Methanol is a biproduct of fermentation, and will be part of the destillate if not done carefully.
I doubt that ethanol used in car and torpedo fuel will go through the same quality control than drinking alcohol.
I doubt that ethanol used in car and torpedo fuel will go through the same quality control than drinking alcohol.
If unsafe for humans amounts of methanol in the product was tolerable for the torpedos they would have just done that to prevent consumption.
The cleanliness and hygiene controls along the way are going to be lesser. It's not like it's being made in a food factory.
Sincere question: isn't "hygiene" usually referring only to bacteria, viruses and other organic contamination? Don't get me wrong, I'm with you that I'd worry about contamination with all kinds of other toxic stuff.
> The terms cleanliness and hygiene are often used interchangeably, which can cause confusion. In general, hygiene refers to practices that prevent spread of disease-causing organisms. Cleaning processes (e.g., handwashing) remove infectious microbes as well as dirt and soil, and are thus often the means to achieve hygiene.
> Home hygiene pertains to the hygiene practices that prevent or minimize the spread of disease at home and other everyday settings such as social settings, public transport, the workplace, public places, and more. Hygiene in a variety of settings plays an important role in preventing the spread of infectious diseases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene
It does seem like hygiene controls are going to be concerned exclusively with infectious disease, while cleanliness is going to prevent broader contamination of anything toxic.
That's usually true. Adding methanol to ethanol can be either deliberate or accidental. Where I am (Australia) methanol and pyridine used to be added to ethanol as a denaturant so it could be sold without liquor tax and it was sold as 'Methylated Spirits' and labeled 'POISON'. If I recall the amount of methanol was 15% and the pyridine was 3%. Methanol was set at 15% with the deliberate intention of making the 'spirits' toxic and the pyridine to make it foul tasting (and pyridine itself is also toxic). At those percentages both denaturants were similar enough to ethanol as not to interfere significantly with its primarily purposes—as a solvent, fuel, etc.
Nevertheless, that didn't deter diehard drinkers/alcoholics from consuming methylated spirits and the effects on their health were catastrophic—blindness and death.
Several decades ago both methanol and pyridine were removed and replaced with denatonium (aka Bitrex) as the denaturant, which is not toxic at the level necessary for its purpose. Nevertheless, the product is still sold as 'Methylated Spirits' with the fine print calling it 'ethanol solution 95%, UN 1170', and the warning changed from 'POISON' to 'CAUTION'. The logic behind the change being that it was 'safer'—read it cost the State less in medical expenses.
I think the UK has done something similar and no doubt a number of other countries have followed suit, except I believe the US makes ethanol harder to get and usually substitutes isopropanol/rubbing alcohol for domestic use (someone in the US please update me on the rules there).
Since the advent of denatonium as a denaturant, it seems to me there is no need to add methanol and I reckon it ought to be highly illegal to do so. If ethanol/methanol mixtures are needed for some purpose then they should be strictly labeled and denatonium a mandated additive.
What concerns me is the accidental addition of methanol to ethanol (to 'Methylated Spirits'). I use a lot of ethanol in the form of Methylated Spirits for cleaning and as a solvent as it's a much cheaper substitute for isopropanol and I've noticed occasionally that its odor is very different (once every 3 or 4 months on weekly purchases). In fact, I've noticed the odor of formaldehyde on more than one occasion (and that's not the only impurity I've detected by nose).
This tells me there's very little control on the distribution of industrial solvents (in this class that is). I'd suggest tanks/tankers, etc. aren't properly flushed when changing product and or such. If distribution equipment isn't being cleaned properly then people aren't being careful and worse could easily happen.
From my experience it seems to me it's still a very risky business to assume that 'industrial' ethanol is actually just that (95% ethanol, 5% H2O and trace denatonium). There's no way I'd ever risk drinking the stuff—that is assuming I could stand the taste of the excruciatingly bitter denatonium.
I'd be interested to know how other countries now handle the rules in regard to ethanol distribution.
Some quick notes about "it's just propaganda" with some "regulation is hard to do without tons of side effects" undercurrents:
1. When distilling you DO concentrate methanol but as a waste product. An unethical moonshiner could still sell this or cut it back into the main product (although the latter isn't usually a problem because of the concentration and the fact that ethanol is a treatment for methanol proving). You would definitely know if you were drinking straight methanol but you might not know in a cocktail (or might not care - lots of crazy stuff in these comments about drinking various dangerous liquids).
2. Other things went into the shine. A very common one was dynamite because nitroglycerin helps fermentation continue at low temperatures, like out in the woods where your secret still might have to be. Nitroglycerin can do all sorts of things to you - it is sometimes prescribed as a heart medicine.
3. Moonshining is, by definition, a criminal enterprise and things-you-might-not-like happen all the time just like with illegal drugs today. One common blindness cause wasn't actually methanol but antifreeze and other "engine gunk" because you could put your new, un-aged shine into things like car engines and it would come out the other side with the impression of being aged or in some way better.
So there is some fun-fact nuance on the "moonshine could make you go blind" lore! I like to respond to that with "yes, but probably not for the reason you think!"
So if you are not very picky when it comes to drinks, it doesn't really matter if your ethanol has 10% of methanol.
Perhaps so, but is that a one-off shot/dosing or habitually (as an alcoholic)?
In my other post I pointed out that denatured ethanol sold as 'Methylated Spirits' used to have 15% methanol and 3% pyridine as denaturants and in practice this combination was considered highly toxic and that's why the denaturants were changed to nontoxic denatonium (ie 95% ethanol, 5% H2O and trace denatonium).
For Methylated Spirits the methanol/pyridine ratios were set deliberately to be toxic and the product was labeled 'POISON'.
Whether the pyridine added significantly to the toxicity I cannot say. Nor do I know why the ratios were set as they were. No doubt a check of how that standard was set and the death rate stats before and after the denatonium was added would tell the actual story.
Here, 'absolute ethanol' is typically 99%. No doubt H2O is a significant part of that last 1% but going on my experience with 95% EtOH I wouldn't be a bit surprised about it being benzene and it's likely there's other undesirable stuff as well.
BTW, over the years I've bought a lot of industrial grade 'absolute ethanol' which I use in woodworking as a solvent for shellac. 95% EtOH is unsatisfactory as the water in it often causes the shellac to turn a cloudy/milky colour.
I have to buy the 99% grade in 20-litre plastic containers as usually that's the smallest amount that's supplied. Moreover, it's much more expensive, at least double the price and on par with that of isopropanol.
Given its price and comparative rarity I doubt whether its consumption would be a signifiant problem. Anecdotally, the stuff I buy seems to have significantly more denatonium than the normal EtOH, quite some time after using it I've momentarily held my (dry) hand on my face near my mouth and the denatonium is almost overpowering. That's not the case with normal domestic EtOH (in the same situation denatonium is present but nowhere near as objectionable).
Clearly this grade should have denatonium added no matter where it's sold and I'm surprised that it's not readily available in the US. Moreover, there's no technical/chemical reason why denatonium shouldn't be added given that so little is need to be an effective bitterant. It seems to me the residual 1% 'impurities' would be much more relevant than the denatonium, even then, for most purposes, this 1% is already insignificant as far as the EtOH chemistry is concerned.
On the other hand as you note absolute ethanol as used as a reagent in precision experimentation (and in the pharmaceutical industry) would have to be devoid of denatonium. I'd add these grades usually come with a certified purity analysis/impurities percentage list together with the complying standard, BP grade, etc.
I'm unfamiliar with the regulations covering denaturants in the various countries but it seems to me the normal 99% grade with denatonium of the type I use is suitable for most purposes including most undergraduate lab chemistry (there's little point unnecessarily tempting students to imbibe).
Incidentally, when I was studying chemistry the denatonium option wasn't yet available so labs always had absolute EtOH available and the normal commercial denatured grade was roughly EtOH ~80%, MeO ~15%, pyridine ~5%.
I'm now curious as to how US-based woodworkers and painters manage using shellac if 99% denatured EtOH isn't readily available.