8mm Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | register | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» 8mm Forum   » 8mm Forum   » 2.22 great for our movies..but? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!  
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: 2.22 great for our movies..but?
Mark Silvester
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: England
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted September 15, 2015 03:29 PM      Profile for Mark Silvester     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I, used to love 2.22 as film cleaner and lubricator...back in the day when real collectors were about in 1970 - 83. (doubt if the U.S boys will know about this cleaning solution).

I do believe that 2.22 as good as it was...was dangerous and long lasting effects.

I personally knew and know Dave West's family (DCR) and often wonder about the effect of constantly applying 2.22.. how it may have contributed to Dave's early demise..also Derek Simmonds used to be constantly surrounded by the stuff.like this..I seriously think it had a serious efefct on our health.

[Frown]

--------------------
Mark Silvester

 |  IP: Logged

Tom Photiou
Film God

Posts: 4837
From: Plymouth U.K
Registered: Dec 2003


 - posted September 15, 2015 03:41 PM      Profile for Tom Photiou     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
and i use to use it all the time, it stank, im only 53 so i hope ive still got years left.It was lethal.

 |  IP: Logged

Clyde Miles
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 205
From: Bromsgrove, UK
Registered: Nov 2013


 - posted September 15, 2015 03:50 PM      Profile for Clyde Miles     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
i used 2.22,and when i could not get it i used thermofilm. was that stuff ok?

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Silvester
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: England
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted September 15, 2015 04:10 PM      Profile for Mark Silvester     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think it was dangerous - ultimately...despite being great for films.

But like any volatile liquid/substance..there is a reason they brought all the precautions and legislation in.

I am pretty sure Mark Todd had a lot of background info on 2.22

Dangerous...well, I think YES!

[Frown]

--------------------
Mark Silvester

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted September 15, 2015 05:30 PM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
I worked with a bath of Trichloroethylene from 1982 till early 90'sin the Motor Manufacture / repair business.
Sure its lethal gear as we know now, but so is most of the substances we participted in in the 80's.

Narcotics at the Hacienda, dope smoking nor Glue sniffing were ever our greatest moves from the 80's but hey.... We're still here and for that matter so is 60's Hippy Hugh!!

When youre times up.. thats it, thats my way of thinking taken from our maker!

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Newell
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 826
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 16, 2015 08:13 AM      Profile for Mike Newell   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That's what I like about you Mark always the happy stories [Roll Eyes] .

I can tell you a lovely conspiracy theory that the UK government actually exposed the general population to small doses of radiation via the free school milk to see what it would do to us over a lifetime. This was when they thought they could win a nuclear war. Hence a lot of people born in 1950s and 1960s dont like milk as adults.

Anyway quite a few dealers and collectors have died of cancer but a lot of them where also heavy smokers cigarettes and pipes. A least our movies will be clean and scratch free when we are gone.

A fairly healthy 52 year old [Eek!] [Eek!]

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Silvester
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: England
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted September 16, 2015 12:56 PM      Profile for Mark Silvester     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Lol..Mike - I am 54 now and also still alive.

Aside, though - I do think that a lot of those volatile substances...if you are working with them - skin, touch and breathe..etc..everyday..will have an affect. Lots of factors involved. But, hey...it was good stuff for it's time. [Smile]

--------------------
Mark Silvester

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Newell
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 826
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 16, 2015 01:24 PM      Profile for Mike Newell   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If I remember correctly 2.22 was phased out around 1986 and couldn't be bought for love or money maybe that was a blessing. I tended to use
Thermofilm after that which came from LGP but was re formulated after the chemical ban. The worrying thing is the homemade brands are the only options now for collectors and no one knows what is in them. I cleaned religiously when I collected super 8. If I was collecting now I wouldn't use cleaner at all except in very extreme cases of buying a secondhand film with a dirt or scratching issue.

Health Hazard Information on 2.22 attached.

Acute Effects:
Central nervous system effects are the primary effects noted from acute inhalation exposure to trichloroethylene in humans, with symptoms including sleepiness, fatigue, headache, confusion, and feelings of euphoria. Effects on the liver, kidneys, gastrointestinal system, and skin have also been noted. (1)
Neurological, lung, kidney, and heart effects have been reported in animals acutely exposed to trichloroethylene. (1)
Tests involving acute exposure of rats and mice have shown trichloroethylene to have low toxicity from inhalation exposure and moderate toxicity from oral exposure. (1,2)
Chronic Effects (Noncancer):
As with acute exposure, chronic exposure to trichloroethylene by inhalation also affects the human central nervous system. Case reports of intermediate and chronic occupational exposures included effects such as dizziness, headache, sleepiness, nausea, confusion, blurred vision, facial numbness, and weakness. (1)
Effects to the liver, kidneys, and immune and endocrine systems have also been seen in humans exposed to trichloroethylene occupationally or from contaminanted drinking water. (13)
Studies have shown that simultaneous alcohol consumption and trichloroethylene inhalation increases the toxicity of trichloroethylene in humans. (1)
Neurological, liver, and kidney effects were reported in chronically-exposed animals. (1)
EPA is in the process of calculating a Reference Concentration (RfC) and Reference Dose (RfD) for trichloroethylene.
ATSDR has calculated an intermediate-duration inhalation minimal risk level (MRL) of 0.1 parts per million (ppm) (0.5 milligrams per cubic meter, mg/m3) for trichloroethylene based on neurological effects in rats. The MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. Exposure to a level above the MRL does not mean that adverse health effects will occur. The MRL is intended to serve as a screening tool. (1)
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has calculated a chronic inhalation reference exposure level of 0.6 mg/m3 based on neurological effects in humans. The CalEPA reference exposure level is a concentration at or below which adverse health effects are not likely to occur. (5)
Reproductive/Developmental Effects:
A study of nurses occupationally exposed by inhalation to trichloroethylene along with other chemicals in operating rooms, and another epidemiological study of women exposed occupationally or nonoccupationally to trichloroethylene and other solvents, have reported increases in the incidence of miscarriages. The presence of other chemicals, however, limits the ability to draw conclusions specific to trichloroethylene. (1)
An epidemiological study of 2,000 male and female workers exposed to trichloroethylene via inhalation found no increase in malformations in babies born following exposure. (1)
Several studies have evaluated and not found an association between adverse reproductive effects in humans and exposure to trichloroethylene in contaminated drinking water. An association was found between the occurrence of congenital heart disease in children and a drinking water supply contaminated with trichloroethylene and other similar chemicals; however, no causal relationship with trichloroethylene could be concluded. (1)
Animal studies have reported developmental effects from exposure to trichloroethylene and its metabolites (trichloroacetic acid [TCA] and dichloroacetic acid [DCA]). (1,4,13)
Cancer Risk:
The cancer epidemiology for trichloroethylene has grown in recent years with several large, well-designed studies being published. A recent analysis of available epidemiological studies reports trichloroethylene exposure to be associated with several types of cancers in humans, especially kidney, liver, cervix, and lymphatic system. Consistency across epidemiological studies is strongest for an association between trichloroethylene exposure and kidney cancer. These results are supported by recent molecular epidemiology studies showing specific renal cell mutations found primarily in renal cell carcinoma patients exposed to trichloroethylene. (13)
Animal studies have reported increases in lung, liver, kidney, and testicular tumors and lymphoma from inhalation and oral exposures in rats and mice. (1,4,13)
EPA does not currently have a consensus classification for the carcinogenicity of trichloroethylene. However, the Agency is currently reassessing its potential carcinogenicity, and new data suggest that trichloroethylene is a likely human carcinogen. (11,13)
EPA uses mathematical models, based on animal studies, to estimate the probability of a person developing cancer from continuously breathing air containing a specified concentration of a chemical. EPA has calculated a provisional inhalation unit risk estimate of 1.7 x 10-6 (µg/m3)-1. A provisional value is one which has not received Agency-wide review. EPA is currently reassessing the inhalation unit risk estimate. (10)
EPA has also calculated a provisional oral cancer slope factor of 0.011 (mg/kg/d)-1. EPA is currently reassessing the oral cancer slope factor. (10)
Physical Properties

Trichloroethylene is a nonflammable colorless liquid with a sweet odor similar to ether or chloroform. (1)
The odor threshold for trichloroethylene is 28 ppm. (6)
The chemical formula for trichloroethylene is C2HCl3, and the molecular weight is 131.40 g/mol. (1)
The vapor pressure for trichloroethylene is 74 mm Hg at 25 °C, and it has a log octanol/water partition coefficient (log Kow) of 2.42. (1)
Trichloroethylene is not a persistent chemical in the atmosphere; its half-life in air is about 7 days. (1)

Conversion Factors:

 |  IP: Logged

Mark Silvester
Master Film Handler

Posts: 282
From: England
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted September 16, 2015 01:38 PM      Profile for Mark Silvester     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hi Mike

it says it all and covers all - I agree with you. Your post are really concise and make good reading. When I collected 16mm I cleaned most of them with "Thermofilm"...it did a good job.

I also tried a few of the other "members on forums" idea's. WD40 - avoid...it leaves oil residue that will come back to haunt you later.

I found a light spray of wax based Mr Sheen or Pledge...was quite good...also with a bad print I used pure spirit "vodka" actually to clean a bad print.. and it worked. Then I would run the print through a wax based spray. Small pieces of lint free cloth lightly soaked and re-wound through...changed regularly...I also tried something Paul Adsett recommended that you can by from "Boyes" in the U.K. "Armor all spray" very good. But as I now just primarily use "big screen" video projection it is not such of an issue. [Smile]

--------------------
Mark Silvester

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Newell
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 826
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 16, 2015 02:04 PM      Profile for Mike Newell   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Hi Mark

I tried WD40 and Mr Sheen as well. Really too much hazzle for what few beneficial effects they had. Collectors need to remember these diy formula may clean films but they could also either damage the soundtrack or worse case scenario lift the stripe from film completely. I remember buying a copy of Chickens come home that developed mysterious brown blotches that became worse over time. Remember this was a Derann print not an old print. The only thing I could think had happened was that somebody had experimented with a cleaner seen it had caused a problem then sold on to a dealer.

Mike

 |  IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004


 - posted September 16, 2015 03:08 PM      Profile for Kevin Clark     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I fully realise the health and safety concerns if using older film cleaners, particularly 2.22 and Thermofilm, due to their carcinogen and dangerous solvents based formulae, but I can't accept it's a good idea to use household polishes and WD40 (which is not even a long term lubricant) to clean or make films run smoothly.

Aside of the magnetic soundtrack lifting away from the film base the emulsion side is sure to be softened by applying household polishes.

Stick with modern easily available and (compared to the price of replacement film stock) affordable genuine film cleaners such as Filmguard and Filmrenew, used properly and not over applied - in the case of Filmguard I highly recommend using Roy Neale's superb Film-O-Clean device. I've been using mine for years with excellent results.

Kevin

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted September 16, 2015 05:16 PM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
Spot on Kevin...well said Sir!

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

 |  IP: Logged

Graham Ritchie
Film God

Posts: 4001
From: New Zealand
Registered: Feb 2006


 - posted September 17, 2015 12:19 AM      Profile for Graham Ritchie   Email Graham Ritchie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Paul did suggest using this product.

I have been using those wipes for a while and it seems to work well [Smile]
 -

 |  IP: Logged

Brian Fretwell
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1785
From: London, UK
Registered: Jun 2014


 - posted September 17, 2015 03:46 AM      Profile for Brian Fretwell   Email Brian Fretwell   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We used a lot (I mean many 25 litre tubs during the life of the unit) of Trichloro, triflouro ethylene (Arklone) at work cleaning computer Mag Tape Units and other equipment. The main warning was that it was a dry cleaning fluid similar to anaesthetics and could cause heart problems. The area was, of course air conditioned so it may have been quickly wafted away and ended up in the condensate, but I don't think any of us suffered

 |  IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004


 - posted September 17, 2015 06:04 AM      Profile for Kevin Clark     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Similarly to you Brian I worked for years in an industry (photocopier and printer servicing) where we used 1:1:1 Trichloroethane daily to clean machine parts both in the workshop and at customer premises.

The type we used was supplied by Applied Chemicals in aerosol form and had a list of do's and don'ts for safe usage. To date thankfully it doesn't seem to have affected my health but in reality it had to be used at the time in a job that gave me a couple of decades of regular satisfying well paid employment.

Something that seems to have been lost over the passage of time is that Trichloroethane was initially flagged up to be a problem not because of it's health threatening properties but because it was one of the worst solvents to deplete the ozone layer.

Kevin

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted September 17, 2015 06:20 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
It's the same story for myself Kevin. I worked from 82 to 93 for a leading UK A.C. Induction Motor and large industrial Pump manufacturer.

We used to bathe our repair parts in a trichloroethylene solution named Gamlen Solvent Solution.
It is lethal stuff as we know now and the constant fumes around the plant were mind blowing.

Still here so far thank God, but it does make wonder how, given all that's come to light in the past few decades from the things we used to use and do.

Anyway,not to worry so long as the ozone is ok! [Big Grin] [Wink]

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

 |  IP: Logged

Kevin Clark
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 978
From: Bapchild, Kent, UK
Registered: May 2004


 - posted September 17, 2015 06:46 AM      Profile for Kevin Clark     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Definitely three cheers for the ozone layer Andrew (the big hole in it is now OK I presume?) ironically photocopiers at the time used to pump out ozone as a bye-product of their corona discharging process made safe by carbon filters in the machine vents.

Did you use other nasties such as MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) and Carbon Tetrachloride? We had large tanks of MEK to help loosen the hardened toner from the original liquid based LTT process copier parts - then we moved on to powdered toner machines which had a whole rafter of health concerns of their own.

Ah the wonders of a technical hands on career - I enjoyed every mucky minute of it!

Kevin

 |  IP: Logged

Andrew Woodcock
Film God

Posts: 7477
From: Manchester Uk
Registered: Aug 2012


 - posted September 17, 2015 07:49 AM      Profile for Andrew Woodcock         Edit/Delete Post 
No Kevin but we did use other nasties such as a special paint for covering terminal boxes and end covers etc etc.
It was called Megalac and had superb insulation properties but again was highly toxic as were the huge vats of varnish holding many hundreds of gallons for submerging the finished windings in.

It was like opium den in that dept!

--------------------
"C'mon Baggy..Get with the beat"

 |  IP: Logged

Maurice Leakey
Film God

Posts: 5895
From: Bristol. United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2007


 - posted September 17, 2015 08:55 AM      Profile for Maurice Leakey   Email Maurice Leakey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Back in the 50s the small hand-held pump Pyrene fire extinguishers were filled with carbon tetrachloride. C.T.C. was commonly sold for cleaning purposes under the commercial name of Thawpit.

For small cleaning jobs the fire extinguishers were gently pumped out for a little liquid. The whole matter came to a head one day when a Pyrene extinguisher was used for a real fire and it was empty.

Thus, for the then future the extinguishers were re-filled with its contents augmented with a red dye. So ended little cleaning jobs!

--------------------
Maurice

 |  IP: Logged

James Wilson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 230
From: Norwich, UK
Registered: Jan 2015


 - posted September 17, 2015 09:39 AM      Profile for James Wilson   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Don`t Panic, Mr Mainwaring Don`t Panic.

--------------------
James Wilson

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Newell
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 826
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 17, 2015 03:27 PM      Profile for Mike Newell   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Too late to panic James. We are just hoping we haven't dropped the ball [Frown]

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 17, 2015 08:45 PM      Profile for Paul Adsett     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In reply to Graham's comment, I have been using ArmorAll Protectant Wipes on my films for about 15 years with no adverse effects on any of my films. I do not know if it is any better or worse than specific film cleaners, but the advantage is that heavily marketed consumer products like this are rigorously tested for safety.

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Spinks
Master Film Handler

Posts: 453
From: Barking, Essex, UK
Registered: Mar 2006


 - posted September 18, 2015 08:22 AM      Profile for Paul Spinks   Email Paul Spinks   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Like Graham, I have been following Paul's suggestion and used Armorall Wipes for a few years now with absolutely no ill effects. I have spoken with people who have used WD40 with no resulting problems but haven't tried it myself. I might give it a go on one of my old 16mm prints but I'd be a bit frightened using it on films with mag tracks.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Browning
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1006
From: West Midlands United Kingdom
Registered: Aug 2011


 - posted September 18, 2015 09:30 AM      Profile for Paul Browning   Email Paul Browning   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting comments here, still got some 2.22 in a red tin somewhere, I guess it will have evaporated by now. I always thought armor all was impregnated with WD40, as it feels like some kind of silicone, these are car wipes for your dashboard and door cards, centre console, but Not your steering wheel, so the shoe sponges will do the same thing then, i prefer to use these on my car interior.

 |  IP: Logged

Paul Adsett
Film God

Posts: 5003
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted September 18, 2015 07:36 PM      Profile for Paul Adsett     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Armorall bears no relationship to WD40, which has a solvent base. Armorall, as far as I know, is a water based compound with some silicone additive. Applied in moderation, as by means of the lintless wipes, it does a pretty good job of cleaning the film and reducing the coefficient of friction between the film and the projector gate. The water base provides a very slight swelling of the base which reduces the visibility of minor scratches, and also relieves film shrinkage. Armorall also does for film what it is designed to do for car dashes, namely it provides flexibility to the film base and helps slow long term drying out of the film base and resulting film shrinkage. In practical terms, I have seen the benefits of applying Armorall to shrunken brittle film that would not project smoothly, which after a couple of applications then projected normally.
A few years ago I wrote to Armorall about using this product for film cleaning and lubrication. They replied that they had no experience of such use, and therefore could not comment on any benefits of using it. My particular experience over 15 years has been positive, and my projectors and films are thanking me for using it, but of course you use it at your own risk, as they say "individual results may vary"!

--------------------
The best of all worlds- 8mm, super 8mm, 9.5mm, and HD Digital Projection,
Elmo GS1200 f1.0 2-blade
Eumig S938 Stereo f1.0 Ektar
Panasonic PT-AE4000U digital pj

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2