Yeah, well some arguments are so stupid they don’t belong on SDMB either. Sorry for the outburst.
Remember your basic physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted in form. Whether you dump the chemicals on the land, or burn them and put them in the air, you’re putting the exact same amount of waste into the environment. Whether it has immediate direct toxic effects, or cumulative lowlevel toxicity, is irrelevant. In fact, I’d argue that the low level toxicity is worse, because it seems benign in the local area, and this encourages people to think it’s safe to burn wastes. They’re just dumping their pollution in a far-off neighbor’s yard via the air.
You ought to acquaint yourself with the newest methods of ecological research, ecological accounting. It applies the same methods used in financial accounting to track the sum total of chemicals used in processes on a grand scale. You’d be surprised at the amount of pollution that leaks out of supposedly closed systems and into the environment. And it takes a look at the grand scale of things, which is something your analysis lacks.
I’ll tell you what. You drink a thousand doses of one milligram of poison in one hour. Then if you survive, I’ll drink the gram of poison.
This is a sickening, warped calculus of ecological destruction. What you’re saying is, just because your pollution doesn’t kill anyone outright, it is OK. If it reduces the lifespan of 1000 people by a week, that is OK, just as long as it doesn’t kill 1 man who is 19.2 years old. I don’t buy it. It is this sort of attitude that has lead to our massive ecological problems.
The preferred way to get rid of the stuff would be to give it to a hazardous waste collector, where it would be recycled into something useful.
The best combination between practicality and ecological safety would be the advice someone already offered, you should dilute it heavily with new fuel and use it in your car. At least you will be using the gas for something useful, rather than just burning it in a purely wasteful manner. And the gas would be burned and put through the catalytic converter in your car, or burned in an EPA-approved engine in a method that reduces emissions to the lowest practical level.
And once again, I apologize for the previous outburst. It’s just that I am getting really tired of some of the idiotic things I’ve heard about people dumping gasoline. I just participated in one thread about a guy who says he washes his gas station driveway with gasoline every night. You can see why I’m arguing against this problem. Some people just don’t get it, their actions affect more than their tiny little piece of the world.
Chas, not only do I believe you are quite mistaken, but you are going about this with an attitude which is not helping. Calm down. It is very rash of you to contradict Anthracite like that when you know she knows more than all the rest of us put together. You can call our arguments stupid but I would rather you provide your own arguments.
>> Matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted in form
I am not sure you understand this correctly. You can take Carbon and Hidrogen and Oxigen, all of which are quite innocuous, and make some pretty poisonous stuff. You can also take some pretty poisonous stuff and break it into innocuous components like CO2 and water. Carbon monoxide is extremely poisonous. Carbon dioxide is not. They are both made of exactly the same carbon and oxigen.
Lets get real here. By driving to the recycling center in your SUV, you are producing the same if not more contamination.
>> Burnt gasoline is not, it is water and carbon dioxide.
>> Plus carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, and a ton of other contaminants
Well, the quantities are so miniscule as to be laughable but I would go further. We agree 99.99 is harmless water and CO2. The other stuff would be produced anyway. But (I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong here) :
-
Carbon monoxide is produced in much greater quantity if burning in an internal combustion engine than in the open air where oxigen is not limited.
-
Nitrous oxide is produced directly as a result of the high pressures produced inside the cylinder. This does not happen in open air burning.
-
Ozone: same thing.
So, it seems to me, burning a quart of gasoline in the open air produces less pollution, not more.
I would note that furnaces which burn kerosene and other oils do not have or need catalytic converters and that burning liquid fuel in a furnace is pretty much equivalent to burning in the open air: the stuff is burnt and the fumes go out the stack to the atmosphere. If it is SO harmful, how is it that people are allowed to burn hundreds of gallons of liquid fuels to heat their homes?
Think about it.
In the meanwhile I will be hiding somewhere out of reach.
No, I am saying that dumping gasoline into a river and burning it up are two completely different things, with two completely different results, and two completely different levels of impact to the environment.
Please try to refrain from twisting my words - or the words of other posters - in the future. It’d be greatly appreciated.
I agree with you up to a point. All I’m saying is that one has a direct impact, and one has an indirect impact, and the levels are both equal if you look at the bigger picture. And the indirect ecological impact is more insidious because you don’t see it, so people don’t believe it has ANY impact.
We’re not arguing open burning vs. engine burning. We’re arguing open burning vs. safe disposal. I’ve already advocated engine burning as a tolerable disposal method. And FYI, I don’t drive an SUV, I hate em, I drive a Camry that gets 40+ MPG and I’m considering buying the new Honda hybrid-fuel car.
Carbon Dioxide IS poisonous, depending on the concentration. Carbon Dioxide is also a greenhouse gas, and I don’t know anyone who would argue that needlessly creating CO2 is a good thing for the environment.
I’ll leave the other pollution issues to an expert in engines.
When an international flight has a mech problem 30 minutes out, they just dump it in Aunt Martha’s petunias (and everyone else’s for thirty miles) so that the wings won’t break off when they retun to the airport.
Your little half gallon (or so) could be used in drips on the dandelions in your lawn.
I have to admit that the major deal of dumping 40,000 gal of gas over everybodies’ heads pales your problem in comparison.
>> We’re not arguing open burning vs. engine burning. We’re arguing open burning vs. safe disposal
Well, you are arguing that. The rest of us are discussing all possible alternatives.
At any rate, if, as you seem to agree, open burning and engine burning are comparable, what’s the big deal with burning half a gallon of gas? Especially if, to avoid burning it, you have to drive ten miles to a disposal center.
>> Carbon Dioxide IS poisonous, depending on the concentration
Nope, wrong again. CO2 is NOT poisonous in any concentration. CO, yes, CO2 NO. It is as poisonous as Dihydrogen Monoxide and in the same sense. Many more people die of Dihydrogen Monoxide ingestion than of CO2.
In any case, if generating a pound or two of CO2 is of such great concern to you, I hope you realize it is nothing compared to the amounts generated every day in any city. Damn, my tiny patch of lawn took more CO2 out of the atnmosphere than that in the last few days.
>> I’ll leave the other pollution issues to an expert in engines
Very wise. You no longer support your earlier assertion about nitrous oxide, ozone, and a ton of other contaminants. I would suggest you find some expert advice on the major issue we are discussing too. We already have some very expert advice from Anthracite (unless I am mistaken and you have a similar background to hers, which I doubt) but you may want to seek some outside opinion which, I am sure, will confirm hers.
After that is settled you might want to consider the attitude you have displayed and the calling our arguments “stupid” etc.
They’re only equal in amount, but not concentration. Dumping the gasoline in a river puts it into a small space, with very little room to expand (thusly proving more harmful in that little area), whereas burning it would put it into a very HUGE space with plenty of room to expand, thus rendering any environmental damage negligible.
Note that one of the original suggestion was to just dump the gas into a river or a field somewhere.
Beyond that, however, I agree that finding a means of actually putting the leftover gas to some sort of use would be the best idea.
Wait a couple years for the fuel-cell cars to be released. They’ll get better gas mileage AND have more power. However, I applaud your efforts to minimize the pollution you create in your day-to-day activities.
Sailor, your arguments are getting less coherent. Excuse me if I get testy about this, because nothing irritates me more than people who pollute and then come up with excuses about why it is OK.
If you don’t believe me that CO2 is poisonous depending on concentration, then I invite you to breathe an enriched CO2/air blend. It is quite lethal. Perhaps the term poisonous is incorrect, let me use the term toxic.
http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19960605.html
The argument that “everybody does it” isn’t going to cut it. Just because there are many sources of pollution already in our environment, doesn’t mean that it is OK to create more pollution, especially when it is unnecessary. I suggest everyone read “The Tragedy of the Commons” in detail:
http://www.dieoff.org/page95.htm
Furthermore, greenhouse gasses like CO2 are about the only current mass source of pollution that has a real, significant chance of killing the entire planet. Or don’t you believe in global warming? People near the arctic circles, where the ozone hole reaches, are already getting increased amounts of skin cancers and cataracts. That half-gallon of gasoline burned in the back yard is killing people in Tierra del Fuego. And it’s not just that half gallon of gas. It’s the millions of other half-gallons that people are disposing of in a similarly polluting fashion. And you’re encouraging people to do it.
Your argument about gas wasted driving to the waste disposal site is a red herring. That waste gas could be mixed with new fuel and used to drive a heart attack patient to a hospital. That’s a red herring too. The real argument is that the gas, when burned as waste, generates no useful work, and generates nothing but pollution. Using it as fuel generates useful work, work that would be done with additional gasoline that would have to be drilled for, refined, etc. causing more pollution than just the used fuel generates.
I fully support my assertion that burning waste fuel openly causes more pollution than in an engine. Modern engines are quite efficient, and have catalytic converters and controlled burning techniques. I leave it to engine experts to DISPROVE my assertion.
And there is the core fallacy I’m trying to get people to see. Diluting pollution is not the solution. All you’re doing is spreading the pollution around. And so is the next guy. And everyone together is diluting their pollutants until the entire environment is saturated. Dilution is based on the fallacious premise that there is some place to throw pollution away. There is NO “away,” just “somewhere else.” Instead of a pollutant being concentrated into one place where it can be dealt with easily and effectively in a way that can remove it completely from the environment, it is spread around and then it’s everyone’s problem.
Go read The Tragedy of the Commons as I suggested, it details this fallacy.
>> Sailor, your arguments are getting less coherent
Chass, In spite of your rudeness I am being quite polite with you but if you continue your rudeness you will drive me away. You are quite alone against everybody else here, some like Anthracite, quite knowledgeable. At least you should be a bit more humble rather than testy. If you find my arguments incoherent you might want to point out where they are incoherent. Or could it be you are just not understanding them?
The point we are all making is that once burnt it is no longer the same thing diluted but a totally different substance with different properties and effects. You seem to think it is the same thing, just diluted in the air. This is not so.
>> Perhaps the term poisonous is incorrect, let me use the term toxic
Nope, wrong term again. It is not toxic. Just because it can kill you does not make it toxic. I thought I had made that point already. You can drown in water and that does not make it toxic. CO2 is not toxic. It is quite inert.
The link you provide cites examples of people who died of asphixiation in enclosed places from CO2 leaked from bottles. Can you tell me what that proves? People also drown in water quite often but nobody has suffered any harmful effects outdoors from exposure to CO2. You can drown in water and yet, water is quite necessary for life. CO2 is not toxic but it can asphixiate you, just like water, it prevents you from breathing the oxigen you need.
The other link you provide is a political-philosophical pamphlet which is subject to opinion and with which I may even agree but it is totally irrelevant to the issue we are discussing.
>> I fully support my assertion that burning waste fuel openly causes more pollution than in an engine. Modern engines are quite efficient, and have catalytic converters and controlled burning techniques. I leave it to engine experts to DISPROVE my assertion.
I do not want to seem rude but would you mind telling us your level of education in this field and your qualifications? It seems to me that if you make the assertion, you should back it up. Anthracite is an expert in this and she (and the rest of us) dispute your contention. It is up to you to support it.
Do you assert that open burning generates Nitrous oxide like it does under the pressure of the engine? Can you somehow support that please? Because AFAIK, it is the very high pressure (and temperature)which causes the nitrogen and oxigen to combine and has little to do with even the gasoline itself.
By the way, I’d just thought I’d throw one more thing in: burning wood or other organic stuff creates much more pollution than burning gasoline which has a fairly simple molucular composition.
To make a big, or even a small deal, of burning a gallon of gasoline in your yard, or comparing it to dumping it in the river, just shows you do not understand the issue. It is not the same thing diluted, it is a very different thing.
It is equivalent to burning that same amount of fuel in an unnecessary trip to the store because you forgot the icecream.
I have emailed a professor of chemistry at the University of Maryland and asked him if he would care to read this and give us his opinion. I am not sure that might make you reconsider but… I am reaching the end of the rope with this.
No, it’s not THE solution. But it’s preferable to a highly concentrated mass floating in a river. THAT’S the point I’m trying to make.
In addition, dilated pollution IS a solution in a sense. Smaller concentrations break down quicker than larger concentrations.
As far as pointing out your arguments’ incoherence, I did that. Or perhaps you don’t know what a “red herring” is? If you want to argue, use logic and not incoherent fallacies.
As far as my own qualifications, I entered college as an honors student and a Chem major, but changed my major when I discovered I had a better education in HS chem than was offered at the undergrad level, I was just repeating work I did as a HS sophomore. I have 2 advanced degrees, none of them in chemistry, but I have advanced knowledge of chemistry due to my expertise in photochemistry (one of my degrees is a BFA in photography). I used to work at the US Geological Survey at the Colorado School of Mines, working with petrochemical prospectors. So I do have some knowledge of these issues. But you won’t hear me citing this stuff ever again unless asked. I don’t go around citing myself as an authority, it is the INFORMATION and the ANALYSIS that are important. You would do better to stick to the argument than to repeadely cite a lame fallacy like “Anthracite is an authority and she disagrees.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
FYI:
toxic - adj.
1.Of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or other poison: a toxic condition; toxic hepatitis.
2.Capable of causing injury or death.
Any chemical that can kill you is, by definition, toxic. Carbon Dioxide is toxic. It is capable of causing death in concentrations far below the levels required for asphyxiation. If you don’t believe me, go ask Jim Lovell or one of the other 2 crewmen on Apollo 13. But none of this has anything to do with the central argument, it only goes to refute your fallacy about “dihydrogen monoxide” (boy is that one old and crusty).
I do not assert that the byproducts of burning waste fuel are the same as the pollution from dumped fuel. I only assert that in the bigger picture, they are the same: pollution.
As far as Nitrogen Dioxide requiring high pressures of an internal combustion engine to be created, that is just wrong. Here is a government paper that asserts that NOx is produced in simple kerosene heaters.
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/agengin/g01999.htm
Kerosene heaters operate at standard atmospheric pressures. I found dozens of online papers that agreed with my assertion. Nitrogen is present in the atmosphere and NOx compounds are created as a byproduct in almost any open-air combustion, to some degree. NOx compounds are also created by chemical decomposition of combustion byproducts, as anyone who ever lived in Denver and saw the “Brown Cloud” could attest.
The issue of The Tragedy of the Commons is precisely what we are talking about here. You complain that the little half gallon of pollutant is insignificant compared to the massive amounts of pollution created in cities. That is the fallacy that the paper debunks. You couldn’t possibly have given that paper more than a cursory glance, it would take at least an hour of concentrated thinking to follow the thread of the argument. Go read it. This is one of the most important papers on ecology ever written.
What does burning wood have to do with anything? As I have repeatedly said, just because other people pollute, that is not a license for anyone ELSE to pollute. You have to do what you can in YOUR OWN environment first.
So, let’s talk lame fallacies here.
What is incorrect about my statement?
You insisted that these were exactly as bad.
You also use the example also of “Diluting pollution is not the solution. All you’re doing is spreading the pollution around.” Well, people aren’t talking about this as being the solution to anything. Or advocating creating pollution wantonly, or being careless, or whatever. This is not the point.
Now let’s look at your other posts:
Um…yeah, OK.
This simply is not true! What would you rather have - 10 grams of mecury on your dinner, or spread that 10 grams amongst 1,000,000 people? Everyone carries trace elements in them from eating food and from the water - and although most of it comes from industrial processes, not all of it does. Saying that the two are equivalent, or that level of exposure to the environment as a whole is irrelevant…I just don’t understand this.
Now you are mixing things even further by adding mass population behavior into it.
The dispute was not that. The dispute was this original quote:
Let’s talk right down to Earth, in a language that everyone here can easily understand. And let’s give you that the long term effects are the same, OK? Because they may be, I am not sure. The diesel and/or gasoline will biodegrade somewhat if dumped, but let’s assume it doesnt:
-
Dumping the concentrated fuel into the environment has a dangerous - perhaps deadly - short-term effect.
-
Burning the fuel has a diluted, long term effect on the environment.
-
In the long term, you claim that the effects are the same.
Given that your assumption is correct, how is the dumping into the river “EXACTLY as bad” as the burning, when they have the same long-term effect but one has a deadlier short-term effect?
Really, try calling your local EPA extention office and asking them “If it’s all the same to you, I have a 55-gallon drum of used Safe-T-Clean I’m going to dump down my storm drain, since it’s all going into the environment anyhow.” Then watch as the HAZMAT team comes to pay you a visit.
My “analysis” is that dumping concentrated poison into the environment is far worse in immediate effects. The long term effects may be the same, but when the immediate impact on the environment is worse, why choose the worse option?
It must really seem odd…me trying to argue which of two options is the most environmentally responsible. Although I work all day on those evil, satanic power plants, about 75% of my work is driven towards running engineering and economic analyses on how to reduce their emissions, whether it be CO, CO[sub]2[/sub], SO[sub]2[/sub], NO[sub]x[/sub], or heavy metals.
Still disturbing, every time I read it.
sailor’s original statement of:
is correct. He did not say that it did not produce NO[sub]x[/sub], he is saying that open burning will not produce NO[sub]x[/sub] like it does in the high temperature (and pressure) conditions of an engine. And if you disagree with that statement, I can point you to Equilibrium reaction rate curves for NO[sub]x[/sub]and we can go into a big discussion of advanced thermochemistry too.
None of which is the point here.
We are just going around in circles here, and I really don’t like arguing with someone who has reduced this to a level of throwing out links for False Authority Syndrome and making veiled threats of physical violence. Oh, and from your link you dripped out with venom:
Although I have limited my argument here very tightly, you have now gone out of your way to imply that I am not a legitimate authority in combustion and environmental pollution. Instead, putting forth your BFA in Photography and experience with the USGS as superior qualifications. So, your expertise in photography requires an advanced knowledge of chemistry? How many hours of organic chem did you have? Equilibrium and non-equilibrium combustion? Thermodynamics?
And this, when you can’t even separate the issues of GLobal Warming and Ozone depletion due primarily to CFC’s:
Global warming phenomena does not equal ozone depletion. Do you have any idea here how wrong this statement of yours was?
I see these arguments of yours quite a bit when I debate on the environment. People know just a little - just what the TV tells them and a couple papers they browse online from spot sources, and then think they understand a horribly complex issue. And the mistake of mixing global warming and CFC-driven ozone depletion is typically the trigger that tells me that this person no longer has any sound scientific knowledge of the processes involved. But you know more than that, it was likely just a mistake in the heat of posting. You do want to retract that quote above, right?
Anthracite, I’ll respond to your remarks at length, but I’ve got to get some sleep. Time to go off the night shift. But I will just quickly remark, we ARE talking about wantonly and wastefully creating pollution. The backyard burn that you and others have advocated is wanton pollution, the recycling or reuse of the fuel is not.
I will also quickly point out your fallacy:
- Burning the fuel has a diluted, long term effect on the environment.
Burning the fuel has just the same hazardous short-term effect if you happen to be around the emissions BEFORE they are diluted. Just like in the water. This is why your power plant uses smokestacks instead of dumping the emissions at ground level. The emissions get diluted before they reach the ground.
Hello, I have some old tires that I need to dispose of. Does anybody here have a little bit of old gasoine that they need to dispose of that I can use to help burn them?
Thanks.