<[log in to unmask]>,<[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-originating-ip: [2602:306:c454:1350:e126:b5d:4d19:d67]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:
x-forefront-prvs: 025100C802
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(6009001)(428001)(377454003)(53754006)(24454002)(189002)(199002)(46102001)(15975445006)(77982001)(21056001)(64706001)(15202345003)(19580405001)(86362001)(19580395003)(4396001)(2656002)(87936001)(20776003)(74502001)(36756003)(76482001)(54356999)(31966008)(50986999)(105586002)(81542001)(95666004)(85306003)(99286002)(83072002)(85852003)(92726001)(80022001)(101416001)(81342001)(74662001)(79102001)(106116001)(106356001)(83322001)(76176999)(92566001)(99396002)(3826002);DIR:OUT;SFP:;SCL:1;SRVR:DM2PR02MB318;H:DM2PR02MB320.namprd02.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;MLV:sfv;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:en;
received-spf: None (: wpr.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is )
 [log in to unmask]; 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: wpr.org
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5600 definitions=7477 signatures=670468
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0
 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1
 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1406230156

Hi Duane -=0A=
=0A=
I actually don't refer to any surfaces, so I'm not sure what you are referr=
ing to.  I'm just pointing out that saliva is a common cleaning agent used =
in the conservation profession - depending on the surface - and the goal of=
 the cleaning.  =0A=
=0A=
Since I'm not claiming to be an expert, I would definitely recommend speaki=
ng with a conservation professional before cleaning any surface with any ty=
pe of solution, including saliva, if the artifact is that important.=0A=
=0A=
Again, just pointing out that the spit method does exist - =0A=
=0A=
cheers -=0A=
=0A=
Allison=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]
.GOV> on behalf of H D Goldman <[log in to unmask]>=0A=
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 8:46 AM=0A=
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] The guy who cleans his 78s with spit.=0A=
=0A=
Hi Allison,=0A=
=0A=
None of the surfaces you refer to are coated with a fine film of mould-rele=
ase waxes which are the most difficult contaminants to safely remove from m=
ost disc recordings [excluding lacquers].=0A=
=0A=
Duane Goldman=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
On Jun 23, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Smith, Allison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:=
=0A=
=0A=
> http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=3D20020407&slug=
=3Dwcleanpaintings=0A=
>=0A=
> It's actually quite common to use saliva to clean surface dirt and grime =
from art and collectibles in the conservation / museum community.  I've see=
n many a conservator use this method over the years.=0A=
>=0A=
> I don't see why it couldn't work for records -=0A=
>=0A=
> Here's an article that talks about the spit method used in museum conserv=
ation labs.=0A=
>=0A=
> Allison=0A=
=0A=
H D Goldman Lagniappe Chemicals Ltd.=0A=
PO Box 37066 St. Louis, MO 63141 USA=0A=
v/f 314 205 1388 [log in to unmask]