August 1, 2010 by admin.

Greenpeace and other Greens have for decades promoted an atmosphere of alarmism that has been the major cause of wide-spread bans on the development of nuclear power generation in many developed nations, while at the same time far more deadly, damaging and excessively-costly alternative energy-generation schemes were rammed through development.

The hype and hysteria fueling that alarmism is being brought to a well-reasoned and practical end in Belarus.

Belarus to Repopulate Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
July 28, 2010

On July 23, Novosti, Interfax, Interia, other Belarusian, Russian, and Polish news agencies announced that the government of Belarus decided to resettle hundreds of thousands of people back into the 2,000 ghost-villages in the Chernobyl exclusion zone from which they had been hastily removed 24 years ago.  (Full Story, PDF file, 82kB)

Dr. Jaworowski identifies in his article that,

Calculating by unit of energy produced, the Chernobyl catastrophe caused 0.86 deaths per gigawatt-year of electricity produced, which is 47 times less than for hydroelectric power stations (40 deaths per GWe-year), including the 230,000 fatalities caused by the 1975 collapse of the dam on the Banqiao river in China.

(More on the negative aspects of alternative sources of energy)

Posted in Energy Issues, Propaganda debunked, Alternative Energy Sources, Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

June 18, 2010 by admin.

The other day, some one sent some information to me about a vastly greater catastrophe that is surely bound to happen in consequence of the Gulf Blowout.  Here is another option that will most likely not be used either, although it would be the cheapest of all.  It won’t be used because it is not politically correct.

The Nuclear Option against British Sabotage in Our Gulf
by Laurence Hecht
Editor, 21st Century Science & Technology

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/BP_nuclear-option.pdf

The option that will be used, successfully, is most likely the one that was used to plug Atlantic #3, which blew March 8, 1948, near Edmonton, I don’t know exactly where it was and assume that it was in the Leduc Area, SW of Edmonton (that is where the Nisku formation is located into which it had drilled).  That well blew and spilled about as much oil per day as the well at the bottom of the Texas Gulf does right now.  It blew that oil for a lot longer than the Texas Gulf well has been blowing it until now.  It blew for the same reason the Gulf well blew.  Someone decided to dispense with using drilling mud.  It seems that BP learned nothing from Atlantic #3, and it should be severely punished for that.

The June 14, 2010 edition of the Edmonton Journal had an article on Atlantic #3.

Read the article at that link.  You will find that there is little but one difference between the two blowouts.  The pressures involved are about the same, and so are the daily volumes of oil spilled.  Other than that, Atlantic #3 was on top of solid ground, and the Texas Gulf well is at the bottom of the ocean.  Here are some quotes from the article.

Atlantic No. 3 blew wild for six months, spewing 10,000 to 15,000 barrels per day of crude, which made it the biggest blowout in Alberta history. When it later caught fire [in September of 1948] and burned for two months in a spectacular inferno, it made movie theatre newsreels around the world….

Oilpatch historian David Finch says the Atlantic No. 3 disaster created a massive oil spill that was five times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska in 1989.
Fortunately, most of the 1.2 million barrels of oil pouring out of Atlantic No. 3 was corralled by dikes and pumped through a pipeline to Leduc where it was being shipped to refineries in rail cars. But some escaped into the nearby North Saskatchewan River and temporarily contaminated Edmonton’s drinking water supply.

Oilpatch historians have suggested drilling “dry” — without drilling mud — was a flawed technique that led to the disaster. When the rig drilled into the Nisku formation, the uncountered pressure caused the well to blow, and months of effort by wild well fighters failed to stop it. They tried using everything, including tons of sawdust and even chicken feathers to plug the hole, but it blew wild until a relief well was drilled and the formation was flooded with river water…..

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Alberta+blowout+disaster/3150830/story.html#ixzz0rD8DxpTv

Notice that nothing stopped the fire resulting when the blowout eventually caught on fire until river water was pumped through a relief well into the oil-bearing formation.  Do you recall an oil volcano blowing its top at that time?  No, that did not happen then and won’t happen now.

Nevertheless, stories about “unprecedented” spills, sea floors erupting into oil volcanoes and catastrophic tsunamis resulting from that do get a lot more attention.  To attract attention it is not necessary to tell the truth or what is most likely to happen.  All it takes is to engage in wild, unsubstantiated speculation about extreme possibilities, however unlikely catastrophes.

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

April 19, 2010 by admin.

The current air flight ban in Europe is not necessarily a panic reaction of the masses, even though it is caused by “great terror without any visible ground or foundation.”  After all, although the ban affected a good portion of the masses, namely a few million of stranded passengers, the cause of that inconvenience was largely an overreaction by the European air control authorities at Eurocontrol.

The problem with central control is that the larger the number of people controlled by it, the greater will be the impact of its diktats — regardless of whether those diktats reflect right or wrong decisions.

It will be some time before things in European airspace will return to normal.  However, without a doubt, eventually common sense will prevail. The first signs of that are emerging:

• Cowardly Europe has lost its nerve over volcano ash and this absurd air travel ban
• Volcanic ash cloud restrictions ‘embarrassing’, say airlines

As those two articles indicate, some airlines conducted test flights this weekend, something that should have been done far sooner rather than relying on predictions by computer models.  The test flights showed no adverse effects on the airplanes used.

We now know what is the right thing to do.  All that remains is to do it: “Let the people go.”

________
Update 24 04 2010: Posted in Explosions & Fires, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

March 22, 2009 by admin.

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 »

February 12, 2009 by admin.

The Hindu

Fire breaks out at FACT in Kochi

Kochi (PTI): A fire which broke out at the Sulphur handling facility of the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore (FACT) on Wednesday, gave some anxious moments to Kochi port authorities.

The fire at the Q10 berth was immediately brought under control, port sources said….(Full Story)

Posted in Explosions & Fires | Print | No Comments »

January 27, 2009 by admin.

Today’s Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) pre-hearing conference, in relation to HAZCO’s proposed sulphur facility between Bruderheim and Lamont, took place at the Lamont Recreation Centre.  It was well attended by Lamont County residents and other interested parties.

The NRCB pre-hearing conference set out to identify the following:

1. a discussion of the major issues to be examined at the hearing;

2. the appropriate scope and jurisdiction of the review;

3. the location for a hearing, the appropriate timing of a hearing (the NRCB believes March 17, 2009 may be an appropriate hearing commencement date), and deadlines for filing hearing submissions;

4. a discussion of procedures to be followed at the hearing;

5. requests for advance intervener funding, and

6. other matters

(Source: Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference - December 3, 2008 at NRCB website)

The NRCB panel chairman stated that a hearing location closer to or containing a business center (e. g.: with facilities for copying, printing and Internet access) will be more appropriate and suggested therefore that the NRCB hearing of the HAZCO application will take place in Fort Saskatchewan, beginning with April 9, 2009 being a proposed date for HAZCO to respond to interveners’ submissions, and with April 14, 2009 being the likely date on which the NRCB hearing will commence.

The NRCB identified all of the submissions that had been made and received prior to the pre-hearing conference.  Those are shown in the following list, and each can be accessed by clicking on a given entry in that list.

1. Lamont Health Care Centre

That submission states:

The Board of Management has once again debated the proposed development of a sulphur plant AST/HAZCO Environmental Services.  While it is not opposed to industrial development, it is of the opinion that such a plant will not be advantageous to our community, and therefore this application should be denied.

The reasons for that position are contained in the document accessible at the preceding link.

2. Lamont County

1. Part 1 - Letter to NRCB

That letter informs the NRCB that Lamont County is continuing its review of the application by HAZCO, that the county has concerns, and that HAZCO’s application has been rejected by the County’s development authority, the Municipal Planning Commission (MPC), as per the decision attached to the letter.

2. Part 2 - Letter to Hazco

In that letter, the Lamont County informs HAZCO that, against “the backdrop” of the MPC’s decision to reject HAZCO’s application, “Lamont County continues to review the application information submitted by Hazco Environmental Services Ltd. (the proponent) to the NRCB,” but that the County continues to have several outstanding concerns…”, which concerns are then explained in more detail and discussed in the remainder of the letter, i. e.:

1. Risk Management and Emergency Response;
2. Ongoing Operational Impacts;
3. Cumulative Effects, and
4. Ongoing Compliance and Reclamation.

3. Part 3 - Municipal Planning Commission documents

Notice (dated April 12, 2006) of Decision (dated April 11, 2006) of Municipal Planning Commission, informing HAZCO that its application has been denied, with the reasons for that decision being attached  (contained in the set of documents accessible via the preceding link)

3. Town of Bruderheim

Excerpt from that letter:

….we feel it necessary to share the following issues with the Natural Resources Conservation Board for the pre-hearing conference taking place on January 27, 2009.

1. The concern is for the health and safety of the residents of the Town of Bruderheim. The proposed facility will be processing sulfur and its byproducts. Although the “Worst Case Scenario” information indicates that during an explosion residents may not be immediately exposed to lethal qualities of sulfur and its byproducts, we are concerned about the long term health risks associated with an explosion and its after effects.
2. Further, we are concerned about any long term health risks that our residents may be exposed to due to improper storage and handling of sulfur and its byproducts.

The Town of Bruderheim does not want to present itself or its residents as being anti-industry or anti-business; however, our objective is to protect the quality of life for our residents and our community.

4. Leslie Jans

Leslie Jans expressed concerns that, as she stated in that letter, “have not changed since this all started”, namely concerns about: Air Quality and Public Health; Increased traffic on an already busy and overcrowded highway; Reduction of Property Values, and The Risk of Fires.

In particular to her fourth concern, Leslie Jans stated, “We also have two members of the Lamont Fire Department in our family, let alone all of the other volunteer Firefighters in our community. Risk their lives/health for a facility that employs 16 people and feeds a conglomerate giant?

5. Friends of Lamont County (FOLC) The following list (taken from the documents listed at the preceding link) will lead to documents that provide the basis of the submission by FOLC.

1. FOLC - Tab 1 Contacts List
2. FOLC - Tab 2 Appendix to Screening Report
3. FOLC - Tab 3 Maps
4. FOLC - Tab 4 Dr. Hyne CV
5. FOLC - Tab 5 Dr. Hyne Budget
6. FOLC - Tab 6 Dr. Batterman CV
7. FOLC - Tab 7 Dr. Batterman Budget
8. FOLC - Tab 8 Dr. Coppock CV
9. FOLC - Tab 9 Dr. Coppock Budget
10. FOLC - Tab 10 Mr. Gettel CV
11. FOLC - Tab 11 Mr. Gettel Budget
12. FOLC - Tab 12 Mr. Picard CV
13. FOLC - Tab 13 Mr. Picard Budget
14. FOLC - Tab 14 Mr. Farquharson CV
15. FOLC - Tab 15 Mr. Farquaharson Budget
16. FOLC - Tab 16 Secord and Chipiuk CVs
17. FOLC - Tab 17 Legal Counsel Budget
18. FOLC - Tab 18 AUC Rule 009
19. FOLC - Tab 19 NRCB IFAAC Application Form

Mr. Secord, the lawyer acting for FOLC, presented an outline of concerns by members of FOLC at the NRCB pre-hearing conference, pointing out that sulphur processing, storage and shipping is not risk-free, that indeed sulphur-related incidents have led on some occasions to the evacuation of thousands of people, to the loss of health and lives of many, and to much damage to property, especially considerable damage to agricultural crops and life stock.

He used as an example an outline of the circumstances and consequences of a disastrous sulphur fire near Cape Town, South Africa.  That fire, produced many thousands of tonnes of sulphur dioxide gas that was blown by strong winds towards a nearby town at a distance that was greater than that separating Bruderheim and Lamont from the site of the proposed HAZCO sulphur facility.

Moreover, Mr. Secord pointed out that the sulphur storage pile that had caught on fire in South Africa in 1995 was considerably smaller in size than the sulphur storage pile envisioned by HAZCO to be in place for Phase I of their proposed facility.  HAZCO proposes that Phase I of their proposed project will require a storage pile that would be as large as 45,000 tonnes of sulphur prills, while Phase II would increase the size of the storage pile to as much as 90,000 tonnes.

Hazco’s lawyer voiced concerns over Mr. Secord’s estimate of the costs required for his involvement and over the costs of the expert witnesses that are slated to provide input at the upcoming NRCB hearing, stating in essence that the expert witnesses have overlapping fields of expertise and, moreover, have histories of having testified in the past on sulphur issues related to sulphur-forming processes that are being used by HAZCO’s competitors, for which reason it would be overkill to spend so much money (in the order of $200,000) on evidence that is already well-covered by HAZCO’s Environmental Impact Assessment study.

Mr. Secord responded by stating that, if one were to listen to HAZCO’s lawyer’s advice, it would perhaps be much better to have no NRCB hearing at all.  However, given that HAZCO had about seven years to work on what they are presenting now, it would only be reasonable to give those who oppose HAZCO’s application a little time and resources to have their say.

The pros and cons of that discussion at today’s NRCB pre-hearing conference are (as is everything that was presented and discussed) to be contained in full in a transcript at the NRCB website, most likely to be listed at Alberta Sulphur Terminals Ltd./Hazco Environmental Services - Sulphur Forming and Shipping Facility.

HAZCO wanted it to be known that some members of FOLC had written (apparently after the Jan. 21, 2009 deadline for submissions) to the NRCB and that those people had expressed concerns that are not in line with the submission filed by FOLC.

Mr. Kennedy of the NRCB identified just before the closing of the NRCB pre-hearing conference that letters by two or three additional individuals had been received late and just on the morning of the day of the pre-hearing conference

None of those letters are contained as of today in the NRCB’s list of pre-hearing submissions.

The decision by the NRCB in consequence of today’s prehearing conference will be made in writing and is supposed to be posted to their website.

Posted in Community & Industry, Town of Bruderheim, Explosions & Fires, Pollution: Health Issues, Hazco, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

January 25, 2009 by admin.

Highlands Ranch Herald, Colorado, USA

Train crashes in Littleton

By Holly Cook
Published: 01.19.09

A freight train carrying molten sulfur derailed at approximately 11:30 p.m.Jan. 16 in downtown Littleton, causing a non-hazardous chemical spill and disrupting light rail service at Littleton’s downtown station.

No injuries were reported.

The derailment marks the second in Littleton in 13 months.

The train was going 44 mph in a 45 mph zone, igniting numerous small flash fires beside the tracks, Littleton police said. The fires were quickly extinguished by firefighters.

There were three locomotives pulling the 68-car freight train bound from Bonneville, Wyo., to Galveston, Texas, according to Gus Melonas, spokesman for Burlington Northern/Santa Fe.

Three of the 17 cars carrying the chemical were punctured and expelled about 100 gallons of liquid sulfur that congealed in the cold air, according to Melonas.

Molten sulfur does not pose a risk to the public, according to Littleton’s HazMat Team Coordinator, Jim Olsen.

It emits a pungent odor typically described as a “rotten egg” smell, but is not toxic….(Full Story)

______________
folc.ca: The reporter writing the article should have asked herself why, if sulphur is not dangerous and if it poses no risk to the public, a Hazmat coordinator was involved with the derailment of a sulphur train and the resulting fires.

Liquid sulphur is dangerous, so that precautions must be taken when opening the dome lids on tanker cars that carry it.  The  “pungent odor typically described as a “rotten egg” smell, but is not toxic” is in fact very toxic at relatively low concentrations.  The smell the author of the article described is not the smell of burning sulphur but the smell of hydrogensulfide, a gas that may be contained in liquid sulphur and often reaches deadly concentrations in the overhead space of enclosed sulphur-storage vessels.  That even happens in enclosed buildings used for the storage of solid sulphur, for which reason large-capacity storage spaces for solid sulphur are usually not closed off, so that the relatively small quantities of hydrogensulfide gases that tend to accumulate are less likely to reach deadly concentrations.

The gas that Holly Cook should have been concerned about is sulphur dioxide, a gas emitted by fires that burn sulphur, as surely as wood-, coal- or oil-fires emit carbon dioxide from the carbon they consume.  There is one big difference between sulphur fires and fires that consume carbon.

Carbon dioxide is relatively benign, for which reason there are no hesitations over using it in carbonated drinks, such as champaign, beer, pop or sodawater, while sulphur dioxide, even in very low concentrations, is deadly to anything living: plants, insects, animals, birds and people.  It is so deadly that burning a very small amount of sulphur (no more than what would fit into the lid of a shoe-polish tin) in a closed room will will produce enough sulphur dioxide to kill off all parasites infesting that room.  That is what sulphur once was commonly used for, after which it was necessary to thoroughly ventilate the room so that people could enter it without danger to their health and lives.

Sulphur dioxide, made by burning sulphur, is useful for fumigating buildings, holds of ships and similar places, for the destruction of mosquitoes and of insects in grain ami seed ; but the tarnishing effect of the gas on metals requires that care be exercised in using this substance in houses. Seeds for planting should not be fumigated with sulphur dioxide, as their germinating power is injured, and often in face completely destroyed, by this process.

Source: Insect pests of the Lesser Antilles (1912)

Author: Ballou, H. A. (Henry Arthur), 1872-1937
Subject: Insect pests — Antilles, Lesser
Publisher: Bridgetown, Barbados : Commissioner of Agriculture
Year: 1912
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT

The quoted excerpt is from a text file of that book that is available online.

________________

Sulfur dioxide.  This gas holds first place for killing insects and vermin.

Source: The Chemistry of Cooking and Cleaning: A Manual for Housekeepers by Ellen H. & S. Maria Elliott Richards (Hardcover - 1897), p. 178

Industrial sulphur fires are so dangerous that fire-fighting safety-regulations call for a minimum of one two-man fire team (equipped with self-contained breathing gear) at the face of the fire, while another two-man team (also equipped with self-contained breathing gear) needs to stand by to drag back to safety any of the fire fighters at the face of the fire that should fall into any sort of trouble and need to be rescued.

There was a good reason why “Littleton’s HazMat Team Coordinator, Jim Olsen” was on the scene, and a good things that all of the sulphur fires that flared up were quickly put out.  If not, probably at least the centre of Littleton would have had to be evacuated.

(More at http://folc.ca/sulphur_storage/sulphur_poisoning.htm)

It appears that Holly Cook, the author of the Jan. 19, 2009 article on the Littleton train crash, has been had.

Posted in Derailments, Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

January 23, 2009 by admin.

Your attendance is needed!

This is for anyone who is concerned about the possible consequences and risks posed by the proposed sulphur-forming, -storage and -shipping facility intended to be built by Alberta Sulphur Terminals Ltd. (HAZCO) 2.2 km east from Bruderheim and NW from Lamont, at the junction of Highway 45 and Range Road 202.

The Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) will be holding a pre-hearing conference regarding HAZCO’s application to construct and operate a sulphur-forming and -shipping facility.  A plan for a buffer storage pile that will be out in the open, exposed to the elements and is intended to contain up to 100,000 tonnes of formed sulphur prills is part of HAZCO’s proposal.

NRCB Pre-Hearing Conference

Date and Time:    January 27, 2009 at 10 a.m.
Location:            Lamont Hall / Recreation Centre
4848 - 49th Street, Lamont, Alberta

You do not need to make a presentation, but your presence at the pre-hearing conference will have an impact.  It will help even more if you forward this message to your friends and neighbours before the NRCB pre-hearing conference takes place.

Print this message and pass it on to those of your friends who don’t have e-mail or Internet access.

Information on the consequences of some sulphur fires and other sulphur-related incidents throughout the world and Alberta is accessible through the following links:

• http://folc.ca/sulphur_storage/fires.htm
• http://folc.ca/sulphur_storage/evacuations.htm
• http://lce.folc.ca/category/explosions-fires/

(Note: The websites indicated by the preceding links are not affiliated with The Friends of Lamont County (FOLC), but they do support the work done by FOLC.

Looking forward to seeing you at the NRCB pre-hearing conference,

Walter and Ruth Schneider

Posted in Explosions & Fires, Community & Industry, Pollution: Health Issues, Hazco, Sulphur Logistics, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

January 7, 2009 by admin.

Near Louviers, Douglas Counties, CO, USA

2002 12 18

A derelict tanker car that was being cut up for scrap metal still contained a large amount of sulfur [still about one-quarter full with an estimated 30 tons of sulphur] and the cutting torches ignited the material, according to Andy Lyon, public information officer with South Metro.

Fire fighter had been on site once before they started to fight the fire, but at that time they had seen no burning sulfur (flames of burning sulphur are invisible in sunlight) and had left again.

The fire proved to be difficult to put out. Whenever fire was put out, it reignited.

A small area (of unspecified size) around the fire was evacuated. Other than to say that a number of people experienced breathing difficulties, the article does not state how many people were affected.  However, the story also stated that no one was hospitalized….(Full Story - with photos)

Posted in Explosions & Fires | Print | No Comments »

December 10, 2008 by admin.

KNDO/KNDU - Yakima, WA, USA

2008 12 09

Sulfur Fire at Fertilizer Plant in Pasco

PASCO, Wash– A hazardous material fire breaks out in Pasco. Firefighters were forced to change their normal methods of attacking the flames, because a potentially dangerous chemical was burning.

Around 11 am Tuesday a fire broke out inside a sulfur bin at the Wilbur Ellis fertilizer plant on Burlington St. in Pasco.  Surrounding businesses were evacuated because sulfur is such a dangerous toxin.

Pasco firefighters didn’t know what to expect when they arrived on scene, but they prepared for the worst.

“It’s one of those rare examples where friction with a bucket and dust product ignited a fire,” said Jerry Voss, Wilbur-Ellis Regulatory.

The fire started when a front end loader bucket scrapped against a wall in a sulfur storage bin.

“It just scraped along one of the concrete walls and threw a spark. In a solid form it’s not flammable however when it gets stirred up and there’s dust in the air that does become flammable,” said Cpt. Pat Henrickson, Pasco Fire Department.

Once the fire was out firefighters sprayed water on their uniforms to get the sulfur residue off.

“When we first got here and found out what it was we knew it was a strong irritant and so everybody that got on scene as soon as they got out of the apparatus they were putting on masks,” said Henrickson.

Fortunately no one was injured or had to be medically treated. (Link to source)

Posted in Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »