William Dieterich > wrote:
>Am reading the book _Condensed Knowledge_. In there they mention the
>following
>
>"After burial for 100 million years the radiocarbon in the original
>organism decays, and Congress has decreed that such alcohol may not be
>legally consumed. The argument that it's unfit probably has more to
>do with politices than with science, sin there's no scientific reason
>why fossil fuel alcohol would be any worse than alchol from grapes"
>
>Tried a google search and could not find anything. Are thier other
>names that fossil fuel alcohol would go under, much less a reason that
>someone would want to try drinking it?

Ethanol or Methanol.

You wouldn't drink that any more than you'd cook in motor oil.

Technically, it's possible, but technically, it's contaminated
with the kinds of things that appear in fossil fuels.

It's used as a fuel additive anyway.

--Blair
"And who says the other kind is safe?"

William Dieterich > wrote:
>Am reading the book _Condensed Knowledge_. In there they mention the
>following
>
>"After burial for 100 million years the radiocarbon in the original
>organism decays, and Congress has decreed that such alcohol may not be
>legally consumed. The argument that it's unfit probably has more to
>do with politices than with science, sin there's no scientific reason
>why fossil fuel alcohol would be any worse than alchol from grapes"
>
>Tried a google search and could not find anything. Are thier other
>names that fossil fuel alcohol would go under, much less a reason that
>someone would want to try drinking it?

Ethanol or Methanol.

You wouldn't drink that any more than you'd cook in motor oil.

Technically, it's possible, but technically, it's contaminated
with the kinds of things that appear in fossil fuels.

It's used as a fuel additive anyway.

--Blair
"And who says the other kind is safe?"