Talk:2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning

Political biased POV

Why is this criminal incident turned into political stuff? This is a new low for wikipedia. 90% of the sources are from western MSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerElektriker (talk • contribs) 06:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is crime and not politics; I'm reminded that here in Canada and also in the US (and likely elsewhere) untold numbers of fatal fentanyl overdoses are occurring. As I've detailed below I added two English-language Russian sources to the article. Editors who can read Russian sources are welcome to add them here; there is no requirement that a source be in English, as long as the source is reliable and the information placed on Wikipedia can be verified by somebody (i.e. another editor who reads Russian). Roches (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not accurate. Non-English sources are to be used ONLY when they provide reliable content that cannot be found elsewhere - this is the English Wiki, and standard verification requires that the readers be able to see and verify the sources - online translators are not really good enough for this . . . 50.111.2.50 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no such policy, nor could there be, since it would be subjective to determine whether the information is available elsewhere. The best practice to follow with sources is --- the more the better. The consensus will come out if you have enough. Wnt (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Because the democratic free press of the Western media is what contains the closest known stories to the facts. 50.111.2.50 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

First, WP:V under "Accessibility" deals with the matter of whether or not 'everyone' should be able to check the reliability of a source. A source does not have to be free of charge to access and it does not have to be in English. Anyone could still check reliability, but it may require effort. English-language sources are preferable, but reliable sources shouldn't be rejected because they are not in English. Because this story is local news somewhere in Russia, it follows that details of relevance to the article might be found only in a Russian source.

Second, in this case the Western media are almost certainly getting second-hand information from Russian press agencies. If contradictions occur they should certainly be pointed out, but nothing I saw so far suggests that Western and Russian sources are telling a different story. Roches (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry and other edits

I added the Cyrillic spelling of the name ("Боярышник", Boyaryshnik, "Hawthorn") as this is usually done for the benefit of readers who can read Russian (which I cannot, it's machine-translated). Much more within my area of expertise, I changed and added the information about the chemistry involved. I added common names and chemical formulas for the two alcohols, linked to methanol toxicity, and linked the other ingredients found in the product. (Diethyl phthalate, the least familiar one, has some long-term toxic potential but it is not itself toxic.)

I decided against a detailed explanation of methanol toxicity or how it is treated. It's traditionally treated with ethanol and it's possible (but would of course be OR) that some of the survivors happened to have consumed proper vodka along with this poison. (The reason for this is that the body can handle the toxic waste products of methanol metabolism in small quantities and the same enzyme handles ethanol as well. Having both in one's system gives the body more time to get rid of the formaldehyde, etc. as the enzyme is largely taken up by metabolizing ethanol into safer compounds which can be burned for energy.)

Finally there is the issue of whether methanol and ethanol are distinguishable. To ordinary people they are not; this is what I said in the article. Simple chemical analysis such as testing the boiling point will differentiate the alcohols, but actually they smell different, and behave differently in glassware as their viscosity is different. Again, the ability to tell the difference comes with experience and by no means would these unfortunate people have been able to tell the difference.

I added two references to the Moscow Times in an attempt to balance Russian with Western sources. The Russian sources contain details not present in the Western ones. The story about Putin's plan to cut taxes on alcohol in the wake of the event appeared as I was editing, and I think that detail belongs in the Aftermath section of this article.Roches (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting - a country already awash in alcoholism now has even cheaper access to it. This is not "good news," but another means by which the Putin regime maintains control of the populace. [ http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/01/15/experts-putin-killing-russians-and-russias-future-by-cutting-vodka-prices/#arvlbdata ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.2.50 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've read the article and added a sentence on these experts (unfortunately it does not say whether they are economists or something else) and their criticism of the plan. I think it is appropriate to say criticism exists. The article should not speculate on political motives and I have not incorporated any of the opinion-based content of the article. The contention that lower alcohol prices means greater mortality from alcoholism is based on statistical analysis and so is objective content that's appropriate for the article.

Also, I removed "simple alcohol" because this is not a chemical term. Chemically, ethanol has two carbon atoms and methanol has one. They are known as primary alcohols because the hydroxyl group (which makes the compound an alcohol) is located at the end of the carbon atom chain. But "simple alcohol" is a subjective term that could just as easily apply to ethanol or even isopropyl (rubbing) alcohol, which has only three carbons but is not a primary alcohol. Roches (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The number of deaths

The article states that it's 58 while the news section on Wikipedia's front page puts it at "around 50".--Adûnâi (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification needed

What I can't tell from reading the article is whether these "bath lotions" were generally sold as bath lotions or were they generally sold as "bath lotions-(wink, wink)" as a means for circumventing the regulation and taxation of vodka? In other words, would their use as a bath lotion work equally well with methanol, and the manufacturer abruptly changed the ingredients for whatever reason (cost, availability, etc.) and there was just an error in labeling which would be inconsequential when used as a bath lotion, but poisonous for its illicit use as a beverage? The article could benefit from this kind of clarification. Arrests have been made, but were the arrests for the substitution of methanol in the product, or were the arrests of vendors because of their promotion of the illicit use of the product? Neil916 (Talk) 17:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 Irkutsk mass methanol poisoning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 17:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Point one is that the lead needs to be expanded beyond its current length. It doesn't properly summarize the article; check the GA standards for leads. What is there is appropriate, it's just that the lead needs to be more substantial.
• The term surrogate alcohol doesn't need quotation marks, it is valid, accepted terminology.
• The inclusion of "See also: Alcohol consumption in Russia" above the "Cause" section doesn't seem to be entirely appropriate, the inclusion of the relevant facts from that article in this one is just fine.
• "...led the Associated Press to…" we can put a wikilink in for the AP.
• It might be a good idea to add some explanation on how the lotion is consumed as alcohol exactly (drunk straight from the bottle? distilled somehow?). Maybe thats why you have the "See also:" link; it's still a bester idea to just provide quick elucidation here.
• "...with one senior official for the greater Siberian region…" governmental official or lotion company official?
• The note on surrogate alcohol is not entirely necessary since you link to the article anyway.
• Good job with the article handling a tragic event, they can be hard to form together. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hey QatarStarsLeague, I think these are all addressed. The only exception is the consumption point—they diluted the surrogate alcohol to roughly approximate the alcohol level in vodka. The sources don't directly say it's drank directly, I think that gives enough info? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe so, good job with this one! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Antifreeze or windshield fluid?

Winter windshield fluid is called “незамерзайка” (literally “non-freeze”), so I suspect a “false friend”. Methanol in windshield fluid in Russia is forbidden, ethanol is limited (I don’t remember, 7 or 9%), and isopropanol is worse (expensive, leaves film, stinks, limited to −30 °C). Fake windshield fluid that’s commonly sold on roadsides contains methanol. Automobile blogger Alexey Golosov states that such fluid is forbidden mostly because of drinking; when used properly it is perfectly safe. (And because it’s fake nobody tested whether it freezes at stated temperature.) --Mercury (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mercury: Thanks for bringing this up! So, I re-opened the journal article that sentence is cited to and they call it "antifreeze fluid" four separate times, e.g. "The investigation of the Irkutsk poisoning reveals that the counterfeit bath lotion was made of illegally purchased methanol that was routinely used for the production of antifreeze fluids by local producers." Given that, I'm not sure we can assume that it's windshield fluid (per our policy on original research). Do you know of a newspaper article or similar that makes this connection? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@The ed17: Thanks for information. What does this article reference to? Maybe we’ll unwind the chain further. --Mercury (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@The ed17: There are lots of fake automotive antifreeze, but antifreeze is a more high-tech product and is not changed very often. And windshield fluid is a common consumable, especially in Russia where lawns are badly maintained and thus there’s lots of dirt, even ceilings of tunnels are dirty. --Mercury (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@The ed17: I googled “боярышник антифриз”, and lots of articles (e.g. from Interfax [1]) state that the lotion CONTAINED antifeeze (ethylene glycol?) Ethylene glycol is sometimes mixed into low-temperature windshield fluid — maybe instead of alcohol they bought somewhere concentrate of windshield fluid.

@The ed17: Googling “боярышник незамерзайка” gave the clue, again from Interfax: [2] Illegal enterpreneur made fake windshield fluid. His employee stole some concentrate and sold to producer of lotion. Good windshield fluid contains mostly ethanol. Because >9% of ethanol is taxed, and methanol is totally banned, legal producers put as much ethanol as they can, and the rest is isopropanol. Illegal ones use methanol. --Mercury (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

[3][4] Here’s how common is methanol windshield fluid. --Mercury (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)