Live data from Hacker News

That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

science.org

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complaining about the Chevy Cruze like that is hilarious . Did you go out of your way to pick up a particularly harmless example? What about all the other cars that kill significantly more people by design ? Like, I don’t know, any SUV or pickup truck? In that context, picking on the rather innocent Cruze seems a bit obtuse.

Shouldn't any design that is killing people, no matter how petty you think it is, be reason for homicide investigation against the companies executives? I guess if you viewed customers as actual people the 'the dow is 50k - why do you want us to stop war crimes?' might also get a response requiring the treatment of humans with dignity. If your executives can't kill people to make a couple of million what's the point…

All cars inherently kill people, we should focus on the cars that kill many people in predictable ways rather than the cars that kill few people in surprising ways.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#192

Being an armchair expert, I wondered if they couldn't have flown a quadcopter with a small drilling machine and drill a hole on the top to relive pressure?

I don't know about a hole, but the reason why the tank didn't rupture, is because a crack was discovered, which relieved the pressure. They got lucky.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you alleging that California claims stuff to be carcinogenic without evidence? Do you have a supposed motive? Any evidence? Whilst it's a bit of a meme, isn't it just true that a lot of stuff is carcinogenic.

Well, the “experts” say a charred steak is carcinogenic. At that point, I stopped listening to anything out of their mouths. It might be true, but it’s also a matter of degree. California has set such a low threshold that one cannot take their label seriously about anything. It applies to nearly everything, making it effectively a useless warning.

  In the seventies, the view was often expressed to me by lay audiences that there was no point in stopping smoking, since everything was a carcinogen and so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable. This view was certainly pushed by the tobacco companies with the bizarre support of many environmentalists,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0273230087...

Also see carcinization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because the US chemical industry has been effectively unregulated for a century and can do whatever it pleases. 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?

Are you alleging that California claims stuff to be carcinogenic without evidence? Do you have a supposed motive? Any evidence? Whilst it's a bit of a meme, isn't it just true that a lot of stuff is carcinogenic.

Pretty much every state, national, and international health or safety organizations deals with possible carcinogens, or sometimes probable carcinogens, because testing to prove something is a carcinogen is expensive.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#196
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that it doesn’t dry out; it polymerizes, and the reaction is catalyzed by water, which is why cyanoacrylate glues will stick your fingertips together instantly but will not as rapidly stick plastics or metals together.

There are superglue(CA) accelerators sold, is that just a big scam? Because as far as I can tell a spray bottle with water works just as well.

They're made out of extremely cheap materials, so you're paying several times more for packaging and distribution than for the product. Then again, people pay to have water packaged and distributed, often when they have it on tap.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've been told this is a cheap way to fix small windshield cracks. Never tried it but sounds like it would work for the small spider sized and shaped cracks from small rock impacts.

The rule of thumb is that if the damage fits under a US quarter, it'll work for sure, and if it fits under a dollar bill, it's worth a try.

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#198
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'll see your CH3NCO, and raise (CH3)2Hg - 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.

True. But methyl isocyanate has the regrettable property that it was quite useful, to the point that there was a crappy, poorly maintained factory with tanks of it on site, with extraordinarily regrettable results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#199

Being an armchair expert, I wondered if they couldn't have flown a quadcopter with a small drilling machine and drill a hole on the top to relive pressure?

"It’s unlikely that firefighters would consider creating a hole in the tank because of fears that could create a spark that might ignite the volatile and flammable gas."

Per https://apnews.com/article/california-chemical-tank-leak-c1f...

Re: That Methyl Methacrylate Tank

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a pretty decent campaign locally to make it legal to deliver fixed line broadband services. But once you convince someone that the legislation exists and the penalties exist for supplying fixed line broadband services, the next goal posts slide into place, and they reflexively defend the idea that the government would fine people more for overbuilding the national carrier to a greater extent than importing…

Are you sure that the "Internet is a natural monopoly" people were actually people and not just bots and shills? The only reason I could see real people wanting a monopoly would be if they were pushing for the government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines. There's a case that it doesn't make sense to have 50 different companies all running physical…

The australian disease is the great big national thing. The only time this concept has ever worked for us is Medicare, and secretly thats actually managed on the state level with national funding.

>government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines.

We had loosely:

1. Government telco ran copper everywhere, did a shit job of it, they are still replacing faulty gel joints.

2. Government sold said telco, with a monopoly on fixed line internet services.

3. Newly private telco did fuck all and basically existed for a while.

4. The government mandated that they permit ULL resale, basically renting access to their monopolised cabling

5. Australia had its greatest % increase in internet speed as lots of small players started dropping DSLAMS on their exchanges and exchanging peering.

6. That fizzled out, and we reached the limits of what could possibly be done with copper in the short term.

7. Instead of looking at what worked historically (ULL) they decided to build a brand new giant government telco with a fixed line monopoly (ripping it away from the last guys). Average punter has no long term memory and thinks that repeating the original sin with Fibre instead of copper has literally no downside.

8. Because this is a NEW NATIONAL thing, chumps, of which there are plenty, will defend it without any analysis deeper than "My fibre works fine"

9. One of our larger private carriers took the National Carrier to court arguing that the law was anticompetitive. They settled out of court and the law wasnt changed. However, the industry has continued in sort of a grey area where the national carrier hasnt formally complained about any of its competition but it could still do so and fines would be issued.

10. Several government MP's floated the idea, all at once, that the government should compulsorily acquire every other fixed line telco network in the country. 6 weeks later they stopped saying that. Its in policy limbo, largely because their justification was that the National telco was better somehow, but upon reflection they probably realised that the national telco was the only telco excluded from customer protections and things would be worse for customers overall if they lost their private alternatives.

But thats where their brain is at. Rather than the fines, they will probably just use the threat of fines at some stage to forcibly acquire other networks. Which will be a long, expensive, and overall shitty experience for customers. The public will clap and cheer when the evil private networks (many of which are far better in speed and quality than the national carrier) get absorbed.

Post reply on HN