You are currently browsing the Lamont County Environment weblog archives for the day March 22, 2009.
- Acid Rain (14)
- Alarmist Insanity (22)
- Alternative Energy Sources (32)
- Bruderheim Seniors (10)
- Bunker Fuel (9)
- Censorship (6)
- Civil Rights (2)
- Climate Change (175)
- Climate Craziness (8)
- Community & Industry (97)
- Corruption & Fraud (32)
- Deficits and Debts (5)
- Derailments (2)
- Electric Energy Prices (10)
- Emission Incidents & Issues (138)
- Energy Issues (27)
- Energy Newsletter (3)
- Energy Purchases (4)
- Explosions & Fires (28)
- Fines & Penalties (18)
- Gardening (2)
- Hazco (13)
- Hazco EIA Review (3)
- Health issues (17)
- Heavy-Metal Poisoning & Pollution (11)
- Humour (4)
- Hydrogen-Sulphide (20)
- Innovations (1)
- Maps (2)
- Nitrogen-Oxides (15)
- Organizational News (2)
- Pollution: Health Issues (53)
- Propaganda debunked (71)
- Shell CCS Project (20)
- Sulphur Logistics (38)
- Sulphur-Dioxide (68)
- Sulphur-Related Construction Costs (27)
- Taxes (13)
- The New World Order (10)
- Tips and Notes (2)
- Town of Bruderheim (21)
- Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel (18)
- Uncategorized (4)
- Weather (29)
- Wildlife (5)
- World Sulphur Glut (20)
- January 17, 2012: Alberta Electricity Consumers to Reduce Consumption
- January 8, 2012: Alberta Electricity Price-Rise Causes Run on Contracts
- January 4, 2012: Fred Singer: Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!
- January 4, 2012: Is global warming a problem?
- December 20, 2011: Europe's Green Lobby Fighting For Survival
- November 5, 2011: CO2 advertising blitz by Alberta government
- October 27, 2011: CCS solutions start with the Government of Alberta?
- October 22, 2011: Longannet carbon capture and storage project is no more
- October 7, 2011: Costs jeopardize CO2 Capture and Storage Project
- September 28, 2011: Second thoughts on smart meters
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
Archive for March 22, 2009
Fire at French sulphur-processing facility
March 22, 2009 by Walter Schneider.
TheRecord.com, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
French authorities confine thousands indoors over sulphur leak
March 21, 2009
The Associated Press
Web edition
LILLE, France — Authorities warned some 80,000 people in northern France to stay home and close their windows and doors for nearly five hours Saturday after a large cloud of sulphur leaked from a chemicals factory….
Dozens of rescuers and chemicals teams fanned out near the chemicals factory in an industrial suburb of Dunkirk where a fire broke out around 5 am.
The alert was called off nearly six hours later. The site converts liquid sulphur into a solid….(Full Story)
Update 2009 03 22, 10:30 hrs: According to this Reuters article (in French), “Pollution au soufre à Dunkerque après un incendie” , in L’EXPRESS, 2009 03 21, “Sulphur in suspension is not toxic and does not present a danger to health, but it is irritating, specifies the prefecture.”
That statement is technically correct although very questionable in the context of the Dunkirk sulphur fire. The cloud of pollution was not a sulphur cloud. It was a cloud of sulphur dioxide gas, a gas that is deadly in relatively low concentrations.
Anyway, is is not clear from any of the reports on the Dunkirk sulphur fire how much sulphur actually burned and how much sulphur dioxide was produced by the fire. Although the article in L’EXPRESS stated that 250 tonnes of sulphur in storage had been ignited, none of the media reports stated how much sulphur had been consumed in the fire. Just for the record, when burning, one tonne of sulphur produces three tonnes of deadly sulphur-dioxide gas.
____________
More about sulphur fires (some with catastrophic and deadly consequences)
Posted in Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »