The fridge was on the list but will definitely happen when we finally get
new premise, and yes, it will be called Richard!
I use a respirator as a dust mask just doesn't cut the mustard. I also
have goggles. Your health is paramount and even though they are
uncomfortable to wear and you look silly and thew respirator can leave a
mark around your face after wearing it for 30 - 60 mins, I would rather
live longer and look like a twerp whilst handling hazardous to health moldy
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Richard L. Hess
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Hi, Katie,
> I'm not talking about SCBA type respirators, just the step up from the
> dust mask at the Home Depot.
> The image of the NYPD officer in the Wikipedia article shows something
> close to what I purchased at Home Depot.
> I do realize there may be protocols, etc., associated with using these in
> the workplace, and I know nothing about that. But, I would much rather wear
> one of these than the simple dust mask because the dust masks never seem to
> fit well.
> Yes, I realize that bad things can infiltrate through the eyes as well,
> but I am careful not to rub my eyes.
> MARIE: Did you not install the refrigerator in the processing room? I
> thought you had done that, too, and named it "Richard" <smile>.
> Katie, as to your other questions:
> >>if you are reserving seperate equipment for baking moldy tape, are you
> also reserving seperate equipment for playing it?
> Yes and no. I have a headless mold transport in the garage, but I clean
> the tape with a dilute chlorine bleach solution that has not proven harmful
> to the tapes, but should be harmful to the mold. The tape is wiped end to
> end and placed on a clean(ed) reel.
> The tape is then brought into the studio for transfer.
> >>Our audio archivist and I have only come across moldy tape once since
> we've been doing this ( a few years), and we we're able to make the
> decision to de-acession the tape in that instance.
> I get some work from large corporations who don't want to make that
> decision and also don't want to risk a lawsuit. I am careful. I've done
> research. I don't think I'm taking an excess risk. I usually request no
> boxes, no paper, and ship them to me in plastic bags.
> >>I've been wondering about differentiating between different tape bases
> before baking. Acetate and PET - there are a couple of ways that I know of
> if it were really in question (using polarized filters, for one,I think -
> but if there is an easier way, please let me know) -
> In many collections, you CAN rely on the box as your first source of
> information. The easiest thing to do is to hold the tape up the a strong
> light. If you SEE light coming through the tape pack (the 1/4-inch
> dimension) i.e. through the edges of the basefilm, then it is acetate. I
> understand this is reversed for film, but if you take some Scotch 111 (very
> common acetate tape) and hold it up so you're looking at the disc of the
> reel, you'll see light coming through.
> While this is not 100% accurate, I do know of a few instances where baking
> has helped non-back-coated tapes, by and large all tapes that need to be
> baked are back-coated.
> The worst of the bunch--the Ampex/Quantegy 406/407456/457 tapes were
> plentiful AND need baking. These are black backcoat and brown magcoat. If I
> get something that looks like this, it is baked as you can do more damage
> winding through a tape that needs baking than baking it.
> PVC tape is very rare and should not be baked, but I don't know how you
> differentiate it from PET.
> NOTE: Scotch called their acetate base "Plastic" and often used the DuPont
> trademark "Mylar" for their PET based tapes.
> For 3M and BASF(etc) there are good lists at:
> These (and some other useful resources) are listed in the middle of
> I think there is one 3M PVC tape listed. BASF and related companies made
> more, including the 1944 I.G.Farben Magnetophonband TypL which was
> homogeneous--the mag particles were not coated on, but rather were embedded
> in the basefilm.
> One other resources is I attempt to keep a current list of degrading tapes
> on my website
> Here is a tag sort of my blog articles (accessible in the bottom half of
> the sidebar)
> This sort also might be of some interest (and has some duplication)
> >>but do we need to worry about ruling out PVC as well?
> See comments above.
> >>I'm certainly not enough of a chemist myself to be able to take the
> laundry list of potentially harmful components I recieved and trace it back
> to any particular of the makeup of a tape, unfortunately.
> Benoit Thiebaut did some research for Prestospace on u-matic video
> cassettes and identified four different chemistries for the same
> manufacturer/type number. At least some of the problem is attributable to
> chemical reactions that did not complete as expected or designed. At this
> point, I don't think we'll ever obtain enough information to reverse
> engineer all the different tape formulations. There will never be a pool
> test kit is the consensus of the chemists I've talked with.
> You have read my paper, no?
> My paper on tape degradation that was originally presented at the Audio
> Engineering Society's 121st convention in October 2006 in San Francisco was
> published in the ARSC Journal in the Fall of 2008. It is available here:
> I hope this helps.
> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
> Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.