Subject: Can someone please explain?
Posted by: Mixamatosis
Date: Jan 21 17
I've read that it's dangerous to mix ammonia and bleach. Variously I've read that it can produce deadly cyanide gas, chlorine gas (which is said to be bad for you) and even explosions.
However swimming pools are kept fit for use with chlorine, and our urine contains ammonia but then we may clean toilets with bleach. Also many cleaning products contain either ammonia or bleach and it would be easy to use them unthinkingly in combination.
How is it that people aren't generally harmed by these dangers when swimming in swimming pools or doing daily cleaning, or are we being harmed at low level and is the harm cumulative?
Posted by: Mixamatosis
Date: Jan 21 17
I've read that it's dangerous to mix ammonia and bleach. Variously I've read that it can produce deadly cyanide gas, chlorine gas (which is said to be bad for you) and even explosions.
However swimming pools are kept fit for use with chlorine, and our urine contains ammonia but then we may clean toilets with bleach. Also many cleaning products contain either ammonia or bleach and it would be easy to use them unthinkingly in combination.
How is it that people aren't generally harmed by these dangers when swimming in swimming pools or doing daily cleaning, or are we being harmed at low level and is the harm cumulative?
526 replies. On page 14 of 27 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
LoveAnimals555 
|
Do you know Walter lewin? I saw few of his lectures, they were nice! OK a simple question that sometimes confuse me- What happen to surface tension of water when detergent is added? Does the value of ST increases or decreases? And why? Reply #261. Jun 01 18, 12:31 PM |
brm50diboll
|
No. I don't really know Walter Lewin, although I did pull up the Wikipedia page on him after I saw your question. I may have to check out some of his videos when I get the time. Soaps and detergents are types of surfactants. A surfactant has the effect of *decreasing* the surface tension of water by disrupting hydrogen bonds. Water is extremely polar and its molecules are strongly hydrogen bonded to each other, a phenomenon called cohesion. This strong cohesion of water molecules gives water a strong surface tension. Surfactant molecules typically have a polar and a nonpolar region. The polar region can form hydrogen bonds to water, but the nonpolar region has the effect of pushing water molecules further away from each other. Soaps and detergents are useful in cleaning by solubilizing nonpolar materials like grease which water itself is repelled by. A similar phenomenon occurs when bile acids solubilize lipids in the small intestine, allowing lipases to break them down. Reply #262. Jun 01 18, 1:20 PM |
Mixamatosis
|
Why does hot water break down grease though cold water doesn't or is that a misapprehension? Reply #263. Jun 02 18, 1:13 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Because of my push to upgrade my Endurance badge today, I unfortunately do not have much time for answering questions, but I will try on this one: hot water is no more able to dissolve grease than cold water as grease is nonpolar and water is polar; however, hot water does make grease more liquid and decreases its viscosity. Grease is a mixture of different lipids (fats) and as such does not have a sharply defined melting point. Instead it softens as it heats up. Although water will not dissolve grease, running hot water does soften it up and allow gravity to cause it to flow downward. Reply #264. Jun 02 18, 1:35 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
Good luck with your push Brian. Reply #265. Jun 03 18, 7:15 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
Thank you. I made it. The day after I am really wiped out. Actually, doing this upsets my whole circadian rhythm (although I am on summer vacation now), so it takes me about a whole week to reset it before I can try again. The way Terry designed this, a player can only advance one tier at a time. So multiple high-scoring runs are required to advance all the way up the tiers, and I have to space them apart from each other carefully if I am going to be able to function. Reply #266. Jun 03 18, 8:21 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
Well done Brian. Congratulations.I must say there are some things I choose not to do on funtrivia because they are too demanding of my time. Reply #267. Jun 03 18, 9:52 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
P.S. I'm not implying that I could succeed if I chose to do them - just that I can feel my health actually worsening if I engage in them. I need to balance things in life. Reply #268. Jun 03 18, 9:54 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
I certainly wouldn't be doing this (or playing Hardcore in the GC seriously now) if I were working right now. But it is my summer vacation, and I enjoy pushing myself when I have the time for it. Reply #269. Jun 03 18, 10:15 AM |
| LoveAnimals555
|
Hi Brian, I finally started math after 2 years on my own. I need help. Here is a statement, can you please elaborate it in an easy way for me? "The functions that could possibly have given function as a derivative are called anti-derivative (or primitive) of a function." I will be thankful if you could help. I would need some more assistance. Reply #270. Jun 05 18, 11:27 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Examples sometimes help: g(x) is an antiderivative of f(x) if the derivative of g(x) ( often denoted g'(x)) equals f(x). Suppose you want to find the antiderivative of a function f(x) = cos x. You need a function g(x) such that the derivative of g(x) is f(x). That is, you need g'(x) = f(x). Unlike derivatives, antiderivative are *not* unique. They differ by an arbitrary constant C. So in this case, while it is obvious sin x has the derivative cos x, so sin x is an antiderivative of cos x, sin x is not the *only* antiderivative of cos x. The general solution in this case is: g(x) = sin x + C (where C can be any constant.) Since the derivative of a constant is zero, regardless of what C is, g'(x) = f(x) = cos x. The field of integral calculus involves learning multiple techniques for finding antiderivatives. Antiderivatives are harder to find than derivatives. Some functions do not have antiderivatives in closed form. The antiderivatives exist, but they cannot be expressed in finite combinations of elementary functions. For example, the antiderivative of f(x) = e^(x^2) does not exist in closed form. It does exist, however, but it is usually expressed in the form of an infinite power series. Reply #271. Jun 06 18, 10:52 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
The rings of Saturn are very impressive and worthy of some discussion. All four of the Jovian planets have rings, but only Saturn's are particularly evident. The early telescope that Galileo used was not as powerful as even present-day binoculars, so Galileo did not clearly see the rings (to the naked eye, Saturn is clearly visible, but it appears as a pale yellowish "star", about as bright as Betelgeuse, and with no hint of rings apparent), but Galileo mentioned "ears" on the sides of Saturn. Later astronomers of the 16th century clearly saw the rings, a structure not seen on any other planet at that time (indeed, the faint rings around Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune were not discovered until the 20th century.) So what is the reason Saturn has rings, and why are they so especially prominent in the case of Saturn? Those questions are still the subject of much investigation and research. One theory is that the rings are primordial; that is, they were formed when Saturn itself formed 4.5 billion years ago. But a competing theory is that the rings (or at least *some* of the rings, as there are several main rings and thousands of ringlets) were formed much more recently in the history of the Saturnian system, perhaps by ripping apart one or more of Saturn's moons through collisions or gravitational interactions. Moons are not stable inside a planet's "Roche limit", at which tidal forces from the planet break them apart. Saturn's rings are not uniform in their constitution. They are icier towards Saturn and contain more rocky silicates further outward. The rings are composed of millions of different-sized particles, each independently revolving around Saturn in very dynamic ways, sometimes moving inwards a bit, and sometimes moving outwards, as well as colliding with other particles and fragmenting further, depending on gravitational interactions with "shepherd" moons of Saturn. The point is, although not easily visible to humans, the rings are constantly changing in some respects. So I am inclined to believe that at least some of the rings are not primordial, and that millions of years from now, the rings of Saturn may be very different (perhaps thin and nondescript like the other Jovian planets' rings.) Maybe something significant happened relatively recently in the history of Saturn to explain why the rings are as bright and prominent as they are. Reply #272. Jun 15 18, 7:10 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
It's a pity we don't live long enough to witness real changes in stars and planets because they take much longer than our lifespans. Then again, if we did, we'd probably end up complaining that things aren't what they used to be 2 millennia ago. In fun/trivia the subject of science is linked with technology. I don't know how you are with technology, Brian, but I wanted to mention an experience I had recently. For no apparent reason I found my PC kept crashing telling me there was no memory left. I knew there was oodles of room in my ROM so I correctly deduced it must be my RAM. This can be demonstrated by the command shift, control, esc (all held at the same time) which will show you how much RAM is being used and what is using it. Anyway I'd googled and tried all sorts of suggested solutions without solving the problem. The command I mentioned indicated that my anti-virus software response was taking up most of the RAM (Windows Defender) but it had never caused a problem before. It didn't start that way. I'd switch on and find that it would start to escalate quite quickly until the RAM was full. Anyway it was solved not long ago in the same week that the new European data collection rules came into effect when all sorts of sites started contacting people asking for their permission to collect and use their data in various ways. I took the 'manage' option and blocked as much unnecessary data collection as the option allowed, for as many sites as I could. Anyway, the problem stopped so data collection may have been the cause. I had eliminated cookies previously but only those I was confident would not hinder performance. That didn't work but there may have been stuff hidden in the more necessary category. It was either that or a windows 10 update happening the same week that solved it. It's hard to be sure. I'm posting this because I wondered whether any other people had experienced this problem and if so how was it resolved? Even if people have not experienced it, do you, Brian, have any thoughts on the matter from a technical perspective? Reply #273. Jun 17 18, 4:30 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
P.S. I had the problem throughout May and managed to resolve it in early June. The new EU GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) came into effect from 25 May. https://www.eugdpr.org/ "The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA). It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas." As you're not in the EU Brian, I guess you won't have been affected and may not be aware of this. Reply #274. Jun 17 18, 4:40 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
P.P.S. Some American sites are only giving me the option of accepting their cookies and data collection or not having access to the sites at all - one such is Pinterest, which I joined when I realised that many images you might want to look at online (such as images of plants, historical images, artworks etc, things that interest me anyway) seem to require Pinterest membership to access them. It seems to be that access and usage are not distinguished so if people only want to look at something, they are blocked from looking at it without Pinterest membership because they are treated as someone who may, potentially, use or steal images unlawfully. As a result I've held off using such sites so far, for fear of the PC problem occurring again. Reply #275. Jun 17 18, 4:57 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
Computers and Tech is actually my big weakness in science. I have no idea what the problem is. I play most of my games (even today) on my cellphone. Aside from irritating typos due to me not being able to read all of my own long posts, it works pretty well. I don't have much in the way of connection problems, even out here in the boondocks of Corsicana, Texas. Gotta get back to scoring 75,000 points now. Reply #276. Jun 17 18, 1:09 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I knew nothing about computer technology when I first had one but I'm eternally grateful that I learned a lot from the tech team at work about solving PC problems and 'housekeeping' on PCs, when they would respond to calls to help on some tech problem. Also I began to understand what tools were available on my computer and to try them out at home and in the office. I have not needed professional help with my PC for years now and I have the confidence to google issues if I don't know the answer and follow suggestions. I hope you continue never to have any problems Brian. That's great. I envy you. Reply #277. Jun 19 18, 4:17 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
P.S Another person I learned a lot from was a boss at work. He was self-taught on a lot of software we used and although he was very busy, he absolutely loved to stop what he was doing to teach people what he knew if they had a question. He didn't have the same attitude in other areas of work. I think he was really proud of his technical achievement and rightly so. I was the only one working for him at the time, so I benefited from his generosity in that area. A lot of the denior bosses at work didn't know anything much about computers and relied on their secretaries. Then one day the expectation came that everyone should use their own PC and secretary numbers were cut significantly. That came as a shock to many of them. The most senior bosses still kept their secretaries because the scope and level of their work was considered to justify it. This does not describe my work experience, by the way. I was not a secretary. Reply #278. Jun 19 18, 4:27 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
* senior Reply #279. Jun 19 18, 4:29 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I meant it came as a shock to the bosses, but of course it was also a shock to the secretaries, who were losing their jobs. Reply #280. Jun 19 18, 4:32 AM |
526 replies. On page 14 of 27 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: