|
Mofabio posted:I don't doubt he's a chemist, I doubt he knows anything about industrial process safety. But knowing industrial process safety does not make him wrong. That's the trick. Most industrial processes are over designed for safety to prevent cascading failures and because you have to assume the employees know the bare minimum about the chemicals they are handling. It does not however make the actual chemicals anymore dangerous, just dangerous enough that the company processing them wants to limit risk as close to 0 as possible.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Wow, when you get proven wrong on something you really just go full throttle and double down, don't you? Is it really just that hard to admit your statement was inaccurate? You'd build up some good will in terms of people believing you aren't an intentionally dishonest agenda-driven crazy person by doing so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:If you knew anything, you'd know that vapor pressure, temperature, and LEL are all factors that are equally, if not more, important than straight MIE. Temperature and vapor pressure don't actually matter much once you've had loss of primary containment. Because (remember Fick's Law) the air concentration will be a decaying exponential, with the maximum right outside your broken vessel, and your minimum at some point far away downwind. That means at some point, you'll be within the LEL/UEL range. So what matters is finding the ignition source. And there are many possible ignition sources in a chemical process. Whether you need to care about them depends on your MIE, autoignition temperature (for hot surfaces), and what percent of your plant will be a potential spark source (based on how big your LEL/UEL range). Each ignition source is treated as an independent risk. So, no, vapor pressure, temperature, and LEL are not factors that matter more than straight MIE. Did you ever find me a chemical with a lower MIE than CS2?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But knowing industrial process safety does not make him wrong. That's the trick. Most industrial processes are over designed for safety to prevent cascading failures and because you have to assume the employees know the bare minimum about the chemicals they are handling. Haha, wait, do you actually think process engineers do fault tree analyses to catch cascading failures? That would take years. There are specific, known hazards that can get a fault tree analysis - such as runaway reactions. But actually catching cascading failures before they happen is otherwise just not done. I'll make sure to invite a chemist to my next HAZOP for comic relief. "But it has a blue flame!!!" edit: god, I'm rereading your post. Just about every statement you made is wrong. Safety doesn't depend on operator knowledge of chemical hazards. Most operators have never read an MSDS sheet. And "the company processing them wants to limit risk as close to 0 as possible" ... there are some interpretations of that that could be true, but in reality, risks are ranked on a risk matrix and risk safeguards are determined from the risk ranking. Usually half the risks identified in a hazard study are actually ignored, because their freq*severity hazard ranking is judged to be low. Do you frequently jump into threads with no idea what the gently caress you're talking about? I'm rereading your previous posts too; you're the dumbest motherfucker in here. A guy said he thought glysophate usage increased after HT GMOs, you said "oh no it didn't", and then you posted a link that said the lb/acre glyphosate usage from 1996 to mid-2000s increased by 50%. The guy also didn't read it, because in his next post he was like "oh sorry, I thought they increased by 50%". You're in a thread about combating scientific ignorance, but you're instead spreading it. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Haha, wait, do you actually think process engineers do fault tree analyses to catch cascading failures? That would take years. Perhaps you should. Then you would understand the actual hazards involved, instead of just reading numbers off a table and getting over-excited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Perhaps you should. Then you would understand the actual hazards involved, instead of just reading numbers off a table and getting over-excited. For real though, you've never worked in a plant, right? MIE actually refers to the amount of energy that needs to be transferred to your flammable vapor cloud in order for it to ignite. It's actually incredibly helpful (along with autoignition temp and the LEL/UEL range when inside vessels) in separating ignition sources you need to care about from those that you don't. It'd be hilarious if you were in one of my HAZOPs and asked what the vapor pressure was of a flammable vapor cloud. It's in an open system, in the vapor phase. Water has a vapor pressure too, why don't rain puddles last forever? The vapor blows away, more vapor is produced, and this continues until the puddle's gone. It all ends up in the vapor phase. The vapor pressure doesn't matter once you'd lost primary containment. Did you ever find me a compound with lower MIE than CS2?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I'm not sure how useful it is for this thread to become a dick-waving contest between a chemist and a chemical engineer. Could we get back to why it is that allegedly demonstrable incompetence and the need for better regulation and enforcement in the chemical herbicide industry proves that HT GMO's should be taken off the market? There's a logical leap here that really hasn't been demonstrated at all, and I don't think MIE is really a relevant parameter here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:For real though, you've never worked in a plant, right? MIE actually refers to the amount of energy that needs to be transferred to your flammable vapor cloud in order for it to ignite. It's actually incredibly helpful (along with autoignition temp and the LEL/UEL range when inside vessels) in separating ignition sources you need to care about from those that you don't. The fundamental problem is that you don't seem to know the difference between "ease of ignition" and "explosiveness". Carbon disulfide is indeed about the easiest thing to ignite there is, but there are many more compounds that are far more explosive. Your incorrect hyperbolic claims about it render your other other claims suspect, and others have pointed out that those seem to be equally hyperbolic and incorrect. Thus you are standing primarily on bluster and ridicule, with little factual support for your arguments. The fundamental problem is that farmers consider milkweed a pest, and do anything to eradicate it from their fields. If glyphosate herbicides didn't exist, farmers would use something else and monarch butterflies would be equally endangered. Thus your proposed solution (banning glyphosates and glyphosate-resistant GMO crops) would not actually solve the problem you claim to be most concerned about. So which is actually your agenda? Saving butterflies or banning GMOs? The two are not necessarily linked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The fundamental problem is that you don't seem to know the difference between "ease of ignition" and "explosiveness". Carbon disulfide is indeed about the easiest thing to ignite there is, but there are many more compounds that are far more explosive. No, look, "ease of ignition", not the enthalpy of combustion, is the key variable. There's no such thing as a safe explosion in a chemical process facility. Explosions inevitably lead to more damaged piping and vessels, and then losses of containment of other species, and then more explosions and toxic gas clouds. One explosion can mean that whole plant loses containment. Therefore, it makes absolute sense to rank process explosion risks in chemical species by MIE. You deserve ridicule, because you're going to get people killed if you walk into a plant without understanding the risks. You're a chemist, and I do this for a loving living. Just shut the gently caress up before you hurt somebody. edit: to get this train back on track, we know what the herbicide profile would be if HT GMOs didn't exist. It would look like 1996 (see Table 2). We'd also know what the monarch butterfly population would look like. It'd look like 1996. 1996 wasn't the year that glysophate was introduce; it was introduced in the 1970s. HT GMOs were introduced around 1996. vvvv Oh yeah, they were still putting out quality product, no doubt. Not much care for anything else. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
I'm a chemical engineer. I've been in places with some real herp a derp safety failures. None of those failures inhibited the ability to make quality product.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Wait, are gmos made to be extra explosive now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Wait, are gmos made to be extra explosive now? As a chemical engineer I can say that when you're sitting on the can and hear something go bam gmo-ah cha cha cha gmo-ah cha cha cha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
I'mma step away from the current argument to link to a huge new development for GM pest species: scientists have successfully introduced a killer gene into diamondback moth: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/science/replacing-pesticides-with-genetics.html?referrer= This could be so, so huge for the crucifer industry - diamondback moth is an incredibly destructive and pernicious pest that can evolve resistance to pesticides relatively quickly. Killing females before they can mate/do damage is really incredible. I'm super jazzed but cabbage pest control us what I did my Master's thesis on so you may not be so excited. GM insects are the future of insect control, I think, if people could get their heads out of their butts about scary genetics. There have been studies with different genes in mosquitoes that have reduced disease incidence by something like 90% in the study areas. It's a great time to be an entomologist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Haha, wait, do you actually think process engineers do fault tree analyses to catch cascading failures? That would take years.  Stop while your ahead if you don't want your head to explode about chemical manufacturing safety processes.Zachack posted:I'm a chemical engineer. I've been in places with some real herp a derp safety failures. None of those failures inhibited the ability to make quality product. No amount of over-engineering while completely stop all failures, the goal is to inhibit failures as best as possible while not inhibiting costs or production rates. But here's a hint: Mofabio has been called out for multiple bad faith arguments over this discussion, and right now is just trying to tie chemical safety processes to OMG GMO! CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But here's a hint: Mofabio has been called out for multiple bad faith arguments over this discussion, and right now is just trying to tie chemical safety processes to OMG GMO! I've been making the same basic argument, over and over: We know what the herbicide profile would be if HT GMOs didn't exist. It would look like 1996 (see Table 2). We'd also know what the monarch butterfly population would look like. It'd look like 1996. 1996 wasn't the year that glysophate was introduce; it was introduced in the 1970s. HT GMOs were introduced around 1996. I also made the point that these companies don't give a gently caress about worker or ecological safety, and I know that from personal experience. Don't trust them to make safe GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
That's not how causal reasoning works, Mofabio.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I've been making the same basic argument, over and over: We don't know any of those things. There's nothing suggesting that fields would not have been expanded since 1996, that herbicide use would not be expanded (to kill the same milkweed farmers do not like anyway), and that therefore Monarch Butterflies would not have had the same population issues. Absent specific policies targeted as creating milkweed sanctuaries to protect the Monarchs, why do you think that farmers would be less inclined to get rid of it? The choice of 1996 is spurious, it doesn't show that the decrease started there, it's just when that graph starts. What was the Monarch population pattern before 1996?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
The graph actually shows that 1996/1997 is a bumper crop of Monarchs, roughly 3 times the numbers in 1994/1995. Edit: Reading the actual paper, the population decrease is probably being exacerbated less by the fact that glyphosate tolerant crops exist and more by the fact that there has been a large increase in the area in which glyphosate tolerant crops are grown due to increased demand for their use in biofuel production combined with massive habitat loss due to development. Whether it's caused by herbicides or development, habitat loss is habitat loss, and doesn't really have anything to do with the safety of GMOs. McGavin fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I've been making the same basic argument, over and over: If anything I trust them to make safe conventionally bred seed less, so I guess we are in an awkward position.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Yes, the introduction of HT crops and subsequent increase in glysophate and reduction of milkweed was a contributing factor and likely the primary cause of the recent drastic decline in Monarch butterfly population. Here's the point we've been making the same point over and over: The issue is with the amount of glysophate use (overall, not on a particular area of land). Regulate that. Banning HT crops outright has significant costs, and it isn't entirely clear that it would even be the best options for the butterflies at this point. Ecosystems are complicated and processes don't necessarily reverse cleanly. Most companies don't give a poo poo about worker or ecological safety. That's an argument against corporatism in general, and doesn't have much to do with GMOs unless you can show that they are different from other technological advances. Which you have categorically failed to do. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:I also made the point that these companies don't give a gently caress about worker or ecological safety, and I know that from personal experience. Don't trust them to make safe GMOs. This seems to be a pretty good example of the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well." Companies that don't care about worker safety could actually make perfectly safe GMOs. There is no connection between the two. If you want to argue the GMOs are unsafe, then demonstrate why they are unsafe. Who makes them, how, and why are completely irrelevant to their safety or lack thereof.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:We don't know any of those things. There's nothing suggesting that fields would not have been expanded since 1996, that herbicide use would not be expanded (to kill the same milkweed farmers do not like anyway), and that therefore Monarch Butterflies would not have had the same population issues. Absent specific policies targeted as creating milkweed sanctuaries to protect the Monarchs, why do you think that farmers would be less inclined to get rid of it? It's entirely possible to go back to the regime we had in 1996, without HT GMOs, and without massive losses of monarchs since introduction of HT GMOs. The surest way to make glysophate usage fall is to ban the glysophate-resistant GMO. Multiple people have said that it's not the HT GMO, it's glysophate. Like I've said before, they're a package deal. No farmer is buying expensive HT GMOs and then not spraying Roundup. If anyone has another explanation for why glyphosate went from 16% of the herbicide market in 1996 to 85% in 2006, I'd love to hear it. Multiple people have suggested regulation of glysophate instead of regulation of HT GMOs. If a regulatory regime said half the cropland now sprayed with glysophate could no longer be sprayed with glysophate, then HT GMOs would decrease by half in kind. That regulatory regime would be fine for preserving monarchs, and would be indistinguishable from one that banned half of all acres of HT GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's entirely possible to go back to the regime we had in 1996, without HT GMOs, and without massive losses of monarchs since introduction of HT GMOs. The surest way to make glysophate usage fall is to ban the glysophate-resistant GMO. Removing HT GMOs will not make farmers like milkweed. They like getting rid of it, they will use different sprays to do so. We can't go back to 1996 because the field are wider now, what makes you think farmers are going to just reduce their fields? quote:Multiple people have said that it's not the HT GMO, it's glysophate. Like I've said before, they're a package deal. No farmer is buying expensive HT GMOs and then not spraying Roundup. If anyone has another explanation for why glyphosate went from 16% of the herbicide market in 1996 to 85% in 2006, I'd love to hear it. You're mixing two logical directions. There is no point in buying HT GMO's if you're not using glyphosates, but people have used those before HT and will do so even if you banned it - they will just mix them with other herbicides, to reach the same result: eliminating as much milkweed as they possibly can. quote:Multiple people have suggested regulation of glysophate instead of regulation of HT GMOs. If a regulatory regime said half the cropland now sprayed with glysophate could no longer be sprayed with glysophate, then HT GMOs would decrease by half in kind. That regulatory regime would be fine for preserving monarchs, and would be indistinguishable from one that banned half of all acres of HT GMOs. Nobody would actually do the latter and it's a silly indirect way of doing the former, which is not what would be needed anyway. There's no reason, again, to target GMO's when what you're actually worried about is to first order, milkweed as a habitat for Monarchs, and to second order, glyphosates, assuming they are really special in any way other than generally being less dangerous and there being a product that allows using them more efficiently that happens to be a GMO. What you actually need is to set up sanctuaries and then use HT because it's the best way of using the rest, and you don't get that from banning GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Mofabio, if someone came to market with a robot that was able to accurately and efficiently remove milkweed via mechanical processes, at a lower cost than spraying pesticides, would you be proposing to ban robotic weeding?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:The surest way to make glysophate usage fall is to ban the glysophate-resistant GMO. Not in the least, you deluded man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:It's entirely possible to go back to the regime we had in 1996, without HT GMOs, and without massive losses of monarchs since introduction of HT GMOs. The surest way to make glysophate usage fall is to ban the glysophate-resistant GMO. So you would give Bayer a virtual monopoly with their glufosinate resistant varieties (the LibertyLink system)? All that would happen is that glufosinate will completely take the market share of glyphosate. Considering that glufosinate is better at broad leaf control than glyphosate, it might do more damage than glyphosate. For your position, you will have to ban all non-selective herbicides essentially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Removing HT GMOs will not make farmers like milkweed. They like getting rid of it, they will use different sprays to do so. We can't go back to 1996 because the field are wider now, what makes you think farmers are going to just reduce their fields? They will try to eliminate as much milkweed as they can, but they will be less effective at it without HT GMOs. They will in fact be as effective at it as they were in 1996, before HT GMOs were introduced. Milkweed santuaries could be an option, but where are they going to go? I've cited over a dozen papers already, now it's your turn: how much milkweed sanctuary acreage would need to be created to make up the difference lost from HT GMOs? State your proposal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Mofabio, if someone came to market with a robot that was able to accurately and efficiently remove milkweed via mechanical processes, at a lower cost than spraying pesticides, would you be proposing to ban robotic weeding? What? Yes, I would be against a robot that removed milkweed, because it threatens the monarch butterfly population. I also think we should stop spraying pesticides. I feel like you all think I'm anti-GMO. I am anti HT GMOs, because they've destroyed the butterfly population. I am skeptical of future GMOs, because they will likely create new and horrendous ecological side effects. But I'm literally sitting a floor below trillions and trillions of GMOs with human genes. The difference is we kill em dead when we're done with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:They will try to eliminate as much milkweed as they can, but they will be less effective at it without HT GMOs. They will in fact be as effective at it as they were in 1996, before HT GMOs were introduced. This is wrong, there's a host of options, GMO, Non-GMO and even "organic" that are simmilarly effective at dealing with milkweed. Roundup ready plants main attraction is not their resistance to milkweed. The cat is out of the bag and banning one GMO plant is not going to bring the state of agriculture back to 1996.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:They will try to eliminate as much milkweed as they can, but they will be less effective at it without HT GMOs. They will in fact be as effective at it as they were in 1996, before HT GMOs were introduced. Why? Your proposal is the same as mine, except less effective and less connected to reality. You think that if HT GMO's are removed, the scale of milkweed eradication will somehow collapse to scales of two decades ago, even though fields have expanded. That's your proposal for change. What I am saying is that if the meat of your proposal is the creation of more space for milkweed to exist, then explicitly creating and enforcing sanctuaries is a much more sensible way of doing this than trying to set back the clock. Your proposal has no explicit control over milkweed, mine does. Then it can be adapted to whatever entomologists find is the ideal habitat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Why? Your proposal is the same as mine, except less effective and less connected to reality. You think that if HT GMO's are removed, the scale of milkweed eradication will somehow collapse to scales of two decades ago, even though fields have expanded. That's your proposal for change. What I am saying is that if the meat of your proposal is the creation of more space for milkweed to exist, then explicitly creating and enforcing sanctuaries is a much more sensible way of doing this than trying to set back the clock. Your proposal has no explicit control over milkweed, mine does. Then it can be adapted to whatever entomologists find is the ideal habitat. Where are they going to go, and how much acreage do you need to support 300 million monarchs? At least you all are consistent: All GMOs are good. I'm the dumbass who's dumb and inconsistent: Bt GMOs are so far harmless, HT GMOs are terrible, GMOs in bioreactors are fine. Silly me!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Is banning HT GMOs going to create enough acreage for 300 million monarchs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Where are they going to go, and how much acreage do you need to support 300 million monarchs? Yes, you are a dumbass for thinking that banning a type of GMO crop would cause farmers to stop eradicating milkweed plants, and also cause them to magically stop cultivating thousands and thousands of acres of land they bought.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:Where are they going to go, and how much acreage do you need to support 300 million monarchs? I have no idea. That requires some research, and probably year-by-year adaptation until the sanctuary size is appropriate. A thing you can't do if you're simply banning HT, having people revert to older practices on more land, and hoping that things will magically revert to 1996. I mean, we're likely to have a Clinton as a President again, so at least that aspect won't be too far-fetched.  quote:At least you all are consistent: All GMOs are good. I'm the dumbass who's dumb and inconsistent: Bt GMOs are so far harmless, HT GMOs are terrible, GMOs in bioreactors are fine. Silly me! Your arguments are bad, and that is why people are reacting poorly to them. If there had been evidence that HT is actually poisonous to Monarchs then that would actually be an argument against it specifically, but all you have is this magical idea that if we remove HT the past two decades would cease to have happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Is banning HT GMOs going to create enough acreage for 300 million monarchs? Yes. For centuries, there was enough acreage for 300 million monarchs, because milkweed grew on farmland. They've only been in decline since 1996, when HT GMOs were introduced, and milkweed (which survives tilling and winters) was able to be eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Yes, you are a dumbass for thinking that banning a type of GMO crop would cause farmers to stop eradicating milkweed plants, and also cause them to magically stop cultivating thousands and thousands of acres of land they bought. They will be unable to eliminate milkweed on their lands, but they will try. Milkweed survives standard means of weed elimination, like tilling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I have no idea. That requires some research, and probably year-by-year adaptation until the sanctuary size is appropriate. A thing you can't do if you're simply banning HT, having people revert to older practices on more land, and hoping that things will magically revert to 1996. I mean, we're likely to have a Clinton as a President again, so at least that aspect won't be too far-fetched. So you're saying you want monarch sanctuaries, but you have no idea if they'll actually scale large enough to work? edit- This isn't a trap: I'm actually curious if there's enough land to support the proposed monarch sanctuaries. You suggested it, could you do the math to figure out if it'll work? Research institutions that Monsanto gives money to are suggesting it, I'm quite curious if it's FUD or not. Mofabio fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:They will be unable to eliminate milkweed on their lands, but they will try. Milkweed survives standard means of weed elimination, like tilling. Then some agrochemical company will invent an herbicide that will kill it, and make billions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Then some agrochemical company will invent an herbicide that will kill it, and make billions of dollars. And then the monarchs will die again. If there were an herbicide that targeted milkweed and not soy/maize/cotton, it would have the same effect as the HT GMOs now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:44 |
|
|
Mofabio posted:They will be unable to eliminate milkweed on their lands, but they will try. Milkweed survives standard means of weed elimination, like tilling. People have been using herbicides to eliminate milkweed before HT came about. Are you suggesting that even that did not remove milkweed from their crops? Mofabio posted:So you're saying you want monarch sanctuaries, but you have no idea if they'll actually scale large enough to work? If what you're saying is that the status quo pre-HT was that a bit of milkweed always survived alongside the crops, then instead of sanctuaries the USDA can instruct farmers to use only enough glyphosate to eliminate up to 90%, 80% of milkweed or whatnot. I still don't see why you would want to stop using glyphosate period if all you want to do is adjust the amount of surviving pests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 23:47
|
|