From: Monona Rossol <0000030664c37427-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (19 articles)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2020 11:53:42 +0000
Reply-To: Monona Rossol <actsnyc**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM>
Message-ID: 1130743278.4838459.1598097222215**At_Symbol_Here**mail.yahoo.com
In-Reply-To


I do zoom covid training for union radio and TV reporters and technicians.  If they are any measure of the newspaper reporters as well, the writer of this article probably has much of the technical information just plain wrong.  It was better in the old days when no one could get a degree without basic chemistry and physics.  

Monona


-----Original Message-----
From: Debra M Decker <00001204b93f9a5e-dmarc-request**At_Symbol_Here**LISTS.PRINCETON.EDU>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**Princeton.EDU
Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2020 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Chemical Safety headlines (19 articles)

As to this tidbit:

<LARGE UNDERGROUND EXPLOSION CREATES MA HAZMAT INCIDENT https://www.firehouse.com/rescue/hazardous-materials/news/21150920/large-underground-explosion-creates-ma-hazmat-incident
Tags: us_MA, industrial, explosion, response, carbon_dioxide

An explosion beneath a fire equipment company in Ashland that forced multiple people to evacuate their homes Tuesday evening was caused by a carbon dioxide leak, officials said.

Authorities responded around 6:20 p.m. to "numerous 9-1-1 calls" about a large explosion at Kidde Fenwal, a business on Main Street, according to the town's police department.

"Firefighters immediately checked for injured workers, began searches of adjacent buildings and conducted air monitoring to avoid a secondary explosion. A Tier-1 Hazardous Materials incident was declared," the department said in a Facebook post.

Carbon dioxide was leaking from a ruptured supply line at the company, which prompted the blast and subsequent hazmat response, the Ashland Fire Department said.>

Y'all know my bias about the willy-nilly use of the term "explosion."  This really doesn't make any sense to me at all.  Was the risk of additional catastrophic failure of the compressed gas system the reason for the level of response?  Was there a risk to other compressed gas systems which are hazardous (carbon dioxide is a simple asphyxiant)?  Other issues?

Debbie

Debbie M. Decker, ACS Fellow
Division Councilor
Programming Co-Chair
Retired Chemistry Dept. Safety Manager
dmdecker**At_Symbol_Here**ucdavis.edu
(916)616-7548


---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
--- For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post



The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary@dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.