renewing an old finish

[Steve Schoene]

And, Bob, what column is the 500 ppm datum? It's in the OSHA PEL (permissible exposure limits) column which gives the permissible exposure, averaged over an 8 hour period. You have to go over two columns to see the percentage of the material in the product. I'd say, offhand, that mineral spirits, or petroleum distillates of around 40% qualifies as mineral spirits based. You would have to click on the link--rather than picking up the first number you come to. Scott's paste pretty obviously lost the the columnization on my display.

[Bob Wingard]

Pretty much just assuming the data he posted was correct and accurate ... it seems NOT to be the case.

Even looking at the MSDS you referred to ... Mineral Spirits is listed at LESS THAN 5% ... It would still be a stretch to call that "Mineral Spirits BASED" ...

[John Coloccia]

Chris and Bob take a look at this MSDS Sheet! I never stated that is was the ORANGE cleaner you said that it is MINERAL SPIRITS BASED.

Instead of taking shots at people, why don't you try to help?

http://www.hescoinc.com/msds/gj115.pdf


MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

IN CASE OF EMERGENCY CALL CHEMTREC AT 1-800-424-9300

1. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION:

Product Name:
GOJO® ORIGINAL FORMULA™ HAND CLEANER

HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS

CAS NUMBER

OSHA PEL

ACGIH TLV

% RANGE

Mineral Spirits

8052-41-3

500 ppm

100 ppm

<40

Pretty much just assuming the data he posted was correct and accurate ... it seems NOT to be the case.

Even looking at the MSDS you referred to ... Mineral Spirits is listed at LESS THAN 5% ... It would still be a stretch to call that "Mineral Spirits BASED" ...

The formatting is just funny. It's clearly listed (or at least as clearly as any other number) as <40% in his post, and in his link.

[Bob Wingard]

And, Bob, what column is the 500 ppm datum? It's in the OSHA PEL (permissible exposure limits) column which gives the permissible exposure, averaged over an 8 hour period. You have to go over two columns to see the percentage of the material in the product. I'd say, offhand, that mineral spirits, or petroleum distillates of around 40% qualifies as mineral spirits based. You would have to click on the link--rather than picking up the first number you come to. Scott's paste pretty obviously lost the the columnization on my display.

YEP ... it says exactly that ... NOW !!! But, that's NOT what it said yesterday in his posting of the "information". So, he goofed .. so what ??? Now, the post is all edited & corrected ... did he ever say "Gee guys .. I guess we can all have a good laugh at that one .. I GOOFED"??? Heck no ... it's all about his paranoia that someone's out to get him. How badly can one even be "gotten" in all this nonsense ???

[Steve Schoene]

The link was in his post from the beginning. It always said mineral spirits in the 40% range. A different MSDS posted by someone else did say mineral spirits around 5%, BUT, it also listed petroleum distillates of around 40%. You sound like a political advocate seeking just to take anything, out of context, or clearly misformated, just in order to make a negative point about the "opposition party". Well we don't have parties around here--when there is debate it is about getting different views expressed or ideas cleared up, not about scoring points.

[Bob Wingard]

The link was in his post from the beginning. It always said mineral spirits in the 40% range. A different MSDS posted by someone else did say mineral spirits around 5%, BUT, it also listed petroleum distillates of around 40%. You sound like a political advocate seeking just to take anything, out of context, or clearly misformated, just in order to make a negative point about the "opposition party". Well we don't have parties around here--when there is debate it is about getting different views expressed or ideas cleared up, not about scoring points.

Yep ... that is what the LINK said ... I commented on the "DATA" he posted ... he edited/revised his DATA, so now my comments relative to the origiinal post are no longer valid. Sounds pretty simple to me.

{moderator removed personal attack}

[Steve Schoene]

Why the personal attack?

[Scott Holmes]

Bob,

Just to set the record straight... I did not change any info from my post of the MSDS sheet; I merely removed the blanks and extra lines to format it in a more legible format. The <40 was on the original post, you made your snide remarks about 500 PPM either without looking at the link to the MSDS sheet; or you just took the opportunity to throw in some of your remarks without checking the facts. At least when Chris made a comment he checked an MSDS sheet, albeit the wrong one.

You can't come up with a better tag line? What is that saying? imitation is the highest form of praise ...

[Bob Wingard]

Why the personal attack?

That's EXACTLY what I was going to ask YOU ... did you possibly read your previous post before hitting the SEND button ???

[Bob Wingard]

Bob,

Just to set the record straight... I did not change any info from my post of the MSDS sheet; I merely removed the blanks and extra lines to format it in a more legible format. The <40 was on the original post, you made your snide remarks about 500 PPM either without looking at the link to the MSDS sheet; or you just took the opportunity to throw in some of your remarks without checking the facts. At least when Chris made a comment he checked an MSDS sheet, albeit the wrong one.

You can't come up with a better tag line? What is that saying? imitation is the highest form of praise ...

Hey ... YOU'RE the one who clearly posted the "500 PPM" in the prominent data portion of that post ... the little LESS THAN 40 tucked away with absolutely no reference, even you should know looked more like a typo than anything meaningful. I would expect a higher degree of accuracy from a scientist.

I COULD come up with a better TAG line, but I thought making this one more accurate would prove more beneficial ... and yes ... imitation is THE highest form of flattery ... direct repudiation, however is far from it. I think you know the difference.

[Chris Fournier]

Bob,

Just to set the record straight... I did not change any info from my post of the MSDS sheet; I merely removed the blanks and extra lines to format it in a more legible format. The <40 was on the original post, you made your snide remarks about 500 PPM either without looking at the link to the MSDS sheet; or you just took the opportunity to throw in some of your remarks without checking the facts. At least when Chris made a comment he checked an MSDS sheet, albeit the wrong one.

You can't come up with a better tag line? What is that saying? imitation is the highest form of praise ...

I don't think that I checked the wrong MSDS at all. You did not specify the product that you recommended to the OP. I checked the GOJO site and based on the product availability in my area chose the most logical product was GOJO Orange Cream.

Your advice to the OP was not specific enough to be useful and that could lead to real problems on a piece of furniture that he would be responsible for. Your incomplete advice could have lead to a real mess.

Your signature tagline "Science and Art" is a bit goofy in my opinion and it's clear to me that you use it to imply professional credibility. Well to be credible you've got to be clear, concise and accurate. In this instance you have not been.

To top it all off I don't think that the original advice was all that good. If you have to clean a finish, we all know the rules, start with the least robust solvent/cleaners and work your way up to the stronger stuff. Soap and water would have been the cleaner to start with, not GOJO.

[Scott Holmes]

I agree with Chris.

I should have been more specific on which GoJo to use. I didn't even think about the new citrus cleaners they make. I use the original on antiques to clean them and the citrus with pumic on my hands.

Have a great day!

[Jim Becker]

This is a remember that the SMC Community prohibits personal attacks, non-family friendly language and other unfriendly behavior. Private warnings have been issued as necessary to specific individuals. Continued offending can result in loss of posting privileges.

Jim
SMC Moderator

[Steve Jenkins]

As the OP I would like to thank Scott, Tony and Bob in his first post, for the help. As for the rest it seems it could have all been handled in a different manner. I'm trying to improve the looks of the piece without any "finishing". I think a good cleaning is all it needs and I have a couple options.

[Phil Phelps]

Well, if nothing else, this was interesting. Steve, when you complete the conditioning of the piece, let us know what you finally used and how it worked out. Coincidentally, when you first posted, a neighbor ask me what she should use to "restore" an old oak cabinet her DIL had. My old standard is paint thinner and mild soap and water. Sometimes, after cleaning, I use 0000 steel wool and Johnson's paste wax to give it a little luster. So, if you'll be so kind, we'll await your findings. Merry Christmas 'ol buddy.