Eco-scene


Existing members can login here.
 

The Green File / La filière verte > Comment "Tom's B-404" > Comment "Re: Tom's B-404" > Comment "Re: Tom's B-404" > Comment "Re: Tom's B-404" > Comment "Re: Tom's B-404" > Comment "Re: Tom's B-404" > Comment "Re: Tom's B-404"

Re: Tom's B-404
by Ross Nichol, March 17, 2011
(And now I have mention that I didn't put in the sad faces. I cut & pasted and the included bracket and colon produced the icon. )

***

Edit: sign of the times... I've edited the text to avoid the "smiley" face. Mo
    Re: Tom's B-404
    by Dave Winstanley, March 17, 2011
    Who knows which one is less harmful - but when one claims to be "non-toxic" on the label and then says don't get it on your skin, don't breath the fumes and whatever you do, don't get it in your eyes - it just shows how misleading product labeling can be.

    I'd keep it out of the martini's too.

      Re: Tom's B-404
      by George Davidson, March 18, 2011
      If you look at the two ingredients its not that bad of a product, I think the warnings are just lawyer talk

      01 VEGETABLE OILS MIXTURE 65.0 %
      02 ISOBUTANE 75-28-5 40.0 %

      The percentages are less than, which leaves a 5% overlap for sloppiness - again more lawyer stuff

      This also is the same make-up as Pam cooking spray, which makes it a great SpudGun propellant, just not sure if the veggie oils are eatable.

      I would continue to use it to froth you coffee Ross, just make sure to drink it away from an open flame or sparks.

      George
        Re: Tom's B-404
        by James McKernan, August 14, 2011
        I wonder if the production of this product is more sustainable.
        Perhaps non-toxic is a separate idea than sustainable or more sustainably manufactured.
        After all many poisons are natural, though hardly non-toxicemoticon
        cheers
        James
back back