Aren't all corporations in the states being forced to eliminate these initiatives or face ridiculous law suits?
m0darn
joined 2 years ago
I think it's partly UV and partly being cleaned with paper towel. I think cotton is much softer on a micro level.
I am on an elementary school's parent advisory committee and we had one built for school notices and fundraisers etc.
It took for ever to get built though, and cost an arm and a leg.
Ah my bias: I was only interested in grain mashes. My immediate reaction was, "why on earth would there be wood in your mash?" The answer is fruit stems. Methanol will be differentially in the foreshot but if you're not expecting much because you're not fermenting any wood, it's going to be low in the foreshots and very low in the hearts, but not much anywhere. BUT if you're fermenting something with woody stems, I can see that methanol removal is going to be worthy of consideration.
one purpose of distillation is separating them
The purpose of distillation in this context is ethanol concentration. Methanol separation is possible but not really the goal.
Thats why you have to remove the foreshot
I don't think the foreshots have a particularly higher concentration of methanol, other nasty stuff sure, but I think methanol is in pretty similar concentration to the ethanol.
An incompetent distiller can still cost you your eyesight or even life.
My understanding is that it's people cutting the ethanol with industrial intoxicants that gets people injured/ killed. Ie people recklessly adulturing the alcohol.
The only problem I've heard of that's from distilling itself and not intentional contamination is people doing freeze distillation of ciders (skin on).
That said, most of my reading has been with respect to pot stills and grain beers, maybe fermenting fruits create more methanol than grains, I still think intentional contamination with who knows what is higher on the risk list than accidentally high methanol concentrations. But if you know of specific cases I'd be happy to read them.
I think the defense will be that "they" referred to Biden in 2020. Ie Trump was expecting to not be president in 2026 because he would have already served two terms, but Biden winning in 2020 meant that Trump was able to be president in 2026, after winning in 2024.
No politician should ever be that sloppy with their words though.
Edit: my view has been substantially altered. Due to my existing bias towards all grain mash, I hadn't considered the possibility of woody material fermentation on methanol creation. I still believe negligent adulteration is more of a risk than negligent distillation, but negligent distillation is not a totally irrelevant risk.
My investigations into home distilling convinced me that distillation doesn't convert ethanol into methanol. Moonshine poisoning is the result of adulteration of the product, (mixing it with other intoxicants) not bad distillation.
Basically sometimes people put other stuff in moonshine to reduce their costs, or give a special buzz. There's no guarantee that the adulterant to be concerned about is methanol.
It's a wealth tax on wealth that's very difficult to hide.
Previous owners that gave money to Musk can distance themselves from him, while new owners that believe Teslas are good can buy one without giving money to Musk.
I'm in the market for a car and there is an amount of money I would spend for a used Tesla despite the potential for vandalism etc. I don't think there is an amount of money I'd spend on a new one
How do American companies that operate Canadian subsidiaries get their earnings out of the country?
I'm happy to hear it.