Talk:Tar

Comments
Someone very out to lunch, or high on bitumen fumes, suggested that bitumen (otherwise known as asphalt) is not tar. This in spite of that the famous La Brea Tar Pits were literally made up of bitumen. I think the erroneous information should be stricken, and it should be made clear that bitumen is literally tar, and not merely "tar-like"--VikingJay (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC).

I think this article needs an overhaul because there is not enough distinction made between coal tar and wood tar. I also disagree with the statement that wood tar is non-poisonous. It might well be contaminated with methanol which is very poisonous. Biscuittin 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And i think something needs to be done about the 'tar spring' artical. Is it a tourist advertisement for iran? too much fluff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.207.204 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Dehloran Tar Spring" article needs to be moved to it's own page or removed in my opinion. Northroad (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories
For the reason given above, I don't think it is appropriate to have tar in "Category:Food additives" so I intend to change it to "Category:Chemical mixtures". Biscuittin 08:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And you should not mix Pine Tar with Tar. Thats just mean. Clearly you have never used Pine Tar or Tar, or you would never suggest such a preposterous suggestion.

Merge with Pine tar???
I strongly disagree with the suggestion of merging "tar" with "pine tar". Suggest instead distinguishing between "mineral tar" and "pine tar" (or perhaps more generally "plant tar", although I am not familiar with any other plant tars beside pine tar). It is increasingly important to distinguish between renewable resources (e.g. pine tar) and non-renewable resources (e.g. mineral tar). They are not the same material.Ekotekk 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on merger, the two have little more than a lexical relationship as they are chemically distinct. One is petroleum based, the other plant based. CApitol3 (talk)

Terminology
'"Tar" and "pitch" can be used interchangeably;' doesn't seem to be correct. I think there is, at least, some confusion with the word pitch. AFAIK tar comes from the process of heating wood without burning it and collecting the run off of that process. I believe this is referred to as pitch. The materials collected and distilled from the body of the tree (resin) is also referred to as pitch, at least in the brewing industry. Brewer's pitch is about 80% rosin, 10-20% oil (I don't know which, it has been described as one of the byproducts of resin distillation) and 2% paraffin. This is heated til liquid and rolled around inside beer barrels to make a coating so the beer won't come into contact with the wood. So, pitch might be tar but in brewing I don't think it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsbaixo (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Cigarettes?
Under uses it says "as an ingredient in cigarettes". That is NOT true. "Tar", as it's called in relation to cigarettes, is the resin left over from the smoke. It is NOT actually tar, it's simply a resin (though of course it's harmful). Apart from that, it is NOT an ingredient in cigarettes, but instead, a result from then chemical process of burning tobacco. That's almost like claiming fecal matter is an ingredient in food (you do the math). I'm not trying to defend cigarettes or "big tobacco", but let's at least tell some truth here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.24 (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Boiling point of tar
People survive being tared and feathered. How hot does tar need to be before you can pour it on someone without injury?67.78.162.234 (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Tar
What is Tar worth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.223.187 (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What a nonsense
""A tar-like substance can be produced from corn stalks by heating in a microwave. This process is known as pyrolysis.""

Whoever wrote this, never has put a stalk in a microwave :=) 84.139.112.51

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Scope
There is confusion here because the article apparently started out as covering Wood tar (still redirects here), with a separate Coal tar page, but the lead section became re-modelled to cover "tar" in general. Since most of the article body still discusses wood tar, it may be best to turn this back into the "wood tar" page explicitly. --dab (𒁳) 06:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Effectiveness of tar or creosote
I simply want to have the authors of the articles on "tar" and "creosote" address the issues about the lack of effectiveness of coal tar on the preservation or waterproofing of wood raised in this article (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-tar-and-its-products-as-preser/?redirect=1). None of those concerns appear in either Wikipedia article, and I don't know if they are spurious (,because the scientific american article is a little confusing with a lot of typo-graphical errors) or not. Amoss1985 (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)