3 ms·
From what I understand, although methanol is usually present in small amounts when fermenting things, even when distilling you never really concentrate enough o
by AngryData 2y ago
From what I understand, although methanol is usually present in small amounts when fermenting things, even when distilling you never really concentrate enough of it to be a problem unless you are specifically trying to produce and distill methanol. That doesn't mean they are good spirits, just not deadly. The idea that moonshine might accidentally be methanol and kill you is just prohibition propaganda to shift alcohol deaths away from the government purposefully tainting alcohols to prevent/punish people from drinking it and onto the illegal bootleggers who were providing safe drinking spirits. Methanol is always a purposefully added substance at some point if it is anywhere near poisonous levels. To produce it you don't ferment anything first, you just heat up wood until it decomposes from heat and distill off the oils and alcohols and tars that come off like how they break down coal into gases and oils. But for non-consumption purposes adding methanol to ethanol may have desirable benefits for the application, and isn't just there to poison people to prevent consumption. Sometimes it might just be cheaper than regular ethanol if you are just going to burn it.
- hilbert42 2y ago"Methanol is always a purposefully added substance at some point if it is anywhere near poisonous levels." That's usually true. Adding methanol to ethanol can be either deliberate or accidental. Where I am (Australia) methanol and pyridine used to be added to ethanol as a denaturant so it could be sold without liquor tax and it was sold as 'Methylated Spirits' and labeled 'POISON'. If I recall the amount of methanol was 15% and the pyridine was 3%. Methanol was set at 15% with the deliberate intention of making the 'spirits' toxic and the pyridine to make it foul tasting (and pyridine itself is also toxic). At those percentages both denaturants were similar enough to ethanol as not to interfere significantly with its primarily purposes—as a solvent, fuel, etc. Nevertheless, that didn't deter diehard drinkers/alcoholics from consuming methylated spirits and the effects on their health were catastrophic—blindness and death. Several decades ago both methanol and pyridine were removed and replaced with denatonium (aka Bitrex) as the denaturant, which is not toxic at the level necessary for its purpose. Nevertheless, the product is still sold as 'Methylated Spirits' with the fine print calling it 'ethanol solution 95%, UN 1170', and the warning changed from 'POISON' to 'CAUTION'. The logic behind the change being that it was 'safer'—read it cost the State less in medical expenses. I think the UK has done something similar and no doubt a number of other countries have followed suit, except I believe the US makes ethanol harder to get and usually substitutes isopropanol/rubbing alcohol for domestic use (someone in the US please update me on the rules there). Since the advent of denatonium as a denaturant, it seems to me there is no need to add methanol and I reckon it ought to be highly illegal to do so. If ethanol/methanol mixtures are needed for some purpose then they should be strictly labeled and denatonium a mandated additive. What concerns me is the accidental addition of methanol to ethanol (to 'Methylated Spirits'). I use a lot of ethanol in the form of Methylated Spirits for cleaning and as a solvent as it's a much cheaper substitute for isopropanol and I've noticed occasionally that its odor is very different (once every 3 or 4 months on weekly purchases). In fact, I've noticed the odor of formaldehyde on more than one occasion (and that's not the only impurity I've detected by nose). This tells me there's very little control on the distribution of industrial solvents (in this class that is). I'd suggest tanks/tankers, etc. aren't properly flushed when changing product and or such. If distribution equipment isn't being cleaned properly then people aren't being careful and worse could easily happen. From my experience it seems to me it's still a very risky business to assume that 'industrial' ethanol is actually just that (95% ethanol, 5% H2O and trace denatonium). There's no way I'd ever risk drinking the stuff—that is assuming I could stand the taste of the excruciatingly bitter denatonium. I'd be interested to know how other countries now handle the rules in regard to ethanol distribution.
- collingreen 2y agoRe: moonshining Some quick notes about "it's just propaganda" with some "regulation is hard to do without tons of side effects" undercurrents: 1. When distilling you DO concentrate methanol but as a waste product. An unethical moonshiner could still sell this or cut it back into the main product (although the latter isn't usually a problem because of the concentration and the fact that ethanol is a treatment for methanol proving). You would definitely know if you were drinking straight methanol but you might not know in a cocktail (or might not care - lots of crazy stuff in these comments about drinking various dangerous liquids). 2. Other things went into the shine. A very common one was dynamite because nitroglycerin helps fermentation continue at low temperatures, like out in the woods where your secret still might have to be. Nitroglycerin can do all sorts of things to you - it is sometimes prescribed as a heart medicine. 3. Moonshining is, by definition, a criminal enterprise and things-you-might-not-like happen all the time just like with illegal drugs today. One common blindness cause wasn't actually methanol but antifreeze and other "engine gunk" because you could put your new, un-aged shine into things like car engines and it would come out the other side with the impression of being aged or in some way better. So there is some fun-fact nuance on the "moonshine could make you go blind" lore! I like to respond to that with "yes, but probably not for the reason you think!"