Talk:Ethanol

Mixing the use of flammable and inflammable with apparently the same meaning ("it can burn") is confusing. Yet I'm not sure what the better word is. Anyone?

—Herbee 2004-02-11

Inflammable means flammable?? What a country!

—Dr. Nick Riviera 2004-10-22

"and that the economic irrationality of using grain-produced ethanol to replace petroleum can be seen from the fact that almost all industrial ethanol is produced from petroleum feedstocks" -- removed this because I don't understand the illogic -- Marj Tiefert 17:11 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)

Uhm it makes sense, if iindusrial grade alcohol is made from petroleum because its cheaper than grain why would you want to replace petroleum with grain-alcohol?

 I have been annoyed by advertizments on Public Radio's News Hour by Arthur Danial Midland that imply that ethanol is their exclusive product madde from corn.  Some writers have expressed concern that ethanol as an additive to gasoline might be poisin if spilled into the ground water like the synthetic MTB.  [[email protected]]

Perhaps because petroleum is a finite resource and also prices are volatile? user:sjc

I wasn't arguing with the sentence, i was just reiterating it because marj found it illogical. It actually makes sense though, and that was what i was trying to say. It IS economically irrational to replace petroleum with ethanol when you consider the most cost-efficient way of producing ethanol is form petroleum feedstocksLightning 14:28 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

Something seems to be missing at the end of this sentence: "Some people, especially in East Asia, have a mutation in their alcohol dehydrogenase gene and process alcohol "

Can anyone fill in the blank? It looks like that line was added by AxelBoldt on 16 Mar 2003. -- Arteitle 10:25 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, there you go. It's not exactly a continuation of the sentence, but it's something Dysprosia 10:32 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Most alcoholic beverages are not useful to replenish the body's fluids, since they cause the body to lose more fluids as urine than are taken in by the beverage."
What is 'most'? Historically in Europe, alcoholic beverages were the only safe things to drink, and many/most? people drank only/majorly? beers & wines for their liquid intake. How does that compare to this statement?
~ender 2003-08-30 20:54:MST

I'm not certain what you're referring to. I find it unlikely that alcoholic beverages were ever the major part of a person hydration, and it seems useless. Alcohol, in any form, is diuretic. I suppose if it was watered down enough, it would be possible to drink more water than you would lose in urinating, but this wouldn't address the problem of water being unsafe to drink, except inasmuch as alcohol kills bacteria. AFAIK, the word most is incorrect, since all alcohol is diuretic. Tuf-Kat

I remember reading somewhere that letting substances ferment was one way to make them safe to drink. In Asia however they used to boil liquid (teas etc.) to kill bacteria etc., that was why they're more likely to have less genetic alcohol tolerance, because they didn't need to drink alcohol.

(I don't know if it's true though.) Tristanb 06:05, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, I was reading "Structures of Everyday Life" (a great book btw), and it talked about beers and things. Beers used to be so common that they dcouldn't even be bought for a coin, you used up tokens for each beer, which would eventually equal the smallest coin in circulation. I was also reading somewhere that water was not a popular drink, until the Puritans got to New England, as most water sources were polluted. Beer can be 3% alcohol by volume, so I'm assuming that 30-1 ratio of water to alcohol might be enough to give you a net gain in retaining water. But, like I said, I'm interested in more information before I change the article.

~ender 2003-08-30 23:46:MST

This is going to be difficult to pin down. There are two different things being compared: [1] The concentration of alcohol in a beverage that would retard microbial growth, and [2] The concentration of alcohol in blood that suppresses anti-diuretic hormone release (most likely 0.07 - 0.09). But the concentration of alcohol in a beverage and blood alcohol level is not a simple correspondance, and depends on body weight, speed of ingestion, and many other factors. It is probably possible to drink only alcoholic beverages, never exceed a blood alcohol level of 0.6, and yet manage to take in enough fluid to supply metabolic needs. The question really is what is the strength of the evidence supporting the assertion that alcoholic beverages were the only fluid drunk by most Europeans (at any given period). Not terribly strong, I would think. It's also quite possible that something other than the alcohol concentration in the fermented beverages made them safe to drink. -- Someone else 06:56, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Maybe it's not the alcohol concentration, but the fact that fermentation allows harmless yeasts, (and bacteria) to overtake and outbreed any cholera bugs.

Apparently, cheap beer in Europe used to be very dilute: it led to electrolyte depletion if you drank it to cool you off while stoking coal fires. (source: a lecturer many years ago) Tristanb

How about: It is difficult to replenish the body's fluids using only alcoholic beverages because alcohol is a diuretic, and in the more potent drinks, causes the body to lose more water than is contained in the beverage.

~ender 2003-08-31 00:32:MST

With a bit of a change, I thin: it's not the potency (i.e., concentration) of the drink that matters, it's the dose of alcohol that's consumed in a given time period. (of course, high "potency" may make this more likely, but that's not what we said before). -- Someone else 17:37, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I think some people might dispute the claim that pure ethanol "has a pleasant odor" (whether reminiscent of whiskey or not). -Delirium 07:19, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Just curious... If not from ethanol, how did you become delirious? Herbee

Perhaps the use of ethanol as a car fuel deserves it own page? --Jorge Stolfi

"A solution of 70-85% of ethanol is commonly used as a disinfectant..."

I see this figure given quite often, but unfortunately no explaination is given to why alcohol's most effective at such concentration. This is contrary to most disinfectants, which are more effective at higher concentrations; usually they are diluted because they are too toxic at higher concentrations.

Hopefully someone knowlegable can answer this, if just to satisfy my personal curiosity. At my local drug stores, isopropyl alcohol are often sold in at least two different concentrations: ~70% and ~90%. Some even offer three: ~70%, ~80%, and ~90%. Somehow I feel this is a marketing ploy...