Forum Index » GEAR » Safest alcohol for stoves - US perspective


Display Avatars Sort By:
Nick Gatel
(ngatel) - MLife

Locale: Southern California
Re: Safest alcohol for stoves - US perspective on 11/10/2013 20:39:44 MST Print View

Get thee out into the wilderness with whatever fuel is available and quit worrying about it -- you will be okay if you practice stove safety.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Stove safety. on 11/12/2013 01:24:28 MST Print View

What Nick said.

Fuel toxicity comes below several other concerns.

Flare-ups
Leakage and accidental ignition - smokers beware!
No dinner due to mechanical failure or fuel outage.

Wood is good. MSR wispalights on the treeless winter mountain are good. Penny stoves in summer pastures are good.

Inattentive operators are bad/hungry.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Safest alcohol for stoves - US perspective on 11/12/2013 01:37:57 MST Print View

And you weren't planning on using your alchy stove in a closed up tent - right?
Phillip Asby (PGAsby) - MNEW Helpful on 11/07/2013 09:00:27 MST

I often make my first brew from the comfort and warmth of my sleeping bag on cold windy mornings. Don't you? Tents make good wind shelters for alcohol stoves. You just need to know what you're doing and pay attention to it.

Zorg Zumo
(BurnNotice) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Safest alcohol for stoves - US perspective on 11/12/2013 08:10:16 MST Print View

You left off the "green" part of the name. Had me a bit confused as regular SLX is a 45/45/10 of ethanol/methanol/nastiness.

Rusty Beaver
(rustyb) - F

Locale: Rocky Mountains
Re: Safest alcohol for stoves - US perspective on 11/12/2013 09:36:10 MST Print View

These threads are so predictable. Some one asks about the "safest" of the options or the "safety" of something or other and a slew of posters come to the rescue with "this ain't gonna kill ya" or "don't worry, you breathe in more toxins at work".

As Dale and perhaps others mentioned, it's not about gett'n kilt here....or worrying to death about something we get exposed to a few times a year. Some of us want to minimize our exposures to questionable stuff at every opportunity. We understand the populace is bombarded daily with low levels of various toxins. They are ubiquitous. We just want to minimize our chemical body burden as the CDC has researched and acknowledged.

Roger and perhaps another poster or two also touched on something rarely mentioned: The chemical regulatory process. It's painfully obvious that those who ridicule the concerns of others do not understand this process. One doesn't need to be a "expert" in the medical, toxicology, or chemistry field to comprehend its ineffectiveness. All one has to do is go to the US Government Accountability Office website and look at their report cards. Search TSCA. They date back to ~1984...or earlier. Most people would drop a load in their shorts like a bad case of Giardia if they understood how the process really worked rather than how it is assumed to work.

Concerning to me is the assumptions that uncle Sam will make sure we're safe...and worse yet, that the "experts" always hold the last word. How often do we hear the "experts" tell us that things are thoroughly tested for safety before hitting the store shelves. Not all experts will pretend to have all the answers...and those are the ones I respect. It just takes a few cock-sure and articulate people to keep the belief alive that "it" wouldn't be sold if it hadn't been proven safe. It's like a chemist I know who maintains that all these fears are unjustified yet is not the least bit familiar with the GAO reports or the research of Theo Colborn et al on the effects minute amounts of toxins have on the developing fetus. But, he is the "expert" that gets quoted in publications and on TV during football commercials.

We "laypeople" sometimes have to go with what we know... about the chem regulatory process, the rise of so many health issues with no known cause (cancers, neurological disorders, etc, etc), and the warnings of scientists working with a new paradigm shift... then taking reasonable and logical precautionary measures. Lets be honest. In the whole scope of things, we smarty pant humans really don't know that much. For craps sake, in comparative terms here, in what should be an obvious area of excelled knowledge, Dr's just found a new ligament in the human knee. If that isn't telling, if not humbling, I don't know what else to say......
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/06/your-knee-bones-connected-to-your-what-scientists-discover-new-body-part/

Whew. Long Tues morn rant.....

Edited by rustyb on 11/12/2013 14:47:24 MST.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Safest alcohol for stoves - US perspective on 11/12/2013 13:47:38 MST Print View

> Most people would drop a load in their shorts like a bad case of Giardia if they
> understood how the process really worked rather than how it is assumed to work.

Which is that the industry lobby groups will always vehemently oppose any form of Government regulation because it will add 'unsupportable costs'. Instead they urge acceptance of 'self-regulation', which some bureacrats like think could be effective, while the rest of us all know that it means 'business as usual'.

By and large, most forms of alcohol sold legally in the USA would be totally illegal in Australia. Far too toxic!

Cheers

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Re: Re: Safest alcohol for stoves - US perspective on 11/30/2013 05:53:54 MST Print View

Roger: Perhaps we'll see some of that over-regulation rolled back now Abbott has replaced the ultra-nannies.

scree ride
(scree)
Re: Amusing. on 11/30/2013 07:31:47 MST Print View

"manufacturers do not wish to kill their customers"
Gotta smoke?