Passing time in lockdown looking at Opie oils site studying oil tech sheets.(I must be going balmy). I suspect that oil companies test their products for toxicity on animals. Take a look at this MSDS pdf from Valvoline page 8 onwards.
Lubrication without cruelty I say.

https://cdn.opieoils.co.uk/msds/valvoline/20201106-SynPower-MST-C3-5W40.pdf

that's sick

KPat said:

Passing time in lockdown looking at Opie oils site studying oil tech sheets.(I must be going balmy). I suspect that oil companies test their products for toxicity on animals. Take a look at this MSDS pdf from Valvoline page 8 onwards.
Lubrication without cruelty I say.

https://cdn.opieoils.co.uk/msds/valvoline/20201106-SynPower-MST-C3-5W40.pdf

Click to expand...

Got to be honest, not seen that before

Cheers,

Guy

Dear oh dear. Rat, Rabbit, guinea pig, rainbow trout, I gave up after that. I thought we'd stopped doing all this cr*p? Maybe, just maybe, you could manage to make a case for something like aftershave, perfume, hand cream, etc - even then it bothers me, but for engine oil? come on folks! Surely common sense tells you that if you drink it or rub it into your skin the outcome is not going to be good. Common sense. Isn't that enough?

Having kept chinchillas, rats, degus and house rabbits then I too am not happy about this animal testing and we need an alternative.

However there is a fine line about what could / should / should not be done.

Clearly skin care products, food, toothpaste, shampoos etc. have to be proven to be safe. Something which benefits us all.

In the dark ages (it is reported) that humans used their young to test if something was bad or deadly (let's not go there).

On the other side if we accept that say engine oil is toxic and not to be tested on humans/animals then we have another issues arising.

1) You won't be able to buy 3-in-one, WD40, etc. because they will become restricted products for "certified professional" use only

2) Your own car maintenance, and many many other hobbies that use non "human health care products" will also be banned

3) THIS IS THE WORST. With no testing of many products then any manufacturer could produce DEADLY products. We had this with asbestos (for example and we are now much wiser).

Note! I'm not defending the use animals in testing.

I could say if you want to use lipstick / glamour / beauty products then before you can use product A you must have submitted yourself to extensive testing of product A, have survived and then with your "I'm a survivor certificate" then be able to purchase and use the product BUT will not be allowed to come into close contact or kiss etc. another person.

Of course you then have many species who are immune to many of nature's toxic stuff that humans aren't. It is just a sad fact that rats and mice are so close to human responses to "bad/toxic stuff" that they are chosen as opposed to human babies and children.

For anyone who can solve this whole problem without any animal or human testing then you will be a multi-billion-billionaire.

The only alternative for those really struggling with this problem/situation is to sell up all your modern assets and buy a 1000 acres of land in Alaska. Build a log cabin and live off the land. No generator, phone, TV, car, etc. etc. Harvest natural vegetables, fungi, stalk and trap you own meat, etc. etc.

oilman said:

Got to be honest, not seen that before

Cheers,

Guy

Click to expand...

For heavens sake don't read the MSDS. No one else does, thats why there are so few proper COSHH assessments done!

Its quite possible, even likely that the risk to aquatic life and animals is already known and documented therefore repeated as standard without further testing.

I agree with Jock that a large element of common sense is needed when looking at these things and also the ability to draw parallels with other products that are effectively identical.

If you want a REAL eye opener look at MSDS for petrol and the additives therein. Anyone who has looked in any detail would NEVER say petrol is less damaging than diesel. Any self respecting COSHH assessment would ban petrol from the workplace, and rightly so. All the ones I did however gave it an acceptable rating albeit with some precautions.

I understand that a droplet of lead additive, the size of a pin head, would be enough to kill the subject very rapidly and in a very unpleasant way.

The dangers of Tetra-Ethyl Lead and asbestos were well understood for many years before they were eventually banned. TEL is still used in Avgas.

DaveMcT said:

The dangers of Tetra-Ethyl Lead and asbestos were well understood for many years before they were eventually banned. TEL is still used in Avgas.

Click to expand...

That should ensure a nice even widely dispersed dosage rate as they fly overhead!

Pugglt Auld Jock said:

That should ensure a nice even widely dispersed dosage rate as they fly overhead!

Click to expand...

Jet-A and Avgas are different things thankfully. Pretty much all large planes other than historic aircraft (Dakotas, Lancasters etc) will use jet fuel which is more like heater fuel than petrol.

Sorry Stephen, probably I should have been a bit more explicit? Avgas is Aviation Gasoline so, high performance petrol used in piston engined aircraft whereas jets run on what is basically kerosene. Hence the pungent smell you get at the airport. I didn't know that Avgas still contained Tet lead although I know it has a high octane number. I'm sure the jet fuel doesn't.

I should have said perhaps that we get quite a number of small private/ business piston engined planes overflying us here. Also the Planes from Boscombe are almost permanently overflying my daughter's house and a lot of the training/private aircraft are piston engined. Hence my comments. I had this picture in my mind of a "crop duster" dispersing combustion products!

AVGAS is a more generic name for aviation petrol there is LL100 which is the 100 octane petrol which contains lead still and the reason its still largely in use is because the planes that use it were build in the 60s 70s and 80s, I seem to think that older warbirds use a less refined lower octane petrol as back during the war highly refined fuel was in short supply.

When planes are manufactured they are certified to use a specific type of fuel for their specify engine which means even now 40, 50 even 60 years later they still use the same fuel that the have to because that’s what they were certified for.

There is UL91 which is still “AVGAS” but is a lead free version that been around for years, but to use it, you need to get the plan certified to use it or you need to have the ok from the engine manufacturer.

Many of the new planes you can buy today aside from being more expensive that a very big house, they are now coming with engines that run on JET-A so they are more often able to find available fuel, with JET-A being more easily available.

I was reading about the Diamond DA62 the other day a very nice piston twin with 5 seats which is about a million and a half quid that runs on JET-A in its two engines derived from Mercedes-Benz A class Diesel engine which is not modified much at all and is very robust being a steel block and diesel technology.....

early 80's my dad delivered an AVGAS for light hobby aircraft and he said it was like 2* and all the guys who had the planes bought Datsun's because they would run on it with out pinking but other cars that needed 4* wouldn't

dave said:

early 80's my dad delivered an AVGAS for light hobby aircraft and he said it was like 2* and all the guys who had the planes bought Datsun's because they would run on it with out pinking but other cars that needed 4* wouldn't

Click to expand...

There used to be an 80 octane version of Avgas, but they’ve not made it for years