In article <[log in to unmask]>, Jim Druzik  <[log in to unmask]> wrote,
among other things:
 
>The following press release was recently issued by the Conservation
>Analytical Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution.  It seems there
>are a number of credibility issues involved especially for current or
>planned building programs.  It also seems to some that the press
>release can easily be responded too in a rather volatile manner.  What
>do you think?
>James Druzik
>Conservation Scientist
>The Getty Conservation Institute
 
>>WORK OF SMITHSONIAN SCIENTISTS REVISES GUIDELINES FOR CLIMATE
>>CONTROL IN MUSEUMS AND ARCHIVES
 
  (lots of stuff deleted)
 
>>Smithsonian researchers have found that museum objects can safely
>>tolerate a wider range of temperature and relative humidity than
>>previously believed.
 
>>This new insight could save museums millions of dollars in
>>construction and energy costs to maintain environmental conditions
>>once considered essential for the preservation of artifacts.
 
>>Moreover, Mecklenberg says, specialized heating and cooling systems
>>that keep temperature and humidity stable can be expensive to
>>operate.
 
Well, I would assume that behind this press release is a lot of
documented, available, work which explains the research in great
detail, and where I could look to find out "the real story."
 
>From the press release itself, I am not sure exactly what to think.
For example, I think it says that many museum materials can withstand
_cycling_ through a range of temp/hum as successfully as they stand up
under a constant 70deg/50% environment (and not just that the materials
can tolerate alternative but constant settings). But, it doesn't say
how often, nor how frequently (or rapidly) these materials can tolerate
these fluctuations. Nor does it suggest how reliable the environmental
control systems need to be in order to assure the curator that the
collection _will_ stay within the bounds. Do commercial systems ["such
as heating and cooling systems used in grocery or retail stores"]
provide that level of reliability and defense against [occasional] wild
swings in settings? Is that important?
 
Another point. I'd want to know how much of the conclusions was based
on actual [multiple] materials testing, and how much was based on
computer simulations. I'd want to know a lot more about the credibility
of the computer simulations.
 
If SI/CAL did the job well (and there's no specific reason to believe
otherwise; the evidence is just not in the press release which is
what James is asking about), then this is probably great news for
lots of museums (how many have extremely well controlled environments?).
Peter Rauch