Marcelle Shriver already had the party favours — about 80,000 cans of Silly String. Now, she finally has cause to celebrate.

After months of frustration, Ms. Shriver has finally found someone who will ship Silly String to Iraq, where troops use the foamy substance to detect trip wires on bombs.

But after an initial shipment went to Iraq without a hitch, she struggled to find a way to send thousands of cans she was still collecting. One problem: Silly String is an aerosol and it’s considered a hazardous material, meaning only certain companies can ship it. She also encountered problems sending more shipments through the military.

Of course, if the Pentagon tested the product and “officially” determined that it worked, they’d buy it and ship it to the troops, themselves.

And only charge taxpayers $256 per can.

Thanks, KB



  1. Smith says:

    Silly String was banned under the Montreal Protocols and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment. Perhaps that has something to do with the $256 per can.

  2. moss says:

    I never cease to be amazed at the quantity of ignorance distributed by right-wing nutball websites – and lapped up without the least concern for truth.

    But, having spent a few years employed in the industry, I can affirm that what was banned – propellants which harmed the atmosphere – not the products themselves. Which is why Silly String is still on the shelves of your friendly neighborhood big box.

    A can of Silly String is about 75% propellant by weight. You change the propellant and you stay in business. You don’t – you go out of business – and die a hero to chickenhawk neocons.

  3. edwinrogers says:

    Perhaps if they changed it’s name to “serious string”, they then might ship it?

  4. The Monster's Lawyer says:

    #3 – That’s just silly.

  5. Smith says:

    Ohhh, Moss, you are soooo smart!

    It was banned because of CFCs. Why was it orginally formulated with CFCs? Because it didn’t burn and wasn’t hazardous.

    But since you are so damn smart, please explain to me why ground-level ozone never makes it to the ozone layer, while CFCs, which are heavier than ozone, have no problem floating up to the stratosphere.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.

  6. hhopper says:

    #3 – ROFLMFAO!

  7. moss says:

    You’re so funny, Smith. Aside from being incapable of being on topic, your business experience must have been limited to opening and closing doors for people who actually made money.

    I worked for ATI, the folks who made aerosol products an industry in the United States. Old man Shepherd rolled his products out – to make money. So, numero uno was profitability.

    Cripes, early days, we used propellants so flammable we lost a couple of line mechanics a year – in explosions. We had to sign off on having non-sparking bronze tools, shoes, the works. But, it was profitable. That’s all you really care about? Right?

  8. BubbaRay says:

    #7, moss, Holy FSM! Line workers and explosions? Sounds as bad as being a roughneck or rig foreman in W TX oilfields.

  9. moss says:

    It was a long, long time ago. Back when – for example – we packaged refills for butane cigarette lighters. And the fracking factory was smack in the middle of town

  10. GregA says:

    #5,

    Because ozone is extremely reactive, and it only lingers in the stratosphere because it is very cold there…

    At surface temperatures it breaks down in just a few minutes. That is why they ask you to not to do things like fill your gas tank, mow your law, and drive on ozone action days. Even then it needs the uv radiation to form. That is why the smog goes away in the evening.

    The effect is so dramatic that If everyone were to stop driving their cars at once, the smog would clear up in a half an hour or so. So there is no chance for the surface ozone to ever make it to the upper atmosphere.

    CFC’s don’t float, they only make it to the upper atmosphere by diffusion. It is just that the particular molecules of concern reform a new cfc after they break the o3 into an o2 and an o. So they linger for decades.

  11. JimR says:

    #3, Ed… good one!

  12. JimR says:

    Okay, a little google search found the following:

    1) Silly string is available in 2 propellants. one is flamable and the other, R134A, is a non flammable propellant and is completely bio-degradable.

    2) The military doesn’t want it. I got the following excerpt from a news article dated February 7, 2007:

    It seems the U.S. military isn’t keen on the plastic goo, because equipment and clothing used by troops must clear exhaustive field and lab tests for its safety and effectiveness under combat and battlefield conditions.
    “There are many tactics that the Army uses to define booby traps (and) trip wires. Silly String has worked, but soldiers have plenty of assets to keep them safe in their daily operations without using Silly String,” said Lt. Col. Carl Ey, a U.S. Army spokesman stationed at the Pentagon.
    “There is no pressing need for Silly String in theater. Soldiers will use their outstanding training and skills to thwart any booby trap or trip wire-type mechanism that they may face,” Ey said by phone.

  13. >>Soldiers will use their outstanding training and skills to thwart
    >>any booby trap or trip wire-type mechanism that they may face

    Yeah. Looks like THAT’S working out real well.

  14. Lemming says:

    this is quite funny. I read about how the SAS came up with this idea for using sill string to find the traps in afganistan quite some time ago. and that after the SAS said it was cool to use the its being sent out to our troops by the boat. its odd that american solders can get plenty of coke and sweets but not something that they can use. perhaps i might suggest some trading amoung our troops.

  15. steelcobra says:

    Of course, if the Pentagon tested the product and “officially” determined that it worked, they’d buy it and ship it to the troops, themselves.

    And only charge taxpayers $256 per can.

    No, they’d start by placing a contract bid out for “Tripwire Detector, Foam String, Aerosol Spray, Multicolor” NSN xxxx-xxxxxx-xxxx and ultimately just have Skillcraft produce a barely functional variant that pisses off everyone who tries to use it 3 years later. For $256 a can.

  16. Li says:

    Military String Theory :

    Information flows from one point to another on things called strings, but in a form that is often indecipherable on the other side; the quantum fog of war. All the unimportant strings go everywhere; this is called entanglement. But the most important or expensive strings go only to one or two places, or sometimes no where in particular at all. Of course, there is no way of knowing if someone is really in charge; this is called the uncertainty principle.

    If you want something, you pull on a string, and you’ll either get more of it than you can use, or a whole load of crap (in one form or another).

    Or you can call Mom’s supply and avoid the knots. Is it any wonder that’s what they do?

  17. On the $256/can topic, I have to say that the price probably would be that high. It also wouldn’t ship can #1 for about 2 years. See, the military wouldn’t want JUST the cans of silly string. They’d also want a military specification for it. The mil spec would likely be several reams of paper and take the two years to produce. The cost of that would have to be made up on the per can cost, hence the $256/can price. It the military had a concept for commercially acceptable quality on common items, they’d be able to buy sears hammers and screwdrivers and even get a bulk discount and pay less than we do. But, since they want the mil spec on everything they buy, even toilet paper, they end up paying ridicuprices.

  18. Dennis says:

    Cripes, John. At least put the WHOLE article up. It was her son, who was serving in Iraq that asked for it.

    They use the silly string to check for boobytrap wires before they check out a room or whatever. If the string doesn’t hit the floor, then they know there are wires in there.

  19. Greg Allen says:

    What bugs ME about this story is that our soldiers are not getting the equipment they need to fight this war.

    This story is just like the helmet liners and armored vehicles which the soldiers are BEGGING for and citizens have stepping and provided.

    According to Bush, this battle is for the future of western civilization yet he’s fighting this war with supplemental budgets, hot checks, weekend soldiers and citizens holding bake sales to get our soldiers the equipment they need.

    Is this a real war or not? Bush SAYS it is, but then GOVERNS like it isn’t

  20. meetsy says:

    why would someone in Iraq WANT silly string?
    Whooppeee cushions I can understand, but “silly string”?


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4306 access attempts in the last 7 days.