8mm Forum: 2.22 great for our movies..but?

This is topic 2.22 great for our movies..but? in forum 8mm Forum at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=010206

Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on September 15, 2015, 03:29 PM:

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]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on September 15, 2015, 03:41 PM:

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.

Posted by Clyde Miles (Member # 4032) on September 15, 2015, 03:50 PM:

i used 2.22,and when i could not get it i used thermofilm. was that stuff ok?

Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on September 15, 2015, 04:10 PM:

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]

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 15, 2015, 05:30 PM:

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!

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on September 16, 2015, 08:13 AM:

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!]

Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on September 16, 2015, 12:56 PM:

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]

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on September 16, 2015, 01:24 PM:

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:

Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on September 16, 2015, 01:38 PM:

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]

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on September 16, 2015, 02:04 PM:

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

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on September 16, 2015, 03:08 PM:

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

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 16, 2015, 05:16 PM:

Spot on Kevin...well said Sir!

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on September 17, 2015, 12:19 AM:

Paul did suggest using this product.

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

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on September 17, 2015, 03:46 AM:

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

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on September 17, 2015, 06:04 AM:

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

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 17, 2015, 06:20 AM:

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]

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on September 17, 2015, 06:46 AM:

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

Posted by Andrew Woodcock (Member # 3260) on September 17, 2015, 07:49 AM:

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!

Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on September 17, 2015, 08:55 AM:

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!

Posted by James Wilson (Member # 4620) on September 17, 2015, 09:39 AM:

Don`t Panic, Mr Mainwaring Don`t Panic.

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on September 17, 2015, 03:27 PM:

Too late to panic James. We are just hoping we haven't dropped the ball [Frown]

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 17, 2015, 08:45 PM:

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.

Posted by Paul Spinks (Member # 573) on September 18, 2015, 08:22 AM:

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.

Posted by Paul Browning (Member # 2715) on September 18, 2015, 09:30 AM:

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.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on September 18, 2015, 07:36 PM:

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"!

Posted by Panayotis A. Carayannis (Member # 1220) on September 19, 2015, 12:42 AM:

Well,Derek Simmonds died of prostate cancer and Dave West was a diabetic who lost his sight as a result and had to close down DCR and then,lived another ten years or so. Also,why only Derek and not anyone else of the Derann staff? I don't believe Derek did all the lubricating and cleaning of all the millions of meters of film that came out of Derann by himself!!!

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on September 19, 2015, 02:23 AM:

I totally agree with you Panayotis, and personally I find it very uncomfortable to read comments about the passing of our much missed film dealers and late collector friends in an amateur almost post-mortem manner, looking for causes other than simply poor health misfortune for their early demise.

I do wonder if Paul receives commission payments for worldwide Armourall sales sometimes - sincerely Paul using any water based cleaner is a folly on precious film emulsions whatever the perceived outcome on screen.

Kevin

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on September 19, 2015, 02:56 AM:

Quote: "still got some 2.22 in a red tin somewhere, I guess it will have evaporated by now."

I've still got one large and one small tin of 2.22. So long as the caps are firmly screwed on it doesn't evaporate..... and I still use it (with sensible precautions, of course).

Posted by Brian Fretwell (Member # 4302) on September 19, 2015, 04:15 AM:

It was very sad to see an advert from Dave West, soon after he had lost his sight, with his personal film collection up for sale as he could no longer watch them. I'm not sure his name was on the advert, but the address was his.

Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on September 19, 2015, 05:14 AM:

I was privileged to become a good friend of Dave's family.

He started out as a psychiatric nurse and he gave film shows to patients, etc. That is how he started out. He was one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I think Roger Lilley from Movieland International was too.

[Smile]

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on September 19, 2015, 05:15 AM:

Despite the collective reassurances that these chemicals are fine to use and pose no risk to health I personally would not use them or even have them in my house. If I had my time again I would never ever have used them. I personally know three collectors who have all died of leukaemia. Each of them didn't fit into the criteria of genetics, lifestyle or environment but the one common factor they all had was they owned big film collections advocated film cleaners in a substantial way and were all dead in their 40s and early 50s . It is very patronising for collectors who are much older to say everything is fine I'm still alive when to be honest they haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Take a can of film cleaner any brand to someone in the medical profession. Explain what you use it for and how you expose yourself to it when using it and see what advice they give you.

If you have the guts to do it tell US what they told you.

My advice to newer collectors and ones entering the hobby is

A. Never use any film cleaning product. You don't know what is in it. Particularly now that we have DIY product manufactured in quiet drug dealer style for profit with no health considerations given to customers. You can guarantee use will be inherently bad to YOU plus any FAMILY members . Even when the product is dry you have no idea what vapours you are releasing into the environment when projecting.

B. Don't use any household cleaning products. They were not designed for that use. If not immediately you will end up damaging your film / soundtrack in the long term making the film worthless.

[ September 19, 2015, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Mike Newell ]

Posted by Kevin Clark (Member # 211) on September 19, 2015, 05:39 AM:

Hello Mike

Thank you for your considered input and I am very sorry to hear you lost collector friends at such an early age. However it is over simplifying the nature of such fatal illnesses to attribute them to hobby based activities - I have also lost friends and family members earlier than would have been hoped but trying to analyse the reasons and causes is really a job for medical professionals and not something to become obsessed about.

Your comments under 'A' are not true in all instances - to say film cleaners are 'DIY product manufactured on the quiet drug dealer style for profit with no health considerations to their customers in a garden shed or garage' is totally untrue - both Filmgaurd and Filmrenew are patented professionally manufactured film cleaners for which hazard data sheets are readily available, and both are used professionally in huge amounts by film archives and cinemas still projecting 35mm etc. Just follow the instructions for usage correctly as you would with any cleaning product, even household cleaners - I take it you have bleach, meths and paint brush cleaners somewhere 'in-house' so where is the difference?

Your comments under 'B' are spot on though, well done.

Kevin

Posted by Mike Newell (Member # 23) on September 19, 2015, 06:06 AM:

Hi Kevin

Thank you for your comments

I have never used Filmguard and Filmrenew. Would it be true to say they are US based products and subject to their health & safety regulations which are admittedly are lot more relaxed than Europe. Also,the application of these products by collectors is not correct. I used cleaners via a film bath attached to a motorised editor which the film passed through. This saved me time and reduced exposure to the cleaner. I would reckon the majority of collectors apply product directly to a white cotton cloth and run film through cloth by exposed hand whilst using an editor. This is not how it is done in archives.

I would stand by my comment that all UK cleaning products are unlicenced with no instructions or contents sold in white plastic bottles with a yellow type liquid inside them.

I think you would have to be drinking meths to use bleach or paint brush cleaner on films [Eek!]

I am talking about WD40, Mr Sheen and leather car upholstery products. You may not scratch your film with them but I would reckon stripe especially the later Derann releases would be vulnerable to damage.

In summary if I was starting out in film collecting today I wouldnt clean films at ALL. I also know a lot of collectors who never did. Life is too short for that boredom and if some other pilgrim want to do it let them. AMEN.

[ September 19, 2015, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Mike Newell ]

Posted by Mark Silvester (Member # 929) on September 19, 2015, 06:28 AM:

Good post Mike.

It is interesting, actually I am sure that Mark Todd had a list of people he had collated over the years who he believed had been affected health-wise by "certain" film cleaning products. Perhaps he would care to comment as it was quite extensive.

As for household products - well, I have a few old prints that I shall continue to experiment with - just for fun and interest...I did like Armorall though that Paul Adsett recommended...it was brilliant for cleaning my 16mm prints - amazing results, although these did not have mag soundtracks so I can not comment on 8mm and mag tracks, etc. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on September 19, 2015, 03:52 PM:

I have not had any problems with the stripe using Armorall on Super8.

In my opinion there is no such thing as a safe chemical, but in saying that just look at the "added" processed contents of what you are "eating every day" from your local supermarket [Eek!]

Regarding cleaning the odd film...each to there own, as what they want to use, however just be careful as how you apply it. [Smile]

Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on September 21, 2015, 06:43 AM:

I think looking at the whole health issue of the western world,(who eat e-numbers,chemicals added to food and crap all day every day including the USA take away brands), compare this to the the Mediterranean countries, and i think we can see its the western world with the health issues.
Chemicals certainly dont help and i used 222 for years because i was lead to believe this was the number one cleaner, it stank and dried my hands. My sense of smell is all but vanished and i suffer with sinusitis on a daily basis.
It may have been the 222, but i dont know, today i use film guard as i believe it to be the best and safest on the market. Is IT? I dont Know, and for those who may say yes it is, is it really? I will never know i guess. [Confused]

Don't forget even basic household paint products contained lead for years.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2