Like hell it can.
It's a fecking silicate ! It's already about as "burned" as you're going to get it.
Don't tell me - if the dust collector happens to suck it up, static electricity could discharge and blow the whole workshop up !
Only if the rigid piping is PVC. ;-)
And ungrounded:-) Joe
Uh, Jim, leaving aside the fact that most of what you say above is just plain wrong, if this is the way you react to the thought of putting a little bit of talc on a power tool for rust protection I shudder to think what your reaction is going to be the first time you see somebody putting together a batch of cookies.
WOW! - HERE WAS A "GENERAL INFO" POST THAT SPUN COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL!
Actually, As I posted earlier I have used SLIPIT successfully for several years. Will continue to do so.
We really need to get this election over with. Even silly On-Topic posts are getting everyone's hackles up.
Larry, the one on Global Warming is unfortunately mis-classified as a scam. It is happening. And, no, it's not "junk science"- as if "W" were familiar with either. Science _is_ the search for the truth, after all.
Regards, John
You are partially correct. Science should be the search for truth. The whole global warming issue is too politically charged to be treated as such. There have been some recent studies that question the leading research into global warming. Of interest is the Mann et. al. study that introduces the "hockey stick" graph showing that in the last century temps have been rising dramatically. Other researchers using their data and computer code have found that regardless of the data fed into the model, the graph has the same shape.
If you are interested, start here:
: Talc and asbestos are both amphibole minerals (a whole lot of minerals : are amphiboles - if it's a calcium / magnesium silicate, chances are : that it's an amphibole). _Some_ talc deposits have associated asbestos : deposits with them. _Some_ talc minerals have been mined from these : deposits, leading to contamination with asbestos.
: If you're selecting talc to make cosmetic grade talcum powder, you : didn't use these deposits anyway. You wanted something that milled : finely, and the last thing you need is some tough old fibre in there.
Thanks for the correction.
I did a quick Google search, and found this:
-- Andy Barss
Jet 1442. I initially considered buying a more expensive lathe, but decided to invest somewhat more lightly to see if turning was for me. I'll probably upgrade some day, but for the time being, it's a great lathe at a great price. Not perfect, but it does everything fairly well and nothing poorly. It's all cast iron and weighs roughly 360lbs. with the cast legs. With the sand bags I added to a shelf between the legs it probably totals around
450lbs. Hope this helps.Max
Science searches for fact. "Truth" is a philosophical concept.
Science answers the question how. Philosophy (or religion) tries to answer why.
Oct 2004 21:13:21 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
a "potent carcinogen" is disingenious at best.
Scaremongering of the worst sort ("Talc kills babies every year!").
"another research undertaken in 1988 showed that 52% of respondents with ovarian cancer _regularly_ used talc"
I'll bet 52% of respondents with ovarian cancer regular drink water with breakfast too. But that has no correlation with cancer risk.
Now it may indeed be that talc and ovarian cancer are linked, but nothing on either of these two sites provides convincing evidence thereof.
We do know now that the dangers of asbestos to the general public (i.e. non-miners) is wildly overinflated.
More on asbestos available here:
scott
and unfounded....
Preserve me from students armed witha quick blast of Google !
First of all, one of those refs cites one study that suggest a possibility of talc as a carcinogen. Now carcinogenity is always a tricky thing to prove, and especially so in rodent studies. Ever kept rats ? They develop tumours if you look at them funny! The natural state of a rat is to either be eaten or to develop skin tumours. A one-off rodent study alone just isn't convincing proof.
Secondly, did you look at the exposure mechanisms ?
First of all there's inhalation. We're trying to _wipe_ the tablesaw here, not to pretend it's Columbian Rustproofing.
Secondly - well, if you're doing _that_ with your tablesaw, you really need to get out more.
Finally you're into "tampons considered harmful" territory. Americn medical science is bad enough at the best of times, there being so many vested interests trying to skew the results. Since TSS was recognised, the veracity and independence of _anything_ involving tampon health risks is just a minefield of checking who paid for the study, and who is trying to rubish competitors products.
Dust exposure in a woodworking workshop is a serious issue. This week I've been exposed to epoxy (fume and sanding dust), a variety of timbers being sanded, spalted timbers (spores), damp timbers (spores), eroding firebricks, many sorts of asbestos sheet, silver-solder flux (which is pure evil in powder form) and the ever-present risk of my unearthed dust collector exploding. I've even got a jar of silex in there - air float silica, one of the nastiest inhalation hazards you can find. Just yesterday someone even lit up a cigarette in there.
So I'm going to worry about _talc_ somewhere between earthquake, flood and Attack By Giant Flying Robots.
The "scam" part is the conviction that human activities cause it, and must be altered or limited in order to contain it.
Supposedly, global warming is due to the increased use of fossil fuels -- but the majority of the temperature rise in the last century occurred *before*
1940. Surely, if human use of fossil fuels causes global warming, the effect should be much greater during periods of much greater fossil fuel consumption.Over geologic time, the earth has normally been quite a bit warmer than it is now; we're actually still in the last Ice Age, according to a friend of mine who has an MS in geology.
Solar output is not constant, either, and there's some evidence that it's been increasing for a while.
Another part of the scam is the alarmist conviction that warming is a Bad Thing. The principal effect predicted, and observed so far, is an increase in
*nighttime* temperatures; that is, overnight lows are higher than they used to be, but daytime highs haven't changed much. The principal effect of *that* is to extend the growing season in the temperate regions of the world. It's not at all clear to me how that can be a Bad Thing.The alarmists also warn that sea level will rise dramatically as the polar ice caps melt. Well, maybe it will, and maybe it won't. The ice caps are of three types. The entire Arctic ice cap, and portions of the Antarctic cap, float on the surface of the ocean. Melting this ice will have *zero* effect on sea level, because the ice, once melted, will occupy the same volume as the water which it now displaces. Part of the Antarctic ice cap rests on the Antarctic continent, above sea level. Clearly, melting this ice will raise sea level, because there will simply be more water in the ocean. But part of the Antarctic ice cap also rests on the Antarctic continental shelf, *below* sea level. Melting *this* ice will *lower* sea level, because once melted it will occupy *less* volume than the water it now displaces (because it's entirely submerged, not floating). So the net effect on sea level depends on the relative sizes of the latter two regions of the Antarctic ice cap, *and* the degree to which each melts relative to the other. I believe that these factors are as yet unknown.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
And imagine this scenario. Talc in the air, the dust collector is collecting and you went and used PVC pipe.
Makes Grandma flying jets (over the Sinai of course) while putting on make-up kinda pale by comparison.
UA100
while in the last 100 years the global average temperature (where we have measured it) has increased by less than a degree, attributing that increase to human activity is a stretch and while there are scientists who believe in anthropogenic causes, there are an equal number for whom the cause has not yet been coorelated with effect.
scott
One must also not forget that water vapor makes up greater than 90% of all greenhouse gasses. Doubling of CO2 would only amount in a small fractional change in earths total "greehouse" gasses.
-Bruce
Try the material safety data sheet, not some random web site sponsored by God knows who with God knows what agenda. The big problem with the internet is that any nut can put up a web site and there's no way to tell the nuts from the reliable without doing more investigation than most people are willing to do. Applying Sturgeon's law (90% of _anything_ is crap) one assumes that any information contained on a web site put up by any body that doesn't have an established record of responsible behavior and reasonable accuracy is automatically suspect.
You can find the MSDS for talc at .
Note that it is _silica_ that is the suspected carcinogen, not talc. That's like, beach sand. Also note the allowable exposure--20 million particles per cubic foot or 2 mg/cubic meter. That's for chronic exposure, and that's actually quite a lot of talc.
I agree with you, Larry.
On the Moh Scale (as opposed to the Larry and Curly Scales, which are similar but have differnces with regards to the hirsute) Talc is rated as a "1" and Asbestos, which is a Silicate, and thus a subset of Quartz, is rated as a "7".
Even if you were to average them, they would wind up being Fluorspar, which, of course, is rated at a "4", and I, for one would never put Fluorspar on a babies bottom, or a Tablesaur, for that matter.
Nyuk Nyuk.
Regards, Tom.
"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
Personally I find this chart to be absolutely chilling, no pun intended:
Note that the present is on the right. Note how the pattern is different from the previous interglacials. Note that the most recent peak occurred about 10,000 years ago.
So if "global warming" is caused by humans, look what human activity is _preventing_.
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.