It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemical Plant Explosion In Central U.S.

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
mrsdudara you're here in Kansas City, too?

I'm not too worried about it. I would compare this to lighting a bucket of wood chips and diesel fuel on fire. It burns for a long time, makes a lot of smoke, but in the end doesn't really hurt anything.




posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Yep, Im close enough that I watched the smoke from my living room window. Not that, that says anything really, it would take me about 30min to get to where the fire was. It sure was a nasty looking cloud of smoke though. I still wish I could be as reassured as you are, but they have not wanted to come out and say what was burning except that it was some sort of polymer material that they had to heat up and keep warm in order to transfer. They said they didnt need to send their planes into the cloud of smoke to find out anything, but again worrysome me took that as a "what r u nuts? we're not flying in there" rather than a "no big deal not worth the time" kind of thing. Not to mention when they told the planes to have a bath to get the corrosive oil off then turn around and say oh no its not bad for us......just the paint on the plane.
to me common sense just seems to scream "bad for you, do not breath".



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
mrsdudara you're here in Kansas City, too?

I'm not too worried about it. I would compare this to lighting a bucket of wood chips and diesel fuel on fire. It burns for a long time, makes a lot of smoke, but in the end doesn't really hurt anything.



Did they not interview one of the authorities of that company and he said he thought they had toluene, also known as methylbenzene or phenylmethane at that plant location? I dont know about you but I dont recomend breathing in toluene a cancer causing agent. Unless you like dying of lung cancer down the road. Maybe you dont mind?



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:23 PM
link   
yea, I believe they did, that is what they told everyone was LIKE gasoline.

One of the reasons, Im kind of uneasy about all of it. They have talked in circles this whole time while not giving any answers. Even their answer about how it is not bad for you was a - no worse than what you breath driving through this area everyday. and here is a quote from the kansas city star "EPA: Smoke from fire was not unusually hazardous".

What is not unusually hazardous about a chemical fire?

[edit on 9-2-2007 by mrsdudara]



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrsdudara


What is not unusually hazardous about a chemical fire?



Nothing. It is as hazardous as can be. I am a haz-mat certified Firefighter. They just dont want panic, what are they going to do evacuate because they dont want you to die of lung cancer 20 years from now? They dont care about that, it has nothing to do with right now.


Its all about money. Nothing to do with safety.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
EPA has a site up in regards to the fire and there's documents in regards to air sampling.


EPA Chem Central Fire
Airborne chemical results from the February 8 ASPECT flights show no detectable quantities of any chemicals. This indicates that the Chem Central fire is not having a significant effect on air quality in the area.

Volatile organic compounds include chemicals such as benzene, toluene, and acetone. Semi-volatile organic compounds include chemicals such as naphthalene, anthracene, and pyrene, which are common components of soot. Heavy metals include lead, cadmium, and mercury.

The results of the analyses of these ash samples indicate that very low levelsof metals, volatile organic compounds, and semi-volatile organic compounds are present, and none of these chemicals exceeded health-based screening levels.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I would not be suprised if KC's rate of bronchial infections started to rise. As to whether I believe the EPA's initial findings, yeah right and the beloved DoD told me the same bull "it's not toxic " when I was in Kuwait breathing in black sulfurous clouds of oil smoke. Now I have chronic bronchitis and probably will for the rest of my life.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by Regenmacher]


apc

posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The all clear has been given. The official cause is accidental.

>

to me common sense just seems to scream "bad for you, do not breath".

Well yes noone would be wise to stand in the smoke and breathe deep. I drove directly under the column of smoke on my way home and even I took shallow breaths the whole time. I have occasional problems with asthma and I have had zero issues breathing.

I'm just saying don't expect anyone to start turning into walking tumors or anything like that.


[edit on 9-2-2007 by apc]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join