Tarnished Varnish (Tainted Oak)

Given the abundance of warning labels to be heeded on dangerous products that could cause serious harm to human life, a “Not safe for consumption” tag on a bottle full of poisonous fluid would surely not have been unsuitable, would it? Or did the manufacturers postulate that all inhabitants of the UK would recognise that drinking “Danish Oil” is not only highly inadvisable, but in reality, it’s plain senseless too.

I examined every square inch of that container to see if mention of its content’s ability to stop a state of living dead in its tracks, should the solution be swallowed (or injected, but that’s just completely insane) was lurking in a cranny I hadn’t previously noticed. No such luck in finding anything; for once, a company has relied on the common sense of its consumers to pull them through a period where they lack an* *cough* adequate number of safety markers on the engulfing label sheet. Due to the fact that today’s society seemingly needs every spelled out for them in matters like these, some people are going to foolishly believe that no warning means no toxins.

I am almost tempted myself to taste a minuscule amount to test whether my calculations are correct or not. The downside is that if I prove myself right – that the label should contain some sort of “Do not consume” message about it – my corpse shall have to speak for me. Right now, that isn’t a path I want to travel down. And if I’m wrong, then I’ve made a huge mistake blathering as I have done. Waste of time?

Yes, I’d have to agree. I would never take much pleasure in finding out either end result. The whole hypothetical scenario is a redundant one. Well, this article will not be without its colour.

Providing Cubitt and Peter with a lift yesterday afternoon, Cubitt and I chatted briefly about the comedic consequences should the oil fall into the hands of a person unable to identify the inapt qualities a bottle of the substance possesses in comparison to ordinary food and drink. The conversation then quickly evolved into speech about how a human mind comprehends website names, that has had various letters moved to create an outwardly innocent title when spoken aloud – though if accessed, the URL would link to pages containing content…how should I put this…”not admissible for viewing by a minor”. And we had a good old chuckle at instances where others had made the mistake of logging on to several sites of the sort.

Back to warning labels and symbols; where do you believe it all began? My guess is the US. Why? Fail to mention a hazard over there on packaging, and there will inevitably be someone who makes you pay for it. Pay thousands for it, too; cash settlements do not equate to a couple of dollars any more. It’s the “suing” mentality of many Americans that caused outrageously obvious statements to be printed on our purchases: deodorant is not meant for the eyes, glass may be fragile, and – my personal favourite, which I was reminded about yesterday – a bag of mixed nuts may contain nuts. may contain nuts, eh? By that logic, France may be full of French people. An unopened bottle of Evian may hold water (or perhaps those at the factory decided to have a laugh, and fill every bottle with dihydrous oxide instead…). The air in our atmosphere may contain nitrogen (unless someone’s figured out how to steal that. With a giant vacuum cleaner). The aforesaid “suing” mentality has, sadly, spilled over into British culture too. You don’t have to sit through 30 minutes of television on a single channel (minus news channels), without spotting a compensation advert where a woman chooses not to watch where she’s walking, and slip over on a puddle.

With adverts like that floating around, it’s the reason why I was so surprised not to find a notice on the “Danish Oil” tin. I wonder how many admissions around the country have been attributable to “oak poisoning” in the past month…