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.
Brushlickers unite
- Thread starter exilesjjb
- Start date
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:
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.
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.
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
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
evil tendencies
Cake or Death?
Hmm. I always thought the crease in my hand and some sweat did a better job than my mouth.
cfwheeler58
Member
Evil,
You REALLY don't want that last post taken out of context.
That's begging to wind up on a signature somewhere.
CFW
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?............
Now you know that is going to be taken out of context. :wink:
It's a perk for the premium members (supporters of the site).
Einion
New member
Which ones?
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.
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.
ROFL
Oh and :lying:
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 detail, is the issue of fungal toxins which is never even brought up by proponents of organic food.
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.
Good question: you can simply roll the brush in the crease of your palm.
:good: :good: :good:
Einion
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:
Einion
New member
Fair enough.
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.
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:
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.
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:
For anyone who wants to review it for themselves.
:good:
Einion
mattsterbenz
New member
I'd like to interrupt the walls of text to proudly state my brush-licking allegiance. That is all. 
-Matt
-Matt
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.
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.
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.
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.
