neal_shields Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Today your laundry room tomorrow your dark room. Democrats in the Senate have reintroduced an �environmental� bill designed to ban Chlorine in the United States. As an �environmental� bill it was defeated, so now they are calling it a �Homeland security� bill. (A rose by any other name, what?) http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/opinions/columnists2/w30perkins.html They also want to ban anhydrous ammonia (fertilizer). If the bill passes, the cost of fresh water and food will increase dramatically. Given that the serious effect on every man woman and child in the United States doesn�t seem to deter them, I can�t see that a few film-based hobbyists would even faze them. I have a book called Health Hazards for Photographers. It is 214 pages long and much of it is spent listing the different dangerous chemical that we use. We know for sure that they will turn your fingernails black. They are bound to be more dangerous than household bleach! Sodium thiocyanate, ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid, formaldehyde, ammonium thiosulfate,citrazinic acid, and the list goes on, and on. I can already hear them: �you can use a �zero pollution� digital camera, why do you insist on using environmentally harmful dangerous chemicals. Let�s do it for the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_brown1 Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 First, household bleach is sodium hypochlorite, not chlorine. Second, I wouldn't be relying on an opinion piece for factual information. And third, I�m glad someone is protecting us from <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/05/national/05TRAI.html">a chemical industry that has no regard for human life.</a> Nonetheless, I must agree that using the threat of terrorism to justify a bill regulating chemicals makes no more sense than using the threat of terrorism to justify invading a sovereign nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 The chemical Sodium hypochlorite NaO<b>Cl</b> ; contains the element <b>Chlorine. Cl 2</b><BR><BR>The Chlorine Institute publishes the <i>Sodium Hypochlorite Manual</i> ; is available for about 35 dollars; and is cheaper if you are a tooler; and belong to an industry.; It is pamphlet 96; Edition 2<BR><BR>To the layman; Sodium Hypochlorite is known as bleach; or hypo.<BR><BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_evens Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 The purpose of the bill is to avoid having terrorists create a disaster by creating an enormous Chlorine leak. This is not an environmental issue; it is a national security issue. The bill was introduced by Senator Corzine who has some reason to be concerned since his state New Jersey is full of chemical plants. One source of potential targets is water treatment plants. However, by the simple expedient of replacing Chlorine by Sodium Hypochlorite (bleach), this problem can be solved. Any terrorists who attacked such a facility would end up with bleached clothes and not much more. I believe that has already been done in Washington, DC. Measures like this seem prudent. If as airline travellers we can put up with the inconvenience of searches and the other things they now do, it seems to me that the chemical industry can take some prudent measures to ensure our safety. But they don't want to spend the money and so they have their flacks in the media try to panic us. The Bush administration of course is in favor of such measures but wants them to be voluntary---which as far as I'm concerned means useless. This bill doesn't say anything about photochemicals used by amatuers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Leonard; Re <i>However, by the simple expedient of replacing Chlorine by Sodium Hypochlorite (bleach), this problem can be solved</i><BR><BR>Interesting math/chemistry problem! The Volume of the Chlorine gas tanks is probably an order of magnitude less than the liquid Sodium Hypochlorite ?????; Wild dart board guess!!! good problem here for the chemistry buffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_sherck Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 Ya know, I'm not sure I feel safe enough with just bleach banned. I mean, terrorists can use all kinds of dangerous chemicals. Sulfuric acid, anyone? How about real strong lye? Sulpher, that's a good one. Very dangerous, and stinky too. What about black powder? It explodes, you know, and it's all over the place. Sure, it would take a lot of time to disassemble enough pistol, rifle, or shotgun shells to make a really big bomb, but what else do terrorists have but time? It's not like they're worried about a 9-to-5 job or career or anything. Wait a minute...tens of thousands of people are killed every year in and by automobiles! We kill more of each other every month than all of the Americans killed by terrorists put together. Maybe cars and trucks ought to be banned. Hey -- I saw a movie once where a guy was killed by being hit in the head with a hammer. Lots of tools are dangerous. I for one would feel a lot safer if tools were banned. But, of course, the first tool was a rock... maybe we all ought to be carefully wrapped in cotton padding and stowed away in some deep cave somewhere. I'm sure we'd be safe then. :) Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Black powder is explosive. The powder in modern rifle and pistol cartridges and shotgun shells is not black powder. It will only "explode" if confined. Outside of a gun, which restrains the case and only allows the projectile to move up the barrel, it will possibly rupture the case or push the bullet out a bit and burn furiously, but that is not an explosion! Actually it's not even a powder. It looks like either tiny round balls or little rods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Do you think this will shut down the American Magnesium Corp plant on the SouthWest shore of Great Salt Lake? It puts out thousands of TONS of pure chlorine gas over Great Salt Lake every year. Never out of the top 3 polluters in the USA year in and year out. As you drive along the Wasatch mountains you can see this cloud of greenish/yellow-brown stuff floating around Antelope Island and down into the Salt Lake Valley. If you get anywhere near the plant your eyes start watering, lungs burning & you start choking badly. If they will start with that plant maybe I will look at what they are trying to do. Bet they will exempt it from whatever it is they try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 I shoot a .45 in black powder; the ball is 0.44 inch. Velocity with a pistol is subsonic. The powder can last decades; if kept dry; but should be checked to make sure it has not gone bad; which then is very dangerous. Black powder is like large format; slow calculated; hands on; earthy; dam cool. I have made my own lead .44 balls; and once my own powder. Commercial powder is better. Accuracy depends on the care of "the art of the patch & grease"; and consistant loading style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leonard_evens Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Kelly, If you really want to know the details, get in touch with the appropriate authorities in Washington DC where they are doing it. I don't think volume is the problem, just inertia of managers of water treatment plants and of course cost. I don't know where all this discussion of banning bleach came from. Senator Corzine's bill does not discuss bleach. Chlorine in tanks is another matter. It is a hazard. We regularly have spills which cause damage and require evacuation of affected areas. In the past, that has been considered a cost that society must bear. But 9/11 has changed many things. Some of us worry about the restrictions on civil liberty which have resulted; others worry about the wisdom of interfering with the chemical industry. I guess it all depends on your perpsective. Anyway, this has nothing to do with photography in any format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_coppin Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Perhaps a simpler solution than mass paranoia, 21st century McCarthyism and 1984, would be to take a fresh look at foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neal_shields Posted May 6, 2003 Author Share Posted May 6, 2003 My point exactly! It seems however, that if something is politically correct people will find some way to make it a "large format issue". So far we have been spared ( I think) P.E.T.A. diatribes because someone took a picture of an animal at the zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_davis2 Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Chlorine can be used in weapons of mass destruction. You're not in favour of those are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tim_atherton2 Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 "Chlorine can be used in weapons of mass destruction. You're not in favour of those are you?" Well the U.S. is isn't it? It posseses plenty of them and continues to make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_keyes Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 <<First, household bleach is sodium hypochlorite, not chlorine.>> I'm a chemist, and I would like to point out that sodium hypochlorite is manufactured by dissolving chorine gas into a cold solution of sodium hydroxide. So banning the use and production of chlorine gas may certainly effect the production and availability of sodium hypochlorite. As far as using sodium hypochlorite to treat drinking water, there are many reasons why that is not a good compound for that purpose (at least not good on a large scale). Most commercially available bleach solutions contain only 5% by wt. chlorine, and as was hinted at above, a much larger amount of bleach would need to be used to get the same effectiveness as chlorine gas. Also, as I pointed out above, the chlorine in bleach is dissolved into a sodium hydroxide solution during manufaturing. This sodium hydroxide remains in the water after the chlorine reacts, and this will leave the pH of the treated water at a pH that may need to be adjusted before the water can be used for drinking water. So replacing chlorine gas with sodium hypochlorite is not quite the simple expidient that it may seem. The use of ozone and or UV light seem to be a more environmentally friendly way to treat water supplies. Chlorine gas is certainly hazardous, but then so are many other items that are used in daily life. Gasoline contain carcenogenic compounds like benzene, but that doesn't seem to stop you from pumping your own gas. Precautions do need to be taken with these items, but to outright ban the production of items like chlorine and ammonia are knee-jerk at best. <<To the layman; Sodium Hypochlorite is known as bleach; or hypo.>> Although I've never actually heard anyone (laymen or otherwise) refer to hypochlorite as 'hypo', keep in mind that this is not what photographers call 'hypo'. That compound is sodium thiosulfate, which used to be called sodium hyposulfite. Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Re <i><<To the layman; Sodium Hypochlorite is known as bleach; or hypo.>><BR><BR> Although I've never actually heard anyone (laymen or otherwise) refer to hypochlorite as 'hypo', keep in mind that this is not what photographers call 'hypo'. That compound is sodium thiosulfate, which used to be called sodium hyposulfite</i><BR><BR>KIRK; sorry for using these terms. They are commone to me; I have alot of weird industry experience; and tend to use jargon that is common to industry; but not common to probably the board here; or University too. <BR><BR><a href="http://www.cl2.com/whats_new/hyponws.PDF">The Chlorine institute uses the term hypo; for sodium hyposulfite.</a><BR><BR>Waste water systems use the term HYPO; <a href=" http://www.forceflow.com/news/monitor_hypofeed.html"><b>Know Your Hypo Inside And Out Of The Tank</b><br>"As the popularity of sodium hypochlorite grows as an alternative to chlorine gas for water and wastewater disinfection, plant operators are seeing the importance of accurately monitoring their hypo use, similar to when they used chlorine gas."</a><BR><BR>The term HYPO; is ususally used for STRONGER concentrations of Sodium hypochlorite ; that the laymans beach. <b>Commercial Hypo</b> is about 10 to 14% Sodium hypochlorite ; older beach was 5.25; newer beach is 6%; to save shelf space at the store. Electro Hypo is less than 1% Sodium hypochlorite ...These terms are decades old; maybe even a century old. <a href="http://www.chlorgenerators.com/sodium.htm">Here is a link; which references the threee industry standard concentration levels of Sodium hypochlorite </a><BR><BR><a href=" http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/chemdata/com_name.htm"> In this link; HYPO is used for Sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate Na2S2O3*5H2O</a><BR><BR><a href="http://www.cleartech.ca/inside/msds/shhh-06-10-2002.pdf">In this Legal MSD safety sheet ; a 5 to 15% concentration of Sodium hypochlorite has a Synonym in section 02; of Industrial Bleach; <b>HYPO </b>; bleach; Javel water; and household bleach</a><BR><BR>Because our political leaders are not rocket scientists; engineers; or chemists; the term HYPO could be used for the wrong item/chemical; in the recent "save the country" banning of alot of items. The term HYPO in water purification means Sodium hypochlorite ; in Photography; it means FIXER; let us pray that our leaders dont ban either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirk_keyes Posted May 7, 2003 Share Posted May 7, 2003 Hi Kelly, Thanks for rounding up all those links - I'm from the environmental testing world, and only on the periphery of the water treatment world. I completely agree with you that hypochlorite IS used for drinking water treatment. If your water comes from a well, regular old household bleach is your best choice for sterilizing your well system. What I was trying to point out was that for really large, municipal water supply treatment, chlorine gas is more effective than even commercial concentrations of bleach. I also agree that politicians are usually not the best equipt group of people for making decisions that should be based on facts and not fears. Kirk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now