SoleInvictus

This is actually my field of work. The composite method queermunist is referencing is the industry best practice for exterior hazard labeling. NFPA diamonds don't always or even often give first responders enough information to enter a building, so there's no utility to multiple diamonds. Responders really don't care how many chemicals are in a facility so much as what they are, and not many facilities actually using chemicals are set up in such a way that your example of encountering one chemical then another would work. They're just everywhere, even during normal operations due to distributed storage and distribution systems.

What these signs do is alert them to the degree of danger inside so they can make decisions, e.g., enter if just flammable, avoid water use, or (most common of all) to act as a reference to ask the building owner more questions before doing anything at all.

You have good instincts - that's also what NFPA recommends. This isn't a typical presentation as usually it's one diamond with the worst score of all present chemicals in each category.

You CAN list them individually but it's a pain in the ass for both the building owner and first responders. The whole point is to quickly convey the level of hazards in the building for emergencies. They need to know if they need more information before entering. 2+ diamonds doesn't provide any additional useful data and makes it harder to interpret in a rush.

What's interesting is they could have made one compound NFPA diamond that encompasses the worst ratings of everything in the building instead of two individual diamonds. The primary intent of these on buildings is to inform first responders of what they might be rushing into.

Chlorine trifluoride! Nasty, NASTY shit. Guess which industry I worked in as safety!

Edit: I remembered this quote about ClF~3~ from John D. Clark's book "Ignition!" and wanted to share. For the non-scientists, hypergolic means it'll ignite on contact with another substance without an outside energy source, like a spark.

It is, of course, extremely toxic, but that’s the least of the problem. It is hypergolic with every known fuel, and so rapidly hypergolic that no ignition delay has ever been measured. It is also hypergolic with such things as cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos, sand, and water-with which it reacts explosively. It can be kept in some of the ordinary structural metals-steel, copper, aluminium, etc.-because of the formation of a thin film of insoluble metal fluoride which protects the bulk of the metal, just as the invisible coat of oxide on aluminium keeps it from burning up in the atmosphere. If, however, this coat is melted or scrubbed off, and has no chance to reform, the operator is confronted with the problem of coping with a metal-fluorine fire. For dealing with this situation, I have always recommended a good pair of running shoes.

Same! While playing the intro, one of the guards just slid to the right as the emperor power walked through them. I had a good laugh.

https://archive.ph/iSG7w

For anyone else who doesn't want an account but wants to read the article.

Seeing you post this in response to multiple posts is the highlight of my day.

Trauma that can give the same responses.

That's me! Early in therapy for CPTSD, we spent some time trying to determine if I'm autistic or just have autistic tendencies due to CPTSD. Turns out it was the latter.

This is not dull, sir, not at all. We have several large blueberry bushes and having fresh, actually ripe blueberries is super exciting.

He reminds me of an oranda goldfish.

The water just dilutes back into the rest of the ocean, lowering its average carbon content a minuscule amount. It'll take a year or less for it to reabsorb as much atmospheric CO2 as was removed and for any carbon compounds altered by the pH changes to revert. It'll likely hit peak CO2 before that point. This isn't a big deal unless it's done at massive scale in concentrated areas.

An "easy" way to handle this is to return the water to the deep ocean, where it's less impactful to ocean life and has a much larger area in which to dilute.

It's gasuous CO2. The process pulls in water, acidifies it to release carbon as CO2 to air in a sealed space, pumps that water to the next phase which adjusts the pH back up to normal, then the carbon poor water is pumped back into the ocean.

Meanwhile, the CO2 in the previously mentioned sealed space is concentrated up to about 98%, but it's still a gas. While this may or may not be a more efficient extraction system, it still has the same issue all extraction systems face: what to do with the extracted gas.

Here's their proposal with the details.