A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Toxic Leak Haunts the Shuttle Crew



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 18th 06, 06:28 PM posted to sci.space.station
George[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 884
Default 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  
Old December 18th 06, 07:17 PM posted to sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old December 18th 06, 10:28 PM posted to sci.space.station
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default 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  
Old December 19th 06, 12:20 AM posted to sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old December 19th 06, 02:08 AM posted to sci.space.station
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default 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  
Old December 19th 06, 04:39 AM posted to sci.space.station
George[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 884
Default 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  
Old December 19th 06, 09:49 AM posted to sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old December 19th 06, 09:50 AM posted to sci.space.station
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,999
Default 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  
Old December 19th 06, 02:21 PM posted to sci.space.station
George[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 884
Default 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  
Old December 19th 06, 02:23 PM posted to sci.space.station
George[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 884
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.