|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Wrong. What's 5.1 in this context?
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:What's 5.1 in this context? Simple oxidizers like pool sanitizers, clothes bleach (or bulk Oxyclean) can be tons of fun to plan to transport.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Oxidizers natural state is to want to add oxygen to things. That just so happens to be synonymous with catching fire.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 05:21
|
|
|
5.2 ‘s can be a bitch too. They have special requirements that are based on technical name and concentration that are in a different section of the IMDG so most people don’t bother to check em and computer stow and segregation programs miss em.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 05:35
|
|
|
Ask me about moving 3,000 tons of ammonium nitrate prills a year (or don’t, it was very boring). Except the time a truck went off the road and someone called it in to the cops as a truckload of explosives on a public road. The nearest cop was a two hour helicopter ride away and the nearest publicly accessible road was like... two hours away by plane. The paperwork was fun.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Wait then who the hell was around to call it in? 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
Someone in the truck, I'd guess.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 01:36
|
|
cowboy
|
The fuel oil mixture that gets classed 1.5 is the bigger boom stuff anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 01:54
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The fuel oil mixture that gets classed 1.5 is the bigger boom stuff anyway. Yeah but the circumstances under which harmless packaged AN becomes not-so-harmless are not simple and it seems unlikely that any given rando would understand the chemistry enough to intuit, and if given exact instructions it's a tossup whether they would correctly remember under duress, so wouldn't the safe-default option be to instruct everyone "unless you really know what you're dealing with, just treat it like something that wants only to murder the poo poo out of you" to minimize risk/liability and offload the tedium of sorting out the difference onto someone else?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
silentsnack posted:Yeah but the circumstances under which harmless packaged AN becomes not-so-harmless are not simple and it seems unlikely that any given rando would understand the chemistry enough to intuit, and if given exact instructions it's a tossup whether they would correctly remember under duress, so wouldn't the safe-default option be to instruct everyone "unless you really know what you're dealing with, just treat it like something that wants only to murder the poo poo out of you" to minimize risk/liability and offload the tedium of sorting out the difference onto someone else? Nah since we had a plant dedicated to mixing the ANFO and a whole protocol around moving it (hint - those trucks would report to the dispatcher as “explosives in motion”) there was no loving way there could have been explosives on that truck. (This was a mining facility, so it’s not like explosives moving around was an unusual occurrence.)
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 03:01
|
|
|
I mean I can imagine a situation where you manage to mix the components of a diesel truck loaded with AN into something potentially explosive, but it would take a lot more than just running it into a ditch.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 11:44
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:I mean I can imagine a situation where you manage to mix the components of a diesel truck loaded with AN into something potentially explosive, but it would take a lot more than just running it into a ditch. Simpler than that: when introduced to the secret ingredient 'lots of fire', ammonium nitrate doesn't need to have been mixed with kerosene/diesel/vaseline/etc to explode. It won't produce an efficient high explosive with brisance to shatter steel, since poorly mixed spontaneous combinations of loosely-packed AN granules with [spilled fuel or soot or vaporized/burning plastic or wood decomposition products taking the place of the missing Fuel Oil] would be more likely to undergo explosive deflagration than supersonic detonation, but it's still bad news for anyone nearby. And given the long history of firefighters getting owned when several/dozen tons of "non-explosive" ammonium nitrate suddenly decides to explode anyway just for fun, it becomes one of those special words in the emergency response trade.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 12:49
|
|
|
Computer viking posted:I mean I can imagine a situation where you manage to mix the components of a diesel truck loaded with AN into something potentially explosive, but it would take a lot more than just running it into a ditch. No that’s a thing that ships mixed like that. It’s got various military and mining uses.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:40
|
|
|
I know time moves weird in covidworld but Beirut was less than a year ago. Ammonium nitrate is not something you want to underestimate, whether it's mixed with fuel oil or not.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:No that’s a thing that ships mixed like that. It’s got various military and mining uses. Yeah, I know what ANFO is - I'm just saying that I can imagine running a truck off the road (or into another truck) in a way that mixes fuel tank diesel with a cargo of originally clean ammonium nitrate in an unfortunate way. Imagine an after-explosion report that starts with a truck upside down with a ruptured tank pouring diesel into the AN cargo while a tire is on fire above it. edit: For clarity, I'd be more worried about being struck by lightning than this happening, it's more of an "is it at all possible" thought experiment. 
Computer viking has a new favorite as of 16:08 on May 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
prepper whose bunker has a moat designed to be flooded with oil and ignited to stop the zombies
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 16:04
|
|
|
silentsnack posted:Simpler than that: when introduced to the secret ingredient 'lots of fire', ammonium nitrate doesn't need to have been mixed with kerosene/diesel/vaseline/etc to explode. It won't produce an efficient high explosive with brisance to shatter steel, since poorly mixed spontaneous combinations of loosely-packed AN granules with [spilled fuel or soot or vaporized/burning plastic or wood decomposition products taking the place of the missing Fuel Oil] would be more likely to undergo explosive deflagration than supersonic detonation, but it's still bad news for anyone nearby. My favorite one was when the Soviets built a big underground tank farm to collect the raffinate from their plutonium production facilities at Mayak. They'd previously been dumping it into the river but it still had enough plutonium in it that this was considered wasteful so they built the tank farm to store it until they could recover it later. They was no segregation of any sort, it was just a common waste stream, and the common waste stream was basically a bunch of uranium and plutonium and fission products dissolved in nitric acid and various organic solvents. The tanks had to be cooled because of the decay heat, and after a few years when one of the coolant lines failed they just closed the input valve to that tank instead of fixing the line. So they basically made a big ANFO-powered dirty bomb that self-heated to the point where all the water boiled off and then eventually it just blew the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
I wrote a paper recently about how much I hate people calling disasters 'accidents' when they occur under circumstances that we understand are likely to cause the disaster and most of my examples were about AN explosions that have been happening since the turn of the century that could have been prevented if people paid attention to what caused the last AN explosion
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
You could get a discussion going in the linguistics thread on what we mean when we say "accident". I'm in the camp of an accident being specifically an action you did not intended to take: Dynamiting an AN container to get the cruft out was exactly what you meant to do, so getting an unexpected outcome is not an accident, it's just bad planning. On the other hand, tripping into the "murder everyone" button would be an accident - but having that button in the first place was probably a criminally bad design. (Early fission experiments seem to have many of these - SL-1 and the demon core experiments come to mind).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Pure ammonium nitrate will explosively denature if sufficiently abused. Adding a reducing agent increases the yield, but is not neccesary if you have enough nitrate. A few years back we had a truck carrying 50 tons of prilled ammonium nitrate catch fire. The driver sensibly legged it, the subsequent explosion took out multiple bridges. The Lone Badger has a new favorite as of 02:03 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 01:28
|
|
|
My point is more that I understand what we mean when we say 'accident' but I hate the way it's used and if I had an appropriately tailored magic wand I would change its usage. I think 'accident' minimizes the responsibility people have for their actions and prevents us from taking steps to keep ourselves and others safe, because 'accidents just happen'. To me accident is totally appropriate for things that genuinely could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time; if your murder everyone button is unguarded or without other means of preventing its unintentional activation and at that moment in time the collective human knowledge understands that buttons can be accidentally pressed, I wouldn't call it an accident when the inevitable rules of probability causes someone to bump it by mistake. The Alaskan Airlines flight that hit a fish on its takeoff climb would totally be an accident, although nothing bad came of it. Karen Wetterhahn's death I could call an accident because it seems like everyone genuinely underestimated the risks and safe handling practices associated with dimethylmercury. Although I think there were some concerns that people were complacent in evaluating dimethylmercury initially, we learned from that experience to prevent it from happening again. If it were to happen again I wouldn't call it an accident. On the topic of linguistics, according to my Spanish teacher, the construction in Spanish is always that 'an accident happened to someone', regardless of what they did to contribute to the accident. Learning that was probably influential to my noticing the same construction in English
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
The problem with that angle is that it requires a subjective judgement of acceptable risk and tolerable precautions - your accident may be my "we shouldn't let that system exist in the first place". Which immediately drops us into some really hot political topics.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 10:18
|
|
|
As I see it, an accident is caused by a single‐point mistake. If someone spaces out and runs the first stop sign on the road into town, that’s an accident. If they’re street racing and lose control, that’s not an accident. Leaving the fuel cap off and running out of avgas: accident. Taking off in marginal conditions for a VFR flight, following a road till it runs into the fog, then turning blind into a hillside: not an accident.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 10:26
|
|
|
An accident is just a really broad label and I don't see the problem with that. Anything both unexpected and unwanted is an accident. I guess the main debate is about the unexpected part but overall the value judgements happen in text and subtext far more complex than a single word can manage. But keeping it broad I also don't see the problem that once we know more about it, referring to it as a preventable or unpreventable accident. It being a blank slate at first invocation is almost a feature to keep the human elements from clamming up before you figure out the whole story.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 13:30
|
|
|
EvenWorseOpinions posted:I wrote a paper recently about how much I hate people calling disasters 'accidents' when they occur under circumstances that we understand are likely to cause the disaster and most of my examples were about AN explosions that have been happening since the turn of the century that could have been prevented if people paid attention to what caused the last AN explosion In the gun world people will give you poo poo if you talk about "accidental discharge" for exactly that reason: you had to break the rules to even get to the point where it's possible. Thus there are no accidental discharges, only negligent ones. It's commonly abbreviated "ND." zedprime posted:An accident is just a really broad label and I don't see the problem with that. Anything both unexpected and unwanted is an accident. I guess the main debate is about the unexpected part but overall the value judgements happen in text and subtext far more complex than a single word can manage. But keeping it broad I also don't see the problem that once we know more about it, referring to it as a preventable or unpreventable accident. This is what the word "incident" is for.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 14:10
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This is what the word "incident" is for. Ironically it carries enough purpose and/or fault in the connotation that I'd expect to get better results from interviews about the controlled flight into terrain accident than about the controlled flight into terrain incident. Accident is already quickly becoming a bad word like incident anyway so I'm up for burning all the language down to get a new sugar coated word to assuage the part of people's psyche that doesn't want to be a snitch.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
A nitrogen-involved expansion incident occurred.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 15:24
|
|
|
Nitrogen gas was formed. I wonder if the people who do cop murder headlines have any other good ideas for adapting their works to chemistry and physics? Besides inventing the term "physics package," of course.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
A change in entropy state was precipitated
EvenWorseOpinions has a new favorite as of 16:30 on May 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 16:25
|
|
|
"What happened?"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2021 23:05
|
|
|
Shitter was full
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
90s Cringe Rock posted:Nitrogen gas was formed. Read NTSB / AIB reports for a while. “At which time the collision occurred” “Fire was observed in the container” “The aircraft could not sustain the loss of both engines”
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 02:38
|
|
|
I’m in this image and I don’t like it. Need to add It was reported by” , “the evidence currently suggests”
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
PYF Dangerous Chemistry: past exonerative phrases about nitrogen
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I’m in this image and I don’t like it. Need to add An Interactive Guide to Ambiguous Grammar
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 06:06
|
|
|
Part of the reason to use the passive in reports like that is to remove oneself and opinions. It’s all “we” and “the undersigned “ too. The goal is to be factual only. Opinions havers get depositions.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Part of the reason to use the passive in reports like that is to remove oneself and opinions. It’s all “we” and “the undersigned “ too. The goal is to be factual only. Opinions havers get depositions. Or paraphrased cynically: a mental crutch to make up for lack of critical thinking skills and minimize the need for exhaustive introspection, allowing a writer to trick themselves into thinking they're viewing the topic objectively and that cognitive biases don't exist; and readers can optionally pretend that Contrived Neutral Tone isn't just an exercise in whitewashing bullshit-in-bullshit-out long enough to believe that what they're reading is factual. An alternate use is to apply the unconscious self-deception intentionally, and sneak insane shitposts into peer-reviewed journals.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 07:38
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Part of the reason to use the passive in reports like that is to remove oneself and opinions. It’s all “we” and “the undersigned “ too. The goal is to be factual only. Opinions havers get depositions. Depending on the agency and country they’re also not supposed to attribute blame. So “the supervisor commenced the operation; soon after an explosion took place.”
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 11:37
|
|
|
“Explosion” sounds scary. Can we rewrite that to “a rapid expansion of gas occurred”?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 11:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Gaseous products evolved from the reaction mixture
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2021 11:45
|
|
