That Methyl Methacrylate Tank
science.org
science.org
https://iomosaic.com/docs/default-source/papers/polymerizati...
From fuzzfactor's comment with lots of other great info:
IIRC there was some report of a "gas leak" to begin with and that could very well have been it.
I can only imagine what it's like to be one of the shift operators down there on the pavement around the tanks and pipes on a daily basis, in their flame-retardant coveralls and hardhats. Based on my vivid experience working with similar operators as I took official samples from tanks usually located in much bigger tank farms.
MMA smells so sharp that any leakage from a valve or pipe fitting gets attention much more so than other flammable liquids, for instance things like paint removers, alcohol or acetone which smell very faint by comparison. I expect that the workers had gotten accustomed to a fairly clean air environment without serious toxicity levels, and would estimate that a leak of about 1 drop per minute from a flange would be easily identified and fixed. Not only to keep the neighbors from complaining, but to keep the workers from gagging when they walk closer to that location.
If the first sign of trouble was physical tank bulging and/or suddenly stinking up the whole place with lots of MMA vapor (like from an upper tank rupture) when there is no sign of leakage on the ground, that pretty much qualifies as a "gas leak". Once the smell was no longer prominent, I would say that polymerization was well underway and there was not as much free monomer available to build up more pressure or even evaporate very much after that. If there's warm liquid MMA open to the atmosphere, you will smell it downwind.
It might be a stretch to say that "nature takes its course" when synthetic monomers spontaneously polymerize like this, but that's what some of them do best that sets them apart.
From what I understand, in the uninhibited pure monomer it doesn't take that many PPM of monomer molecules to become "activated" in some way before the chain reaction of them with remaining molecules eventually accelerates to completion. Which may be why such a low concentration of inhibitor works so well, but inhibitor must be well-dispersed within the liquid and there must be enough circulation to avoid local depletion of the inhibitor due to stagnant contact with as yet unidentified unexpected initiators. Not only should it be easy to get a random 1 liter sample from a tank (of such non-viscous material) at any time, the single sample should ideally be highly representative of the entire tank contents. Due to the way the liquid is handled in bulk going in & out of the tank, as well as any additional circulation to insure good mixing of incoming cargo, or after boosting inhibitor amounts when only a few carefully measured pounds or kilos of the concentrated inhibitor is dumped into the bulk monomer to keep it from going below spec.
The inhibitors have been selected to be very strong and effective at what they do so it doesn't require a high concentration, and the downstream processors can more easily overcome the inhibitor effect and produce plastics using different and milder polymerization initiator techniques when there is not an excess of inhibitor.
Once it gets polymerizing past that minuscule little inhibitor, from that point it's like there is no inhibitor at all. So there is some possibility that this is a fairly worst-case runaway polymerization event where the full amount of caution was rightfully warranted. Even though it would have to be considered fairly benign compared to a whole tank of the liquid monomer dispersing through the neighborhoods, or going up in a fireball, which is always a risk anyway :\
Under storage, it really is tremendous force that the inhibitor is holding back, considering how badly outnumbered it is by the 99.9% of everything else in the tank that wants to spontaneously react with itself otherwise. When the inhibitor is only about 20 PPM, which in percent is 0.0020%, in these cases percent by weight. IOW 20 lbs of MEHQ crystals dissolved in every million lbs of MMA liquid, or in metric 20 kilos of inhibitor for every million kilos of cargo.
Now usually the lowest inhibitor concentration will be at the chemical plant that produces the monomers, and it may go into bulk storage the same way when fresh material is moving through the system adequately. From there, vessels, rail cars and trailers often have different amounts of additional inhibitor added in order to boost levels according to purchase agreements of the different industrial consumers.
Often by contractors such as companies I have worked for who store the inhibitor concentrate as agents for the client, and can sample industrial tanks & test in the lab to routinely determine inhibitor concentration. Then carefully measure according to requirements and be the third party that certifies the new concentration after our field operator physically adds the additional dose to the tank.
For something like vessels and rail cars you just can't expect their cargo samples to accurately reflect a recently boosted inhibitor value, the small amount of inhibitor concentrate won't be adequately mixed with the rest of the bulk monomer before the ship leaves the dock or the train leaves the terminal. So it has to be certified by careful physical addition while being supported by good lab data to begin with. You expect lab readings to match the certificate after the ship gets overseas or the rail car gets across the country.
Now measuring low PPM is not always easy but you get better after a while.
Much better for me because I got to start doing it my own way as soon as I could, after first establishing as many of the predecessor techniques as possible for reference, but people still wanted more reliable results and so did I since the beginning. Ever since then, doing the continuous improvement thing for more decades than you normally get.
Things I will work with, repeatedly ;)
If there's no after action report, we'll never get a good episode of Well There's Your Problem on this incident, and that would be a loss for both engineering and podcasting ;-(
John Childgey's "Causality" podcast[0] covers stuff like this, and I'm sure he'll eventually cover it.
After a big earthquake you don't want to have to also deal with other emergencies (à la Fukushima).
Aside: One good side-effect of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake being so horrific is that it stopped the self-obsessed whinging in my city (Christchurch was still trying to recover from an earthquake).
> The use of high levels of inhibitor can cause the monomer system temperature to far exceed the onset temperature of thermal polymerization under external heating. Once the inhibitor is exhausted, the thermal runaway reaction proceeds at an elevated temperature with a substantial reaction rate and very little reactant/monomer consumption.
Source: This fascinating paper linked to by fuzzfactor in yesterday's (edit: 3 days ago, lol) thread:
https://iomosaic.com/docs/default-source/papers/polymerizati...
The comment:
Something passive could be submerging the tank in a pool of water (also good for proving spill containment won't leak).
And a standard to prevent similar danger elsewhere in the world.
Or is that too fantastic? Perhaps I should stick with the distopian fiction I so love. Why haven't flying cars taken off yet?
But I'm not a chemical processes engineer, so I don't know how much mixing is needed. But the existing emergency plan was to inject the the chemical through a single valve, so it seems like the dispersion and mixing requirements in this case seems to be low.
Because the US chemical industry has been effectively unregulated for a century and can do whatever it pleases.
There's a neutralizing chemical that could have been injected to stop the exothermic reaction in its tracks. They didn't have it on site. A "response team" (likely a contractor that responds to chemical emergencies) did, but by the time they showed up, supposedly things were too damaged to inject it. That neutralizer should have been a Big Red Switch away.
They also should have had a deluge system, for example, to cool the tank. With a standpipe for firefighters if there's no water available onsite. Was there? Nope! No requirement for it. Despite the dangers of this stuff being very well documented, it having caused disasters before, etc.
Consider that the chemical industry can invent a new chemical and the onus is on everyone else to prove it is hazardous. So what does the US chemical industry do? Spend lots of time "innovating" new versions of chemicals to constantly leverage the 'innocent until proven guilty' scam. Chemical A is found to be cancerous, so they rework it slightly, enough to call it a new chemical even though it's nearly the exact same thing, but we're right back to square one on it "not being hazardous."
Protection systems cost money. If something really bad happens the cost of the disaster far outweighs whatever assets the company has hanging around, and in the US, we basically never hold anybody responsible for what they do in the course of their job running a corporation. GM willfully ignored problems with Chevy Cruze ignition switches that caused countless people to die because they'd randomly shut off _and shutting off meant the airbags would get disabled_. Did anyone in those teams, or their managers, ever get held accountable? Nope, not except in some civil suits, where Chevy repeatedly claimed they didn't have any documentation. Well, at some point Congress went after them for something, and in the massive pile of documents lo and behold there wer piles and piles and piles of documentation about the ignition switch issues.
A company like that isn't even required to carry a lick of insurance, far as I'm aware. Meanwhile, and I wish I were joking on this - if I want to get a permit to set aside space in front of my apartment building to park a moving truck, I have to carry a million dollars insurance that protects the city.
If I park my car blocking an ambulance I get charged with at least one crime, possibly even manslaughter or homicide. Ditto for blocking a fire truck trying to get to a fire. A railroad can do it to half a county, dozens of times a year, and everyone just shrugs as people are harmed or killed, or half a neighborhood burned down. All because private equity is milking the railroad so tight that it's making trains that are miles long instead of lengths that are appropriate for the tracks they're on and won't block fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, school busses, and the general population as a whole.
The free license corporate America gets to shit all over society has got to stop.
You want Gore-Tex (expanded PTFE) boots, Cobalt EV batteries (Child labor in the DRC), Solar Panels (Open pit quartz mines), Wind Turbine Blades (Epoxy Resins & glass-like fibers), and so on. All those things sound nice and good for the environment but don't appear out of some magical horn of plenty. All those things require intensive chemical and industrial processes that cost a lot of money.
"Just make the government solve the problem by criminalizing their entire operation" isn't a serious solution. It's a generic anti-corporation/NIMBY argument to outsource uncomfortable things to another country without labor or safety protections. Consumers need to accept that if they want nice things those things come with some amount of cost to the environment and level of risk. The government needs to work with corporations to find the safest _practical_ mitigation that doesn't bankrupt them. If that's done correctly you will actually avoid accidents like this because everyone is working together on the same page.
If some corporation comes along and says they have dry boots and electric cars, it is not realistic to expect every single consumer in a society to become expertly informed on fluorochemistry or the economics of mining, and then also expect them to make the decision that is best for all of us.
From one angle, that is all modern corporations are: a mechanism for offloading costs onto the public, while privately pocketing the profit.
The consumer is did not decide on the formulation of Chemical X, they weren't there to see the day it accidentally melted through the floor, and if the customer was somehow a hyper-motivated scientist with the right training, the company isn't gonna share the data.
I avoid this stuff as much as I can without upending my life, and I'm still forking over much of my spending to companies that can pollute my land, water, and air with near impunity. I didn't choose this shit!
Corporations naturally seek to improve margins, all the time, constantly. They will push and push against rules and regulations. It's the proper role of government to balance the costs to the corporation against the interests of the public. And it can be done well. But in the US, it's becoming more and more rare.
I have lived in places with more rules, but that meant we just didn't do it. We eventually gave up.
There is jurisdiction shopping of course. If china or wherever wants to have really lax rules, and that means production moves there, I’m not sure what the answer is.
But, for this product (making plexiglass like things), I expect all the consumer production has gone overseas anyway. This is defense / aerospace, so it probably can’t move.
You set import taxes so that they offset price advantages. If a country has shitty environmental laws, crappy labor protections, etc. then you prices that into their import taxes. That way they don't gain any advantages in a race to the bottom based on things that you care about in your own country.
If a country adopts better environment laws, labor projections, etc. then you lower the import tariffs you charge on that country's relevant goods
Snark aside, the widespread lack of understanding of basic economic concepts is actually a real problem. On one side, you got an utter buffoon like Trump acting like taxes and tariffs are his personal revenge sledgehammer to wield however he wants, and on the other side you got (an awful lot of) short-term rewarders who will accept just about any predictable long-term consequence for short-term "lower prices for consumers".
If we as a people pass environmental laws & labor laws because we feel that these things are important then why are we accepting products that are made in violation of our standards.
The same argument could be made for all kinds of unreasonable demands. If there were products that couldn't be profitably made and sold without slavery do you think we should all just accept that slavery? We, as a society, make choices all the time that certain products, industries, and practices aren't worth the costs. Sometimes it's perfectly fine to bankrupt companies and kill entire industries to do it.
By all indications child porn could be a massively profitably industry. For a long time it was. As a society we decided that crossed a line, and we petitioned our government to outlaw it and enforce that regulation on the porn industry. The economy didn't collapse when we did. It's just as reasonable for the public to decide to demand better safety from the chemical industry and ask the government to regulate that as well. It's been done many times in various forms already. The economy didn't collapse then either.
We'd agree that there is a middle ground to aim for most of the time though. The problem we have now is that government is being bribed to ignore what voters want and roll back many of the regulations we demanded. Incidents like this one remind us that companies should be expected and required to do better, but as long as government can keep accepting piles of cash in exchange for ignoring the rest of us it's not going to be easy to convince the government to do their job. There's also been an increasing amount of voter suppression to make it harder to fire and replace corrupt government with people who will do their job.
The average person is dumber than a box of rocks and the ones that aren't have limited time, attention, and expertise. They can't be relied on to make practical decisions while shopping on amazon regarding the practical effects of their buying power. The only hope to have sane decision making is by subject matter experts which is why we are a nation of laws which basically say follow the rules set down by these unlected assholes who actually know <insert subject> because it is literally the only practical way forward in our nation of 338M stupid assholes.
This case probably fell through the cracks, was grandfathered in due to military importance, or is a symptom of the utter lack of industrial knowhow plaguing modern US manufacturing because much US manufacturing is legacy work from decades ago with little ability to modernize, at a plant that likely existing long before the nearby housing.
Why is a tank this large of a chemical that can have runaway thermal reaction allowed in an area 500ft from residential areas? Why is this chemical allowed in an area that is considered light manufacturing?
Because the tank was there first and morons came later on and said they wanted to build housing, the land was cheap and no zoning was in place to prevent someone from building housing there.
Zoning saves lives.
That company (GKN Aerospace) was recently fined $900k by California for various violations dating to 2020 (including instances of incomplete records and missing permits). To be clear my intent isn't to single them out. I cynically assume at least some amount of that behavior to be par for the course with US chemical companies.
I think this is an example where it might have been reasonable for the taxpayers to foot a bill to facilitate their relocation 20 or 30 years ago.
It's par for the course of many US companies and likely others outside the US. I have been in a lot of manufacturing/industrial facilities and find a lot of machismo coupled with greedy asshole bosses/owners/managers. You wind up with corporate culture of "keep your head down, do as your told, don't question, and get paid."
It leads to a normalization of deviance where you end up with resentful workers who don't give a shit. Then when things go wrong, management can then easily blame them for their crappy work ethic and fire them. Then hire a new person to demoralize in exchange for money. It's a scam really.
The only way to curb that behavior is to hold people responsible but we seem to be incapable of doing that because the people who need to be held responsible have too much money and power.
And yet I bet if I look there's actually a ton of regulation.
>Chemical A is found to be cancerous
Chemical A is assumed to be cancerous by the state of California, you mean?
I'll bet a ton of that regulation is insufficient, and/or paid for, or even written by, the industry to make it harder for competitors or to allow them to increase their profits by cutting corners.
Regulation isn't some on/off switch that always makes things better or worse. What matters is what those regulations are and who they serve.
Because Regulation might not be an on/off switch but Deregulation is a complete hard no for most people.
If what you mean by "Deregulation" is "different/better regulation" most people will happily support it. For example, most people would love to have the government just automatically mail them their tax refunds with the paperwork they need to verify it was correct. Standing in their way are companies who have been spending a lot of money on bribes to make sure filing our taxes is as expensive and difficult as possible (https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-sp...)
But once you convince someone that the legislation exists and the penalties exist for supplying fixed line broadband services, the next goal posts slide into place, and they reflexively defend the idea that the government would fine people more for overbuilding the national carrier to a greater extent than importing several kilos of cocaine. They parrot absolutely bonkers shit like "Internet is a natural monopoly" when they literally have to fine people to make it a monopoly.
Most people defend the status quo with extreme vigor. And most people aren't even slightly qualified to analyse the status quo. The supplied alternative doesnt matter. Some person they dont know, doing something they are ambivalent about might find their profession easier. Thats completely verboten.
>government to handle the infrastructure and then lease out access to whoever wants to offer services over the lines.
We had loosely:
1. Government telco ran copper everywhere, did a shit job of it, they are still replacing faulty gel joints.
2. Government sold said telco, with a monopoly on fixed line internet services.
3. Newly private telco did fuck all and basically existed for a while.
4. The government mandated that they permit ULL resale, basically renting access to their monopolised cabling
5. Australia had its greatest % increase in internet speed as lots of small players started dropping DSLAMS on their exchanges and exchanging peering.
6. That fizzled out, and we reached the limits of what could possibly be done with copper in the short term.
7. Instead of looking at what worked historically (ULL) they decided to build a brand new giant government telco with a fixed line monopoly (ripping it away from the last guys). Average punter has no long term memory and thinks that repeating the original sin with Fibre instead of copper has literally no downside.
8. Because this is a NEW NATIONAL thing, chumps, of which there are plenty, will defend it without any analysis deeper than "My fibre works fine"
9. One of our larger private carriers took the National Carrier to court arguing that the law was anticompetitive. They settled out of court and the law wasnt changed. However, the industry has continued in sort of a grey area where the national carrier hasnt formally complained about any of its competition but it could still do so and fines would be issued.
10. Several government MP's floated the idea, all at once, that the government should compulsorily acquire every other fixed line telco network in the country. 6 weeks later they stopped saying that. Its in policy limbo, largely because their justification was that the National telco was better somehow, but upon reflection they probably realised that the national telco was the only telco excluded from customer protections and things would be worse for customers overall if they lost their private alternatives.
But thats where their brain is at. Rather than the fines, they will probably just use the threat of fines at some stage to forcibly acquire other networks. Which will be a long, expensive, and overall shitty experience for customers. The public will clap and cheer when the evil private networks (many of which are far better in speed and quality than the national carrier) get absorbed.
From a US perspective, private companies aren't any better about installing quality lines, especially the last mile, and won't bother servicing massive numbers of people at all because it's not profitable enough.
Cable companies in the US have been literally handed billions by the government to build out and improve their lines and the cable companies pocketed that money and didn't deliver anything (https://www.vice.com/en/article/study-throwing-taxpayer-mone...). There have been lawsuits and some investigations but mostly that money is just gone and to this day they still get handouts all the time with very little oversight.
We have the worst of both worlds. Corporations take tax payer money and also charge us for everything. The result is that in the US we pay more than the rest of the world does while getting far worse service. Handing the whole game to corporations and letting them dictate the terms (which included keeping out competitors until fiber, wireless, and satellite became options) has not worked out for us.
Basically the theory is that if you give control of infrastructure to the government they are motivated by keeping you happy because they work for you. You have direct control over them, can demand things from them, and in the worst case can vote them out if they aren't doing what you need from them. It's you (the people), choosing to spend your money (taxes), so that your own employees (government workers) can get you the things you want. Everything is transparent in both policy and accounting which means that you can see where every dollar is spent.
The alternative is to let corporation control the infrastructure and their one and only goal is to take as much money from you as they possibly can while delivering as little to you as possible (because that maximizes their profits). However much money it actually costs to deliver something to you, they will charge you 100% of that, plus more because they need to stuff their own pockets with cash in the process.
In fact they need to stuff more and more money into their pockets every quarter because any company that isn't increasing their profits is failing. Endless growth and "line go up" is all that matters to them. They will cut corners and increase prices every chance they get to make that happen. That kind of enshittification is bad enough when it's some company switching to cheap ingredients in your your favorite food, but it's unacceptable when it's a utility you depend on like internet access.
All of their accounting is hidden from you. You have zero control over how they run their operations. You have no power to vote out their CEO. You might have a choice between two or more companies (giving the illusion of voting with your wallet) but they all have the exact same motivation which is to take as much money from you as possible. This results in things like collusion and price fixing. It also causes them to subject their workers to low wages, little to no benefits, and outsourcing (to the extent allowed by law or even in excess of that if the occasional fines are cheaper).
In actual practice you get corporations using their vast amounts of ill-gained money to bribe governments and install their people in regulatory bodies making both options worse. The government option suffers because now they're incentivized to please corporations instead of the public and the company options get worse because companies can pass laws/regulations which further increase their profits at your expense. Either way, it's the companies who are the problem. We'll, the politicians taking bribes sure aren't helping, but companies are expected to exploit everything that they possibly can to increase the amount of money they make.
We still haven't figured out a good way to keep the government from taking bribes, but given the option, I'd choose the option that puts more power in the hands of the voters (and I say that even knowing the sorry state of our voters) because we at least have the option to turn things around. We have a lot of things to overcome (the deliberate dumbing down of the voter, the deliberate misleading of the voter, the efforts to suppress voters, the lack of accountability for government, the lack of consumer protections, the influence of money on politics, etc.), but it's either we try to have a say in how things are run or we bend over and accept whatever we're offered by companies who are explicit about wanting to take as much from us as they possibly can.
I think we'd agree that local government is much better than national. Ideally you'd have national regulations that make sure that everyone in the nation has a minimum standard of service, but leave it up to the locals to manage that and handle the details. We have more direct control over local politicians than national ones. They're more likely to live among us too which helps.
I doubt any pithy slogan would have encompassed all of it, but the least they could have done was avoid something that most people would reject instantly for being insane. It's amazing that so many people managed to get past the slogan at all to get into the "well actually what we mean is..." and it was totally predictable that the slogan would be weaponized against the movement by opponents
Do you have a supposed motive?
Any evidence?
Whilst it's a bit of a meme, isn't it just true that a lot of stuff is carcinogenic.
is the one that gets me. Fried snacks from Asia frequently have a Prop 65 warning. Thing is it is produced by ordinary cooking techniques from ordinary and can be found in both traditional and ultra-processed foods.
California has set such a low threshold that one cannot take their label seriously about anything. It applies to nearly everything, making it effectively a useless warning.
In the seventies, the view was often expressed to me by lay audiences that there was no point in stopping smoking, since everything was a carcinogen and so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable. This view was certainly pushed by the tobacco companies with the bizarre support of many environmentalists,
Also see carcinization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation
What about all the other cars that kill significantly more people by design? Like, I don’t know, any SUV or pickup truck? In that context, picking on the rather innocent Cruze seems a bit obtuse.
I guess if you viewed customers as actual people the 'the dow is 50k - why do you want us to stop war crimes?' might also get a response requiring the treatment of humans with dignity.
If your executives can't kill people to make a couple of million what's the point of even being a wage-slave./s
The way this statistical background of economic death is handled is by assigning a finite value to a human life. In the US it's about $12M. If you think this is inhumane, consider that this is the cutoff for government actions for reducing deaths (from traffic accidents, disease, etc.) Actions where the cost per life saved are higher than this figure mean we're leaving on the table actions that could have saved more lives for the resources spent.
AFAIK there were no similar ignition switch failures or associated deaths with the Cruze (or other >2011 model year vehicles), although I think it might have been part of the recall.
That's exactly the story of Bisphenol A: once banned it just got replaced by variants of unproved (but likely even higher) toxicity.
It's cheaper.
(also waaaay down on the list of uses at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly(methyl_methacrylate) but I thought that first link was clearer. Look for "In semiconductor research and industry, PMMA aids as a resist in the electron beam lithography process.")
For comparison, there is a nice video by NileRed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phNLecfyWS8 He is making Bakelite that is a type of plastic. It's a tiny amount, in a lab, on purpose and he may make a few attempts. Anyway it overheat and instead of a nice piece of plastic he got a nasty block of foam with burned plastic. No imagine a huge tank of a similar chemistry reaction.
Also, your breath might help in a pinch (it's humid).
Often if one wants to make something "larger", dropping superglue, adding bicarb with a silt, blowing away and dropping another layer works fairly well (it's a bit of a brittle but still quite hard mass that is created quickly).
Then at some point I realized that I overdid it!
Easy-peasy, a file and sandpaper to the rescue, I thought.
Aand.. I spent x3 more time shaving off the excess than building it! It's super tough.
The sample recycling operator came across the occasional one that had polymerized, over months of identical ambient storage to the other bottles in the case which could still be handled as liquids.
Broke it out of the bottle and brought it into the office, where it was completely odorless and sitting there like a promotional acrylic paperweight with nothing embedded inside to promote :)
If this tank has a giant disk of clear acrylic at the bottom, it "might" be unprecedented to remove it intact and turn it into a fairly sizable lens if possible. If not clear, maybe even a mirror of some kind anyway.
Although there is probably some internal piping from inside the tank, embedded for display purposes primarily at this point ;)
It's amazing stuff.
https://www.csb.gov/t2-laboratories-inc-reactive-chemical-ex...
This agency is the subject of a budget war between the current executive and Congress, with the former trying to cut its budget and the Congress just restoring its budget, so not sure if it will be doing a report on Garden Grove:
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/congress-rescues-industr...
MythBusters have a good BLEVE episode. Apparently Adam Savage's favourite explosion.
When this occurs, you have an explosion that can propel parts of a steel propane tank up to 1/2 mile (at least).
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Pygmy_G...
He did give us a manual. He very clearly says that slavery is okay and eating shrimp is a sin, and lots of other rules.
Genuinely open question. I don’t know anything about stuff.
[1] This is the hazchem code. I think the US uses a different system. A list is here: https://www.ricardo.com/media/radn55jg/dangerous-goods-emerg...
Full document is here: https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-04/...
Relevant guide is 129, which is on PDF page 189.
---------
SPILL OR LEAK
• ELIMINATE all ignition sources (no smoking, flares, sparks or flames) from immediate area.
• All equipment used when handling the product must be grounded.
• Do not touch or walk through spilled material. • Stop leak if you can do it without risk. • Prevent entry into waterways, sewers, basements or confined areas.
• A vapor-suppressing foam may be used to reduce vapors.
• Absorb or cover with dry earth, sand or other non-combustible material and transfer to containers.
• Use clean, non-sparking tools to collect absorbed material.
Large Spill
• Dike far ahead of liquid spill for later disposal.
• Water spray may reduce vapor, but may not prevent ignition in closed spaces.
---------
Delta P... when it's got you... it's got you.
Actually even just making a hole by any means will significantly increase the chances of an explosion. This because the smallest crack can start a chain reaction where the material at the leading edge of the crack is bearing too much stress and the bonds break which then passes the stress on to the material straight after that. This all happens very quickly and can even accelerate as the hole grows bigger and gas starts moving.
It’s very lucky that the crack that formed didn’t propagate like that. It could be for many reasons though, like the crack front could have run into thicker material or a weld line or something like that and if luckily stopped the crack.
The problem is that is analogous to drilling a hole in a pressure cooker, it's either going to rupture the tank entirely, or blast the contents into the air.
Also curious where you would get a "quadcopter with a small drilling machine" with a couple hours' notice; even if you had one, it would be hard to maintain a position at one exact spot, and much of the lift energy would be expended in the torque reaction of the drill.
Per https://apnews.com/article/california-chemical-tank-leak-c1f...
I was literally just this afternoon telling someone about TIWWW and posting them some favourites.
Also, as someone affected by this, it has been extremely frustrating getting updates via xitter. Do we really have no other options?
Can you expand on that? It seems like there wasn't a lot they could do once the tank started leaking.
It is amazing how the modern world has a webpage for every organisation but they can't bloody update it usefully and use a random platform (Xitter, Mastodon, Bluesky, facebook) instead.
The "it will explode leveling a couple city blocks" danger seems to be abated, but instead it's spraying an insanely toxic chemical out into the open, which will likely have health repercussions for residents for decades?
Thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals don't just disappear.
In some plastics the monomer is toxic, but the polymerized form is safe. (I think it was use for windshields for planes, so once polymerized it was probably safe to touch at least.)
In this case it was an uncontrolled reaction so I'm not sure if someone knows the exact current composition of the goo, so I strongly recommend to avoid licking it.
This is common. Isocyanates are a common example — isocyanate monomers are nasty, and the very light ones are very nasty. They’re used to make polyurethane, polyurea and such, which are quite nontoxic in polymerized form.
In applications where the unreacted isocyanates are used by anyone other than professionals (e.g. two component varnishes), the manufacturer may go out of their way to use more expensive but less toxic variants.
Some quick searching suggests that it’s toxic but not even close to “insanely toxic”. And it’s not persistent in the environment.
If you want a genuinely nasty chemical, check out methyl isocyanate, which is some two orders of magnitude more acutely toxic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury#Safety
- considerably more deadlier, and the mercury an element - so no clever chemical reactions can break it down into innocuous CO2, H2O, and N2.
Additionally it is almost certainly not in vapor form at 100 degrees. In sunlight it will also polymerize to a solid pretty quickly.
As such you'd practically have to drink it inside to hit the ld50.
The explosion would be much worse than a release of liquid or vapor based MMA during the day, and here it almost certainly solidified at this point
Also, vitamin C is not volatile, so there is no risk of inhaling it as a gas.
The overall point remains the same: the toxicity, both short and long term, of MMA, is comparable to lots of everyday substances that are both commonly eaten and inhaled.
It just isn't that toxic as far as chemicals go. That doesn't mean it would be like great for you but calling it "highly toxic" is tremendously overblown and doesnt serve anyone well to claim.
Let's save the highly toxic claim for things that actually deserve it. We don't have to sensationalize everything. I maintain my view that the explosion would likely be much much worse than the odds of significant respiratory damage from MMA.
Also note the sensationalization also causes placebo effect. People miles away started claiming "their lungs hurt" when
1. There was no leak
2. Even if their was and it was a conspiracy or whatever, your lungs have ~no pain receptors and your chest/pleura/etc would generally not hurt from MMA overexposure. Your throat would and your skin would, depending on concentration. But nobody complained about skin irritation when the is basically no way to end up with one without the other.
Etc.
Sensationalization of this hurt people so far more than the actual issue!
Given how toxic a number of the other acrylates are, how indiscriminate the chemistry of partial combustion tends to be, and how reactive MMA is, I would certainly assume the worst about burning it until proven otherwise.
I've heard from others that it's readily absorbed by water. That's bad in the ground water case, but it seems it might be a positive when trying to clean up a (contained) spill.
It appears to me to have a relatively high lethal dosage (my back of the napkin calculations are saying a 200 pound human would have to orally ingest almost a liter of it to reach the LD50 dosage--but again don't quote me on that number because I am not an expert and could have very easily messed up the math or the concept of a lethal dose).
So, while I agree there might be unknown long term issues, it does appear to be a relatively low probability of that since it seems to be on the less pernicious side.
It’s toxic but not insanely toxic. Isocyanates, phosgene, gaseous cyanides - now those are insanely toxic