Sigh. Deepsix, I replied to your PM before reading this thread. I am now rather sorry I did so. I understand your concerns but I find the approach you chose to take in this thread... distasteful. It does not take a chemist or toxicologist to understand that there is a fundamental difference between a CaCl2 spill (note - dissolved, not "liquid" - liquid CaCl2 would be extremely hot - the press never gets this stuff right ;P ) and a pesticide, acid, or fertilizer spill. Heck, the kids learn about that stuff in grade school now. Don't see why Warren's "credentials" are being attacked. Do have fun with mine >:-D
Some perspective:
http://lavoieverte.qc.ec.gc.ca/csl/inf/inf010_e.html Shows the effects of what happens when waters from various souces are blended in the St. Lawrence. You might want to check the Ca++ and Cl- concentrations on the table about half way down.
There may indeed have been a few fish kills in the actual plume - high concentrations of ANY salt mean trouble as osmotic shock is a Bad Thing but I would not anticipate any long-term issues from the CaCl2 nor any problems in areas outside the concentrated plume. I would volunteer to drink the water but I know what else it in it
One of the hardest things to do when trying to protect the aquatic environment we all love is to learn *not* to overreact. If we keep pushing the "red alert" button every time something happens we will lose our audience for the stuff that really matters. We also won't have the mental or financial resources to deal with the big stuff. It is dangerous to treat all "chemical" spills equally because of this in part because treating innocuous or low-threat substances as though they are dangerous can lead to treating harmful substances as though they were innocuous. "Crying wolf" is *harmful*.
Other bits and pieces:
Sparky - interesting point about the formation of a halocline - if it was a lake I'd say yes but this is the river and there may be sufficient turbulence to dissapate the salt as it sinks through the river. I sure wish I'd been there with a conductivity meter, though, be an interesting study to do. ( JJ1 - I doubt the solution has the same specific gravity as water - unless it is awfully dilute)
[QUOTE = scubascudado]Let see. Do you know if LD50 rating for cyninde is higher then for CaCl? [/QUOTE]
As a matter of fact, it is one *heck* of a lot lower for cyanide. This would not have been all that hard to look up (yay, google) BEFORE typing.
CaCl2 (anhydrous - will be greater for solution)
ORL-RAT LD50 1000 mg kg-1
ORL-MUS LD50 1940 mg kg-1
(Rat and mouse oral dose - note huge difference between related species)
NaCN
ORL-RAT LD50 6.4 mg kg-1
And for comparison: NaCl
ORL-RAT LD50 3000 mg kg-1
ORL-MAN LDLO 1000 mg kg-1
ORL-MUS LD50 4000 mg kg-1
Before scaring yourselves too much by looking at MSDS sheets (out of context), I strongly recommend reading the list of precautions recommended for
this substance
Cheers all! Cat (Professional Lame Periodical Table Nerd)
Ok, bring it on :flame:
Some perspective:
http://lavoieverte.qc.ec.gc.ca/csl/inf/inf010_e.html Shows the effects of what happens when waters from various souces are blended in the St. Lawrence. You might want to check the Ca++ and Cl- concentrations on the table about half way down.
There may indeed have been a few fish kills in the actual plume - high concentrations of ANY salt mean trouble as osmotic shock is a Bad Thing but I would not anticipate any long-term issues from the CaCl2 nor any problems in areas outside the concentrated plume. I would volunteer to drink the water but I know what else it in it
One of the hardest things to do when trying to protect the aquatic environment we all love is to learn *not* to overreact. If we keep pushing the "red alert" button every time something happens we will lose our audience for the stuff that really matters. We also won't have the mental or financial resources to deal with the big stuff. It is dangerous to treat all "chemical" spills equally because of this in part because treating innocuous or low-threat substances as though they are dangerous can lead to treating harmful substances as though they were innocuous. "Crying wolf" is *harmful*.
Other bits and pieces:
Sparky - interesting point about the formation of a halocline - if it was a lake I'd say yes but this is the river and there may be sufficient turbulence to dissapate the salt as it sinks through the river. I sure wish I'd been there with a conductivity meter, though, be an interesting study to do. ( JJ1 - I doubt the solution has the same specific gravity as water - unless it is awfully dilute)
[QUOTE = scubascudado]Let see. Do you know if LD50 rating for cyninde is higher then for CaCl? [/QUOTE]
As a matter of fact, it is one *heck* of a lot lower for cyanide. This would not have been all that hard to look up (yay, google) BEFORE typing.
CaCl2 (anhydrous - will be greater for solution)
ORL-RAT LD50 1000 mg kg-1
ORL-MUS LD50 1940 mg kg-1
(Rat and mouse oral dose - note huge difference between related species)
NaCN
ORL-RAT LD50 6.4 mg kg-1
And for comparison: NaCl
ORL-RAT LD50 3000 mg kg-1
ORL-MAN LDLO 1000 mg kg-1
ORL-MUS LD50 4000 mg kg-1
Before scaring yourselves too much by looking at MSDS sheets (out of context), I strongly recommend reading the list of precautions recommended for
this substance
Cheers all! Cat (Professional Lame Periodical Table Nerd)
Ok, bring it on :flame:
