The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire extinguishers,
which got me to thinking.
What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
It's a two car garage, where no vehicles have been parked for two years
now. I have more power tools than my wife knows about, including most of
the larger ones. The chip & dust collection is marginal, but on the radar
for upgrade this fall. The Critter is the only spray equipment I use, and
then only outside, and only for waterbased, so far.
There's a half of a Gorilla rack full of oils, varnishes, lacquers, shellac
and solvents for the aforementioned. And a metal cabinet out in the back
shed that should be relocated to the shop to store all of these. (Also a
this fall project.)
The BORG ad is for a Kidde Class A, B, C product, $20 or so. One size fits
all. (They are also selling a $300 table saw that's supposed to make you
Norm, Part 2, in the same flyer.) How big an extinguisher do I need?
And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote sensing
smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as the garage/shop,
but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the house?)
Evidently, October is National Fire Safety Month.
Patriarch
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 19:48:02 GMT, patriarch
<<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote:
>The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire extinguishers,
>which got me to thinking.
>
>What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
>
=============================
Try the Fire Company that serves your neighborhood...
Mine is a Volunteer unit and they "did" their thing and I followed
their suggestions...
Bob Griffiths
"patriarch [email protected]>" <<patriarch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
I have the Home Depot "Kidde" brands in my gara^H^H^H^Hshop. But get ready
for anyone with an expertise in fire fighting to weigh in on the quality of
these extinguishers.
By my informal data gathering metrics, almost all Professionals tell you to
get hooked up with a firm that sells and services quality devices.
One thing they all advocated was periodically shaking the dry chem ones to
loosen up the powder. Evidently it can get packed down.
> And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote sensing
> smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as the
garage/shop,
> but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the house?)
Nope - but I wouldn't want one. My shop smoke detector goes off more
frequently than I had anticipated when I do some sanding. Seeing as how my
shop time is early am and late evening, that wouldn't work for me.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 16:09:47 -0400, leonard <[email protected]> wrote:
> a 10 pound ABC unit should be the minimum you should use.(I used to be in
> the business)
...and keep in mind, a 10 pound extinguisher gives you just about
exactly 10 seconds before it's empty. Bigger is better, folks.
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:02:04 -0400, J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>>
>> Ken Yee <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
>>
>> That depends on how long you can hold your breath.
>
> Huh? Halon is nontoxic. If there's enough of it to displace most of the
> air in a space it can smother you but that's about it.
It also turns into various nasties at very high temperatures, but if you're
in that hot of a fire and using an extinguisher, you're in trouble
already.
In article <[email protected]>,
Greg <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Huh? Halon is nontoxic. If there's enough of it to displace most of the
>>> air in a space it can smother you but that's about it.
>>
>>It also turns into various nasties at very high temperatures, but if you're
>>in that hot of a fire and using an extinguisher, you're in trouble
>>already.
>
>I worked in computer rooms with Halon systems for years. We got lots of pitches
>about how safe it was. The story goes that Halon will put out a fire at
>concentrations that will still allow humans to breathe (that is the design size
>of the system) but you are still supposed to get the hell out. The demo always
>showed a guy sitting in a chair while it dumped, then he gets up and walks out
>like nothing ever happened. I assumed that was a joke but I also understand
>Halon is the extingusher of choice on nuke subs so it can't be that toxic.
>As for the heat issues, the computer rooms were going to go off about 30-45
>seconds after the detectors smelled the first whiff of smoke so the fire
>shouldn't be that hot yet. You had that long to hit the "abort" button if it
>was a false alarm. There was no mistaking the alarm. It was loud enough to make
>you want to evacuate or at least hit abort to stop the noise.
Facts on HALON -- Halon is a brand name for a whole family of flourocarbon
compounds. Just like 'Freon', for air-conditioner working fluid. In fact,
'Halon' and 'Freon' are cousins, as chemical compounds go. As with Freon,
the number after the name identifies a specific compound. *MANY* Halon
compounds are quite hazardous to breathe. There is, however, at least one
that _will_ maintain a 'breathable' atmosphere, while failing to support
open-flame combustion. Interestingly, Halon fire-suppression seems to work
by a different mechanism than other 'extinguisher' systems. 'Traditional'
systems put out a fire by either separating the fuel from the oxygen in the
air, or by pulling the heat away, so that combustion is not self-sustaining.
Halon seems to actually 'interrupt' the combustion process -- calling it a
'negative effect catalyst' is not too far off the mark.
The 'breathable' Halon compound _was_ more expensive than some of the other
fire-suppression Halons -- which variant was deployed in any given computer
facility was a choice made by that operator. Systems with the 'bad stuff'
worked on a delayed-action basis -- you hit the dump switch, and the alarm
went off =immediately=, telling everybody to evacuate. Then, after an
'appropriate' delay, the dump valves opened. 'Breathable' systems did _not_
have any 'evacuation' delay. Either kind of system may have had a 'warning'
interval -- to allow for an abort on a false-alarm trigger.
I've been in a computer room equipped with the breathable system, when the
alarm went off. Impressive! Particularly since somebody (read some idjiot :)
had replaced a couple of the grid floor tiles over dump points with solid
ones. They blew about 3 feet straight up in the air. Anyway, the temp in
the room plummeted probably 25 degrees F, nearly instantaneously -- providing
another 'good excuse' to get the h*ll out of there. That particular stuff
really _is_ breathable, although it is not terribly pleasant to do so.
>> Huh? Halon is nontoxic. If there's enough of it to displace most of the
>> air in a space it can smother you but that's about it.
>
>It also turns into various nasties at very high temperatures, but if you're
>in that hot of a fire and using an extinguisher, you're in trouble
>already.
I worked in computer rooms with Halon systems for years. We got lots of pitches
about how safe it was. The story goes that Halon will put out a fire at
concentrations that will still allow humans to breathe (that is the design size
of the system) but you are still supposed to get the hell out. The demo always
showed a guy sitting in a chair while it dumped, then he gets up and walks out
like nothing ever happened. I assumed that was a joke but I also understand
Halon is the extingusher of choice on nuke subs so it can't be that toxic.
As for the heat issues, the computer rooms were going to go off about 30-45
seconds after the detectors smelled the first whiff of smoke so the fire
shouldn't be that hot yet. You had that long to hit the "abort" button if it
was a false alarm. There was no mistaking the alarm. It was loud enough to make
you want to evacuate or at least hit abort to stop the noise.
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:45:35 -0500, Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:17:18 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> while the anonymous poster (AS) just states "True", "False" as if
>> one were to take his word for it).
>
> False. 1) I hate spam, and make it as hard as possible for the schmucks to
> find my email.
Bah. There are dozens of subscription filtering services out there,
lots of good software to block spam (zaep.com for windows, SpamAssassin for
*nix boxes). Claiming that _the_ reason you're posting under a fake name
is to avoid spam is just an excuse.
2) The facts are public record, easily accessible to anyone
> with a library card. _Don't_ take my word for it: look it up yourself!
> Reality has the wonderful property that it is what it is whatever anyone
> says about it. So study the scientific literature, and voila--you'll see
> the same things I wrote. You can even do your own experiments, and
> voila--you'll get the same results.
And yet, your words would have so much more effect if, as someone else
said, you weren't hiding behind a curtain while saying them.
> regards,
> Robert Lane,
There ya go, that's getting better.
> MIT '79 (VII, if you know what that means)
Melbourne Inter-coastal tunnel, 1979. Conception place/date maybe?
In article <[email protected]>, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> says...
> The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
> accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
> towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
> towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
> pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
> - Albert Jay Nock
>
>
Love the siglines. Is that from his "Memoirs of a Superflous Man" book?
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:24:37 -0500, Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:58:18 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
>
>> Bah. There are dozens of subscription filtering services out there,
>> lots of good software to block spam (zaep.com for windows, SpamAssassin for
>> *nix boxes). Claiming that _the_ reason you're posting under a fake name
>> is to avoid spam is just an excuse.
>
> Sorry, but wrong.
Sorry, but it may be _one of the reasons_, but it's clearly not the
_only_ reason.
> I can see the jump in spam even when my email is
> disguised ("remove something" type). The ISP from which I post filters
> most, not all.
My direct personal experience, experimenting with email addresses and
aliases, differs from yours.
> (BTW, were you the one at the Greek Denny's who wanted a saw handle?)
Nope, didn't get to the rummage sale. I assume that was the one on highway
100? Both events that I've known about so far (other than the one that
Paul and I went to at the wrong Balestrari's) have been on bad days.
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
>
>> So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
>
>Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
>layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
>other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
>produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
>trying to keep you alive.
I respect the environment.. I recycle.. I try to be responsible and
caring about waste and air quality..
BUT, if my ass (and my tools) is about to burn up, I'd put the fire
out with baby seals and unburned hydrocarbons if it worked fast..
Mac
bigger is better and have more than one. I have 3 10lb in my basement and 2
20lb in the outside garage/shop.
"patriarch [email protected]>" <<patriarch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire
> extinguishers,
> which got me to thinking.
>
> What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
>
> It's a two car garage, where no vehicles have been parked for two years
> now. I have more power tools than my wife knows about, including most of
> the larger ones. The chip & dust collection is marginal, but on the radar
> for upgrade this fall. The Critter is the only spray equipment I use, and
> then only outside, and only for waterbased, so far.
>
> There's a half of a Gorilla rack full of oils, varnishes, lacquers,
> shellac
> and solvents for the aforementioned. And a metal cabinet out in the back
> shed that should be relocated to the shop to store all of these. (Also a
> this fall project.)
>
> The BORG ad is for a Kidde Class A, B, C product, $20 or so. One size
> fits
> all. (They are also selling a $300 table saw that's supposed to make you
> Norm, Part 2, in the same flyer.) How big an extinguisher do I need?
>
> And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote sensing
> smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as the
> garage/shop,
> but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the house?)
>
> Evidently, October is National Fire Safety Month.
>
> Patriarch
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:05:58 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:10:22 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> I expect you to use nothing but waterborne finishes, cook nothing
>> on the BBQ, use electric home heat, and drive an electric car
>> so you don't pollute the air, Scoby baby.
>>
>> (Oops, electricity is coal-powered so the damage is sone anyway.
>> No heat for you. BTW, is your shop totally Neander-based yet?)
>
>False. I live in a technologically advanced society. Please stop trying to
>impress us with your contrived straw men. I neander for the fun
>of it. I drive, but combine trips. I don't drive too fast, but still stay
>with the flow of traffic. I enjoy a charcoal grill-out now and then. I am,
>in short, nothing at all like the insulting portrait you wish to paint. So
>much for the ad hominem.
Heh, it's winter. Put your thick skin back on. That was humor, not
an attack. Man, lighten UP. Eez joke, mon.
>Why is it that my reporting of scientifically peer-reviewed public
>knowledge causes you so much fear? What are you afraid of? Yes, your world
>view might have to change to fit reality, and that may frighten and
>confuse you. However, many other people have mastered that challenge, and
>have come through as better people. <really funny, but ad hominem, punch
>line redacted.>
I used to be somewhat of an environmentalist but I read too much
research for that. Liberal scientists tend to insert more fear
than reality or science. Please note, that's not my fear.
>I am sorry Mr. Jacques. I had previously scored your posts high, because
Hey, that's "Jaques". My other nickname is "C-less". My other
brother Jacques Cousteau has a "c" in his first name. (Should
I overreact to an ad hominy attack here? I'm cornfused.)
>of the quality of woodworking advice you presented here. I'm sorry to have
>to rescore your posts. Your postings on this topic have revealed an
>inability to perform critical thought and sound reasoning. I cannot expect
>that your woodworking advice is any more sound. Because it is possible
>that you do indeed have some small ability with wood, or are able to
>repeat sound advice presented to you by your betters, your ww posts may
>contain a nugget of value here and there. Thus, no "plonk." Regretably, I
>suspect that your vitriolic response will be to kill the messenger. Do try
>to rise above that base emotion, you'll be a better, more mature person
>for it.
Are you done yet? Good. Now smile. It was the original intention
of my post. What the heck got you so worked up, anyway?
Namaste.
-------------------------------------------------------------
* * Humorous T-shirts Online
* Norm's Got Strings * Wondrous Website Design
* * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------
these are Halotron I Fire Extinguisher there a little more money but there
is no mess to clean up
http://www.westpacmarine.com/amerex/halotron.asp
or fe-36
http://www.safetyemporium.com/ILPI_SITE/WebPagesUS/results.htm&&2eiBpe0obDuox2NvxMpoLGxolobo24lauSqa6qqaWWa
Searcher wrote:
> I have three 10 lb extinguishers around my shop, one at each window and
> one at the door, I figure if the fires too much I'm goin out the window!
> Thats what I got insurance for. I Used to own a restaraunt and the 10
> lb'ers we're required throughout, so needless to say I have many.
> Incedently, I popped an extinguisher about a month ago due to an errant
> spark hitting my staining table. Of course I just happen to have left a
> pan of still moist stain rag out. The A B C extinguisher really makes a
> mess and it only took a 1 second burst to put out the fire. But I was
> cleaning up the whole shop of that fine Sodium.
>
> Searcher1
>
> "Woodchuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> bigger is better and have more than one. I have 3 10lb in my basement
>> and 2 20lb in the outside garage/shop.
>>
>>
>> "patriarch [email protected]>" <<patriarch> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire
>>> extinguishers,
>>> which got me to thinking.
>>>
>>> What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
>>>
>>> It's a two car garage, where no vehicles have been parked for two years
>>> now. I have more power tools than my wife knows about, including most
>>> of
>>> the larger ones. The chip & dust collection is marginal, but on the
>>> radar
>>> for upgrade this fall. The Critter is the only spray equipment I use,
>>> and
>>> then only outside, and only for waterbased, so far.
>>>
>>> There's a half of a Gorilla rack full of oils, varnishes, lacquers,
>>> shellac
>>> and solvents for the aforementioned. And a metal cabinet out in the
>>> back
>>> shed that should be relocated to the shop to store all of these. (Also
>>> a this fall project.)
>>>
>>> The BORG ad is for a Kidde Class A, B, C product, $20 or so. One size
>>> fits
>>> all. (They are also selling a $300 table saw that's supposed to make
>>> you
>>> Norm, Part 2, in the same flyer.) How big an extinguisher do I need?
>>>
>>> And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote
>>> sensing
>>> smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as the
>>> garage/shop,
>>> but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the house?)
>>>
>>> Evidently, October is National Fire Safety Month.
>>>
>>> Patriarch
>>
>>
Ken Yee wrote:
> "Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:aUH4d.12073$464.11453@trnddc01:
>
> > out. The A B C extinguisher really makes a mess and it only took a 1
> > second burst to put out the fire. But I was cleaning up the whole shop
> > of that fine Sodium.
>
> Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
>
> ken
We had the halon extinguishers at work and the fire inspector made us get
rid of them. Apparently a number of people have died from suffocation while
using halon extinguishers.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
(Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:N%W5d.12925
> It's been quite well known for nearly thirty years that halogenated
> hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
> oxygen.
I can see it coming in 20 or 50 years. Some volcanic eruption or excessive
cow farts will injure the atmosphere and scientists will be releasing CFCs
to make more oxygen from the ozone layer.
a 10 pound ABC unit should be the minimum you should use.(I used to be in
the business)
Len
"patriarch [email protected]>" <<patriarch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire
> extinguishers,
> which got me to thinking.
>
> What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
>
> It's a two car garage, where no vehicles have been parked for two years
> now. I have more power tools than my wife knows about, including most of
> the larger ones. The chip & dust collection is marginal, but on the radar
> for upgrade this fall. The Critter is the only spray equipment I use, and
> then only outside, and only for waterbased, so far.
>
> There's a half of a Gorilla rack full of oils, varnishes, lacquers,
> shellac
> and solvents for the aforementioned. And a metal cabinet out in the back
> shed that should be relocated to the shop to store all of these. (Also a
> this fall project.)
>
> The BORG ad is for a Kidde Class A, B, C product, $20 or so. One size
> fits
> all. (They are also selling a $300 table saw that's supposed to make you
> Norm, Part 2, in the same flyer.) How big an extinguisher do I need?
>
> And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote sensing
> smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as the
> garage/shop,
> but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the house?)
>
> Evidently, October is National Fire Safety Month.
>
> Patriarch
You should have the biggest dry powder extinguisher you can afford to fight a
fire in your flammable liquids but I also have an old pressurized water
extinguisher in case I simply have a paper/wood/sawdust fire. The advantage is
they are free to refill, you don't lose the whole thing the first time you pull
the handle and they actually perform better on an A fire with less cleanup.
On 23 Sep 2004 20:47:43 GMT, [email protected] (Greg) wrote:
>You should have the biggest dry powder extinguisher you can afford to fight a
>fire in your flammable liquids but I also have an old pressurized water
>extinguisher in case I simply have a paper/wood/sawdust fire. The advantage is
>they are free to refill, you don't lose the whole thing the first time you pull
>the handle and they actually perform better on an A fire with less cleanup.
As long as the presence of mind is there to not use the water bottle
on energized equipment or burning liquids. If bad things are
progressing quickly, that presence of mind may not be around.
I vote for multiple, decent sized dry chemical extinguishers. They
should be spread out, in easy to find places. I pole or wall mount
mine at chest height. Extinguishers buried under scrap or in the back
of the closet don't count.
Barry
Barry notes:
>I vote for multiple, decent sized dry chemical extinguishers. They
>should be spread out, in easy to find places. I pole or wall mount
>mine at chest height. Extinguishers buried under scrap or in the back
>of the closet don't count.
Sort of like people who put the kitchen extinguisher close by the stove, where
you're bound to get at least partially fried just reaching for it. Best bet:
one extinguisher (minimum) each side of each entry door, plus others as needed.
Charlie Self
"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for
President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
On 24 Sep 2004 11:50:18 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>Sort of like people who put the kitchen extinguisher close by the stove, where
>you're bound to get at least partially fried just reaching for it. Best bet:
>one extinguisher (minimum) each side of each entry door, plus others as needed.
Right!
One of my employees recently had to extinguish a tar kettle fire with
our equipment, (4) 20 LB. Halon extinguishers.
The roofers had placed both of their HUGE extinguishers right up
against the kettle, making them useless once the fire started. The
kettle cover jammed, so it couldn't be shut.
It took FOUR Halon bottles because the wind kept carrying the Halon
away. A small dry chem would have stopped things in no time.
Barry
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:14:37 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <plW5d.8148$XC.5074@trndny08>, [email protected] wrote:
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
>>>
>>> Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
>>> layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
>>> other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
>>> produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
>>> trying to keep you alive.
>>>
>>
>>Ozone is created spontaneously in the upper atmosphere by ionizing
>>radiation from the sun acting upon normal oxygen molecules.
>>
>>Removing the ozone layer requires removing the sun.
>>
> It's been quite well known for nearly thirty years that halogenated
> hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
> oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as
> reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
>
And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
And at upper atmospheric temperatures and pressures and concentrations?
So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military. Halon is
standard in armored vehicles. Has been for over twenty years.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nova" writes:
>
> > We had the halon extinguishers at work and the fire inspector made us
get
> > rid of them. Apparently a number of people have died from suffocation
> while
> > using halon extinguishers.
>
> Not only that but it is a MAJOR ozone layer problem.
>
> Some industries, which have not yet found an alternative, such as the like
> North Slope oil well platforms, still use them, but they have little
choice;
> however, if they ever have to use them, the fine will be in the
> $1,000,000.00 range.
>
> Lew
>
>
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:17:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:29:25 +0000, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
>
>> Ozone is created spontaneously in the upper atmosphere by ionizing
>> radiation from the sun acting upon normal oxygen molecules.
>>
>True.
>
>> Removing the ozone layer requires removing the sun.
>
>False.
>
>CFCs participate in a catalytic cycle which breaks down ozone. The
>catalytic aspect is why it is so important to stop putting CFCs into the
>atmosphere. Remember, CFCs are wholly artificial. Natural processes,
>vulcanism, for example, can contribute chlorine compounds to the
>atmosphere. The naturally occurring chlorinated molecules have a much
>smaller effect on upper-atmosphere ozone levels than do the artificial
>CFCs.
I expect you to use nothing but waterborne finishes, cook nothing
on the BBQ, use electric home heat, and drive an electric car
so you don't pollute the air, Scoby baby.
(Oops, electricity is coal-powered so the damage is sone anyway.
No heat for you. BTW, is your shop totally Neander-based yet?)
--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 22:02:04 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Huh? Halon is nontoxic.
That depends on your halon, and whether you've done something as
radical as spraying it onto a fire. The aircraft and confined-space
halons (halon 1340 ?) are deliberately chosen to have less-toxic
combustion by-products than the commonplace halon 1211.
I keep about 15kg of halon in the workshop, but as it's hard to
replace I don't use it. I'd have to have a serious hydrocarbon fire
before I went for those - little stuff or electrics would get hit with
dry powder, or water for timber.
So far my only workshop fires here have been sawdust in the extractor
(bucket of water) and a very small titanium fire (stand back and
watch the pretty fireworks).
--
Smert' spamionam
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:35:59 GMT, "news.cfl.rr.com"
<kdoney*@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>Most smoke detectors installed in new housing (less than 5 years old), sound
>alarms throughout the house when one goes off. If not, it's a simple thing
>to
>daisy chain one alarm to another. If you have no idea what I'm talking about
>then you need to talk to a professional. I have a large (7kg) ABC fire
>extinguisher in my shop. I got a discount when I went to my local fire house
>and asked questions. Believe it or not, Firemen are as friendly as police
>(or more).
>
>
and as a kid that grew up near a fire house, I can tell you that
they're a lot better pool players, too.. lol
Mac
Enviroweenie. Where's that pesticide?
"Australopithecus scobis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
>
> > So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
>
> Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
> layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
> other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
> produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
> trying to keep you alive.
>
> --
> "Keep your ass behind you"
>
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:06:45 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
>>> oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as
>>> reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
>>>
>>
>> And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
>
> It's a question of rates: Once the destruction rate is bigger than the
> ozone formation rate the amount of ozone diminuishes, as seen over
> both poles (where of course the formation rate is lower because there
> is light is less)
>
n. b. the deafening silence about the ozone thinning these past ten
years, even though the panic mongers said we should see continued
thinning to worsen for at least twenty years post CFC ban.
Actually a search on the website shows text from the law that banned halon.
It also lists exemptions from the ban on discharging the stuff and one of
the exemptions was fighting a fire for which the system was designed.
Rick
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ken Yee wrote:
>
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> >> Know anybody who will sell you one?
> >
> > Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
>
> Interesting. I didn't realize that anybody was still selling them. Do be
> sure that you have enough in the bank to cover the fine. Is there such a
> thing as "halon insurance"?
>
> > ken
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>Ken Yee wrote:
> >>
> >>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>> Know anybody who will sell you one?
> >>>
> >>> Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
> >>
> >>Interesting. I didn't realize that anybody was still selling them. Do
be
> >>sure that you have enough in the bank to cover the fine. Is there such
a
> >>thing as "halon insurance"?
> >
> > What fine?
> >
> > <http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/fire/qa.html#qA2>
> >
> > Must I now dismantle my halon fire protection system?
> >
> > No. It is legal to continue to use your existing halon system. It is
even
> > legal to purchase recycled halon and halon produced before the phaseout
> > to recharge your system.
> >
> > However, due to the fact that halons deplete the ozone layer, users are
> > encouraged to consider replacing their system and making their halon
> > stock available for users with more critical needs.
> >
> > Are there any federal laws on emissions of halons?
> >
> > EPA's final rule published March 5, 1998 (63 FR 11084) prohibits the
> > intentional release of Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 2402 during
the
> > testing, repairing, maintaining, servicing or disposal of
> > halon-containing equipment or during the use of such equipment for
> > technician training. The rule also requires appropriate training of
> > technicians regarding emissions reduction and proper disposal of halon
> > and halon-containing equipment (see the guidance document for more
> > information).
> >
> > The rule became effective April 6, 1998.
>
> Doesn't say anything about not fining you when you discharge the halon.
There is no law saying that breathing is legal either but I do it on a
regular basis. I haven't been fined yet.
> >
> > scott
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Nova" writes:
> We had the halon extinguishers at work and the fire inspector made us get
> rid of them. Apparently a number of people have died from suffocation
while
> using halon extinguishers.
Not only that but it is a MAJOR ozone layer problem.
Some industries, which have not yet found an alternative, such as the like
North Slope oil well platforms, still use them, but they have little choice;
however, if they ever have to use them, the fine will be in the
$1,000,000.00 range.
Lew
jo4hn responds:
>The MacKenzie brothers came out with a movie some years back. The
>subject of putting out fires was well covered. It had to do with
>drinking massive amounts of beer.
Works great...unless it's an electrical fire at which point life gets lively.
Charlie Self
"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for
President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
Aaron Wood wrote:
> As a volunteer FF, I can affirm that water is really the way to go.
> Better yet, buy a compressed air/water extinguisher, and some class-A
> foam mix, and make a couple percent foam/water solution. The foam
> causes the water to lose it's surface tension, and it will soak into
> the wood faster, stopping the spread to unburnt wood faster, and then
> the water will cool off the fire itself.
Wetter water, dam good stuff!
>
> The first list is mostly handled well by an A extinguisher, but not if
> electrical is involved. There you either need GFCI (which you
> probably need in your garage shop in the US anyways after the 1999
> NEC, and I'd still have a master switch for the room that kills
> everything but lights, and hit that before grabbing the extinguisher.
>
>>If you really think your biggest danger is an electrical fire you need to get
>>an electrician out there. My shop is virtually 100% GFCI so a small splash of
>>water will shut it down.
If the shop is wired right hitting live electrics with water won't be a
problem, if it isn't the power should still go off, just taking out a
breaker/fuse further back. As our visiting firemen tell us "in the event
hit it with whatever suits, fuse/breakers will open" they've been know
to hit a mains incomer with water to take down the supply in a factory
as it was thought to be the ignition source!
I still think that in a wood shop you are most likely to have a wood fire.
Water is the best way to fight that.
If you are sloshing flamable liquids around to the point that you really have
to worry about water spreading the fire you should tighten up your flammable
liquid procedures or think about calling it a class 1 div 2 and using explosion
proof electrical fittings.
If you really think your biggest danger is an electrical fire you need to get
an electrician out there. My shop is virtually 100% GFCI so a small splash of
water will shut it down.
I have already said you should have a big ABC extinguisher but I still say a
pressurized water is also handy.
To start with refills are free and you don't have to refill it everytime you
use it. If you squirt a teaspoon of dry powder you are going to be paying to
have it cleaned and recharged. The powder keeps the valve from sealing again
and it will be dead within a day or two.
[email protected] (Greg) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I still think that in a wood shop you are most likely to have a wood fire.
> Water is the best way to fight that.
As a volunteer FF, I can affirm that water is really the way to go.
Better yet, buy a compressed air/water extinguisher, and some class-A
foam mix, and make a couple percent foam/water solution. The foam
causes the water to lose it's surface tension, and it will soak into
the wood faster, stopping the spread to unburnt wood faster, and then
the water will cool off the fire itself.
These are the only extinguishers we carry. We use dirt for flammable
liquids, much easier.
What I can't comment so readily on is the fire cause. Sources I can
easily see are:
- sawdust lit by a cigarette or spark from "finding" a nail/screw with
a saw
- pile of oily rags in a hot, enclosed shop
- electrical fire (overloaded circuits)
less so:
- flammable liquides/vapors
The first list is mostly handled well by an A extinguisher, but not if
electrical is involved. There you either need GFCI (which you
probably need in your garage shop in the US anyways after the 1999
NEC, and I'd still have a master switch for the room that kills
everything but lights, and hit that before grabbing the extinguisher.
> If you really think your biggest danger is an electrical fire you need to get
> an electrician out there. My shop is virtually 100% GFCI so a small splash of
> water will shut it down.
Most fires I've been to have been electrical in origin, or heat caused
by faulty wiring/ventilation of something electrical (one propane leak
was "fun"). Don't forget that thick sawdust (or plane shavings) + hot
lights = fire.
> I have already said you should have a big ABC extinguisher but I still say a
> pressurized water is also handy.
I'd get both. Use the water for non-electric stuff, and the ABC for
anything that might be live.
-Aaron
Badger <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<0%[email protected]>...
> Aaron Wood wrote:
>
> > As a volunteer FF, I can affirm that water is really the way to go.
> > Better yet, buy a compressed air/water extinguisher, and some class-A
> > foam mix, and make a couple percent foam/water solution. The foam
> > causes the water to lose it's surface tension, and it will soak into
> > the wood faster, stopping the spread to unburnt wood faster, and then
> > the water will cool off the fire itself.
> Wetter water, dam good stuff!
> >
> > The first list is mostly handled well by an A extinguisher, but not if
> > electrical is involved. There you either need GFCI (which you
> > probably need in your garage shop in the US anyways after the 1999
> > NEC, and I'd still have a master switch for the room that kills
> > everything but lights, and hit that before grabbing the extinguisher.
> >
> >>If you really think your biggest danger is an electrical fire you need to get
> >>an electrician out there. My shop is virtually 100% GFCI so a small splash of
> >>water will shut it down.
> If the shop is wired right hitting live electrics with water won't be a
> problem, if it isn't the power should still go off, just taking out a
> breaker/fuse further back. As our visiting firemen tell us "in the event
> hit it with whatever suits, fuse/breakers will open" they've been know
> to hit a mains incomer with water to take down the supply in a factory
> as it was thought to be the ignition source!
Putting water on a live wire is a big no-no in our dept, but that
might be due to having no idea if the place we're going into is
properly wired, as being in a fairly isolated, rural community, people
get "creative" in their wiring an building habits.
In article <plW5d.8148$XC.5074@trndny08>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
>>
>>> So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
>>
>> Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
>> layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
>> other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
>> produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
>> trying to keep you alive.
>>
>
>Ozone is created spontaneously in the upper atmosphere by ionizing
>radiation from the sun acting upon normal oxygen molecules.
>
>Removing the ozone layer requires removing the sun.
>
It's been quite well known for nearly thirty years that halogenated
hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as
reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:27:49 -0400, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>
>>> And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
>>
>> It's a question of rates: Once the destruction rate is bigger than the
>> ozone formation rate the amount of ozone diminuishes, as seen over
>> both poles (where of course the formation rate is lower because there
>> is light is less)
>
> And we know that those holes are abnormal how?
>
Exactly. We detected them when we launched the satalites to measure
ozone, and then we discarded the data because we assumed it was faulty.
Only years later after the fact did they go back and confirm that the
data confirmed seasonal thinning of polar Ozone. We have no idea, at
present, what the cause may have been.
Also, since this debate was fashionable, we've discovered creatures that
halogenate their own hydrocarbons--part of the weird metabolism of deep
ocean volcanic creatures that live happily in "toxic sulpher fumes."
Meaning it's no more possible to eliminate environmental CFCs than it is
to eliminate environmental radiation.
DAGS on "Sustainabilty of Human Progress" for MANY pages of actual data
and actual calculations. You need not agree with his conclusions, but
you must understand his thought process.
We have temperature readings dating back to Galleleo. But for most of
the Earth, no readings exist prior to WWII when the weather became
important to some folks as a means to an end to prosecuting said WW.
The fact that some people "remember" cooler weather has nothing to do
with whether the worldwide pattern of weather has in fact changed, and
even less to do with what, if anything should be done in the event that
it DOES prove to be a problem.
Environmentalism has in some quarters become a religion, with all that
implies. It is the one heresy of which it remains fashionable to accuse
another in Western liberal cultures.
But religions arguments do not make for good policy, regardless of
whether your religion identifies a particular diety.
"Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:aUH4d.12073$464.11453@trnddc01:
> out. The A B C extinguisher really makes a mess and it only took a 1
> second burst to put out the fire. But I was cleaning up the whole shop
> of that fine Sodium.
Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
ken
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Know anybody who will sell you one?
Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
ken
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Yes, but it still doesn't work worth a damn. US Navy advice for a
> metal fire on an aircraft carrier is to shove the affected aircraft
> overboard.
Ack. 2M airplane? :-P
Halotron is being offered by some companies as an alternative
to Halon, but it's supposedly not as good...
ken
Ken Yee <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Yes, but it still doesn't work worth a damn. US Navy advice for a
>> metal fire on an aircraft carrier is to shove the affected aircraft
>> overboard.
>
> Ack. 2M airplane? :-P
My guess would be that if there's a metal fire going on, the aircraft
is no longer worth $2million :-)
John
John McCoy responds:
>> Ack. 2M airplane? :-P
>
>My guess would be that if there's a metal fire going on, the aircraft
>is no longer worth $2million :-)
Maybe not. Maybe yes. But I'd like to know what kind of military aircraft you
can get today for $2 million. Small helicopter or recon plane?
Charlie Self
"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for
President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
Charlie Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> John McCoy responds:
> >> Ack. 2M airplane? :-P
> >
> >My guess would be that if there's a metal fire going on, the aircraft
> >is no longer worth $2million :-)
I suspect that a conflagration of a 2M aircraft is much less of a concern
to the Navy than a fire on a (what) 40 Billion dollar aircraft carrier.
Remember the Forrestal? (http://forrestal.org/fidfacts/page13.htm for
those of you who don't)
> Maybe not. Maybe yes. But I'd like to know what kind of military aircraft you
> can get today for $2 million. Small helicopter or recon plane?
Not much. The Navy apparently still has some Beech T-44 King Airs. I
don't know which exact models these are, but some civilian models can be
picked up for about $2 million. You won't see one on an aircraft carrier,
though.
Frank Stutzman
(someday I'll be able to know enough about woodworking to write about
something that isn't OT in this group)
Frank Stutzman writes:
>> Maybe not. Maybe yes. But I'd like to know what kind of military aircraft
>you
>> can get today for $2 million. Small helicopter or recon plane?
>
>Not much. The Navy apparently still has some Beech T-44 King Airs. I
>don't know which exact models these are, but some civilian models can be
>picked up for about $2 million. You won't see one on an aircraft carrier,
>though.
Yeah, well...in 1960, at Kaneohe Bay, my Marine Corps squadron got new HUS-1
helicopters. They were incredibly expensive compred to the ones we were getting
rid of (Korean War relics with patched bullet holes included): $750,000 per
unit.
Charlie Self
"Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for
President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
I have three 10 lb extinguishers around my shop, one at each window and one
at the door, I figure if the fires too much I'm goin out the window! Thats
what I got insurance for. I Used to own a restaraunt and the 10 lb'ers we're
required throughout, so needless to say I have many. Incedently, I popped an
extinguisher about a month ago due to an errant spark hitting my staining
table. Of course I just happen to have left a pan of still moist stain rag
out. The A B C extinguisher really makes a mess and it only took a 1 second
burst to put out the fire. But I was cleaning up the whole shop of that fine
Sodium.
Searcher1
"Woodchuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> bigger is better and have more than one. I have 3 10lb in my basement and
> 2 20lb in the outside garage/shop.
>
>
> "patriarch [email protected]>" <<patriarch> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire
>> extinguishers,
>> which got me to thinking.
>>
>> What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
>>
>> It's a two car garage, where no vehicles have been parked for two years
>> now. I have more power tools than my wife knows about, including most of
>> the larger ones. The chip & dust collection is marginal, but on the
>> radar
>> for upgrade this fall. The Critter is the only spray equipment I use,
>> and
>> then only outside, and only for waterbased, so far.
>>
>> There's a half of a Gorilla rack full of oils, varnishes, lacquers,
>> shellac
>> and solvents for the aforementioned. And a metal cabinet out in the back
>> shed that should be relocated to the shop to store all of these. (Also a
>> this fall project.)
>>
>> The BORG ad is for a Kidde Class A, B, C product, $20 or so. One size
>> fits
>> all. (They are also selling a $300 table saw that's supposed to make you
>> Norm, Part 2, in the same flyer.) How big an extinguisher do I need?
>>
>> And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote sensing
>> smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as the
>> garage/shop,
>> but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the house?)
>>
>> Evidently, October is National Fire Safety Month.
>>
>> Patriarch
>
>
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:41:37 GMT, "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles
Krug"@cdksystems.com> calmly ranted:
>> n. b. the deafening silence about the ozone thinning these past ten
>> years, even though the panic mongers said we should see continued
>> thinning to worsen for at least twenty years post CFC ban.
>>
>
>Additionally, read here. Note his reliance on actual math and science,
>and not the assumption that humans are better off extinct:
>
>http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ozone.html
That's nearly 8 years old (1997) and doesn't cover any stats since
the global reduction of CFC use. Is anything newer out there?
--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -
Ken Yee wrote:
> "Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:aUH4d.12073$464.11453@trnddc01:
>
>> out. The A B C extinguisher really makes a mess and it only took a 1
>> second burst to put out the fire. But I was cleaning up the whole shop
>> of that fine Sodium.
>
> Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
Know anybody who will sell you one?
> ken
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Halon has a higher CFC "tax" on it than R12, I imagine it is $100 a pound if
you could actually find it. This stuff wasn't cheap when it was thought of as
being harmless.
A typical computer room "dump" was $30,000 or more. I saw one once, a sight to
behold ... and it didn't kill us.
Flying debris was more dangerous than the gas and nobody stayed in there long
enough to breathe much of it. The claxon horn ran most folks off. ;-)
Nova wrote:
> Ken Yee wrote:
>
>> "Searcher" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:aUH4d.12073$464.11453@trnddc01:
>>
>> > out. The A B C extinguisher really makes a mess and it only took a 1
>> > second burst to put out the fire. But I was cleaning up the whole shop
>> > of that fine Sodium.
>>
>> Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
>>
>> ken
>
> We had the halon extinguishers at work and the fire inspector made us get
> rid of them. Apparently a number of people have died from suffocation
> while using halon extinguishers.
If it was a permanently installed system then it was likely a halon-flood
system that aims at replacing all the air in a room with halon. CO2 will
kill you by the same mechanism. So will nitrogen-flood.
> --
> Jack Novak
> Buffalo, NY - USA
> (Remove "SPAM" from email address to reply)
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Ken Yee <[email protected]> writes:
>> Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
>
> That depends on how long you can hold your breath.
Huh? Halon is nontoxic. If there's enough of it to displace most of the
air in a space it can smother you but that's about it. And you're not
likely to manage that with a handheld extinguisher in any space with enough
airflow to be able to use flammable solvents.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Lew Hodgett wrote:
>"Nova" writes:
>
>
>
>>We had the halon extinguishers at work and the fire inspector made us get
>>rid of them. Apparently a number of people have died from suffocation
>>
>>
>while
>
>
>>using halon extinguishers.
>>
>>
>
>Not only that but it is a MAJOR ozone layer problem.
>
>Some industries, which have not yet found an alternative, such as the like
>North Slope oil well platforms, still use them, but they have little choice;
>however, if they ever have to use them, the fine will be in the
>$1,000,000.00 range.
>
>Lew
>
>
>
Is Purple K still being used??
patriarch < wrote:
>The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire extinguishers,
>which got me to thinking.
>
><snip>
>
When you get your extinguisher, do yourself a favor and read the
directions before you have to use the thing. Too many times folks crack
that thing, rush into the fire and blow the whole thing right past the
fire! If the extinguisher says "Spray from 10 feet" then spray it from
10 feet, not 2 feet! Besides, there is no reason to go and make your
eyebrows crispy!
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> I keep about 15kg of halon in the workshop, but as it's hard to
> replace I don't use it. I'd have to have a serious hydrocarbon fire
> before I went for those - little stuff or electrics would get hit with
> dry powder, or water for timber.
Your lucky, get caught with Halon here and into court you go, only a
very few industries are allowed it, along with the mil and police for
extingushing their comrades in riots...
Ken Yee wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Know anybody who will sell you one?
>
> Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
Interesting. I didn't realize that anybody was still selling them. Do be
sure that you have enough in the bank to cover the fine. Is there such a
thing as "halon insurance"?
> ken
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>>Ken Yee wrote:
>>
>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Know anybody who will sell you one?
>>>
>>> Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
>>
>>Interesting. I didn't realize that anybody was still selling them. Do be
>>sure that you have enough in the bank to cover the fine. Is there such a
>>thing as "halon insurance"?
>
> What fine?
>
> <http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/fire/qa.html#qA2>
>
> Must I now dismantle my halon fire protection system?
>
> No. It is legal to continue to use your existing halon system. It is even
> legal to purchase recycled halon and halon produced before the phaseout
> to recharge your system.
>
> However, due to the fact that halons deplete the ozone layer, users are
> encouraged to consider replacing their system and making their halon
> stock available for users with more critical needs.
>
> Are there any federal laws on emissions of halons?
>
> EPA's final rule published March 5, 1998 (63 FR 11084) prohibits the
> intentional release of Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 2402 during the
> testing, repairing, maintaining, servicing or disposal of
> halon-containing equipment or during the use of such equipment for
> technician training. The rule also requires appropriate training of
> technicians regarding emissions reduction and proper disposal of halon
> and halon-containing equipment (see the guidance document for more
> information).
>
> The rule became effective April 6, 1998.
Doesn't say anything about not fining you when you discharge the halon.
>
> scott
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
>>> oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as
>>> reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
>>>
>>
>> And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
>
> It's a question of rates: Once the destruction rate is bigger than the
> ozone formation rate the amount of ozone diminuishes, as seen over
> both poles (where of course the formation rate is lower because there
> is light is less)
And we know that those holes are abnormal how?
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:33:46 GMT, mac davis <[email protected]>
wrote:
>BUT, if my ass (and my tools) is about to burn up, I'd put the fire
>out with baby seals and unburned hydrocarbons if it worked fast..
And more to the point, fridges release far more than fire
extinguishers need to. Lets control CFCs by all means, but
extinguisher panic is excessive.
Oh, and U-CDK_CHARLES - you're a clueless idiot, go read some science.
In article <6tX5d.24556$Wa7.7694@trndny06>, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:14:37 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <plW5d.8148$XC.5074@trndny08>, [email protected] wrote:
>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
>>>>
>>>> Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
>>>> layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
>>>> other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
>>>> produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
>>>> trying to keep you alive.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ozone is created spontaneously in the upper atmosphere by ionizing
>>>radiation from the sun acting upon normal oxygen molecules.
>>>
>>>Removing the ozone layer requires removing the sun.
>>>
>> It's been quite well known for nearly thirty years that halogenated
>> hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
>> oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as
>> reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
>>
>
>And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
No affect on the mechanism or the rate of synthesis, obviously. But since it
increases the rate of breakdown, it clearly produces a net loss of ozone.
>
>And at upper atmospheric temperatures and pressures and concentrations?
>
Yes.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:33:46 GMT, mac davis <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:
>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
>>
>>> So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
>>
>>Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
Check the stats again. It is THEORIZED but has never proven that
the released chlorine destroys the ozone layer.
>>layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
>>other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
>>produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
>>trying to keep you alive.
>
>I respect the environment.. I recycle.. I try to be responsible and
>caring about waste and air quality..
Yes, and recycle stuff, buy bulk when possible, etc.
>BUT, if my ass (and my tools) is about to burn up, I'd put the fire
>out with baby seals and unburned hydrocarbons if it worked fast..
Ayup. Whatever it takes.
Thought for the Day:
To change one's self is sufficient. It's the idiots who want to change
the world who are causing all the trouble --Anonymous
--
The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that
accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity
towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move
towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy
pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
- Albert Jay Nock
- http://diversify.com Web Programming for curmudgeons and others. -
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:36:36 GMT, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles <Charles
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 19:06:45 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> "U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
>>>> oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as
>>>> reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
>>
>> It's a question of rates: Once the destruction rate is bigger than the
>> ozone formation rate the amount of ozone diminuishes, as seen over
>> both poles (where of course the formation rate is lower because there
>> is light is less)
>>
>
> n. b. the deafening silence about the ozone thinning these past ten
> years, even though the panic mongers said we should see continued
> thinning to worsen for at least twenty years post CFC ban.
>
Additionally, read here. Note his reliance on actual math and science,
and not the assumption that humans are better off extinct:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ozone.html
Since we didn't even know there was an ozone layer 40 years ago it is pretty
hard to have any real historical data about the effect of CFCs on it. This is
just theoretical chemistry added on to the fact that the original "Freon"
patents had expired and Dow wasn't making much money on it. Since the fix is
another synthetic chlorinated hydrocarbon we are not really sure whether the
cure is better than the original problem. See you in 10-15 years when these
patents expire. I bet there is an R134 crisis.
Environmentalism is a cult religoin for those who don't believe in God or
Allah. Everyone needs their faith in something they can't see that requires
guilt and sacrifice..
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 23:27:28 +0000, Ken Yee
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
Halon is good sometimes.
It's really bad if you use a lot of it and don't have a clear path
out. The fire may be out cold, but so will you. <G>
Halon also stinks if you need to use it outside, like just outside the
shop door, or in an automotive situation. The slightest breeze
carries the gas away. DAMHIKT.
Barry
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>Ken Yee wrote:
> >>
> >>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> news:[email protected]:
> >>>
> >>>> Know anybody who will sell you one?
> >>>
> >>> Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
> >>
> >>Interesting. I didn't realize that anybody was still selling them. Do
be
> >>sure that you have enough in the bank to cover the fine. Is there such
a
> >>thing as "halon insurance"?
> >
> > What fine?
> >
> > <http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/fire/qa.html#qA2>
> >
> > Must I now dismantle my halon fire protection system?
> >
> > No. It is legal to continue to use your existing halon system. It is
even
> > legal to purchase recycled halon and halon produced before the phaseout
> > to recharge your system.
> >
> > However, due to the fact that halons deplete the ozone layer, users are
> > encouraged to consider replacing their system and making their halon
> > stock available for users with more critical needs.
> >
> > Are there any federal laws on emissions of halons?
> >
> > EPA's final rule published March 5, 1998 (63 FR 11084) prohibits the
> > intentional release of Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 2402 during
the
> > testing, repairing, maintaining, servicing or disposal of
> > halon-containing equipment or during the use of such equipment for
> > technician training. The rule also requires appropriate training of
> > technicians regarding emissions reduction and proper disposal of halon
> > and halon-containing equipment (see the guidance document for more
> > information).
> >
> > The rule became effective April 6, 1998.
>
> Doesn't say anything about not fining you when you discharge the halon.
Doesn't say anything about fining you either. What a crummy rule.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
> So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
trying to keep you alive.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:29:25 +0000, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
> Ozone is created spontaneously in the upper atmosphere by ionizing
> radiation from the sun acting upon normal oxygen molecules.
>
True.
> Removing the ozone layer requires removing the sun.
False.
CFCs participate in a catalytic cycle which breaks down ozone. The
catalytic aspect is why it is so important to stop putting CFCs into the
atmosphere. Remember, CFCs are wholly artificial. Natural processes,
vulcanism, for example, can contribute chlorine compounds to the
atmosphere. The naturally occurring chlorinated molecules have a much
smaller effect on upper-atmosphere ozone levels than do the artificial
CFCs.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 16:45:54 +0000, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
> And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
It does not affect the synthesis of ozone. It affects the rate of
breakdown of ozone. Comprende?
1 goes in, 1 goes out, net change 0.
1 goes in, 10 go out, net change -10.
Minus ten is less than zero.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:06:13 +0000, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:27:49 -0400, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> Exactly. We detected them when we launched the satalites to measure
True.
> ozone, and then we discarded the data because we assumed it was faulty.
False.
"Who's 'we', white man?" -- Tonto
Unexpected results in one's data collection are correctly
suspected of being faulty, until the results can be replicated.
> Only years later after the fact did they go back and confirm that the
> data confirmed seasonal thinning of polar Ozone. We have no idea, at
> present, what the cause may have been.
False. The cause was anthropogenic CFCs.
> Also, since this debate was fashionable, we've discovered creatures that
> halogenate their own hydrocarbons--part of the weird metabolism of deep
> ocean volcanic creatures that live happily in "toxic sulpher fumes."
> Meaning it's no more possible to eliminate environmental CFCs than it is
> to eliminate environmental radiation.
False. It is possible to eliminate artificial CFCs. The debate (it's over,
by the way) was not a "fashion." Researchers gathered data, and
learned something new. The consequences were easy to predict. After a
period of peer-review, the results and conclusions are accepted by
everyone except loonies.
> DAGS on "Sustainabilty of Human Progress" for MANY pages of actual data
> and actual calculations. You need not agree with his conclusions, but
> you must understand his thought process.
>
> We have temperature readings dating back to Galleleo. But for most of
> the Earth, no readings exist prior to WWII when the weather became
False.
The 016/018 delta ratio is a reliable indicator of global temperature. Ice
cores provide the samples; the data go back thousands of years. The ice
core samples can provide measurements of naturally-occuring chlorine
compounds, too.
> The fact that some people "remember" cooler weather has nothing to do
> with whether the worldwide pattern of weather has in fact changed, and
> even less to do with what, if anything should be done in the event that
> it DOES prove to be a problem.
True, but irrelevant. Cooler or warmer weather has little or nothing to do
with erosion of upper-atmosphere ozone.
> Environmentalism has in some quarters become a religion, with all that
> implies. It is the one heresy of which it remains fashionable to accuse
> another in Western liberal cultures.
False. Your second sentence makes no sense, either.
> But religions arguments do not make for good policy, regardless of
> whether your religion identifies a particular diety.
True, but irrelevant when the topic is reality.
P.S. I had a brain fart in an earlier post. I do know that 1 - 10 = -9,
but my fingers apparently forgot.
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 01:17:18 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> while the anonymous poster (AS) just states "True", "False" as if
> one were to take his word for it).
False. 1) I hate spam, and make it as hard as possible for the schmucks to
find my email. 2) The facts are public record, easily accessible to anyone
with a library card. _Don't_ take my word for it: look it up yourself!
Reality has the wonderful property that it is what it is whatever anyone
says about it. So study the scientific literature, and voila--you'll see
the same things I wrote. You can even do your own experiments, and
voila--you'll get the same results.
Reality is quite capable of taking care of itself. It doesn't need a
spokesmen with a fancy diploma on the wall. (Mine is from MIT, btw.)
Get over the idea that "authority" makes reality. Stop watching Faux News.
Think.
regards,
Robert Lane,
MIT '79 (VII, if you know what that means)
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:39:28 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
> Check the stats again. It is THEORIZED but has never proven that
> the released chlorine destroys the ozone layer.
Sigh. In science, a "theory" is a hypothesis which, while still subject to
disproof, has so far passed all experimental tests. "Theory" is as good as
it gets. Gravitation is a "theory." Golly, look, you just started to drift
off the floor! After all, it's only a "theory." Cheez.
C'mon people, this is Jr. High level stuff; ya know, the "Scientific
Method," and all that. It's not just Mr. Blathermeister droning on about
forces and atoms. It's reality. Get a grip on it.
You trolls should be ashamed of yourselves. Go read a damn book and
stop cluttering the bandwidth with your asinine, willfully ignorant drivel.
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:10:22 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
> I expect you to use nothing but waterborne finishes, cook nothing
> on the BBQ, use electric home heat, and drive an electric car
> so you don't pollute the air, Scoby baby.
>
> (Oops, electricity is coal-powered so the damage is sone anyway.
> No heat for you. BTW, is your shop totally Neander-based yet?)
False. I live in a technologically advanced society. Please stop trying to
impress us with your contrived straw men. I neander for the fun
of it. I drive, but combine trips. I don't drive too fast, but still stay
with the flow of traffic. I enjoy a charcoal grill-out now and then. I am,
in short, nothing at all like the insulting portrait you wish to paint. So
much for the ad hominem.
Why is it that my reporting of scientifically peer-reviewed public
knowledge causes you so much fear? What are you afraid of? Yes, your world
view might have to change to fit reality, and that may frighten and
confuse you. However, many other people have mastered that challenge, and
have come through as better people. <really funny, but ad hominem, punch
line redacted.>
I am sorry Mr. Jacques. I had previously scored your posts high, because
of the quality of woodworking advice you presented here. I'm sorry to have
to rescore your posts. Your postings on this topic have revealed an
inability to perform critical thought and sound reasoning. I cannot expect
that your woodworking advice is any more sound. Because it is possible
that you do indeed have some small ability with wood, or are able to
repeat sound advice presented to you by your betters, your ww posts may
contain a nugget of value here and there. Thus, no "plonk." Regretably, I
suspect that your vitriolic response will be to kill the messenger. Do try
to rise above that base emotion, you'll be a better, more mature person
for it.
Regards,
Robert Lane
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:58:18 +0000, Dave Hinz wrote:
> Bah. There are dozens of subscription filtering services out there,
> lots of good software to block spam (zaep.com for windows, SpamAssassin for
> *nix boxes). Claiming that _the_ reason you're posting under a fake name
> is to avoid spam is just an excuse.
Sorry, but wrong. I can see the jump in spam even when my email is
disguised ("remove something" type). The ISP from which I post filters
most, not all. I also like my nick, because it is clever and humorous.
Before you quibble with me about my choice of nicks, why don't you go beat
up on Keith? Hmm?
If I say, "There was a full Moon last night," it doesn't matter what my
nick is, or if I even say it. The Moon was full last night. No amount of
quibbling changes the fact. So, don't look at my finger. Look where I'm
pointing.
(BTW, were you the one at the Greek Denny's who wanted a saw handle?)
--
"Keep your ass behind you"
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 13:40:51 -0500, Australopithecus scobis
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 07:33:07 -0700, CW wrote:
>
>> So, I wonder if the enviroweenies want to fine the military.
>
> Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone
> layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among
> other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which
> produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are
> trying to keep you alive.
>
Ozone is created spontaneously in the upper atmosphere by ionizing
radiation from the sun acting upon normal oxygen molecules.
Removing the ozone layer requires removing the sun.
On 24 Sep 2004 05:16:37 EDT, Mark and Kim Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Is Purple K still being used??
Yes, but it still doesn't work worth a damn. US Navy advice for a
metal fire on an aircraft carrier is to shove the affected aircraft
overboard.
--
Smert' spamionam
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>Ken Yee wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Know anybody who will sell you one?
>>>>
>>>> Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
>>>
>>>Interesting. I didn't realize that anybody was still selling them. Do be
>>>sure that you have enough in the bank to cover the fine. Is there such a
>>>thing as "halon insurance"?
>>
>> What fine?
>>
>> <http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/fire/qa.html#qA2>
>>
>> Must I now dismantle my halon fire protection system?
>>
>> No. It is legal to continue to use your existing halon system. It is even
>> legal to purchase recycled halon and halon produced before the phaseout
>> to recharge your system.
>>
>> However, due to the fact that halons deplete the ozone layer, users are
>> encouraged to consider replacing their system and making their halon
>> stock available for users with more critical needs.
>>
>> Are there any federal laws on emissions of halons?
>>
>> EPA's final rule published March 5, 1998 (63 FR 11084) prohibits the
>> intentional release of Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 2402 during the
>> testing, repairing, maintaining, servicing or disposal of
>> halon-containing equipment or during the use of such equipment for
>> technician training. The rule also requires appropriate training of
>> technicians regarding emissions reduction and proper disposal of halon
>> and halon-containing equipment (see the guidance document for more
>> information).
>>
>> The rule became effective April 6, 1998.
>
>Doesn't say anything about not fining you when you discharge the halon.
In absence of language prohibiting it, it is allowed. It's clear from the
text and the rest of the FAQ that using Halon for its intended purpose is
perfectly legal so long as the Halon is reclaimed/recycled or was manufactured
prior to the ban.
scott
"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" <"Charles Krug"@cdksystems.com> writes:
[...]
>> hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal
>> oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as
>> reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
>>
>
> And that affects the mechanism of Ozone synthesis how?
It's a question of rates: Once the destruction rate is bigger than the
ozone formation rate the amount of ozone diminuishes, as seen over
both poles (where of course the formation rate is lower because there
is light is less)
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
patriarch <<patriarch>[email protected]> writes:
> The BORG ad is for a Kidde Class A, B, C product, $20 or so. One
> size fits all. (They are also selling a $300 table saw that's
> supposed to make you Norm, Part 2, in the same flyer.) How big an
> extinguisher do I need?
They sell a "kitchen size" model, get the next bigger size. If you
don't have one in your kitchen, get one of those too. Yes, I've used
mine, and there's no such thing as overkill when it comes to
extinguishers - you want that little can to just keep spraying until
your nerves calm down ;-)
The A/B/C class should be fine for woodworking. Kitchens have the same
types of fires - electrical and oil.
> And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote
> sensing smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as
> the garage/shop, but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the
> house?)
Hardwired alarms are designed to be wired together (they use 14/3 and
the red conductor is the sense wire) so that they all go off if any
one sounds. You should be able to tie new alarms into your existing
ones if you use this system.
Worst case, just buy two such alarms and connect them together, so
that the second one sounds when the first does.
Ken Yee <[email protected]> writes:
> Halon extinguishers are best for stuff you care about... :-)
That depends on how long you can hold your breath.
Australopithecus scobis <[email protected]> writes:
>On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:06:13 +0000, U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:27:49 -0400, J. Clarke <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
Argument on anthropogenic origins of ozone depletion elided.
(I can't call it a debate because only one side (the fellow with
a name, Charles) has provided any citations (a professor at stanford, iirc),
while the anonymous poster (AS) just states "True", "False" as if
one were to take his word for it).
>
>> Only years later after the fact did they go back and confirm that the
>> data confirmed seasonal thinning of polar Ozone. We have no idea, at
>> present, what the cause may have been.
>
>False. The cause was anthropogenic CFCs.
Cite? What makes you (AS) more authoritative than Charles?
>
>> Also, since this debate was fashionable, we've discovered creatures that
>> halogenate their own hydrocarbons--part of the weird metabolism of deep
>> ocean volcanic creatures that live happily in "toxic sulpher fumes."
>> Meaning it's no more possible to eliminate environmental CFCs than it is
>> to eliminate environmental radiation.
>
>False. It is possible to eliminate artificial CFCs. The debate (it's over,
I see, change the terminology to fit. "Environmental CFCs becomes
artificial CFCs".
>by the way) was not a "fashion." Researchers gathered data, and
>learned something new. The consequences were easy to predict. After a
>period of peer-review, the results and conclusions are accepted by
>everyone except loonies.
Ah. Ad hominem attack.
Per Professor John McCarthy (whom few would genuinely consider looney):
"The theory that the ozone layer is being damaged by chlorofluorocarbons has
widespread acceptance, but there are many scientifically respectable dissenters"
<http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ozone.html>
>
>> DAGS on "Sustainabilty of Human Progress" for MANY pages of actual data
>> and actual calculations. You need not agree with his conclusions, but
>> you must understand his thought process.
>>
>> We have temperature readings dating back to Galleleo. But for most of
>> the Earth, no readings exist prior to WWII when the weather became
>
>False.
>
>The 016/018 delta ratio is a reliable indicator of global temperature. Ice
Cite Please? (on the reliability of O-16/o-18 delta ratios for historic global
temperature (vice the local core area))
scott
Most smoke detectors installed in new housing (less than 5 years old), sound
alarms throughout the house when one goes off. If not, it's a simple thing
to
daisy chain one alarm to another. If you have no idea what I'm talking about
then you need to talk to a professional. I have a large (7kg) ABC fire
extinguisher in my shop. I got a discount when I went to my local fire house
and asked questions. Believe it or not, Firemen are as friendly as police
(or more).
"patriarch [email protected]>" <<patriarch> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Home Depot ad in today's paper featured a couple of fire
extinguishers,
> which got me to thinking.
>
> What should I have in the way of a fire extinguisher for my shop?
>
> It's a two car garage, where no vehicles have been parked for two years
> now. I have more power tools than my wife knows about, including most of
> the larger ones. The chip & dust collection is marginal, but on the radar
> for upgrade this fall. The Critter is the only spray equipment I use, and
> then only outside, and only for waterbased, so far.
>
> There's a half of a Gorilla rack full of oils, varnishes, lacquers,
shellac
> and solvents for the aforementioned. And a metal cabinet out in the back
> shed that should be relocated to the shop to store all of these. (Also a
> this fall project.)
>
> The BORG ad is for a Kidde Class A, B, C product, $20 or so. One size
fits
> all. (They are also selling a $300 table saw that's supposed to make you
> Norm, Part 2, in the same flyer.) How big an extinguisher do I need?
>
> And, while on the subject, has anyone done anything with a remote sensing
> smoke detector? Where the sensor is in one place, such as the
garage/shop,
> but the alarm also sounds another, like inside the house?)
>
> Evidently, October is National Fire Safety Month.
>
> Patriarch
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>Ken Yee wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Know anybody who will sell you one?
>>
>> Do a quick web search. www.h3r.com among others.
>
>Interesting. I didn't realize that anybody was still selling them. Do be
>sure that you have enough in the bank to cover the fine. Is there such a
>thing as "halon insurance"?
What fine?
<http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/snap/fire/qa.html#qA2>
Must I now dismantle my halon fire protection system?
No. It is legal to continue to use your existing halon system. It is even
legal to purchase recycled halon and halon produced before the phaseout to
recharge your system.
However, due to the fact that halons deplete the ozone layer, users are
encouraged to consider replacing their system and making their halon stock
available for users with more critical needs.
Are there any federal laws on emissions of halons?
EPA's final rule published March 5, 1998 (63 FR 11084) prohibits the intentional
release of Halon 1211, Halon 1301, and Halon 2402 during the testing, repairing,
maintaining, servicing or disposal of halon-containing equipment or during the
use of such equipment for technician training. The rule also requires appropriate
training of technicians regarding emissions reduction and proper disposal of
halon and halon-containing equipment (see the guidance document for more information).
The rule became effective April 6, 1998.
scott