General

[Railgun]

From reading all this it seems like we have two things going on here. First is the water test. It's a tool that can be used to show the presence of oil or some other lighter than water non soluable component to the fill if it is not oil.

Second is the real world results posted by RussC and Vern1 about a long lasting sticky residue that is capable of killing vegetation and supporting mold or fungal growth.

The test provides information that, as DRG points out, may or may not be an indicator that something is wrong. After all Mother Nature has a pretty good arsenal of bacteria that is able to break down SOME oils over time and little harm results. If it turns out that the oils or other substance used is bad for the environment then that brand of paint SHOULD be boycotted.

It would be nice to find out the name of the the stuff Russ's and Vern's fields and to run this test on it.

Oddly enough I could see where the "oil" may not be an issue. It could well be the thickening wax used by the paints that is resulting in the long lasting residue mentioned by Russ and Vern.

There's still testing that can be done by us mere mortals though. The Koolaid test is one. Perhaps coating surfaces with paint and subjecting them to a mild water shower similar to rain to test their ability to wash away would bring up the issues found by Russ and Vern.

Another test would be to subject some test plants to samples of the paints over a time period in realistic paintball field amounts to determine if any paints are capable of harming out vegatation.

DRG, you'll excuse me if I find your attitude a bit puzzling. You seem to be all for debunking the results. While I agree with your scientific process and agree that the Koolaid test opens up as many questions as it answers I'd rather see it as a warning that further testing is needed rather than just dismiss it as you seem to want to do. Especially in light of the findings of Russ and Vern. Staining our clothes is one thing but if our paint is harming the playing fields even in a minor way then there's work to be done. The Koolaid test may not be evidence to damn the makers on its own but it's certainly one aspect that could help to understand what's at work here.

[drg]

Originally Posted by Railgun

DRG, you'll excuse me if I find your attitude a bit puzzling. You seem to be all for debunking the results. While I agree with your scientific process and agree that the Koolaid test opens up as many questions as it answers I'd rather see it as a warning that further testing is needed rather than just dismiss it as you seem to want to do. Especially in light of the findings of Russ and Vern. Staining our clothes is one thing but if our paint is harming the playing fields even in a minor way then there's work to be done. The Koolaid test may not be evidence to damn the makers on its own but it's certainly one aspect that could help to understand what's at work here.

To the contrary, I just want to know the "so what" ... connect the dots. Say what the accusation is, the implication. Don't just say, well there's oil here!

There are several accusations here, some ethical, some business, some scientific (or scientifique) ... but IMO the dots are not connected explicitly enough at least in this thread.

I have not been convinced how this relates to us and what we as readers are being recommended to do as a result.

[Butch]

I had to put my input in here. Last month when I emptied the shot box at my proshop, there was a thick layer of black mold (not sure if it was THE black mold, but it was black) with an almost whispy top mold that was whitish. This box is emptied bi-annually and has had many different kinds of paints shot into it. Everything from RPS, Origen, Draxxus, and a few others that customers came in with. There was several layers you could see through the side of the clear box (paint drains down into box). The was a layer of sludge, followed by water, another unknown substance that looked chaulky, then the molds.

Next time this happens I'll be sure to take a few photos, though to be honest I kind of hope it doesn't. It was a disgusting and horrid job to deal with.

-Butch

[stupiddogg]

Awesome Roland!

Keep it up

SD

[russc]

For what it's worth, I tested two Nelson brands that have been used heavily at my field. Nelsplats are mostly oil and the fill does not mix or dissolve even when shaken in a bottle of water. EKG is the newer Nelson brand and is much better, staying dissolved even after being left to sit for half an hour.

[tagroland]

Hey everyone,

I just got tremendous news.

I just talked to Theresa (GM, and wife of owner Rick Luis) of Nelson Technologies this morning.
She told me directly, that they are switching over their entire line of paintballs from oil to PEG!!!!!

In this economy, Nelson have found value (paying more money) to produce PEG balls, than oil balls.
KUDOS to Nelson!!!



Folks, this is just the beginning!
When makers, take the first step...we, as players, need to take the next step.

My plea...to all my fellow paintballers...please support the makers of PEG balls instead of oil balls.

Blessings All,
R

[NotBrian]

This is a load of nothing until you can prove oil does anything bad. Maybe the gelatin is worse-- microbes love the stuff.

[russc]

Originally Posted by NotBrian

This is a load of nothing until you can prove oil does anything bad. Maybe the gelatin is worse-- microbes love the stuff.

Don't be ridiculous. PEG washes away, oil stays. It's simple as that.

[drg]

Originally Posted by russc

Don't be ridiculous. PEG washes away, oil stays. It's simple as that.

And that means nothing, inherently. Lead paint stays too, but it doesn't grow mold. There is a LOT more testing that needs to be done to prove half of the assertions in this thread and the article.

The only thing proven to date is that some paintballs use some type of oil as an ingredient.

[Brewtt]

Originally Posted by drg

And that means nothing, inherently.

Um... no.

That means my paintball clothes don't get STAINED and bunkers are easier to wash off. Refs appreciate this.