Subject: Freezing objects
Ellen Roblee <robleee [at] nmaicrc__si__edu> writes >... Could those of >you who have seen damage caused by freezing for pest control please >share your observations? The damage we are concerned about includes >cracking, crack propagation, delamination, fatty bloom, spew (spue >for some of us), loss of adhesion, exacerbation of bead disease and >so forth. I think this brings up something that conservators know about treatments that should be translated into the realm of pest control applications: that every treatment has a small but unpredictable possibility of unwanted change to an object (aka damage). This means that unnecessary treatments are not a good idea. In the case of routine freezing for pest control, the same applies. Since freezing is not preventive, then only infested things should be chosen. Although it may be better to use other pest control methods rather than freezing for something that might be changed somewhat by such treatment, subtle kinds of changes that are side effects of treatment need to be balanced with the benefits of treatment. So for certain objects that are difficult to treat for infestation in other ways, or where there are no facilities for other types of treatment, the potential for small-scale changes needs to be balanced against the potential damage from pests, the potential health consequences of chemical treatment, etc. In other words, although we should obviously learn as much as possible about the possibility of collateral damage, objects are too complex to be able to predict exactly what will be "damaged," and the definition of significant damage that is represented by perhaps microscopic changes in the material of objects is not a simple matter. It is unfortunately not possible to simply say that if a treatment is going to damage, or might damage, an object, we can't use that treatment. B. Appelbaum *** Conservation DistList Instance 14:58 Distributed: Tuesday, May 1, 2001 Message Id: cdl-14-58-001 ***Received on Monday, 30 April, 2001