Wouter van Ooijen <wouter <at> voti.nl> writes:

> 
> > Coming up to that time of year again. Sounds like this long-
> > faced sandal-wearing tree-hugging misery-guts had his mail
> > box blown up once too often
> > 
> > Fireworks - Cheap Thrills with Toxic Consequences
> > 
> > Heavy Metal Fallout from Fireworks Creates Needless Pollution
> > and an Unnecessary Risk to Our Personal and Environmental Health
> > http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Falls/9200/toxic_fireworks.html
> 
> Are you the stand-in for Russel?
> 
> I am all in favour environmental protection, but I don't like that page.
> Check the poisons table. Copper compounds cause dioxine? Maybe true for
> some compounds, but I don't thing the copper is essential. Potassium
> Nitrate causes sulfur-coal compounds? To my best knowledge PN cointains
> neither sulfur nor coal. Note that what they claim might actually be
> true, but this kind of sloppy presentation does not help the cause.
> 
> Wouter van Ooijen
> 

Looking at the page I became utterly confused.  It is either (1) I got 
chemistry seriously wrong, or (2) person who wrote the "facts" on this page got 
it wrong.

Naturally, I think it is (2).  I did not know that lead chloride is now an 
oxidant, for example.  
Also, for strontium they say it can be radioactive! They better stop breathing 
now, because CO2 contains C14 (radioactive) as well as C12.  The same is true 
for any other element, there are radioactive and stable isotopes.

Would be better to focus on more contaminating things, like car emissions.

It is sometimes funny, and sometimes scarry when people who have no idea what 
they are talking about get on the bandwagon and try to "protect" everybody.

<rant over>

Sergey



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist