[SEL] It works? Ban it!

[Steve W.]

Jack Watson wrote:
> Philosophical thoughts (still relative to Stationary engines) follow;
> 
> After a recent discussion between like minded engine folk in my workshop 
> over a lubricationary sherbet or two, touching among other topics upon 
> our personal favourite solvents for cleaning engines and parts, I 
> remarked that we used to use Phenyl for cleaning our motor bikes, and 
> how effective it was in dissolving grease and muck without damaging 
> paintwork etc. and it brought the chrome and alloy parts up beautifully.
> 
> Our workshop cynic remarked, "If it worked that well, it will have been 
> banned by now".
> 
> (I do expect - hope - that if it has been banned, it would have been for 
> a good reason, but I am no chemist.)
> 
> BUT . . .
> 
> Isn't it remarkable how many of the "old time" products have had to be
> replaced with others very much less effective, since it was found that
> the old products had most undesirable side-effects?
> 
> Not only phenyl; paint has never been the same since they took the lead
> out. Likewise petrol. They are still struggling to find an effective
> substitute. Same thing with taking the sulphur out of diesel fuel. Same
> thing with "trico" (tricoethylene) and other solvents, cleaning agents 
> and paint-strippers. Same thing with penetrating fluids since they 
> became "acid free".
> 
> Again, with soldering fluxes. Same thing with brake and clutch linings,
> now asbestos-free. Case-hardening powder used to contain potassium 
> cyanide - nasty stuff, and all quite rightly condemned, but they all 
> worked very well.
> 
> Please, don't get me wrong - I'd never want anyone, especially children,
> exposed to lead or asbestos or any carcinogenic nasties, and I applaud
> all and any efforts to safeguard health issues. I am quite happy to work
> around the deficiencies of the substitutes, but the thought remains that
> they got it right the first time as far as effectiveness is concerned
> given that they got it wrong as far as the health issues are concerned.
> 
> My point is that the much safer replacement products are largely 
> ineffective.
> 
> JW²
> 

I agree with removing a product from consumer use If it has been proven 
to cause serious problems AND there is a suitable replacement. The huge 
problem is that many products are banned using junk testing methods and 
poor science.

  Look through some of the tests they use and you will find out that 
most of the products have been tested using outrageous amounts on the 
test subject. Triclor is a good one- The testing used rats and the 
"researchers" found that constant exposure caused problems. The 
"constant exposure" they used on the rats was by shaving their fur and 
wetting the same spots with triclor and not cleaning or even letting it 
evaporate off. The amount they determined to be a problem would be 
equivalent to a normal human taking a bath daily for two years....

Take a look at the testing done on lead. The amounts I have seen stated 
as causing problems in children (No noted effect on people over 10-12 
years unless they get shot with a lead bullet) means your kid must have 
eaten a gallon of paint per day for a week!


-- 
Steve W.
Near Cooperstown, New York
NRA Member
Pacifism - The theory that if they'd fed
Jeffrey Dahmer enough human flesh,
he'd have become a vegan.