Ron Roy on fri 3 sep 99
>>As for the bodies - it depends what you define as a body I suppose. Do you
>>count all those rats and mice used to test toxins as bodies. Are they that
>>much different from a month old fetus? How is it possible to isolate and
>>identify all the contributing factors that went into the mix when we find a
>>body.
>>
>>We have not mentioned incapacitation in our discussion - I know potters
>>that can't pot anymore due to exposure to some of the oxides we use. Should
>>we count them as bodies?
Rays comments - snip:
>Of course we should, and in no way do I wish to minimize either the dangers
>of our profession or the importance of taking precautions against these
>dangers. However... In the specific instance of Fiesta ware, are you
>aware of any person, fetus, or rat who has been incapacitated by exposure
>to uranium-glazed dinnerware? Should we, because of the risks mentioned
>>by Monona, have laws prohibiting private collectors from possessing these
>>wares?
RR - How would anyone determine that? I don't know what the real risks are
from certain types of Fiesta ware - I do know that those who own them
should know there might be some - they can then decide for themselves. I do
know that getting radioactive dust in your lungs is not a good idea. Do you
think there is a possibility of dust in contact with an emitter will be a
health hazard? Could it be that dusting that ware is a problem - how do you
prove it one way or another? I'm not saying that is good information or bad
information - I can say that there will be disagreement - as there usually
is.
>The trouble with Monona's information is not in most cases that it is
>wrong-- far from it. It's that the information is delivered in such an
>absolutist and dictatorial manner that it is often very difficult to know
>how best to act on that information. The Fiesta ware tempest-in-a-teapot is
>a perfect example. Monona confined herself to stating that uranium glazed
>Fiesta ware was Dangerous. Do you now understand, even approximately, how
>dangerous it actually is? I don't, and if I owned any of this
>glow-in-the-dark stuff, I still wouldn't know if I should get rid of it or
>not.
RR - My point is - well does anyone? Would it matter how the information
was presented - perhaps her delivery is the best in the end. If it was
presented in a less forceful manner fewer of us would take it seriously.
RR - I know there are individuals out here who are using toxic materials in
an irresponsible way - simply because there is a perceived commercial
advantage. I would rather see them get a scare and moderate their attitude
before we all have to pay for their irresponsibly.
>When Sue, Evan, and others attempted to fit the danger into the context of
>other minor environmental sources of exposure, (so that we might have some
>useful perspective in the matter) they were viciously attacked for their
>trouble. But unless I missed it, Monona refused to justify her warnings
>within the rational realworld structure that Sue and Evan tried to bring to
>the discussion-- and in my opinion she did so because such a sensible
>approach might have caused most reasonable and intelligent folk to shrug
>and think, "So what?"
RR - I'm not sure I understand this point Ray - I'm sure you don't mean
reasonable people are necessarily more intelligent people - or visa versa.
I do know that often those who want to be able to use what ever they like
on functional ware - will ridicule those who prefer to avoid some of the
more controversial materials we find in so many glazes. If we are really
interested in promoting understanding of these issues we should be careful
in what we say and how we say it. I sometimes get the feeling that these
discussions are laced with invective on both sides with a mind to obscure
what little hard information there is available. Maybe thats the plan - The
trick, it seems to me, is to separate the facts from the other and keep at
least one eye on the ball. I also see that as these discussions go on the
facts are ignored and the personalities take over - maybe thats just
natural. I have the feeling hardly anyone is listening anymore. Never mind
- it will come up again, and again and we will all be a little wiser each
time.
>
>>All I am trying to point out is that we should be aware - and try to do
>>what we think is right.
>
>I agree completely.
>
>> There are safe and relatively safe materials to use
>>in our glazes. The only way we can tell which are benign is to be informed
>>- and most of us are not - and Monona is helping us learn.
>>
>
>Her habit of
>attacking anyone who wishes to elaborate on or debate her statements has
>the unfortunate effect of shutting down our access to additional or
>conflicting information, thus preventing us from making the best and most
>rational choices.
RR - And Karl Platte was the same on the other side - we have to toughen up
it seems - I have since I've been on this list - yes we do need more of us
to stand up and say what we think is right - getting slapped around a bit
has that effect sometimes - there are a few more of us now and there will
be more. I think it's a good thing. I can tell you one thing for sure -
expecting Monona to change is pie in the sky - better to stand up and show
the way - which you are doing.
>Contrast this with your teaching style, which in my opinion is vastly more
>productive. You offer your information authoritatively but kindly, and if
>someone disagrees with you, you do not take it as an opportunity to insult
>and intimidate that person.
RR - Thank you - it's not always easy to do.
>Returning to the issue of civility, I received a great many posts
>congratulating me on being brave enough to contradict Monona. The common
>theme was this: "better you than me, Ray." Most of those who wrote me
>privately confessed to being afraid to speak out in any matter in which
>Monona was concerned. Is this really a good situation for learning?
RR - Better than nothing is my reply but I've said that before - Edouard is
doing his share - do you think he is as effective as Monona?
>What bothers me most about the situation isn't that a group of Good People
>have been made to fear the consequences of expressing their opinions--
>though that's certainly bad enough. At present Monona has no real power
>beyond the considerable force of her personality. She's only a trivial
>annoyance, easily ignored (and this is another sad aspect of the situation;
>her toxic personality may cause some of us to ignore her information. This
>would be a great loss, because in most cases it is very useful and
>important information.)
RR - Good people - well some of are and some not I suspect. I don't think
Monona will be ignored - and I don't think she will ever be able to make
the compromises necessary to be a law maker. If we are afraid to contradict
her we deserve what we get - but better make sure you know what your taking
about - if you are serious then make sure your not firing blanks. Calling
her names will not work - she's used to it - from just about everyone.
RR
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Edouard Bastarache on tue 7 sep 99
------------------
Hello Ron,
worst thing to do in this field is =22overkill=22.
Just this morning i was explaining to 2 young mothers that =22chemical=22 is=
not
necessarily a synonym for =22toxic=22. I gave them the exemple of pure water
that makes up the majority of our body (50-70=25). I felt free to explain =
them
a few facts about Occupational =26 Environmental Medicine for two reasons =
(for
those who doubt my sincerity), i was getting paid by the Quebec govt. and i
was visiting their workplace.
Here in Quebec, in our Occupational Health =26 Safety laws and by-laws, we
have special chapters for pregnant ladies =26 breast-feeding mothers and i =
am
the one to apply these in our region, on a part-time basis.
A pregnant lady or breast-feeding mother can even stay at home and be paid
by the Compensation if i decide so, according to my analysis of the
situation.
Needless to say that sometimes i have arguments with people from both sides
of the =22fence=22.
I was part of the process of implementing these laws many years ago.
Day in day out, 5-6 days a week, we have to make decisions concerning the
health
of workers, and sometimes quite a few of them at the same time, specially in
large industries.So we are trying to be the most precise scientifically
speaking and avoid
overkill because when a =22scare=22 is started there is pratically no way to
stop it.
The goal of my talk with them, at the end of my visit, was to explain to
them the meaning of =22overkill=22.
Later,
Edouard Bastarache
edouardb=40sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/=7Eedouardb/
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Ron Roy =3Cronroy=40pop.total.net=3E
=C0 : CLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU =3CCLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU=3E
Date : 3 septembre, 1999 16:02
Objet : Re: Teaching styles, Effectivness and Fear
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
=3E=3EAs for the bodies - it depends what you define as a body I suppose. Do=
you
=3E=3Ecount all those rats and mice used to test toxins as bodies. Are they =
that
=3E=3Emuch different from a month old fetus? How is it possible to isolate =
and
=3E=3Eidentify all the contributing factors that went into the mix when we =
find
a
=3E=3Ebody.
=3E=3E
=3E=3EWe have not mentioned incapacitation in our discussion - I know =
potters
=3E=3Ethat can't pot anymore due to exposure to some of the oxides we use.
Should
=3E=3Ewe count them as bodies?
Rays comments - snip:
=3EOf course we should, and in no way do I wish to minimize either the =
dangers
=3Eof our profession or the importance of taking precautions against these
=3Edangers. However... In the specific instance of Fiesta ware, are you
=3Eaware of any person, fetus, or rat who has been incapacitated by exposure
=3Eto uranium-glazed dinnerware? Should we, because of the risks mentioned
=3E=3Eby Monona, have laws prohibiting private collectors from possessing =
these
=3E=3Ewares?
RR - How would anyone determine that? I don't know what the real risks are
from certain types of Fiesta ware - I do know that those who own them
should know there might be some - they can then decide for themselves. I do
know that getting radioactive dust in your lungs is not a good idea. Do you
think there is a possibility of dust in contact with an emitter will be a
health hazard? Could it be that dusting that ware is a problem - how do you
prove it one way or another? I'm not saying that is good information or bad
information - I can say that there will be disagreement - as there usually
is.
=3EThe trouble with Monona's information is not in most cases that it is
=3Ewrong-- far from it. It's that the information is delivered in such an
=3Eabsolutist and dictatorial manner that it is often very difficult to know
=3Ehow best to act on that information. The Fiesta ware tempest-in-a-teapot =
is
=3Ea perfect example. Monona confined herself to stating that uranium =
glazed
=3EFiesta ware was Dangerous. Do you now understand, even approximately, =
how
=3Edangerous it actually is? I don't, and if I owned any of this
=3Eglow-in-the-dark stuff, I still wouldn't know if I should get rid of it =
or
=3Enot.
RR - My point is - well does anyone? Would it matter how the information
was presented - perhaps her delivery is the best in the end. If it was
presented in a less forceful manner fewer of us would take it seriously.
RR - I know there are individuals out here who are using toxic materials in
an irresponsible way - simply because there is a perceived commercial
advantage. I would rather see them get a scare and moderate their attitude
before we all have to pay for their irresponsibly.
=3EWhen Sue, Evan, and others attempted to fit the danger into the context =
of
=3Eother minor environmental sources of exposure, (so that we might have =
some
=3Euseful perspective in the matter) they were viciously attacked for their
=3Etrouble. But unless I missed it, Monona refused to justify her warnings
=3Ewithin the rational realworld structure that Sue and Evan tried to bring =
to
=3Ethe discussion-- and in my opinion she did so because such a sensible
=3Eapproach might have caused most reasonable and intelligent folk to shrug
=3Eand think, =22So what?=22
RR - I'm not sure I understand this point Ray - I'm sure you don't mean
reasonable people are necessarily more intelligent people - or visa versa.
I do know that often those who want to be able to use what ever they like
on functional ware - will ridicule those who prefer to avoid some of the
more controversial materials we find in so many glazes. If we are really
interested in promoting understanding of these issues we should be careful
in what we say and how we say it. I sometimes get the feeling that these
discussions are laced with invective on both sides with a mind to obscure
what little hard information there is available. Maybe thats the plan - The
trick, it seems to me, is to separate the facts from the other and keep at
least one eye on the ball. I also see that as these discussions go on the
facts are ignored and the personalities take over - maybe thats just
natural. I have the feeling hardly anyone is listening anymore. Never mind
- it will come up again, and again and we will all be a little wiser each
time.
=3E
=3E=3EAll I am trying to point out is that we should be aware - and try to =
do
=3E=3Ewhat we think is right.
=3E
=3EI agree completely.
=3E
=3E=3E There are safe and relatively safe materials to use
=3E=3Ein our glazes. The only way we can tell which are benign is to be =
informed
=3E=3E- and most of us are not - and Monona is helping us learn.
=3E=3E
=3E
=3EHer habit of
=3Eattacking anyone who wishes to elaborate on or debate her statements has
=3Ethe unfortunate effect of shutting down our access to additional or
=3Econflicting information, thus preventing us from making the best and most
=3Erational choices.
RR - And Karl Platte was the same on the other side - we have to toughen up
it seems - I have since I've been on this list - yes we do need more of us
to stand up and say what we think is right - getting slapped around a bit
has that effect sometimes - there are a few more of us now and there will
be more. I think it's a good thing. I can tell you one thing for sure -
expecting Monona to change is pie in the sky - better to stand up and show
the way - which you are doing.
=3EContrast this with your teaching style, which in my opinion is vastly =
more
=3Eproductive. You offer your information authoritatively but kindly, and =
if
=3Esomeone disagrees with you, you do not take it as an opportunity to =
insult
=3Eand intimidate that person.
RR - Thank you - it's not always easy to do.
=3EReturning to the issue of civility, I received a great many posts
=3Econgratulating me on being brave enough to contradict Monona. The common
=3Etheme was this: =22better you than me, Ray.=22 Most of those who wrote =
me
=3Eprivately confessed to being afraid to speak out in any matter in which
=3EMonona was concerned. Is this really a good situation for learning?
RR - Better than nothing is my reply but I've said that before - Edouard is
doing his share - do you think he is as effective as Monona?
=3EWhat bothers me most about the situation isn't that a group of Good =
People
=3Ehave been made to fear the consequences of expressing their opinions--
=3Ethough that's certainly bad enough. At present Monona has no real power
=3Ebeyond the considerable force of her personality. She's only a trivial
=3Eannoyance, easily ignored (and this is another sad aspect of the =
situation=3B
=3Eher toxic personality may cause some of us to ignore her information. =
This
=3Ewould be a great loss, because in most cases it is very useful and
=3Eimportant information.)
RR - Good people - well some of are and some not I suspect. I don't think
Monona will be ignored - and I don't think she will ever be able to make
the compromises necessary to be a law maker. If we are afraid to contradict
her we deserve what we get - but better make sure you know what your taking
about - if you are serious then make sure your not firing blanks. Calling
her names will not work - she's used to it - from just about everyone.
RR
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Ron Roy on sun 12 sep 99
Hi Edouard,
Of course the reason for the existing set of circumstances is the result of
underkill - and I think that is still going on.
Hear is an example of what keeps happening and we have to face up to. The
question of what to do and how to do it seems almost upon us. In the mean
time I applaud your attempt to inject reason and information.
I would like your opinion on how - we - as a group should try to deal with
the following bad press.
This is from the "Wellness Letter" published by the University of
California, Berkeley.
They are talking about lead release from Lead Crystal containers and later
on in the article they say " But if you buy goods abroad, particularly in
the developing world, OR EVEN FROM SMALL LOCAL POTTERIES IN THIS COUNTRY
(caps are mine) you may get dishes that release lead, and some imports
evade the regulation. Antique glass and pottery may also be high in lead.
If in doubt, use pottery for decorative purposes only."
RR
>worst thing to do in this field is "overkill".
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Edouard Bastarache on mon 13 sep 99
------------------
Hello Ron,
here are a few thoughts about this problem, if i have more later i will
send.
=22In medio stat virtus=22 or =22Virtue stands in the middle=22(my =22pidgin
english=22).
Here in Quebec, near the St-Lawrence river( my kiln room is only 1,000 feet
from it),
we were instructed by the Quebec Ministry of the Environment many years ago
that
this river was very polluted, not only by Quebec but also by Ontario and the
USA.
Hundreds of chemicals are flowing just in front of us and fish is
contaminated by them,
lead being a major contaminant.
We were instructed we could eat that fish but not more than thrice a week.
A local dish is made with it and its name is =22La Gibelotte=22, a sort of
Bouillabaise
like in Marseille, France. Every summer there is a Gibelotte festival in
Sorel partly
subsidized by the Quebec Government and people are allowed to eat it.
So i feel that our government experts, mainly trained in US universities,
are knowledgeable enough to be right we they instructed us on how many times
a week we could eat fish contaminated by lead=3B and also agree on a =
festival
based on it.
Now many years ago at Sial's in Montreal, a pottery supplies store, i
learned that
they instruct potters that if they use lead in glazes, customers should be
warned
not to use the wares more than twice a week if they drink and/or eat from
them.
I told them, in accordance with the recomendations from the Quebec govt.
experts
concerning fish caught in the St-Lawrence river, that it made sense.
Certainly it is better to have your utilitarian wares tested in a certified
lab., but maybe this was not possible a few years ago.The situation is
changing. I dont know much
about available test kits to make tests in our shops, i know it is a
colorimetric method,
it is not a quantitative but qualitative method=3B but if it is accurate
enough to discriminate
between the absence and presence of hazardous levels of lead, then it is
better than doing nothing.
I know that most of Clayarters are making utilitarian wares to earn a
living,
which is not my case(I make pots to remain sane in this insane world) and i
mainly make =22decorative=22 pots=3B i have firmly believed for years that =
leaded
glazes are not hazardous on =22decorative=22 pots, that is what U. of
California's people say anyway.
In recent years i have worked many hours with a local potter trying to get
off welfare.
He was using c/04 leaded glazes and i coached and helped him into
converting them to leadless ones. All the leadless recipies were sent to the
GlazeBase project with corresponding pictures.
This being said, foreign wares, possibly leaching lead, should be tested if
intended to
be used more than twice a week for eating and/or drinking=3B but if =
customers
are rich
enough, they could have them tested whatever the frequency at which they
intend to use them.
If there are a few doctors on this list , there are certainly also a few
lawyers.
I think small potteries making lead glazed wares should print a legal text,
a disclaimer, as in books and computer programs, stating that their wares
may leach lead and be harmful if used more than twice a week for eating
and/or drinking and that the potter is not responsible if customers dont
follow this advice and become ill. The final disclaimer text could be more
elaborate and our fellow lawyer-Clayarters could help in this process.
If using leaded wares the way i propose (by analogy with what is proposed by
our experts concerning eating fish partly contaminated by lead) is
problematic, then
=22En cas de doute, s'abstenir=22or =22In case of doubt,refrain=22(same =
=22pidgin
english=22)
=3D don't use lead-glazed pots except for decorating purposes whatever the
shape of them.
Once customers are fully aware of the presence of lead in glazes it is up
to them
to make their own decisions. We live in a free world.
Later,
Edouard Bastarache
edouardb=40sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/=7Eedouardb/
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Ron Roy =3Cronroy=40pop.total.net=3E
=C0 : CLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU =3CCLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU=3E
Date : 12 septembre, 1999 11:17
Objet : Re: Teaching styles, Effectivness and Fear
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi Edouard,
Of course the reason for the existing set of circumstances is the result of
underkill - and I think that is still going on.
Hear is an example of what keeps happening and we have to face up to. The
question of what to do and how to do it seems almost upon us. In the mean
time I applaud your attempt to inject reason and information.
I would like your opinion on how - we - as a group should try to deal with
the following bad press.
This is from the =22Wellness Letter=22 published by the University of
California, Berkeley.
They are talking about lead release from Lead Crystal containers and later
on in the article they say =22 But if you buy goods abroad, particularly in
the developing world, OR EVEN FROM SMALL LOCAL POTTERIES IN THIS COUNTRY
(caps are mine) you may get dishes that release lead, and some imports
evade the regulation. Antique glass and pottery may also be high in lead.
If in doubt, use pottery for decorative purposes only.=22
RR
=3Eworst thing to do in this field is =22overkill=22.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
amy parker on mon 13 sep 99
Ron - one of the objectives of the fledgling ClayGuild will be to educate
the consumer and the potter, and to promote testing and labeling of glazes
used for food purposes in some soon-to-be-internationally recognized format.
As we get the ClayGuild more organized, we will post updates on all of this
to Clayart.
In the meantime, sadly, the "bad press" is true!
Amy
------snipped-------
>I would like your opinion on how - we - as a group should try to deal with
>the following bad press. This is from the "Wellness Letter" published by
the University of California, Berkeley.
>
>They are talking about lead release from Lead Crystal containers and later
>on in the article they say " But if you buy goods abroad, particularly in
>the developing world, OR EVEN FROM SMALL LOCAL POTTERIES IN THIS COUNTRY
>(caps are mine) you may get dishes that release lead, and some imports
>evade the regulation. Antique glass and pottery may also be high in lead.
>If in doubt, use pottery for decorative purposes only."
>
>Ron Roy
amy parker Lithonia, GA
amyp@sd-software.com
Ron Roy on thu 16 sep 99
Hi Edouard,
I live beside Lake Ontario - upstream from you - those who catch fish in
our lake are advised not to eat them - so I am surprised that your
government says OK. I am also surprised that pregnant mothers and young
children are allowed to eat them - is there no separate advice for them?
Monona published some tests about the home test kits in the last issue of
Clay Times - you are right - not that reliable - would you like me to send
you a copy of it?
RR
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Here in Quebec, near the St-Lawrence river( my kiln room is only 1,000 feet
>from it), we were instructed by the Quebec Ministry of the Environment
>many years ago
>that this river was very polluted, not only by Quebec but also by Ontario
>and the USA.
>Hundreds of chemicals are flowing just in front of us and fish is
>contaminated by them, lead being a major contaminant.
>We were instructed we could eat that fish but not more than thrice a week.
>A local dish is made with it and its name is "La Gibelotte", a sort of
>Bouillabaise
>like in Marseille, France. Every summer there is a Gibelotte festival in
>Sorel partly subsidized by the Quebec Government and people are allowed to
>eat it.
>So i feel that our government experts, mainly trained in US universities,
>are knowledgeable enough to be right we they instructed us on how many times
>a week we could eat fish contaminated by lead; and also agree on a festival
>based on it.
>Now many years ago at Sial's in Montreal, a pottery supplies store, i
>learned that they instruct potters that if they use lead in glazes,
>customers should be
>warned not to use the wares more than twice a week if they drink and/or
>eat from
>them. I told them, in accordance with the recomendations from the Quebec govt.
>experts concerning fish caught in the St-Lawrence river, that it made sense.
>Certainly it is better to have your utilitarian wares tested in a certified
>lab., but maybe this was not possible a few years ago.The situation is
>changing. I dont know much about available test kits to make tests in our
>shops, i know it is a
>colorimetric method, it is not a quantitative but qualitative method; but
>if it is accurate
>enough to discriminate between the absence and presence of hazardous
>levels of lead, >then it is better than doing nothing.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
Edouard Bastarache on fri 17 sep 99
------------------
Edouard Bastarache
edouardb=40sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://www.sorel-tracy.qc.ca/=7Eedouardb/
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Ron Roy =3Cronroy=40pop.total.net=3E
=C0 : CLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU =3CCLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU=3E
Date : 16 septembre, 1999 07:40
Objet : Re: Teaching styles, Effectivness and Fear
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hi Edouard,
I live beside Lake Ontario - upstream from you - those who catch fish in
our lake are advised not to eat them - so I am surprised that your
government says OK. I am also surprised that pregnant mothers and young
children are allowed to eat them - is there no separate advice for them?
=22No separate advice=22
Monona published some tests about the home test kits in the last issue of
Clay Times - you are right - not that reliable - would you like me to send
you a copy of it?
=22 Please send=22
=22Thanks=22
RR
=3E----------------------------Original message----------------------------
=3EHere in Quebec, near the St-Lawrence river( my kiln room is only 1,000 =
feet
=3Efrom it), we were instructed by the Quebec Ministry of the Environment
=3Emany years ago
=3Ethat this river was very polluted, not only by Quebec but also by Ontario
=3Eand the USA.
=3EHundreds of chemicals are flowing just in front of us and fish is
=3Econtaminated by them, lead being a major contaminant.
=3EWe were instructed we could eat that fish but not more than thrice a =
week.
=3EA local dish is made with it and its name is =22La Gibelotte=22, a sort =
of
=3EBouillabaise
=3Elike in Marseille, France. Every summer there is a Gibelotte festival in
=3ESorel partly subsidized by the Quebec Government and people are allowed =
to
=3Eeat it.
=3ESo i feel that our government experts, mainly trained in US =
universities,
=3Eare knowledgeable enough to be right we they instructed us on how many
times
=3Ea week we could eat fish contaminated by lead=3B and also agree on a =
festival
=3Ebased on it.
=3ENow many years ago at Sial's in Montreal, a pottery supplies store, i
=3Elearned that they instruct potters that if they use lead in glazes,
=3Ecustomers should be
=3Ewarned not to use the wares more than twice a week if they drink and/or
=3Eeat from
=3Ethem. I told them, in accordance with the recomendations from the Quebec
govt.
=3Eexperts concerning fish caught in the St-Lawrence river, that it made
sense.
=3ECertainly it is better to have your utilitarian wares tested in a =
certified
=3Elab., but maybe this was not possible a few years ago.The situation is
=3Echanging. I dont know much about available test kits to make tests in our
=3Eshops, i know it is a
=3Ecolorimetric method, it is not a quantitative but qualitative method=3B =
but
=3Eif it is accurate
=3Eenough to discriminate between the absence and presence of hazardous
=3Elevels of lead, =3Ethen it is better than doing nothing.
Ron Roy
93 Pegasus Trail
Scarborough
Ontario, Canada
M1G 3N8
Evenings 416-439-2621
Fax 416-438-7849
| |
|
