Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #423869 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ronald Bruck <rbruck@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-29 17:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-03 16:39 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 153 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
Can anyone remember...? Ronald Bruck <rbruck@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 17:53 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-09-30 01:31 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Adamastor Glace Mortimer <nospam@no.invalid> - 2015-10-02 18:09 +0200
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-02 16:24 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2015-10-02 14:43 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-02 22:17 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-02 18:56 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-02 20:36 -0500
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:06 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 02:24 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 23:08 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 05:29 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:35 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 23:19 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-02 23:38 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Kay Shapero <kay@invalid.net> - 2015-10-03 00:23 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-03 10:09 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? lal_truckee <lal_truckee@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 08:59 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:39 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 21:49 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 22:53 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 13:16 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 09:59 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-04 13:30 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 21:41 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-04 15:10 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Raymond Daley" <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-07 14:50 +0100
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-07 13:58 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-07 07:21 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-08 04:36 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 07:40 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-07 18:20 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-08 00:22 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-10-08 02:55 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> - 2015-10-09 02:03 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-09 19:38 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-10 08:17 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-07 23:15 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-08 04:41 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-08 00:29 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-08 08:24 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 07:31 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-08 00:19 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-19 18:26 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:49 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:24 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:53 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 21:37 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:45 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 15:47 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-19 17:57 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 06:53 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 09:25 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-04 13:32 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:52 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? leif.roar@dimnakorr.com - 2015-10-04 21:58 -0500
Re: Can anyone remember...? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan) - 2015-10-05 03:15 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 00:10 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 05:31 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-06 19:48 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-06 21:54 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 09:27 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-07 11:50 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 13:49 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 13:52 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 19:10 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-05 08:14 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:41 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-10-19 18:37 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-03 15:34 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 02:38 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-04 03:38 -0500
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 06:26 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 13:19 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2015-10-04 15:26 +0100
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 16:20 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 10:46 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-05 04:30 -0500
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-04 08:26 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 12:54 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 13:49 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-04 13:37 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 21:43 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 18:12 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 22:06 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-04 15:08 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Steve Coltrin <spcoltri@omcl.org> - 2015-10-05 17:18 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-07 07:53 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-10-06 20:11 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-07 04:26 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-10-04 15:38 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> - 2015-10-13 16:15 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:38 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-03 09:09 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 13:54 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-10-03 11:24 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:35 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:27 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:28 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 14:47 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:45 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 07:22 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 13:20 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 13:51 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 21:54 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? news{@bestley.co.uk (Mark Bestley) - 2015-10-05 11:38 +0100
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-05 11:56 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-05 14:35 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-10-05 23:08 +0100
Re: Can anyone remember...? Butch Malahide <fred.galvin@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 01:03 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-03 09:39 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 16:59 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 16:49 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:42 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 21:51 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-03 15:32 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? patmpowers@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 08:38 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 16:48 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan) - 2015-10-03 22:29 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? patmpowers@gmail.com - 2015-10-03 06:31 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 14:57 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2015-10-03 16:19 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 18:50 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 19:14 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? - Slight thread drift BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> - 2015-10-04 13:54 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> - 2015-10-13 16:15 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 10:33 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-10-13 13:25 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 17:57 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? patmpowers@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 08:45 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-05 11:54 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-06 01:10 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:30 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Kay Shapero <kay@invalid.net> - 2015-10-03 00:30 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 06:53 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-10-03 14:37 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 06:34 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> - 2015-10-04 15:04 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 21:57 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-02 23:58 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 15:08 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-02 23:52 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 15:10 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? patmpowers@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 08:34 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Stumpy <perilmung@spamnet.con> - 2015-09-29 19:07 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-09-30 13:42 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) - 2015-10-01 03:25 +0000
Re: Can anyone remember...? Butch Malahide <fred.galvin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 19:22 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 23:03 -0400
Re: Can anyone remember...? David Johnston <David@block.net> - 2015-09-29 21:15 -0600
Re: Can anyone remember...? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2015-09-29 22:20 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-09-30 13:46 -0700
Re: Can anyone remember...? "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> - 2015-10-03 16:39 +0000
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-03 22:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <edfccab0-0d24-4bd5-9c09-65a0b150ec19@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424101 |
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <XnsA528951D7A943taustingmail@69.16.179.42>, > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote: > >BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote in > >news:muntak$8pu$1@speranza.aioe.org: > > > >> On 10/2/15 11:19 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:35:48 PM UTC-7, Gutless > >>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: > >>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in > >>>> news:nvMpww.L4n@kithrup.com: > >>>> > >>>>> In article <mungof$da1$1@dont-email.me>, > >>>>> William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <XnsA527A3CE39C94taustingmail@69.16.179.43>, > >>>>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Interesting note: in wargames that involve both civilian > >>>>>>>> and military leadership, in which a political crisis is > >>>>>>>> simulated that could conceivably lead to nuclear war, the > >>>>>>>> military commanders _never_ fire their nukes, even in > >>>>>>>> response to the other side doing so. And the civilian > >>>>>>>> commanders _always_ do so, even with other clear paths to > >>>>>>>> resolve the crisis being available. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Interesting. Considering the one time when nukes might > >>>>>>> have been used after 1945. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It was the Korean War; it wasn't getting anywhere; General > >>>>>>> MacArthur wanted to nuke Beijing. Truman forbade it. > >>>>>>> MacArthur told everyone what a stupid President Truman was, > >>>>>>> he didn't understand military matters. Truman recalled > >>>>>>> him. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I was in fourth grade, and the teacher told us all to > >>>>>>> remember when "General MacArthur came home. You can say, I > >>>>>>> was in fourth grade." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They made it as easy on him as possible, under the > >>>>>>> circumstances, and he made a speech to Congress: "They say > >>>>>>> old soldiers never die, they just fade away; I am an old > >>>>>>> soldier, and now I shall fade away." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But, in that one instance when nukes *might* have been > >>>>>>> used, it was the military man who wanted to use them, and > >>>>>>> the lifelong civilian who wouldn't let him. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, there was talk about the US using tacnukes on behalf of > >>>>>> the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. > >>>>> > >>>>> There may have been talk. Nobody used them. > >>>>> > >>>>> In similar fashion, poison gas was used in WWI and prepared > >>>>> against during WWII ... but nobody ever actually used it. > >>>>> They had learned that gas had an unpleasant habit of > >>>>> following a change in the wind and poisoning your own troops, > >>>>> not the enemy's. > >>>>> > >>>> And was dangerous to handle when not in actual use, and really > >>>> pissed off the enemy, and a variety of other reasons aginst > >>>> it. > >>>> > >>>> The Nazis made, literally, tons of chlorine triflouride at one > >>>> point, to use as both a weapon and a rocket fuel. But the > >>>> stuff is so dangerous, and a better oxidizer than pure > >>>> oxygen[1], that they decided that wasn't a good idea. > >>>> > >>>> [1]If you spill it in your lab, whatever you spill it on, > >>>> including the concrete floor, will catch on fire. If you grab > >>>> your handy bucket of sand (no chem lab is complete without > >>>> several) and dump that on it, the sand will catch on fire. If > >>>> you douse it with water, the water will catch on fire. If you > >>>> scoop it into a vacuum chamber and smother it in asbestos, the > >>>> asbestos will catch on fire _in the absence of any atmostphere > >>>> at all_. There is no known way to extinguish it. And the main > >>>> byproducts of it reacting with stuff is chlorine and fluorine > >>>> gas. (And it's not *nearly* as dangerous as dioxygen > >>>> diflouride, which causes ice to catch on fire at 270 degrees > >>>> below zero.) > >>> > >>> And then there's the appropriately named FOOF. This guy > >>> details those and other truly terrifying chemicals: > >>> > >>> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/ > >>> > >>> It's the sort of stuff some hard SF author ought to use, but > >>> editors would probably not believe it. > >>> > >>> > >>> Mark L. Fergerson > >>> > >> I have read the link, and a bunch of other stuff there. There > >> seems to be a recurring theme there: fluorine. Nasty stuff. I > >> got the impression that FOOF would explode if someone in the > >> next room even thought about it. At least ClF3 has an industrial > >> use. > >> > >It's used to clean circuit boards in some kinds of electronics > >manufacturing, and to clean uranium oxides from the inside of > >reactor chambers. Industrial use, but not in industrial quantities > >(thankfully). > > > Hmmmm. Saved to disk, because I may have fictional use for this. :>) I recommend reading as much of the blog as you can handle (the style is quite engaging, at least for this broadly-defined tech geek). There are other recurring themes- I will now never be comfortable around molecules with lots of nitrogen atoms in them. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvp67L.1II8@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424114 |
In article <edfccab0-0d24-4bd5-9c09-65a0b150ec19@googlegroups.com>, nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <XnsA528951D7A943taustingmail@69.16.179.42>, >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote: >> >BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote in >> >news:muntak$8pu$1@speranza.aioe.org: >> > >> >> On 10/2/15 11:19 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: >> >>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:35:48 PM UTC-7, Gutless >> >>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: >> >>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in >> >>>> news:nvMpww.L4n@kithrup.com: >> >>>> >> >>>>> In article <mungof$da1$1@dont-email.me>, >> >>>>> William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> >>>>>>> In article <XnsA527A3CE39C94taustingmail@69.16.179.43>, >> >>>>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> >> >>>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Interesting note: in wargames that involve both civilian >> >>>>>>>> and military leadership, in which a political crisis is >> >>>>>>>> simulated that could conceivably lead to nuclear war, the >> >>>>>>>> military commanders _never_ fire their nukes, even in >> >>>>>>>> response to the other side doing so. And the civilian >> >>>>>>>> commanders _always_ do so, even with other clear paths to >> >>>>>>>> resolve the crisis being available. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Interesting. Considering the one time when nukes might >> >>>>>>> have been used after 1945. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> It was the Korean War; it wasn't getting anywhere; General >> >>>>>>> MacArthur wanted to nuke Beijing. Truman forbade it. >> >>>>>>> MacArthur told everyone what a stupid President Truman was, >> >>>>>>> he didn't understand military matters. Truman recalled >> >>>>>>> him. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I was in fourth grade, and the teacher told us all to >> >>>>>>> remember when "General MacArthur came home. You can say, I >> >>>>>>> was in fourth grade." >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> They made it as easy on him as possible, under the >> >>>>>>> circumstances, and he made a speech to Congress: "They say >> >>>>>>> old soldiers never die, they just fade away; I am an old >> >>>>>>> soldier, and now I shall fade away." >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> But, in that one instance when nukes *might* have been >> >>>>>>> used, it was the military man who wanted to use them, and >> >>>>>>> the lifelong civilian who wouldn't let him. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> No, there was talk about the US using tacnukes on behalf of >> >>>>>> the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> There may have been talk. Nobody used them. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In similar fashion, poison gas was used in WWI and prepared >> >>>>> against during WWII ... but nobody ever actually used it. >> >>>>> They had learned that gas had an unpleasant habit of >> >>>>> following a change in the wind and poisoning your own troops, >> >>>>> not the enemy's. >> >>>>> >> >>>> And was dangerous to handle when not in actual use, and really >> >>>> pissed off the enemy, and a variety of other reasons aginst >> >>>> it. >> >>>> >> >>>> The Nazis made, literally, tons of chlorine triflouride at one >> >>>> point, to use as both a weapon and a rocket fuel. But the >> >>>> stuff is so dangerous, and a better oxidizer than pure >> >>>> oxygen[1], that they decided that wasn't a good idea. >> >>>> >> >>>> [1]If you spill it in your lab, whatever you spill it on, >> >>>> including the concrete floor, will catch on fire. If you grab >> >>>> your handy bucket of sand (no chem lab is complete without >> >>>> several) and dump that on it, the sand will catch on fire. If >> >>>> you douse it with water, the water will catch on fire. If you >> >>>> scoop it into a vacuum chamber and smother it in asbestos, the >> >>>> asbestos will catch on fire _in the absence of any atmostphere >> >>>> at all_. There is no known way to extinguish it. And the main >> >>>> byproducts of it reacting with stuff is chlorine and fluorine >> >>>> gas. (And it's not *nearly* as dangerous as dioxygen >> >>>> diflouride, which causes ice to catch on fire at 270 degrees >> >>>> below zero.) >> >>> >> >>> And then there's the appropriately named FOOF. This guy >> >>> details those and other truly terrifying chemicals: >> >>> >> >>> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/ >> >>> >> >>> It's the sort of stuff some hard SF author ought to use, but >> >>> editors would probably not believe it. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Mark L. Fergerson >> >>> >> >> I have read the link, and a bunch of other stuff there. There >> >> seems to be a recurring theme there: fluorine. Nasty stuff. I >> >> got the impression that FOOF would explode if someone in the >> >> next room even thought about it. At least ClF3 has an industrial >> >> use. >> >> >> >It's used to clean circuit boards in some kinds of electronics >> >manufacturing, and to clean uranium oxides from the inside of >> >reactor chambers. Industrial use, but not in industrial quantities >> >(thankfully). >> > >> Hmmmm. Saved to disk, because I may have fictional use for this. > > :>) > > I recommend reading as much of the blog as you can handle (the style >is quite engaging, at least for this broadly-defined tech geek). There >are other recurring themes- I will now never be comfortable around >molecules with lots of nitrogen atoms in them. Golly, that must be a problem, considering you are chiefly made up of such molecules. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b01b621-a655-4d55-b78c-ee39129a0b68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424129 |
On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 6:30:05 AM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <edfccab0-0d24-4bd5-9c09-65a0b150ec19@googlegroups.com>, > nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> In article <XnsA528951D7A943taustingmail@69.16.179.42>, > >> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote in > >> >news:muntak$8pu$1@speranza.aioe.org: > >> > > >> >> On 10/2/15 11:19 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote: > >> >>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:35:48 PM UTC-7, Gutless > >> >>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: > >> >>>> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in > >> >>>> news:nvMpww.L4n@kithrup.com: > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> In article <mungof$da1$1@dont-email.me>, > >> >>>>> William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> >>>>>>> In article <XnsA527A3CE39C94taustingmail@69.16.179.43>, > >> >>>>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> > >> >>>>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>>> Interesting note: in wargames that involve both civilian > >> >>>>>>>> and military leadership, in which a political crisis is > >> >>>>>>>> simulated that could conceivably lead to nuclear war, the > >> >>>>>>>> military commanders _never_ fire their nukes, even in > >> >>>>>>>> response to the other side doing so. And the civilian > >> >>>>>>>> commanders _always_ do so, even with other clear paths to > >> >>>>>>>> resolve the crisis being available. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> Interesting. Considering the one time when nukes might > >> >>>>>>> have been used after 1945. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> It was the Korean War; it wasn't getting anywhere; General > >> >>>>>>> MacArthur wanted to nuke Beijing. Truman forbade it. > >> >>>>>>> MacArthur told everyone what a stupid President Truman was, > >> >>>>>>> he didn't understand military matters. Truman recalled > >> >>>>>>> him. > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> I was in fourth grade, and the teacher told us all to > >> >>>>>>> remember when "General MacArthur came home. You can say, I > >> >>>>>>> was in fourth grade." > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> They made it as easy on him as possible, under the > >> >>>>>>> circumstances, and he made a speech to Congress: "They say > >> >>>>>>> old soldiers never die, they just fade away; I am an old > >> >>>>>>> soldier, and now I shall fade away." > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> But, in that one instance when nukes *might* have been > >> >>>>>>> used, it was the military man who wanted to use them, and > >> >>>>>>> the lifelong civilian who wouldn't let him. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> No, there was talk about the US using tacnukes on behalf of > >> >>>>>> the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> There may have been talk. Nobody used them. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> In similar fashion, poison gas was used in WWI and prepared > >> >>>>> against during WWII ... but nobody ever actually used it. > >> >>>>> They had learned that gas had an unpleasant habit of > >> >>>>> following a change in the wind and poisoning your own troops, > >> >>>>> not the enemy's. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> And was dangerous to handle when not in actual use, and really > >> >>>> pissed off the enemy, and a variety of other reasons aginst > >> >>>> it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The Nazis made, literally, tons of chlorine triflouride at one > >> >>>> point, to use as both a weapon and a rocket fuel. But the > >> >>>> stuff is so dangerous, and a better oxidizer than pure > >> >>>> oxygen[1], that they decided that wasn't a good idea. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> [1]If you spill it in your lab, whatever you spill it on, > >> >>>> including the concrete floor, will catch on fire. If you grab > >> >>>> your handy bucket of sand (no chem lab is complete without > >> >>>> several) and dump that on it, the sand will catch on fire. If > >> >>>> you douse it with water, the water will catch on fire. If you > >> >>>> scoop it into a vacuum chamber and smother it in asbestos, the > >> >>>> asbestos will catch on fire _in the absence of any atmostphere > >> >>>> at all_. There is no known way to extinguish it. And the main > >> >>>> byproducts of it reacting with stuff is chlorine and fluorine > >> >>>> gas. (And it's not *nearly* as dangerous as dioxygen > >> >>>> diflouride, which causes ice to catch on fire at 270 degrees > >> >>>> below zero.) > >> >>> > >> >>> And then there's the appropriately named FOOF. This guy > >> >>> details those and other truly terrifying chemicals: > >> >>> > >> >>> http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/things_i_wont_work_with/ > >> >>> > >> >>> It's the sort of stuff some hard SF author ought to use, but > >> >>> editors would probably not believe it. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Mark L. Fergerson > >> >>> > >> >> I have read the link, and a bunch of other stuff there. There > >> >> seems to be a recurring theme there: fluorine. Nasty stuff. I > >> >> got the impression that FOOF would explode if someone in the > >> >> next room even thought about it. At least ClF3 has an industrial > >> >> use. > >> >> > >> >It's used to clean circuit boards in some kinds of electronics > >> >manufacturing, and to clean uranium oxides from the inside of > >> >reactor chambers. Industrial use, but not in industrial quantities > >> >(thankfully). > >> > > >> Hmmmm. Saved to disk, because I may have fictional use for this. > > > > :>) > > > > I recommend reading as much of the blog as you can handle (the style > >is quite engaging, at least for this broadly-defined tech geek). There > >are other recurring themes- I will now never be comfortable around > >molecules with lots of nitrogen atoms in them. > > Golly, that must be a problem, considering you are chiefly made > up of such molecules. I was perhaps unclear. Two or more nitrogen atoms can be induced to bond together but they're sort of fickle about staying together. Proteins have lots of nitrogens but they also have lots of carbon to hold the nitrogens together and hydrogen to take up dangling bonds. I meant compounds that are mostly nitrogen, and lots of it at that: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less "...the question is not whether such things are going to be explosive hazards... The question is whether you're going to be able to get a long enough look at the material before it realizes its dream of turning into an expanding cloud of hot nitrogen gas." C2N14 is described thusly, in part: "The compound exploded in solution, it exploded on any attempts to touch or move the solid, and (most interestingly) it exploded when they were trying to get an infrared spectrum of it." Exploding *in solution*... that's a damned good trick. Mark L. Fergerson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mus2fg$ctv$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424146 |
On 10/4/15 9:59 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 6:30:05 AM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <edfccab0-0d24-4bd5-9c09-65a0b150ec19@googlegroups.com>,
>> nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
[stuff deleted]
>>> I recommend reading as much of the blog as you can handle (the style
>>> is quite engaging, at least for this broadly-defined tech geek). There
>>> are other recurring themes- I will now never be comfortable around
>>> molecules with lots of nitrogen atoms in them.
>>
>> Golly, that must be a problem, considering you are chiefly made
>> up of such molecules.
>
> I was perhaps unclear. Two or more nitrogen atoms can be induced to bond together
> but they're sort of fickle about staying together. Proteins have lots of nitrogens
> but they also have lots of carbon to hold the nitrogens together and hydrogen to
> take up dangling bonds.
>
> I meant compounds that are mostly nitrogen, and lots of it at that:
>
> http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_
> work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less
>
> "...the question is not whether such things are going to be explosive hazards...
> The question is whether you're going to be able to get a long enough look at the
> material before it realizes its dream of turning into an expanding cloud of hot nitrogen gas."
>
> C2N14 is described thusly, in part:
>
> "The compound exploded in solution, it exploded on any attempts to touch or
> move the solid, and (most interestingly) it exploded when they were trying to get an
> infrared spectrum of it."
>
> Exploding *in solution*... that's a damned good trick.
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
>
What he said. I ended up spending more time than I should have
rereading the older parts of the blog and reading the new parts.
Even though a lot of it is over my head ("I'm a software engineer,
damn it, not a chemist!") he is quite entertaining. My wife was
inquiring when I was coming to bed, I said shortly, and a great
while later, I finally did. She woke up and said, "Was that what
you think shortly means?", and went back to sleep. She gets me after
all these years. And stuff like cyanides and thiols and asbestos are
why I HATE hazmat calls in my other job. There is too much stuff that
will FUBAR you right now. And we have unmarked trucks going to the
Lockheed facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates
anyone?) with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. I don't know if
the driver carries a manifest. They may also use hydrazine up there
too, but I am just guessing. It also has a bad sense of humor.
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvptKE.Jo2@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424166 |
In article <mus2fg$ctv$4@speranza.aioe.org>, BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
>On 10/4/15 9:59 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 6:30:05 AM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>What he said. I ended up spending more time than I should have
>rereading the older parts of the blog and reading the new parts.
>Even though a lot of it is over my head ("I'm a software engineer,
>damn it, not a chemist!") he is quite entertaining. My wife was
>inquiring when I was coming to bed, I said shortly, and a great
>while later, I finally did. She woke up and said, "Was that what
>you think shortly means?", and went back to sleep. She gets me after
>all these years. And stuff like cyanides and thiols and asbestos are
>why I HATE hazmat calls in my other job. There is too much stuff that
>will FUBAR you right now. And we have unmarked trucks going to the
>Lockheed facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates
>anyone?) with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. I don't know if
>the driver carries a manifest. They may also use hydrazine up there
>too, but I am just guessing. It also has a bad sense of humor.
>
Well, I read most of the article on perperoxides to my husband,
who recalled chemistry classes in which he and his buds had made
nitrogen triiodide, and carefully let it try on some filter paper
and then carried it down the hall ... "Going bang bang bang?" I
asked, having heard the story before, and "No, going pop pop
pop," he said.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5611a3b9$0$1649$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #424166 |
On 10/4/2015 1:30 PM, BCFD36 wrote:
> On 10/4/15 9:59 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 6:30:05 AM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <edfccab0-0d24-4bd5-9c09-65a0b150ec19@googlegroups.com>,
>>> nuny@bid.nes <Alien8752@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>>>> I recommend reading as much of the blog as you can handle (the style
>>>> is quite engaging, at least for this broadly-defined tech geek). There
>>>> are other recurring themes- I will now never be comfortable around
>>>> molecules with lots of nitrogen atoms in them.
>>>
>>> Golly, that must be a problem, considering you are chiefly made
>>> up of such molecules.
>>
>> I was perhaps unclear. Two or more nitrogen atoms can be induced to
>> bond together
>> but they're sort of fickle about staying together. Proteins have lots
>> of nitrogens
>> but they also have lots of carbon to hold the nitrogens together and
>> hydrogen to
>> take up dangling bonds.
>>
>> I meant compounds that are mostly nitrogen, and lots of it at that:
>>
>> http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_
>> work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less
>>
>> "...the question is not whether such things are going to be
>> explosive hazards...
>
>> The question is whether you're going to be able to get a long enough
>> look at the
>> material before it realizes its dream of turning into an expanding
>> cloud of hot nitrogen gas."
>>
>> C2N14 is described thusly, in part:
>>
>> "The compound exploded in solution, it exploded on any attempts to
>> touch or
>> move the solid, and (most interestingly) it exploded when they were
>> trying to get an
>> infrared spectrum of it."
>>
>> Exploding *in solution*... that's a damned good trick.
>>
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>
>
> What he said. I ended up spending more time than I should have
> rereading the older parts of the blog and reading the new parts.
> Even though a lot of it is over my head ("I'm a software engineer,
> damn it, not a chemist!") he is quite entertaining. My wife was
> inquiring when I was coming to bed, I said shortly, and a great
> while later, I finally did. She woke up and said, "Was that what
> you think shortly means?", and went back to sleep. She gets me after
> all these years. And stuff like cyanides and thiols and asbestos are
> why I HATE hazmat calls in my other job. There is too much stuff that
> will FUBAR you right now. And we have unmarked trucks going to the
> Lockheed facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates
> anyone?) with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. I don't know if
> the driver carries a manifest. They may also use hydrazine up there
> too, but I am just guessing. It also has a bad sense of humor.
>
What good is the driver and/or manifest when they are both most likely
part of the expanding cloud?
--
Even Confucius complained about the younger generation's music.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Raymond Daley" <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4> |
| In reply to | #424180 |
Somebody wrote>> >> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed >> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?) >> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one immediately commented about this either, don't mobile potential health hazards concern your average American? My guess would be your EPA would be the Department who regulate this. Your DMV might have a slight involvement too. I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where you aren't allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at all without displaying clear signage around the vehicle as to what's aboard. It makes no odds if this is moving stuff for the Military or Government. There are still rules, they still apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in the UK. >> I don't know if the driver carries a manifest. See, under the same UK law, it doesn't matter if he does or not. The vehicle needs to be the warning. There's not much help the driver knowing what they're carrying if they end up in any condition where they are unable to speak. A fire crew needs to know WTF they are dealing with on arrival. So the vehicle signage removes the needs for any fannying about with manifests.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 13:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvus68.JD0@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424262 |
In article <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4>, Raymond Daley <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> wrote: >Somebody wrote>> >>> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed >>> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?) >>> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. > >Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one immediately >commented about this either, don't mobile potential health hazards concern >your average American? My guess would be your EPA would be the Department >who regulate this. Your DMV might have a slight involvement too. > >I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where you aren't >allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at all without displaying >clear signage around the vehicle as to what's aboard. It makes no odds if >this is moving stuff for the Military or Government. There are still rules, >they still apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in >the UK. > >>> I don't know if the driver carries a manifest. >See, under the same UK law, it doesn't matter if he does or not. The vehicle >needs to be the warning. There's not much help the driver knowing what >they're carrying if they end up in any condition where they are unable to >speak. A fire crew needs to know WTF they are dealing with on arrival. So >the vehicle signage removes the needs for any fannying about with manifests. Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | petertrei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 07:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <595e9cfa-8f9f-426b-8378-b9a68b5d7aba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424263 |
On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:00:14 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4>, > Raymond Daley <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >Somebody wrote>> > >>> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed > >>> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?) > >>> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. > > > >Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one immediately > >commented about this either, don't mobile potential health hazards concern > >your average American? My guess would be your EPA would be the Department > >who regulate this. Your DMV might have a slight involvement too. > > > >I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where you aren't > >allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at all without displaying > >clear signage around the vehicle as to what's aboard. It makes no odds if > >this is moving stuff for the Military or Government. There are still rules, > >they still apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in > >the UK. > > > >>> I don't know if the driver carries a manifest. > >See, under the same UK law, it doesn't matter if he does or not. The vehicle > >needs to be the warning. There's not much help the driver knowing what > >they're carrying if they end up in any condition where they are unable to > >speak. A fire crew needs to know WTF they are dealing with on arrival. So > >the vehicle signage removes the needs for any fannying about with manifests. > > Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge > attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display > that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average > driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. They're hardly secret. http://www.mcor-nmra.org/Publications/Articles/Reading%20Hazardous%20Materials%20Placards.pdf https://bhs.econ.census.gov/bhs/cfs/Hazmat%20Code%20List.pdf It's easier to fit '3460' on a readable card, than "N-Ethylbenzyltoluidines, solid". The color and other indications on the placard give immediate information of the general nature of the hazard, and how it should be dealt with. pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 04:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvvwtG.Hww@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424265 |
In article <595e9cfa-8f9f-426b-8378-b9a68b5d7aba@googlegroups.com>, <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:00:14 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4>, >> Raymond Daley <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >Somebody wrote>> >> >>> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed >> >>> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?) >> >>> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. >> > >> >Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one immediately >> >commented about this either, don't mobile potential health hazards concern >> >your average American? My guess would be your EPA would be the Department >> >who regulate this. Your DMV might have a slight involvement too. >> > >> >I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where you aren't >> >allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at all without displaying >> >clear signage around the vehicle as to what's aboard. It makes no odds if >> >this is moving stuff for the Military or Government. There are still rules, >> >they still apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in >> >the UK. >> > >> >>> I don't know if the driver carries a manifest. >> >See, under the same UK law, it doesn't matter if he does or not. The vehicle >> >needs to be the warning. There's not much help the driver knowing what >> >they're carrying if they end up in any condition where they are unable to >> >speak. A fire crew needs to know WTF they are dealing with on arrival. So >> >the vehicle signage removes the needs for any fannying about with manifests. >> >> Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge >> attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display >> that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average >> driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. > >They're hardly secret. Oh, no, I didn't suggest that they were secret. But your average driver doesn't know because he hasn't looked them up, because he doesn't care. > >http://www.mcor-nmra.org/Publications/Articles/Reading%20Hazardous%20Materials%20Placards.pdf > >https://bhs.econ.census.gov/bhs/cfs/Hazmat%20Code%20List.pdf > >It's easier to fit '3460' on a readable card, than >"N-Ethylbenzyltoluidines, solid". Quite so. And people whose business it is to deal with noxious substances do know the codes. I don't, for example. > >The color and other indications on the placard give >immediate information of the general nature of the >hazard, and how it should be dealt with. To those who know the codes. The rest of us just resolve to stay away from any overturned tanker truck. Sometimes they do say what they contain, as "Liquid Natural Gas" or "Liquid Nitrogen." -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | petertrei@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1955d33e-af47-4593-8e52-b5677a975cef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424288 |
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:45:06 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <595e9cfa-8f9f-426b-8378-b9a68b5d7aba@googlegroups.com>, > <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 10:00:14 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > >> In article <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4>, > >> Raymond Daley <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> >Somebody wrote>> > >> >>> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed > >> >>> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?) > >> >>> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. > >> > > >> >Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one immediately > >> >commented about this either, don't mobile potential health hazards concern > >> >your average American? My guess would be your EPA would be the Department > >> >who regulate this. Your DMV might have a slight involvement too. > >> > > >> >I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where you aren't > >> >allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at all without displaying > >> >clear signage around the vehicle as to what's aboard. It makes no odds if > >> >this is moving stuff for the Military or Government. There are still rules, > >> >they still apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in > >> >the UK. > >> > > >> >>> I don't know if the driver carries a manifest. > >> >See, under the same UK law, it doesn't matter if he does or not. The vehicle > >> >needs to be the warning. There's not much help the driver knowing what > >> >they're carrying if they end up in any condition where they are unable to > >> >speak. A fire crew needs to know WTF they are dealing with on arrival. So > >> >the vehicle signage removes the needs for any fannying about with manifests. > >> > >> Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge > >> attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display > >> that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average > >> driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. > > > >They're hardly secret. > > Oh, no, I didn't suggest that they were secret. But your average > driver doesn't know because he hasn't looked them up, because he > doesn't care. > > > >http://www.mcor-nmra.org/Publications/Articles/Reading%20Hazardous%20Materials%20Placards.pdf > > > >https://bhs.econ.census.gov/bhs/cfs/Hazmat%20Code%20List.pdf > > > >It's easier to fit '3460' on a readable card, than > >"N-Ethylbenzyltoluidines, solid". > > Quite so. And people whose business it is to deal with noxious > substances do know the codes. I don't, for example. '3460' can be written on a placard in much larger letters than "N-Ethylbenzyltoluidines, solid", and thus is readable without error from a much greater distance. > >The color and other indications on the placard give > >immediate information of the general nature of the > >hazard, and how it should be dealt with. > > To those who know the codes. The rest of us just resolve to stay > away from any overturned tanker truck. The point is that the list of 'list of ways to deal with a chemical spill' is much shorter than the 'list of chemicals which might be spilt'. The number is an interesting reference for knowing precisely what you're dealing with, but the colors and icons tell you What You Need To Know Right Now: Is it explosive/inflammable/radioactive? Is it going to emit poison gas? Do I deal with this using water, foam, or sand? Do I just tell people to Run Very Fast? > Sometimes they do say what they contain, as "Liquid Natural Gas" > or "Liquid Nitrogen." More information is usually useful. In that case, you'd know not to touch the material, and to worry about suffocation, and in case of the first, not to place road flares around the accident :-) pt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5615c4c4$0$1696$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #424263 |
On 10/7/2015 6:58 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4>, > Raymond Daley <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> Somebody wrote>> >>>> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed >>>> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?) >>>> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. >> >> Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one immediately >> commented about this either, don't mobile potential health hazards concern >> your average American? My guess would be your EPA would be the Department >> who regulate this. Your DMV might have a slight involvement too. >> >> I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where you aren't >> allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at all without displaying >> clear signage around the vehicle as to what's aboard. It makes no odds if >> this is moving stuff for the Military or Government. There are still rules, >> they still apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in >> the UK. >> >>>> I don't know if the driver carries a manifest. >> See, under the same UK law, it doesn't matter if he does or not. The vehicle >> needs to be the warning. There's not much help the driver knowing what >> they're carrying if they end up in any condition where they are unable to >> speak. A fire crew needs to know WTF they are dealing with on arrival. So >> the vehicle signage removes the needs for any fannying about with manifests. > > Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge > attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display > that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average > driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. > Being able to read those codes is supposed to be one of the prerequisites to getting the amendment to the trucker's license to _carry_ hazardous materials as I recall. It may be a requirement to getting a truck license at all. -- Even Confucius complained about the younger generation's music.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 00:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mv55ks$djf$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424263 |
On 10/7/15 6:58 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: [stuff deleted] > > Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge > attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display > that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average > driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. > I must correct you on this. Guys with hazmat endorsements on their drivers licenses know all about the DOT regulations, how to read the placards, etc. Some of my fellow volunteers ARE truck drivers with hazmat endorsements and are great sources of supplemental information when we do our hazmat refreshers. -- Dave Scruggs Captain, Boulder Creek Fire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 02:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6d78f1e-4465-4f88-86ad-0387e7a16aaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424295 |
On Thursday, 8 October 2015 08:23:11 UTC+1, BCFD36 wrote: > On 10/7/15 6:58 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > [stuff deleted] > > > > Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge > > attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display > > that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average > > driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. > > > > I must correct you on this. Guys with hazmat endorsements on their > drivers licenses know all about the DOT regulations, how to read the > placards, etc. Some of my fellow volunteers ARE truck drivers with > hazmat endorsements and are great sources of supplemental information > when we do our hazmat refreshers. I was about to declare that it's a condition of any driver's licence to be able to read a number - from 65 feet away hereabouts. And that this doesn't apply in the army. See also "The Fear of Wages".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 02:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d7olkdFk89oU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #424301 |
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 02:55:17 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote: > On Thursday, 8 October 2015 08:23:11 UTC+1, BCFD36 wrote: >> On 10/7/15 6:58 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> [stuff deleted] >> > >> > Trucks carrying hazardous materials have a little coded lozenge >> > attached to them, there are several cards attached to the display >> > that can be flipped to show the appropriate code. Your average >> > driver, however, doesn't know how to read the codes. >> > >> > >> I must correct you on this. Guys with hazmat endorsements on their >> drivers licenses know all about the DOT regulations, how to read the >> placards, etc. Some of my fellow volunteers ARE truck drivers with >> hazmat endorsements and are great sources of supplemental information >> when we do our hazmat refreshers. > > I was about to declare that it's a condition of any driver's licence to > be able to read a number - from 65 feet away hereabouts. > > And that this doesn't apply in the army. > > See also "The Fear of Wages". Being able to read a number doesn't necessarily mean that you know what the number signifies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-09 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <teug1bl58a0vi74sffo8pj5aplrvjqgrrk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #424357 |
On 9 Oct 2015 02:03:57 GMT, "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>Being able to read a number doesn't necessarily mean that you know what
>the number signifies.
Being able to read a word (or string of them) does not
necessarily mean that you know what the word signifies. Consider a
highly-phonetic language.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-10 08:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mvavkr$smf$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #424468 |
In article <teug1bl58a0vi74sffo8pj5aplrvjqgrrk@4ax.com>, Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> said: > "John F. Eldredge" <john@jfeldredge.com> wrote: > >> Being able to read a number doesn't necessarily mean that >> you know what the number signifies. > > Being able to read a word (or string of them) does not > necessarily mean that you know what the word signifies. > Consider a highly-phonetic language. Also consider some pretty bad authors. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-07 23:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mv4n4k$dcj$1@panix3.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #424262 |
In article <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4>,
"Raymond Daley" <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> said:
> Somebody wrote
>>
>>> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed
>>> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?)
>>> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it.
>
> Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one
> immediately commented about this either, don't mobile potential
> health hazards concern your average American? My guess would be
> your EPA would be the Department who regulate this. Your DMV might
> have a slight involvement too.
>
> I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where
> you aren't allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at
> all without displaying clear signage around the vehicle as to
> what's aboard. It makes no odds if this is moving stuff for the
> Military or Government. There are still rules, they still
> apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in
> the UK.
You don't understand one important fact about the United States:
When certain people or agencies say the magic words "National
Security," a lot of laws cease to matter[1].
I'm not saying that that's the case here, but with Lockheed being a
major defense contractor it's certainly a possibility. (Assuming
that the report is accurate in the first place.)
-----------
*1: I expect that this is also true in the United Kingdom but it
manifests itself in different ways there, probably because you
lot drive on the wrong side of the road.
-- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 04:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvvx1p.IEB@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #424284 |
In article <mv4n4k$dcj$1@panix3.panix.com>, William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >In article <1r9Rx.57270$3s.19456@fx26.am4>, >"Raymond Daley" <raymond.daley@ntlworld.com> said: > >> Somebody wrote >>> >>>> [stuff deleted] And we have unmarked trucks going to the Lockheed >>>> facility up on the hill carrying God Knows What (perclorates anyone?) >>>> with a placard saying only "Dangerous" on it. >> >> Yeah, that sounds SERIOUSLY illegal. I'm also stunned no-one >> immediately commented about this either, don't mobile potential >> health hazards concern your average American? My guess would be >> your EPA would be the Department who regulate this. Your DMV might >> have a slight involvement too. >> >> I'm shocked that the US doesn't have similar laws to the UK where >> you aren't allowed to drive any hazardous chemicals anywhere at >> all without displaying clear signage around the vehicle as to >> what's aboard. It makes no odds if this is moving stuff for the >> Military or Government. There are still rules, they still >> apply. The Military are pretty keen on the same labelling rule in >> the UK. > >You don't understand one important fact about the United States: >When certain people or agencies say the magic words "National >Security," a lot of laws cease to matter[1]. > >I'm not saying that that's the case here, but with Lockheed being a >major defense contractor it's certainly a possibility. (Assuming >that the report is accurate in the first place.) > >----------- > *1: I expect that this is also true in the United Kingdom but it > manifests itself in different ways there, probably because you > lot drive on the wrong side of the road. I'm now remembering a story Duncan Lunan told me once, about a friend of his. I'm forgetting some details now, like what branch of the UK government his friend worked for, but he worked with explosives and was once lent to a civilian group that was about to demolish a bank, and needed the vault to be blown up. He got in his truck and proceeded toward the site, but midway he was flagged down. Cop: Let's see your license. Duncan's friend: Haven't got one. Cop: Who owns this truck? DF: Her Majesty the Queen. Cop: Where are you going with it? DF: I'm going to blow up a bank. Somehow he persuaded them that he was legit and went on his way and proceeded to demolish the vault. As I said, some of the details escape me. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress. Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BCFD36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-08 00:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mv5613$g4q$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424284 |
On 10/7/15 8:15 PM, William December Starr wrote: [stuff deleted] > > I'm not saying that that's the case here, but with Lockheed being a > major defense contractor it's certainly a possibility. (Assuming > that the report is accurate in the first place.) > -- wds > Are you doubting my veracity? And at one time I worked as a software engineer for Lockheed (until the MFs laid me off) but not up at the Rocket Ranch. This particular facility is/was used for various explosive testings and such. It used to be much more active than it is now. -- -- Dave Scruggs Captain, Boulder Creek Fire
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web