Originally posted by aoi3610
I agree, HENCE THE COMMENT.
It doesn't matter how you qualify it, wrong is wrong.
I ready through your post, it reads like you don't like me? I guess you've not read my other thread?
Has nothing to do with you or your other thread. What I dislike is when people try and make their point using an incredibly skewed version of science.
It does two things: it makes our jobs as scientists much harder and it draws attention away from the facts. I've said it twice before, hopefully the
third time it'll take - all you're doing by posting your conclusions based on what is, at best, bad science is draw attention away from the legitimate
and scientifically valid reasons why Corexit should never have been used in the Gulf.
Moderately Toxic. 30-100ml KILL adults. How much do you think it may take for a 3 YEAR OLD
That is HIGHLY TOXIC in MY BOOK.
Your book doesn't count for much when classifying the relative toxicity of compounds. An LDLO of 786mg/kg is classified as moderately toxic. But of
course, we're not talking about a kid grabbing a container of antifreeze and chugging it down are we? We're talking about something being used at ppm
levels in application. Do the calculation and determine how much Corexit in water at even 1000 ppm someone would have to ingest in order to achieve a
level of ethylene glycol sufficient to cause death.
LINK 1 - Wikipedia - 2-Butoxyethanl
AND I QUOTE
2-Butoxyethanol is an organic solvent with the formula BuOC2H4OH (Bu = CH3CH2CH2CH2). It is a colorless liquid with a sweet, ether-like odour. It
is a butyl ether of ethylene glycol.
LINK 2 - Wikipedia - Ethylene Glycol
AND I QUOTE
Ethylene glycol is toxic, and ingestion can result in DEATH.
There is a huge difference between something being ethylene glycol and something being a derivatized version of ethylene glycol or having a glycol
moiety as part of the molecule. Maybe this would be a better example: if you take nothing but ethylene glycol and right catalyst, you can make
polyethylene glycol (PEG). That molecule is literally nothing but ethylene glycol molecules strung together. Not only does PEG have even lower
toxicity than ethylene glycol, but it actually had medicinal uses. It's the basis of laxatives, it's being investigated for treatment in spinal cord
injuries, and it's being used in gene therapy. But according to your "logic" and "intuition", PEG must be just as toxic as ethylene glycol because
ethylene glycol is part of the molecule.
See how I capitalised the word DEATH.
Yes, and I'm sorry to tell you this but your caps lock key doesn't double as an, "I'M AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT" key.
Yes, I could and I AM.
LINK 3 - Wikipedia - Propylene Glycol
C3H8O2 or HO-CH2-CHOH-CH3
SMALL BACKBONE - Look at the Chemical Formula? I see a little more than a "small" hydrocarbon BACKBONE.
Really? I guess you haven't really looked at too many organic compounds because propylene glycol is one of the smallest organics out there. You can
only reduce the number of carbons in the backbone by two before it ceases to exist. Let's talk about that in comparison to some of the lower viscosity
distillates that are taken from crude oil - they have backbones that are 30-50 carbon atoms in length. So, yes, by comparison, I'd say that propylene
glycol isn't oil based and it is a small hydrocarbon backbone.
A VERY good POINT, if you see my thinking, HYDROCARBON based "compounds" have no problem "ABSORBING" other
HYDROCARBON based compounds. That is what makes this such a perfect delivery mechanism.
It would be one thing if all hydrocarbon based compounds had the same rates of absorption relative to all others, or if the human body were made up of
true hydrocarbons, but they aren't. Further, you're talking about trying to get something that's been emulsified with DOSS to pass directly through
the skin. There are several orders of magnitude difference between what will pass through the skin, even with help, and the particle size that's
achievable in this application.
BINGO, Now, the OPPOSITES attract.
See the perfection in this NOW?
No, there is no perfection in this. Why? Because you're completely ignoring the DOSS in the formation of an emulsion. The DOSS essentially
encapsulates the oil droplets. If it acted as a transport agent instead, DOSS would have very poor applicability as an orally introduced stool
No, I am NOT suplhur based, I am CARBON based.
To be fair, they DO NOT give much away do they?
LINK 4 - Wikipedia - Organic Compound
An organic compound is any member of a large class of gaseous, liquid, or solid chemical compounds whose molecules contain
So now you're claiming that you don't have sulfur in you? Very interesting. You are primarily carbon with a small amount of sulfur, and you're carbon
based. DOSS is primarily carbon with a small amount of sulfur, but (according to your intuition) it's sulfur based. Weird.
And no, MSDS don't usually get into immense amounts of detail regarding chemical components. But Nalco came out and revealed it after they came under
fire from all sides. The information is out there, you just have to look for it.
LINK 5 - Wikipedia - Taurine
Taurine, or 2-aminoethanesulfonic acid, is an organic acid. It is a major constituent of bile and can be found in the lower intestine and, in
small amounts, in the tissues of many animals, including humans. Taurine is a derivative of the sulfur-containing (sulfhydryl) amino
acid cysteine. Taurine is one of the few known naturally occurring sulfonic acids.
I went through all the "known" compounds, THIS is the one that best FITS the description of what they SAY it is?
SUPLHUR BASED - ORGANIC ACID
YOU have a better choice?
Yes. DOSS would be a much better choice to look up information for, since that's what's actually in Corexit. Plus, you're totally ignoring half of
what taurine is and what you called it before - an amino acid. Trying to base your conclusions on finding what you think are analogous molecules, even
though they aren't, because of "logic" and "intuition" is bad science.
They have an Amino Acid, Sulphur Based, I look at Taurine, It's in Bile, in you, it's capable of eating oil.
That is what I see from "THEIR" poor description.
Then you read it wrong and should have done some fact-checking instead of jumping to conclusions. Again, your mistake is incredibly fundamental and
immediately calls into question the validity of the rest of your "intuition". You said that DOSS is an amino acid because it shares a sulfonate moiety
with taurine. Not only is DOSS not an amino acid, it doesn't even have nitrogen in it. So comparing it to taurine based solely on the presence of a
sulfonate moiety is wrong.
NITROGEN? Eh, I have not mentioned the stuff, I must admit though, there is plenty in our ATMOSPHERE if you feel the "process" I
describe NEEDS any.
Again, another really basic, fundamental mistake. Atmospheric nitrogen isn't going to be readily available, if it's even available at, to suddenly
functionalize DOSS into an amino acid.
OK, from, "THEIR" poor description;
Taurine is one of the few known naturally occurring sulfonic acids.
Yes, and again, taurine is (sort of...) an amino acid. DOSS is not. I'm not sure what's so hard to grasp here. You can sit there and call a dog a
horse all day just because they both have four legs, but that doesn't make a dog a horse.
From, "THEIR" Poor description. (See above)
Given the number of misconceptions stemming from this, is it the description or the understanding of the description that's poor?
From Wikipedia again: (See Link 5 above)
It is a major constituent of bile and can be found in the lower intestine and, in small amounts, in the tissues of many animals, including
LINK 6 - Wikipedia - Bile
Which Leads onto:
From Wikipedia again:
Bile or gall is a bitter-tasting, dark green to yellowish brown fluid, produced by the liver of most vertebrates, that aids the process of
digestion of lipids in the small intestine.
Which Leads onto:
From Wikipedia again:
Lipids are a broad group of naturally occurring molecules which includes fats, waxes, sterols, fat-soluble vitamins (such as vitamins A, D,
E and K), monoglycerides, diglycerides, phospholipids, and others.
LINK 7 - Wikipedia - Lipids
All that quoting and copying and pasting only to hit the wall of another fundamental misunderstanding on your part. Lipids and crude oil are two
completely different things chemically. Lipids are primarily fatty acids and fatty acid derivatives, with some sterols mixed in. Sterols are the
alcohol derivative of steroidal compounds. Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons. No fatty acids, no sterols. Two totally different things. Again.
YES, I see from above I have given the conditions for it too happen?
No, you haven't. Sorry.
From your arguement I cannot see how YOU could possibly know.
Because I've actually used DOSS to emulsify hydrocarbon oils, fatty acids, fatty acid derivatives, vegetable oils...
Oh, do I? I do not like the word "SURFACE" dispersant either. Becasue I have a distint feeling this "EVAPORATES" with the
WATER. So it is probably in the AIR too.
This statement doesn't do anything to show that you have good insight into how surfactants work.
Smaller Droplets, WOW, that means that the droplets will each end up with greater surface areas from which to evaporate.... You
understand about surface area?
This is sounding WORSE and WORSE.
Only you don't get vapor phase transition of molecules as large as those found in crude oil after it has been emulsified. If anything, emulsification
helps prevent it. If there's any volatilization going on, it's from the unemulsified crude. And this goes right to the heart of the real problem with
your post - there are scientifically valid reasons why Corexit should never have been used, but all you're doing is drawing attention away from them
instead of to them. One reason is that Corexit is incredibly inefficient at what it's supposed to be doing, so it takes much more Corexit than other
dispersants to do the same job. Another reason is the inherent health effects of 2-butoxyethanol, especially in an application like this. There's no
reason to make up a fairy tale about how propylene glycol, DOSS, and 2-butoxyethanol turn crude oil spills into an ethylene glycol factory when the
truth is just as damning.
So YOU say.
So chemistry says, I'm just a messenger.
Supposition, you understand the word?
Bad supposition that has no grounding in fact. Again, it would not have been hard to actually fact check anything you're saying here. But you chose
that converts OIL into ANTI-FREEZE.
Looks VERY possible to me and I AM NOT a chemist.
Looks very impossible to me under the conditions and with the chemicals that are present. And I am a chemist.
I just don't like those words. "ORGANIC COMPOUND" - DO YOU?
Quite the contrary, I love organic compounds. Why would the bother me? We're made of organic compounds. They are my professional career. But organic
compounds aren't alive.
I'd like to hear EVERYONE else's views PLEASE.
The DEFENCE rests.
Science isn't a popularity contest. It relies on what's delightfully referred to as a tyranny of evidence. All that matters is the evidence, not what
you're gleaning from "logic" and "intuition". You either have the evidence or you don't. And, in this case, you don't.
You can quote Wikipedia at me all day long. It doesn't mean you understand the information presented there or that you're using it in the right
"Apes don't read philosophy!"
"Yes they do, Otto! They just don't understand it!"
- Jamie Lee Curtis and Kevin Kline, A Fish Called Wanda
edit on 15/1/2011 by iterationzero because: fixed tags