[filmscanners] Re:canned air...

["Preben S. Kristensen" <krille@tin.it>]

10 years ago, I bought a small compressor for graphic use, which  has added
filtering capabilities, delivery very clean, compressed air. It is very
silent and efficient. I have since cleaned around 35.000 images with it.

An investment for which I have been extremely happy - and at a cost of about
0.1 cent per clean photo. No big hazards for  the environment or myself...

Preben


----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>
To: <krille@tin.it>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners DigestforFri
17 Jan, 2003


As of this time, this particular propellant (1,1-difluoroethane) has
been considered safe to the environment and non-toxic in most
concentrations.  However, unlike CFCs, it is flammable.

However, I should point out that CFCs were considered environmentally
friendly for many years, and non-reactive, but it was only many years
later that the awareness of their ozone damaging aspects on
disassociation of the chlorine radical high it the atmosphere was
realized, where one chlorine radical at those atmospheric conditions can
break apart millions of ozone molecules.  In fact, the damage to the
ozone layer accomplished by CFCs to date are from those released about
30 years ago.  Newer releases have yet to do their full damage.

I'm not suggesting that 1,1-difluoroethane will be found to cause
problems, but it may...

Also, other propellants are (or have been) used in some canned "air"
products.  The stuff I have here on the shelf (I've never used it) has
1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and is considered a bad one for ozone
depletion (about 20-30% as bad as CFC 12 and CFC 11. It is not
considered flammable under normal circumstances.

Dry compressed air is renewable, cheap and safe, and an inexpensive
compression system can be bought for under $100.

Art


Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Arthur,
>
>
>>Rather than canned "air" which is really a propellant which can spit out
>>liquid on your film,
>>
>
> Just as a note, I have not had that problem as long as I don't use too
much
> at one time (short bursts), and as long as the can is held upright.
>
>
>>(and besides its bad for the environment (including
>>your own personal one)
>>
>
> I thought it was more so those that used CFC based propellants that were
> (really) "bad for the environment", and that the "CFC Free" ones were not
> near as "bad".  The one I use has difluoroethane, and states "%100 safe
for
> the ozone".  I did a web search on it, and I wasn't able to turn up
anything
> substantive with a quick glance.  Do you have more information on this?
>
> Austin
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body