Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 21-08-2003, 12:32 AM
Gregory Young
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

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





  #2   Report Post  
Old 21-08-2003, 01:12 AM
FBCS
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

Thanks Greg, you have helped me finalize my decision for liner purchase.
Joann
"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






  #3   Report Post  
Old 21-08-2003, 02:44 AM
Phyllis and Jim Hurley
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

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







  #4   Report Post  
Old 21-08-2003, 03:02 PM
Sam Hopkins
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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









  #5   Report Post  
Old 22-08-2003, 06:11 AM
RichToyBox
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!


"Gregory Young" wrote in message
...
Hi all:
The bottom line, according to Firestone, there is a "decided difference"
between the 2 liners:
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?


All rubber products have to be cured, (vulcanized), but the method of cure
may be different. Some of the rubber products are cured by microwave, some
by brine solution, some by heated form, but the heat has to be there for
some time for the molecules to chemically bond, to give the properties
desired, such as tensile strength, hardness, elongation.

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.


I suspect the additional chemicals used in the roofing liner, that would not
be needed in pond liner is antioxidants. The roofing would be subject to
ozone in the atmosphere, that the pond would not be subjected to. I have
seen oils and waxes used as antioxidants, and both will migrate to the
surface of the rubber sample during ozone testing. If insufficient amounts
are present, the rubber cracks like old tires on a parked car. Whether
these would be toxic or not, I don't know.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html



.
Happy ponding,
Greg








  #6   Report Post  
Old 22-08-2003, 06:11 AM
Gregory Young
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

Sounds good Jim..
Let us know how it goes!
It's like many things in life.. we all live with pollutants, to varying
degrees, most of the time. Some of us react to them(ie environmental asthma,
certain immune mediated disease, etc), some do not. Fish may/may not be
affected to chemicals that may leach out in time.
Plants similarly may/may not be affected.
Again, he did not tell me their particular brand of liner had anything added
to inhibit plant growth (ie moss), but he wouldn't be specific on that
point, even when I pressed him..
Happy ponding,
Greg


--


"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









  #7   Report Post  
Old 22-08-2003, 06:11 AM
Gregory Young
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

Interesting Rich..
I didn't think of the antioxidant compounds, figuring the roofing liner
would be covered by shingles, providing some level of protection, once the
shingles seal in....
I was trying to establish if they added any low level herbicides, which I
have heard from various contractors that some roofing liners have.
I could not get an answer to that, other than he acknowledged some do...
Again, thanks for the wonderful hospitality you and Donna shared with us
while we were in Va!
I am going to send you the pics I promised, once I get caught up.
Had a series of problems (some major) when I got home..
Should have known Murphy hits whenever I leave for even a short vacation!
1 of the 6 left to resolve, then I can start playing again.
The 8 koi look very happy with their new home, and the electric fencing has
done the trick with the mink.. at least so far.
Greg

--


"RichToyBox" wrote in message
news[email protected]

"Gregory Young" wrote in message
...
Hi all:
The bottom line, according to Firestone, there is a "decided difference"
between the 2 liners:
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?

All rubber products have to be cured, (vulcanized), but the method of cure
may be different. Some of the rubber products are cured by microwave,

some
by brine solution, some by heated form, but the heat has to be there for
some time for the molecules to chemically bond, to give the properties
desired, such as tensile strength, hardness, elongation.

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.


I suspect the additional chemicals used in the roofing liner, that would

not
be needed in pond liner is antioxidants. The roofing would be subject to
ozone in the atmosphere, that the pond would not be subjected to. I have
seen oils and waxes used as antioxidants, and both will migrate to the
surface of the rubber sample during ozone testing. If insufficient

amounts
are present, the rubber cracks like old tires on a parked car. Whether
these would be toxic or not, I don't know.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html



.
Happy ponding,
Greg








  #8   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2003, 02:03 AM
RichToyBox
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!


"Gregory Young" wrote in message
...
Interesting Rich..
I didn't think of the antioxidant compounds, figuring the roofing liner
would be covered by shingles, providing some level of protection, once the
shingles seal in....


I think this roofing liner is used on flat roof, or nearly flat roof with no
protection from the elements. Primarily, industrial plant roofs which used
to be done with hot tar and gravel.

Again, thanks for the wonderful hospitality you and Donna shared with us
while we were in Va!


It was great having you over. Thoroughly enjoyed meeting you and your
wife, along with the rest of the crew.

The 8 koi look very happy with their new home, and the electric fencing

has
done the trick with the mink.. at least so far.


The fish were some nice eye candy. I am sure you will enjoy them. Hope the
electric fence continues to work.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html


Greg

--


"RichToyBox" wrote in message
news[email protected]

"Gregory Young" wrote in message
...
Hi all:
The bottom line, according to Firestone, there is a "decided

difference"
between the 2 liners:
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?

All rubber products have to be cured, (vulcanized), but the method of

cure
may be different. Some of the rubber products are cured by microwave,

some
by brine solution, some by heated form, but the heat has to be there for
some time for the molecules to chemically bond, to give the properties
desired, such as tensile strength, hardness, elongation.

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.


I suspect the additional chemicals used in the roofing liner, that would

not
be needed in pond liner is antioxidants. The roofing would be subject

to
ozone in the atmosphere, that the pond would not be subjected to. I

have
seen oils and waxes used as antioxidants, and both will migrate to the
surface of the rubber sample during ozone testing. If insufficient

amounts
are present, the rubber cracks like old tires on a parked car. Whether
these would be toxic or not, I don't know.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/pondintro.html



.
Happy ponding,
Greg










  #9   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2003, 02:22 AM
BErney1014
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

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


I did the same thing - 6 years ago. I forget the guy I spoke with. There was a
change in formulation for the UV/mold/fungus etc. that was reported to kill
fish quickly. Firestone knew about the stories and their marketing was that it
wouldn't happen with the pondguard. I have no idea if the stories were
substantiated. The bottom line was the pond version didn't have the same
additives the roofing version needed. He was unable to give straight forward
info due to the newsgroup claiming the only difference was the white paint on
the pondguard logo vs. the batch codes on the roofing membrane. The newsgroup
was of the opinion Firestone was breaking the law charging different prices for
the same material. The newsgroup (this one) caused Firestone to get ****ed and
they stopped talking.
I bought one of each. No difference in performance. No dead fish. I was faxed
the MSD sheets too and they were not helpful.
The only liner to ever spring a leak was the pondguard. ;-)

  #10   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2003, 06:32 AM
Phyllis and Jim Hurley
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

BErney,

How did you test the 'one of each' that you bought? Maybe my experiment is
not needed!

I don't question that they may do some different things to the roof liner,
but I am not at all convinced that the difference makes a difference for
fish.

Did you find any difference at all?

Jim



--
____________________________________________
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
"BErney1014" wrote in message
...
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


I did the same thing - 6 years ago. I forget the guy I spoke with. There

was a
change in formulation for the UV/mold/fungus etc. that was reported to

kill
fish quickly. Firestone knew about the stories and their marketing was

that it
wouldn't happen with the pondguard. I have no idea if the stories were
substantiated. The bottom line was the pond version didn't have the same
additives the roofing version needed. He was unable to give straight

forward
info due to the newsgroup claiming the only difference was the white paint

on
the pondguard logo vs. the batch codes on the roofing membrane. The

newsgroup
was of the opinion Firestone was breaking the law charging different

prices for
the same material. The newsgroup (this one) caused Firestone to get ****ed

and
they stopped talking.
I bought one of each. No difference in performance. No dead fish. I was

faxed
the MSD sheets too and they were not helpful.
The only liner to ever spring a leak was the pondguard. ;-)






  #11   Report Post  
Old 23-08-2003, 02:12 PM
BErney1014
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

How did you test the 'one of each' that you bought? Maybe my experiment
is
not needed!


I simply read between the lines what the Firestone guy was saying and tried a
roofing membrane. Not being certain what the manufacturing change date was, if
it was toxic it would kill the fish. I dug hole 12 x 12, lined it, filled,
added long tailed comets, they lived, spawned and have been there for 6 years.
I used the pondguard on a pond for fish that were very expensive so I wasn't
going to chance anything.
I bought another membrane a few years later. I found no difference to fish
health or liner performance.
If you go back in the archives, maybe the threads are still around.
  #12   Report Post  
Old 24-08-2003, 02:32 AM
FBCS
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!



I came across this link for Firestone.



Water feature Liner comparison


http://www.firestonebpco.com/special...ucts/index.htm

"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






  #13   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2003, 01:22 AM
Gregory Young
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

The referenced link still brings you back to the same MSD sheets, that were
posted by another before. Firestone is not going to identify how the 2
materials differ as far as potability/fish safety, other than what I posted
above (after my discussion with them).
Now that I hear about the legal issues that may have been thrown at them in
the past, I can understand why they are reticent, at least from their
viewpoint.
Happy ponding,
Greg
--


"FBCS" wrote in message
...


I came across this link for Firestone.



Water feature Liner comparison


http://www.firestonebpco.com/special...ucts/index.htm

"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








  #14   Report Post  
Old 25-08-2003, 04:42 PM
Shane Kennedy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

how much cheaper is the roofing liner compared to the pond liner?
  #15   Report Post  
Old 26-08-2003, 11:32 PM
Gregory Young
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pond Guard vs roofing liner - Firestone's answer!

It can vary quite a bit when you buy it from retailers!
Interesting though that the wholesale prices are not nearly as much
increased on PondGard as Rubbergard, as they are at the retail level.
It's like honey (I used to raise bees). When I sold honey to a well known
supermarket chain, they sold it for $1.00 per pound. The exact same bottle
of honey, with my same label on it sold for $1.40 per pound in the health
food section, 4 or 5 aisles away, and it sold faster there because the store
advertised the honey as "all natural honey, with nothing added".. as though
my other bottles had something added!?
PT Barnum had a saying about that....
I guess the retailers can add healthy mark ups to pond supplies in general,
as it is the craze at present.
Happy ponding,
Greg
--


"Shane Kennedy" wrote in message
om...
how much cheaper is the roofing liner compared to the pond liner?





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using Roofing EPDM for liner [email protected] Ponds 0 28-02-2014 12:33 PM
Pond Liner Material Identification - What Pond Liner to Choose FLP Ponds (alternative) 0 10-02-2010 09:35 AM
Experimental test for roofing liner Phyllis and Jim Hurley Ponds 0 21-08-2003 04:12 PM
Roofing Liner Priscilla McCullough Ponds 8 19-08-2003 06:42 PM
Everliner vs Firestone Liners stricks760 Ponds 3 12-07-2003 04:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2021 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017