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 16 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
Mixamatosis 
|
Brian, To have algae in the desert you need water in the desert don't you? What you already have plentifully in the desert is sunlight and space and I've seen that some North African countries have created huge areas of solar panels to create electricity which seems hopeful? Isn't that more efficient than diverting water into the desert to grow algae? Fresh water is a small fraction of water on Earth and we are getting to shortage levels as the Earth heats up and more of us use more of it and pollute more of it too. Reply #301. Jul 09 18, 4:43 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
Solar power in Morocco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Morocco Reply #302. Jul 09 18, 4:46 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
Solar power in Tunisia https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/huge-tunisian-solar-park-hopes-to-provide-saharan-power-to-europe Solar power in Algeria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Algeria Maybe be other African countries have solar plans too. I've not looked. Reply #303. Jul 09 18, 4:49 PM |
brm50diboll
|
They should. Deserts are perfect places for developing solar power. But the biggest drawback in solar power is efficiency. Power grids are based on peak power demand. A grid that cannot provide sufficient power for peak demand gets blackouts, which are very bad. But most of the time, the power demand is less than the peak demand. Conventional power grids therefore use reserve generators that are not in use most of the time, but can quickly be brought on line when needed. But solar power cannot be ratcheted up at will. If you don't build enough, you will have blackouts. If you build in "reserve capacity", you waste money. So the idea is to build an excess of solar panels and store the excess powers in batteries until the power is needed. *This* is the big problem with conventional solar power, because current generation battery technology is highly inefficient, so excess solar power that goes into batteries gets largely wasted. This is why genetically engineered algae is a step up from ordinary solar power. Photosynthesis is solar power, but instead of producing electricity, it produces fuel, which is much more storable and is also capable of being ratcheted up to produce more power in times of peak demand. Plus, like ordinary solar power, it works best in desert areas which presently are highly nonproductive. Some people just can't get past the whole genetic engineering bit, though. Too bad. Genetic engineering is our future. Hail Gattaca! Reply #304. Jul 09 18, 5:22 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
The water issue you bring up, Mix, *is* an issue. You cannot have algae in ponds or lakes because evaporation wastes water, which is terrible in a desert area. The water *must* be conserved. Tanks can be built which recycle the water so that very little of it evaporates. After the initial filling of the tanks, the water just recycles and new water isn't needed to be brought in. The real problem is not the water recycling technology per se, it is the *scale* needed. To provide industrially demanded power for actual practical use (rather than just experimental), you need many very large tank units. Currently, such huge recyclable tank units are not cost-effective as compared with conventional power production. That will change over time, but governments cannot force the underlying economics of this by throwing money at it. You have to let the technology improve until it becomes economically cost-effective *before* you start pouring money into it for large-scale power generation. If you don't, and you try to force it too soon, you get horrific boondoggles that the public is absolutely right to protest against. Reply #305. Jul 09 18, 5:34 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I had to look up the word 'boodoggles'. The start of the railways could be described as that. So many companies went bankrupt building and running them but we're glad of them today and couldn't do without them in the UK. So many commuters rely on them and they take traffic off the already congested roads and thereby reduce pollution. Some things are a good investment for society regardless of private profit margins, or a good investment in the longer term though markets are only interested in short term returns it seems. Reply #306. Jul 10 18, 1:50 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
You are correct. The only economics course I ever took was Econ 203H (honors), which I enjoyed very much. Although it's been over 30 years, I remember a lot about it and I read constantly, anyway. Yes, there are certain things called "public goods" which *must* be supplied by a governmental entity (not necessarily the national or federal government) if they are to be supplied at all for a variety of reasons, some of which include specialized expertise, the "free rider" problem, need for eminent domain, etc. Public transportation, particularly the high speed rail, is a particularly contentious issue (clearly in the "public good" domain) in the US right now, especially its two most populous states: California and my home state of Texas. The tremendous political differences in the approach to that same issue between those two states is very instructive. California is about as "blue" as it gets, Texas is extremely "red". Just because a good benefits the public does *not* mean it should be funded. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The underlying economics must still be carefully considered by people who actually understand economics and finance (that is, to be perfectly blunt about it, by nonpoliticians and nonbureacrats). The problem with high speed rail (there are actually many problems, but I'm focusing on the central one) is that the population density in the route involved must be quite high for the route to be profitable or even with manageable deficits in the long run. Japan and portions of Western Europe have areas of sufficiently high population density to justify *some* high speed rail routes. But even there, many routes have been built and are operating at constant significant losses. California and Texas do indeed have high populations, but *not* overall high population densities. The Boston to Washington DC corridor on the US East Coast has a very high population density, which is why it is one of the few places where rail (not high speed) is even close to profitable. But while Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Dallas, and Houston all have high population densities, the areas in between the major population centers do not and are in fact highly rural. This makes high speed rail in the US a set-up for boondoggles, and it is already happening in California, precisely because the government there takes a "nanny state" view that they know best what is good for the people so they're going to do it no matter what. Texas, on the other hand, is taking its time. It is already possible, by automobile, bus, regular train, or airplane, to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco. What, specifically, does the construction of a high speed rail line add that is worth the now over $60 billion cost? One, it was supposed to be fast (under three hours). Now they're saying it won't be much faster than regular rail, which already exists and takes a more direct route. Two, it was supposed to be funded by a consortium of public and private money. The private money never materialized, and three, it is "better for you" because emissions will be lower. This is the least likely of the three "reasons" to actually occur. Massive infrastructure building in mountainous, desert, and agricultural regions of California will necessarily produce large emissions. And, of course, the state cannot compel anyone to actually use the service once it is built. Middle class Californians (those that are left) like to use their cars. And the upper class will continue to use planes because they are faster. Moral: just because something is a public good doesn't mean the public has to go along with government funding. Sometimes it is better to not fund it and let the people keep their money, especially when the "benefits" of the proposed public good are illusory and dubious. Reply #307. Jul 10 18, 12:00 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
The USA has large sparsely populated areas so railways are hardly ever going to be profitable. Even in Europe where populations are more densely packed I'm not sure that any train companies or national railways are profitable. They are state (taxpayer) subsidised public sector organisations. In the UK railways are privatised but those private companies are state subsidised. Interestingly private companies have walked away from the East Coast line on more than one occasion and the line has been run by government departments in those times. Both times the government run line made a profit but private companies have never been able to run it efficiently or at a profit. The government for ideological reasons keeps insisting on re tendering it to the private sector and will do so again it seems. It doesn't make economic sense. Reply #308. Jul 11 18, 2:24 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
I actually consider myself quite moderate on these sorts of issues. I do not demand that everything make a profit. I understand that governments must fund many things that will lose money. But I don't like boondoggles, which is when the government makes an original estimate of how much a project should cost, how long it should take to complete the project, and what the benefits of the project should be, and then is wildly wrong about all three because either they were deliberately misrepresenting the issue to the public or they were grossly incompetent. Consider a counterexample: mail delivery to rural areas is always going to be a money loser, but the public understands the value of that service. As long as the losses are not extravagant, and third-party reviews of the the operations of the postal service indicates competent people are doing the best they can, innovating, and not abusing the finances for the personal benefits of some bureaucrats, then I am fine with some degree of deficit financing at public expense. But the California high speed rail project smells like pure boondoggle to me. As do the promises of almost every US President when they come to office that we will have a man on Mars in "20 years". At least the President doesn't actually waste the billions of dollars that would be needed if he actually thought we could do that. I don't mind totally empty promises that much if no actual money is wasted on them. Reply #309. Jul 11 18, 3:07 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
PPI schemes here are boondoggles then. To justify them successive governments have deliberately overstated a particular factor in the formula to falsely show them as better deals than they are and better than public sector financing, (which is at historically low interest rates for some years now but seems to fall foul of some EU rule if UK governments were to take them on their own books). There are ideological reasons why some governments go with PPI now but they are inflexible and are crippling NHS finances. Another example of a boondoggle I think is Richard Branson of Virgin stating that he will be able to send a vehicle (aimed at rich space tourists) into space 'this year' but he's been saying the same thing for years now. Reply #310. Jul 13 18, 4:32 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I don't mean the governments are not allowed to finance projects (like building hospitals) but in the case of the UK I think it risks breaching some limits set down in EU rules and/or has some other disadvantages for government finances. Reply #311. Jul 13 18, 4:34 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
Actually I suppose the Richard Branson project would not qualify as a boondoggle since there's no public money involved Reply #312. Jul 13 18, 4:43 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
I don't believe Richard Branson. Or Elon Musk either. But I don't object to what they're doing, because they're using their own money. But I don't believe they will succeed at their stated objectives. But in the process of advancing technology, they possibly *may* succeed in achieving a real breakthrough. Until then, I am fine with them selling space tickets to billionaires for flights that will likely never occur. To actually get humans to Mars and back *safely* will require multiple levels of technology far beyond what we presently have. We can't even be sure with present day technology that astronauts can safely orbit the earth and return (Challenger and Columbia). I could fill five pages here why taking humans to Mars is exponentially more dangerous. I'm not going to discuss UK rules as I don't understand them and the whole Brexit business complicates things much further, anyway. But if you want a short statement of my political bias, here it is: I believe political decisions should be made at the lowest possible levels, because those are the levels most responsive to the people and least insulated by bureaucracy. So I favor UK decisions in London rather than in Brussels, and I oppose globalism completely. But what the UK does is not the business of Americans, and I feel the *reverse* is true, also. The UN is a disorganized debating society (I am being charitable here) and *not* a framework for government. Reply #313. Jul 13 18, 4:53 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
An image just flashed through my mind of a craft full of billionaires going into space but not being able to get back. Now how would I feel about that ..............? I agree with you about as many political decisions as possible being taken at the lowest level. Here that would mean local councils having more responsibility/power. I can't help taking an interest in World Affairs but I would be careful not to break rules or antagonise people. I hope I never have anyway.. Reply #314. Jul 14 18, 2:07 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I've just realised I was referring to PPI schemes previously. I meant PFI schemes (Private Finance Initiative) PPI is something entirely different -Payment Protection Insurance which has been in the news a lot recently because banking institutions have largely missold it and have been ordered to pay it back, though people have to claim it first. Sorry about that. Reply #315. Jul 15 18, 10:23 AM |
| brm50diboll
|
I saw an article that Elon Musk had been criticized for donating a submarine to the effort to rescue the Thai boys from the cave. The officials at the scene rejected it, saying there was no way a sub could maneuver in the tight spaces in that cave, and that Elon Musk, if he had had any understanding of the topography of that cave, should have known it. They considered the whole offer a publicity stunt. Being a billionaire does not give you technical expertise. And neither does a knighthood. To me, Richard Branson and Elon Musk are less like Thomas Edison and more like PT Barnum. Neither of them are scientists. They are promoters (Musk does have an engineering background). One would assume they have competent scientists and engineers in their employ, but they should take some time out to listen to them. And if any of their crafts were to have a fatality while transporting other billionaires, their promotional careers would be over. Live by publicity, die by publicity. Twitter feeds do not solve real technical problems. Reply #316. Jul 15 18, 10:59 AM |
| Mixamatosis
|
If Elon Musk's offer was to gain publicity for him that would be shameful. If it was a misguided desire to help, it probably did no harm. He said he was encouraged by one of the experts to get involved but it doesn't seem his technology was suitable for the job. They had enough experts who knew what they were doing as far as anyone could and didn't really need his help anyway. I was such a close run thing though. Just after the last man came out the pump stopped and the ancilliary workers had to run for it as the water flooded in. Reply #317. Jul 15 18, 1:47 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
* It not I Reply #318. Jul 15 18, 1:48 PM |
| brm50diboll
|
Oh, I'm sure it was a harmless effort to try to help. But he has aggravated it since by his own Twitter feed, criticizing a British rescue diver there. He really should have sought advice from his own technical people before stepping into this and he would be best advised to just drop all the back and forth on Twitter now that this is over. Reply #319. Jul 15 18, 6:26 PM |
| Mixamatosis
|
I don't read twitter but from what I read in the news, from what Musk said, it was a British diver who encouraged him to get involved. There's gratitude for you! Strange name Elon Musk. Sounds like a poor attempt at a name for a perfume. Reply #320. Jul 16 18, 1:12 AM |
526 replies. On page 16 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
|
|
: