81–90 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or He felt we needed a small reminder of what we're capable of if not careful!
He never gave us a fucking manual in the first place, so who knows what He is thinking.
He did give us a manual. He very clearly says that slavery is okay and eating shrimp is a sin, and lots of other rules.
Meanwhile in Washington, an unknown number of people where killed today in a paper mill “white liquor” explosion today…: https://www.opb.org/article/2026/05/26/longview-chemical-exp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MMA is not very toxic. It has the same LD50 as vitamin C. Table salt and baking soda are twice as toxic as MMA, for example. Additionally it is almost certainly not in vapor form at 100 degrees. In sunlight it will also polymerize to a solid pretty quickly. As such you'd practically have to drink it inside to hit the ld50. The explosion would be much worse than a release of liquid or vapor based MMA during the day, a…
MMA can apparently cause some issues that are more subtle than death. I would MUCH rather eat 1g of vitamin C than 1g of MMA. Also, vitamin C is not volatile, so there is no risk of inhaling it as a gas.
The overall point remains the same: the toxicity, both short and long term, of MMA, is comparable to lots of everyday substances that are both commonly eaten and inhaled.
It just isn't that toxic as far as chemicals go. That doesn't mean it would be like great for you but calling it "highly toxic" is tremendously overblown and doesnt serve anyone well to claim.
Let's save the highly toxic claim for things that actually deserve it. We don't have to sensationalize everything. I maintain my view that the explosion would likely be much much worse than the odds of significant respiratory damage from MMA.
Also note the sensationalization also causes placebo effect. People miles away started claiming "their lungs hurt" when
1. There was no leak
2. Even if their was and it was a conspiracy or whatever, your lungs have ~no pain receptors and your chest/pleura/etc would generally not hurt from MMA overexposure. Your throat would and your skin would, depending on concentration. But nobody complained about skin irritation when the is basically no way to end up with one without the other.
Etc.
Sensationalization of this hurt people so far more than the actual issue!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BLEVE = Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGWmONHipVo MythBusters have a good BLEVE episode. Apparently Adam Savage's favourite explosion.
Why wouldn't there be passive protection systems designed in? After a big earthquake you don't want to have to also deal with other emergencies (à la Fukushima). Aside: One good side-effect of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake being so horrific is that it stopped the self-obsessed whinging in my city (Christchurch was still trying to recover from an earthquake).
> Why wouldn't there be passive protection systems designed in? Because the US chemical industry has been effectively unregulated for a century and can do whatever it pleases. There's a neutralizing chemical that could have been injected to stop the exothermic reaction in its tracks. They didn't have it on site. A "response team" (likely a contractor that responds to chemical emergencies) did, but by the time they sh…
And yet I bet if I look there's actually a ton of regulation.
>Chemical A is found to be cancerous
Chemical A is assumed to be cancerous by the state of California, you mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had to look that up. Pretty cool. Would've expected it to be more cloudy. https://www.reddit.com/r/mildyinteresting/comments/1ogb2k3/m...
A contractor showed me how to fix dents in granite with superglue. It’s totally clear. The trick is to scrape it with a razor blade at a 90 degree angle (strait horizontal). The imperfections become nearly invisible.
> The immediate danger seems to abated, fortunately, The "it will explode leveling a couple city blocks" danger seems to be abated, but instead it's spraying an insanely toxic chemical out into the open, which will likely have health repercussions for residents for decades? Thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals don't just disappear.
> insanely toxic Some quick searching suggests that it’s toxic but not even close to “insanely toxic”. And it’s not persistent in the environment. If you want a genuinely nasty chemical, check out methyl isocyanate, which is some two orders of magnitude more acutely toxic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury#Safety
- considerably more deadlier, and the mercury an element - so no clever chemical reactions can break it down into innocuous CO2, H2O, and N2.
https://www.csb.gov/t2-laboratories-inc-reactive-chemical-ex...
This agency is the subject of a budget war between the current executive and Congress, with the former trying to cut its budget and the Congress just restoring its budget, so not sure if it will be doing a report on Garden Grove:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/congress-rescues-industr...