Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CedarDave
Does this additive significantly add to the cost of making the antifreeze or significantly change it's effectiveness?

If not, some manufacturer should try selling antifreeze made that way with a profitable markup and see if there are enough people out there who think it's a significant issue to make it profitable.

I have a hard time believing that there are a significant number of deaths of people or animals from accidentally consuming antifreeze. It's hardly the only common item that's poisonous.

There may be people who have used it to poison other people's pets, but making antifreeze taste bad simply removes antifreeze as one of many, many common things they could poison them with.

Is there really a significant need for this law, or is it just another of the many mostly useless laws our government debates and often passes just to act like they do something?

14 posted on 05/26/2006 11:39:04 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: untrained skeptic
Does this additive significantly add to the cost of making the antifreeze or significantly change it's effectiveness?
Don't have numbers, but doubt it. Already sold that way in NM and some other states.

I have a hard time believing that there are a significant number of deaths of people or animals from accidentally consuming antifreeze. It's hardly the only common item that's poisonous.
The main issue is that when anti-freeze is changed at home and discharged onto the driveway or in the street, a dog will drink it because it's sweet. Out here, not withstanding laws to the contrary, dogs are frequently loose and drink the stuff. They shouldn't be made to pay with their life for both their owner's and the auto owner's irresponsibility.

There may be people who have used it to poison other people's pets, but making antifreeze taste bad simply removes antifreeze as one of many, many common things they could poison them with.
Hadn't thought of it being used for that. But besides dogs, cats and other wildlife are at risk, though I don't know whether birds have a sense of taste.

Is there really a significant need for this law, or is it just another of the many mostly useless laws our government debates and often passes just to act like they do something?
Very good question. Whatever the answer, it has been caught up in election year politics.

21 posted on 05/26/2006 11:50:07 AM PDT by CedarDave (Sleeper trolls are like cicadas - emerge in the heat and contribute nothing but loud annoying noise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: untrained skeptic
I have a hard time believing that there are a significant number of deaths of people or animals from accidentally consuming antifreeze.

There are around 5,000 cases of accidental human poising with EG a year, resulting in around 10 deaths and around 200 serious disabilities - the fatalities are so low because GE poising can be treated if identified prompt. Yearly animal death estimates vary widely, forvexample from a low of 10,000 to more than 100,000 for dogs alone.

29 posted on 05/26/2006 12:10:28 PM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros at the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson