21-08-2003, 04:02 PM
|
|
Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!
Maybe the pond with crazy water that's killing goldfish in 10 minutes was
made with Rubbergard....
"Phyllis and Jim Hurley" wrote in
message .. .
Thanks for the homework, Greg! We are in your debt.
It is interesting to hear that there is a difference in the processing. I
am also interested to see that there was no statement that the roofing
material would hurt the fish...altho he did say it would take several
years
for the leaching process to be a problem. We will watch with interest!
I note that our roofing lines does not seem to inhibit growth of algae! or
other pond plants. There is also no visible effect on the fish. I am
glad
if pondguard is cured for potable situation standards. I still have
significant questions about whether roff guard may not be equally
effective
for fish ponds.
Fot the price diffefrence and no visible effect difference difference, I
am
still satisfied with the roof guard. Phyllis and I will have to monitor
what happens as our roofguard ages further.
J
--
____________________________________________
Check out Jog-A-Thon fundraiser (clears $140+ per jogger) at:
www.jogathon.net
See our pond at: http://www.home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-jameshurley
"Gregory Young" wrote in message
...
Hi all:
To settle the discussion (I can't locate the original thread) as to
whether
or not there are differences between roofing liner (Firestone Rubbergard
line), and pond liner (Firestone PondGard), I called Firestone today in
my
"official capacity" with the state to get the straight answer.
I talked first to TH, who could not answer my "detailed" questions, who
referred me to BJ, one of their engineers.
Firestone called me back, to confirm I was who I stated I was, before
they
would go into specifics. I was told the specifics, but can share only
generalities with you in this forum. You make your own decisions..
The bottom line, according to Firestone, there is a "decided difference"
between the 2 liners:
1) I questioned why the MSD sheets (Material Safety Data sheets) another
NG
reader had shared with us comparing the 2 products seemed so similar.
Their answer: Manufacturers are required only to list potential hazards
of
their products along with the general type of material, physical,
chemical,
etc properties, etc.
They are not required to list individual components as long as any
potential
properties of them are included in the above for their product. Their
processes and product lines are patent protected.
The MSD sheets may look similar, according to Firestone, but they are
not.
In fact he said to be sure to notice that under the product
identification
section, the chemical name descriptor, PondGard is listed as "cured
rubber
material", with no similar reference in their roofing line MSD sheet.
Why?
.. read on.
2) Their roofing liner has "additional processing", which "adds certain
chemicals useful to extend the life of the material". He would not
identify
the specific agents added, except to agree with me that "some" companies
add
plant inhibiting compounds to their roofing liner.
3) More importantly, the 2 are "cured differently". PondGard meets rigid
specs. for potable water to "insure Koifish kept in peoples' ponds are
not
affected". In fact this liner could be used to hold potable water based
on
its curing process, although he was very clear that Firestone does NOT
warrant this liner for that purpose! Their roofing liner (made at the
same
plant, and using the same overall equipment) is NOT cured in this
fashion.
There are no provisions in the processing of the roofing liner to
inhibit
chemicals from leaching out of the material, although he projected this
would take at least 3 or 4 years to become an issue.
4) There is nothing to "wash off" of their products, for either use. As
the
chemicals are incorporated into the material, "they can not be washed
out."
5) The difference in the price they charge to dealers is based on the
curing
process of the PondGard, which ensures "there will be no leaching of
chemicals, until its warranted lifespan has been exceeded". He stated
they
do NOT spend the $$ on this curing process, and label some material
coming
off their line as PondGard, and other as Rubbergard. It would be a waste
of
$$.
Dealers clearly have a healthy mark-up on PondGard, from what was
shared.
6) The bottom line, I asked if it were him, and this was to be used in a
potable situation (for fish again, not for drinking water for people),
what
would he do. He stated he would "certainly pay more and get the right
material".
Now you have the facts direct from Firestone, who make PondGard. That is
one
product from one company, so you can not automatically generalize the
above
statements to other companies.
Happy ponding,
Greg
|