# Is chlorine a threat to the environment?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
**Created:** [November 19, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037 "2014-11-19T03:00:53Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@grue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grue)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2014, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/1 "2014-11-19T03:00:53Z")
From [Is chlorine — in any form — a threat to the environment? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1323/is-chlorine-in-any-form-a-threat-to-the-environment)
> [@](#):
>
> Greenpeace, for one, has adopted the slogan “chlorine kills.”
Yes, I do believe that was the point.
---
### Author:  [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/2 "2014-11-19T03:55:11Z")
> [@grue](#):
>
> From [Is chlorine — in any form — a threat to the environment? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1323/is-chlorine-in-any-form-a-threat-to-the-environment)
>
> Yes, I do believe that was the point.
I have absolutely no idea what yours is, though.
---
### Author:  [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/3 "2014-11-19T15:55:10Z")
The column talks about how reactive pure chlorine is, but that same reactivity causes chlorine compounds to tend to _not_ be reactive. It’s the flip side of nitrogen: Pure nitrogen is quite unreactive, therefore nitrogen compounds tend to be reactive.
It’s like saying that it’s dangerous to have a boulder sitting at the bottom of a hill, because if it rolled down from the top of the hill it could crush someone.
---
### Author:  [@RiverRunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RiverRunner)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/4 "2014-11-19T16:02:52Z")
> [@njtt](#):
>
> I have absolutely no idea what yours is, though.
I think that njtt’s is pointing out that the entire raison d’etre of many chlorine-containing products is that they kill things: bacteria, viruses, etc.
---
### Author:  [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)
#### Post date: [November 19, 2014, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/5 "2014-11-19T16:42:17Z")
> [@RiverRunner](#):
>
> I think that njtt’s is pointing out that the entire raison d’etre of many chlorine-containing products is that they kill things: bacteria, viruses, etc.
Some chlorine compounds aren’t particularly reactive. Salt, for example, is I’m guessing the most common chlorine compound on Earth, and it’s “just right” reactive for its role in biochemistry. Of course, chlorine compounds aren’t inert; even salt can be corrosive (when dissolved in water, by enhancing electrolytic oxidation reactions).
But the simple counter argument to “Chlorine is the death element of nature” is pretty obviously “Not all chlorine: e.g., normal salt.”
---
### Author:  [@InfiniteJest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfiniteJest)
#### Post date: [November 20, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/6 "2014-11-20T17:55:24Z")
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> The column talks about how reactive pure chlorine is, but that same reactivity causes chlorine compounds to tend to _not_ be reactive. It’s the flip side of nitrogen: Pure nitrogen is quite unreactive, therefore nitrogen compounds tend to be reactive.
What the hell? Hypochlorous acid is a potent oxidizer.
Ammonium ion is hardly reactive, being a weak acid.
This Cecil article fell flat on its face. Pretty clear that Ed didn’t major or come close to chemistry in college.
---
### Author:  [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)
#### Post date: [November 20, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/7 "2014-11-20T21:56:55Z")
What part of “tend” didn’t you understand?
---
### Author:  [@InfiniteJest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InfiniteJest)
#### Post date: [November 21, 2014, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-chlorine-a-threat-to-the-environment/705037/8 "2014-11-21T07:51:05Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#):
>
> What part of “tend” didn’t you understand?
There is no tendency for nitrogen containing compounds to be “reactive” nor chlorine containing compounds to be “unreactive.” njtt’s post completely misses everything by a country mile. First, “reactivity” isn’t hammered down. You know, it takes two to tango. Someone might be completely uninterested in dancing with person A but swept away by person B. Same with chemical compounds and the such … there are plenty of ways to react - from falling apart to combining to losing electrons to transmutating and losing protons … and reactions usually entail the presence of something else because electrons don’t just fall off and hang out by themselves.
Second, the “trend” that njtt describes holds no water in any physical sense; you’ll never find any author coming close to the bold and audaciously wrong statement that njtt made in any physical chemistry text.
> [@njtt](#):
>
> Pure nitrogen is quite unreactive, therefore nitrogen compounds tend to be reactive.
Show this to anyone with a modicum of chemistry knowledge and you will be laughed out the room.
All chemists roll in their graves.