Subject: Environmental control
In re the Smithsonian environmental control controversy: 1. There has already been a great deal of discussion on this in the museum climate control community. Certain matters are clear. Among other problems, this information was put out originally through a press release. No written material in the technical literature contains data to support the figures. The Smithsonian researchers have refused to participate in AIC meetings where others would be on hand to criticize their findings, and they pulled out of a half-day session at AIC in June where they had been on the program. 2. Stated savings would only, at best, be accomplished in buildings which maintain the narrower +-3% levels. To maintain the wider range which the Smithsonian people state as allowable would require basically the same installation, that is, complete vapor barriers to allow humidification that would not harm the building and a re-heat system to allow wintertime humidification. 3. Attempts by other to duplicate their actual numbers have been in vain; requests for further hard data have not worked. 4. The implication that all conservators consider 50% +-3 to be a requirement for museum collections is simply not true. Conservators have traced written material stating that this is not necessary, and in many cases not even desirable, back to the mid 70's at the latest. My book was written in 1989 and certainly reflects an insistence that the 50% number is a mistake. Responses of individual objects are as dependent on their own materials and environmental histories as to any other variable. If the administrators of museums or other collection-holding institutions are using the article as a reference, you need to get a well-known and well-credentialed outside consultant to fight this out. Aside from the merit of the case, I believe it reflects badly on our field(s) if articles in a popular magazine are being used as information sources. Barbara Appelbaum *** Conservation DistList Instance 10:9 Distributed: Friday, July 12, 1996 Message Id: cdl-10-9-001 ***Received on Friday, 12 July, 1996