StillSmart

An article on the beebs website this morn.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25455992


Propoganda to stop folks drinking the stuff or real heath concern??
also
"The duty and VAT alone on a legitimate 70cl bottle of vodka total £8.89."
Wowsers!! I did'nt realise it was so much tax

Boozoid wrote:An article on the beebs website this morn.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25455992


Propoganda to stop folks drinking the stuff or real heath concern??
also
"The duty and VAT alone on a legitimate 70cl bottle of vodka total £8.89."
Wowsers!! I did'nt realise it was so much tax

I've been listening to those report since 0230 this morning......

One of the news reports said they may have added danverous chemicals, like chloroform.....

So why would a faker add an expensive chemical like chloroform, which would likely affect the taste when they just want to earn some untaxed readies ?

Anyone who tasted stuff like that would likely spot it wasn't right and either just ask for a refund or threaten the seller with the police etc......

Now if you think on it, you've already identified the main reason why its not in the interests of HMRC to dispell the myths but equally why its legal to make wine beer and cider at home, but not spirits.

The BBC are just a convenient conduit for government propaganda, not forgetting that the last publicised example of bootlegging, was lead by trading standards and not HMRC. Cos the bootleggers were ripping of brand holders IP..........

It's just easy to panic the mug punters into buying "known" brands and as HMRC have got a cosy relationship with the big boys, it benefits all the vested interests. The only people who lose out are the boot leggers and those who can't afford big brands.

That's not to say that its not possible to produce toxic fakes, it is, but its likely to be harder as well as the fakers needing to keep their heads down.

Hence just think up a few minor twists to the commonly believed myths, a couple of reports of dramatic and dire potential symptoms, bingo.

It was done a hundred years ago with absinthe. It was easier to blame wormwoods active element - Thujone, as a hallucinogenic for scaremongering and banning than it was to understand that you'd have hallucinations if you'd drank too much 80 to 90 % ABV spirits instead.

Identify the bogeyman and blame him....... normally that'd be grounds for arrest, for fraud, but as its the government, its all right.....

You could drop the "fake" bit from that, and leave it as vodka kills. Give someone a couple of liters of expensive vodka (with all the duty paid for) and a time limit.

Easy enough to get yourself in a critical state with enough gusto

Trading standards say it may contain chemicals such as chloroform or industrial alcohol, which can affect eyesight, or in extreme cases, kill.

Usually it contains alcohols used in cleaning fluids or antifreeze. As a result, such bottles can contain up to 57% alcohol.

Methanol tastes like ethanol (i.e. basically no taste). Put it in a mixed drink in place of vodka and you would never know. Well, until it was too late. It is cheaper than ethanol and is commonly used to produce illegal drinks like this. From earlier this year:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/17/cheznye-e ... a-3783109/

This is how all of the "you can go blind or die drinking improperly distilled alcohol" myths came about. Bollocks. It happens because someone put something cheaper in the bottle without a care for the effect on who drank it.

Chuck

Thing is Chuck, we all know and understand that all ferments will contain some methanol etc, and while cases in the UK might be up, if someone did just make some and not remove tbe foreshots and just bunged it tbrough a carbon filter, then any example would test positive.

Ergo, they give that to the press who just change the contaminant to something people might actually understand and heard of (they wouldn't know the difference between methanol and ethanol) and bingo, scaremongering central. Panic the public with stupidity and ignorance.

Not forgetting the much higher taxation here, it doesn't hurt HMRC's position either.......

QED complete bollocks as you rightly point out......

I think I agree with all here.
First with Chuck,I remember a big story from 20 or more years in the UK where someone was "sweetening and fortifying" cheap eastern european wine with anti-freeze.
Bad guys only look for profit.
Licensed bad guys (HMRC and Govt) do the same,with a mandate.
Media tell stories to sell papers and news bulletins.
Sadly you need to have a life-time of experience to understand what to take heed of and what to disregard.
Robert.

I remember that wine scandal.The reason they got caught was that they were so greedy that they claimed the VAT back on the antifreeze ingredients. Vigilant tax man started digging.

Some guy made a nice profit on the illegal booze though, he bought it for next to nothing then sold it airports as de-icer.

The whole methanol in booze thing is a myth anyway. Drinking straight methanol will without question do you serious harm. However, for inadvertent methanol poisoning do you know what the antidote is when you get to casualty?

Intravenous medical grade ethanol!!!!

In combination Methanol and Ethanol makes you feel crap, but it won't kill you. Drink too much and it will, but that is true of virtually anything taken in excess.

Once upon a time,I went to a school 'disco',aged 12,armed with a bottle of beer.
I decided to fortify it with some 90% alcohol from the Biology lab.Methanol.Not that I knew the difference then.
Pi$$ed as a rat.
Totally missed getting off with the then current girl of my dreams.
VIOLENTLY ill after.
Been there,done it,don't wish to again.......................


Robert

Easydrinker wrote:Once upon a time,I went to a school 'disco',aged 12,armed with a bottle of beer.
I decided to fortify it with some 90% alcohol from the Biology lab.Methanol.Not that I knew the difference then.
Pi$$ed as a rat.
Totally missed getting off with the then current girl of my dreams.
VIOLENTLY ill after.
Been there,done it,don't wish to again.......................


Robert

The learning curve of youth.........

I just don't like the blanket use of mythical propoganda, especially from the Beeb. We know about many hazards, but they just continue to push them out in the name of public safety.

After all, while it's known that methanol consumpution is bad (apparently it's metabolised into formic acid in the body, which is what does the damage to the nervous system, particularly the optic nerve), but has anyone actually done or published any data ? because a tiny amount of methanol is produced by all fermentation anyway, it's a natural occurance, so..........

They'd also use the same public interest defence of any propoganda like that, whatever the hazard, but I'd say that a little knowledge can be dangerous, so find out a bit more and weigh up the benefits. Is it really a big enough problem to justify using that kind of report or just something that's been picked up off the wire and handy to fill some air time on a slow news day, because the editor/producer of the moment just didn't happen to know of the issues so just blindly pushed it out.........

There is methanol in commercial orange juice. And a lot of other things, cigarette smoke for example. It is a question of amount. As Myles said, not something that we need to worry about.

Some related reading:
http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/pdf/(19)%20Francot%20and%20Geoffroy%20French%20article%20used%20to%20rationalize%20more%20methanol%20in%20food.pdf
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... anges.aspx
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innova ... on5361.htm
http://thetruthaboutstuff.com/published ... 20Diet.pdf

Unfortunately methanol poisoning does occur through inhalation and dermal exposure, so it has been studied fairly extensively.

The big problem for us humans (and primates in general) is that we are sensitive to formic acid - one of the by products of the metabolism of methanol.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/hpawebfile/hpaweb_c/1194947364086

The info is there if you wish to read it.

Thanks Myles,
Downloaded,and on the reading list.
Although I do try and avoid it these days.
Methanol,not reading.

Robert.

Ha! looks like Myles has been at the COSHH hand book

It also explains, why at home brew concentrations, it's a non-issue. Just basic stilling practice sorts that.

Can't remember where I was reading it, but in this kind of world, the highest levels produced "accidentally" would be from some of the fruit brandy type materials, like plums and other stone fruit. Even then, it's not so much of an issue as you'd still dump the foreshots (into the screenwash bottle etc), and any flavour carry-over would be from the tails.

Ergo, not an issue.

I'm just guessing the original report was just something churned out by either the DTI trading standards office or HMRC, but picked up by some sprog producer at the Beeb on a slow news day.

Compare it to today, it's all rain and crimbo travel hold ups, which are a bit more pressing than worrying about someone wanting to buy some "cheap cornershop vodka".......

So much for it being a huge and pressing issue eh !

The moonshine myths seem to be dying down. Maybe due to the net edumacating people or maybe it becoming wider known that HBS sell stills. Could be a mixture of both.

Nowadays when I tell people I still my own (eff tbtb if they can't take a joke) I get 5% to 10% of them talking about blindness etc. 20 years ago it would be over 80% of them.