# Exterior paint accidently used indoors



## svs (Mar 28, 2012)

We accidentally used Valspar Exterior paint indoors on our built-in that covers one wall. The paint can contains warnings about it containing a chemical known to cause Cancer. I've attached the warning. Should we try to cover the paint or get it removed?


----------



## svs (Mar 28, 2012)

Photo


----------



## svs (Mar 28, 2012)

Warning label


----------



## joecaption (Nov 30, 2011)

Not going to be a problum unless you plan on drinking the paint or lapping the walls.


----------



## dogris (Dec 8, 2007)

I agree, it won't be a problem.


----------



## Matthewt1970 (Sep 16, 2008)

Crystalline silica is much like lead in that it is only harmful when injested typicly in dust form when sanding, scraping of chipping.


----------



## Brushjockey (Mar 8, 2011)

It is in much more than that paint, but now they have to put hysteria labels on everything to cover their butt. When dry, it is locked in and not a problem.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

Notice the part about the state of California. Right there, that is the problem. I would not worry about it, as long as you are not painting in the land of Tree Huggers and nut cases, that are nuttier than those running Florida.


----------



## Gymschu (Dec 12, 2010)

I have used EXTERIOR paint indoors on purpose (trim, etc.) for many, many years.......never had any problems that I know about.


----------



## user1007 (Sep 23, 2009)

Gymschu said:


> I have used EXTERIOR paint indoors on purpose (trim, etc.) for many, many years.......never had any problems that I know about.


Just curious. Why?


----------



## Gymschu (Dec 12, 2010)

sdsester said:


> Just curious. Why?


Not always sd, but some things just need that harder/glossier finish. Sometimes the inside of a door that opens to the outside.......sometimes a customer asks for it.......things like that.


----------



## pucks101 (Apr 20, 2012)

svs said:


> We accidentally used Valspar Exterior paint indoors on our built-in that covers one wall. The paint can contains warnings about it containing a chemical known to cause Cancer. I've attached the warning. Should we try to cover the paint or get it removed?


Look closely at the warning. It says "known to the *State of California* to cause cancer".

The "State of California" pretty much thinks every single product you can buy can cause cancer.


----------



## user1007 (Sep 23, 2009)

pucks101 said:


> Look closely at the warning. It says "known to the *State of California* to cause cancer".
> 
> The "State of California" pretty much thinks every single product you can buy can cause cancer.


One of the things that always amazes me is that people who have never lived anywhere near California know so much about it and that everybody in it ever are bleeding heart tree huggers. Quite the contrary is true and under Reagan especially California was an environmental disaster surpassed perhaps only by New Jersey with people making and dumping anything just about anywhere and hoping it did not wash up on Malibu Beach. It has some of the toughest environmental laws and research into waste management because it had no choice. People would not behave themselves on their own. And come on, if California finds that substances being dumped are carcinogenic through scientific testing should we not at least consider the data?

Even Ronny got bit when his offshore drilling buddies and donors built a crappy leaky rig and destroyed the beaches of Santa Barbara. He had to give in to at least some environmental protection of the California Coastline. It is a major source of income. And California grows more food for this country not requiring processing before we eat it than any other. We cannot, for example, eat most of the corn grown in the Midwest before it is processed. Do you really want chemicals being dumped on your California grown strawberries or lettuce in larger quantities than already? Many heavy metals from the semiconductor industry end up in fertilizer sacks under inert ingredient labeling loopholes. 

The FDA was born here for the same reasons. Human and animal carcuses were washing up from the Chicago River banks on to peoples front yards. The river flowed red into Lake Michigan which is shared with Michigan and Wisconsin. You would think people would figure out on their own this was not a good or healthy thing but it went on for along time. A government agency had to be formed because people would not regulate themselves or their behavior.

I am sure people criticized those who cleaned up the river too and called them animal huggers or worse.


----------



## pucks101 (Apr 20, 2012)

sdsester said:


> One of the things that always amazes me is that people who have never lived anywhere near California know so much about it and that everybody in it ever are bleeding heart tree huggers. Quite the contrary is true and under Reagan especially California was an environmental disaster surpassed perhaps only by New Jersey with people making and dumping anything just about anywhere and hoping it did not wash up on Malibu Beach. It has some of the toughest environmental laws and research into waste management because it had no choice. People would not behave themselves on their own. And come on, if California finds that substances being dumped are carcinogenic through scientific testing should we not at least consider the data?
> 
> Even Ronny got bit when his offshore drilling buddies and donors built a crappy leaky rig and destroyed the beaches of Santa Barbara. He had to give in to at least some environmental protection of the California Coastline. It is a major source of income. And California grows more food for this country not requiring processing before we eat it than any other. We cannot, for example, eat most of the corn grown in the Midwest before it is processed. Do you really want chemicals being dumped on your California grown strawberries or lettuce in larger quantities than already? Many heavy metals from the semiconductor industry end up in fertilizer sacks under inert ingredient labeling loopholes.
> 
> ...


I don't know how you read so much out of my statement? 

I only pointed out that the California cancer warning label is now on so many things that it has basically become irrelevant.


----------



## user1007 (Sep 23, 2009)

pucks101 said:


> I only pointed out that the California cancer warning label is now on so many things that it has basically become irrelevant.


How can labeling as to known and scientifically proven cancer risk be considered irrelevant? And if carcinogens can be identified and contact avoided is that really tree hugger nonsense or just common sense? 

I don't like much about California but living there for decades had its moments. I am rather proud that it does have such an aggressive stance on labeling things. And like it or not, as goes California with such things so goes the nation---eventually.


----------



## biggles (Jan 1, 2008)

if you lived in the sunshine year round you would be cautious also they keep it nice cause they care .ever pull off an exit ramp in Brooklyn,New York one big dump,throw a coffee container top out on the I-405 in L.A. it's a moving violation


----------



## svs (Mar 28, 2012)

Thanks everyone!


----------



## Will22 (Feb 1, 2011)

Crystalline silica is powder from minerals ground up for pigments. It is less than a tenth of a percent of the solution, yet it is required to be labeled this way in CA. It is NOT lead. When the water evaporate out of latex paints, this substance is incorporated into the paint. Exterior paints used inside have two drawbacks: flexibility (more flexible than interiors), and that there is mildewcide (different from mildewcides in exterior paints).


----------



## jsheridan (Jan 30, 2011)

sdsester said:


> How can labeling as to known and scientifically proven cancer risk be considered irrelevant? And if carcinogens can be identified and contact avoided is that really tree hugger nonsense or just common sense?
> 
> I don't like much about California but living there for decades had its moments. I am rather proud that it does have such an aggressive stance on labeling things. And like it or not, as goes California with such things so goes the nation---eventually.


So true SDS, so true. And California is doing a slow swirl down the crapper, and it's going to take the rest of us with it if they don't get their act together. They're clueless, pie in the sky, and bankrupt. If the world's fifth largest economy tanks, it's going to be a real damper on the first largest.


----------



## pucks101 (Apr 20, 2012)

sdsester said:


> How can labeling as to known and scientifically proven cancer risk be considered irrelevant? And if carcinogens can be identified and contact avoided is that really tree hugger nonsense or just common sense?
> 
> I don't like much about California but living there for decades had its moments. I am rather proud that it does have such an aggressive stance on labeling things. And like it or not, as goes California with such things so goes the nation---eventually.


Maybe you're talking about another post? I never said anything about tree-hugger nonsense (at least, not in this thread, and not in this context). 
I was thinking more along the lines of "the little boy who cried wolf", in that there are just so many things labeled these days that "the State of California" telling me that it causes cancer that I just ignore it.

Additionally, they never tell you which ingredient they're talking about. They also don't disclose how they decided it causes cancer, nor in what species it causes cancer. It could be that they found it causes cancer in rats who were fed an ingredient at 1000 times the amount a human would typically inhale the fumes from same ingredient over the course of a lifetime.

If you like these specific labels, I don't have an issue with that, I just think they're so prevalent that they've become irrelevant. I'm pretty sure you read too far between the lines of my initial reply though.


----------



## Windows (Feb 22, 2010)

Chrystalline silica is essentially sand and the main danger is from inhaling it. I think the warning label applies more to grinding a dried product than applying the wet product. The way it affects the body is more similar (but not at all the same) to asbestos than lead.


----------



## svs (Mar 28, 2012)

Windows said:


> Chrystalline silica is essentially sand and the main danger is from inhaling it. I think the warning label applies more to grinding a dried product than applying the wet product. The way it affects the body is more similar (but not at all the same) to asbestos than lead.


So since I'll never sand the dried product it should be ok? This built in will basically just hold books and a tv. There are cabinets that are the bottom but I can't see the use of those cabinets causing dust or grinding.


----------



## Windows (Feb 22, 2010)

svs said:


> So since I'll never sand the dried product it should be ok? This built in will basically just hold books and a tv. There are cabinets that are the bottom but I can't see the use of those cabinets causing dust or grinding.


You will be fine. Those warnings are more for people that have an occupational exposure to chrystalline silica. It is present in many construction materials and for people who sand and grind all day, there may be some degree of risk. THe problem is, the long term affects are not well understood. But the same can be said for a lot of products when they were new. When radioactivity was first identified, radioactive ingredients were added to consumer products such as toothpaste because it was believed they promoted robust health. People didn't know any better. Same idea with c.s., but the jury is still out. In 40 years we will know a lot more about the degree of risk to health posed by c.s. in paint (if any), and until that time, we get a warning label.


----------



## ratherbefishin' (Jun 16, 2007)

Good luck finding any paint without that warning now that titanium dioxide is listed as "possibly carcinogenic".


----------



## pucks101 (Apr 20, 2012)

svs said:


> So since I'll never sand the dried product it should be ok? This built in will basically just hold books and a tv. There are cabinets that are the bottom but I can't see the use of those cabinets causing dust or grinding.


Even if you needed to sand it to put on another coat, there's not much to worry about. If you're sanding anything indoors (or anywhere without good ventilation), you should wear a dust mask. As someone already stated, the risk for this is long-term, and mostly for construction workers, drillers, stone blasters, etc. You are not at any more risk today than you were the day before you applied this paint.

Breathing in solids of any kind is bad for you, and worse for you over the long-term. There is little risk of intermittent or short-term exposures to most of the items on California's Proposition 65 list. The point of the list is let you know that long-term ingestion of, or inhalation exposure to, the items can cause health problems. Ironically, they state that chemotherapy drugs treating a cancer (lymphoma) can cause cancer. 

California Proposition 65 List:
http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/files/P65single031612.pdf

And, here's a link to OSHA's stance on crystalline silica:
http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/crystalline-factsheet.pdf


----------



## jsheridan (Jan 30, 2011)

This is how we drive ourselves nuts. CS may possibly cause cancer in some people, possibly, if they're exposed to amounts that would kill an elephant. When the whole asbestos hysteria flared up, they told us that one speck of it could cause asbestosis. My father worked for years in industrial conditions, with smokestacks, where it was removed and installed regularly. He said it would like it was snowing in there. This was before we "knew" it was bad. He just turned 74, and he still gets checked every year by the utility company he worked for, nothing. So much for a speck, huh. This isn't to discount or belittle those who contracted asbestosis, not at all. But there are always going to be things that are harmful in life. There are going to be things that we're told are harmful that turn out not to be, and things that are that we're told aren't. Eradicating every little risk or danger in life is a futile fool's errand, yet we drive ourselves nut chasing them down and living in fear of those we can't identify. We're not contemplating foot baths in cannisters of Uranium 235 here. We're talking about what amounts to handful of powder locked in a dry, hardened latex. As society and technology marches forward, we all enjoy the benefits of it, but there are unfortunately going to be negative effects for some of us, but not the majority. That's life. Danger lurks around every corner in the natural and unnatural world. Heck, even the sun can kill you if you get too much of it. What should we do about that? Put on some suntan lotion. Now they're thinking that some of the elements in some lotions, in combination with UV, are actually what is causing skin cancer. Drive yourself nuts on that one.


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

jsheridan said:


> This is how we drive ourselves nuts. CS may possibly cause cancer in some people, possibly, if they're exposed to amounts that would kill an elephant. When the whole asbestos hysteria flared up, they told us that one speck of it could cause asbestosis. My father worked for years in industrial conditions, with smokestacks, where it was removed and installed regularly. He said it would like it was snowing in there. This was before we "knew" it was bad. He just turned 74, and he still gets checked every year by the utility company he worked for, nothing. So much for a speck, huh. This isn't to discount or belittle those who contracted asbestosis, not at all. But there are always going to be things that are harmful in life. There are going to be things that we're told are harmful that turn out not to be, and things that are that we're told aren't. Eradicating every little risk or danger in life is a futile fool's errand, yet we drive ourselves nut chasing them down and living in fear of those we can't identify. We're not contemplating foot baths in cannisters of Uranium 235 here. We're talking about what amounts to handful of powder locked in a dry, hardened latex. As society and technology marches forward, we all enjoy the benefits of it, but there are unfortunately going to be negative effects for some of us, but not the majority. That's life. Danger lurks around every corner in the natural and unnatural world. Heck, even the sun can kill you if you get too much of it. What should we do about that? Put on some suntan lotion. Now they're thinking that some of the elements in some lotions, in combination with UV, are actually what is causing skin cancer. Drive yourself nuts on that one.


(true) CBS news has reported a man "caught on fire after applying sun-tan lotion..." Great! Now I have that to worry about. 

About all the other hysteria warnings, it's like George Carlin once said - _"Saliva has now been found to be harmful to one's health...but only if taken in small doses over long periods of time..."

_​


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

ric knows paint said:


> (true) CBS news has reported a man "caught on fire after applying sun-tan lotion..." Great! Now I have that to worry about. :laughing:
> 
> 
> About all the other hysteria warnings, it's like George Carlin once said - _"Saliva has now been found to be harmful to one's health...but only if taken in small doses over long periods of time..."_​


 
if it's not one thing it's another, people should worry about important things


----------



## Iknowpaint81 (Apr 18, 2012)

SVS,
Exterior paint should not be used inside as it contains mildewcides that are released as humidity increases. These mildewcides are toxic and can cause respitory problems, especially if you are predisposed to such illneses. Before anyone other people add their two bits about this and say "oh its just paint and its fine" I have worked for one of the largest paint compaines in the world for the better part of a decade and have seen first hand what happenes when people ignore the warnings. 
I would suggest removing the paint, repriming and repainting with a high quality interior latex paint. If you know there is no lead on the built in sand the paint off...if you're concerned that there may be lead use a stripper such as peelaway 1.

Good luck.


----------



## svs (Mar 28, 2012)

Iknowpaint81 said:


> SVS,
> Exterior paint should not be used inside as it contains mildewcides that are released as humidity increases. These mildewcides are toxic and can cause respitory problems, especially if you are predisposed to such illneses. Before anyone other people add their two bits about this and say "oh its just paint and its fine" I have worked for one of the largest paint compaines in the world for the better part of a decade and have seen first hand what happenes when people ignore the warnings.
> I would suggest removing the paint, repriming and repainting with a high quality interior latex paint. If you know there is no lead on the built in sand the paint off...if you're concerned that there may be lead use a stripper such as peelaway 1.
> 
> Good luck.



Is there a paint or primer that I could cover it with to block the mildewcides? I know nothing about removing paint. Won't removing the paint cause issues too? How do you properly remove this type of paint?


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

svs said:


> Is there a paint or primer that I could cover it with to block the mildewcides? I know nothing about removing paint. Won't removing the paint cause issues too? How do you properly remove this type of paint?


This topic is beginning to spin out of control. SVS, you've gotten a lot of useful advise and info regarding the Valspar warning label. You're safe. Don't remove it - and, if you're satisfied with the finish, don't paint or prime over it for the sake of preventing any harmful exposure. It's not necessary. The label warns of exposure to crystalline silica, not mildewcides, and the crystalline silica is more of a hazard if inhaling sanding dust (from sanding a surface containing crystalline silica) or inhaling the mist caused from overspray...This particular warning is NOT limited to just exterior paints. Many interior paints, especially less expensive, apartment grade paints, have the exact same warnings pasted on their labels. 

A well meaning government created "Right to know" legislation years ago that pretty much requires manufacturers to notify the consumer of _any_ component that _may_ have a detrimental effect to one's health, regardless of the probability. Right to know is a great way to protect consumers, but the process has got to the point of being ridiculous - that's why so many of the responders to this post have been having a little fun with the topic - If you were to purchase this same product in a 5 gallon can, you'd see a warning on the side of the plastic bucket warning of this container being a drowning hazard to small children - that's not to say a child will drown in this 5 gallon bucket, it just wouldn't be impossible...Consider the probabilities before taking any knee-jerk actions (Also consider the warning of the child's halloween super-hero costume warning parents that this cape will not enable a child to actually fly...)

The label does not warn agains mildewcides...or it might, I dunno and it doesn't matter. Mildewcides are a regulated poison...they can leach out of paint films...and they _could_, possibly, cause respiratory issues or allergic reactions, but not necessarily nor probably. Remember, mildewcides were used in interior paints such as Kitchen & Bath paints for years...and, I'm not pretending to be a scientist nor physician, but your primary concern with exposure from mildewcides came from drinking it, not inhaling it.

So, be calm - you have nothing to worry about. Remember that for future painting projects, don't drink the paint and don't sand it just to snort the dust and you're pretty much OK....then re-read JSheridan's post #26.


----------



## Iknowpaint81 (Apr 18, 2012)

Use Peelaway 1 its a heavy alkali paste that will melt away the paint and allow you to remove it with out creating dust.


----------



## pucks101 (Apr 20, 2012)

You'll be exposing yourself to more crap by sanding or stripping off the exterior paint in one day than you will be exposed to over a lifetime of having exterior paint on the walls in one room.

Just leave it alone!


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

pucks101 said:


> You'll be exposing yourself to more crap by sanding or stripping off the exterior paint in one day than you will be exposed to over a lifetime of having exterior paint on the walls in one room.
> 
> Just leave it alone!


Well said, Pucks...

the following is the health warning from the Peel Away 1 MSDS sheet...

"EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
DANGER! CORROSIVE!
This product is a white paste with no odor. Direct contact with the eyes may cause severe burns with possible corneal damage and blindness. Skin contact may cause chemical burns. May cause dermatitis if exposure is prolonged. Vapors or mists may cause irritation to the eyes, mucous membranes and respiratory tract. Ingestion may cause gastrointestinal corrosion, vomiting, diarrhea, shock or death."​
All chemical products contain such warnings...


----------



## jsheridan (Jan 30, 2011)

If you breathe in the mildewcides, won't that kill the mildew we all breathe in everyday? And anyway I always thought that mildewcides were heavy metals. How do they vaporize and gas off. I'm going to go out on a limb and challenge the assertion that mildewcides become airborne with increasing humidity.


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

jsheridan said:


> If you breathe in the mildewcides, won't that kill the mildew we all breathe in everyday? And anyway I always thought that mildewcides were heavy metals. How do they vaporize and gas off. I'm going to go out on a limb and challenge the assertion that mildewcides become airborne with increasing humidity.


I'm pretty sure you're right, Joe - I don't think mildewcides actually goes airborne anytime after the host product has been applied...and I really don't know how integral a part of the coating mildewcides actually are (especially the stir-in type). I do know that, if not integral, they are very near the surface of the film and can be rendered in-effective (at least temporarily) by a strong detergent wash.

All that being said and speculated, I hope we've convinced SVS that health concerns with this particular application is largely un-warranted.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

ric knows paint said:


> This topic is beginning to spin out of control. SVS, you've gotten a lot of useful advise and info regarding the Valspar warning label. You're safe. Don't remove it - and, if you're satisfied with the finish, don't paint or prime over it for the sake of preventing any harmful exposure. It's not necessary. The label warns of exposure to crystalline silica, not mildewcides, and the crystalline silica is more of a hazard if inhaling sanding dust (from sanding a surface containing crystalline silica) or inhaling the mist caused from overspray...This particular warning is NOT limited to just exterior paints. Many interior paints, especially less expensive, apartment grade paints, have the exact same warnings pasted on their labels.
> 
> A well meaning government created "Right to know" legislation years ago that pretty much requires manufacturers to notify the consumer of _any_ component that _may_ have a detrimental effect to one's health, regardless of the probability. Right to know is a great way to protect consumers, but the process has got to the point of being ridiculous - that's why so many of the responders to this post have been having a little fun with the topic - If you were to purchase this same product in a 5 gallon can, you'd see a warning on the side of the plastic bucket warning of this container being a drowning hazard to small children - that's not to say a child will drown in this 5 gallon bucket, it just wouldn't be impossible...Consider the probabilities before taking any knee-jerk actions (Also consider the warning of the child's halloween super-hero costume warning parents that this cape will not enable a child to actually fly...)
> 
> ...


 

beginning???:laughing:


----------



## jsheridan (Jan 30, 2011)

I don't think the thread is spinning out of control, as it is only a commentary on a real world phenomenon; the out of control hysteria created by special interest groups, an overreaching nanny state government, and out of control people who spend their lives worrying about every little boogeyman lurking in the shadows of life, mostly for nothing and to no benefit. What the whole hysterical mess leads to is increased costs and aggravation, busybodies inserting themselves into everyone else's lives, and less fun. I don't worry about that which they warn us about, I worry about them and what they're doing; to our liberty and our psyche as a nation. This stuff is all ginned up by moneyed interests who benefit financially and those who seek to protect themselves from the consequences of the hysteria, such as the bucket manufacturer who has to spend money on labeling, spend money on insurance liability, and generally worry about the accusations of fault should a child accidentally drown in one of his products. In what world is that the responsibility of the bucket manufacturer? How about the parents? The one I like best is the warning not to use a hair dryer in the shower. Hey, if one of your brainchildren is saving time in the morning by drying your hair and rinsing off simultaneously then maybe you're not a qualified contributor to the gene pool. Yet, some sophisiticated lawyer will find some fault with that particular warning label, whatever it may be, all in an effort to relieve the particular Einstein of personal responsibility. The lawyers aren't concerned about Einstein, they're scouring the landscape specifically to confiscate the fruits created by someone else's toil, namely the hair dryer manufacturer, its inventor, the guy on the production line, and the guy who runs the hot dog cart on the corner outside the plant. You laugh, don't. The whole cast of characters work hand in glove to deceive, manipulate, and exploit the hysterical consumer, that is after they have relieved them of personal responsibility and have them believing they themselves have none. What is now spelled out in paragraphs of fine print used to covered by the placement of the skull and crossbones on the label. I think we were smarter then, or at least less gullible.


----------



## Brushjockey (Mar 8, 2011)

Paragraphs, Joe. Use Dem.:yes:


----------



## svs (Mar 28, 2012)

I appreciate all of the comments. I do find it interesting that some read all of the comments, then only participated by complaining about it.

All of you have made great points, as for the comment regarding the mildewcide... there's no warning label mentioning it. It would be weird for them to put one on the disclaimer and not the other if they both posed a problem.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

jsheridan said:


> I don't think the thread is spinning out of control, as it is only a commentary on a real world phenomenon; the out of control hysteria created by special interest groups, an overreaching nanny state government, and out of control people who spend their lives worrying about every little boogeyman lurking in the shadows of life, mostly for nothing and to no benefit. What the whole hysterical mess leads to is increased costs and aggravation, busybodies inserting themselves into everyone else's lives, and less fun. I don't worry about that which they warn us about, I worry about them and what they're doing; to our liberty and our psyche as a nation. This stuff is all ginned up by moneyed interests who benefit financially and those who seek to protect themselves from the consequences of the hysteria, such as the bucket manufacturer who has to spend money on labeling, spend money on insurance liability, and generally worry about the accusations of fault should a child accidentally drown in one of his products. In what world is that the responsibility of the bucket manufacturer? How about the parents? The one I like best is the warning not to use a hair dryer in the shower. Hey, if one of your brainchildren is saving time in the morning by drying your hair and rinsing off simultaneously then maybe you're not a qualified contributor to the gene pool. Yet, some sophisiticated lawyer will find some fault with that particular warning label, whatever it may be, all in an effort to relieve the particular Einstein of personal responsibility. The lawyers aren't concerned about Einstein, they're scouring the landscape specifically to confiscate the fruits created by someone else's toil, namely the hair dryer manufacturer, its inventor, the guy on the production line, and the guy who runs the hot dog cart on the corner outside the plant. You laugh, don't. The whole cast of characters work hand in glove to deceive, manipulate, and exploit the hysterical consumer, that is after they have relieved them of personal responsibility and have them believing they themselves have none. What is now spelled out in paragraphs of fine print used to covered by the placement of the skull and crossbones on the label. I think we were smarter then, or at least less gullible.


 
I'll buy all that except the hot dog guy. What did he do?


----------



## jsheridan (Jan 30, 2011)

A bit of poetic license, kind of like the kitchen sink. The hot dog guy represents the large number of people who were tangential to the asbestos industry that were named in the suits. They were naming anyone who had even the most remote connection and hoping it could stick. Similarly, after they sued for all of the direct workers they started to sue in the name of those who regularly came into contact with the workers, like the wives who washed the workers clothes, their kids, the guy with the hot dog stand on the corner, etc. This has implications for the new lead regime as well. They're looking for liability, and establishing a liability chain was one of the goals of the new regulations. The paint companies are already fighting being raped in court, just like tobacco companies, the gun manufacturers, even the companies that make matches. The match companies are being sued by states and municipalities to recoup the costs of fighting fires attributable to matches, as well as cigarettes and those companies, again. The gun companies are being sued to recoup the costs of cleaning up shooting scenes and the investigative costs. 
They're going to start with the paint companies and work their way down the chain to the painters, and the guy they buy their lunch from. Then you're going to be sued by your workers, incited by lawyers, because they're going to start showing lead in their blood. This is what they do. They create hysteria and turn it into a cash cow, but the victims get little to no compensation. It all goes to the lawyers and the government. I purposely did not certify for lead, because I will not be a link in the liability chain. Sponge off someone else. But, I do not do lead work. And, the price of painting is going up, up, up. 
I know all this stuff is a bit off topic, but at the same time I don't believe it to be. We're here talking about paint, and what the government is doing to paint and its incidentals is affecting us all, pros and HO's alike. What better audience or venue, I say. 

Sorry about the lack p'graphs brush. I was starting to get good at it, remembering it anyway.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

I was actually being a smart *ss with my hot dog guy comment, but you're un paragraphed response explained it well:yes:


----------



## jsheridan (Jan 30, 2011)

chrisn said:


> I was actually being a smart *ss with my hot dog guy comment, but you're un paragraphed response explained it well:yes:


smart *ss, you, nah:laughing:
Guess I better work harder on my paragraphs:thumbsup:


----------



## mustangmike3789 (Apr 10, 2011)

ric knows paint said:


> This topic is beginning to spin out of control. SVS, you've gotten a lot of useful advise and info regarding the Valspar warning label. You're safe. Don't remove it - and, if you're satisfied with the finish, don't paint or prime over it for the sake of preventing any harmful exposure. It's not necessary. The label warns of exposure to crystalline silica, not mildewcides, and the crystalline silica is more of a hazard if inhaling sanding dust (from sanding a surface containing crystalline silica) or inhaling the mist caused from overspray...This particular warning is NOT limited to just exterior paints. Many interior paints, especially less expensive, apartment grade paints, have the exact same warnings pasted on their labels.
> 
> A well meaning government created "Right to know" legislation years ago that pretty much requires manufacturers to notify the consumer of _any_ component that _may_ have a detrimental effect to one's health, regardless of the probability. Right to know is a great way to protect consumers, but the process has got to the point of being ridiculous - that's why so many of the responders to this post have been having a little fun with the topic - If you were to purchase this same product in a 5 gallon can, you'd see a warning on the side of the plastic bucket warning of this container being a drowning hazard to small children - that's not to say a child will drown in this 5 gallon bucket, it just wouldn't be impossible...Consider the probabilities before taking any knee-jerk actions (Also consider the warning of the child's halloween super-hero costume warning parents that this cape will not enable a child to actually fly...)
> WELL THAT SUCKS....I THOUGHT THAT MY NEW OUTFIT WITH THE COWBOY HAT & BOOTS, TASSLES AND CLEAR SPEEDOS WITH A CAPE WAS A SURE WAY TO SAVE MONEY VS. BUYING PLANE TICKETS. YOU RUIN EVERYTHING WITH YOUR LOGIC.


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

mustangmike3789 said:


> ric knows paint said:
> 
> 
> > This topic is beginning to spin out of control. SVS, you've gotten a lot of useful advise and info regarding the Valspar warning label. You're safe. Don't remove it - and, if you're satisfied with the finish, don't paint or prime over it for the sake of preventing any harmful exposure. It's not necessary. The label warns of exposure to crystalline silica, not mildewcides, and the crystalline silica is more of a hazard if inhaling sanding dust (from sanding a surface containing crystalline silica) or inhaling the mist caused from overspray...This particular warning is NOT limited to just exterior paints. Many interior paints, especially less expensive, apartment grade paints, have the exact same warnings pasted on their labels.
> ...


----------



## Isomer (Jul 10, 2013)

I read through this whole thread and I had to join just to make a point nobody seemed to notice - if exterior paints released any kind of dangerous chemicals that could either cause respiratory or allergic reactions or even cause cancer... why on frigging Earth would anyone paint the inside OR OUTSIDE of their house with it??? I mean if there's a monster in that can that's gonna git ya, then don't use it anywhere at all.

To be clear, I think it's bunk and the paint companies just don't want you to use that half a can of exterior paint you already have in the closet on your bathroom ceiling... they want you to go to the store and buy more paint because that's their main job - to get you to buy more paint.


----------



## HandiMandy (May 30, 2010)

I live in CA. Anyone else notice the cancer warnings about French fries in McDonalds? You have to look, but apparently it's something to be concerned about (unlike the rest of their food, WHICH DOESN'T ROT).

Off to hug a redwood!


----------



## ddawg16 (Aug 15, 2011)

It has been scientifically proven that living causes cancer.

Care to guess how many people read those warning signs? About as many people that pay attention to car alarms.

One other factoid, 79.35% of all statistics are made up.

And on a more serious note....for all the people that like to rag on California....it sure is nice seeing the mountains on a daily basis....even in the summer. When I got here 25 years ago...we had stage 2 & 3 smog alerts during the summer.

Now...they don't even mention the smog on the news. The smog here is better than DFW....in the summer, you can't even see either downtown when landing at DFW airport....and there are no mountains to sock in the smog.


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

Isomer said:


> I read through this whole thread and I had to join just to make a point nobody seemed to notice - if exterior paints released any kind of dangerous chemicals that could either cause respiratory or allergic reactions or even cause cancer... why on frigging Earth would anyone paint the inside OR OUTSIDE of their house with it??? I mean if there's a monster in that can that's gonna git ya, then don't use it anywhere at all.
> 
> To be clear, I think it's bunk and the paint companies just don't want you to use that half a can of exterior paint you already have in the closet on your bathroom ceiling... they want you to go to the store and buy more paint because that's their main job - to get you to buy more paint.


You think you don't expose yourself to potentially harmful chemicals or elements in your everyday activities? Haven't you ever used hairspray? or spray paint? oven cleaner? had your clothes dry-cleaned? ever bought gas for your car? ever stood close to a car with the engine running? how 'bout standing (or living) close to high-voltage power lines? ever used a microwave? ever drank water from a plastic bottle? ever drank a diet soda? ever sprayed yourself with mosquito repellant? treated your house for ants? Want me to go on? ...and with everyone of these examples, you still knowingly consume these products regardless of the warnings. 

Truth is exterior paints used to contain harmful elements (solvents, lead etc.) and sold to both an informed and ignorant consumer. Exterior paints were not recommended for interior use primarily due to the components used to ward off mold/mildew/bacteria etc. These ingredients may be brought to the surface of a paint film through common oxidation, but be washed away by the elements, such as rain, snow, heavy winds etc. You really don't get much of those elements on interior surfaces. 

But just like all the examples I gave above, just because there are components in a product that has shown to cause allergic reactions or respiratory problems or even cancer, doesn't mean they will. Doesn't even mean they probably will. The warnings simply state that a component is present that _could _cause any of the above problems...or has shown to cause such problems in laboratory rats (not even necessarily any confirmed cases in humans).

None of this info really has anything to do with the OP's original question (which was from over a year ago, btw) and I think svs's question was answered properly and completely. 

Representing the different manufacturers that I do, I kinda resent your statement that "...paint companies just don't want you to use that half a can of exterior paint you already have in the closet on your bathroom ceiling... they want you to go to the store and buy more paint because that's their main job - to get you to buy more paint..." Paint manufacturers want you to use the right product for your project. Believe it or not, there are many non-harmful components that go into a can of paint that make it a right choice for a ceiling (for example...your example). Those components that make a ceiling paint a ceiling paint are not in exterior paints, so why would the manufacturer recommend your leftover product for use on a ceiling? Likewise, there are components in exterior paints that are not present in ceiling paints - you really think it'd be in your, or the manufacturer's, best interest to recommend painting some of your weather exposed exterior siding with your leftover ceiling paint? 

That was kind of a unfair charge toward paint manufacturers, don'tcha think?


----------



## Isomer (Jul 10, 2013)

ric knows paint said:


> That was kind of a unfair charge toward paint manufacturers, don'tcha think?


Nope. :no:


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

Isomer said:


> Nope. :no:


Well, good. It's refreshing to see one stand their ground despite the fact they have absolutely no basis for - and no valid argument to support - their very generalized & prejudiced comments and beliefs. :thumbsup:


----------



## Isomer (Jul 10, 2013)

Okay.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

ric knows paint said:


> Well, good. It's refreshing to see one stand their ground despite the fact they have absolutely no basis for - and no valid argument to support - their very generalized & prejudiced comments and beliefs. :thumbsup:


 
Just 1 opinion out of 316 million in the U.S. alone. I would not get wound up about it.:laughing:


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

chrisn said:


> Just 1 opinion out of 316 million in the U.S. alone. I would not get wound up about it.:laughing:


nah...I'm not. I'm just having a little fun with Isomer - By the way, Isomer - Welcome to the forum and don't take my comments too seriously. Your posts are always welcome here though we may disagree a lot - but that's what makes this forum so much fun.


----------



## Will22 (Feb 1, 2011)

Well put, Ric. The crystalline silica labelling is required by law, even though the content is less that a tenth of a percent. Exterior paint does have mildewcide that leaches out through the life of the paint, and it also is formulated differently than interior products. Paints labeled "interior/exterior" do not have mildewcide in them, and they are primary interior formulations. Hope that this helps.


----------



## RWolff (Jan 27, 2013)

sdsester said:


> How can labeling as to known and scientifically proven cancer risk be considered irrelevant?


In the case of silica, what is silica?

Silica is most commonly found in nature* as sand or quartz*. It is a principal component of most types of glass and substances such as concrete.

There's sand everywhere, you go to the beach you are essentially walking on SILICA, silica causes silicosis in the lungs, and every human on the planet has some degree of it unless they live in the arctic or something, every farmer or person who lives near a gravel road or gets dust in their house from wind blowing over nearby lots and fields also gets some in the lungs.
Adding a gallon or two of paint to that lifetime of exposure is miniscule, it's like adding a gallon of water to a swimming pool.

The amount of silica in a gallon of paint varies between about 6 and 12%

Painting with a spray gun and sanding in preparation for re-painting were the activities determined to produce the greatest opportunity for exposure to airborne particles of respirable size.
*Use a roller and brush, don't use a sprayer.*

There's more to paint than JUST silica, additives to paints are another potential health risk. Preservatives and pesticides are added to kill mildew and bacteria. I'd worry more about the preservatives and pesticides added to the paint.
Before 1990, mercury was added as a mildew-inhibitor, mainly to latex paint.




> Originally Posted by *sdsester*
> One of the things that always amazes me is that people who have never lived anywhere near California know so much about it


Yeah well, all the worst regulations and laws along with useless knee-jerk reactionary bills ever invented by the overpaid bureaucraps seem to originate in THAT state as we have learned over the decades. The MTBE gasoline additive California demanded be used in gasoline later was found contaminating ground water and drinking water, and the reformulated diesel they demanded be used ruined scores of truck engines.


----------



## kimberland30 (Jan 22, 2008)

I'm going to hijack this thread just for a second....we have a 5-gallon bucket of paint that we never used for the exterior of the house (I overestimated BADLY). We are going to use some of it to paint the shed, but will still have about 3 gallons left over. So can I, or can I not use it indoors? I'm thinking our laundry room really needs a coat of paint and I'd hate for our 5-gallon purchase to go to waste. And yes, I've already tried selling it to no avail. [/hijack]


----------



## ric knows paint (Oct 26, 2011)

kimberland30 said:


> I'm going to hijack this thread just for a second....we have a 5-gallon bucket of paint that we never used for the exterior of the house (I overestimated BADLY). We are going to use some of it to paint the shed, but will still have about 3 gallons left over. So can I, or can I not use it indoors? I'm thinking our laundry room really needs a coat of paint and I'd hate for our 5-gallon purchase to go to waste. And yes, I've already tried selling it to no avail. [/hijack]


As long as we're talking about latex products, you're good. Nothing to worry about. Even if it were oil products, you really wouldn't have anything to worry about except for the drying. Paint in peace.


----------



## chrisn (Dec 23, 2007)

ric knows paint said:


> As long as we're talking about latex products, you're good. Nothing to worry about. Even if it were oil products, you really wouldn't have anything to worry about except for the drying. Paint in peace.[/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> love it :thumbsup:


----------



## horsechic (Jul 21, 2013)

*Question regarding same topic?*

I also used Valspar exterior paint on one wall of my kitchen late last night not realizing there could be any issues. I had a ton of cross ventilation. Left all windows open all night with an air cleaner on. This morning with all the windows open still my whole house reeks of fresh paint fumes. I woke up with a massive sinus headache. So my question is.... Will it dissipate soon, or is it going to continue to give off an odor long term? It dried nicely, not tacky or anything. I'm quite pleased with it. I AM sensitive to odors though and now I'm worried. (not so much on the toxicity level but on the headache level) Thoughts?


----------

