[SEL] It works? Ban it!

[Rick Rowlands]

Products were initially developed without consideration for health effects. 
The most suitable material was found to do a certain task and that was it. 
Now that "health effects" are factored in those products found most suitable 
must now be judged by their supposed health impacts.  Compromises must be 
made and part of the compromise is that the products no longer work as well 
as they did.  The other compromise is that they are more expensive. Seems 
like all the compromising is being done by the consumer!

We must all remember that the environmental movement sees humanity as a 
blight on the earth.  Their ultimate goal is to see humanity either 
destroyed or revert to pre industrial revolution status. If you view their 
actions in that context then what they do makes sense. You then see that 
they practice incrementalism and are very patient in reaching their goals.

Rick

P.S.  Who is to say that global warming is a bad thing?  Greenland was named 
GREENland for a reason.  Go there today and you will not see much green.  I 
think we're still living in the effects of the last global cooling.

P.P.S.  Who is to say that the current climate is the optimal climate for 
the Earth?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Watson" <nadejack at optusnet.com.au>
To: "The SEL email discussion list" <sel at lists.stationary-engine.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 7:52 AM
Subject: [SEL] It works? Ban it!



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

_______________________________________________
SEL mailing list
SEL at lists.stationary-engine.com
http://www.stationary-engine.com/mailman/listinfo/sel