Seems as if the EU's worst fears are starting to form as the spill has reached the Danube. Despite what the Academy of Sciences is saying wildlife is being affected, with one tributary being declared dead.
KOLONTAR, Hungary – Red sludge flowed into the Danube River on Thursday, threatening a half-dozen nations along one of Europe's key waterways. Monitors took samples every few hour to measure damage from the toxic spill and emergency officials declared one Hungarian tributary dead.
As cleanup crews gathered deer carcasses and other wildlife from the villages in southwestern Hungary flooded by the industrial waste, environmental groups warned of long-term damage to the farming region's topsoil.
Conflicting information swirled about the dangers posed by the ankle-deep muck coating the most seriously hit areas after the collapse of a waste-storage reservoir at a nearby alumina plant Monday.
The Hungarian Academy of Sciences maintained that while the material was a continued hazard, its heavy metal concentrations were not considered dangerous to the environment.
This is fucking bad. Not Chernobyl-bad, but pretty fucking close. I hope they manage to halt the waste before it spreads to the entire of the eastern countries and i hope the people responsible will be so sued that they hardly will afford breathing.
Edit:
On October 08 2010 16:44 neobowman wrote: Wait, what exactly is the spill's origins?
A storage-dam burst and went right into a nearby river which in turn made it flow out in europes second largest river, Danube.
Wow, I hadn't even heard of this. It's horrible that things like this occur, although not terribly surprising considering the number of factories on earth pumping out toxic shit.
i heard that the company which can be held responsible for this could cover like 1% of the demage costs, not sure on what numbers this is based though. Looks pretty bad
Fun fact: The company that is responsible for the disaster has limited liability. They will have to pay the exact sum of 35,000 Euro and that's it (according to yesterday's news that is about 0.1% of the actual monetary damage).
On October 08 2010 17:41 madnessman wrote: Ouch those pics look pretty bad. At least the materials in the sludge aren't super radioactive or poisonous.
Yeah but the red side mud is already highly caustic due to the initial bauxite ore being digested in NaOH. You've got the NA2O which reacts with water into NaOH
On the bright side of this disaster, my final year engineering thesis is on the alumina process (although further downstream in the process, ocne all this red mud has been removed from the bayer liquor) and has a required section on safety....I guess i can right about this now
On October 08 2010 17:41 madnessman wrote: Ouch those pics look pretty bad. At least the materials in the sludge aren't super radioactive or poisonous.
Well, from a chemistry point of view none of this stuff is dangerous. Fe2O3 is merely rust. SiO2 is about as dangerous as sand. TiO2 is a common white pigment. CaO in water just turns into Ca2+ and OH-. Ca2+ is an essential human mineral. Na2O similarly dissociates in water to Na+ and OH-. So basically the most dangerous thing here is that the resulting sludge/solution would be quite alkaline. But once it hits the danube there's gonna be so much water that it won't significantly change the pH of the river.
I've seen the media mention "heavy metals" all the time, but so far they have not specified which heavy metals they mean. The above list does not contain any.
I really don't think this disaster is as big as the media coverage suggests. The gulf of mexico on the other hand...
I know Arsenic has been mentioned somewhere. Best we wait for a proper analysis but as far as I learned, Aluminium production produces some pretty nasty waste.
I'm getting so sick of spills of various substances killing wildlife . We need more wildlife if anything, especially those innocent frogs....so innocent.
On October 08 2010 17:41 madnessman wrote: Ouch those pics look pretty bad. At least the materials in the sludge aren't super radioactive or poisonous.
Fe2O3 Al2O3 SiO2 CaO TiO2 Na2O
Wait.. Isn't CaO unstable and caustic? Uh oh...
Well, from a chemistry point of view none of this stuff is dangerous. Fe2O3 is merely rust. SiO2 is about as dangerous as sand. TiO2 is a common white pigment. CaO in water just turns into Ca2+ and OH-. Ca2+ is an essential human mineral. Na2O similarly dissociates in water to Na+ and OH-. So basically the most dangerous thing here is that the resulting sludge/solution would be quite alkaline. But once it hits the danube there's gonna be so much water that it won't significantly change the pH of the river.
I've seen the media mention "heavy metals" all the time, but so far they have not specified which heavy metals they mean. The above list does not contain any.
I really don't think this disaster is as big as the media coverage suggests. The gulf of mexico on the other hand...
The ph of the sludge was orignally around 13, it is not "quite" alkaline it's VERY alkaline.
On October 08 2010 18:32 Electric.Jesus wrote: Fun fact: The company that is responsible for the disaster has limited liability. They will have to pay the exact sum of 35,000 Euro and that's it (according to yesterday's news that is about 0.1% of the actual monetary damage).
I happen to know a lot about this (connections in the police), the investigation is still in progress so noone knows the "exact sum". But hell there's tons of lolwat stuff in that company, you guys (and people in Hungary in general) don't know half of it...I sense a huge media shitstorm coming. The fun fact is that the company still haven't apologised at all, instead they say they have insurance (which can't be used in this case and wouldn't cover anything anyway)
This is a huge disaster. Companies like this usally don't feel too much obligation to clean up after themselves either. From what I've read it seems the tries to lower the pH has been somewhat successful, atleast that's something.
On October 08 2010 17:41 madnessman wrote: Ouch those pics look pretty bad. At least the materials in the sludge aren't super radioactive or poisonous.
Fe2O3 Al2O3 SiO2 CaO TiO2 Na2O
Wait.. Isn't CaO unstable and caustic? Uh oh...
Well, from a chemistry point of view none of this stuff is dangerous. Fe2O3 is merely rust. SiO2 is about as dangerous as sand. TiO2 is a common white pigment. CaO in water just turns into Ca2+ and OH-. Ca2+ is an essential human mineral. Na2O similarly dissociates in water to Na+ and OH-. So basically the most dangerous thing here is that the resulting sludge/solution would be quite alkaline. But once it hits the danube there's gonna be so much water that it won't significantly change the pH of the river.
I've seen the media mention "heavy metals" all the time, but so far they have not specified which heavy metals they mean. The above list does not contain any.
I really don't think this disaster is as big as the media coverage suggests. The gulf of mexico on the other hand...
Not sure how fast water flows in the Danube, but the initial point of access for all the chemicals can alter the pH considerably. Only after the spill runs downstream a bit will it be diluted enough to not cause a large change in pH.
Also, these compounds can leach quite easily into the soil and cause some pretty deep impacts on wildlife. While there aren't any toxic compounds in there, dumping massive amounts of anything into soil, whether it be as inert as silica, is going to disrupt wildlife considerably.
On October 09 2010 01:12 Haemonculus wrote: Ahhh..... oh god that sucks.
Is industrial waste usually stored behind a giant dam? Are there just like huge lakes of it?
Ouch... best of luck to anyone affected by this disaster T_T;
Yeah pretty much. Large amounts of tailings are unavoidable in mining operations like this, where the primary product isnt even in the majority of the initial ore. There is nothing wrong with having a big tailing dam as long as the necessary safety and risk assessments are put into action. Unfortunately with something like this happening, Deepwater horizon etc it seems far to many engineers are cutting corners.
On October 08 2010 17:41 madnessman wrote: Ouch those pics look pretty bad. At least the materials in the sludge aren't super radioactive or poisonous.
Fe2O3 Al2O3 SiO2 CaO TiO2 Na2O
Wait.. Isn't CaO unstable and caustic? Uh oh...
Well, from a chemistry point of view none of this stuff is dangerous. Fe2O3 is merely rust. SiO2 is about as dangerous as sand. TiO2 is a common white pigment. CaO in water just turns into Ca2+ and OH-. Ca2+ is an essential human mineral. Na2O similarly dissociates in water to Na+ and OH-. So basically the most dangerous thing here is that the resulting sludge/solution would be quite alkaline. But once it hits the danube there's gonna be so much water that it won't significantly change the pH of the river.
I've seen the media mention "heavy metals" all the time, but so far they have not specified which heavy metals they mean. The above list does not contain any.
I really don't think this disaster is as big as the media coverage suggests. The gulf of mexico on the other hand...
I'd like to reiterate what an earlier poster said (and what you would know had you read the article), the Ph of the sludge is 13... that's around bleach level. So, from a "chemistry" point of view this shit is very harmful.
More on-topic. How did the inspectors not see this coming?
On October 09 2010 01:12 Haemonculus wrote: Ahhh..... oh god that sucks.
Is industrial waste usually stored behind a giant dam? Are there just like huge lakes of it?
Ouch... best of luck to anyone affected by this disaster T_T;
Yeah pretty much. Large amounts of tailings are unavoidable in mining operations like this, where the primary product isnt even in the majority of the initial ore. There is nothing wrong with having a big tailing dam as long as the necessary safety and risk assessments are put into action. Unfortunately with something like this happening, Deepwater horizon etc it seems far to many engineers are cutting corners.
I'd like to point out that it's a few engineers making the rest look bad.
Also, even with diluting animals in wildlife, especially fish, are very sensitive to Ph changes in their environment.
wtf. why the hell can't they be more responsible? toughen law up, prevent stuff like this and BP oil spill from happening again. just shut those damn companies down or something
seeing that and remembering what i heard yesterday about the romanian gas line network is actually pretty ... huge. expect more of this to come from other, previously state owned companies from the former east block.
On October 09 2010 01:12 Haemonculus wrote: Ahhh..... oh god that sucks.
Is industrial waste usually stored behind a giant dam? Are there just like huge lakes of it?
Ouch... best of luck to anyone affected by this disaster T_T;
Yeah pretty much. Large amounts of tailings are unavoidable in mining operations like this, where the primary product isnt even in the majority of the initial ore. There is nothing wrong with having a big tailing dam as long as the necessary safety and risk assessments are put into action. Unfortunately with something like this happening, Deepwater horizon etc it seems far to many engineers are cutting corners.
It's not the engineers who cut the corners, it's their bosses. The engineers probably want to build the biggest, most bad ass tailings dam ever concieved, because that's what they're trained to do. Their bosses want a cheap dam to keep capital investments low and profits high, because that's what they're trained to do.
This is a travesty, and I wish that those responsible would have to foot the bill of their obscene mistake.
What i don't understand is why people are okay with limited liability laws. When disasters like this happens it not only hurts the environment, but also damages personal property and damages the livelihood of those affected. Companies that allow this to happen should be 100% liable and if they can't pay, they should be liquidated and sold off to pay as much as possible. I have no sympathy for these companies.
Here is yet another example of how the free market could have lessened the chance of a disaster like this from happening. ANYWAYS... my condolences to the countries and people that will undoubtedly be effected by this.
On October 09 2010 06:09 No_Roo wrote: Holy cow that is a lot of shit that spilled out. I am curious as to why the dam failed, maybe a creeper got to it?
On October 09 2010 03:03 Jenbu wrote: What i don't understand is why people are okay with limited liability laws. When disasters like this happens it not only hurts the environment, but also damages personal property and damages the livelihood of those affected. Companies that allow this to happen should be 100% liable and if they can't pay, they should be liquidated and sold off to pay as much as possible. I have no sympathy for these companies.
Here is yet another example of how the free market could have lessened the chance of a disaster like this from happening. ANYWAYS... my condolences to the countries and people that will undoubtedly be effected by this.
It's a tough call though. If thousands of people work for the company do they all deserve to lose their jobs just because a couple of their bosses were retarded?
This is horrible. Good luck to any affected European countries and the people living around there. Hopefully you guys have good enough leadership that something substantial will get done to clean up that mess. Think good thoughts.
Though these chemicals are far from the most dangerous that could have been spilled, the alkalinity is going to tear through the surrounding ecosystem...
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.
The amount of money that the culpable company saved by cutting corners in their dam construction may be more than the maximum cost they're responsible for paying in such an event.
Absolutely horrible for those who will be affected by damages and clean-up costs.
I own some fish in a small aquarium, and I've had them die before from a *slight* change from 7pH to 9pH. Because of the logarithmic nature of the pH scale, the difference from 7-9 and 8-13 is about 1000x worse. It doesn't take very much of a 13pH substance to raise the pH of water to a level that harms/kills wildlife.
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.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poison n. 1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. 2. Something destructive or fatal.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
You don't know what toxic means and you keep restating the same incorrect preconceived notions. If you don't like it, go start your own language and write your own dictionary. In the mean time the english definition of the word stands uncontested to be much more broad than you seem willing to accept.
By the way, 1 fluid ounce of pH 13 solution added to a 20 gallon tank(2560 fluid ounces) of pH 7 solution will raise the pH of the solution in the tank to about 3.9 times the OH- levels of pH 9. That much of a change is enough to kill some of the most resilient fresh water fish if not all of them. So even your made up definition of toxic is still completely applicable to the industrial accident this thread is based on.
On October 10 2010 01:52 Geo.Rion wrote: holy shit, in the news they just said there is a new crack on the barage, so another flood like this could happen real soon
Yep.
DEVECSER, Hungary – The cracking wall of an industrial plant reservoir could collapse at any moment and send a new wave of caustic red sludge into towns devastated by a deluge this week, Hungary's prime minister said Saturday.
A crack in the concrete wall widened by 2.76 inches (7 centimeters) overnight, Prime Minister Viktor Orban told reporters gathered at a fire station near the alumina plant that dumped up to 184 million gallons (700,000 cubic meters) of highly polluted water and mud onto three villages in about an hour Monday, burning people and animals. At least seven people were killed and hundreds injured.
Ouch, I feel sorry for the people affected by this. A Ph13 substance is going to destroy the wildlife. I hope Hungary and the other European countries can deal with it.
There's so much sludge, how can they even begin to think they can clean it up in any sensible amount of time? The money would be better spent resettling everybody far and away, and trying to contain the area.
Fucking hell - Get your shit together hungarians! Who the hell storages toxic sludge like that? If it were in Denmark, the people responsible would get a life sentence in jail!
GJ on destroying an eco-system that runs all the way through europe... How can you be a member of the european union storing toxic shit like that?
On October 10 2010 01:52 Geo.Rion wrote: holy shit, in the news they just said there is a new crack on the barage, so another flood like this could happen real soon
DEVECSER, Hungary – The cracking wall of an industrial plant reservoir could collapse at any moment and send a new wave of caustic red sludge into towns devastated by a deluge this week, Hungary's prime minister said Saturday.
A crack in the concrete wall widened by 2.76 inches (7 centimeters) overnight, Prime Minister Viktor Orban told reporters gathered at a fire station near the alumina plant that dumped up to 184 million gallons (700,000 cubic meters) of highly polluted water and mud onto three villages in about an hour Monday, burning people and animals. At least seven people were killed and hundreds injured.
Latest reporst say there are already 3 cracks on the original barrage. Kolontár, the nearest village got relocated today. Only authorities are allowed to stay there. On top of that as the situation stands atm they have to build up a new barrage across Kolontár. No good at all...
From the Wiki (and our daily news too tbh): At least seven people died, and 123 people were injured. That's messed up as hell, they should at least monitor the shit and evacuate the villages when it began to hit the fan.
On October 10 2010 05:59 antiq wrote: From the Wiki (and our daily news too tbh): At least seven people died, and 123 people were injured. That's messed up as hell, they should at least monitor the shit and evacuate the villages when it began to hit the fan.
I can only imagine villagers caught off guard watching a 7 foot tall blood red wave of destruction covering their city must have thought they were observing some sort of biblical event. O.o I hope some stop gap measure is put in place to mitigate the damage of the dam breaking a second time, but I'm not even sure what they can do, what a logistical nightmare.
On October 08 2010 17:41 madnessman wrote: Ouch those pics look pretty bad. At least the materials in the sludge aren't super radioactive or poisonous.
According to the Austrian environment protection agency it also contains Arsenic in 110 mg/kg concentration, chromium in 660 mg/kg concentration and mercury in 1,3 mg/kg concentrations.
On October 10 2010 02:04 No_Roo wrote: By the way, 1 fluid ounce of pH 13 solution added to a 20 gallon tank(2560 fluid ounces) of pH 7 solution will raise the pH of the solution in the tank to about 3.9 times the OH- levels of pH 9.
You crazy americans and your lack of SI units
Anyway for those who are interested heres a slightly more in depth look at red mud
Fucking hell - Get your shit together hungarians! Who the hell storages toxic sludge like that? If it were in Denmark, the people responsible would get a life sentence in jail!
GJ on destroying an eco-system that runs all the way through europe... How can you be a member of the european union storing toxic shit like that?Last edit: 2010-10-10 05:55:43
Everyone stores the red mud like that (well, out in the open). Its simply economically unfeasible to have storage tanks or to convert it completely into new products. For every tonne of Al2O3 produced in the process, as much as double of red mud is produced depending on bauxite composition, as compositions vary alot around the world (the initial ore). These big storage dams/ponds are fine, as long as the stuctural integrity of these buildings are fine. Looks like they weren't. Does anyone know what caused the structural failure? Was it something similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Baia_Mare_cyanide_spill?
KOLONTAR, Hungary – The wall of a reservoir filled with caustic red sludge will inevitably collapse and unleash a new deluge of toxic matter that could ooze a half-mile (1 kilometer) to the north, wreaking further havoc in the wake of last week's disaster, a Hungarian official said Sunday.
That would flood parts of the town already hit by the industrial waste Oct. 4 but stop short of the next town to the north.
[Zoltan Bakonyi, the director of the company involved in the sludge spill] will be charged with criminal negligence leading to a public catastrophe, and if convicted could face a sentence of up to 10 years, according to a government spokeswoman.
[Zoltan Bakonyi, the director of the company involved in the sludge spill] will be charged with criminal negligence leading to a public catastrophe, and if convicted could face a sentence of up to 10 years, according to a government spokeswoman.
[Zoltan Bakonyi, the director of the company involved in the sludge spill] will be charged with criminal negligence leading to a public catastrophe, and if convicted could face a sentence of up to 10 years, according to a government spokeswoman.
[QUOTE]On October 09 2010 09:05 No_Roo wrote: [QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poison n. 1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. 2. Something destructive or fatal.
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
you do realize that one is a noun and the other is an adjective?
On October 10 2010 05:50 ELA wrote: Fucking hell - Get your shit together hungarians! Who the hell storages toxic sludge like that? If it were in Denmark, the people responsible would get a life sentence in jail!
GJ on destroying an eco-system that runs all the way through europe... How can you be a member of the european union storing toxic shit like that?
such a shining beacon of intellect you are.
----- with the wall coming down (seemingly) piece-by-piece why can't they just throw a huge exterior perimiter blockade around the entire thing so if the wall breaks the stuff will at least be contained? I kind of doubt the leakage will stop with this next piece of the wall coming down tbh >,<
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.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poison n. 1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. 2. Something destructive or fatal.
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
you do realize that one is a noun and the other is an adjective?
lol No_roo personally owning everyone in this thread. But yeah, disasters suck, that dog picture made me sadface, but I did wonder if the PH is 13 then why he still has hair. Don't most hair removers have a high PH or are they generally acidic?
why dont they just balance it out by adding highly acidic substances into the dilluted red shit? isnt that like high school chemistry knoweldge that if you want to reduce the ph value of something add inn a substance that has the opposite value. Just curious as to what they are actually doing to combat it outside of flushing it away.
this is all over the news here in Croatia, but apparently we are not in danger even tho Hungary is a direct neighbor. This is not nearly as dangerous as a radioactive accident, but still it's heavy.
On October 12 2010 17:29 Madkipz wrote: why dont they just balance it out by adding highly acidic substances into the dilluted red shit? isnt that like high school chemistry knoweldge that if you want to reduce the ph value of something add inn a substance that has the opposite value. Just curious as to what they are actually doing to combat it outside of flushing it away.
actually they are doing that, as I wrote about it on the 2nd page or so
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.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poison n. 1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. 2. Something destructive or fatal.
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
you do realize that one is a noun and the other is an adjective?
noun any poison produced by an organism, characterized by antigenicity in certain animals and high molecular weight, and including the bacterial toxins that are the causative agents of tetanus, diphtheria, etc., and such plant and animal toxins as ricin and snake venom
Given that none of the chemicals in the red sludge are toxins, the sludge is not toxic.
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.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poison n. 1. A substance that causes injury, illness, or death, especially by chemical means. 2. Something destructive or fatal.
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
you do realize that one is a noun and the other is an adjective?
noun any poison produced by an organism, characterized by antigenicity in certain animals and high molecular weight, and including the bacterial toxins that are the causative agents of tetanus, diphtheria, etc., and such plant and animal toxins as ricin and snake venom
Given that none of the chemicals in the red sludge are toxins, the sludge is not toxic.
why is everyone complaining about the proper definition of toxic? Is it really something that crucial?
----
Personally I've never liked engineers as a whole. I've always found that the only reason why they aren't considered illiterate is because they're good with numbers. It is sad that all of these ecological disasters are making that prejudicial and not-to-be-taken-seriously statement on their intelligence seem accurate now :\
On October 13 2010 04:53 Teivospylol wrote: why is everyone complaining about the proper definition of toxic? Is it really something that crucial?
----
Personally I've never liked engineers as a whole. I've always found that the only reason why they aren't considered illiterate is because they're good with numbers. It is sad that all of these ecological disasters are making that prejudicial and not-to-be-taken-seriously statement on their intelligence seem accurate now :\
lol I guess your next complaint is that all women are whores
I'm more inclined to believe there's pressure on the engineers to use as little money as possible in poor countries for these things, and they're probably hastily built. Blaming engineers is probably not very smart.
On October 13 2010 05:17 Slayer91 wrote: I'm more inclined to believe there's pressure on the engineers to use as little money as possible in poor countries for these things, and they're probably hastily built. Blaming engineers is probably not very smart.
It's not just in poor countries. How do you think the coal mine explosions or BP oil spills happen? It happens in every company that puts profits ahead of safety.
As for the proper use of toxic: whatever. Laymen...
lol I guess your next complaint is that all women are whores
ok?
On October 13 2010 05:17 Slayer91 wrote: I'm more inclined to believe there's pressure on the engineers to use as little money as possible in poor countries for these things, and they're probably hastily built. Blaming engineers is probably not very smart.
I don't agree with the whole poor country thing, nor do I agree with trying to argue a point by using the word "probably", but the greed aspect of business is a possibility for sure.
Even if that is the case though, it is still the engineer's job to make sure that a design is functional and safe and then to sign off on it. Maybe a degree in engineering should come with a semester of building a spine? After all, what is the point of getting a degree to design safe structures if you aren't able to say "no that isn't safe"? Being unable to say no even with pressure is still incompetence and although the company is definately liable, don't act like this isn't the fault of the engineers.
I don't agree with the whole poor country thing, nor do I agree with trying to argue a point by using the word "probably", but the greed aspect of business is a possibility for sure.
Even if that is the case though, it is still the engineer's job to make sure that a design is functional and safe and then to sign off on it. Maybe a degree in engineering should come with a semester of building a spine? After all, what is the point of getting a degree to design safe structures if you aren't able to say "no that isn't safe"? Being unable to say no even with pressure is still incompetence and although the company is definately liable, don't act like this isn't the fault of the engineers.
Well I'm one semester off graduating with a degree in chemical engineering and I can tell you that issues regarding safety and environment are RAMMED down our throats almost to an obnxious frequency. Not only that, the goverment and public are quite forceful with environmental protection measures with the massive surge in oil/gas production occuring in the north west of west aus, where tourism for the natural environment is of large importance. Even grad/vac work applications for companies harp on about safety with a few open ended questions about safety practices.
It really does differ from country to country though, if you look at a few american incidents it does raise questions as to what they were doing in regards to safety measures.
The grammar debate ends here. If you have something to contribute, feel free, but if you're just here to argue over the semantics of toxic vs poison then you should move on.
The most ridiculous thing is that they built up a kind of small new barrage directly next to the most affected village in like 2 days, meanwhile the government secularized the company which caused this and they are already thinking about relaunching it. lol?
It miraculously became safe now when the government running it?
EPT![[image loading]](http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20101007/capt.51237ee7041a4689aea10c08d978f60c-51237ee7041a4689aea10c08d978f60c-0.jpg?x=400&y=271&q=85&sig=vfYA0HWTlIgsy3da87bgPQ--)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Ajkai_v%C3%B6r%C3%B6siszap-katasztr%C3%B3fa_v%C3%A1zlat_2010-10-04.svg/800px-Ajkai_v%C3%B6r%C3%B6siszap-katasztr%C3%B3fa_v%C3%A1zlat_2010-10-04.svg.png)
![[image loading]](http://galeria.index.hu/belfold/2010/10/05/legifelvetelek_az_atszakadt_gatrol/1718033_d7d806c85f73ce47d49999647b0ef533_l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://galeria.index.hu/belfold/2010/10/05/legifelvetelek_az_atszakadt_gatrol/1718171_2f1dd510846d5675f0f9e00243ed4530_xl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://galeria.index.hu/belfold/2010/10/05/legifelvetelek_az_atszakadt_gatrol/1718021_999324891c2bd780aa3fe585dce25a87_l.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/46000/46360/devecser_ali_2010282.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/46000/46360/devecser_ali_2010282_2.jpg)
