Dangerous chemical could be in your house, Watch Out!

[Otis_Kat]

Di-Hydrogen Monoxide kills people every year, causes untold billions in damages, will ruin many electronic devices on contact, causes more burn type injuries then do burning Christmas trees every year, and is a major component of acid rain. Yet, the United States government treats it as if it is as innocuous as water. Simply because Di-Hydrogen Monoxide is a superior fire retardant and extinguisher.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[Jive18]

Lots of dangerous materials are in peoples' households all the time :/.

I did lol at some of the uses though -


as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs

Because that isn't already dangerous.


by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use)

John Travolta is a member and refuses to accept the fact that his child has Autism. That religion seems to be plenty fucked up on its own.

[AlexCraig]

On 2007-06-10 13:47, Jive18 wrote:
John Travolta is a member and refuses to accept the fact that his child has Autism. That religion seems to be plenty fucked up on its own.


I think you mean Tom Cruse

[Sinue_v2]

Up until just two years ago, my parent's house (the house I grew up in) used to have an old wood burning house furnace that had been coverted over to fuel oil. When they went to take it out, the heating/cooling company discovered that the top of the furnace had been covered with asbestos to act as an insulator and to keep debris that falls on top of the furnace from catching fire. (A risk we were no longer susceptable to since the heating brick desintigrated keeping the furnace from heating up properly)

[Otis_Kat]

I can't believe the US government would allow such a chemical to be legal. I blame it all on President Bush and his stupid, greedy ways.

[Jive18]

On 2007-06-10 13:50, AlexCraig wrote:

On 2007-06-10 13:47, Jive18 wrote:
John Travolta is a member and refuses to accept the fact that his child has Autism. That religion seems to be plenty fucked up on its own.


I think you mean Tom Cruse



No, I mean John Travolta. If I recall correctly, I heard about it on some hollywood gossip show about a month ago. He claims that his child has some odd disease that affects him mentally (or something or other) and chooses to ignore all the obvious sign pointing to Autism.

Edit - Google "John Trovolta Autistic Child". The first hits I saw are what I am referring to.







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jive18 on 2007-06-10 14:01 ]</font>

[AlexCraig]

Oh.
What sort of things would this chemical be in?

[Otis_Kat]

Look at the website, all sorts of common products you use everyday!

[Parn]

Chemistry class is totally overrated!

[Sinue_v2]

I can't believe the US government would allow such a chemical to be legal.

There are a LOT of very dangerous chemicals that are legal for use in the US, and all over the globe. Christ, take a look under your kitchen sink or laundry room. Where have you been?

Did you know that the steering wheel in your car (as well as many other products) is made in part from isocyonite, a form of cyonide? Oh it's rather harmless on your end - but it's very deadly in the production phase. I can't get a job at a local plant who makes steering wheels because I'm a mild athesmatic. There's a high chance I'm allergic to it - so it wouldn't kill me slowly with prolonged exposure like with most people, it would immediately shut down my respritory system. They've already had several deaths out there from people who they screened, but turned out allergic to it anyhow.

In optimal conditions it probably isn't that dangerous, but rarely are conditions optimal. I know through reletives working there that the maintence crew that go in there to work on the machinery are only protected by cheap little 3M masks - and ventilation is usually inadequate. A similar situation is when I was working at Maple Leaf Farms. Our sanitation crew would have to hose down the metal racks with caustic acid/water mixes, which kicked a lot of it up into the air with the mist and water vapor. It was still potent enough that our crews had to wear special rubber suits to protect their skin - but they also only were respritorilly protected by cheap little 3M masks. Those who walked through their area (like I did) on third shift while they were finishing up had no protection.

Oh, and you don't even want to know about the cocktail of various hazardous chemicals and years of decaying greases that were stewing beneith our ovens for YEARS. The floor of the oven room wasn't one piece. Each oven sat on a slab seperate from the floor. When you'd put a rack in the oven, it would push down on the slab and cause this brownish-black tar like substance to ooze up from around and inside the oven that I would have to squeegie off into the drains several times a night. This shit baked in the ovens along with the ducks at over 500 digrees and ocassionally caused quite a lot of smoke. Although apperantly the FDA wasn't concerned with it.

And that was TAME comparied to other things I've seen in that plant.

[Parn]

Sinue, you realize you just fell into Otis' trap?

Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen...

[EphekZ]

On 2007-06-10 13:52, Otis_Kat wrote:
I can't believe the US government would allow such a chemical to be legal. I blame it all on President Bush and his stupid, greedy ways.



RUN, BUSH WANTS TO KILL US ALL!

[Solstis]

Sinue needs to have a word limit on his posts, otherwise we're going to see a repeat of the wood shop class post. *shudder* I still have some awful mental images from that.

The FDA doesn't have the budget to care, same with the EPA.

And, yeah, old H20 thing is old.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-06-10 14:45 ]</font>

[Sinue_v2]

I actually didn't really pay attention to what he posted, nor clicked his link. Hell I didn't even realize that Otis was the OP until you just said something. I just saw an oppertunity to tell my stories.

And Sol, the woodshop story was awesome. I <3 Jacklyn and her nub.

[darthsaber9x9]

I can't believe people are still running this out.

[darthsaber9x9]

I can't believe people are still running this out.

[Kent]

On 2007-06-10 14:44, Solstis wrote:
And, yeah, old H20 thing is old.


H20?

Oh shits!

[Sayara]

I had the website creator's brother as my C++ teacher, they're complete NERDS.

[Rainbowlemon]

I can't believe people are still running this out.

[Kevino]

i agree w/ rainbowlemon and kent... it's getting old but it's funny that some people don't get it... and it's not like you need to know chemistry to know what it is just basic number knowledge. mono=1 di=2 tri=3 etcetera. as for the bomb thing i'm pretty sure i could make a bomb w/o watter... but that's not the point. and i don't think that it's as dangerous as the sun! if we are trying to get rid of something let's destroy the sun...

[Rubius-sama]

That site was teh lol. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[Kent]

I was more pointing out the fact that he used a zero instead of a capital 'O'...

Icosahydrogen would be pretty dangerous. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[Otis_Kat]

For being so overused and old, I see a disturbing lack of it anywhere.

[Kevino]

lol put it out there then but beware the concequences of this action.... people wont get it...

[Jife_Jifremok]

Dihydrogen monoxide.. ahh this never gets old. XD

[Solstis]

Did I type a 0? http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Penn and Teller did a segment on it a few years back.

[DurakkenX]

You know...water is dangerous...if you stick your head in it and hold it there...
You know...plastic bags are dangerous...if you put them over your head and try to breath...
You know...knives are dangerous...if you stab yourself with them...
You know...Glass is dangerous... if you throw it on the ground and walk on it...
You know...Electricity is dangerous...if you stick a metal object in a socket...
You know...bats are dangerous...if you swing them at people's heads...
You know...women are dangerous...if you don't give them money and try to argue with them...

[Kevino]

On 2007-06-14 09:16, DurakkenX wrote:
You know...women are dangerous...if you don't give them money and try to argue with them...


lol only too true...

[Sychosis]

Di-hydrogen Monoxide isn't even a proper chemical name. Di-hydrogen Oxide is the correct name for water. There is no mono prefix in chemistry.

</nerd>

[Blitzkommando]

On 2007-06-14 21:57, Sychosis wrote:
Di-hydrogen Monoxide isn't even a proper chemical name. Di-hydrogen Oxide is the correct name for water. There is no mono prefix in chemistry.

</nerd>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

Apparently all of those silly nature shows with scientists complaining about carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide were wrong.

[Sychosis]

Most compound names you hear of containing "mono" are exceptions. Just as no one ever calls water "Dihydrogen Oxide" when most know it as "water," so too is the mono prefix in Carbon Monoxide attached for the sake of consistency with layman's terms. Fact remains that as a general rule, mono is incorrect, and Dihydrogen Monoxide does not exist in chemistry.

EDIT: In fact, the only time you really hear mono used is in the naming of hydrates. Outside of that, as in this case, mono is almost never used.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sychosis on 2007-06-14 22:59 ]</font>

[Blitzkommando]

On 2007-06-14 22:51, Sychosis wrote:
Most compound names you hear of containing "mono" are exceptions. Just as no one ever calls water "Dihydrogen Oxide" when most know it as "water," so too is the mono prefix in Carbon Monoxide attached for the sake of consistency with layman's terms. Fact remains that as a general rule, mono is incorrect, and Dihydrogen Monoxide does not exist in chemistry.

EDIT: In fact, the only time you really hear mono used is in the naming of hydrates. Outside of that, as in this case, mono is almost never used.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sychosis on 2007-06-14 22:59 ]</font>


I believe you missed my point. You stated it as a constant which of all sciences, chemistry, is the best at showing that there simply is no constant in science. Of what little I remember from chemistry I do remember one rule that my teacher mentioned the first day of class each year, "For ever rule in chemistry there is at least one exception to it."

[Sychosis]

Perhaps I was a bit overzealous in saying it is never used, but my point still stands that Dihydrogen Monoxide is not a real compound name, and Carbon Monoxide was a bad example with which to illustrate your point as it is not technically correct either.

[Blitzkommando]

"IUPAC Name: carbon monoxide"

http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=281

Last I checked the IUPAC was in charge of the official naming of chemical substances.

Also,

"Inorganic molecular compounds are named with a prefix (see list above) before each element. The more electronegative element is written last and with an -ide suffix. For example, CO2 is carbon dioxide, and CCl4 is carbon tetrachloride. There are some exceptions to the rule, however. The prefix mono- is not used with the first element; for example, CO2 is carbon dioxide, not "monocarbon dioxide". Sometimes prefixes are shortened when the ending vowel of the prefix "conflicts" with a starting vowel in the compound. This makes the compound easier to speak; for example, CO is "carbon monoxide" (as opposed to "monooxide")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_inorganic_chemistry § Naming molecular compounds

The mono- prefix is used quite regularly in Chemistry in the IUPAC standards which is the international body in charge of chemical nomenclature and has been since 1919.

[Sychosis]

EDIT: Forget it. I don't care enough to continue.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sychosis on 2007-06-15 23:33 ]</font>

[Kevino]

On 2007-06-14 21:57, Sychosis wrote:
Di-hydrogen Monoxide isn't even a proper chemical name. Di-hydrogen Oxide is the correct name for water. There is no mono prefix in chemistry.

</nerd>



Were you ever in chemistry by chance? you can use either it doesn't matter. Mono is a prefix if you want to use. I'm not being erm... angry w/ you I'm just curious and informing you.

[Sychosis]

On 2007-06-16 19:38, Kevino wrote:

On 2007-06-14 21:57, Sychosis wrote:
Di-hydrogen Monoxide isn't even a proper chemical name. Di-hydrogen Oxide is the correct name for water. There is no mono prefix in chemistry.

</nerd>



Were you ever in chemistry by chance? you can use either it doesn't matter. Mono is a prefix if you want to use. I'm not being erm... angry w/ you I'm just curious and informing you.



2 years of college chemistry. I'm staring at my text book right now, with a footnote reading "*the mono prefix is seldom used." under a table listing Greek Prefixes used in Nomenclature.

Maybe my professor was a tightass about traditional naming but I barely made a C on my first exam due to throwing mono out there on any non-dominant singular atoms in diatomic molecules. Bromine Monochloride instead of Bromine(I) Chloride would never have been accepted.