|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ... George wrote: Well, I for one am certainly glad that you aren't a first responder. I can see your reaction to an anyhdrous ammonia spill along a railline in a major city: "It's not toxic because 'they' missuse the word. Just leave it be." Meanwhile, as thousands succumb to the fumes... I'll also add that phosphate fertilizer is *routinely* contaminated with a material (cadmium) that does qualify as 'toxic'. There's some concern about the long term effect of cadmium buildup in soils. Paul Yes, excess cadmium can cause severe liver damage, and mental illness/depression. George |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"George" wrote:
Well, I for one am certainly glad that you aren't a first responder. I can see your reaction to an anyhdrous ammonia spill along a railline in a major city: "It's not toxic because 'they' missuse the word. Just leave it be." Meanwhile, as thousands succumb to the fumes... Only a ignorant asshole would assume that because I believe a word is misused that I don't recognize when a material is dangerous. But you are more intent on making some obscure point than in engaging your brain, so be a good lad and **** off. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
Derek Lyons wrote: [...] Only a ignorant asshole would assume that because I believe a word is misused that I don't recognize when a material is dangerous. But you are more intent on making some obscure point than in engaging your brain, so be a good lad and **** off. Derek, perhaps you could be presuaded to make your point in a positive way. What is a better description of the danger(s) of ammonia than "toxic"? Do you disagree with Merriam-Webster's definition of toxic? "1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation" Or do you claim that the dangers of ammonia are not "poisonous"? Or is your point that amount of ammonia in the exposure was too low to be toxic? It also appears that the value of ammonia as a fertlizer depend on it being sufficiently diluted by the time that the plants in question are getting it in their uptake. A quick look suggests this is done by applying it at seed planting time in a thin spray, and allowing weathering to dilute it. When you go beyond sneering, Derek, your post are informative and thoughtful. At other times, you appear to have picked up whatever parasite leads Rand to make 2-line posts. /dps |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"snidely" wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: [...] Only a ignorant asshole would assume that because I believe a word is misused that I don't recognize when a material is dangerous. But you are more intent on making some obscure point than in engaging your brain, so be a good lad and **** off. Derek, perhaps you could be presuaded to make your point in a positive way. What is a better description of the danger(s) of ammonia than "toxic"? Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype regarding materials that are only mildly problematic. Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous. It also appears that the value of ammonia as a fertlizer depend on it being sufficiently diluted by the time that the plants in question are getting it in their uptake. A quick look suggests this is done by applying it at seed planting time in a thin spray, and allowing weathering to dilute it. I was referring to the disposal method for contaminated soil cited in the MSDS George linked - if ammonia was truly toxic, then the disposal method would have been along the lines of "put the soil in barrels and contact the Appropriate Authorities", not "use as fertilizer". D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
Derek Lyons wrote: [...] Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype regarding materials that are only mildly problematic. Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous. Do you disagree that ammonia is poisonous? That is a key point to the discussion. Toxic == poisonous. [...] I was referring to the disposal method for contaminated soil cited in the MSDS George linked - if ammonia was truly toxic, then the disposal method would have been along the lines of "put the soil in barrels and contact the Appropriate Authorities", not "use as fertilizer". The method of disposal relies on the mitigating effects of weather and plant activity, and that the ammonia appearently bonds to the soil. Breathing ammonia will kill you, in a manner much more painful and dramatic than breathing hydrogen dioxide, and with a significantly smaller volume. That seems to fit "toxic" -- see Merriam-Webster again. Or provide citations where suitable definitions occur that ammonia *doesn't* fit. /dps |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "snidely" wrote: Derek Lyons wrote: [...] Only a ignorant asshole would assume that because I believe a word is misused that I don't recognize when a material is dangerous. But you are more intent on making some obscure point than in engaging your brain, so be a good lad and **** off. Derek, perhaps you could be presuaded to make your point in a positive way. What is a better description of the danger(s) of ammonia than "toxic"? Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype regarding materials that are only mildly problematic. Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous. This is the kind of answer that we get when someone with no training or experience in hazmat or emergency management tries to appear to be an 'expert' on a topic like the definition and the use of the word "toxic". The word has a definite usage in the Hazmat, Emergency Management, and Environmental Consulting fields. The toxicity of substances is used to assess risk to humans and their environment. Ammonia is more that "merely very dangerous". If you had bothered to read the MSDS sheet I provided a link to, or perhaps made an attempt to find out why it is classified by the EPA, OSHA, and NIOSH as a toxic substance, you wouldn't make such uninformed statements. It also appears that the value of ammonia as a fertlizer depend on it being sufficiently diluted by the time that the plants in question are getting it in their uptake. A quick look suggests this is done by applying it at seed planting time in a thin spray, and allowing weathering to dilute it. I was referring to the disposal method for contaminated soil cited in the MSDS George linked - if ammonia was truly toxic, then the disposal method would have been along the lines of "put the soil in barrels and contact the Appropriate Authorities", not "use as fertilizer". D. -- Anhydrous ammonia is extremely toxic to people and to animals when it is released as a concentrated gas cloud in accidents such as a train derailment or a barge accident. Soil contaminated with ammonic fertilizer is another matter altogether. That said, I wouldn't recommend that either be let loose in an uncontrolled way within the confines of the ISS. The NIOSH IDLH (immediate danger to life and health) listing for anydrous ammonia is 300 ppm. In comparison, the NIOSH IDLH for Carbon Monoxide is 1,500 ppm. So, in effect, anhydrous ammonia is at least 5 times as toxic as carbon monoxide, which, as we all know, is highly toxic to humans and other animals. George |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"snidely" wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote: [...] Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype regarding materials that are only mildly problematic. Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous. Do you disagree that ammonia is poisonous? That is a key point to the discussion. Toxic == poisonous. I quote myself since you seem to have missed it the first time around: "Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties of ammonia." Nor is it about dictionary definitions. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"George" wrote:
This is the kind of answer that we get when someone with no training or experience in hazmat or emergency management tries to appear to be an 'expert' on a topic like the definition and the use of the word "toxic". If I had set myself up as an expert, you'd have a point. The word has a definite usage in the Hazmat, Emergency Management, and Environmental Consulting fields. If any of those fields were under discussion, you'd have a point. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "George" wrote: This is the kind of answer that we get when someone with no training or experience in hazmat or emergency management tries to appear to be an 'expert' on a topic like the definition and the use of the word "toxic". If I had set myself up as an expert, you'd have a point. The word has a definite usage in the Hazmat, Emergency Management, and Environmental Consulting fields. If any of those fields were under discussion, you'd have a point. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL Umm, and you think NASA doesn't follow NIOSH guidelines when handling hazardous chemicals? Of course they do. NIOSH exists for a reason, Mr. D. George |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "snidely" wrote: Derek Lyons wrote: [...] Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype regarding materials that are only mildly problematic. Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous. Do you disagree that ammonia is poisonous? That is a key point to the discussion. Toxic == poisonous. I quote myself since you seem to have missed it the first time around: "Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties of ammonia." Nor is it about dictionary definitions. D. "As he leads his third spacewalk on the shuttle Discovery's mission to the International Space Station, one word is likely to be on Capt. Robert L. Curbeam Jr.'s mind today: ammonia." Umm, yes it is, Mr. D. George |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
News - KSC Toxic Fuel Leak Prompts Evacuation of Two Shuttle Hangars | Rusty | Space Shuttle | 3 | November 7th 06 01:24 AM |
News - KSC Toxic Fuel Leak Prompts Evacuation of Two Shuttle Hangars | Rusty | History | 3 | November 7th 06 01:24 AM |
Leak Reported On Spacecraft That Will Bring ISS Crew To Earth | Rusty Barton | Space Shuttle | 3 | April 29th 04 06:20 PM |