If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Who knew it was so hard to destroy chemical weapons?   (npr.org) divider line 95
    More: Scary, Chemical Weapons Convention  
•       •       •

6370 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2013 at 10:34 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



95 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-31 08:40:17 AM
Times were so much simpler when you could just toss your problems into the ocean.
 
2013-10-31 08:53:27 AM

Sybarite: Times were so much simpler when you could just toss your problems into the ocean.


Like Bin Laden?
 
2013-10-31 08:57:01 AM
We can use the transporters - narrow the confinement beam and set a wide dispersal pattern for 100km away and that should destroy the agent at the molecular level.
 
2013-10-31 08:57:06 AM
This sounds complicated. Can't we just let them keep the weapons and just bomb Syria instead like we were going to in the first place?
 
2013-10-31 09:12:19 AM
So we purpose-built billion-dollar furnaces and now we can't use them anymore?  Damn.  The US went way overboard with building up chem/bio arsenals in the first place... it serves us right.
 
2013-10-31 09:29:54 AM
Who knew it was so hard to destroy chemical weapons?

Everyone with even a passing familiarity of them.
 
2013-10-31 10:11:15 AM
How about we load all these chemical weapons in these big ass nuke rockets that can already break orbit and shoot everything into the sun?  I guess then the Sunites would think we've declared war..

I'm joking - but clearly there are "alternative" ways to handle the problem.  We have these big ass active volcanoes - I guess someone would have to build some type of massive exhaust cleaner to handle the output.. but then we could always pack it up and move it somewhere like Manila or some other third world country that has a developing urban hotspot that really could use something like that.

I'm half joking - but seriously - there has to be a better way than dumping it in the ocean or building a massive government infrastructure to deal with the problem.
 
2013-10-31 10:36:12 AM

RedPhoenix122: Sybarite: Times were so much simpler when you could just toss your problems into the ocean.

Like Bin Laden?


What was worst about that is that we had to toss 42 virgins in after him.  Allah forced us to.
 
2013-10-31 10:37:11 AM
Give them to the folks running the Fukushima plant.  It will work itself out.
 
2013-10-31 10:38:07 AM

me texan: I guess someone would have to build some type of massive exhaust cleaner to handle the output

 
2013-10-31 10:38:41 AM
The problem is that it's just not as easy to destroy chemical weapons as it used to be. At the end of World War II, every major world power with chemical weapons loaded them onto ships and barges and dumped them out at sea.

"The rough guestimate is [that] probably 300,000 tons or more have been dumped in every ocean of the world, except the Antarctic," says Paul Walker, director of Environmental Security and Sustainability with Green Cross International, an environmental group that tracks the impacts of weapons disposal.



.......
 
2013-10-31 10:38:48 AM
media.screened.com
 
2013-10-31 10:40:12 AM
Who knew it was hard to destroy chemical weapons, subs?

Everyone who knows a damn thing about them. Modern chemical weapons are NASTY. The worst of them (VX, GB, etc) are odorless, colorless liquids or aerosols and are utterly lethal in even the smallest amounts. The median lethal dose for VX is about 10 milligrams  if you just get it on your skin.

Blister agents and other nasties are just as hard to get rid of. This stuff is just vile, and in a lot of ways is harder to dispose of than nukes because with a nuclear weapon you can isolate and contain the lethal bits relatively easily.
 
2013-10-31 10:42:21 AM
s4.hubimg.com
 
2013-10-31 10:42:26 AM
The precursors have a long shelf life, yet Sarin doesn't. Why not just mix up a massive batch of Sarin and then let it go bad, where its then much easier to dispose of?

Mustard gas and others are little harder and require incineration and filtration, but Sarin is pretty god damn easy. It's just a waiting game, then mix it with hot water and bleach, stir for awhile and then chemically filter it.
 
2013-10-31 10:42:34 AM
There isn't anywhere that they could productively be used as intended?
 
2013-10-31 10:43:43 AM
bury them under the sea floor then incinerate them with a fuel air explosion. jheez. that was easy.
 
2013-10-31 10:45:49 AM

ransack.: There isn't anywhere that they could productively be used as intended?


Some of the precursors depending on the processing can be used in industrial methods yes
 
2013-10-31 10:46:05 AM

dittybopper: Who knew it was so hard to destroy chemical weapons?

Everyone with even a passing familiarity of them.


This.
 
2013-10-31 10:46:51 AM
 woodgatesview.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-31 10:46:59 AM
Load them into a rocket, launch it at the sun, hope there's no genetic matrices attached?
 
2013-10-31 10:47:49 AM

Cyclometh: Who knew it was hard to destroy chemical weapons, subs?

Everyone who knows a damn thing about them. Modern chemical weapons are NASTY. The worst of them (VX, GB, etc) are odorless, colorless liquids or aerosols and are utterly lethal in even the smallest amounts. The median lethal dose for VX is about 10 milligrams  if you just get it on your skin.

Blister agents and other nasties are just as hard to get rid of. This stuff is just vile, and in a lot of ways is harder to dispose of than nukes because with a nuclear weapon you can isolate and contain the lethal bits relatively easily.


Hey - I saw The Rock and I know for a fact that VX is green.

/Got any other audio books coming out soon?
 
2013-10-31 10:48:15 AM
We should just put them in small spray cans and label them "Axe Body Spray."
 
2013-10-31 10:49:36 AM

me texan: We have these big ass active volcanoes - I guess someone would have to build some type of massive exhaust cleaner to handle the output

"


Rather than directly in the volcano, perhaps stick them into a subduction zone so it gets brought deep down into the earths mantle.
 
2013-10-31 10:49:41 AM
Who knew?  All of the expert commentators on NPR and elsewhere who said so, while everybody else was praising Putin's bold leadership.
 
2013-10-31 10:52:50 AM

RedPhoenix122: Sybarite: Times were so much simpler when you could just toss your problems into the ocean.

Like Bin Laden?


I kind of always thought he looked like Poseidon anyway
 
2013-10-31 10:53:20 AM
Although no country who's brokering this deal wants a part of the clean up,  at least all of the countries involved feel good. Thats's what matters.
 
2013-10-31 10:55:08 AM

HailRobonia: We should just put them in small spray cans and label them "Axe Body Spray."


!!!!!! Excellent. Two problems, mutually solved.
 
2013-10-31 10:55:30 AM
Can't they use this during fracking?
I mean, that's supposed to be such a safe procedure anyway.
 
2013-10-31 10:57:38 AM
Because nobody ever thinks of how they can safely be destroyed when making chemical warfare. I miss the good old days when all we had to worry about was Nuclear Warheads from Russian Armed Forced.
 
2013-10-31 10:59:33 AM

Jeng: me texan: We have these big ass active volcanoes - I guess someone would have to build some type of massive exhaust cleaner to handle the output"


Rather than directly in the volcano, perhaps stick them into a subduction zone so it gets brought deep down into the earths mantle.


Yeah, then the Morlocks will be in for a big surprise!
 
2013-10-31 11:00:51 AM

HailRobonia: We should just put them in small spray cans and label them "Axe Body Spray."

 
2013-10-31 11:02:12 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-31 11:02:16 AM

HailRobonia: We should just put them in small spray cans and label them "Axe Body Spray."


affordablehousinginstitute.org
 
2013-10-31 11:02:33 AM
What's the difference between burn and scorch?
 
2013-10-31 11:02:59 AM
Can't we just lob cruise missiles in the general direction of where they might be and be assured of their complete destruction?
 
2013-10-31 11:03:53 AM

Begoggle: What's the difference between burn and scorch?


It doesn't scorch when I pee.
 
2013-10-31 11:04:23 AM

factoryconnection: So we purpose-built billion-dollar furnaces and now we can't use them anymore?  Damn.  The US went way overboard with building up chem/bio arsenals in the first place... it serves us right.


The really big one I can think of was out on Johnston Atoll in the middle of the Pacific, but that was razed (as planned) when they got done disposing of the huge stockpille that used to be there. The runways are closed, all of the buildings are gone (except one really big one that is sitting empty) and the place is a wildlife refuge now.
 
2013-10-31 11:05:41 AM
Still, he says it is critical that a host nation be found soon: "We can't just put it on a ship," Walker says, "and have it wander the Mediterranean for the indefinite future."


Yep, Magneto would definitely still find it.
 
2013-10-31 11:05:44 AM

vygramul: Hey - I saw The Rock and I know for a fact that VX is green.


I've never seen the stuff in person, and hope I'm never close enough to any to do so. When I was in the Army we had to carry around a bunch of auto-injectors with atropine and 2-pam chloride, along with one called a CANA (an anticonvulsant). I'm very glad I never had to use them, although there were some times we thought we'd come under chemical attack during the first PG war.

/Got any other audio books coming out soon?

I've had about 7 or 8 come out since  Black Hearts, including one about USAF pararescuemen and a memoir by an undercover wildlife officer in Ohio. Plus I just finished narrating one about the election of 1940 (which was incredibly fascinating stuff!). If you want a complete list, email me at my profile at gmail. Thanks for asking! :)
 
2013-10-31 11:06:02 AM
Who knew it was so hard to destroy chemical weapons?

Pretty much anyone that knows what a chemical weapon is.
 
2013-10-31 11:07:58 AM

Begoggle: What's the difference between burn and scorch?


Depends on context. Generally, burning implies more destruction while scorch implies superficial damage. But in other contexts, those words mean different things. Scorched earth implies complete destruction. "Burned my tongue" implies only temporary pain with superficial damage.
 
2013-10-31 11:08:23 AM
I'm thinking we get a shiatload of Stevia packets and....

 
2013-10-31 11:08:46 AM
Paul Stamets discovered that if you grow cubies on them, they get totally dephosphoralated.
 
2013-10-31 11:10:15 AM

thurstonxhowell: Begoggle: What's the difference between burn and scorch?

It doesn't scorch when I pee.


I see you've met Stacey too.
 
2013-10-31 11:11:08 AM

buzzcut73: The really big one I can think of was out on Johnston Atoll in the middle of the Pacific


If the middle of the Pacific is too far, try 60 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
 
2013-10-31 11:14:19 AM

Cyclometh: vygramul: Hey - I saw The Rock and I know for a fact that VX is green.

I've never seen the stuff in person, and hope I'm never close enough to any to do so. When I was in the Army we had to carry around a bunch of auto-injectors with atropine and 2-pam chloride, along with one called a CANA (an anticonvulsant). I'm very glad I never had to use them, although there were some times we thought we'd come under chemical attack during the first PG war.

/Got any other audio books coming out soon?

I've had about 7 or 8 come out since  Black Hearts, including one about USAF pararescuemen and a memoir by an undercover wildlife officer in Ohio. Plus I just finished narrating one about the election of 1940 (which was incredibly fascinating stuff!). If you want a complete list, email me at my profile at gmail. Thanks for asking! :)


I just checked Audible and you went from two to two pages. I don't think I have enough credits left. But I did pick up Thunder Below, None Braver, and Valor in Vietnam.
 
2013-10-31 11:14:20 AM

Begoggle: What's the difference between burn and scorch?


In simple terms, burning means that a substance is actually aflame, and contributing its own energy to the reaction. Scorching means that a substance is being burned but is not actually adding energy to the reaction. If you burn something, you just have to start the reaction and may need to supply some energy to sustain it if the substance doesn't burn well. If you want to scorch something you must supply all the energy to do so, and maintain the right temperature to keep the scorched substance from actually starting to burn itself.
 
2013-10-31 11:15:50 AM
The "nice" thing about chemical weapons is that their very nature means they're reactive, so neutralizing them should be a matter of creating enough reactants to cancel them out. The resulting product should be somewhat less dangerous, though you need to make sure you've had a complete reaction. (This is "nice" compared to biological weapons, which would try to make more of themselves.)
 
2013-10-31 11:17:22 AM

vygramul: I just checked Audible and you went from two to two pages. I don't think I have enough credits left. But I did pick up Thunder Below, None Braver, and Valor in Vietnam.


Awesome. I bet you'll LOVE  Thunder Below, that was an amazing read.  None Braveris interesting because the PJs are so low-profile, you'd never know they exist, but damn if they're not hardcore. And  Valor in Vietnam is quite good, if a little dry in spots. It's the best book I've read that covers the entire war; most spend time on one part of it, or one area. That one takes a much broader view.

OK, back to the thread, I didn't mean to threadjack. I hope you enjoy them!
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report