Being sensible ? Carbon monoxide and Methanol
- Thread starter myotis
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Yep, in spite of comments from people whose views I respect, it became obvious , I was going to need to do the reading to make up my own mind.
i actually learnt a lot about lots of things in the process.
cheers,
Graham
By giving people all the information they get to make an informed choice and know what hazards they face with any particular fuel.
That to me is a good thing.
No fuel is totally safe but knowing what not to do with any particular fuel can't harm.
Or we can just flap our arms about saying it never did me any harm and that the nanny state will soon be stopping us from washing our babies in the stuff before too long.
That to me is a good thing.
No fuel is totally safe but knowing what not to do with any particular fuel can't harm.
Or we can just flap our arms about saying it never did me any harm and that the nanny state will soon be stopping us from washing our babies in the stuff before too long.
I presume this question was pointed at me...
My opinion of those ultralighters would be to wish them a safe and enjoyable trip. I would likewise hope that the have made a series of well-educated and reflected choices regarding their equipment in general.
As long as one is not affected by the consequences of the choices made by other individuals I would find no reason to meddle into the affairs of other peoples lives.
Any non-trivial action in general, and most bushcrafting activites in specific are inherently dangerous in some way or another. Some risks can be mitigated by proper training or proper equipment. Some risks can be mitigated through proper preparation. Some risks cannot be totally avioded, but can be bought to a tolerable level by proper safety mechanisms.
The important thing is to make a educated, informed and well-reflected choice. These choices are by their very nature individual. Some find peace and enjoyment in white-water, while others would find it a totally inacceptable risk.
The situations I was talking about in my postings were, however, not individuals whose actions only could hurt themselves. I was talking about courses where a number of individuals are sharing a number of different facilities. The scope of individual decision-making is by the very nature of this setting of course diminished, much in the same way as participating in a society brings with it a number of law and rules the individual must accept.
I am from Denmark, my courses are held in Denmark or Sweden, but must adhere to danish law. In Denmark there are quite stringent legislation concerning the use of different chemical substances. Generally (with very few exeptions) you are only allowed to use a specific chemical substance for the specific use for which the authorities has approved the chemical substance. In Denmark methanol is approved for use as fuel in model airplanes, model cars and small scale (model) steam engines. Denatured alcohol is used for fuel in stoves.
The rules are actually that strict on methanol that even the use of methanol as denaturing agent in denatured alcohol is strictly forbidden.
If I were to allow use of methanol as fuel in stoves on my courses I would therefore be in conflict with the laws regarding this subject. This could land be in deep juridical trouble in the event of a mishap.
Furthermore, as an course provider you are supposed to analyze the potential risk and dangers associated with the activities in the course. One of the risk-mitigating approaches is to isolate risks with are not essential to the activites. Both denatured alcohol and methanol carries some risks. They can produce CO, they are both harmful if ingested (in some different ways, depending on the denaturing agent), and they both, of course, presents a fire risk. But by replacing the potential use of methanol with denatured ethanol you are removing the risk of eye damage through skin absorption. Such analytical risk management is the basis for establishing relevant insurance policies when providing bushcraft/wilderness courses.
In what way would this question seem to have any relevance for the present discussion?
But both I, my instructors, and my students use both knives, axes, hatches, froes, chainsaws and other relevant tools freely, as long as they are within the types and specifications allowed by relevant legislature, and used safely within the scope of the relevant activity. One-handed chainsaws would be an example of such a class of "restriced" tools which should not be used by beginners.
I provided referenced source in post #25 of this thread: Link!
It is the nature of being paranoid to believe that the thing you are paranoid about is very real. It is outsiders that have to point out that the danger is not grounded in reality. When you have millions of people backpacking and consistently using methanol as their fuel source without any ill effect, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the scare factor.
Again, if anyone can not overcome their fears, and wishes not to use a particular substance or product, that is fine. However, forcing that paranoia on others is very misguided. Of course, a person can do whatever they want in their own private school, but I am equally free to make sure I never attend it. I like my instructors a bit more grounded in reality. I'll go sleep in the woods, hang my food up to protect it from roaming bears, I'll swing an axe, use a knife, build wood fires, and use a petrol stove which I pressurize by pumping it, but god forbid there is methanol allowed anywhere on the premises!Padded helmets for everyone!
Are you familiar with the concepts called "ad hominem" and "straw man"? These are the rhetorical terms for the kind of informal fallacy you are presenting. I would therefore again urge you to consider that in the same way you find that your viewpoints should be respected you should consider respecting the viewpoints of other individuals.
As long as the arguments are based upon the matter being discussed it should be perfectly possible for to persons to be in vehement disagreement upon a specific matter and still remain friends. This is especially important in internet-based discussion, as only the written words are available to form a basis for furthering the discussion.
//Kim Horsevad
I don't understand the hostilities with people who prefer different methods of fuels. Not being funny admin should pretty much delete this off because of the moron childish behaviour! Firstly contamination with food?!!! WHO EVER GOES OUT AND KEEPS THERE FOOD IN THE SAME COMPARTMENT OR CLOSE TO ANY FUEL WHILE TRANSPORTING OR NOT SHOULD RETHINK THEY'RE BAG PLAN?!! What's the difference with burning anything! How many people smoke on here?! Or even drink cola?! Have a look at the uses of that stuff other than consuming it! You can clean blood if roads with cola the american police do it all the time. The point is why get so arsey about any fuel they are all dangerous some more than others! Petrol ignites ridiculously easily with only it's vapour! But it get used in vasts amounts daily!! Just put it in a canister that is safe and designed for it then the rest is up to you!!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Just to add I started bush craft to get away from the pressures of everyday life which I believe most people have and one thing I really dislike is health and safety! Anyone who treats any fuel like water and disrespects it tbh is in my way of thinking its just natures way of natural selection! If you know the dangers and aware of it effects then you decide of the safety proportions! End of stupid Moron convo! Be grown up and leave it now!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Kim/horsevad, "ad hominem" and "straw man" are two different terms, which refer to two different types of arguments. I know you are using them to just generally describe arguments you don't like, but that is not the technically correct use of the terms.
As I stated repeatedly, if you wish to avoid a certain substance because you are afraid of it, that is your choice, and I have nothing against it. Complaining that your choice is not respected is a straw man argument, since no one is actually stating anything of the sort.
What I am opposed to is you standing on your soapbox and not only preaching information which is not supported by the facts, but also forcing it down people's throats as a supposed instructor. If you are doing the latter due to severe and absurd laws in your country, that is fine, although that is not the reason you originally presented to us. If you are doing it because of your own paranoia, that is highly problematic. As it was previously stated, if it is your school, you are free to do whatever floats your boat, but I am equally free to make sure I never attend one of your classes. That is an ad hominem statement. Contrary to your assertion however, that is not a fallacy, it is simply the desire for people not to support someone who takes and extreme position on an argument.
As far as the one example you gave of the painter in 1954 who went blind due to spilling paint thinner on his pants, I'm sure you understand my reluctance to extrapolate a general toxicity policy considering that every painter in the last 100 years has spilled paint thinner on themselves at least once without any ill effects. By the way, I was also able to find an example where a child in Canada died from prolonged skin exposure to methanol where it was applied to the skin periodically over a number of days. Shocking that the CDC hasn't banned the substance considering those two examples from the past century. Perhaps considering that your own (admittedly very restrictive) government allows the use of methanol as a fuel for toy cars, would lead you to take a more reasonable position with respect to the substance. Or maybe not.
As I stated repeatedly, if you wish to avoid a certain substance because you are afraid of it, that is your choice, and I have nothing against it. Complaining that your choice is not respected is a straw man argument, since no one is actually stating anything of the sort.
What I am opposed to is you standing on your soapbox and not only preaching information which is not supported by the facts, but also forcing it down people's throats as a supposed instructor. If you are doing the latter due to severe and absurd laws in your country, that is fine, although that is not the reason you originally presented to us. If you are doing it because of your own paranoia, that is highly problematic. As it was previously stated, if it is your school, you are free to do whatever floats your boat, but I am equally free to make sure I never attend one of your classes. That is an ad hominem statement. Contrary to your assertion however, that is not a fallacy, it is simply the desire for people not to support someone who takes and extreme position on an argument.
As far as the one example you gave of the painter in 1954 who went blind due to spilling paint thinner on his pants, I'm sure you understand my reluctance to extrapolate a general toxicity policy considering that every painter in the last 100 years has spilled paint thinner on themselves at least once without any ill effects. By the way, I was also able to find an example where a child in Canada died from prolonged skin exposure to methanol where it was applied to the skin periodically over a number of days. Shocking that the CDC hasn't banned the substance considering those two examples from the past century. Perhaps considering that your own (admittedly very restrictive) government allows the use of methanol as a fuel for toy cars, would lead you to take a more reasonable position with respect to the substance. Or maybe not.
rg598, no matter how many times you say "There haven't been thousands dying from using methanol", it doesn't remove the simple FACT that methanol is toxic.
Now, if handled carefully (don't go drinking it, washing in it etc), people won't die or go blind from burning methanol in stoves.
There are still less-toxic alternatives.
Is it sensible to use? Well, that's up to an individual. If someone is running a course where they can't supervise everyone constantly, then they'd be sensible to minimise risks.
A chainsaw cuts wood faster than a bowsaw, but you don't hand those out without training and supervision.
Now, if handled carefully (don't go drinking it, washing in it etc), people won't die or go blind from burning methanol in stoves.
There are still less-toxic alternatives.
Is it sensible to use? Well, that's up to an individual. If someone is running a course where they can't supervise everyone constantly, then they'd be sensible to minimise risks.
A chainsaw cuts wood faster than a bowsaw, but you don't hand those out without training and supervision.
Like I said, he is free to do whatever he wants in his own school. I am equally free not to attend his classes. The same way I would not attend a forestry school which banned teaching or use of chainsaws. I find horsevad's restrictions to be based in paranoia rather than fact, and I wish not to support them. I like my knives sharp, my axes not wrapped in bubble wrap, and I like my fuel choices not being restricted. It's the beauty of the market system. Otherwise, if anyone wishes not to use a particular product for personal reasons, I don't think any of us would have an issue, nor do I think anyone has expressed such a position in this thread.
Now, as far as the actual argument and the subject of this thread, like you said, do not drink or bade in your stove fuel, and you will have absolutely no problems.
You can run a car on ethanol and AFAIK it's a matter of adjusting the timing & mix, so perhaps a similar mod. would work for methanol.
When I get home I'll set up a 111T for methanol, bit thirsty on fuel but I've got lots of methanol so may as well use it.
Found these in 'bushcraft green' for when I need to refuel it at camp
Other options for refuelling here
http://libarynth.org/_media/chemical-protective-suit.jpg
Found these in 'bushcraft green' for when I need to refuel it at camp
Other options for refuelling here
http://libarynth.org/_media/chemical-protective-suit.jpg
Possibly. But TBH I was being sarcastic; combing a supposedly dangerous tool with a supposedly dangerous fuel.
Should be able to, there's 500 twostroke motocrossers converted to hillclimbers that run on alky. If I remember right they need jets about twice the size to allow more fuel to flow but its got better knock resistance so can stand more ignition advance.
A while ago I spoke to a bloke who ran his hillclimber on methanol, he said that he knew when it was the good stuff cos it tasted like battery acid when he put a tiny drop on his tongue.
So, not only was he taste testing methanol, but he got to compare it to battery acid, and they say hillclimb racers are mental eh?
Similar threads
