# great stuff controversy



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

I have been reading up on this great stuff product and its many uses. Most say it works good and is harmless. I can only really find one person who consistently says negative things about it. Does anyone else have any negatives to great stuff, aside from it being sticky?


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

It is expensive and one can doesn't do enough 
If you are not careful you can break the glass of a tank do to the expansion of the foam. Other than that, I have never heard of any problems once it's cured.


----------



## AQUAMAC (Jul 27, 2004)

you forgot that its is sticky as all hell and doesn't come off clothes :roll: 
otherwise great stuff is pretty great stuff :wink: 

-mike


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2005)

*d*

Works great, and after it cures, you can carve any shape you want with a steak knife! 

I've heard about it breaking glass, but I dont think it would unless you filled a 10 gallon with it and put on an airtight lid. I've had it cure around all sorts of logs and sticks and it never even moved them. 

Yeah, and dont plan on playing in it unless you have a large supply of rubber gloves cuz it doesnt come off hands easy at all. You'll wish you had an insects regenerative capability and just cut it off after you try to wash it off!!!

IF you use it more than 4 or 6 inches thick, you'll have to allow more time to cure. I had a large chunck (12" thick) that didnt cure in the middle, so I think you would need to let that cure for an extra 24 or 36 hours if the great stuff is extra thick. Must have airflow to cure!! I added a box fan on top of my tank blowing into it to help it cure. 

Good luck and keep us updated with your project (s) !!!!!


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Lacquer thinner does a good job of cleaning it off your hands if you attack while it is still sticky.


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

Those are good comments, but as I expected no unusual negative comments. Sticky is not a big deal. I was leaning more toward problems with the frogs do to great stuff, but seeing that it wasn't mentioned, no one has had them. I reviewed great stuff forums just figured I would make a forum just to hear complaints, but their doesn't seem to be many, aside from expected ones. Like I said if anyone had a problem, please share. I am still planning on using it and I do plan to take pics of the progress since I (well my girlfriend) just purchased a digital camera.

Thanks, 
Greg


----------



## geckguy (Mar 8, 2004)

I haven't had a problem with great stuff. I had a colony of leucs in a 20 high for a year with no ill effects. Great Stuff is extremely hard to get off of your hands, so have a supply of gloves ready, I was doing good until I ran out of gloves :x I cant imagine it breaking a tank unless it had some pressure acting on the great stuff sealing it between the object and the back of the tank. Use the small crack filler, it expands much less and is easier to use. A friend used the big gap filler to fill a hole under a porch and ended up breaking part of his foundation. I have one last tip, get your Great Stuff from the evil Walmart, it is $3.69 at my Walmart compared to close to $7 at Home Depot and Lowes.


----------



## AQUAMAC (Jul 27, 2004)

true but the can is bigger at Home Depot and around $6..the Lowes can is $5 and the same size as the Walmart can..as you can see I have way too much experience with this junk, I mean Great Stuff


----------



## geckguy (Mar 8, 2004)

They do have a smaller can at walmart, but they also have the 12oz. can for the above price. What size is the can from home depot?


----------



## Guest (Jan 11, 2005)

*d*

I just really realized I didnt mention that there were no ill effects on frogs. That is so strange. I guess outta sight, outta mind. I havent ever heard of anyone ever having a problem with it at all. In fact, I'll bet that a good many frogs from the forum here breed regularly in tanks containing it. After my initial thoughts of using it and concerns, I used it and havent thought about toxicity since.

I think you're good to go on Great Stuff!!

Think GLOVES :!:


----------



## Darks!de (Nov 16, 2004)

HD can is 16oz for $5 and change.


----------



## *GREASER* (Apr 11, 2004)

I got it all over my hands the other day and I wound up trearing layers of my skin when I was pulling it off. And there is still some on my hands after 5 days.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2005)

I use the plastic putty knifes to move it around. Comes right off once it dries.


----------



## Guest (Jan 12, 2005)

The price went down at home depot....$3 for a big can  , they may just be around here thoough.


----------



## Darks!de (Nov 16, 2004)

grrrrrrrr...just there... :evil:


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

If you have a Lowe's nearby, check the aisles to see if they have a little display stand with double packs of GS. Mine does, and they're only $5.50 for 2 fullsize cans.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

The glass cracked on my tank that I did DIY, so I had to buy a new piece of 1/8" glass. I personally prefer the window and door kind (blue can), as it will expand flexible, and stay that way. While it will still be a bit cushy, it still is aesthetically pleasing. 

However, it really doesn't stick well to glass. While you're not going to tug it off, it isn't too hard to remove it by pealing. I had to do that when I rebuilt my 40 gallon.

I am not fond of the fact that Great stuff cans aren't reusable, as it will gunk up the tube in a few hours, but it is cheaper to buy larger cans than individual small ones.

For making artificial rocks, filling in gaps, etc, Great stuff really is Great Stuff.

P.S. NOTHING beats land formations of epoxy resin and carved pink styrofoam. :wink:


----------



## DaFrogMan (Oct 8, 2004)

Rain_Frog said:


> I am not fond of the fact that Great stuff cans aren't reusable, as it will gunk up the tube in a few hours, but it is cheaper to buy larger cans than individual small ones.


Rain Frog - Cut the straw that comes with the great stuff can into 4 or 5 pieces, its too long anyway. Use each piece each time you use it and let the gunk dry in the straw untill next time you need to use it. When you use it next, just pull off the old piece of straw and put on a new one, this way you can use the can untill it's gone


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2005)

*Water Coloration*

On my water feature i have greatstuff coverd by aquarium mortar. I had the pump running all night and i noticed the water has turned a slight amber color, i believe this is due to the great stuff underneith it. 
Is this any thing i should worry about? 
I am going to do my best to clear the water by maybe adding some tap water to it. 
any other ideas?

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

No, the discoloration is likely caused by the mortar.


----------



## Schism (Nov 12, 2004)

I don't know that I understand why everyone is so concerne with gloves and getting it on their hands. sure its sticky but why do you need to touch it? i did my 85 gallon without touching any of it until it was dry. Its going to expand even if you shape it wet and your going to have to carve and trim it. If you just leave a bunch, take a razor blade and a knife and have fun. You have build areas for water to drip, flow, whatever you need. 

Imperfections in the foam looks natural, it seems like smoothing it over would make it look unnatural. 
JMO


----------



## bjdwa (Nov 26, 2004)

I don't think too many people were touching it intentionally when it was wet but if it does get on your skin when it is wet and then you let it dry it will not come off easily. I've found that the mess comes into play when I shake the can (as per the instructions) periodically during application.


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

I would like to say, who else uses the blue can of Great Stuff?

Nobody has really looked into which is the "best" kind. We have all assumed each is safe. While I have used the blue can, while many use the typical, cheaper, and stiffer red can, I had to question myself several times if its safe.

Also, many of us do cover it up with silicone. But parts, particularly underneath cork bark, stays uncovered by silicone for me.

While I highly doubt most of the properties of all Great Stuff types are potentially harmful, I would always just err on caution whenever one uses anything like this. i.e., don't rush out and try the latest, newest, DIY think. Kinda like weld bond. I would never use that unless I was willing to tear the water fall apart.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2005)

Rain_Frog said:


> ... Kinda like weld bond. I would never use that unless I was willing to tear the water fall apart.



Could you please elaborate on this? I was thinking of using this method to create a waterfall/stream feature, (weldbond over great stuff) and I am really curious what your reasoning is for that statement. 

The more I read the more confused I am. :wink:


----------



## Darks!de (Nov 16, 2004)

Yea, i just bought the blue can for *windows and doors* and the black one for *big gaps*...are these ok to use?

Luke


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2006)

I know this is an old topic but Ive been doing alot of searching on this subject on this forum and cant seem to find a definitive answer.
My question is, are any of you out there currently running vivs with great stuff permanently submerged under water that is not sealed with silicon or what not, for instance under your false bottom.
I just formed the base of my water feature which is great stuff and im wondering if I should coat the entire thing in silicon.
In which case I think Ill need more silicon. 

Matt


----------



## DartMan (Nov 29, 2005)

Rain_Frog,

On the topic of trying to keep a half used can of GS and it drying in the tube, I was messing around with some GS over the Christmas/New Years break and found that you can replace the tube that GS comes with by using standard clear Air Line Tubing used for the aquarium hobby. In fact, I preferred using the Air Line Tubing because it was more flexible and you could reach better back into smaller places like behind driftwood when mounting it.

Also, when working on small Viv's you could potentially use a long piece of Air Line Tubing and never really have to get the can down inside the tank where its real tight with space.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Great Stuff doesn't stick to the straw or the fitting on the can. To get the stuff out of the straw use a wire coat hanger and the same for the fitting. What I don't like it that only Gurilla Glue really holds to it. I'm trying some different polyurethane adheasives because I need about 20 pounds of slate to hold very well for the tank I'm working on now.



*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2006)

Rubisco said:


> I know this is an old topic but Ive been doing alot of searching on this subject on this forum and cant seem to find a definitive answer.
> My question is, are any of you out there currently running vivs with great stuff permanently submerged under water that is not sealed with silicon or what not, for instance under your false bottom.
> I just formed the base of my water feature which is great stuff and im wondering if I should coat the entire thing in silicon.
> In which case I think Ill need more silicon.
> ...


----------



## joshsfrogs (May 6, 2004)

I have it touching some of my water features with no ill effects.


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

Rubisco said:


> Rubisco said:
> 
> 
> > I know this is an old topic but Ive been doing alot of searching on this subject on this forum and cant seem to find a definitive answer.
> ...


Matt,

I think that nobody has answered with a definitive answer because there is no definitive answer. Great Stuff, Fomo, and other spray polyurethane foams SPF will degrade over time due to exposure to the environment. The environmental factors that the plastics industry seems to worry about for adding stabilizers are UV exposure, water, and microbes. In addition, sometimes additives are put into SPF to make them a certain color (black dye for the FOMO stuff) or more fire-resistant (halogenated molecules). What happens to the primary polymers and the additives, is something which there doesn't seem to be a lot of information about. Is it possible that we are damaging our frogs biologically in a way that could lead to problems? Who knows. To me that is more a matter of faith than fact at this point. There isn't a whole lot of this information out there for humans let alone frogs. However, stuff that was once considered safe (PBDEs), are no longer used because they are strongly suspected as carcinogens and are released from foams as they degrade. Similarly, Bisphenol-B and other extremely common prepolymers are under scrutiny from the EPA and FDA because of their possible adverse effects on animal reproductive systems.

It is unlikely that if something is happening to frogs due to environmental exposure to vivarium hazards that anybody currently knows or is studying it. To really get these sorts of answers would be expensive, time consuming, and require a cadre of professional scientists. That leaves us at the other extreme, anecdotal evidence some of which is likely to be as much fact as faith or fiction.

I guess I still think that environmental toxicity is still in its infancy. So, I try to reduce my use of artificial materials in my vivarium until how these things affect biological systems is better understood. I also personally take a lot of what the chemical industry has to say about safety with a fair amount of skepticism. However, that all has to do with personal preference and not science.

Marcos


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2006)

I guess I should have been more specific, Im mainly concerned with structral integrity.

Matt


----------



## jhupp (Feb 27, 2004)

I have had unsealed GS submerged in my water feature for over a year now with no issues. GS is a moisture-cure-urathane, meaning that water catalyzes the formation of the poylmere. This is similar in formulation to the G4 polyurethane used to seal koi ponds in Europe and several industrial coatings used to seal structures like water towers. The moisture-cure-issue has been misinterpreted by some as meaning that GS is water soluble. It is not. There are however some latex based expanding foams on the market, avalible right next to GS at both HD and Lowes, that are water soluble.

Some helpful tips from my experince with GS: 
To speed curing time and ensure the product sets up properly when laying down thick layers, mist it with water. This is per manufactures instructions and if you read the label it should be printed on the can. 

I find that sillicone does not stick well (or at all) to the smoth cured surface of GS, as most of you I am sure are aware. But if you break that surface to expose the porrus inner structure of the foam, sillicone will bond without any problems. This is why I always lay down a much thicker layer of GS then needed and carve out my background using a steak knife (as already mentioned by someone else).

And one general comment as to weather or not a particular material is safe for use in a viv. For any product such as GS, epoxy resien, paint, toilet bowl cleaner, and whatever else, a materials saftey data sheet is avalible that lists any harmful chemicals contained within the product, information on specific health risks form those chemicals and anything else you need to know about the propper use and disposal of the product. These are avalible online, and I belive they are required to be kept on hand by the merchant selling the product and should be made avalible to you if you ask. This is an excellent tool to have on hand when evaluating a materials use in the vivarium and I highly recomend you take the time to obtain and read them. They often won't come anywhere near answering all the questions that need to be addressed when reaserching a product, but it is often one big step in the right direction.

Jay


----------



## Guest (Jan 13, 2006)

Thank you so much, alot of useful info.
Matt


----------



## Frank H (Nov 3, 2005)

Matt, Check out my construction journal. i used a 40+ pound rock in it. Check out how i supported it, the greatstuff just keeps it from tipping, but some pvc holds it off the bottom. http://www.dendroboard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12195 

-Frank

i also have greatstuff under my false bottom unprotected(bare).6 months now, no problems.


----------



## Derrick (Oct 28, 2005)

Ive heard good things about a product called Handi-Foam from a Company called Fomo. It is black in color too! It wont show as much if you miss a spot. It is sold as an adhesive for making ponds and water features! I havent tried it yet but I am not quite ready to start building my tank yet. I have bought four cans. You cant get it directly from the source....you have to order it through one of their distributors locally or I found mine on Dr. Foster & Smith website. It is around the same price after shipping as getting it through a local distributor. It skins over in about 15 min. and totally cures in a few hours if that, as long as you give time for each layer to cure!! It has been highly recommended.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2006)

Thanx Derrick I think were all pretty well aware of HF.

Matt


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

according to Marcos, it is virtually the same exact stuff as Great Stuff.


----------



## Derrick (Oct 28, 2005)

The good thing about it is the curing time and it black. It seems a lot better stuff to work with


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2006)

Rubisco,

Marcus expressed my sentiments very well in the post above.

To answer your question the best I can, you need not seal the foam for water purposes. I personally wouldn't use the term to seal GS with silicone, as GS is a selfskinning foam. The silicone is merely laying on the surface (barely at that) holding coco fiber, etc. Believe me moisture is able to creep under it. The closest one can say silicone is doing any sealing is in areas that have been sculpted.

The one area that a colored silicone has merit besides covering the color of GS is in relation to UV light. The foam was developed for cracks which in most cases are not in direct contact with UV light. Pigments help inhibit the effects of UV light on/in many plastics....black being one of the best. Thus, Handi foam has an abvantage over GS in pond/garden pool projects in two ways, less UV and (possibly ozone) inhibition and being black, blending into the poolscape.

Thus you need not cover your foam unless it is under UV light or has light falling directly on it from a window.

I have foam samples in a window area with a northern (indirect light) exposure for over 14 months. They were in/under water for months (finally just stopped adding water to the container) with no absorbency nor to date is there any appreciable degradation. They have turned to a golden brown in areas recieving light. Will this exposure cause acceleration of a break down faster than covered in a viv. ? Time may tell.

I hope this is of some help.


----------



## Derrick (Oct 28, 2005)

That is a lot of help! Im glad someone finally did some testing on this. The black Handi-Foam is labeled as waterproof and Great Stuff is merely Water resistant. That was enough to convince me but with what was written above I will never use anything but Handi-foam. That and I have heard of too many problems with Great Stuff. Thanks for the great info!


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Very nice work. 

I'm working on different adheasives that work on GS, both on the skinned surface and the foam structure that is exposed when carved. Right now the only impressive result has been from stuff from a company called PL. Their construction adheasives were at Lowe's so I figured I'd give them a shot. The only problem is I don't think they're offered in black, instead they're pretty much the same color as GS. 

GE Silicone II really hasn't stuck to anything worth mentioning, even stuff it gets a "7" rating on. I've tested it on slate, polished stone, GE outside and inside, Minwax Waterbased Polycrylic Wood Finish, PVC, Gurilla Glue, Glass, Duct tape, Vinyl sheeting. Of them Glass is the only thing it has stuck well to, but even then I was able to find areas that would easilly peal off. With everything else if it held to the material while it was dry, it didn't when it was wet. 

GE Silicone I has done alot better, but for the life of me I can't think if I've tested it on GS or not. I'll have to lay some beads tonight/tomorrow and post back.



*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Rain_Frog (Apr 27, 2004)

If you have the time and patience, epoxy will do the job. Then there will be no more worries of degradation or fire retardants poisoning the frogs, etc. However, it will slightly melt it while curing, but once it hardens, its 100% waterproof with enough coats.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2006)

Im sorry but maybe i wast clear in the second post in which i clreifeid my question. I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE FOAM. 

Any way most of this is moot as my question was already answered but for the post someone made regarding HF vs GS on UV I am sorry to tell you that the black foam is just a susceptible to break down as the GS I have used the HF for constructing pond water features and within one summer youll have yellow foam anyway.


One question for you HF GS lumpers if they are the same why is it that the HF does not shrink at all?
Just my personal experience.

Matt


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE FOAM.


Then conduct your own tests and post it up.



*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## twisner (Jul 7, 2005)

defaced said:


> > I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE FOAM.
> 
> 
> Then conduct your own tests and post it up.


maybe hes looking to decide which one is better without having to pay 3 times the price for fomo just to test it.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

And that warrents being rude how?



*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## kyle1745 (Feb 15, 2004)

I think he was just trying to point out he was looking for a specific answer.

I have tried fomo, and agree it is a bit high priced, and in my first tank it shrank just like great stuff. Maybe not as bad, but enough I had to fill around the edges.

Now if I could just find time to finish that tank....


----------



## twisner (Jul 7, 2005)

defaced, sorry if that came out rude, i was just trying to point out why he didnt do his own tests.

I reallly dont get how fomo is a good enough product to warrant tripple the price, especcially now that kyle says it does indeed shrink. I am not really seeing any difference in the effects of water or UV either. And who cares about curing time? You can always just wait a day.
And fomo still has to be covered in silicon/GS
Unless some new evidence comes out taht Fomo is really a much safer product, I know i will definitely be sticking with GS, just for the price.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2006)

Matt,

Structurally, I can't help.

I don't believe your statement was a completely valid one. Being that you would have to subject GS to the same conditions as The HF.

I'm willing to bet that The GS will fail faster than the HF. I donn't know for sure as I haven't tested them against each other or even care per say.

I have been involved with plastics, UV inhibitors and testing of such for a major pool manufacturer years ago, thus not totally out of my environment with some of this. 

As for GS vs. HF, I have not used the HF, however would have hoped it would have some advantage over GS in an outdoor environment, the pigmentation alone should give it an edge. 

Even in people you will find pigment has an effect relevant to UV. Both white and black will sunburn, however the white will sunburn faster all things being equal.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2006)

MR2 said:


> Matt,
> I don't believe your statement was a completely valid one. Being that you would have to subject GS to the same conditions as The HF.
> I'm willing to bet that The GS will fail faster than the HF. I donn't know for sure as I haven't tested them against each other or even care per say.
> As for GS vs. HF, I have not used the HF, however would have hoped it would have some advantage over GS in an outdoor environment, the pigmentation alone should give it an edge.


Well validity aside, 2weeks vs 2 months not much of a difference to me when ive got customers complaining cause thier waterfall is is turning orange.

Yeah the HF will slowly loose its black pigmentation and fade to a nice mossy green at first then out comes the orange shades until your back to yellow.
As far as stuctural integrity goes Ive never had it fail.

For those of you that felt my previous post was rude well Im sorry that you feel that way. 
By the way thanks Kyle and Twisner.

Matt


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2006)

I have been meaning to get back to this.

I can see where a customer is involved you are right with your statement. 
Like I said I haven't used the HF and based on your comments I may never use it, although I have considered it for my koi pond.

You may be interested in the link I'm about to give you. 

TAP Plastics Inc. has a two part urethane foam. It is nicer than the GS, however it is a liquid that you mix together and pour into place. Very fast work time and set. Not cheap......for small jobs, but could be cost effective for larger work and possibly pond work. It is a cream color, thus the same issues as GS. 

Check it out as you may find different densities, i.e. 2 pound, 4 pound, etc. The item I have used and have on hand is the X-30. It is a 1 quart kit, containing 1 quart "A" and 1 quart "B". It expands to 30x its liquid volume. 1 cubic foot weights 2 pounds and will float 60 pounds. Closed cell, buoyant, used where low water absorption is required. Can be glassed with polyester resins as well as epoxies.

My partner uses it to foam form his race car seat. A light weight open wheel "Formula Ford" series (I believe that's the class...he talks...I pretend to listen  ) He has crashed a few times and the seat (as well a he) survived. He ended up in the hosiptal the last time, however the seat didn't, thus the the foam has some structure.  

Anyway here is the site. Check the foam link.
http://www.tapplastics.com/


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

It is possible that the shrinkage could be related to the amount of blower used or the proportions of the prepolymer chemicals. I have the MSDS for both if somebody wants me to look it up. The great stuff gaps and cracks, or whatever it is, may have more blower in it and therefore shrink more. Just a guess though

As far as the other things I posted not being related to structural integrity, I have to disagree. Degradation is part of the equation regarding structural integrity, it just happens that for some people it is a matter of toxicity concern as well. It is entirely possible that coating in silicone may retard degradation although it probably won't provide more structural integrity in its load bearing or PSI ratings obviously.

Finally, the black may or may not be engineered as a UV stabilizer, the UV stabilizer and the black dye could be two different things. I don't think that there is anything that makes Fomo more resistant to breaking down due to contact with water, but that would be a question for the Fomo engineers. However, I don't recall much being written about hydrolysis stabilizers in spray polyurethane foam from what I've read.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2006)

Good post.

I could be wrong, however I get the impression that silicone coating the foam has been given a big push in resent times due to the Black Jungle viv. construction pictorial. Their step by step construction with pictures has been a very good link to send new people to learn some of the techniques being used.

The big reason the silicone is used (I'm assuming) is threefold. One) to have a color more suitable, two) to hold a material, three) is reputed to be safe for the frogs. I would also think that the development of this technique didn't consider UV, rather it just became an added bonus in the mix. More and more people are using UV lights for their frog vivs., thus the materials used may need to consider the more than days gone by. Foams/plastics go thru changes, for a number of reasons. These changes are not neccessary good ones. I'm not an expert, however I have experience with many resins, plastics, etc. and I have experimented with many. Some will have migrations just being in contact with each other. Most are not as stable as we would like or IMO are told. 

I was a bit out of line in suggesting that the black pigment would also be the sole (I didn't say that, however may very well have implyed it) UV stablizer. Indeed there are UV stablizers, however I have worked with plastics that had no UV stablizers in them in which case the darker pigments would keep the plastic in tact for a longer period of time.

I assumed, possible wrongly that a foam decidedly meant to be use out doors would have UV stablizers incorporated in them, whereas a foam designed for a less direct UV contact very well would not expense the ingredient/s. Pure cost factor.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

I was thinking about the shrinkage issue the other day and had a though as to why it happens. The "inspiration" comes from a dummy rock I made that is supossed to sit flat against some glass, though now has caved in where I cut it. 

If you cut GS open you see that as you progress further into the core of the foam the cells get larger. The outside cures first creating a boundry that is very strong because of the tiny cell size. That boundry forms a shape the inside of the foam has to keep as it cures. As the foam cures more and more stresses start to build centering around the core of the foam, as such the cells get large the further into the center you go. These stresses are because of the expansion of the foam and because it cures from the outside in. If the foam where able to cure without expanding, shrinkage woudn't be as big of a problem. (If there are any welders in the crowd, this is similar to solidification cracking down the center of a weld)

Now as time progresses it is possible that the internal forces of the foam are greater than any external forces on the foam (blower for expansion, pressure/temperature changes...) and thus the foam shrinks until equiblirum between the internal forces and the external forces is acheived. You can see this if you let a fist sized piece fully cure, then cut it in half. The center of the cut side will cave in from where there isn't an outside boundry holding it in place, though this will take time, say around a week. If this were done while the foam was cured enough to cut, but not completely cured this should happen faster. I still haven't figured out why it's such a long time scale. I think any deformation on cuts would be immediate, but if this behaves like a glass then a slow reaction makes since. 

The solution to this problem would to be reduce the application layer, or to apply, let it shrink, then fill in the gaps. 

This is all pretty theoretical. Aside from one observation and my background there really isn't much backing to this explaination. Sorry for my horrible spelling, it's late and I need to sleep.

Edit: clarity and to make the explaination completely general because there are a plethora of things that could fall into that "external forces" catagory.



*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2006)

I totally agree that the silicone protects the foam, giving it a longer life. I also feel in time however moisture will work from behind to be an enemy. This may take years however.

I haven't had much shrinkage that I can speak of. I will have to check some of my work. 

The foam IMO can preform very differently in different environments esp. relevant to moisture and possibly temperature, thickness applied, degree it can is shaken, temperature of inside of the can (warm a can of spray bomb paint in warm water, greater pressure for example....a little trick we would sometimes use.....don't you kids try this at home, we are professionals  ). 

Most materials of this type is going to have a degree of shrink. Often it is a relationship of thickness/volume, heat generated (which often will accelerate cure.....and very well may degrade or at effect the ultimate proporties as well) .

This I would think would indeed bring stresses into play. Just look at a loaf of bread (in a bread pan) and see how the corners don't rise as high as the center. I'm sure some of it is adhesion to the pan and several other factors going on much like _defaced_ outlined.

Anyways I'm going to bed.


----------



## MacheteAvenue (Oct 17, 2006)

the propellant as labeled is hydrocarbon gas.. witch is hydrocloralfloral carbon so it is a form of cloralfloralcarbon.. and thats is eating the ozone layer... umm ya... to me thats pretty bad.. but you decide


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

I hear now that we'll be gone before it's a problem? Even though for some now, it is, not surprizing when it's a third the size of what it envelopes/protects.

I can't beleive how long a thread can be made on 'such' a subject....and still, no resolution.

A couple pointers: (yes I read the whole damn pointless 'thing')

For clearing the extension tube use a air compressor (If you don't have one go to the gas station [so everyone can watch your antics]). Make sure to do it before it dries. As for cutting the tube into smaller segments, I can't see how this would work as you would end up with one peice with a thread to attach it to the can and the rest being short and useless even as a straw.

I take it everyone one here is familiar with 'candel' wax?


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2006)

MacheteAvenue said:


> the propellant as labeled is hydrocarbon gas.. witch is hydrocloralfloral carbon so it is a form of cloralfloralcarbon.. and thats is eating the ozone layer... umm ya... to me thats pretty bad.. but you decide


not sure what it uses for a propellant but prducts using CFC's hve been illegal in Canada for quite a number of years now have they not?


----------



## Guest (Oct 26, 2006)

well I've read this thread and must admit to being surprised. 

Great stuff is a very common material in the construction of aquarium scapes and has been for many years. All of my knowledge or opinions of on the subject comes from 1000's of hours spent on aquaria forums and hence are simply my opinion.

It is not toxic regardless of whether its breaking down or not, at least to fish. I personally am not concerned at all with shrinkage and so far have witnessed none. I coated mine with cement which is the norm for aquaria scapes but there are a couple of very small exposed areas.

There is no reason to use cans and cans of GS. Build the bulk using styro and then use GS to finish it off.

This aquarium is built into the wall behind my couch and is constructed using styro and GS covered in latex modified cement. Considering its submerged completely in water 24/7 I would expect to see the issues you are all talking about in a much accelerated time frame. This tank is not all the old but many similiarly constructed tanks have been operating for many years with no reported problems.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

BinaryWhisper said:


> MacheteAvenue said:
> 
> 
> > the propellant as labeled is hydrocarbon gas.. witch is hydrocloralfloral carbon so it is a form of cloralfloralcarbon.. and thats is eating the ozone layer... umm ya... to me thats pretty bad.. but you decide
> ...


I thought it was butane or something of the sort. I don't live in Canada and the U.S. 'rigor' *DOES NOT EXIST*.

Now I ust "highjack" a bit.
Most all countries including the 'mirrored' U.S. (China) esspecially Japan will not import much of anything from the U.S. because it is so toxic/tainted.

This includes: (illegal to obtain/sell/distribute) Nearly all food products (all of the processed) most contries wont even 'except' the donated, live stock feed, pharmiceuticals/drugs, everyday chemical cleaning solutions, chemical water purifiers, carpet, vynle, PLASTICS (milk jugs, straws ect), plywood (uh oh, hope you got it shipped from Japan), paint/sealers/binders/laquers, children toys which are plastic(yes very sad)............. on and on I think you get the jist.

All the tax payer dollars are going/went to waste while we provide(d) food/supplies to (example) Iraq because the majority (once there now have fled) knew what we don't (and we live here) and they would rather starve than poison themselves. [/b]


----------



## MacheteAvenue (Oct 17, 2006)

i was actualy wrong about what i said hydrocarbon gas is actualy the new thing they use as a refrigerant insted of hydrofloralcloralcarbon or cloralfloralcarbon.... or what ever.. haha anyways sorry about that i guess i should reseach before i open my big mouth. :?


----------



## Blort (Feb 5, 2005)

*RE: Foams, CFCS, etc.*

In the US MSDS sheets I have (which are a little dated +/- a year) these are the blowers:

*Great Stuff*
Liquified Petroleum
Mixture Containing
Isobutane (CAS# 75-28-5)
Propane (CAS# 74-98-6)
Dimethyl Ether (CAS#115-10-6)

*Fomo (Beckett's, the black stuff)*
Flourocarbon (Non-Flammable Compressed Gas, HCFC)

There has been legislation regarding HCFC's which is likely why GS doesn't have it:
http://www.basf.com/urethanechemicals/s ... s-near.htm
http://www.epa.gov/highgwp/pdfs/chap9_foams.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/hcfc.html

*RE: 'It is not toxic regardless of whether its breaking down or not'*

Is this based on just anecdotal evidence? If so, I would say that toxicity has not been observed or measured. Not to sound like a broken record, but there have been 0 studies about this as far as I can tell. There are some very interesting ongoing studies about the endocrine disrupting issues with epoxies, but this field from what I can tell is in its infancy.

When I was looking around a while back, I could only find one study about breakdown of polyurethane foams and this had to do with landfills. I can understand why nobody has looked at the issue much, and it probably has to do with the fact that these foams are not designed for this application, for being in constant contact with water, etc. They are not rated as food-safe for example. While foams are used in marine applications for flotation applications, I don't think those studying them are really looking at the potential impact of degradation on organisms.

I just don't see how you can make such a statement about safety. First, there is little data or consensus on what chemicals may be leached due to degradation. Even if there were, I doubt that your average hobbyist or zoo is testing for the presence of these chemicals during necropsy, etc.

A claim that it is "not toxic regardless" seems as specious to me as asserting that certain frogs exhibit higher numbers of females because of chemical disruption from chemicals leached into my vivarium. They are both suspect theories at best.

*RE: 'rigor' DOES NOT EXIST.*

Scthupa,

It is really hard to take any of your claims seriously, especially the Iraq one without any references. I find your claim that people are fleeing Iraq because of US food and material imports safety standards highly suspect and perhaps just trolling.

Regards,

Marcos


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

Blort said:


> *RE: Foams, CFCS, etc.*
> 
> In the US MSDS sheets I have (which are a little dated +/- a year) these are the blowers:
> 
> ...


Well, I think all would/could/should agree that this IS the case in America as far as its 'true' definition is concerned. Very loosely thrown around it has become, and thanks to the definition it carries, those 'gorrupt' use it to corroborate what doesn't exist as the have their own meaning for it. Which



> Scthupa,
> 
> It is really hard to take any of your claims seriously, especially the Iraq one without any references. I find your claim that people are fleeing Iraq because of US food and material imports safety standards highly suspect and perhaps just trolling.


I never said that was the sole reason they fled, and well I "figured" people would at least 'figure' that if they were in a similar predicamrnt, they would have had more than one reason to have fled (as always with everthing that gives cause there is always a multitude of effecting variables). But I'm sure it played a good part in those who were educated enough to 'know better'.



> Regards,
> 
> Marcos


Like I've said take it as you want it (as a grain of salt if you like). I know there are those that can make use and those who simply wish not because they block it (an the relative) from their own veiw point. But even if it's be few, so what, it's only what people don't know that sets their limitations, I feel 'freedom' can be given and may be deserved by those few. I'm here to answer questions, not go searching (wasting more time) for something I've probably already have been through more than once.
First of all I myself have no 'belief' in anything said by anyone, but I still consider it all and add/filter what is available. If you haven't been deceived enough already (and who does it best than our own), then go on with belief and take it all as is, in all people (regardless of how long it will take) they will in 'time' relize belief opens the door to being 'taken' advantage of.

I also compare past 'relevant' historical events with today and "text book record" (which is covered w/ horse **** [our/one persons perspective given to be accepted and that person and those who follow 'know' them to be 'good'].

Then you can look statistically (world veiw) and see that we are only 'considered' top of the list by us (those who are/not told/ do not conduct 'rigor'). When in fact our national rating is around 50th overall.
We 'treat' more diseases/disorders of our own people (not including foreign). Meaning in effect "we" create more diseases/disorders/problems to 'treat' not cure. The medical industry is certainly intent on keeping us on the line/verge (another 'form' of control/limitation). I "believe" this is rated close to 47th in place of other countries (does nothing itself?)

Look at where we fall in 'research', we are at the bottom of the list when it comes to medical, FCT, FDA 'rigor'. The only reason herbal medicine is not favorable/allowed is simply because we were founded on it along with slavery, and to say it's not taxed by our "gov." (for lack of a more simple term) is complete BS. 

Then the purpose/reason of the FRS, which is again built on acceptance of the 'peice' we were told (might as well have been an indian burial ground). When people awaken the wait/blame will be set on our shoulders. Iraq.....ect. has recently relized this that they have been duped (all this time/all that oil) with paper backtd w/ fire power and without representing any 'true' value. The oriental nations (I think) are just now realizing this as well. We receive everything we need from everywhere but our land (which we are now/have been giving up farm/pasture land for housing devolpments for MORE people!). This contribution I must cut short of this part as I will never shut up once brought up.

The only thing that will truley lend creedance to this (for you) is to get out, go traveling and see how "unbelievably" different things tend to be as to how they're portrayed to us here. People will say "media" dishes out the worste to us. Again only what you are/not meant to be told. All I can say is "no it doesn't". If all was that easily veiwable to us, the big picture would surely emerge to the majority and power/control/regulation/cunduciveness/cartelment/compartmentalization would end, and the way things were intentionally meant (with purpose of moral judgement) would construe as is. Secularism would arise and enable people to think for themselves.



I know people should be careful, but I myself am less than worried. They all have had their chances, and I know no one dares to give validity to I by retaliation of the "too late/been done".

If you must respond, make it a pm unless somehow related to GS, I really prefer not to get bitched at for perpetuating "irrelevant" material.

As for all pastics and GS, they all eventually breakdown, and yes this is a problem regardless of it being 'labeled' as "inert" material. When plastics deteriorate the don't breakdown as a 'whole', they break smaller and smaller, (whatever has surface area exposed and in contact with 'elements' is able to degrade). once that's is done the plastic that has started to breakdown goes by haves (roughly so) until converted into pariculates. 

The problem exists in the 'filtering' 'nature' of nature. All organisms have many sized 'filters' to assimilate and rid of what they need. Every organism has similary sized 'filters' as compared to others (unrelative) and 'filters' designed especially for that organism. Say we have a plastic down graded to molecular size, it will undoubtably be ingested at some point (being now part of the "food chain"). It'll essentially clog/accumulate in the organism, inhibiting (causing disorders) in some way and with continual consumtion will cause the organism to starve at the cullular level and then to fail (This cannot be sensed as hunger/age process ingreases). Then as a particle it can/will be picked up by plants and converted as part of that plant. Then you have a potentially larger issue with it being excepted as a synthetic..............

Everything is toxic to an excess extent, it doesn't take toxins to create a problem.

Regardless,
Lant


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Moving us back on topic and away from US policies and other unrelated screeds....we have the original question...



mydumname said:


> I have been reading up on this great stuff product and its many uses. Most say it works good and is harmless. I can only really find one person who consistently says negative things about it. Does anyone else have any negatives to great stuff, aside from it being sticky?


Data as opposed to conjecture or opinion(s) highly preferred 8) 

Bill


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

i think it`s a great idea, don`t know how someone actually came up w/ the idea of using it, but i have never used it in the past and have a general distrust of the chemical companies. i will never use it in the future for anything that is rare or prized by me but may use it for an auratus tank and experiment on them to find out if there are such problems as feminization of the offspring. just because something "seems" to be harmless doesnt mean it is. look at the video of kids being sprayed by ddt in a pool and what they found later,thalidamide(sp?)etc.etc. if i tried to list the # of things the "gov`t" deemed safe and then took it back... 
most problems arising from chemicals may not be seen till future generations and in my position i can`t risk putting out a substandard product, so to speak(i put too much time and effort into these guys to have it go to waste). have they been testing this products resistance to flowing water over 20 years? it may start to release toxins at 5-10 years but the tests may have only been necessary for 3 years and that`s how it passed. 
i have to agree that i just have no trust for chemical companies that have screwed up dealing w/ human life, let alone all it is built on, in the past.
who`s word are we taking on it being non-toxic, chemical companies who have something to sell or hobbyiests who only know what they see or scientists studying frogs exposed to this stuff over successive generations.
until i see data from the latter i can not and will not risk it, sorry. i`m just naturally a doubting thomas.
besides, deeming it safe to use is only by human standards on short term. they never test how it will affect the calcification on bird eggs or how it affects the nitrifying bacteria in the soil or how bats will be affected if it boicumulates(did i just make a new word? bioaccumulates maybe?) in them.
just some food for thought. we`re pretty sure silicone is "safe" i`d at least coat it in that to seal as much of it away as i can.

JUST A THOUGHT, i am not being accusatory or trying to piss anyone off but maybe some of you are thinking a little too much about how the tank is going to look in your home more than the inhabitants of your future viv.
if your not breeding frogs for a living nothing is wrong w/ that. only thru some of you using great stuff are we ever going to find out stuff like this, personally i can`t make an informed decision on whether it is safe or not and i don`t think anyone else here can either but the question was about opinion and this is how i drew my own.


----------



## Josh_Leisenring (Jun 19, 2005)

Oy... just used this stuff for the first time today; figured I'd give it a try despite my fear of all things sticky. I didn't have any gloves available, and I did my best not to touch the stuff, but it still managed to get on me when I was reaching around in the tank with the can. Man, I'm still cutting it out of my armhair...
Still, it looks like it'll form some interesting vertical landscaping. Maye I oughta post some pics... Anyway, I'll let ya'll know what I think after it cures.

- Josh


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

^ Smart man, very, I love those you put thought before reaction, very (for todays' standards not the 'true' intent) un-American.


Doesn't want o seem to stick. It's all of pertainability with great importance that is contuniually swept under the rug, even when exposed the light (to see it) is still held behind the curtain.



mydumname said:


> I have been reading up on this great stuff product and its many uses. Most say it works good and is harmless. I can only really find one person who consistently says negative things about it. Does anyone else have any negatives to great stuff, aside from it being sticky?


Data as opposed to conjecture or opinion(s) highly preferred 8) 

Bill[/quote]

Wouldn't it be if it were given? Surely by me but it's not by our own. The only place you have to go where research is publicized and not commercialized is almost anywhere but here. 'Our media' is localized for this exact reason.

Stem cell research is a good/bad example of something (I don't know what). As it is forbidden here (at least to the public), but the U.S can conduct it anywhere else (Germany), even though it's probably to disuade our attention from them doing it here, and thing of the alike nature.

Comparing oppinion to experience who the hell do you think justifies such a concept? Gee. I know this doesn't exist, but still accepted by the most.

People in other countries soon relized that something was taking effect in their populus (evidently they gave a damn) causing apparent problems. The spent effort on getting the research done to verify that of course it was many things (not only one) that is attributable to most disorders. Easily preventable to them by now making all that is known inaccessable.

The intention in the US is incomparable as were are set on treating or maintaining life throughout the duration of these diseases/disorders.
No cures, not even prevention is upheld. Prevention so easy/reason used where it counts/known of. Again prevention is not a drug (although it would be if it were up to us) but available information is the precure. So simple, but yet it's so too simple to regulate knowledge for those who are/have been already so excepting of the thought of being taken care of/looked out for. So are cows right before a slaughter.
Here instead of commercial reasearch done under the public eye (being insisted as it should) it remains behind closed doors even after already being distributed. 

We all know (should unless you've been undergound your whole life) that which is deemed acceptable is only done so through their standards not ours (as said previously). Then we hear occasionally (too often) (very few pointed out) about the multi billion dollar lawsuites being opposed to the pharmicuetical Co/FDA for deeming these certain things OK before the real research, causing the worst deaths/permenant disorders imaginable. Then drugs that have been around from get go that are still used and effecting people in more subtle/less seen/unknown (by the public) ways and with the purpose(s) of theirs', that is who knows. We are told they're ok people believe (I don't know how, but works without much of a flaw) those without a face. It is more feasable for them to conduct use of experiments on the community, even including the lawsuites (they print the money). I think they see it more as less time consuming as they surely know time is quickly running short.

If the 'rigor' is that leniant and what we actually ingest you can only surmise the component potential of everything else we produce without a thought.

I can only imagine the difficulty of sueying the brain wash/persuation after a solid lifetime consistant deception. I ready felt sick today before I had reminded myself of this shit.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

That reminds me of something really important (for today). That if you get this on your skin wash it immediately do not wait. If you do it'll dry/crack your skin and the only way (other than ripping your flesh off) to get it off is with acetone (WHICH YOU CAN NOT USE AT THIS POINT) unless your willing to die from anephalatic shock.


----------



## Josh_Leisenring (Jun 19, 2005)

Well, the stuff that managed to get on my skin is already starting to peel and wear off; it kinda reminds me of getting superglue on your skin.
In the meantime, I've carved out some nice planting ledges into the GS background, and have been working on affixing soil to the GS with caulk. All seems well so far...

- Josh


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

> Data as opposed to conjecture or opinion(s) highly preferred


Analytical data will probably never exist for spray polyurethane foams in this application. Emperical evidence is all over the place in many different hobbies. Sometimes emperical data has to be taken over analytical data and I think this is one of those cases. Statistically speaking, with the wide use of this, if there were a problem with it, it would have become apparent by now.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Mike,

I was just trying to yank this thread back on topic. I have no idea what stem cell research, the war in Iraq, conspiracy theories about what the government is hiding from us, blah, blah, blah have to do with Great Stuff and its long term suitability in frog vivs. 

I remain mystified about the need of some individuals to turn threads into a private rant as opposed to dealing with the topic of the thread. 

Bill


----------



## JL-Exotics (Nov 10, 2005)

elmoisfive said:


> I was just trying to yank this thread back on topic. I have no idea what stem cell research, the war in Iraq, conspiracy theories about what the government is hiding from us, blah, blah, blah have to do with Great Stuff and its long term suitability in frog vivs.
> 
> I remain mystified about the need of some individuals to turn threads into a private rant as opposed to dealing with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Bill


Here here!!

Thank you Bill, this thread needed a BIG yank. Your efforts are appreciated.


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

Bill,

The part of your post I quoted had nothing to do with the redirect that this thread needed, but a request for the kind of information "preferred" to be posted.


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

Well I always prefer data as in 'I've used GS in "X" frog vivs for "Y" years with no apparent ill effect on frogs' as opposed to 'I've never used GS but you can't trust the government and big corporations - look at how they've lied to us' (insert lengthy rant at this point). The former is incomplete but I suspect a bit more useful than the latter :wink: 

Bill


----------



## defaced (May 23, 2005)

:lol: Chimone Bill, didn't you know there was a Great Stuff conspiracy? Geeze


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Come on, you didnt know great stuff was stolen alien technology. Luckily, it seems to be fairly harmless to us carbon-based lifeforms.  
I used gs my first time when i was 12 (yes, 12, I was an odd child) in a 29g reef tank (cheaper to use gs and coat it, then add some live rock, rather then use live rock completely). That tank was set up with several corals and fish for the better part of 5 years w/o any noticable problems. No unexplained fish deaths, changes in the chemical compositions of the water, etc. Ive used it in all the vivs Ive constructed to date. Im confident with it.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

Mike condensed the whole thing really well. I'm no poet he should've came first as space would have been saved.

I'm not sure which part Bill coniders conspiracy I think that's just his hope it is.

One of these days Bill, I'm going to devote a WHOLE thread just to you. Right now  

The theory I can take as that was all about GS and just (what I think) I understanding of how things break down. Which they inveitabley will (everything). 

The only way any effects to become apparent immediately could happen is only if it WERE toxic (which we've been told it's not and I don't doubt that as it's obvious it's not) or If a large broken chunk was ingested (typically not an issue unless you're that dumb).

Any (possible) effects will be seen far far down the road once everything is saturated with it's smallest particulate form and by then it's too late so who cares>

Everything effecting/determining everything else is just simply how things work/change, but no one can say exactly how. It will happen. But again the least of worries. Maybe everyone will be lucky and it'll end up being "possitive" in it's effect. :roll: 

Like those who think not of future heritage and live momentarily. Who cares I'll be dead, so A good bypass for me.

My kids piss me off anyway.


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> JUST A THOUGHT, i am not being accusatory or trying to piss anyone off but maybe some of you are thinking a little too much about how the tank is going to look in your home more than the inhabitants of your future viv.
> if your not breeding frogs for a living nothing is wrong w/ that. only thru some of you using great stuff are we ever going to find out stuff like this, personally i can`t make an informed decision on whether it is safe or not and i don`t think anyone else here can either but the question was about opinion and this is how i drew my own.


Just a thought for those lazy/don't care.
Sounds good just thought I might remind as this seems to be the way 'many' think.

Selfish or stupid?


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

elmoisfive said:


> The former is incomplete but I suspect a bit more useful than the latter :wink:
> 
> Bill


If that wasn'y enough I could extend further if you're not satisfies.

I would think simply being unsure is enough.

As for any of the rants being private. Is this another 'wish' of yours. I'd love to know how you can seclude yourself from the rest of the world.


----------



## pl259 (Feb 27, 2006)

*Double A Ron said...*



> JUST A THOUGHT, i am not being accusatory or trying to piss anyone off but maybe some of you are thinking a little too much about how the tank is going to look in your home more than the inhabitants of your future viv.


Overall I think most people here are just trying to contruct the most natural looking environments for their animals with the belief that the animals will live longer and happier lives then they would in a simple tupperware container. What constitutes "too much", is a matter of opinion, and will likely be debated forever. 

That said however, I tend to agree and my opinion is that as a group, we do not do enough to explore alternate construction techniques that achieve naturalistic environments while at the same time reducing the use of these questionable materials. I personally include silicone in that list and try to minimize or eliminate it's use as well. Perhaps it's our conservative nature.

It wasn't too long ago GE Silicone II and Bioseal were absolute evils. But now since that's all we can get, it's OK. Granted we've made some calls, read some labels, done comparisions and the like, to convince ourselves. But it's still rolling the dice, IMO.

I think the jury is still out on GS and not likely to reach a verdict any time soon. Years of service is not enough for my complete seal of approval.

The biggest tangible negative I see with GS is it's color. Because it is so un-natural, we end up using additional materials to cover it up. Silicones, paints, epoxies, concrete binders, glues, lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! And why, because they are cheap and we can get them at HD and Lowes. If we continue to use it(likely of course), then I'd like to see more exploration and consideration given to food safe alternates for covering GS and the like. They're out there and I've been looking.

EricG.NH


----------

