Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–337 of 337 posts

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#331

Post by btreecat »

wheels wrote: post #329
btreecat wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batch size has nothing to do with it

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please Google it.

I have, you're pushing nonsense.

The methanol doesn't "come out in the heads" and batch size doesn't affect the final concentration as a % because roughly the same ratio is present during a run with a slight in crease in the tails due to the with methanol bonds with water.

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b9...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402...

Methanol poisoning comes from tainted consumables.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#332

Post by wheels »

btreecat wrote: post #331
wheels wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please Google it.

I have, you're pushing nonsense. The methanol doesn't "come out in the heads" and batch size doesn't affect the final concentration as a % because roughly the same ratio is present during a run with a slight in crease in the tails due to the with methanol bonds with water. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b9... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402... Methanol poisoning…

Interestingly, after looking at this more closely, what I said is true of rakija, which is what I'm most familiar with (part of my family is Serbian), but appears to not be significantly true for grain distillates. Your sources mostly don't address these topics though; the latter one is mainly about copper and lead levels.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#333

Post by avadodin »

mattmaroon wrote: post #248
mattmaroon wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You throw away the foreshots because they also contain things like acetone that taste bad and may be harmful. They’re highly unpalatable so people can be relied on to do a sufficient job.

Also “Angel’s share” isn’t what you throw away, it’s what evaporates from the barrel when you age. What you throw away are the foreshots and parts of the heads and tails

I had learned it like that(it could have been a different cute term) but the terminology I used does appear to be wrong afaict.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#334

Post by btreecat »

wheels wrote: post #332
btreecat wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have, you're pushing nonsense. The methanol doesn't "come out in the heads" and batch size doesn't affect the final concentration as a % because roughly the same ratio is present during a run with a slight in crease in the tails due to the with methanol bonds with water. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/0b9... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402... Methanol poisoning…

Interestingly, after looking at this more closely, what I said is true of rakija, which is what I'm most familiar with (part of my family is Serbian), but appears to not be significantly true for grain distillates. Your sources mostly don't address these topics though; the latter one is mainly about copper and lead levels.

Do you have any sources on methanol concentration that support your claims? If not the sources I provided show a low risk.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#335

Post by ninalanyon »

martin-t wrote: post #239
ninalanyon wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why median income? Why not the income of the individuals concerned. Any fixed value fine simply means that the wealthy can just treat it as a cost.

That's what I meant in the second sentence. It's not just about fines, many countries have support for families with children. I don't think the rich should get more money per child. For fines, it absolutely makes sense. A harsher alternative is to stop using fines altogether and instead give "prison micro-sentences" - a few hours or days in prison. It makes perfect sense - when you pay a fine, you lost a bit of your…

> "prison micro-sentences"

Brilliant!

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#336

Post by wheels »

btreecat wrote: post #334
wheels wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, after looking at this more closely, what I said is true of rakija, which is what I'm most familiar with (part of my family is Serbian), but appears to not be significantly true for grain distillates. Your sources mostly don't address these topics though; the latter one is mainly about copper and lead levels.

Do you have any sources on methanol concentration that support your claims? If not the sources I provided show a low risk.

Stone fruits (plumbs, apricots, the two most common fruits in rakija) have higher methanol levels:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e9c/544909602112c2816a956b...

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#337

Post by btreecat »

wheels wrote: post #336
btreecat wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any sources on methanol concentration that support your claims? If not the sources I provided show a low risk.

Stone fruits (plumbs, apricots, the two most common fruits in rakija) have higher methanol levels: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2e9c/544909602112c2816a956b...

Nothing about batch size affecting concentration of methanol in your link.

Nothing about more methanol in the heads either.

Your claims stand as unsupported.

Post reply on HN