In article , HeyBub wrote:
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

The cost of the beer is trivial- what you are buying is the
experience. And for a certain subset of bars and/or beer drinkers,
long-necks are a vital part of the experience. Think bars where most
of the people are wearing hats. The washing and refilling is not
expensive- that is mostly automated. What is expensive is hauling
the empties back and sorting and inspecting them. Lotsa fuel burned,
lotsa manual labor.

(Even for those of us who don't insist on glass, look at the cost per
ounce in a keg, once you get the deposit back, versus the cost in
cans sold retail. The beer is close to free- you are paying mostly
for the shipping and the handling of the containers.)


I understand and concur, but still don't see the difference between
refilling a coke bottle and refilling a beer bottle, that would make
the one economically viable and the other one not.

The residual alcohol in beer kills all the badness. All the beer company
has to do is shake out the obvious cigarette butts.

The Coke company has to autoclave their bottles so our precious snowflakes
won't contract Chastic Fibrosis (a disease usually found in foxes).

Bottom line: It's for the children.

I would like to add that beer is usually too weak to kill the HIV-1
virus, while undiluted wine is usually strong enough to do so - and that
HIV-1 appears to me to be a virus likely on the delicate side in this
area.

(Not that I know whether many human-infecting bacteria survive being
soaked in beer in beer bottles. I do know that germs have a high rate of
survival of the typically-fractional-percent alcohol content of
bloodstream and serum of humans that survive "tanking up" even to extent
of "tipsy" or "stumbling / slurring-speech".)

- Don Klipstein )