Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Toxic Ski and snowboard wax polluting groundwater???
#1
Has anyone ever thought about this, It does not seem like there would
be a lot, but I suppose any amount might matter? Read this press
release, it kind of makes you think.

[url]http://www.enviromountain.com/Press_Release.htm[/url]



Reply
#2

"RightEagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...[color=blue]
> Has anyone ever thought about this, It does not seem like there would
> be a lot, but I suppose any amount might matter? Read this press
> release, it kind of makes you think.
>
> [url]http://www.enviromountain.com/Press_Release.htm[/url][/color]

2 million pounds of chemicals from the wax? Therefore what - maybe 20 million
pounds of wax itself? In the USA in one year? Somehow I doubt it.


Reply
#3
On Dec 11, 3:08 am, "Bob F" <[email protected]> wrote:[color=blue]
> "RightEagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>[color=green]
> > Has anyone ever thought about this, It does not seem like there would
> > be a lot, but I suppose any amount might matter? Read this press
> > release, it kind of makes you think.[/color]
>[color=green]
> >[url]http://www.enviromountain.com/Press_Release.htm[/url][/color]
>
> 2 million pounds of chemicals from the wax? Therefore what - maybe 20 million
> pounds of wax itself? In the USA in one year? Somehow I doubt it.[/color]

The press release should be treated with extreme skepticism, since its
real purpose is to help sell the issuing company's own, purportedly
environmentally friendly wax: "Enviro Mountain Sports, Inc. is now
actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly ski & snowboard
waxes. Barker explains, that they have developed an all natural
alternative to the toxic chemical waxes." Also note that the company
repeatedly points out that most waxes are imported from -- horrors --
foreign countries.

Joe Ramirez
Reply
#4
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:09:37 GMT, [email][email protected][/email] allegedly
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Also note that the company
> repeatedly points out that most waxes are imported from -- horrors --
> foreign countries.[/color]

Mine certainly is. I buy it in Canada when I'm there, and bring it home
to the UK.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
[url]http://www.vpas.org.uk/[/url] - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow.
Donek Sasquatch 162, Prior Pow 181, Burton Canyon 162

The Snowboard FAQ lives here - [url]http://www.vpas.fsnet.co.uk/rssFAQ/[/url]
Reply
#5
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:08:14 GMT, "Bob F" <[email protected]>
allegedly wrote:
[color=blue]
> 2 million pounds of chemicals from the wax? Therefore what - maybe 20
> million pounds of wax itself? In the USA in one year? Somehow I doubt
> it.[/color]

It was posted by a guy with ties to the company. Smells like spam to me.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
[url]http://www.vpas.org.uk/[/url] - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow.
Donek Sasquatch 162, Prior Pow 181, Burton Canyon 162

The Snowboard FAQ lives here - [url]http://www.vpas.fsnet.co.uk/rssFAQ/[/url]
Reply
#6
On Dec 11, 8:09 am, [email protected] wrote:[color=blue]
> On Dec 11, 3:08 am, "Bob F" <[email protected]> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > "RightEagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/color]
>[color=green]
> >news:[email protected]...[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > Has anyone ever thought about this, It does not seem like there would
> > > be a lot, but I suppose any amount might matter? Read this press
> > > release, it kind of makes you think.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >[url]http://www.enviromountain.com/Press_Release.htm[/url][/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > 2 million pounds of chemicals from the wax? Therefore what - maybe 20 million
> > pounds of wax itself? In the USA in one year? Somehow I doubt it.[/color]
>
> The press release should be treated with extreme skepticism, since its
> real purpose is to help sell the issuing company's own, purportedly
> environmentally friendly wax: "Enviro Mountain Sports, Inc. is now
> actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly ski & snowboard
> waxes. Barker explains, that they have developed an all natural
> alternative to the toxic chemical waxes." Also note that the company
> repeatedly points out that most waxes are imported from -- horrors --
> foreign countries.
>
> Joe Ramirez[/color]

Yes, Barker is actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly
ski & board waxes.

The potential of 2.8 million pounds is based on a 60 million skier
vsits in North America, and the 2.8 million pounds is based on that
amount of wax. The reason is that the wax alone is toxic and becomes
even more toxic when other chemicals are added. The wax base of most
ski wax is made from Crude Oil and Petroleum By Products.

So, if you could use a wax that is made from plants grown by farmers
from around the world, wouldn't that be better than;

1. Drilling for more off shore oil.
2. Drilling in our pristine wilderness areas.
3. And yes, importing more petroleum into your country where ever you
reside. It is not good for any economy to import more petroleum
products
in their country. It doesn't matter where you reside.
4. Contributing to Global Warming. The more petroleum based products
that are used, the the worse the global warming problem will become

Reply
#7

"RightEagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2455c749-35d6-477a-9d39-[color=blue][color=green]
>> The press release should be treated with extreme skepticism, since its
>> real purpose is to help sell the issuing company's own, purportedly
>> environmentally friendly wax: "Enviro Mountain Sports, Inc. is now
>> actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly ski & snowboard
>> waxes. Barker explains, that they have developed an all natural
>> alternative to the toxic chemical waxes." Also note that the company
>> repeatedly points out that most waxes are imported from -- horrors --
>> foreign countries.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez[/color]
>
> Yes, Barker is actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly
> ski & board waxes.
>
> The potential of 2.8 million pounds is based on a 60 million skier
> vsits in North America, and the 2.8 million pounds is based on that
> amount of wax. The reason is that the wax alone is toxic and becomes
> even more toxic when other chemicals are added. The wax base of most
> ski wax is made from Crude Oil and Petroleum By Products.
>
> So, if you could use a wax that is made from plants grown by farmers
> from around the world, wouldn't that be better than;
>
> 1. Drilling for more off shore oil.
> 2. Drilling in our pristine wilderness areas.
> 3. And yes, importing more petroleum into your country where ever you
> reside. It is not good for any economy to import more petroleum
> products
> in their country. It doesn't matter where you reside.
> 4. Contributing to Global Warming. The more petroleum based products
> that are used, the the worse the global warming problem will become[/color]

That's a pound of wax for 20 "skier visits". Really?

I can't find my shovel. Has anyone seen my shovel?


Reply
#8
[color=blue]
> That's a pound of wax for 20 "skier visits". Really?
>
> I can't find my shovel. Has anyone seen my shovel?
>
>[/color]

I believe Mr. Eagle took it before depositing his spam here.
Reply
#9
Bob F wrote:[color=blue]
>
> That's a pound of wax for 20 "skier visits". Really?[/color]

Just looking at the Swix website, I note their small pack of wax is 60
g. That's the standard 3 bar pack, and I'll get probably 10 waxings or
more for each bar. So that's 2 g of wax per application, and I'll wax
every few days. Assuming the entire application transfers to the snow,
that's under 1 g/skier visit, so he's out by a factor of 20 or more (1
lb == 454 g). Not to mention that I wax pretty frequently compared to
Joe Touron, who at best gets his skis waxed at the start of the season.

Neil
Reply
#10
Neil Gendzwill wrote:[color=blue]
> Bob F wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> That's a pound of wax for 20 "skier visits". Really?[/color]
>
>
> Just looking at the Swix website, I note their small pack of wax is 60
> g. That's the standard 3 bar pack, and I'll get probably 10 waxings or
> more for each bar. So that's 2 g of wax per application, and I'll wax
> every few days. Assuming the entire application transfers to the snow,
> that's under 1 g/skier visit, so he's out by a factor of 20 or more (1
> lb == 454 g). Not to mention that I wax pretty frequently compared to
> Joe Touron, who at best gets his skis waxed at the start of the season.
>
> Neil[/color]

Oh, it's probably allot less than that.
The majority of a hot wax application is scrapped off during/right after
a hot wax.

Thin to win!

Chris
Reply
#11
On Dec 14, 7:10 pm, Christopher Cox
<[email protected]> wrote:[color=blue]
> Neil Gendzwill wrote:[color=green]
> > Bob F wrote:[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> That's a pound of wax for 20 "skier visits". Really?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Just looking at the Swix website, I note their small pack of wax is 60
> > g. That's the standard 3 bar pack, and I'll get probably 10 waxings or
> > more for each bar. So that's 2 g of wax per application, and I'll wax
> > every few days. Assuming the entire application transfers to the snow,
> > that's under 1 g/skier visit, so he's out by a factor of 20 or more (1
> > lb == 454 g). Not to mention that I wax pretty frequently compared to
> > Joe Touron, who at best gets his skis waxed at the start of the season.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > Neil[/color]
>
> Oh, it's probably allot less than that.
> The majority of a hot wax application is scrapped off during/right after
> a hot wax.
>
> Thin to win!
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]

It is simple math, the potential quoted is 2,815,500 pounds of wax.
If you multiply the 2,815,500 times 16 ounces then you get 45 million
ounces. 45 million ounces equates to .75 ounces per skier visit (3/4
of 1 ounce, not 20 pounds). And yes 3/4 of 1 ounce is lot but some
people use more on their boards than skis, or it can be switched.

Also, you are right alot of it gets scraped off before you ski and
ends up on the floor. But those scrapings have to go somewhere. Plus,
you know most of your wax is gone after the first few runs anyway so a
lot of people use rub on wax during the day.

So the potential is 3/4 of 1 ounce (.75) not 20 pounds. Isn't it
better to use an all natural alternative than a toxic Crude oil soup?
Reply
#12
On Dec 13, 11:58 pm, "Bob F" <[email protected]> wrote:[color=blue]
> "RightEagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2455c749-35d6-477a-9d39-
>
>
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> The press release should be treated with extreme skepticism, since its
> >> real purpose is to help sell the issuing company's own, purportedly
> >> environmentally friendly wax: "Enviro Mountain Sports, Inc. is now
> >> actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly ski & snowboard
> >> waxes. Barker explains, that they have developed an all natural
> >> alternative to the toxic chemical waxes." Also note that the company
> >> repeatedly points out that most waxes are imported from -- horrors --
> >> foreign countries.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Joe Ramirez[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Yes, Barker is actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly
> > ski & board waxes.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > The potential of 2.8 million pounds is based on a 60 million skier
> > vsits in North America, and the 2.8 million pounds is based on that
> > amount of wax. The reason is that the wax alone is toxic and becomes
> > even more toxic when other chemicals are added. The wax base of most
> > ski wax is made from Crude Oil and Petroleum By Products.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > So, if you could use a wax that is made from plants grown by farmers
> > from around the world, wouldn't that be better than;[/color]
>[color=green]
> > 1. Drilling for more off shore oil.
> > 2. Drilling in our pristine wilderness areas.
> > 3. And yes, importing more petroleum into your country where ever you
> > reside. It is not good for any economy to import more petroleum
> > products
> > in their country. It doesn't matter where you reside.
> > 4. Contributing to Global Warming. The more petroleum based products
> > that are used, the the worse the global warming problem will become[/color]
>
> That's a pound of wax for 20 "skier visits". Really?
>
> I can't find my shovel. Has anyone seen my shovel?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]
It is simple math, the potential quoted is 2,815,500 pounds of wax.
If you multiply the 2,815,500 times 16 ounces then you get 45 million
ounces. 45 million ounces equates to .75 ounces per skier visit (3/4
of 1 ounce, not 20 pounds). And yes 3/4 of 1 ounce is lot but some
people use more on their boards than skis, or it can be switched.

Also, you are right alot of it gets scraped off before you ski and
ends up on the floor. But those scrapings have to go somewhere. Plus,
you know most of your wax is gone after the first few runs anyway so a
lot of people use rub on wax during the day.

So the potential is 3/4 of 1 ounce (.75) not 20 pounds. Isn't it
better to use an all natural alternative than a toxic Crude oil soup?
Reply
#13
On Dec 13, 11:58 pm, "Bob F" <[email protected]> wrote:[color=blue]
> "RightEagle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:2455c749-35d6-477a-9d39-
>
>
>
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> The press release should be treated with extreme skepticism, since its
> >> real purpose is to help sell the issuing company's own, purportedly
> >> environmentally friendly wax: "Enviro Mountain Sports, Inc. is now
> >> actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly ski & snowboard
> >> waxes. Barker explains, that they have developed an all natural
> >> alternative to the toxic chemical waxes." Also note that the company
> >> repeatedly points out that most waxes are imported from -- horrors --
> >> foreign countries.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Joe Ramirez[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > Yes, Barker is actively promoting the use of environmentally friendly
> > ski & board waxes.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > The potential of 2.8 million pounds is based on a 60 million skier
> > vsits in North America, and the 2.8 million pounds is based on that
> > amount of wax. The reason is that the wax alone is toxic and becomes
> > even more toxic when other chemicals are added. The wax base of most
> > ski wax is made from Crude Oil and Petroleum By Products.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > So, if you could use a wax that is made from plants grown by farmers
> > from around the world, wouldn't that be better than;[/color]
>[color=green]
> > 1. Drilling for more off shore oil.
> > 2. Drilling in our pristine wilderness areas.
> > 3. And yes, importing more petroleum into your country where ever you
> > reside. It is not good for any economy to import more petroleum
> > products
> > in their country. It doesn't matter where you reside.
> > 4. Contributing to Global Warming. The more petroleum based products
> > that are used, the the worse the global warming problem will become[/color]
>
> That's a pound of wax for 20 "skier visits". Really?
>
> I can't find my shovel. Has anyone seen my shovel?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]

Reply
#14
So, your string of hydrogen and carbon atoms are better than the ones I
am using?

Is that because they are shorter and can evaporate faster than the
longer ones?

Just what empirical evidence do you have point to the toxicity of
paraffin or whatever?

How does this wax make its way to the water table before evaporating?

If and when the wax makes it to the water table, how is it more toxic
than the wax you ingest from cheese/ chewing gum/ home canned goods/
cosmetics/ candy/ Dippen-dots Ice cream (My sons favorite)?


I would not recommend you inhaling fumes from your wax while being
applied either.



Maybe its the additives to which you are referring. If so, which ones?
Fluoride, Graphite, Molybdenum (what I use).

Thanks in advance for your reply,

Chris
Reply
#15
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 14:05:54 GMT, RightEagle <[email protected]>
allegedly wrote:
[color=blue]
> Isn't it
> better to use an all natural alternative than a toxic Crude oil soup?[/color]

Given that you're involved with the company selling the stuff, why should
we believe you? Your maths is clearly flawed, so why not your chemistry?

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
[url]http://www.vpas.org.uk/[/url] - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow.
Donek Sasquatch 162, Prior Pow 181, Burton Canyon 162

The Snowboard FAQ lives here - [url]http://www.vpas.fsnet.co.uk/rssFAQ/[/url]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Re: Physics of a Snowboard Carved Turn by Jack Michaud with IainDuncumb Neil Gendzwill 0 1,734 02-13-2010, 02:12 AM
Last Post: Neil Gendzwill
  Re: Physics of a Snowboard Carved Turn by Jack Michaud with IainDuncumb snoCarver 0 1,887 02-13-2010, 02:12 AM
Last Post: snoCarver
  new england snowboard group on yahoo jw 0 1,813 02-13-2010, 02:12 AM
Last Post: jw
  Re: Snowboard gouge repair Neil Gendzwill 0 1,731 02-13-2010, 02:12 AM
Last Post: Neil Gendzwill
  FS: BURTON custom detox Yellow L snowboard bindings DC 0 1,571 02-13-2010, 02:12 AM
Last Post: DC
  new england snowboard group [email protected] 0 1,787 02-13-2010, 02:12 AM
Last Post: [email protected]
  Re: Best place to snowboard? Neil Gendzwill 0 1,948 10-06-2008, 05:42 PM
Last Post: Neil Gendzwill
  How to pick the right snowboard Dave U. Random 0 1,508 06-19-2008, 11:38 PM
Last Post: Dave U. Random
  Polarized Snowboard Goggles Tmuld 6 2,038 01-14-2008, 05:20 PM
Last Post: [email protected]
  North seattle snowboard tune-up shop Bob F 0 1,031 01-14-2008, 05:20 PM
Last Post: Bob F

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)