3 ms·

Point 1 is not false; I work in Quality Control for artisan distillers - heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires

Point 1 is not false; I work in Quality Control for artisan distillers - heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires both skill and testing to make sure methanol is removed from the spirit. A bootlegger would need 1) a fractional still or 2) precise temperature control and monitoring - they were unlikely to have either. Furthermore, I find it doubtful that an illegal bootlegger would have used pure sugar for their mash - that would have been far more expensive than the purchase of grain. Finally, on point 1, the foresight and knowledge to remove methanol doesn't come in a nice pamphlet with the illegal still - we know that a lot of the alcohol produced by the illegal bootleggers (who the government did not have control over) was contaminated with methanol (And other heavy metals or contaminants). On point 3; Sure... that's almost right... Industrial alcohol not made for human consumption would already contain methanol and other contaminants; the law establishing a minimum level of contaminants to render it undrinkable by humans did theoretically make it more harmful. That does not constitute a "Federal Poisoning Program". - when someone hears those words, they don't think "the government established that already undrinkable industrial alcohol must contain a minimum level of naturally occurring contaminants to stop individuals from consuming it"; they think "the government purposely added poison to alcohol sold to individuals for consumption" - which is not what happened.

seanflyon 12y ago
> heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires both skill and testing to make sure methanol is removed from the spirit. The tails contain no methanol so we can ignore them for this conversation. If you have a reasonable estimation of the amount of methanol in your mash, then throwing out enough of the head takes neither skill nor testing. Without that knowledge you need either a moderate amount of skill (to determine when methanol is coming out of your still) or the ability to test for methanol, but not both. I have done this myself and spoken with multiple people who have done it. It sounds like you are talking about re-distilling your heads and tails to get every last drop of ethanol out of them. This can be done safely with skill and testing, but is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. You can make a good argument that what they did does not constitute a "Federal Poisoning Program" as they did not intend to poison people. I am not arguing in favor of that term, but I know from personal experience that separating out methanol from ethanol is not particularly difficult. The same criteria that make a still good at separating ethanol from water make it good at separating methanol from ethanol. >Finally, on point 1, the foresight and knowledge to remove methanol doesn't come in a nice pamphlet with the illegal still Correct. If foresight and knowledge to remove methanol was universal, no one would have suffered methanol poisoning. >we know that a lot of the alcohol produced by the illegal bootleggers (who the government did not have control over) was contaminated with methanol We do not know this. It is possible given that are records are not great, but my guess is that this is false given the low quantities of methanol generally produced by yeast and the ease with which it can be removed. Heavy metal and other contamination seems much more likely (though I would expect them to be quite rare as well). As for industrial ethanol including methanol, some of it probably would without a law requiring it, but that would certainly not be universal. Do you believe that without the law requiring contamination that they would not have sold uncontaminated ethanol? >they think "the government purposely added poison to alcohol sold to individuals for consumption" - which is not what happened. The government did not purposely added poison to alcohol intended for consumption. They did however require the addition of poison to alcohol that was later sold for consumption.

seanflyon 12y ago

> heads and tails recycling is an important part of the production process, and requires both skill and testing to make sure methanol is removed from the spirit. The tails contain no methanol so we can ignore them for this conversation. If you have a reasonable estimation of the amount of methanol in your mash, then throwing out enough of the head takes neither skill nor testing. Without that knowledge you need either a moderate amount of skill (to determine when methanol is coming out of your still) or the ability to test for methanol, but not both. I have done this myself and spoken with multiple people who have done it. It sounds like you are talking about re-distilling your heads and tails to get every last drop of ethanol out of them. This can be done safely with skill and testing, but is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. You can make a good argument that what they did does not constitute a "Federal Poisoning Program" as they did not intend to poison people. I am not arguing in favor of that term, but I know from personal experience that separating out methanol from ethanol is not particularly difficult. The same criteria that make a still good at separating ethanol from water make it good at separating methanol from ethanol. >Finally, on point 1, the foresight and knowledge to remove methanol doesn't come in a nice pamphlet with the illegal still Correct. If foresight and knowledge to remove methanol was universal, no one would have suffered methanol poisoning. >we know that a lot of the alcohol produced by the illegal bootleggers (who the government did not have control over) was contaminated with methanol We do not know this. It is possible given that are records are not great, but my guess is that this is false given the low quantities of methanol generally produced by yeast and the ease with which it can be removed. Heavy metal and other contamination seems much more likely (though I would expect them to be quite rare as well). As for industrial ethanol including methanol, some of it probably would without a law requiring it, but that would certainly not be universal. Do you believe that without the law requiring contamination that they would not have sold uncontaminated ethanol? >they think "the government purposely added poison to alcohol sold to individuals for consumption" - which is not what happened. The government did not purposely added poison to alcohol intended for consumption. They did however require the addition of poison to alcohol that was later sold for consumption.