gordon wong on wed 1 may 02
Dear Imzadi,
I don't want to scare you but I have to advice
you to never use strontium in your glazes. This is a
fact that strontium is radioactive. You will get
really sick with that stuff. I was warned never to use
that stuff for the colour yellow, but use rutile.
For white glazes its about 2-3% of Zircopax. Oh,
remove the rutile and tin. I think the pink is the
reaction of rutile with tin in your current glaze.
Hope this helps.
Gordon
--- Earl Brunner wrote:
> I'd try replacing the tin with the zircopax first.
> Tin will promote the
> development of the pink, often flashing from other
> glazes in the kiln.
>
> "Imzadi ." wrote:
>
> > I have this sickly, pukey tin pink glaze (although
> I can't find the chrome)
> > that I layered over another color and although the
> color is still pukey, I
> > got nice varigated streaking that I like. What can
> I add or change to make
> > this glaze white instead? More tin, or zircopax?
> What percentages should I
> > START trying at?
> >
> > Barium 2 (have not tried subbing
> strontium yet)
> > Gerstley Bor. 6.5
> > Lithium 11
> > Mag Carb 3
> > Whiting 12.5
> > Neph Sy 24
> > Flint 41.5
> >
> > Tin Oxide 4
> > Rutile 3.5
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Imzadi
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or
> change your subscription
> > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
> --
> Earl Brunner
> http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
> mailto:bruec@anv.net
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change
> your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
Snail Scott on wed 1 may 02
At 12:04 AM 5/1/02 -0700, Gordon wrote:
> I don't want to scare you but I have to advice
>you to never use strontium in your glazes. This is a
>fact that strontium is radioactive...
NO! NO! NO! IT IS NOT!!!!!
You are thinking of the Strontium-80 isotope.
Plain 'ol strontium carbonate is pretty darn
safe as ceramic materials go - it's often
used as a substitute for barium for that
very reason, and is NOT radioactive!
-Snail
Gavin Stairs on wed 1 may 02
Oh boy. You are going to get a lot of responses to this one.
Strontium is NOT radioactive. During the height of the A-bomb testing,
there was a big Strontium-90 scare, as this isotope is produced from
radioactive fallout and IS radioactive. It also tends to be taken up in
place of calcium for bones in growing people, so there was a worry that
kids would take up a lot of this Sr90. Strontium 90 is not found in
natural Strontium in any more than very slight traces, so natural Strontium
as used by potters is NOT a risk, and NOT radioactive. We no longer do
above ground a-bomb testing, so the risk from Sr90 is largely a thing of
the past.
Gavin
At 03:04 AM 01/05/2002, you wrote:
>Dear Imzadi,
>
> I don't want to scare you but I have to advice
>you to never use strontium in your glazes. This is a
>fact that strontium is radioactive. You will get
>really sick with that stuff. I was warned never to use
>that stuff for the colour yellow, but use rutile.
>
>For white glazes its about 2-3% of Zircopax. Oh,
>remove the rutile and tin. I think the pink is the
>reaction of rutile with tin in your current glaze.
>
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Gordon
>--- Earl Brunner wrote:
> > I'd try replacing the tin with the zircopax first.
> > Tin will promote the
> > development of the pink, often flashing from other
> > glazes in the kiln.
> >
> > "Imzadi ." wrote:
> >
> > > I have this sickly, pukey tin pink glaze (although
> > I can't find the chrome)
> > > that I layered over another color and although the
> > color is still pukey, I
> > > got nice varigated streaking that I like. What can
> > I add or change to make
> > > this glaze white instead? More tin, or zircopax?
> > What percentages should I
> > > START trying at?
> > >
> > > Barium 2 (have not tried subbing
> > strontium yet)
> > > Gerstley Bor. 6.5
> > > Lithium 11
> > > Mag Carb 3
> > > Whiting 12.5
> > > Neph Sy 24
> > > Flint 41.5
> > >
> > > Tin Oxide 4
> > > Rutile 3.5
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Imzadi
> > >
> > >
> >
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> > > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> > >
> > > You may look at the archives for the list or
> > change your subscription
> > > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> > >
> > > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> > reached at melpots@pclink.com.
> >
> > --
> > Earl Brunner
> > http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
> > mailto:bruec@anv.net
> >
> >
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> > You may look at the archives for the list or change
> > your subscription
> > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> > reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
>http://health.yahoo.com
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
gordon wong on wed 1 may 02
Try sticking under a Geiger-counter and see if it
register. Better to be safe than sorry. Treated it as
a science project.
--- Snail Scott wrote:
> At 12:04 AM 5/1/02 -0700, Gordon wrote:
> > I don't want to scare you but I have to
> advice
> >you to never use strontium in your glazes. This is
> a
> >fact that strontium is radioactive...
>
>
>
> NO! NO! NO! IT IS NOT!!!!!
> You are thinking of the Strontium-80 isotope.
> Plain 'ol strontium carbonate is pretty darn
> safe as ceramic materials go - it's often
> used as a substitute for barium for that
> very reason, and is NOT radioactive!
>
> -Snail
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change
> your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
Edouard Bastarache on wed 1 may 02
Right on Gavin!!!
Edouard Bastarache
Irreductible Quebecois
Indomitable Quebeker
Sorel-Tracy
Quebec
edouardb@sorel-tracy.qc.ca
http://sorel-tracy.qc.ca/~edouardb/
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/smart2000/index.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Gavin Stairs
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Changing Pink glaze to White?
> Oh boy. You are going to get a lot of responses to this one.
>
> Strontium is NOT radioactive. During the height of the A-bomb testing,
> there was a big Strontium-90 scare, as this isotope is produced from
> radioactive fallout and IS radioactive. It also tends to be taken up in
> place of calcium for bones in growing people, so there was a worry that
> kids would take up a lot of this Sr90. Strontium 90 is not found in
> natural Strontium in any more than very slight traces, so natural
Strontium
> as used by potters is NOT a risk, and NOT radioactive. We no longer do
> above ground a-bomb testing, so the risk from Sr90 is largely a thing of
> the past.
>
> Gavin
>
> At 03:04 AM 01/05/2002, you wrote:
> >Dear Imzadi,
> >
> > I don't want to scare you but I have to advice
> >you to never use strontium in your glazes. This is a
> >fact that strontium is radioactive. You will get
> >really sick with that stuff. I was warned never to use
> >that stuff for the colour yellow, but use rutile.
> >
> >For white glazes its about 2-3% of Zircopax. Oh,
> >remove the rutile and tin. I think the pink is the
> >reaction of rutile with tin in your current glaze.
> >
> >
> >Hope this helps.
> >
> >Gordon
> >--- Earl Brunner wrote:
> > > I'd try replacing the tin with the zircopax first.
> > > Tin will promote the
> > > development of the pink, often flashing from other
> > > glazes in the kiln.
> > >
> > > "Imzadi ." wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have this sickly, pukey tin pink glaze (although
> > > I can't find the chrome)
> > > > that I layered over another color and although the
> > > color is still pukey, I
> > > > got nice varigated streaking that I like. What can
> > > I add or change to make
> > > > this glaze white instead? More tin, or zircopax?
> > > What percentages should I
> > > > START trying at?
> > > >
> > > > Barium 2 (have not tried subbing
> > > strontium yet)
> > > > Gerstley Bor. 6.5
> > > > Lithium 11
> > > > Mag Carb 3
> > > > Whiting 12.5
> > > > Neph Sy 24
> > > > Flint 41.5
> > > >
> > > > Tin Oxide 4
> > > > Rutile 3.5
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Imzadi
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> > > > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> > > >
> > > > You may look at the archives for the list or
> > > change your subscription
> > > > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> > > >
> > > > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> > > reached at melpots@pclink.com.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Earl Brunner
> > > http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
> > > mailto:bruec@anv.net
> > >
> > >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> > > Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> > >
> > > You may look at the archives for the list or change
> > > your subscription
> > > settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> > >
> > > Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> > > reached at melpots@pclink.com.
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
> >http://health.yahoo.com
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
> >Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> >You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> >settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> >Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> >melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Rare - Earth - Design on wed 1 may 02
Leave out the Rutile.
Bob Hollis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Imzadi ."
To:
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: Changing Pink glaze to White?
> I have this sickly, pukey tin pink glaze (although I can't find the
chrome)
> that I layered over another color and although the color is still pukey, I
> got nice varigated streaking that I like. What can I add or change to make
> this glaze white instead? More tin, or zircopax? What percentages should I
> START trying at?
>
> Barium 2 (have not tried subbing strontium yet)
> Gerstley Bor. 6.5
> Lithium 11
> Mag Carb 3
> Whiting 12.5
> Neph Sy 24
> Flint 41.5
>
> Tin Oxide 4
> Rutile 3.5
>
> Thanks!
>
> Imzadi
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
Joseph Herbert on thu 2 may 02
Gordon wrote: > "I don't want to scare you but I have to advice >you to
never use strontium in your glazes. This is a >fact that strontium is
radioactive..."
and snail replied: "NO! NO! NO! IT IS NOT!!!!! You are thinking of the
Strontium-80 isotope."
Actually that would be Strontium 90 – one of our favorite atmospheric
testing fallout isotopes.
As some of us know, all elements can exist in radioactive forms, called
isotopes, since the number of protons is the same (iso) as the
non-radioactive form, that have more or fewer neutrons than the stable
form(s) of the element. A few elements only exist in radioactive form –
radium is my favorite. Because of regulation in the United States a normal
person or business without a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
cannot buy or sell radioactive materials. This means there is little danger
of having our strontium carbonate be radioactive.
When uranium atoms fission, break apart, in a nuclear reaction, the parts
become atoms that weigh slightly less than the original uranium atom. These
resulting atoms are called fission products and each weighs approximately
half of what the original U235 atom did. The actual distribution of atomic
weights is a U-shaped curve that is a lower probability at the exact 50%
weight than either slightly higher or lower weights. The lower weight peak
is at 95 mass units and the higher weight peak is at 140 mass units (that
would figure). These occur about 7% of the time. By contrast, the 50/50
break happens 0.01 percent of the time.
If a fission reaction produces a strontium 90 atom, the other fragment
weighs 145 atomic units. This could be Samarium, Praseodymium, or other
elements that have isotopes weighing 145 units. There is a most probable
atom formed from a fragment that weighs 145 units but I don’t have that
information at the moment.
In terms of the danger from the fallout during nuclear testing, the fact
that strontium 90 was a fairly long half-life isotope (25 years) and was
produced at a relatively high frequency (about 7% of the reactions) is only
part of the story. Strontium has many of the chemical characteristics of
Calcium (and barium – it’s that periodic table thing) and when ingested by
humans (especially children) was incorporated into bones and other body
parts. The radioactive decays that occur to reach a stable atomic state
then occurred inside the body and internally generated ionizing radiation is
the most dangerous kind.
The fallout risk was obvious enough and easily enough understood to cause a
significant amount of political pressure to stop atmospheric testing of
nuclear devices. The hysteria that accompanied that time and series of
events has been perpetuated in an increasingly general way to cover all
occurrences of radiation or even similar sounding non-radiation situations –
hence Gordon’s misplaced concern.
It is also rather disingenuous of Gordon to claim to not want to scare us.
That is the only reason for the post, regardless of the stated intent and
enhanced by the misinformation contained.
Joseph Herbert
| |
|
