Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Flaming Film Flim Flam

This is topic Flaming Film Flim Flam in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003017

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2002, 10:34 PM:

We've been hearing a lot of crazy things floating around lately from projectionists at one specific very large theater chain regarding FilmGuard. For an unknown reason, one of this company's techs has some sort of personal grudge against me, this site and everything related to it. There are a lot of projectionists in this chain that are being fed outright false information from their regional management regarding FilmGuard as well as other slanderous things of which I will not go into here. The latest thing going around is that FilmGuard is insanely flammable and will give anyone cancer who gets near it. The ridiculous part about this is that many people will believe anything they hear without performing their own tests or even checking the gossip legitimately via MSDS lab sheets (readily available for the asking from the dealer who sold you the product), and then proceed to "spread the word", inflicting fear and panic to other people. Sounds kinda like the National Enquirer, eh?

So let me give you the brief scoop on what has recently happened. This super tech decided for whatever reason to try and scare the pants off of one regional person by taking a lighter and burning a piece of film that he had submerged in a bowl of FilmGuard. Needless to say his idea worked. The regional person panicked and has banned the use of the product, now only allowing "safe" items in the booth.

Funny the description of "safe" here. Just what IS safe in this person's eyes? Apparently only items that will not burn if direct flame is put to it. I guess that means that the bricks and foundation of the building are safe since damn near everything else will burn when directly ignited. This video will hopefully wake a few people up from their fairyland comas.

We have received numerous emails from projectionists and booth managers at these theaters and the rumors are getting more and more bloated by the day. These projectionists have been using the product for some time now and all have been very pleased with it's results, but are no longer allowed to use it because of these made-up rumors. Three of these theaters (that I know of) have already performed their own tests and proven what we are about to show you below. They also found out that a LOT of chemicals in the building (used in the booth as well as outside of the booth) actually ARE insanely flammable, though I did not get a list.

In celebration of this tech's super genius, we now present a short video of Joe playing pyromaniac with a few commonly found booth items. By no means is this video attempting to emulate a laboratory testing environment, but we feel it more than demonstrates the point. Yes there are some video edits used to compress time because we are not professional smokers and we purchased poor quality lighters that Joe had a hard time getting to light, but the final results in the video were not altered. As is clearly stated in the video PLEASE FEEL FREE to perform these exact same demonstrations in the parking lot of your own theater if you have any doubt whatsoever. Again, the examples contained in the video were not faked nor staged in any way, just edited to compress time on the download.

The reason this video is being placed here on the forum instead of the traditional "videos" page is to elicit comments from the members. Out of respect for this theater circuit, I am not going to disclose their name. However I will gladly tell you that this tech who hates the Film-Tech website, the quality of presentation we stand for and everyone associated with it initials are J.D.R. That theater chain certainly is lucky to have such an outstanding example of showmanship on their team.

Please download and view this video BEFORE you read further in this thread. There are 3 download options to best suit your internet connection's speed and your computer.
Click here to go to the download page.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-26-2002, 11:38 PM:

The video could use a little more pizazz. How about adding a couple more tests? Hold a lighter to a memo stating not to use film-guard and see if it burns more strongly than film soaked in film-guard. As a closing shot, hold a lighter to a spray of WD-40 aimed towards the camera and see if it burns.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2002, 11:56 PM:

I'll agree it could use more pizazz, but it was made more for educational purposes than entertainment. There wasn't a "script", just Joe ad-libbing to the demos, of which were not even rehearsed. (Just because Joe is in it doesn't mean it HAS to be comedic, although that is normally the case.)

Not to fear, something very entertaining is on the editing table right now and will be uploaded in about a week.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-27-2002, 12:18 AM:

Joe didn't specifically say what cleaner/lubricant the second "test" was done with. The point will hit closer to home if the viewer can say, "Hey, we use that exact same stuff". I don't see why there would be any legal repercussion from reporting exactly what is being shown, as long as all products are shown in the same light. A few more product tests would be nice, too. Static Guard, WD40, Easy-Off and anything else these people shouldn't have in the booth to begin with.

I believe I know the tech in question and he had a bug up his ass about FilmGuard two years ago when I worked for that company. The claim was that he didn't know what was in FilmGuard. Like he knew what was in Xekote.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2002, 01:03 AM:

The decision not to specifically mention the second item was made because most other items in the booth are more flammable than FilmGuard, and as such there really was no particular reason to mention trade names. Of course for those of you who just have to know, the bottle should be easily recognized and virtually every booth has it.

We stopped where we did because igniting items like WD-40, projector oil, static guard and so forth was getting a bit overly flammable for the simple point that was being made in the video.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 01-27-2002, 03:27 AM:

I felt that Joe was hilarious as usual...and I still can't believe that they let that N-Sync guy star in his own movie!

Seriously, though...we have been using FilmGuard at our theatre as part of our weekly routine for some time and the only side-effects so far are (much) cleaner prints. There is no cause for concern, apart from negative people who don't understand when they are on to a good thing...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-27-2002, 08:57 AM:

Brad,
With all due respect you're taking an entirely wrong approach to this situation. First of all if it were my customer, especially a large chain, I'd be on a plane going there to meet with them to try to first find out what ever the grudge may be and iron that out. It is obvious that they have differences with you that first must be rectified. Rubbing this in their face is in my opinion really wrong if you ever want to get their buisness back again. Perhaps I'm a bit old fashioned but at GTS it is our policy to try to make all customers happy, if you can't, then find out what it will take to make them happy and keep them on your ship. I realize that it is not possible to do this with all people/companies you may deal with, but at least you can rest assured that you tried. Perhaps if you had stated that you tried to contact them to smooth over the grudge first and they refused to see you then the video would have been more appropriate. Buisness is all about customer relations, and dedication to them first and foremost.

As you know I've had supposed bad dealings with at least one Film-Guard user that lives down under. Mainly due to their postal system not knowing how to foreword mail, the parcel went around the world(literaly)and came back unbeknownst to me while I was out of town. Being the sole Motion Picture guy at GTS, doing alot of service work and traveling around, it is sometimes very difficult just to keep up with things, however, the first thing we did was to try to make good to this customer, who as you know was very angry. He obviously had a hard time finding a dealer in the U.S. that would take the time to go to the post offie to send him the stuff in the first place. But we do this all the time and have shipped the stuff to South America, Austrailia, New Zealand, and Europe. However, for some people it is hard(sometimes seemingly impossible)to forgive and forget a small thing and get on with life. This is one of buisnesses down sides but has to be accepted once in a while. Since this case involved parcels traveling around the world where things were out of our control I had to accept the consiquences of what happened, but first I did try to make up to the cusomter, and our offer of free Film-Guard still stands for him to this day! We hold no grudges! I also have a photo of him hanging on my office wall in the "This customer is pissed at us gallery" but his is the only picture hanging there.

GTS is a very diverse company and the theatre supply end of things is but a small part of us. At present we have begun to move into a brand new building and we are expanding all divisions of our company to suit its growth. Just being able to do this shows that we keep our customers on board. We sell on the average several cases of Film-Guard in a year, most to theatres and some to home film collectors, who obviously don't think there is a hazard to have it in their homes. We love the product and many of our customers swear by it. I'd gladly back up the product any day, any place, any time, and will continue to sell it as long as you manufacture it. There is no safety concern of any type as far as my experience with the product goes.
Another thing I'd like to state is that any supply dealer posting here that does not offer Film-Guard to their customers obviously does not care about presentation quality either and should be rounded up and run out of buisness!
Mark @ GTS
www.getgts.com
mark@getgts.com

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-27-2002, 11:18 AM:

Mark, that was a very well thought out and mature statement, and a business model that can succeed when working with most honest businesses. I wish that more companies and people would take your attitude.

Not so much as a counter to your statement, but perhaps as a reason why such a plan can work and be unique, I remind you of the business realities of such things as the "we demand" note about the Austin Powers advertising. These "business people" supposedly wanting to continue a long term relationship with exhibitors sent a threatening letter out of the blue to customers, with no attached explanation or, from what I read here, even a "please" or "thank-you." Such attitudes permiate the business world. In my experience, the larger the business, the more rigid the thinking, and the greater the chance of questionable or even unreasonable demands, of employees, suppliers, and customers.

In theatre circuits, sometimes one individual will institute a strict policy within a district or area and it will get institutionalized and expanded without proper review or even a reality check. I remember one chain that had a policy of ushers having to puncture every drink cup picked up in the auditoriums, supposedly to prevent recycling of the cups. Never mind that in such scams the ushers are almost always already involved, never mind the problems with coke still in the cups dripping onto floors and into leaky cheap garbage bags, never mind the time wasted or coke-sprayed uniforms, this was a written-in-stone policy because nobody had the balls to risk their job by standing up and saying in a loud, clear voice "This is stupid!"

The average middle management leader won't often dare to admit a wrong decision, and speaking pragmatically, pissing off a tech who must be depended upon, without damned good cause, might not seem to be a good decision, even if the alternative was dirty prints. In such a case, a public demonstration can be useful as damage control. The issue isn't so much the already lost business as it is the rumor and potential for greater loss. Unrelated example of public demonstration damage control: Requiring FAA personnel to fly in planes soon after a recent plane safety scare made many people feel more comfortable about flying.

Like the tech mentioned, I am one who likes to know what is in the chemical mixtures I use, and I can understand the POV of a tech that has had past reservations about something new that could have been a snake-oil. However, since Brad does have an MSDS on the product, any health concerns can be checked out. Experience from users is public knowledge even to the point of Brad allowing dissatisfied customers to post their problems here and then personally responding. Perhaps if that tech would be willing to post his concerns here publicly, he would been taken more seriously.

Making the exact formulation of film-guard public would only encourage rip-offs and inferior copies, plus reduce funding for this repository of manuals, knowledge, and water-cooler talk. BTW, I'm very curious why someone would have some sort of grudge against this site.

Unless Brad is selling direct, any attempts to change minds should first come from the sales team. That is part of the sales job.
I don't know about Brad, but I know in my own business that I'm not cut out to be a salesman. Some folks have that gift, while others of us have skills that go in other directions. Be that as it may, defending one's work or product in a straightforward manner is the right of any workman or product developer.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2002, 02:24 PM:

Mark, I think you have misinterpreted the scenario and once again have posted before doing your research on what all I have done and/or not done. (Hint, you could've just emailed me to inquire rather than assume.

)

I have always bent over backwards to do a "make good" anytime a customer is not happy. Two years ago when we first started selling media one of the rollers was cutting short rolls. My solution was to replace those rolls directly to the theaters that were involved 150% and I had them keep the "short" rolls to use on smaller prints. In some instances theaters bought as much as 10 boxes of media, so in return they ended up with 15 boxes of media, plus 10 boxes of "short" media that could be used on small movies. I did this with a number of theaters until I could get those defective cases out of circulation. Just this year I had an equipment sale freight miscalculation and I feel I more than made up for it by eating the excess freight costs and in addition to make sure there wasn't any hard feelings I sent the theater a case of FilmGuard and a case of media. Believe me, if this was as simple as "doing whatever it took to make the customer happy", I would have done it a long time ago. I am not aware of anyone who has ever walked away from a transaction with me that felt cheated or ripped off and I want to keep it that way. Unfortunately, this is not an option due to the person involved.

The video was not my first option. And yes I do like this chain as a whole, which is why I intentionally did not mention their name out of respect, not legal fear. However, when this idiot's rumors start to leak out of that theater circuit and into others, something must be done and since most people who are "presentation quality conscious" hang out here, this was the quickest way to demonstrate the reality of why that rumor is simply not true. Say Mark, did ya know that using an R2 puts cancerous agents into the air? Oh no! Better not allow Mark to EQ an auditorium with his R2! See how stupid it is?

If J.D.R. wants to post here, he is welcome just like anyone else who wishes to register. Also, no company buys direct, all go through CPI just like everyone else, although if the order is big enough we will make special pricing.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-27-2002, 03:49 PM:

Brad,
I don't really think I have mis-interpreted anything here. I see a problem that needs to be addressed right to the top level personel of that chain. As Jerry says a public demonstration of the product by its inventor to high up people at the chain involved is the best way to tackle this sort of thing. I'd also be first in line to try to iron out the grudge with the tech as that seems to be the most important thing that can be done here. You need to get him on your side. If it wasn't you, or something here on Film-Tech that caused the grudge, then it should be up to your distributor to help get to the bottom of it. Thats one of the reasons they are your distributor isn't it? And your distributor is one of the best you could have for dealing with this sort of problem. Then by meeting with personel of the chain they can show them that its definately not a dangerous chemical to use would be second most important. Another way is to spend the 10K dollars and have it rated by UL if they do that sort of thing. Then they can dispute that all they want and make themselves look like fools. but that still may not get your buisness back and thats the most important thing here in the first place. Personally, I really feel sorry for all the patrons going to that chain that are now getting lousy presentations! You make a product that they need! Is there any way that GTS can help you settle this out with them? Let me know.....
Mark @ GTS
www.getgts.com
mark@getgts.com

Posted by Dan Riddle on 01-27-2002, 05:31 PM:

I really think you need to lose the cut between soaking the film and lighting it.

Yes you are compressing time, but you did it at the worst possible place. People will have no idea what happened between the cut and the actual lighting of the film.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-27-2002, 08:52 PM:

There is no way we could have lost "that cut" you refer to. We were shooting this outdoors on a very windy day. We had to prop up cardboard all around to reduce the wind. The lighter simply would not strike for the life of me. My thumb had a callus from attempted strikes. It was not fun. Also, I am not the best at memorizing lines so I wasn't about to repeat the entire intro over and over and over again just hoping the lighter would strike that time. Would you have rather watched 10 minutes of me trying to strike the lighter until I finally got it?

I'm not sure, but it seems as if you are saying that when we burned the film with Filmguard on it, we were in fact just burning dry film. Please clarify your comments because I don't like being accused of providing false information or lying.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-27-2002, 09:06 PM:

Not really film-related, but a cool picture anyway:

Johnson Paste Wax is used by a lot of pinball machine collectors to wax playfields on their games. A fellow pinhead kept insisting that Johnson Paste Wax contains no petroleum distillates, so I performed this test. All I had to do was drop in a lighted match. Nothing was used to prime it -- the can had nothing but wax in it. Legend has it the pic was sent to the chemists at SC Johnson Co., who reportedly had this to say: "Oh, my. Heh heh."

------------------
- dave
Stay away from the meadow...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-27-2002, 09:13 PM:

I downloaded the smallest video. Here in the sticks (with my brand new computer) it took 20 minutes, then when I tried to run it, I got a message "Unable to download an appropriate decompressor." (Whatever the hell that is.) However, Windows Media Player did play the sound, so I was able to get the gist of it. My favorite part was the click, click, click, click click of Joe trying to strike the lighter. I remember some nights like that back when I was learning how to strike carbons.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-27-2002, 09:31 PM:

Mike,

You must have Quicktime to view this. You can get it for free at http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/ . If you already have Quicktime you might want to upgrade to version 5. It sounds like you were trying to play it in Windows Media Player.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2002, 10:38 PM:

If anyone really wants to see the "outtakes", I suppose we can assemble a fairly lengthy download of Joe going through 4 lighters of trying to get them to light, along with lots of "colorful metaphores" courtesy of Joe in his anguish. I don't think everyone would find it as funny as it sounds on paper though. Joe ended up burning his thumb slightly in the process and got a noticeable blister from all the failed attempts! The reason we zoomed in after his intro was because the intros took too long to shoot. When Joe would mess up his ad-libbing dialogue, we would have to re-pour the contents of the bowl back into the container and reset for the entire shot. Thus, when we got a good take, it was MUCH easier to just zoom in for a smooth cut. This also provided a clearer demonstration on these small Quicktime downloads for viewers to see. Just imagine that wide shot of the film burning. It would've been so small the download would have been a waste of time. Also, I don't care for the inferrment that either myself or Joe faked that video. We absolutely did not.

Obviously experiments of this nature will vary slightly from batch to batch of FilmGuard, different film stocks, processing chemicals, different labs, lab waxing and so forth. Still, in the end the bottom line to be proven here is that of all "common" booth items, FilmGuard is the least flammable. So any booth using these "common" items should not have any problem with FilmGuard. Any booth that does not allow anything that will burn when a direct flame is put to it should not even be running film.

For those who are as crazy as we are, gather these common items from a projection room and see for yourself:
FilmGuard
XeKote
Isoprophal alcohol
Generic film cleaner (the fast evaporating kind)
WD-40
Johnson's Paste Wax
Projector oil

Now go out into an open area in the parking lot where nothing anywhere near can possibly catch on fire and see for yourself which is the least flammable. That is the point to be made here, along with the fact that film DOES burn straight out of the lab DRY. Also the important thing to take note of here is that of all these commonly found items, FilmGuard burns the LEAST of them all. If you are not going to test all or most of of these items, don't even bother with the comparison test.

DISCLAIMER: Anyone who believes we faked the video download above and is insistent on performing their own experiments, please use common sense and make sure there is a second person, say 20 feet away with a fire extinguisher in case you do something stupid or something goes up more than you thought! Also, use just a TINY BIT of whatever you are going to burn for safety's sake. (Soaking 2-4 frames should be more than sufficient.) Most importantly, perform the test holding the film the exact same way that Joe did in the video. Do NOT get a strip of film and let gravity pull it downward while you hold the top of it and light it at the bottom. This is just begging for you to burn your hand off since fire burns upwards! Hold a short piece of film (6-8 inches) upright with your hand at the bottom (fold the film if you have to in order to make it stiff) and light the TOP edge and let it burn down like a candle for safety.

Also take note of the most obvious aspect of this...if the building is already burning down from whatever cause, the prints are toast anyway! Other than a building fire, there is no time that a print will ever be exposed to DIRECT FLAME like this anyway. Worst case senario is the film will brain wrap (although that's extremely rare with a FilmGuarded print) and the film will "melt" in the gate as we have all seen many times in the past. Even with a 7000 watt bulb and a piece of film drenched in FilmGuard, it will not ignite.

Now for silliness, will a PTR burn???

Posted by Steven Gorsky (Member # 603) on 01-27-2002, 11:01 PM:

Why not include a copy of the MSDS with FilmGuard, and make it available for download.

Steven Gorsky

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-27-2002, 11:20 PM:

Steven,

Why?

Reason #1 because that is one more thing that would have to be added to each kit. We are trying to keep it as basic as possible to keep costs down.

Reason #2 because most people do not know how to interpret an MSDS sheet and have never seen one.

Reason #3 because the dealer who sold you the product has them readily available just by asking for one, plus we have an email address printed on each bottle that you can just request one via email. Other than the WD-40 company (which is by far too large of a company to deal with individual people for such requests), I don't know of any product that is found in a projection booth that actually keeps MSDS sheets online for download. Like I said, many people will misinterpret what they read and "freak out", so it's actually better in my opinion to send them out as requested so any questions that arise may be addressed directly.

Do you have MSDS sheets for all of the items in your booth? (Some states actually require this, but not many.) Have you ever read an MSDS sheet? (Like I said, most people have not.) Regardless, if you want one, just ask.

Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 01-28-2002, 12:48 AM:

Mark,
I know of the company that has banned FilmGuard. The problem here is not customer satisfaction, it is the slanderous remarks that this one tech had made about FilmGuard. Right when FilmGuard went out on the market, someone in the company lied and said that FilmGuard melts prints. I was the only one in that company who was testing it at the time and can positively state that no prints have been melted. For a while a lot of these theaters began to buy FilmGuard under the table so they could improve their presentations. They did not want to fall victim of the reputation that that particular chain had on presentations. Even the GM's were seeing the positive outcome of this product, one GM was even requesting that I put FilmGuard on certain big name titles. One tech from this company was skeptical at first but later came up to me and admitted that it was a great product. I also know of this certain tech (JDR) in particular and ever since FilmGuard came out he has completely dogged it. Why? I have no clue. He said that it ruins the focus on all prints when later that was proved to be a projector problem, and now this. This being the same guy who uses lighter fluid to clean policy trailers. If only he did the same demonstration with rubbing alcohol since he trains to use that to clean out the projectors over there, than rubbing alcohol would be banned too. Now because of his demonstration, FilmGuard is completely banned from this chain. I feel sorry for those projectionists who really do care about their presentation and want to make it better but now can't. I also know somebody that got fired because of this tech's attitude. So apparently he will have you fired if you do something to improve the presentation. That is nonsense. The truth is that the company is not able to see all sides of FilmGuard because of this tech. It is not a matter of customer satisfaction. All of the theaters that were using FilmGuard were MORE than satisfied. I have seen how Brad handles his business. I know that he does everything in his power to please a customer. I don't question his customer service performance one bit. This is not a case of customer service, it is a case of one person slandering FilmGuard for whatever reason. If anything, Brad is being polite by not prosecuting against this person for slander or mentioning the company's name out of respect he has for this company. I dare them to come out and really see all aspects of FilmGuard and the products they currently use. If that were the case, film would never be allowed in the booth due to the ability of it to ignite when a flame is put to it.

Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 01-28-2002, 01:47 AM:

Having worked with this company and working with several of their technicians, their actions do not suprise me in the least. The act of blaming annother/product on a problem that they have failed to resolve themselves is indicitive of serveral of their "technicians"

After opening one of their theatres and receveing mass complaints about the sound quality (not the volume) and trying to work with the "technician" that did the installation, we went round and round with potential causes, from amplifiers, crossovers, to someone screwing with the sound system. When calling out a 3rd party technician to resolve an unrelated emergency issue, we aske him to take a look at some of the sound problems, low and behold only 5 out of 20 auditoriums had ever been eq'ed. They only thing that had been done was levels adjusted (by the staff at HIS direction). Of course instead of fixing the problem or admitting that the problem was his fault to begin with, he blamed it on the staff. (Keep in mind no one ever actually EQ anything to begin with). That technician "trained" this tech everyone is having problems with today, and why their presentation continues to be hampered.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-28-2002, 01:51 AM:

I'm sorry, did you say LIGHTER FLUID?

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-28-2002, 02:07 AM:

Steven: Another argument against just putting an MSDS sheet in each box is that for the purposes of satisfying health and safety regulations, they only do the job in the US. Other countries have similar laws that require you to keep a similar file of information about chemicals used in the workplace, but in some cases they need to be presented in a different form. Furthermore these regulations change quite often and so it makes sense that local resellers and distributors keep information sheets available which satisfy local requirements.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-28-2002, 05:08 AM:

Brad is right, I got an MSDS sheet for a chemical cleaner/lubricant for electrical contacts called BLUE STUFF. Now I consider myself a farily level-headed guy with a decent scientific approach to things in general, but I only got half way through the three pages and I was ready to call in Emergency Rescue and bury the stuff in a HAZMAT bomb hole out in the Brooklyn Flatlands. It's like when you start reading the countindications on medicines....you would rather suffer the complaint than go near anything with that many scary sideffects. Besides, who has MSDS sheets about anything else in the booth? We have a half dozen chemicals that we use regularly and I've never seen a sheet on any of them (and to tell the truth, now don't care to). How come all of a sudden FilmGuard has to supply then?

I think posting this stuff for general consumption for people who do not know how to interpret it would not make good business sense.

Posted by Jerry Chase (Member # 660) on 01-28-2002, 08:46 AM:

MSDS sheets can be over-the-top in that any possible danger should be included. My favorite is the MSDS for Comet powdered cleanser, which notes that it can cause silicosis. I sent a memo out to my managers at the time warning them "Don't snort the Comet!!"

OTOH, I don't agree with the idea of keeping MSDS hidden away. If a child were to swallow a liquid, it could be vital to have quick access to the information on the sheet. I don't think I would be able to stomach a kid dying or having permanent damage because of such a policy. If one does have that policy, IMO a poison control center should have the MSDS info and there should be an indelible phone number for that center on the containers. Phone numbers to a business or address of a website aren't sufficient because of the possible delays in getting the info.

FWIW, I haven't seen the film-guard MSDS and have no idea if it is even poisonous, although I must assume so in the absence of that information. I just am of the opinion that the safety of kids trumps most other concerns. Industrial chemicals can find their way into the home, and folks with super 8, 16mm or 35mm home movies probably already have small quantities of film-guard in their houses.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-28-2002, 09:19 AM:

At the last cinema I worked all the nominated first aiders were shown the location of and issued keys providing access to the file of information which any employer is required to compile and maintain under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations, for precisely that reason. A COSHH data sheet for a substance doesn't just contain the results of a technical examination as to its chemical composition, but also instructions to be followed in the event of particular types of accident - e.g. contact with skin, contact with eyes, ingestion, accidently mixed with other substances causing the emission of toxic fumes, and so on.

However, that file is kept out of sight of people who have not been taught to correctly interpret the information it contains. Almost all substances are dangerous/lethal if misused. For example, water can kill you and it's possible to drown with a surprisingly small amount, and washing up liquid will kill you (the enzymes in it break down the stomach lining) if swallowed in any significant quantity.

Right I'm off to the pub for a long, cool Filmguard on the rocks...

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-28-2002, 09:45 AM:

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) (or equivalent documentation for other countries) for Kodak products are available on the Kodak Website:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/hse/prodSearchMSDS.jhtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-28-2002, 10:01 AM:

I haven't downloaded any version of the video. I'm still on dial-up

and I have NO patience.

Many fellow pinheads accused me of faking the J-Wax pic. They just knew I poured gasoline or lighter fluid in that can to get it to burn that well. Nothing I said was going to change their minds. People have become cynical, tend to see conspiracy or deception everywhere. I blame The X-Files .

Re: Lighter fluid. Naphtha-based (sp?) lighter fluid (i.e. Ronsonol) is a great product for removing gummy residue from smooth hard surfaces. Seems a little harsh for use on film though.

------------------
- dave
Stay away from the meadow...

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 01-28-2002, 10:24 AM:

Dave
I use 100% Naptha for cleaning the tape gunk off the film and have for some time. I used Ronsonol until I found a source of pure Naptha. It works great and is relatively cheap. I don't smoke when I use it. But then I don't smoke when I put gasoline in the car or use acetone to clean stuff with or for that matter anyother time. I swear that some day babies will be born incased in styrofoam (which is pretty flamable) and people will live out their lives in a padded small room, so they don't have to think or be responsible for their actions.

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-28-2002, 01:05 PM:

Joe,

Thanks, I'll check that out. I am not on that machine right now so can't verify if it has QT or not (I thought it did) but you are right, the file was trying to play on Windows Media Player.