients, vitamins and minerals) should be different in organic food vs "inorganic" - genetically, they are the same.
    Eh? But that is exactly the claim made consistently by organic food producers, sellers and buyers; they are not the same according to them.

    The core of the organic food thesis is that organic farming yields food that is higher in nutrients ...hence the focus of the study... than the non-organic equivalent, in addition to being free from any pesticide residue. As I understand it those were the two supposed advantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    What would be interesting to know whether the amount on non-nutrition compounds such as - heavy metals, pesticide, xenobiotics etc differs between the two. After all this is the major claim difference between organic vs inorganic.
    We should not be interested in whether one has health benefits over the other but rather is there potential harm. This is completely different question that actually matters (as opposed to health benefit).
    Detrimental health effects should be covered by the issue of health benefit and only if the report specifically ignores any detrimental effect (to the individual) can this case be made, otherwise it's just a sophist point.

    I say this because it doesn't... not mentioned on the BBC page, but covered in newspaper articles which go into more detail, is the issue of fungal toxins which is never even brought up by proponents of organic food.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    As for "safety" of brush-licking. Let's put it this way. GW is a toy company and is regulated as such, at least in USA. In theory, products manufactured by toy companies should be safe even for internal use.
    This sounds good in theory - in support one would need to contact GW and ask them directly if one, their paint is safe to ingest, and two, whether they recommend the practice. Then compare their answers to the same two questions posed to other paintmakers.

    I know the answer from Golden for example, and I know the pigments used in a number of the VMC paints from another member's email correspondence with them, so let's just say I'm pretty confident who's on firm ground here.


    Quote Originally Posted by pez5767 View Post
    I lick my brush... how the hell else are you supposed to get a fine point on the brush after you are done using it?
    Good question: you can simply roll the brush in the crease of your palm.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chern Ann View Post
    This is a pretty good synopsis of Penn & Teller's show http://notstepfordwives.com/?p=1132 dealing with organic food, season 7 episode 6. If you get the chance to see it, it's fairly enlightening.

    A couple of salient points they raise about organic methods of farming related to potential toxins:
    1. Fertilizers and pesticides used may not have been properly tested for human consumption.
    2. Due to lower potency, more of each are usually required. This may create greater exposure to introduced toxins.

    From a general green standpoint, the current methods of organic farming would mean a substantial proportion of the world's population would have to starve due to the inefficiency/poor yield of this method of farming, and also a substantial increase in the use of water. In my opinion, this whole movement is almost diametrically opposed to the sustainable use of our resources, and is more a luxury than anything else.


    Einion

  13. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Einion View Post

    Eh? But that is exactly the claim made consistently by organic food producers, sellers and buyers; they are not the same according to them.

    The core of the organic food thesis is that organic farming yields food that is higher in nutrients ...hence the focus of the study... than the non-organic equivalent, in addition to being free from any pesticide residue. As I understand it those were the two supposed advantages.


    Detrimental health effects should be covered by the issue of health benefit and only if the report specifically ignores any detrimental effect (to the individual) can this case be made, otherwise it's just a sophist point.

    I say this because it doesn't... not mentioned on the BBC page, but covered in newspaper articles which go into more detailEinion
    It is not sophistry. The study is very narrowly designed, yet in media coverage the conclusion is much more broad then in review. In fact, the study is so narrow that it is almost self-evident. I suppose as a mean to demonstrate that organic growers are sorely mistaken on one of their claims it is acceptable, but just that. I suggest you read actual reviews (there are two of them - one on nutritional composition - one on health benefits) rather then rely on mass media - after you drop pages and pages of references in the end they are not that long. Nowhere in these review the issues of pesticides, heavy metals and the rest of "stuff" is even addresses. They very rather rigid in terms of what they were looking for - they took list of "official" nutrients, vitamins and microelements and looked only at them. They intentionally did not consider "impurities" - all these paper were droped from the analysis.

    For example - chromium - a microelement was considered, but led which is not, was not. Detrimental health effect is not included in health benefits, actually it NEVER is. This is how any nutritional or drug review normally done - health benefits and adverse effects are always considered separately. You actually make a conclusion (pretty logical actually, if you don't know reviewer's lingo) that you were almost led to make. Detrimental health effects were not considered in this review ever. It is not, indeed, the point of this review yet it is this rather salient fact has never being mentioned in the media coverage. Specifically, health benefit review is actually rather funny, from any point of view - it is base on 11 (yes ELEVEN) publications. Let me just say that, If I try to publish a review in anything remotely peer-reviewed based on 11 publications I will be laughed at all the way from here to the moon.
    Last edited by skeeve; 11-09-2009 at 11:08 AM.

  14. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    It is not sophistry. The study is very narrowly designed...
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    ...yet in media coverage the conclusion is much more broad then in review.
    I don't think so; the salient conclusion does seem to be something quite simple and by using quotes they giving the summary, not giving an layman's interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    In fact, the study is so narrow that it is almost self-evident. I suppose as a mean to demonstrate that organic growers are sorely mistaken on one of their claims it is acceptable, but just that.
    There clearly was need of a report of this kind and I don't think the results could be said in any way to be self-evident. I think the issue of the nutritional value, or not, of organic food - no question one of the two commonplace perceptions - is very important. It needed to be looked at to see if that belief or claim was valid. As Gill Fine puts it:
    Ensuring people have accurate information is absolutely essential in allowing us all to make informed choices about the food we eat.
    She goes on to say what I think is the take-home message, that there is no proof of any nutritional difference between organic and conventionally-produced food and further that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    I suggest you read actual reviews (there are two of them - one on nutritional composition - one on health benefits) rather then rely on mass media - after you drop pages and pages of references in the end they are not that long. Nowhere in these review the issues of pesticides, heavy metals and the rest of "stuff" is even addresses.
    As you refer to yourself papers whose focus was "primarily concerned with non-nutrient contaminant content (cadmium, lead and mercury)" were excluded, but there were a few still included which touch on them, e.g:
    The aim was to compare the levels of contamination in organic and conventional raw materials. To this end, the level of contamination by heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury), nitrates and nitrites, and some mycotoxins were monitored.
    The aim of this investigation was to determine nitrate and nitrite content in potatoes from ecological and conventional farms.
    For anyone who wants to review it for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeeve View Post
    Detrimental health effect is not included in health benefits, actually it NEVER is. This is how any nutritional or drug review normally done - health benefits and adverse effects are always considered separately. You actually make a conclusion (pretty logical actually, if you don't know reviewer's lingo) that you were almost led to make.


    Einion

  15. #35

    Default

    I'd like to interrupt the walls of text to proudly state my brush-licking allegiance. That is all.

    -Matt

  16. #36
    Consummate Brushlicker Jericho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,340
    Blog Entries
    78
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    My user title says it all

  17. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jericho View Post
    My user title says it all

    As does mine.

    You know, even though I may give brushlickers a lot of flak (and Ritual and I have been poking good-natured fun at each other for a long time with this subject), I really don't have anything against them. I respect that they have a different approach to painting and that's ok.

    Still gonna give ya'll a hard time about it, though.

  18. #38

    Default

    I have been a CLEAN brushlicker since the late 80's. In that I only lick my brush after it is clean, to put a point on it. Though as of late (meaning this year) I have purchased much more expensive and higher quality brushes than I've ever used in the past, and have also purchased and now use a brush cleaning and conditioning compound... so I have pretty much stopped licking my cleaned brushes, even after thorough rinses, for fear of the chemicals in that cleaning compound.

  19. #39

    Default

    Last night I emailed GW and asked for the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for their Acrylic Paints, their washes.

    Already today they've sent me the MSDS for the Paints, and according to the data sheet.... you really have nothing to worry about licking brushes with Citadel paints. Unless you drink the paint right out of the bottle, it says that only large volumes can cause an adverse effect on human health.

    Don't have the washes MSDS yet though.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->