I got in a rather heated argument over the weekend with someone who claimed oil-based paints in a home were safe -- after all, it never harmed the homeowner. Which lead to none of her kids ever ate lead paint. And the young people these days are paranoid about the environment. What can I say -- she was ill-informed, and I wasn't so kind about her ignorance. OK, I was kind of a jerk about it.
So today I chuckled when I saw a review of No-VOC paints from the New York Times. Road test Finally, A Good Looking Non Toxic Paint? by Stephen Treffinger. I'll try to be kinder this time.
He tested "10 brands of environmentally friendly indoor paints, which are very low in, or free of, volatile organic compounds, or V.O.C.’s — toxic chemicals like benzene and formaldehyde found in traditional paints, which can be released into the air for years after the paint has dried and have been linked to a number of health problems, including asthma and cancer."He did 3 things:
1) Rolled on paint on wall -- taking note of the odor.
2) Made a 2 x 2 square patch on the wall, let it dry for 6 weeks, dirtied the walls then cleaned them.
3) Took a board that was primed, took red and black permanent markers and then tried to cover over the marker with paint to see how much paint it took to cover the markings.
I appreciate the author's bringing information to his readership about low- and no-VOC paints. but here are my problems with the article:
1) Odors are subjective. What is offensive to one person is not bothersome to another, making it hard to gage.
2) He used mostly white and light colors and they perform better.
3) The chief complaints I hear from my painters is the low- and no-VOC paints are coverage, cut lines, and set up time. I would have liked to see the author test those issues.
Cut lines where the rolled in areas meet the brush work near the ceiling and around trim/moldings can often be seen. You are not supposed to see this. It is supposed to be seamless.
The reason you see the cut lines (and pull marks on trim for that matter) is because the paints set up so quickly -- meaning that they start to dry right away so you have to work very fast. From what I understand, most of the agents that slow drying time or add to the smoothness of the paint have been removed from the formulations because they contain toxic materials.
You often notice cut lines more in dark colors, which is why I would have liked to see him test some of the bolder colors. Red? So challenging in these new paints.
They don't cover that well. Some are kind of gloppy (technical term).
4) How smudging with a newspaper stained fingers replicates what goes on in a home is beyond me? But OK, it's a test. Isn't newspaper readership is way down? Sorry NYT but I read you on-line. If you have a real stain on the wall, you wipe down, prime, then paint. You don't expect wall paint to cover a stain like permanent marker. Primers cover stains better than paint. (I like Kilz.) Painting over marker is not the solution.
5) Stephen claims:" Most brands don’t advise that you scrub the paint with the force I used, especially not if it has a matte finish, but I wanted to see which ones would hold up to punishment." That's an odd admission. Why did he do that? Flat paint is not supposed to hold up to vigorous scrubbing. It's not that cleanable by nature. That's like asking a Honda to perform like a BMW. It's just not what it does. Flat paints are only appropriate for new walls. They show everything, every flaw in the wall, every mark, scratch and ding and you cannot clean them. Some people like the look of them and that's fine, but you don't expect high performance from them. They are what they are.
PS. I slept in my bedroom the same day the walls were painted with C2's low-VOC paints. But we did open the windows.
