EPTAjka alumina sludge spill - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
hp.Shell
United States2527 Posts
| ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
On October 09 2010 06:40 No_Roo wrote: If they measured a pH of 13, then that is some highly toxic sludge. Lol, so many people have said the sludge is nontoxic. "Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism." Probably a high degree  | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
| ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
i mean; its under the soil and in the water systems it looks like? they're using shovels... im not trying to downgrade what they're doing but wow; im really worried about how to clean something like that up; | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
Simplistik
1891 Posts
| ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
Absolutely horrible for those who will be affected by damages and clean-up costs. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
| ||
|
No_Roo
United States905 Posts
On October 09 2010 07:18 Simplistik wrote: Ultimately all they can do is clear the surface as quickly as possible. The rest will be up to rain and rivers to dilute. The metals won't do an aweful lot anyway. And to people who say stuff like "it's got a high pH so it's toxic", they are wrong. CaOH and NaOH are not classed as toxic, they are classed as corrosive. Yes, they damage skin and you'd probably die if you drank enough of it. However, they are not poisons, which is what the "toxic" label on chemicals normally means. Poison: + Show Spoiler + http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poison n. 1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. 2. Something destructive or fatal. Toxic: + Show Spoiler + http://www.thefreedictionary.com/toxic adj. 1. Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison 2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous Do you have some doubt on the health implications such an extreme pH has on fish or other plants & animals? If a pH13 solution cause injury illness or death, then by definition that solution is a poison, and it can be described as "Toxic" I haven't been able to find any definition of either of these terms that wouldn't apply to this sludge so far. | ||
|
vetinari
Australia602 Posts
NaOH, CaOH are not toxins, they are corrosive. There is a difference. Stop using retarded definitions for laymen and you will go a long way. | ||
|
No_Roo
United States905 Posts
On October 09 2010 09:45 vetinari wrote: No_Roo, would you consider high pressure steam as a toxin? No? Exactly. NaOH, CaOH are not toxins, they are corrosive. There is a difference. Stop using retarded definitions for laymen and you will go a long way. Toxicity requires context. Example 1: H20 can be toxic to humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication Example 2: Your negative statement against "definitions" and how people should stop using them is toxic to the English language. Example 3: Huge quantities of pH 13 sludge pouring into topsoil and into a stream is toxic to countless organisms. | ||
|
Genjimaru
Canada515 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On October 09 2010 12:25 No_Roo wrote: Example 2: Your negative statement against "definitions" and how people should stop using them is toxic to the English language. haha owned oh shit i gotta contribute errrr. ill post a picture people havent seen in the thread yet ![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2010/10/6/1286375118494/A-dog-covered-in-toxic-sl-006.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://newshour.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2010/10/06/104871299_blog_main_horizontal.jpg) | ||
|
Simplistik
1891 Posts
On October 09 2010 09:05 No_Roo wrote: Toxic: adj. 2. Capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means; poisonous Do you have some doubt on the health implications such an extreme pH has on fish or other plants & animals? If a pH13 solution cause injury illness or death, then by definition that solution is a poison, and it can be described as "Toxic" I haven't been able to find any definition of either of these terms that wouldn't apply to this sludge so far. A stone is capable of causing injury and death and by your definition would be "a poison, and it can be described as "Toxic". That's ridiculous. To decide whether chemicals are toxic they are normally given to rats, mice or other small animals in different doses. The dose that causes half of the animals to die is a common measure for toxicity. Those numbers are usually quite small. For metallic arsenic it's 4.5 mg/kg. For Sodium Hydroxide it's something like 500 mg/kg. Yes, it still harms you, but neither sodium nor calcium hydroxide are classed as toxic by any government or official chemical organisation that I know. The difference is that something truly toxic will cause serious problems even at low levels. However, based on the list of chemicals that are alledgedly in the sludge, you could easily dip your hand in it, rinse it off and you'd be fine. Yes, it would probably irritate your skin, but you sure as hell won't die. | ||
|
No_Roo
United States905 Posts
On October 09 2010 17:00 Simplistik wrote: A stone is capable of causing injury and death and by your definition would be "a poison, and it can be described as "Toxic". That's ridiculous. To decide whether chemicals are toxic they are normally given to rats, mice or other small animals in different doses. The dose that causes half of the animals to die is a common measure for toxicity. Those numbers are usually quite small. For metallic arsenic it's 4.5 mg/kg. For Sodium Hydroxide it's something like 500 mg/kg. Yes, it still harms you, but neither sodium nor calcium hydroxide are classed as toxic by any government or official chemical organisation that I know. The difference is that something truly toxic will cause serious problems even at low levels. However, based on the list of chemicals that are alledgedly in the sludge, you could easily dip your hand in it, rinse it off and you'd be fine. Yes, it would probably irritate your skin, but you sure as hell won't die. Toxicity requires context. Stones can be toxic to your health in the following context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning There is nothing in the definition of toxicity that specifies a maximum quantity of the substance to still have an impact. All the same here is another example involving rocks: Small rocks inserted into some ones brain would be quite toxic to a person's health. By the way as flattered as I am, I'm not actually the guy that writes the dictionary, none of these definitions are "mine" that's why I gave a source. EDIT: Rather than continue this futile line of questioning why don't you just go read the link manifesto posted, I'll quote a relevant section for you right now to put an end to it. The chemicals extinguished all life in the Marcal river, and reached the Danube River on 7 October, prompting countries located further down the river to develop emergency plans in response. "Extinguished all life in the Marcal river." Is there any further dispute? | ||
|
TymerA
Netherlands759 Posts
good luck Hungary, hope this doesn't affect your lands too much | ||
|
nOia.pod
Hungary263 Posts
On October 08 2010 16:49 alffla wrote: wow fuck. good luck hungary and europe.. fuck this sucks another spill tahts gonna destroy so much wildlife and nature.. 2 of the affected rivers' wildlife is already 100% dead. They are not even trying to save them, thinking about re-establish instead :S Edit: a shitload of pics. There are more images if you click on an actual one. Edit2: And btw the government is dumbfuck as it can be. They are telling we have enough money and manpower to recover by ourselves... and ofc it's not true. | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
On October 09 2010 17:13 TymerA wrote: A pH of 13!?!? thats insane. good luck Hungary, hope this doesn't affect your lands too much That's basically as basic as it gets. *rimshot* | ||
|
Simplistik
1891 Posts
On October 09 2010 17:13 No_Roo wrote: Toxicity requires context. Stones can be toxic to your health in the following context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning There is nothing in the definition of toxicity that specifies a maximum quantity of the substance to still have an impact. All the same here is another example involving rocks: Small rocks inserted into some ones brain would be quite toxic to a person's health. By the way as flattered as I am, I'm not actually the guy that writes the dictionary, none of these definitions are "mine" that's why I gave a source. EDIT: Rather than continue this futile line of questioning why don't you just go read the link manifesto posted, I'll quote a relevant section for you right now to put an end to it. "Extinguished all life in the Marcal river." Is there any further dispute? You're quite funny. Yes, yes, everything is toxic. But if everything is toxic, then what's the point of calling the sludge toxic? After all the trees, houses, fish and the river before the accident were also "toxic", weren't they? The label is used so that we can distinguish between substances that cause harm in low doses and substances or materials that don't. You will never find water with a label on saying toxic. You won't find sodium or calcium hydroxide with a toxic label on either. Of course you can call them what you like. By the way, nobody was denying that there was damage to wildlife. It just doesn't look like there were any truly toxic materials involved. That's a good thing of course, because that way the damage won't last nearly as long. | ||
| ||
