Talk:Clear rolling papers

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 October 2008. The result of the discussion was Redirect.

Please do not Vandalize this page, this post is referring to Aleda employees who keep vandalizing the page after being caught falsely advertising their product as being made from vegetables intead of wood & glycerin... --Mrtobacco 22:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cellophane and Cellulose Film

Depsite the repeated reverts and false claims of vandalism against any user that attempts to modify this page, the fact is that there is no evidence that these papers are made of cellophane. Cellophane, in the generic sense of the word, is made via the viscose process. It's not the only way of making cellulose film (see for example, the amine-oxide process), and the only sources available specifically say cellulose film, not cellophane. As such, I am again changing the wording back. Please do not change it to cellophane again without provoding a source for the statement. (A source doesn't include your own website). CiaranG 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CiaranG, if you would take the time to READ the Cellophane and Viscose pages you would see that CELLOPHANE is a generic term for Cellulose Film. It is a former brand name that has become a generic term. Read the page please, then you might understand why these papers are made from CELLOPHANE (a rose called any other name is still a rose...). Strange how you suddenly got involved and began simply reverting the page back to a form that another user from Brazil did. It honestly makes me very suspicious of you and your intentions. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark --Mrtobacco 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be extrememly worked up about something so I will ignore your lack of civility and scurrilous accusations for a second time. Thanks for adding the reference regarding the gylcerol. However, I don't think you read my message in full. You're correct in saying that cellophane, the former brand name, is a now a generic term for cellulose film - however, that only applies when made by the same process, i.e. the viscose method.

Until you can provide a reference for the method of production, I am simply suggesting that you stop re-inserting the word cellophane, and stick with cellulose, since that is the only properly sourced information available. CiaranG 16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But - Um - There is no other way to make Cellulose Film. They post on their website (follow the links for the brazil site) that they use Regenerated Cellulose Film. That is a term for Cellophane (or Cellulose film made from Viscose). Check it out an you will see... Sorry if I sound mean but I am sick of the Brazil guys posting their promo junk all over Wiki --Mrtobacco 15:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you aren't in the mood to click on the link to read that Cellophane IS CELLULOSE FILM GENERIC TERM

Cellophane From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Cellophane is a thin, transparent sheet made of processed cellulose.

Cellulose fibers from wood, cotton or hemp are dissolved in alkali to make a solution called viscose, which is then extruded through a slit into an acid bath to reconvert the viscose into cellulose. A similar process, using a hole instead of a slit (a spinneret), is used to make a fibre called rayon.

Cellophane was invented by Jacques E. Brandenberger, a Swiss textiles engineer in 1908. After witnessing a wine spill on a restaurant tablecloth, Brandenberger initially had the idea to develop a clear coating for cloth to make it waterproof. He experimented, and came up with a way to apply liquid viscose to cloth, but found the resultant combination of cloth and viscose film too stiff to be of use. However the clear film easily separated from the backing cloth, and he abandoned his original idea as the possibilities of the new material became apparent. Cellophane's low permeability to air, grease and bacteria makes it useful for food packaging.

Whitman's candy company initiated use of cellophane for candy wrapping in the United States in 1912 for their Whitman's Sampler. They remained the largest user of imported cellophane from France until nearly 1924, when DuPont built the first cellophane manufacturing plant in the US. In 1935 British Cellophane Ltd was established, a joint venture between La Cellophane SA and Courtaulds, which opened a major factory producing cellophane in Columbus, OH in 1937. Cellophane is also used in gift baskets and flower bouquet.

Cellulose film has since been manufactured continuously since the mid-1930s and is still used today. As well as packaging a variety of food items, there are also industrial applications, such as a base for self-adhesive tapes like Sellotape and Scotch Tape, a semi-permeable membrane in certain types of battery, and as a release agent in the manufacture of fibreglass and rubber products. Typically, however, the use of the word "cellophane" has been genericized, and is often used informally to refer to a wide variety of plastic film products, even those not made of cellulose.

Cellophane sales are now dwindling heavily, through use of alternative packaging options, and the fact that Viscose is becoming less common because of the polluting effects of carbon disulfide and other by-products of the process.

[edit] See also Genericized trademark

[edit] External link Cellophane Invention —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrtobacco (talk • contribs) 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Active Discussion

I've tagged the page {{ActiveDiscuss}} because there is a lot of dispute. Please discuss changes here. Use reliable sources to back up your claim. --h2g2bob (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything in dispute here. It's simply a case of a couple Brazilian manufacturers/brands/sellers trying to hide the fact that clear paper is just remarketed natural Cellophane. If nobody objects, I am going to remove the dispute tag in the coming days since there doesn't seem to be any actual dispute as to the facts of what the product is. --Mrtobacco 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onyx86 feels that the text referencing dioxin and unbleached rolling papers is an ad. I think it would be quite incorrect to remove this text given the content of the article and quotes from sellers of those clear rolling papers saying that their papers are healthier then regular papers. The only reference found on the net says that an unbleached paper (such as RAW, which is the only unbleached paper) would be safer (in regards to dioxin) then a bleached paper. Please discuss this here if need be before making changes or blanking.--Mrtobacco 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But your article which you linked doesn't say anything of the safety of RAW rolling papers. I think the sentence should be reworded, preferably without mentioning RAW, or any other products from your employer HBI. It merely mentions that people should avoid Dioxin and lists products which contain them, such as bleached paper. I think its a bit of a stretch to connect this statement from a health consultant (not a real doctor or scientist) to the fact that RAW papers are super safe and worth mentioning on Wikipedia so people can buy you papers. Onyx86 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try with the "employer" comment. Again - unlike you who has admitted you do work for American Weigh I AM NOT EMPLOYED BY ANY TOBACCO COMPANY CURRENTLY AND HAVE NOT BEEN FOR MANY YEARS NOW. You are just agaist the product because you compete with the manufacturer of this product in your scale products. Keep away from these topics please your input is heavily jaded against any HBI product due to your competitive status with them. I take it they're hurting your company somehow and this is how you are seeking revenge. If I were you I'd work on your products and fight them head on rather then giving up and vandalizing pages where their products are mentioned. There are no other unbleached papers in the market. I smoke RAW papers and so do many of my friends. We like the product and enjoy posting information such as the dioxin quotes. You don't care about the product nor the tobacco industry, you only want to hurt the manufacturer because of your own personal grudge. That is not becomming of Wiki and your posts on these topics should be removed based on your bias. --Mrtobacco 17:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax man. There is no vandalism occuring here. I removed a comment I believed to be advertising. I believe many others would have seen it the same way. I told you I design graphics for American Weigh among other companies in good faith to show you that im not in the tobacco industry like you first thought. But the way you worded your HBI comment certainly doesn't help your argument that you dont work for them. Ill leave it alone for now, im sure some other wikipedian with more seniority and credibility than me will see your additions for what they are soon too. Onyx86 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post does not jive with what you wrote on your talk page about desiging scales, flyers and webpages for American Weigh. I'm glad you've agreed to stop blanking. --Mrtobacco 14:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How doesn't it jive? I said graphic design to basically sum up the bulk of what I do. Then I said I "occasionally" get to do product design. Either way, it doesn't matter. I should be starting back at school at Full Sail in Orlando, come October. Onyx86 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore?

"Most are currently made in Brazil and would therefore be made from ..."

Therefore? Are you kidding? How does being made in Brazil lead to the percentages of various ingredients? This whole page needs attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures, and Acrolein

280 degrees Celsius is what temperature is required to change Glycerin into Acrolein but 160 degrees Celsius is all is required for Glycerin to ignite. Granted, a lighter burns a flame roughly 650 degrees Celsius, is it not irrelevant to mention this? Proximity to the flame as well as the other chemicals found within these clear rolling papers seem to suggest that what little glycerin is found in these papers (what's the number, 13%?) and the effect the flame would have on them (as the paper would be burning at a lower temperature than the initial lighting would give out) would not produce an amount of Acrolein even mentionable (if at all.) Correct me if I'm lost. 74.12.11.163 (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Joe Caron[reply]