Environmentally-better paint strippers DO work

In a previous episode I was trying to get a clear coating off a passage lockset. Wasn't coated with lacquer as I had assumed, so lacquer thinner did nothing. Tried my environmentally-friendly paint stripper (3M Safest Stripper), which worked but slowly.

Well, folks, that's the key. The stuff *does* work. Nowhere near as fast as the nasty, toxic stuff (methylene chloride), which starts wrinkling up the finish almost immediately.

The thing with these new "green" strippers is that they work much more slowly than the bad old stuff. But left overnight, they'll eventually soften the finish to the point where it can be physically removed. In my case, it took rubbing with fine steel wool to get the last of the finish off (thanks to the person who suggested that).

So the trick is to let it stay on long enough, and also to glop the stuff on as thickly as possible. Fortunately, the 3M stuff is very thick and stays on pretty well, even on vertical surfaces. I also found I needed to keep the items being stripped covered so the stripper didn't dry up, which was easily done by draping a piece of plastic over the tray.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl
Loading thread data ...

Paint is toxic (if you drink it). So is bug spray, fertilizer, most dishwashing liquids, Brasso, Turpentine, Kerosene, and some blends of Louisiana coffee. In my view, "toxicity" is an insufficient reason to avoid something.

Personally, I find most "environmentally friendly" substances to be over-priced, under-powered, or simply ineffective (or all three). Still, if someone gets a "warm fuzzy," by using them, I suppose there's no real harm.

I'm glad it worked out for you.

Reply to
HeyBub

On 2/8/2009 4:22 PM HeyBub spake thus:

Can't argue with that. While I believe in using them in the interest of doing less harm, what you say is true. A lot of this has to do with "greenwashing", the likes of which we've just begun to see (i.e., the usual charlatans looking to cash in on the latest craze).

The other answer is that they just haven't found the right stuff to replace the bad old stuff yet. (Like lead-free solder to comply with ROHS, which many people who work with it hate: lead is bad stuff, but it makes a great solder, as well as a very good pigment.)

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

I would agree with you that often:

"environmentally friendly" substances to be over-priced, under-powered, or simply ineffective (or all three). "

But as David stated there are safer strippers that work...given a bit of time.

however...I would disagree that"

"toxicity" is an insufficient reason to avoid something.

Methylene Chloride is an awesome paint stripper BUT when you're finished....what about the residue? Just send it to the land fill to contaminate the ground water in your area?

The problem with toxic chemicals is that they often find their way into water sources or the air.

cheers Bob

Reply to
BobK207

I think you'll find that "overnight" for 50yr old low tech finishes translates into "all eternity" on more modern finishes.

The keys to helping the newer "safe" strippers along are heat and agitation. Heat speeds up all chemical activity and agitation helps loosen the finishes and let the stripper penetrate. You get both with a heated ultrasonic cleaner like I noted in the previous post.

Of course, the same heat and agitation lets the old "dangerous" strippers take finishes off in seconds...

Reply to
Pete C.

I missed the previous episode, but how environmentally friendly would it be to leave whatever protective finish alone? -----

- gpsman

Reply to
gpsman

On 2/8/2009 7:51 PM gpsman spake thus:

Very. But very ugly in this case. It needed removed.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

Depends on your degree of commitment to environmental-friendliness, I would think.

A little ugly to someone so committed seems like it might be some sort of badge of honor, to be exhibited to others so inclined; I coulda removed the crappy-looking factory finish, but I always place the interests of "the earth" before my own. -----

- gpsman

Reply to
gpsman

On 2/8/2009 10:54 PM gpsman spake thus:

Ah, yes; but I have to place the wishes of my customer before all else. (Within reason.)

The good news is that the tree-hugging eco-friendly stuff is doing the job just fine. Probably more of an impact from all the water I'm using to rinse it off in drought-plagued California.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

Almost never from municipal landfills. Municipal landfills are "engineered" by the most qualified political appointees.

Ever see an empty box of "Tide" go into a landfill? I bet there are millions. Interestingly, the box is printed (orange) with a terribly toxic Chromium compound.

As for Methylene chloride, most of it is evaporates where it is broken down (mainly) by sunlight with a half-life of about 100 days. MC is not soluble in water, and what does get there breaks down to CO2, with a half-life of about 8 days. The "sludge" you see as a result of MC use is dead paint, not MC. Methylene chloride is one of the more benign industrial chemicals.

Reply to
HeyBub

You mean like a Prius?

Reply to
HeyBub

Other environmentally friendly method, don't use chemical strippers. I found it interesting that a professional painter that my wife knows says that she doesn't use chemical stripping but instead uses some kind of specialized tool which works just as well -- I think she says better(?).

I don't know any more about it -- but I guess I'm assuming it's some kind of specialized putty knife, or scrapper, or something.

Food for thought.

Rob

Reply to
Rob

There are mechanical strippers that work well for flat sandable surfaces like wood siding. Those methods aren't applicable to complex metal surfaces like a lockset.

Reply to
Pete C.

One of the more benign? Only highly flammable, causes cancer, can cause asphyxiation.......here is an MSDS for paint remover with m.c. in it.

formatting link

Reply to
norminn

On 2/9/2009 8:24 AM Pete C. spake thus:

True. That said, it's possible that some other suggestions for mechanical removal (like glass beading or ultrasound) may work. I just don't have access to that kind of equipment.

In any case, the benign chemicals have done their job.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

Gee whiz, Louise!

If the amount of MC used in industry can be represented by a blade of grass, Sodium Hydroxide (Lye) and Hydrochloric Acid can be represented by the football field containing that blade of grass. There are many industrial chemicals that are more user un-friendly and used in magnitudes greater quantities.

As for the specific concerns, Paint (some) is flammable,.fried chicken contains carcinogens, and concrete will surely asphyxiate you.

Reply to
HeyBub

Maybe sandblasting?

Reply to
HeyBub

Well, one can die from drinking too much water. Just pointing out to the uninformed that m.c. is not benign.

Reply to
norminn

On 2/9/2009 12:18 PM HeyBub spake thus:

Except that sodium hydroxide and HCl are neither of them carcinogenic, just caustic.

Methylene chloride is truly evil stuff, to be avoided at all costs in my book.

But maybe you think we should go back to those halcyon days when gasoline contained lead, houses were sheathed and insulated with asbestos, transformers were cooled with PCBs, fields were sprayed with DDT, electronic components were cleaned with TCE, and you could pay a nickel to zap your feet with X-rays*. When men were men, until they got cut down by fatal tumors.

  • I have actual memories of this from my childhood.
Reply to
David Nebenzahl

If we had kept up with the DDT back then we would have eliminated the now rapidly growing malaria problem. Perhaps why we've started using DDT again, albeit a bit more carefully...

Reply to
Pete C.

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.