«

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:29:48 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> I would take care using chlorine and/or acetone on
> the polycarbonate D5000 body.

That's what I was worried about!
The plastic. And the lens films. And the printing.

> I assume you also saw the UC Davis information?
> < http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7431.html >

Nice find. I had not read this prior. I realized from reading that that I
should have sprayed the cut stumps with the glyphosate so I'm going to do
that tomorrow. They say to use a paint brush but I'll be there all day
doing that. Spray will just have to do. It's VERY INTERESTING that they
suggested 20% glyphosate (which is super concentrated!). Luckily I have
2.5 gallons of 41% glyphosate - but normal concentrations (e.g., Roundup)
are one ounce of my 41% solution per gallon of water.

So it's shocking how high they suggest the glyphosate concentration to be
for painting the stumps.

They say to use isopropyl alchol and water - but I think they are
guessing too much on the part about avoiding 'warm' water. Sure, I've
heard all the old wives tales about it 'opening up the pores', but the
oil isn't getting underneath the upper layer of skin through pores in the
first place - so I suspect they don't have their science right. Certainly
they didn't back up the statement.

Also, they don't clarify what they mean by a certain percentage of people
are 'immune', so again, (since this one I know rather well), they really
didn't write it from a scientific standpoint - because they're clearly
wrong.

They also talk about the 5 minute exposure time, but, in reality, that's
just not practical, and, it's really more like double to triple that for
practical purposes. So, they aren't lying - they're just not all that
explanatory.

Still, there is plenty there that is good information. For example, I'm a
firm believer in the sentence they said about not removing the protective
oils on the skin. Of course, they didn't prove that one either - but I
don't disbelieve it even though I can't personally prove it myself.

Poison oak is one of those subjects that inherently has a lot of
unsupported old wives tales. I'm not sure why - but it just does. I guess
it's because you can't 'see' the oil, so, everyone comes up with their
story of how they attacked it and lived to tell the tale because of this
or that trick they used (me included).

But none of us are brave enough to pour that gloopy sap on our bare skin!

BTW, I'm certainly not in the percentage they 'say' are immune, as my
face has it, my ears do, my neck, and my wrists. But, it's not too bad. I
made up a solution of 1/3 bleach, 1/3 alcohol, and 1/3 dish detergent and
washed those spots for about five minutes in the shower today.

Hopefully that will help but what I really need to add is the spermicide
and polyethylene granules. I might be able to substitute a gritty
substance for the PEG granules - but I'll need to look up spermicides (as
I've never had a need for them until now).

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 11:35:42 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

> The camera is the real problem. The allergen is likely to have made its
> way into various cracks, crannies and porous surfaces on the SLR and
> probably made its way to interior surfaces. Even cleaning the outside of
> the camera is likely to be a mind-boggling job but if the cleaning goes
> no further traces of the allergen are likely to make their way back to
> the suface for some time to come.

Well stated!

I will look up if the favored solutions will damage the polycarbonate
body of the Nikon D5000 SLR.

For the equipment, the favored solutions is a mix of:
- 1/3 non-bleaching oxidizer (e.g., pool trichlor or non-chlorine bleach)
- 1/3 wetting agent (e.g., rubbing alcohol or acetone)
- 1/3 surfactant (e.g., dish detergent)

For the polycarbonate camera body, I probably should NOT use acetone (as
someone already stated), nor common household chlorine (sodium
hypochlorite), which may oxidize too much on the camera body.

But what do you think of the rest of the chemicals?

> The next question is: how do you decontaminate the chain saw?

That's vastly less worrisome because it can take being soaked in the
solution; but the camera has to be done muuuuuch more carefully!

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 15:06:39 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> The strap could probably make it through a couple of cycles

The strap is going into the wash tomorrow. Before/after pictures will
result and you'll be the first to know whether or not it gets ruined.

> The real lesson here is, not to take a camera you are not prepared to
> sacrifice into harms way.

All cameras are sacrificial. I have a box of Nikons all broken over the
years. I can snap a picture of them if you like - but the plain fact is
that, to me, a camera is worthless as a camera if I don't have it with me
when I want to snap a picture.

Of course, it's my fault for buying a cheap ($1000) Nikon SLR - my next
SLR will be metal!

> It is probably going to be easier to clean the chain
> saw than the camera.

I'm not at all worried about the chain saw. The kids and wife never touch
it, for example. And I can dump it in the cleaning fluid and wash it off
with the hose. Hell, Technu (according to the Davis site you pointed me
to) is made out of gasoline anyway! So, I could pour gasoline on it,
and that would work as well.

None of that will work on the SLR!

> Take the bar and soak it in some shop degreaser or gasoline.

I agree. Gasoline should work, as it's, apparently, poor-man's Technu
anyway!

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:43:02 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> Unfortunately, I don't know where to get any of those items. I would
> think injection molding suppliers would be able to provide polyethylene

Since I have a few spots of the rash forming on my ears, neck, cheek,
wrists, and ankle, I'm going to beef up my poor-man's Zanfel/Technu by
picking up some spermicide at the local drug store tomorrow.

Googling, I find spermicide is usually bundled with an oily lubricant,
which kind of defeats my purpose, so I'll have to look carefully for
"just" the spermicide sans unwanted oils.

As for the PEG granules, I suspect I can use almost anything slightly
gritty, such as talcum powder or toothpaste on the rash spots that I have
along with the solution.

So, here's the 'kit' I'll be making up for the rash in 1/3 quantities:
a) Oxidizer (bleach or pool trichlor)
b) Wetting agent (rubbing alcohol)
c) Surfactant (dish detergent)

In the shower, I will apply that triplet solution plus I'll squirt a dab
of spermicide and a squish of toothpaste at the rash itself.

Then I'll rub those five ingredients together (poor man's Zanfel/Technu)
on the rash. Hopefully that will work - but the chances of that lessening
the rash is slim given the time lag.

But the solution and ingredients should work for the next time, when I
can carry the 5 ingredients out to the field to wash up.

"Danny D." <> wrote in message
news:kclk16$ol6$...
>
> I'm sorry if I ever intimated I 'must' clear it. It's land. It's covered
> in Pacific Poison Oak. I just want to walk on it. There no dire 'need'.
> Either the poison oaks wins, or I win. I have the same battle with Scotch
> Broom and Spanish Broom. It's either them, or me.

[...]

> My camera goes where I go. That means it goes kayaking and skiing.
> Yes, I break cameras all the time. My next Nikon SLR is NOT going to have
> a crappy plastic lens mount, for example. But that's for another thread.

Let go, Grasshopper.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:08:51 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

> I would first ask if you had any
> sort of filter on your lens.

Unfortunately ... I broke my filter.

So no. There is no filter, as I haven't had a chance to replace it yet.
So the lens is almost certainly splattered with urushiol as I tried to
make a movie of a vine being cut at the base.

"Danny D." <> wrote in message
news:kclmhl$ol6$...

> That's vastly less worrisome because it can take being soaked in the
> solution; but the camera has to be done muuuuuch more carefully!

Maybe you should use solvent on the chainsaw, and save the petrol and box of
matches for the camera?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On 10/01/2013 00:26, Danny D. wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 07:46:22 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> You ask a difficult question. One way to detox urushiol contamination is
>> described in US Patent 4,594,239 (a statement of the blindingly obvious
>> IMHO and not at all worthy of a patent).
>
> That was a F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C reference!
>
> That one post makes this entire thread worthwhile (to me)!

Glad it helps. I would still be inclined to put a sacrificial plastic
bag outer skin on your camera next time or use a throw away one.

> That is a rare find on the usenet. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
> (How did you find it? I've been looking for years for a solution!)

Sort of knowing what to look for - I am a scientist by training.
Be careful since you need to get every last trace of it detoxified.

I also lived in Japan where urushiol based lacquerware is common.
(once the stuff is fully polymerised it is a benign natural plastic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacquer_tree

It is wise to treat anything in Anacardiaceae with some care.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 10/01/2013 06:12, Danny D. wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 17:29:48 -0800, Savageduck wrote:
>
>> I would take care using chlorine and/or acetone on
>> the polycarbonate D5000 body.
>
> That's what I was worried about!
> The plastic. And the lens films. And the printing.
>
>> I assume you also saw the UC Davis information?
>> < http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7431.html >
>
> Nice find. I had not read this prior. I realized from reading that that I
> should have sprayed the cut stumps with the glyphosate so I'm going to do
> that tomorrow. They say to use a paint brush but I'll be there all day

Too late you need to do it to a freshly cut stump. The sap will have
formed a pretty much impervious barrier overnight.

> doing that. Spray will just have to do. It's VERY INTERESTING that they
> suggested 20% glyphosate (which is super concentrated!). Luckily I have
> 2.5 gallons of 41% glyphosate - but normal concentrations (e.g., Roundup)
> are one ounce of my 41% solution per gallon of water.
>
> So it's shocking how high they suggest the glyphosate concentration to be
> for painting the stumps.

That is because the sap resin exuded tends to prevent uptake of the
poison. The tree is defending itself from predation and using WWI class
chemical weapons. Only a handful of rare exotic plants are nastier.

> They say to use isopropyl alchol and water - but I think they are
> guessing too much on the part about avoiding 'warm' water. Sure, I've
> heard all the old wives tales about it 'opening up the pores', but the
> oil isn't getting underneath the upper layer of skin through pores in the
> first place - so I suspect they don't have their science right. Certainly
> they didn't back up the statement.

No it isn't. They are right. Follow their advice.

If you want to see why they give that advice get your hands well covered
in black soot and wash one in hot and one in cold water.
>
> Also, they don't clarify what they mean by a certain percentage of people
> are 'immune', so again, (since this one I know rather well), they really
> didn't write it from a scientific standpoint - because they're clearly
> wrong.

No they are right.

A small number of lucky people do not react at all - they tend to find
employment in Japan working with urushiol lacquer. A fraction are also
tolerant on very first exposure but then sensitised by it and will react
allergically on subsequent exposure. Complacency is dangerous.

> They also talk about the 5 minute exposure time, but, in reality, that's
> just not practical, and, it's really more like double to triple that for
> practical purposes. So, they aren't lying - they're just not all that
> explanatory.

They are erring on the side of caution. I think this is wise.

If you are handling seriously nasty chemicals it is wise to have the
antidote, cleaning materials and remedial treatments close at hand.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 21:44:12 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

> You have to get in quickly with the cut stumps. I don't know the time
> for poison oak but within 2 or 3 minutes is not unusual. When you cut a
> stump it first oozes sap and then the flow reverses. If you don't get in
> by that stage there will be nothing to suck the glyphosphate back into
> the stump. Leaving it that late is too late.

Aha!

That explains why I failed to eradicate Spanish Broom on my property
in addition to the Poison Oak.

Recently I learned you need to apply the glyphosate within minutes
of chainsawing the Spanish Broom.

I never knew why - and - I thought it was specific to Spanish Broom.

From what you're saying, it's the way plants work.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/...g/11926626.jpg