Almost every Canadian has a spray can of WD-40 in the garage, but that’s about to change.
You use it to fix just about anything that needs a little lubrication, squeaky hinges, rusty bolts and even your bike chain.
Update: Thanks to @Sbhinclusion for sharing this press release from WD-40, which states that they will become compliant with th new regulation.
Sensationalist bullshit headline.
The formulas will change to meet the new standards….
Don’t you remember when all cars were banned when seatbelts were made mandatory?
Typical government overreach!
Then it would be WD-41.
“WD” is “Water Dispersant” and the “40” is the sequential number of the fornumation attempt.
I’ve got at least 3 formulations in the shed. All called WD40
No it’s not.
WD-40 may have referred to the formulation at one time, now it’s just marketing.
Pretty sure they were making a joke, while also sharing a bit of history on the name.
Wondered when someone would bring that up.
As if there aren’t other ways to apply lubricants.
And WD40 isn’t so much a lubricant as much as a cleaner.
And a Water Displacement formula. (WD)
Learned this the hard way, fucked up my Bones Reds longboard wheel bearings.
It’s main use as a lubricant is a mid level penetrative fluid.
You know, like spray bottles.
Or oil cans
What’s wrong with a kiss, boy? Hmm? Why not start her off with a nice kiss? You don’t have to go leaping straight for the aerosol like a bull at a gate. Give her a kiss, boy.
-Monty Python, probably
OH HERE WE GO, BUDDY, HERE WE GO. C’MON, SQUARE UP OR YOU’LL GET ONE IN THE NOSE!
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.
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.
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.
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.