I’m torn as to whether to agree with you or not. On the one hand, people who aren’t taking the time to parse the headline are certainly getting worked up. On the other hand, the headline accurately represents the ban in that the current formulation of WD-40 will be banned in aerosol form. If they want to sell that formulation in plain cans or Non-aerosol spray bottles, they are free to do so.
The past paragraph of the article literally says that all WD-40 products will remain on the shelves, they’re literally just tweaking their can formulation
Sorry, I should have been more clear. My “torn” was with regard to whether I agreed that it was a “sensationalist bullshit headline” when it was almost perfectly accurate in what was being banned: the aerosol. It missed the bit about “current formulation”, though, hence my being torn.
It’s current formulation is still legal with other delivery mechanisms, so there is a bit of nuance. As much as I dislike clickbait, I also don’t except a headline to provide nuance.
What’s unclear to me, and part of why this is a garbage article, is whether the VOCs from WD-40 are a result of the aerosolization of the WD-40, or a result of the VOCs in the propellent gas. I believe it’s the latter in which case they can literally just replace them with nitrogen as the propellent to have essentially the exact same delivery mechanism.
Anecdotally, I bought one of these cans of WD-40 with a spray pump like 10 years ago just because it was all the store had and have never had an issue with it. I’ve never come across an application where I’m just spraying WD-40 like a can of spray paint where I need the continuous flow.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I’m torn as to whether to agree with you or not. On the one hand, people who aren’t taking the time to parse the headline are certainly getting worked up. On the other hand, the headline accurately represents the ban in that the current formulation of WD-40 will be banned in aerosol form. If they want to sell that formulation in plain cans or Non-aerosol spray bottles, they are free to do so.
It’s the Western Standard, so of COURSE it’s a bullshit sensationalist headline. That’s what they do; and that’s ALL they do.
They’re a right-wing lapdog publication.
Wd-40 has more than one aerosol product, others already meet the standards, so the headline is just plain false right off the bat.
Adding even non-compliant to the headline would go a long way and basically fox everyone of your concerns.
Ok, fair enough.
The past paragraph of the article literally says that all WD-40 products will remain on the shelves, they’re literally just tweaking their can formulation
Sorry, I should have been more clear. My “torn” was with regard to whether I agreed that it was a “sensationalist bullshit headline” when it was almost perfectly accurate in what was being banned: the aerosol. It missed the bit about “current formulation”, though, hence my being torn.
It’s current formulation is still legal with other delivery mechanisms, so there is a bit of nuance. As much as I dislike clickbait, I also don’t except a headline to provide nuance.
What’s unclear to me, and part of why this is a garbage article, is whether the VOCs from WD-40 are a result of the aerosolization of the WD-40, or a result of the VOCs in the propellent gas. I believe it’s the latter in which case they can literally just replace them with nitrogen as the propellent to have essentially the exact same delivery mechanism.
Anecdotally, I bought one of these cans of WD-40 with a spray pump like 10 years ago just because it was all the store had and have never had an issue with it. I’ve never come across an application where I’m just spraying WD-40 like a can of spray paint where I need the continuous flow.