"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
[...]
Only a ignorant asshole would assume that because I believe a word is
misused that I don't recognize when a material is dangerous.

But you are more intent on making some obscure point than in engaging
your brain, so be a good lad and fuck off.

Derek, perhaps you could be presuaded to make your point in a positive
way. What is a better description of the danger(s) of ammonia than
"toxic"?


Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties
of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been
replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain
amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype
regarding materials that are only mildly problematic.

Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous.

It also appears that the value of ammonia as a fertlizer depend on it
being sufficiently diluted by the time that the plants in question are
getting it in their uptake. A quick look suggests this is done by
applying it at seed planting time in a thin spray, and allowing
weathering to dilute it.

I was referring to the disposal method for contaminated soil cited in
the MSDS George linked - if ammonia was truly toxic, then the disposal
method would have been along the lines of "put the soil in barrels and
contact the Appropriate Authorities", not "use as fertilizer".

D.
--

Derek Lyons wrote:
[...]
Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties
of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been
replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain
amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype
regarding materials that are only mildly problematic.

Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous.

Do you disagree that ammonia is poisonous? That is a key point to the
discussion. Toxic == poisonous.

This is the kind of answer that we get when someone with no training or
experience in hazmat or emergency management tries to appear to be an
'expert' on a topic like the definition and the use of the word "toxic".

The word has a definite usage in the Hazmat, Emergency Management, and
Environmental Consulting fields.

"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

This is the kind of answer that we get when someone with no training or
experience in hazmat or emergency management tries to appear to be an
'expert' on a topic like the definition and the use of the word "toxic".

If I had set myself up as an expert, you'd have a point.

The word has a definite usage in the Hazmat, Emergency Management, and
Environmental Consulting fields.

If any of those fields were under discussion, you'd have a point.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:


Derek Lyons wrote:
[...]
Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the properties
of ammonia. The point is that a broad spectrum of words has been
replaced by the single word 'toxic'- which has resulted in a certain
amount of desensitizing by its overuse, and a certain amount of hype
regarding materials that are only mildly problematic.

Phosgene is toxic, Sarin is toxic, ammonia is merely (very) dangerous.

Do you disagree that ammonia is poisonous? That is a key point to the
discussion. Toxic == poisonous.

I quote myself since you seem to have missed it the first time around:

"Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the
properties of ammonia."

Nor is it about dictionary definitions.

D.

"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I quote myself since you seem to have missed it the first time around:

"Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the
properties of ammonia."

Nor is it about dictionary definitions.

Derek Lyons wrote:
"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I quote myself since you seem to have missed it the first time around:

"Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the
properties of ammonia."

If we're arguing about whether anhydrous ammonia belongs in a group of
substances that should be labvelled toxic, then yes we are talking
about the properties of ammonia.

Nor is it about dictionary definitions.

Then do the right thing and provide a link to what you consider a
proper definition.

Stop being Rand.

/dps

Anyone familiar with the properties of anhydrous ammonia will tell you
that
there is no question about its toxicity.

http://msds.ehs.cornell.edu/msds/msdsdod/a67/m33029.htm

Yes, because like most people, they misuse toxic as the media has for
years.

(Here a clue for you: The disposal methods for toxic materials are
not 'use contaminated materials for fertilizer'.)
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Well, I for one am certainly glad that you aren't a first responder. I can
see your reaction to an anyhdrous ammonia spill along a railline in a major
city: "It's not toxic because 'they' missuse the word. Just leave it be."
Meanwhile, as thousands succumb to the fumes...

George

George, as one who happens to be a First Responder and HAZMAT Level-A

Anyone familiar with the properties of anhydrous ammonia will tell you
that
there is no question about its toxicity.

http://msds.ehs.cornell.edu/msds/msdsdod/a67/m33029.htm

Yes, because like most people, they misuse toxic as the media has for
years.

(Here a clue for you: The disposal methods for toxic materials are
not 'use contaminated materials for fertilizer'.)
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Well, I for one am certainly glad that you aren't a first responder. I
can
see your reaction to an anyhdrous ammonia spill along a railline in a
major
city: "It's not toxic because 'they' missuse the word. Just leave it
be."
Meanwhile, as thousands succumb to the fumes...

George

George, as one who happens to be a First Responder and HAZMAT Level-A
trained as well, I can tell you that anhydrous ammonia is nasty stuff.
You definitely DO NOT want to just leave it be. Living in a more rural
area here many of the farmers have large quantities on hand, also a
large commercial food processor is here as well and their
refrigeration is ammonia based. For either of them it's stored in
tanks and we've had a few leaks/spills over the years (in one case a
fork lift at the food processor hit a pipe and cut it - VERY ugly) and
it's always a big deal to clean up the mess and stop the leak ASAP.
More than once we've moved a significant portion of the village out of
the way (total pop. right about 6000 now) depending on the location of
the leak and the winds.

===[George R. Kasica]===

EMT-IV Tech #304005/PHTLS
georgek@netwrx1.com
http://www.netwrx1.com/georgek
ICQ #12862186

Derek Lyons wrote:
"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I quote myself since you seem to have missed it the first time around:

"Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the
properties of ammonia."

If we're arguing about whether anhydrous ammonia belongs in a group of
substances that should be labvelled toxic, then yes we are talking
about the properties of ammonia.

"As he leads his third spacewalk on the shuttle Discovery's mission to the
International Space Station, one word is likely to be on Capt. Robert L.
Curbeam Jr.'s mind today: ammonia."

Umm, yes it is, Mr. D.

Anhydrous ammonia is extremely toxic to people and to animals when it is
released as a concentrated gas cloud in accidents such as a train
derailment or a barge accident. Soil contaminated with ammonic fertilizer
is another matter altogether. That said, I wouldn't recommend that either
be let loose in an uncontrolled way within the confines of the ISS.

"George R. Kasica" <georgek@netwrx1.com> wrote in message
news:8jnio2p7nh07vbuj7dl4aki73n47i8d0o0@4ax.com...
Anyone familiar with the properties of anhydrous ammonia will tell you
that
there is no question about its toxicity.

http://msds.ehs.cornell.edu/msds/msdsdod/a67/m33029.htm

Yes, because like most people, they misuse toxic as the media has for
years.

(Here a clue for you: The disposal methods for toxic materials are
not 'use contaminated materials for fertilizer'.)
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Well, I for one am certainly glad that you aren't a first responder. I
can
see your reaction to an anyhdrous ammonia spill along a railline in a
major
city: "It's not toxic because 'they' missuse the word. Just leave it
be."
Meanwhile, as thousands succumb to the fumes...

George

George, as one who happens to be a First Responder and HAZMAT Level-A
trained as well, I can tell you that anhydrous ammonia is nasty stuff.
You definitely DO NOT want to just leave it be. Living in a more rural
area here many of the farmers have large quantities on hand, also a
large commercial food processor is here as well and their
refrigeration is ammonia based. For either of them it's stored in
tanks and we've had a few leaks/spills over the years (in one case a
fork lift at the food processor hit a pipe and cut it - VERY ugly) and
it's always a big deal to clean up the mess and stop the leak ASAP.
More than once we've moved a significant portion of the village out of
the way (total pop. right about 6000 now) depending on the location of
the leak and the winds.

===[George R. Kasica]===

EMT-IV Tech #304005/PHTLS
georgek@netwrx1.com
http://www.netwrx1.com/georgek
ICQ #12862186

So am I. You need to address this to Derek, not me.

LOL...I suspected as much. I wasn't directing at you but more agreeing

"George" <george@yourservice.com> wrote:

"As he leads his third spacewalk on the shuttle Discovery's mission to
the
International Space Station, one word is likely to be on Capt. Robert L.
Curbeam Jr.'s mind today: ammonia."

Umm, yes it is, Mr. D.

Here's a clue for you since seem to be so badly in need of them;

"subthread" != "thread".

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:


Derek Lyons wrote:
"snidely" <Snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I quote myself since you seem to have missed it the first time around:

"Go back to the top of this subthread; this isn't about the
properties of ammonia."

If we're arguing about whether anhydrous ammonia belongs in a group of
substances that should be labvelled toxic, then yes we are talking
about the properties of ammonia.

No. We, or at least I, am discussing the replacement (in popular
usage) of a broad selection of words with the single word 'toxic'.
Like I said (repeating myself for a third time), go back to the top of
this subthread.

D.


--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL