I still subscribe to the fact that no evidence that it causes harm is not the same as evidence that it doesn't cause harm. If I don't *know* in advance whether what I'm considering doing is going to damage the stone or not, I assume it will and I don't do it. Given that both stones and shaving creams vary in their properties, I submit that one can never *know* in advance whether a given cream will harm a given stone. It will be too late after the damage is done. And since there are ways to improve visibility without any possibility of harm, why not use them! Mike More mikemore@rogers.com -----Original Message----- From: irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brock Way Sent: July 3, 2008 2:52 AM To: IRL-CO-DONEGAL@rootsweb.com Subject: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] shaving cream on tombstones The notion that shaving cream harms tombstones is a fallacy. It is almost exactly like the idea that sinks drain swirling the other way around on the other side of the equator - once people "learn" this, it is nearly impossible to get them to unlearn it. The rationale behind both assertions sound scientific, but in the end, actual scientists who have training in the applicable fields believe neither of these contentions. The people who believe shaving cream harms tombstones are almost invariably the same people who still believe sinks drain the other way around in Australia. The lie can be put to the sink drainage nonsense by simply testing a few sinks. The lie to the shaving cream harming tombstones nonsense is just as easily dashed, and can be put by merely going to google, and searching using the following search terms: shaving cream tombstones Pick the most popular (i.e., the first) link shown. It was written by a chemist whose specialty is measuring the affinity constants of organic molecules in solutions for solid state materials, which is exactly the matter at hand. Please don't believe the weed-pullers at association for gravestone studies and elsewhere who suddenly now believe themselves experts in chemistry and geology. Believe the expert chemists and geologists on this one. The reason the claim that shaving cream harms tombstones is never accompanied by any evidence supporting the claim is because there isn't any. Brock Way From: "Mike More" <mikemore@rogers.com> Subject: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] Transcribing tombstones Please, NO!!!!. I researched the topic and wrote the following for our local genealogy newsletter last year: We rely on information on tombstones to help us in our research. Projects around the world transcribe cemeteries and make them available for those who can't visit. But how do you transcribe weathered tombstones without causing further damage. We are aware that items that we used in the past, such as shaving cream, may help temporarily but accelerate the damage caused by acid rain, vegetation and insects. I've done some research, in the interest of saving the tombstones for our descendants. Help Preserve Our Cemeteries (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dsucha/preserve.html): Don't spray or rub anything into monuments in an attempt to make the inscriptions more visible. I have heard of people who rub shaving cream or chalk into tombstones so that the inscriptions stand out. There are many non-invasive ways of reading an inscription. Often a simple white card to reflect the light at an angle, or waiting for the right time of day, will make the inscription jump out. It is better to wait a couple of hours rather than risk damaging an historic monument. The Association for Gravestone Studies (http://www.gravestonestudies.org/welcome.htm): . Don't use shaving cream, chalk, graphite, dirt, or other concoctions in an attempt to read worn inscriptions. Use a mirror to shine sunlight across the face of a stone, making the lettering stand out. Always prefer a non-invasive method on gravestones just as we do on medical tests on our own bodies . Don't use detergents, soaps, vinegar, bleach, or any other cleaning solutions on the stone, no matter how mild! . Don't use stiff-bristled or wire brushes, putty knives, nail files, or any metal object to clean or to remove lichen from the stone; Soft natural bristled brushes, whisk brooms, or wooden sticks are usually OK if used gently and carefully . Don't attempt to remove stubborn lichen. Soft lichen may be thoroughly soaked with plain water and then loosened with a gum eraser or a wooden popsicle stick. Be gentle. Stop if lichen does not come off easily. Saving Graves (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/rubbings.htm) says: A Note About Shaving Cream, Flour Or Chalk: A word of advice, DON'T use shaving cream , chalk, flour or anything else on tombstones!. These have many ingredients harmful to tombstones (like butane) and in some cases can be abrasive. There are a number of websites that promote this method, with one going so far as to assure that the shaving cream will not harm the stone. Please do not attempt this as you WILL be causing a great of damage to the stone and even by washing it after you are finished you will not remove all of the material that you have placed on the stone. More detailed information on why not to use shaving cream on a stone can be found here. In the case of flour, "introducing a starchy organic material to the stone is a death knell for it. not only will feed the lichens that are there but will introduce new ones which will have little natural competition. Also, wheat paste, which the flour essentially becomes when that first rain pours down (or the first dew forms) is a great adhesive. Just because we can't see any of it doesn't mean that it is all gone. Those little fungi and microbes love that sort of stuff and it is best not to introduce anything to the surface of the stone." According to the Crayola website, Molded chalk, such as Crayola Colored chalk, is a softer chalk, made of plaster of Paris, which is defined as quick-setting gypsum plaster consisting of a fine, white powder, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, which hardens when moistened and allowed to dry. Sidewalk chalk is much harder than regular chalk; in fact, will actually scratch a typical chalkboard. Saving Graves received the following response from Crayola concerning the use of sidewalk chalk: "Crayola sidewalk chalk contains plaster of paris which has a gritty texture. Plaster of paris is not considered to be biodegradable, nor are most of the pigments contained in Crayola sidewalk chalk. Also, product packaging warns of colorants that may stain. This could be a good factor depending on the exact nature of what you are trying to do. While packaging does warn of colorants that may stain, chalk used outside generally washes away because of extreme weather conditions and excessive rain. Again, this could vary depending on the surface it is applied to." Mike More mikemore@rogers.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CO-DONEGAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Has anyone tried taking digital photos and enhancing them with good software like Photoshop? I don't know about tombstones, but Photoshop has helped with other kinds of images. -----Original Message----- From: irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike More Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 07:24 To: brockway_32m@yahoo.com; irl-co-donegal@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] shaving cream on tombstones I still subscribe to the fact that no evidence that it causes harm is not the same as evidence that it doesn't cause harm. If I don't *know* in advance whether what I'm considering doing is going to damage the stone or not, I assume it will and I don't do it. Given that both stones and shaving creams vary in their properties, I submit that one can never *know* in advance whether a given cream will harm a given stone. It will be too late after the damage is done. And since there are ways to improve visibility without any possibility of harm, why not use them! Mike More mikemore@rogers.com -----Original Message----- From: irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brock Way Sent: July 3, 2008 2:52 AM To: IRL-CO-DONEGAL@rootsweb.com Subject: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] shaving cream on tombstones The notion that shaving cream harms tombstones is a fallacy. It is almost exactly like the idea that sinks drain swirling the other way around on the other side of the equator - once people "learn" this, it is nearly impossible to get them to unlearn it. The rationale behind both assertions sound scientific, but in the end, actual scientists who have training in the applicable fields believe neither of these contentions. The people who believe shaving cream harms tombstones are almost invariably the same people who still believe sinks drain the other way around in Australia. The lie can be put to the sink drainage nonsense by simply testing a few sinks. The lie to the shaving cream harming tombstones nonsense is just as easily dashed, and can be put by merely going to google, and searching using the following search terms: shaving cream tombstones Pick the most popular (i.e., the first) link shown. It was written by a chemist whose specialty is measuring the affinity constants of organic molecules in solutions for solid state materials, which is exactly the matter at hand. Please don't believe the weed-pullers at association for gravestone studies and elsewhere who suddenly now believe themselves experts in chemistry and geology. Believe the expert chemists and geologists on this one. The reason the claim that shaving cream harms tombstones is never accompanied by any evidence supporting the claim is because there isn't any. Brock Way From: "Mike More" <mikemore@rogers.com> Subject: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] Transcribing tombstones Please, NO!!!!. I researched the topic and wrote the following for our local genealogy newsletter last year: We rely on information on tombstones to help us in our research. Projects around the world transcribe cemeteries and make them available for those who can't visit. But how do you transcribe weathered tombstones without causing further damage. We are aware that items that we used in the past, such as shaving cream, may help temporarily but accelerate the damage caused by acid rain, vegetation and insects. I've done some research, in the interest of saving the tombstones for our descendants. Help Preserve Our Cemeteries (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dsucha/preserve.html): Don't spray or rub anything into monuments in an attempt to make the inscriptions more visible. I have heard of people who rub shaving cream or chalk into tombstones so that the inscriptions stand out. There are many non-invasive ways of reading an inscription. Often a simple white card to reflect the light at an angle, or waiting for the right time of day, will make the inscription jump out. It is better to wait a couple of hours rather than risk damaging an historic monument. The Association for Gravestone Studies (http://www.gravestonestudies.org/welcome.htm): . Don't use shaving cream, chalk, graphite, dirt, or other concoctions in an attempt to read worn inscriptions. Use a mirror to shine sunlight across the face of a stone, making the lettering stand out. Always prefer a non-invasive method on gravestones just as we do on medical tests on our own bodies . Don't use detergents, soaps, vinegar, bleach, or any other cleaning solutions on the stone, no matter how mild! . Don't use stiff-bristled or wire brushes, putty knives, nail files, or any metal object to clean or to remove lichen from the stone; Soft natural bristled brushes, whisk brooms, or wooden sticks are usually OK if used gently and carefully . Don't attempt to remove stubborn lichen. Soft lichen may be thoroughly soaked with plain water and then loosened with a gum eraser or a wooden popsicle stick. Be gentle. Stop if lichen does not come off easily. Saving Graves (http://www.savinggraves.org/education/bookshelf/rubbings.htm) says: A Note About Shaving Cream, Flour Or Chalk: A word of advice, DON'T use shaving cream , chalk, flour or anything else on tombstones!. These have many ingredients harmful to tombstones (like butane) and in some cases can be abrasive. There are a number of websites that promote this method, with one going so far as to assure that the shaving cream will not harm the stone. Please do not attempt this as you WILL be causing a great of damage to the stone and even by washing it after you are finished you will not remove all of the material that you have placed on the stone. More detailed information on why not to use shaving cream on a stone can be found here. In the case of flour, "introducing a starchy organic material to the stone is a death knell for it. not only will feed the lichens that are there but will introduce new ones which will have little natural competition. Also, wheat paste, which the flour essentially becomes when that first rain pours down (or the first dew forms) is a great adhesive. Just because we can't see any of it doesn't mean that it is all gone. Those little fungi and microbes love that sort of stuff and it is best not to introduce anything to the surface of the stone." According to the Crayola website, Molded chalk, such as Crayola Colored chalk, is a softer chalk, made of plaster of Paris, which is defined as quick-setting gypsum plaster consisting of a fine, white powder, calcium sulfate hemihydrate, which hardens when moistened and allowed to dry. Sidewalk chalk is much harder than regular chalk; in fact, will actually scratch a typical chalkboard. Saving Graves received the following response from Crayola concerning the use of sidewalk chalk: "Crayola sidewalk chalk contains plaster of paris which has a gritty texture. Plaster of paris is not considered to be biodegradable, nor are most of the pigments contained in Crayola sidewalk chalk. Also, product packaging warns of colorants that may stain. This could be a good factor depending on the exact nature of what you are trying to do. While packaging does warn of colorants that may stain, chalk used outside generally washes away because of extreme weather conditions and excessive rain. Again, this could vary depending on the surface it is applied to." Mike More mikemore@rogers.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CO-DONEGAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CO-DONEGAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Fair enough. However, part of the point of the page to which I pointed made is that shaving cream actually protects the stone from damage it already suffers anyway (stones don't last forever, even if they are never given any anthropogenic insult of any kind). Thus if the sake of the stone over the long term is the consideration, then an a priori belief that not using shaving cream is "safer" concomitant to the discounting of what would otherwise be the a priori belief that it helps preserve the stone is simply a good example of meritless bias, since both sides have the same identifiable claimed endpoint of their respective processes (namely stone preservation), and the same evidenciary basis (i.e., none). I subscribe to the view that no a priori bias should be assumed, and that when picking sides where both the claimed process endpoint and the produced evidence are the same, stick with those who are experts in the applicable field. In this case that would be chemists, geologists, and particularly geochemists. Brock Way > I still subscribe to the fact that no evidence that it > causes harm is not > the same as evidence that it doesn't cause harm. If I > don't *know* in > advance whether what I'm considering doing is going to > damage the stone or > not, I assume it will and I don't do it. Given that > both stones and shaving > creams vary in their properties, I submit that one can > never *know* in > advance whether a given cream will harm a given stone. It > will be too late > after the damage is done. And since there are ways to > improve visibility > without any possibility of harm, why not use them! > > > Mike More > mikemore@rogers.com

So in words of one syllable, this means what? Sorry guys but for the "common person" long out of science or chemistry classes and just trying to read a headstone - this means WHAT? Beth Cherkowsky http://members.aol.com/efc999/donahue.htm http://www.squidoo.com/donahuefamilyhistory/ Bradley, Donahue/Donohue, Boylan, McHugh, Manning/Mannion/Mangan, Barrett, Burke, Walsh & Forrester in Co. Mayo, Fountas, & Cerkauskas in US, Ireland, Greece, Lithuania & worldwide > -----Original Message----- > From: irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:irl-co-donegal- > bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brock Way > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 3:19 AM > To: irl-co-donegal@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] shaving cream on tombstones > > Fair enough. However, part of the point of the page to which I pointed made is that > shaving cream actually protects the stone from damage it already suffers anyway > (stones don't last forever, even if they are never given any anthropogenic insult of any > kind). Thus if the sake of the stone over the long term is the consideration, then an a > priori belief that not using shaving cream is "safer" concomitant to the discounting of > what would otherwise be the a priori belief that it helps preserve the stone is simply a > good example of meritless bias, since both sides have the same identifiable claimed > endpoint of their respective processes (namely stone preservation), and the same > evidenciary basis (i.e., none). > > I subscribe to the view that no a priori bias should be assumed, and that when picking > sides where both the claimed process endpoint and the produced evidence are the > same, stick with those who are experts in the applicable field. In this case that would > be chemists, geologists, and particularly geochemists. > > Brock Way > > > I still subscribe to the fact that no evidence that it > > causes harm is not > > the same as evidence that it doesn't cause harm. If I > > don't *know* in > > advance whether what I'm considering doing is going to > > damage the stone or > > not, I assume it will and I don't do it. Given that > > both stones and shaving > > creams vary in their properties, I submit that one can > > never *know* in > > advance whether a given cream will harm a given stone. It > > will be too late > > after the damage is done. And since there are ways to > > improve visibility > > without any possibility of harm, why not use them! > > > > > > Mike More > > mikemore@rogers.com > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CO-DONEGAL- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject > and the body of the message

Gee, do you work where I work? -----Original Message----- From: irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:irl-co-donegal-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brock Way Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 03:19 To: irl-co-donegal@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [IRL-CO-DONEGAL] shaving cream on tombstones Fair enough. However, part of the point of the page to which I pointed made is that shaving cream actually protects the stone from damage it already suffers anyway (stones don't last forever, even if they are never given any anthropogenic insult of any kind). Thus if the sake of the stone over the long term is the consideration, then an a priori belief that not using shaving cream is "safer" concomitant to the discounting of what would otherwise be the a priori belief that it helps preserve the stone is simply a good example of meritless bias, since both sides have the same identifiable claimed endpoint of their respective processes (namely stone preservation), and the same evidenciary basis (i.e., none). I subscribe to the view that no a priori bias should be assumed, and that when picking sides where both the claimed process endpoint and the produced evidence are the same, stick with those who are experts in the applicable field. In this case that would be chemists, geologists, and particularly geochemists. Brock Way > I still subscribe to the fact that no evidence that it > causes harm is not > the same as evidence that it doesn't cause harm. If I > don't *know* in > advance whether what I'm considering doing is going to > damage the stone or > not, I assume it will and I don't do it. Given that > both stones and shaving > creams vary in their properties, I submit that one can > never *know* in > advance whether a given cream will harm a given stone. It will be too > late after the damage is done. And since there are ways to > improve visibility > without any possibility of harm, why not use them! > > > Mike More > mikemore@rogers.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to IRL-CO-DONEGAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message