OOAK Table Tennis Forum

I quit believing anything the ITTF has to say a long time ago. They just blow too much smoke.

You can find Adham's response to these questions here:
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8686&start=105

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

The proposed ball size change is a shifting of the range of acceptable diameters. The following is what was passed at the most recent AGM.

Values in [brackets] are the old values. I've bolded and italicized the new values. As you can see, the change represents a narrowing of the range of ball sizes with a very slight move upward of the average size. Given the two ranges of tolerances, it is quite possible for a current approved celluloid ball to be larger than an approved seamless plastic ball.

Proposed by the Equipment Committee
To modify Technical Leaflet T3, The Ball (B.3 Size conformity); only applying to balls not made of celluloid. The minimum diameter of every ball must be at least [39.50mm] 40.00mm and its maximum diameter must not exceed [40.50mm] 40.60mm. The sample mean average diameter, i.e. the mean of the average of the maximum and minimum diameters for each ball, must be in the range [39.60-40.40mm] 40.00-40.50mm. Values
below [39.25mm] 39.70mm or above 40.75mm are considered in our
calculations as outliers.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

Source:http://www.hkttf.com/viewthread.php?tid=59409&extra=&page=2
The author of this thread is able to totally prove Adam's comment and reasoning as lies

Celluloid is the combination of a relatively low nitrate level nitro cellulose and camphor. The camphor is what you smell when you break open a ball.

Cellulose fibers are used to make nitrocellulose. Typical fibers are cotton or wood pulp. Yes, the same fibers used to make newspaper, facial tissue and your underwear (cotton). Cellulose fibers surround us. Plants are about 30% cellulose fibers. Lots of things are made from cellulose fibers and they aren't being banned. In fact, some manufactures are promoting cellulose as a replacement for more dangerous or less environmentally friendly products such as asbestos and fiberglass. You can get cellulose insulation for your home and concrete that is reinforced with cellulose fibers.

Nitrocellulose is made worldwide and there is no impending ban or any indication that its manufacture will be reduced in any significant degree. Nitrocellulose is used for the making of inks, gunpowder and propellants, and nail polish and a few other things.

Here is but one company - in the U.K. that makes nitrocellulose.
http://www.nitrocellulose.com/index.html
Here's another company.
http://www.dow.com/dowwolff/en/c ... cellulose/index.htm

Nitrocellulose is typically shipped in containers where it is wetted with water or alcohol precisely because of its volatile nature. Wet things don't tend to put fibers in the air - not that it would matter much anyway. There are many kinds of protective gear that modern factory workers wear when there are airborne hazards anyway. Many things are hazardous. Modern man has, however, manages to successfully deal with many such things. We drive in cars with many gallons of very flammable fuel and live in electrified houses.

I contacted a Japanese company that supplies celluloid for table tennis ball manufacturers. They said that the notion that the hazards of celluloid being the same as for asbestos is imagined.

Celluloid production has diminished not because of hazards, but because for most applications, better (which might mean simply cheaper or might mean actually performs better) materials have been developed. That has been the case for some time. I find it hard to believe that table tennis manufacturers know less about how to run their businesses than does Adham Sharara. I doubt seriously that they needed him to tell them of any impending problem with the making of celluloid table tennis balls. They aren't idiots. They know they can't sell rubber, blades, tables and so forth if there are no balls to play with. Nonetheless, apparently it took Adham's prodding get them to once again try seriously to come up with a different ball.

I seriously hope that the new ball has as many advantages as it does disadvantages. Because frankly, if we are going to get railroaded into this change - as seems to be the case - I'd like for it not to be a disaster.

I find it hard to believe that celluloid manufacturing has been banned in any country. The reason is simple. Nitrocellulose is made all over the world, including in the U.K. and that's the dangerous/volatile component. Combining it with camphor doesn't make it more dangerous, it makes it less so. Celluloid manufacturing almost surely has become a niche activity because of the lack of demand. Is there any wonder that it is being made primarily in China, Korea, and Japan - three countries where table tennis is quite popular?

The ITTF put out a pure fiction when they said that there was a worldwide ban on celluloid. Even Adham must admit that was not true. Though even then he's saying that was an oversimplification. I'd like to point out that "fiction" does not equal "oversimplification."

One of their officials also put out the fiction that celluloid (or did he say nitro-cellulose?) production is 80% the same as nitro-glycerin. That's another fiction. Adham is associating cellulose fibers (I grew up next to cotton fields - egad!!) with asbestos. Seems like a lot of hype being associated to celluloid and very little substance, facts and reference being offered to support any of it. I, for one, am waiting for Adham to actually show some kind of reference to these bans, hazards and so forth. I suspect the wait will be very long.

In the meantime, I'll leave it to the various forum members to decide for themselves if the things Adham Sharara and the ITTF is saying on this topic seem credible. From what I've been able to find, it just doesn't add up.

_________________
wlhk
Chinese Penholder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Forehand: MXP
Backhand: Grass Dtecs, Tsp P3 Alpha
--------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you wlhk! Very good information!

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

Someone should forward wlhk's information to those voting in the ITTF election next week. This ball change is scandalous and no one in table tennis wants it except Sharara. He must be stopped.

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

It horrifies me to say it, but I think we're too late. If Sahara has been on at the manufacturers to start producing the new balls, they'll have already changed their manufacturing processes etc - huge costs to change back, I'd suspect.

_________________
My blog: "Learning to play: as a modern defender": http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=22254
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtazeX ... oICGS9bqNg
Join the OOAK Discord!: https://discord.gg/Yw2hYUdz3g

[Other gear I've used]
Blades: Butterfly Defence 3, Butterfly Defence Pro, Butterfly Innerforce ZLC, Butterfly Innershield, DHS Power G7, Stiga Offensive Classic Carbon
SPs: Friendship 802 (1.5), TSP Spectol (1.3, 1.8, 2.1), TSP Spectol Speed (1.3), TSP Super Spinpips Chop Sponge 2 (0.5, 1.3)
LPs: Butterfly Feint Long II (1), Butterfly Feint Long III (0.5, 1.3), Tibhar Grass D.TecS (OX), TSP Curl P1-R (0.5, 1, 1.3), TSP Curl P4 (1.3)

I'm sorry to intervene, but asbestos fibres are highly dangerous and lethal on the long term (a silent killer). These fibres are released when the material containing asbestos is broken (or produced). This is scientifically proved and asbestos production is forbidden in a lot of countries. There was an asbestos factory in Belgium which caused a lot of health damage to people living close to it. I have a friend who lived there that has severe lung problems, as many in that region...

Above that it's pretty obvious that a celluloid supplier won't state that their product is dangerous and should be banned.

PS: I haven't said anything about eventual hazards of celluloid, but please let's be careful with unscientific information coming from the 'coloured' view of a celluloid producer/supplier. Because then you're making the same mistake as the one you blame Sharara to make.

_________________
Exclusive OOAK-Interview with Joo Saehyuk | Masato Shiono | Panagiotis Gionis

Pipsy, I can't see where wlhk says that asbestos fibres aren't lethal? I interpret the quote you gave as simply meaning "the hazards that manufacturing celluloid are not the same as problems with asbestos"?

_________________
My blog: "Learning to play: as a modern defender": http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=22254
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtazeX ... oICGS9bqNg
Join the OOAK Discord!: https://discord.gg/Yw2hYUdz3g

[Other gear I've used]
Blades: Butterfly Defence 3, Butterfly Defence Pro, Butterfly Innerforce ZLC, Butterfly Innershield, DHS Power G7, Stiga Offensive Classic Carbon
SPs: Friendship 802 (1.5), TSP Spectol (1.3, 1.8, 2.1), TSP Spectol Speed (1.3), TSP Super Spinpips Chop Sponge 2 (0.5, 1.3)
LPs: Butterfly Feint Long II (1), Butterfly Feint Long III (0.5, 1.3), Tibhar Grass D.TecS (OX), TSP Curl P1-R (0.5, 1, 1.3), TSP Curl P4 (1.3)

Thank you Dunc, you are right. I have indeed misinterpreted the sentence, probably a language issue. I'm sorry for my sharp reaction in the first paragraph. I still think we should be careful with 'coloured' and unproven information though... Just as ITTF should.

_________________
Exclusive OOAK-Interview with Joo Saehyuk | Masato Shiono | Panagiotis Gionis

I'm the source of that article. I posted it in December of 2011. It seems like I may have posted it (or something similar) earlier, but frankly I don't recall for sure. There are more follow-up posts with more information that can be found at the original source. I spent dozens of hours researching this topic.

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_po ... -celluloid

I do not consider my post to be proof that Sharara lied. I consider it a strong argument that what Sharara has been saying is probably not accurate. There's a difference.

It is worth noting that my post was made in part because Sharara finally admitted that there was no worldwide ban on celluloid. He called his original statement an oversimplification. But it wasn't an oversimplification. It was a false and misleading statement. It was especially misleading when combined with the notions put out that celluloid manufacturing carries with it hazards that are the same as for asbestos. But that doesn't make it a lie. He may have simply misunderstood the facts. But it is the kind of error that should not have been made. I think the error was repeated in the ITTF AGM where the move to poly balls was proposed and agreed upon. I think such misinformation should be sufficient to invalidate the related votes. But I guess others don't agree.

IMO, the key thing to note in all of this is that neither Sharara nor the ITTF ever showed any evidence for any of their claims. No reports on the health issues. No evidence of a ban in ANY country. No evidence that celluloid production in China was scheduled to cease. All that was put out were claims. Pretty much all you can do with such claims is to show 1) that there is a lack of supporting evidence and 2) that the claims seem unlikely. And that's all my post does. It does not prove that Sharara lied. I do think it makes a strong argument that people should be suspicious of the claims made by Sharara.

I said in that original post that I expected that it was unlikely that we'd see any evidence coming forward to support Sharara's comments. So far that has been quite right.

BTW, one of my favorite bits of mis-information that we received from Sharara (other than the claim of a ban) was when he said that movie productions were moving from the use of celluloid to digital because of these same hazards.

" The Chinese government has started limiting such production gradually until it is stopped or changed to another material. As you may know the film industry is also very concerned and they are slowly changing to digital."

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=8686&start=105

This is one claim that can be easily refuted with a google search. I think it also gives a peek at the depth of misunderstanding that Sharara appears to have on the topic and partly why we don't see evidence to support his claims. While film people still refer to modern photographic film stock as being "celluloid", it hasn't actually been celluloid for over 60 years. People today use that term nostalgically. The industry started moving to non-celluloid based stock in the '40s and '50s. And the reason wasn't the health of workers. The reason was fire safety. The older film bases used a high nitrate form of celluloid. Combine that with powerful (hot) light sources and lenses that concentrate that light and you end up with a real fire hazard. Theater projection booths were often lined with asbestos (a real health hazard) so as to better contain projection booth fires. When non-flammable film bases came out they were adopted fairly quickly. First with consumer film and later by the film industry.

The film industry is not concerned with celluloid production or health issues at all. They are moving to digital for wholly unrelated reasons. What should scare folks is how Adham Sharara could get something like this so horribly wrong.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

I agree that a supplier might have a conflict of interest. But I also think that if the hazard were true that they wouldn't take the time to respond to me. They would simply ignore me. I did a lot of digging on the subject and found no evidence to support Sharara's assertion and Sharara never provided any evidence. So there is quite literally, no generally/pubicly known reason for anyone to believe the claim.

I did research on fiber health issues - specifically cellulose fibers which are the fibers used to make nitro-cellulose which is used to make celluloid. I could find nothing to support the notion that celluloid, nitro-cellulose or cellulose fibers would create a health hazard similar to asbestos. I also found no evidence of any countries banning the production of these substances.

To be clear, what I did find is that lung hazards seem to be correlated to two things. Fiber size and whether the particle can be absorbed by the body or not. So basically, many fibers present potential health hazards. Cellulose is one of those since it does not break down readily in the human body. Modern manufacturers employ process that limit worker exposure to these kinds of hazards. And keep in mind that you are surrounded by cellulose fibers - for instance when you blow your nose into a tissue. For someone making celluloid, dealing with a potential hazard might be as simple as making sure that the fiber sizes used are relatively large - as is the case with your facial tissue, toilet paper, newspaper, notebook paper, sawdust, and the myriad variety of other sources of cellulose fiber in our daily lives.

Cellulose fibers are dealt with in a diverse range of manufacturing processes. But what about celluloid fibers? Yes, what about them? Celluloid is a plastic. I've yet to figure out where you would find a celluloid fiber in the process. I can see where you might find nitrocellulose fibers and I can see where you could find cellulose fibers. But celluloid fibers? Where? Celluloid is nitrocellulose plasticized in camphor. It is a plastic.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

We were too late when we responded immediately to the comments and claims. Basically, we have no power. Or so it seems.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

Time for some perspective. Asbestos, a well known hazardous material hasn't even been banned worldwide or even in China. Think about that. The hazard has been known for decades now. Yet production and use persists. China accounts for 14% of the world's 2 million tons of asbestos production and the use of asbestos is only recently banned in some products in China. In the face of this, we are led to believe that celluloid - a substance without the fiber hazard track record of asbestos (and pretty much without fibers) - is going to stop being produced in China due to health concerns over its fibers. Really? Why should we believe this without supporting info?

http://www.itgium.com/asbestos_china___asia_815.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23026008
http://www.icij.org/project/dangers-dus ... mic-cancer

There is a disease from asbestos called asbestosis. I know of no disease such as celluloidosis. I find no reports of anyone ever dieing or even becoming severely ill from celluloid fiber inhalation. Not one report. I've looked. Can't find it. The death toll from asbestos is estimated at around 200,000 from 1994-2008 alone.

Do a google search on "celluloid fiber hazard". You'll basically get only these TT related discussions. Now do the same for "asbestos fiber hazard." You'll get a nearly endless list of hits.

It is easier to document health hazards from the sawdust created by forestry and the cutting of wood (as required by ITTF racket requirements) than it is to document health hazards from celluloid fiber.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0595_1.html

Or from carbon fibers.

http://www.aerotherm.co.uk/the-hidden-d ... bon-fibres

Or from the making of rubber products.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/93-106/

BTW, celluloid is considered a biodegradable plastic. So even if celluloid fibers of the harmful size existed, it seems that they might be more likely to break down than essentially inert mineral fibers like asbestos or even unaltered cellulose fibers.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

So what's the latest word on this? Will we actually be playing with new balls sometime in the near future or has the proposal fizzled?

_________________
Custom Blade 'Hard Justice' w/ Yasaka Cobalt a
Tatco Hornet w/ ATP Leland Era