5 ms·
As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters.
by angry_octet 6mo ago
As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe.
However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitution.
- cubefox 6mo ago> Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. Another way to increase safety is to reduce the availability of illegal stills without quality control by enforcing the ban. (Anyone who thinks otherwise presumably also thinks all hard drugs should be legalized since this presumably wouldn't lead to an increase in consumption.)
- freedomben 6mo ago> (Anyone who thinks otherwise presumably also thinks all hard drugs should be legalized since this presumably wouldn't lead to an increase in consumption.) Why should the government be in the business of reducing consumption? Do you believe alcohol to be immoral, and the government's role to be enforcing morality?
- cubefox 6mo agoDo you believe heroin is immoral? I don't. I think it's dangerous, which is bad, and it causes addiction, which reduces freedom more than banning it.
- btreecat 6mo agoBut you're out here trying to ban spoons thinking it's going to reduce access to heroin
- freedomben 6mo agoI do think heroin is dangerous, but I'd favor regulation (such as we do for alcohol, which is also dangerous, though certainly less so) over prohibition. By far the most dangerous aspect of heroin and all the illicit opiates is that you don't know what you're actually getting. Makes it extremely easy to unintentionally overdose.
- direwolf20 6mo agoI think hard drugs being legal would greatly increase the amount of responsible consumption. Methamphetamine used to be purchaseable from any pharmacy over the counter in the US, and there was not a meth crisis at that time. Now there is.
- btreecat 6mo ago>Another way to increase safety is to reduce the availability of illegal stills without quality control by enforcing the ban. I can see you're lacking some knowledge on what makes up a still, as well as it's completely legal use for distillation of water. A still is just a bucket with a heat source and some vapor collector and condenser. It's easy to build from a couple of pickle jars and hot glue if you're determined.
- iamnothere 6mo agoAnd you can literally buy them on Amazon!
- theodric 6mo agoThe common knowledge about methanol being a huge risk is wildly overstated in reality, and likely continues in part because it benefits the government for people to believe strongly in the danger and continue to purchase taxed liquor. Distillation does not create new chemicals: there is methanol in your bottle of wine, and distilling that wine into brandy does not change the ratio, it only removes (primarily) water. Common distilling practice is to dispose of the highest concentrations of the most volatile components (acetaldehyde, higher alcohols). Low levels of methanol remain present in a gradient throughout the distilled product. Methanol production in fermentation is not a significant risk if you're not fermenting woody materials, and its production can be mitigated through the use of pectic enzyme. Methanol IS a risk if you're starting with cheap, untaxed denatured alcohol (ethanol+methanol+bitterants+other crap) as your input, rather than the unadulterated output of a sugar fermentation, and that is mainly what gave rise to the popular methanol folklore. That said, don't break the law, folks. It's not worth going to prison for tax evasion over a jug of shine. You can get just as tipsy off a couple glasses of fermented supermarket apple juice, and it's legal and cheaper to boot.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- ciupicri 6mo agoThough it's harder to drink the same amount of methanol if you have to drink lots of water too, i.e. the wine has not been distilled.
- theodric 6mo agoI...guess. But if you're drinking enough that you exceed the safe threshold for methanol consumption through its marginal presence in the distillate, while somehow managing to tolerate the ethanol, I think you've got another more pressing issue to address. In practice the distillate actually has less undesirable crap in it than the source wine, since one typically only keeps a part of the run from the still ("hearts") and disposes of the rest.
- btreecat 6mo ago
- donatj 6mo agoThe antidote to methanol is just ethanol. If you find yourself drinking something untrustworthy you can at least cure yourself with a chaser of an equivalent amount of everclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Treatment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Treatment
- dr_dshiv 6mo agoyou are saving lives, friend.
- Mordisquitos 6mo agoThe way you're saying it is deeply irresponsible. The way to deal with methanol poisoning is not "just ethanol", and you cannot "cure yourself" by drinking everclear. If you ever find out you have been drinking methanol by all means do drink safe spirits if you have immediate access to them (after throwing up what you can if you're still in time), but get medical help now. Ethanol will not cure you from methanol poisoning, it will only help reduce and delay the damage somewhat while you're waiting for an ambulance or making your way to a hospital to get proper treatment.
- toxik 6mo agoWorth noting that even in clinical settings, ethanol has largely been replaced by fomepizole (Antizol) as the preferred antidote. It's more predictable, easier to dose, and doesn't come with the side effect of making a critically ill patient drunk. Ethanol is the field expedient, not the standard of care.
- hilbert42 6mo agoExactly. I'm unsure why the myth that EtOH is a 'satisfactory' antidote for MeOH poisoning persists but unfortunately it does—even here on HN. I echoed the dangers of MeOH poisoning (in drink substitution, etc.) in my two posts and I've been downvoted several times without reason given. Such misunderstandings are why I'm an advocate for strong regulations that ensure commonly-available MeOH is always denatured.
- delichon 6mo agoFrom ~1906 through prohibition the Feds purposely poisoned industrial alcohol with methanol and other chemicals as a deterrent. 100 years ago, in 1926, they increased it, up to as much as 10%. This was true rotgut. Around 10,000 people, mostly poor, died from it. Blindness, organ failure, paralysis. This was legal and regulated by the Volstead Act. It was the primary source of methanol poisoning during prohibition.
- freedomben 6mo agoYep, never forget. The government literally poisoned people. Anytime I mention this I get eye rolls and immediate dismissal as a kook. It's quite frustrating.
- hilbert42 6mo agoI keep raising this and I cannot understand why many people can't understand the facts. You're right, it's damn frustrating.
- giantg2 6mo agoDo you have a source?
- twsahjklf 6mo agoNot parent, but after 1 minute of googling: https://historyfacts.com/us-history/fact/the-u-s-government-poisoned-alcohol-during-prohibition/ https://historyfacts.com/us-history/fact/the-u-s-government-... Note that we are talking about industrial alcohol, which was not made for human consumption but could be distilled to make it palatable (before the toxic additives were added).
- giantg2 6mo agoThey made it sound as if they were poisoning alcohol intended for drinking (looks like it was possibly edited or I missed that it said industrial). Methanol and other additives are still added to most industrial alcohol today.
- dmantis 6mo agoThere are many hobbies with which people can kill themselves if they don't understand what they are doing. I don't see how brewing is different. A grown-up person has rights and bears the consequences of negligence and that's totally normal, that's what freedom is. As long as the product is not sold outside but for personal consumption, it must be legal to make without any certifications.
- freedomben 6mo agoAgree completely, though sadly we are a very long way from this. In a lot of places it is literally illegal and prison-time just for growing certain naturally-occurring plants for purely personal use. I don't see how this ruling helps with that at all though
- franktankbank 6mo agoMaybe we are set to see that change at the federal level?
- SapporoChris 6mo agoI forget the exact wording, but the seat belt law are a good example of it. Laws are passed to protect the populace from self harm so that society doesn't suffer from it. It probably doesn't apply here because home distillation is very niche. However, if a bunch of people show up in emergency rooms and it drives up health care costs then expect a quick reversal in policy.
- vladvasiliu 6mo agoRight, and I, as someone living in France and paying a hefty part of my income to fund public healthcare, understand that the state would want to limit people doing stupid shit costing the society a fortune in fixing them (though, of course, this just creates a debate on where to draw the line). But isn't the point of non-socialized healthcare, like in the US, that you pay for care out of pocket? Or maybe via your insurance, which will probably increase your premium if you repeatedly engage in stupid actions that need expensive fixing?
- cyanydeez 6mo agopretext to context.
- hilbert42 6mo agoMethanol/CH3OH/MeOH is poisonous and its consumption causes a life-threatening health crisis that often results in death or permanent blindness. As little as 100 ml of methanol can kill or cause lifelong damage to one's health. One shouldn't have to restate these well-known facts but they have to be repeated at every opportunity because in many ways methanol too closely resembles ethanol/EtOH, it tastes the same and induces drunkenness, and consumers may not become aware they have consumed it until its toxic effects manifest. By then, it's often too late. Methanol's similarly to ethanol and that it's a very important industrial chemical made and used in huge qualities that makes it doubly dangerous. Many ways exist for methanol to enter the food chain both accidentally and through deliberate substitution for ethanol so it's especially important that strict regulations exist covering its handling and use. Outside of lab grade reagents, methanol should always be denatured in ways that make its consumption both obvious and intolerable, that's best achieved by adding the denaturant denatonium (benzoate or saccharinate) in trace amounts that have little or no effect on methanol's final use. Denatonium (aka, Bitrix, Bitrex and others), a quaternary ammonium compound, is a bitterant and likely the bitterest substance known and can be tasted by humans in parts per billion. Not only is it extremely bitter but unlike lemons it's a nasty bitterness that lingers and will immediately alert anyone who tastes it (I know, having deliberately tasted it). HN is read internationally, so in places with good methanol handling regulations there's little doubt I'm sounding like an annoying schoolteacher overstating the obvious but from my experience many people do not know how dangerous methanol really is. As mentioned, one reads of travelers in foreign countries poisoned with drinks laced with methanol without giving a thought where their drinks originate (moreover the most vulnerable are those who come from places with good food regulations as they automatically assume what they're served is suitable for consumption). My rave isn't to put the kibosh on homebrew spirits as I'm essentially in favor of this decision—government already dictates too many things we citizens cannot do. That said, there has to be strict regulations concerning distillation methods and commercial sales should definitely be unlawful with tough penalties. Finally, whether this decision hold up under appeal or not, we need readily-available methanol detectors that are both cheap and portable and that anyone can easily use.
- OkayPhysicist 6mo agoMethanol is dangerous. But you are simply misinformed about the risk of methanol showing up in your homebrew spirits. It's not your fault: this has been a propagandized issue. But methanol poisoning was only a thing during the prohibition because the feds started poisoning the fuel ethanol supply with it, and people either served it to people unwittingly, maliciously, or tried and failed to separate out the ethanol. In real homebrew, you are not at risk of methanol poisoning. If you brew some beer (step 1 to making yourself whiskey), the alcohol makeup ends up being in a 1:1000 ratio of methanol to ethanol. Distilling does not create any more methanol, it merely concentrates it. Let's play out the worst possible scenario here, where you're targeting azeotropic ethanol, and specifically targeting methanol with your cuts. In order to end up with a 100ml of methanol, you would need to be running a batch of targeting 100L (26 gallons) of ethanol, which means starting with 2,000L (530 gallons) of beer. That is wildly outside the range of casual home distilling. And keep in mind in order to hit that worst case scenario, the distiller needs to know enough to be making cuts, but not know to discard the first cut, which is done normally even without methanol concerns simply because it contains a bunch of really disgusting aromatics.
- juliusceasar 6mo ago[flagged]
- reisse 6mo agoWell, I live in a country with both huge distillation culture and significantly non-zero number of methanol poisonings, and they never happen from home brewing. It's really hard to homebrew/distill methanol in a quantity enough to poison you in an otherwise ethanol solution (which acts as an antidote). It's so rare this thread is literally the first time I've heard about possibility of methanol poisoning from homebrewing. Methanol poisonings happen from bootlegging, where someone in the chain of supply sells industrial methanol as an ethanol, because the first one is cheaper, easier to obtain and untaxed.
- bluGill 6mo agothis is wrong and dangerious! Home brewing very well can cause methanol poinonings. It doesn't happen often because the process is complex enough to get settup that anyone likey talk to someone (or read a book) and get the simple process to avoid it (throw out the beginnigs of each batch since the harmful stuff comes first).
- btreecat 6mo agoAs someone who's involved in said home production, the only way someone is getting methanol poisoning is if it's intentional done.
- swasheck 6mo agonegligence (especially via ignorance) is a thing. a hobbyist wanting to celebrate their first batch with their buddies can poison them with some smeared hearts. but i get what you’re saying.
- btreecat 6mo agoNo, they really can't. First, if they are not using anything with pectin in it, there isn't a significant amount of methanol at all worth measuring. Second, if they did use fruit skins in the fermentation stage, there still isn't enough methanol to compete with the ethanol, (which is the cure to methanol poisoning) with out intentionally poisoning the batch. You shouldn't push such FUD.
- swasheck 6mo agook. thanks for the correction. that’s good information that helps me overcome some of the FUD i’ve received
- angry_octet 6mo ago> ethanol, (which is the cure to methanol poisoning) Now that is completely incorrect. There is no way to prevent metabolism of methanol once it has been ingested, ethanol just competes with it for metabolisis. Alcohol fermented from fruit byproduct is extremely common in many cultures. It is asinine to think that only grain will be used once this is legalised. https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/methanol-poisoning-the-chemistry-behind-how-a-toxic-alcohol-gets-into-drinks/4021801.article https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/methanol-poisoning-the-c... If you don't get on dialysis within 24 hours of drinking more than 30mL of ethanol there is high risk of blindness, and higher doses can easily cause death.
- beasthacker 6mo agoI wonder whether government testing actually makes a material difference in food/beverage safety. For example, when I worked for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, I was surprised to discover that the percentage of imported food/beverage actually tested for safety is very low. Like comically, microscopically, unbelievably low. In the United States, I suspect concerns over reputation and civil litigation do more to keep our food safe than government testing.
- angry_octet 6mo agoFunding for inspection agencies has been cut again and again, and likewise mandated lab testing, on the basis of industry self regulation and the low number of incidents in commercial production. Many sources will be even more rigorous than we could imagine. I think that incidents elsewhere have often been caused by substituting expensive taxed industrial ethanol for cheap industrial methanol. Which is an insane thing to do but money is money. Until another mass poisoning occurs we will continue trusting paperwork.
- wheels 6mo agoBatches under a certain size don't have a problem with methanol poisoning. You need a large enough batch that you get a high percentage of methanol in the "heads". Usually for batches under 100L, it's not an issue. A sensible policy would be limiting "home" distillation to 50L batches (which is a lot of booze; hard to argue you need more than that in a batch for private consumption).
- btreecat 6mo agoBatch size has nothing to do with it
- wheels 6mo agoYou have no idea what you're talking about. Please Google it.
- btreecat 6mo agoI have, you're pushing nonsense. The methanol doesn't "come out in the heads" and batch size doesn't affect the final concentration as a % because roughly the same ratio is present during a run with a slight in crease in the tails due to the with methanol bonds with water. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b908be6-2673-45a5-8c2f-b3b6abc1aa37 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b9... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024083488 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402... Methanol poisoning comes from tainted consumables.
- wheels 6mo agoInterestingly, after looking at this more closely, what I said is true of rakija, which is what I'm most familiar with (part of my family is Serbian), but appears to not be significantly true for grain distillates. Your sources mostly don't address these topics though; the latter one is mainly about copper and lead levels.
- 6mo ago
- hansvm 6mo agoSmall-scale distillation is fine. Ten bottles of wine have 500mg of methanol, which is mostly fine for most people even if it all ends up in the same shot -- which it won't; it'll be split between 1-2 750ml bottles even if you do absolutely nothing to remove it from the ethanol.
- ch4s3 6mo agoThere is precisely 0 methanol risk in distilling grain based alcohol. The quantity of methanol produced is minuscule a the antidote is ethanol which is also present. Any methanol poisoning is from adulteration with industrial alcohol which has large volumes of methanol added intentionally to make it undrinkable.
- noosphr 6mo agoSo is food poisoning. Time to ban cooking.
- smsm42 6mo agoMost of methanol poisoning during the Prohibition happened because the government deliberately poisoned ethanol supplies, to prevent them from being converted to drinking spirits. This insane policy caused 10 to 50 thousands deaths. There's no good data about how many died from moonshine methanol poisoning, but likely, outside of prohibition years, the numbers are in low tens per year.