South Korean Tanker with Acrylic Acid capsizes

Last edited:
I am not an advocate of polluting the earth in any way, okay?
But I am a student of WWII, especially the naval aspects, and can tell you that about 2 million tons of Japanese oil tankers were sunk from 1939 to 1945..
That number does not include the losses of fighting ships Japan lost.
And it does not include the shipping losses of the rest of the Axis Powers nor the losses of the Allied Powers.
An estimate of total, world wide shipping losses from 1939-1945 is about 70 million Tons. SEVENTY MILLION!
Virtually all of the sea going ships of that era ran on Bunker Fuel - a heavy, almost tar like substance that had to be heated before it could be injected into the boilers and engines.
All that oil and other nasty, toxic petro chemicals dumped into the oceans.
Think about that.
Are there residual effects of all that dumping today?
Perhaps. Probably?
But has there been a life ending, earth destroying event from it?
No there has not.
Our oceans have healed from it.
They still team with fish and other wildlife. Our beaches are still pleasant, swimable places.
I say let us do our utmost to keep our environment clean.
But at the same time let us use reason and not emotion when we evaluate the environmental damage done by a tiny - 980 ton - tanker that has overturned - and no spillage from it has been confirmed yet.
 
Disasters don't hurt the earth. The earth is a rock in space. Disasters hurt people. Maybe you're not eating Chernobyl fallout in your potatoes or breathing Bhopal gas, but that stuff adds up. If not for you, it will for your kids.
 
Can't get the original video to load. I know little about chemistry so I am left to wonder about the effects of "acrylic acid"? Anyone here able to enlighten? From high school chemistry, it would seem tons of "acid", extra H+ ions in the water, would not have a long term effect and quickly be neutralized. (Again, chemistry idiot here). Is there problems with the resulting salts?

I think reasonable precautions need to be taken and unfortunately transoceanic shipping seems to be both a vulnerability and a place where costs are cut and safety is compromised. But I like my modern conveniences, toys in my shop, fences and decks using treated lumber, etc. Those all involve some level of (potential) environmental impact. Is this more or less hazardous than the leaded gasoline used in aviation? Or leaded bullets? (now I feel like I'm picking on @pontiac428's lead toxicity concerns, which is not my intention. Rather, it is that I have some understanding of the potential issues associated with lead).
 
Do people and animals adapt to poisons? A recent study of wolves living in the "no access zone" of Chernobyl seems to confirm that. Over millions of years the CO2 content of the atmosphere had varied a huge % and the worlds population of animals lives on. The earth has gone through repeated massive changes in climate, Ice ages, much warmer periods than now, life goes on. I suspect the weird chemicals in the pill we are fed are likely worse than climate change. Don't pollute too much. But your very existence is a source! Quit farting!
 
rabler said:
Can't get the original video to load. I know little about chemistry so I am left to wonder about the effects of "acrylic acid"? Anyone here able to enlighten? From high school chemistry, it would seem tons of "acid", extra H+ ions in the water, would not have a long term effect and quickly be neutralized. (Again, chemistry idiot here). Is there problems with the resulting salts?

I think reasonable precautions need to be taken and unfortunately transoceanic shipping seems to be both a vulnerability and a place where costs are cut and safety is compromised. But I like my modern conveniences, toys in my shop, fences and decks using treated lumber, etc. Those all involve some level of (potential) environmental impact. Is this more or less hazardous than the leaded gasoline used in aviation? Or leaded bullets? (now I feel like I'm picking on @pontiac428's lead toxicity concerns, which is not my intention. Rather, it is that I have some understanding of the potential issues associated with lead).
Click to expand...
Not to nit-pick, but concern about lead in aviation gasoline (Avgas) is overblown. Jet fuel has no lead, but it fuels almost all modern airplanes. Almost no airplanes of any size currently run on Avgas, and almost all Avgas in use is the Low-Lead (LL) variety. A few vintage warbirds and retired airliners still fly, but as far as everyday use, almost none are in service. Training and small aircraft using Avgas constitute such a small contribution to emissions that they are dwarfed by even leaf blowers.

There is a saying, "The solution to pollution is dilution." Part of our problem is that technology of measurement is (supposedly) advanced enough to measure miniscule amounts of any substance. This results in headlines like "Testing Shows Significant Amounts of Birth Control Hormones in Fish" in a local creek that has no connection to any possible source for those hormones. Did it get there from runoff from the streets? Or is it possible that a false reading could show up when the concentration is measured in parts per trillion? The Media make money from screaming that the "Sky is Falling."
 
Provincial said:
and almost all Avgas in use is the Low-Lead (LL) variety ... Training and small aircraft using Avgas constitute such a small contribution to emissions that they are dwarfed by even leaf blowers.
Click to expand...
Correct,

Having previously owned a small plane that ran on 100LL at one time, and being a turbocharged plane it was no where near being feasible for a mogas STC. Also having changed my own plugs witnessing a bit of lead fouling on those, I'm well aware of avgas. Didn't stop me from enjoying the plane. But then comparing avgas consumption to leaf blowers buries the point that while leaf blowers pollute, they don't use lead. So you're jumping from comparing lead toxicity to overall emissions. While it might not be your intention, that type of leap, in any reasoned discussion, is often used to mislead people. So it is bothersome to me. Call that my return nit-pick, lol.

Perhaps not well stated, but I was trying to point out a few things that people here enjoy as examples where awareness and a certain degree of caution can allow such things safely. The toxicity of some of the things used in semiconductor industry found in all of our cell phones is another example. My point is that, in my mind, jumping to blanket "x is bad, we need to totally eliminate using x" is usually reactionary rather than well reasoned logic. And the reality is that such materials do need to be shipped, where some accidents are inevitable. So my post really was asking How serious this was from a global risk and cost perspective?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top