wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (01/31/86)
Recent news reports about the search for debris from the Challenger tragedy have included warnings from NASA that private beachcombers should not handle material from the shuttle because it might contain toxic materials. To quote a portion of an article in the January 30 Los Angeles Times (p. 10, col. 3): "There were several things aboard the Challenger that potentially could be deadly," one member of the search team said. "We're especially concerned about a small green canister," a Coast Guard chief petty officer added. "You'd be dead in two seconds if you touched it." What kinds of toxic substances are involved here? Specifically, what's in the aforementioned green canister, and why was it on the shuttle? -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA ARPA: wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU -or- wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA UUCP: ...!(ucbvax,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales
chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/01/86)
> "There were several things aboard the Challenger that > potentially could be deadly," one member of the search > team said. "We're especially concerned about a small > green canister," a Coast Guard chief petty officer > added. "You'd be dead in two seconds if you touched it." > > What kinds of toxic substances are involved here? Specifically, what's > in the aforementioned green canister, and why was it on the shuttle? The thing that I've heard is that they are worried about impregnation of shuttle debris with rocket fuel, which can be highly toxic when not handled properly. -- :From catacombs of Castle Tarot: Chuq Von Rospach sun!chuq@decwrl.DEC.COM {hplabs,ihnp4,nsc,pyramid}!sun!chuq FidoNet: 125/84 My uncle told me all of this. It must be true, because I know my uncle, and he is as honest as me.
devils1@hou2g.UUCP (D.DARBY) (02/02/86)
> >Recent news reports about the search for debris from the Challenger >tragedy have included warnings from NASA that private beachcombers >should not handle material from the shuttle because it might contain >toxic materials. To quote a portion of an article in the January 30 >Los Angeles Times (p. 10, col. 3): > >"There were several things aboard the Challenger that >potentially could be deadly," one member of the search >team said. "We're especially concerned about a small >green canister," a Coast Guard chief petty officer >added. "You'd be dead in two seconds if you touched it." > >What kinds of toxic substances are involved here? Specifically, what's >in the aforementioned green canister, and why was it on the shuttle? >-- >Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683 >3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA >ARPA: wales@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU -or- wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA >UUCP: ...!(ucbvax,ihnp4)!ucla-cs!wales A few thoughts have been bugging me ever since I first heard of this "small green canister": 1) the obvious, why is it so deadly, and 2) if so deadly, then isn't it also safe to assume that it would be contaminating a very large part of the ocean? (My disclaimer has been claimed by my compay) Dave Darby AT&T Bell Labs Holmdel, NJ
mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) (02/02/86)
In article <8632@ucla-cs.ARPA> wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (Rich Wales) writes: > > "There were several things aboard the Challenger that > potentially could be deadly," one member of the search > team said. "We're especially concerned about a small > green canister," a Coast Guard chief petty officer > added. "You'd be dead in two seconds if you touched it." > >What kinds of toxic substances are involved here? Specifically, what's >in the aforementioned green canister, and why was it on the shuttle? >-- Hmmm.. *Small* green canister...From The San Jose Mercury News, Friday, Jan 31: "In particular, officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration warned beachcombers about cylindrical green tanks with hemispheric ends, 96 inches long and 49 inches in diameter. ....[ lots of verbiage deleted ]... hypergolic fuel...used to power small maneuvering rockets... In the hypergolic system, the fuel consists of a clear liquid called monomethylhydrazine, a powerfully reactive substance that can cause intense caustic burns on the skin and is also a poison that particularly affects the liver. Far more dangerous is the hypergolic system oxidizer, liquid nitrogen tetroxide. Nitrogen tetroxide is so exotic a substance that is not even listed in the Merck Index, a standard reference volume that summarizes the properties and toxicity of thousands of compounds. However, nitrogen tetroxide violently oxidizes almost any organic substance it touches, including skin and all other human tissues. The burns it causes are instantaneous and likely to be quickly fatal........" I know there are many knowledgeable chemists on the net, please note the "" and send all flames to the Mercury. Mike -- UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!mike ARPA: amdcad!mike@decwrl.dec.com
don@umd5.UUCP (02/03/86)
> Recent news reports about the search for debris from the Challenger > tragedy have included warnings from NASA that private beachcombers > should not handle material from the shuttle because it might contain > toxic materials. To quote a portion of an article in the January 30 > Los Angeles Times (p. 10, col. 3): > > "There were several things aboard the Challenger that > potentially could be deadly," one member of the search > team said. "We're especially concerned about a small > green canister," a Coast Guard chief petty officer > added. "You'd be dead in two seconds if you touched it." > > What kinds of toxic substances are involved here? Specifically, what's > in the aforementioned green canister, and why was it on the shuttle? > -- Rich Wales The speculation is that this canister is the possible container of a plutonium power source for the Galileo mission. Won't kill you in two seconds, but VERY DEADLY all the same. -- --==---==---==-- "beware the fruminous Bandersnatch" ARPA: don@umd5.UMD.EDU BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 UUCP: ..!{ seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!rlgvax }!cvl!umd5!don (NOTE: Please mail to umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don NOT umd5!cvl!umcp-cs!don) umcp-cs ::= mimsy.UMD.EDU | maryland.ARPA | umcp-cs.UUCP
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (02/05/86)
> > A few thoughts have been bugging me ever since I first heard of this > "small green canister": 1) the obvious, why is it so deadly, and 2) > if so deadly, then isn't it also safe to assume that it would be > contaminating a very large part of the ocean? > From the "STS Payload Safety Guidelines Handbook" JSC 11123, July 1976 Table 3.12-II Flammability and Toxicity Properties of Propellants: Hydrazine: Flammable up to 100% vapor concentration, Flammability limits at 100 deg C 4.7-100% by volume in air. Toxic, burns tissues, allowable concentration 1 part per million (PPM). Monomethylhydrazine: Flammable 2.5-98% by volume in air @ 1 atmosphere. Toxic, allowable concentration 0.5 PPM. Nitrogen Tetroxide: Nonflammable but supports combustion. Toxic, corrosive, burns skin and eyes. Allowable concentration 2.5 PPM. Since the tanks used to store these fluids are fairly rugged, and at least one large section of the Challenger survived to land in the ocean, it is quite possible that at least one of these tanks survived. Under normal landing conditions, ground crews wear protective suits with independant air supplies while they check for leaks of these materials just after the shuttle lands. If you see anything that looks like a tank (cylindrical or spherical) washed up on a Florida beach, particularly if it is wrapped with yellow fibers (Kevlar), get away FAST and call NASA, the Coast Guard, or whatever. Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder ZZ
ross@smeagol.UUCP (Gary Ross) (02/07/86)
> The speculation is that this canister is the possible container of a > plutonium power source for the Galileo mission. Won't kill you in > two seconds, but VERY DEADLY all the same. > That is utterly ridicluous. Why the h--l would NASA send up only the power source for a mission that was't supposed el be launched until May. As far as I know no one besides you has made that specualtion. It is this kind of uninformed and unfounded specualtion that this network could do without.
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (02/08/86)
> ... > Hmmm.. *Small* green canister...From The San Jose Mercury News, Fri Jan 31: > "In particular, officials of the National Aeronautics and Space > Administration warned beachcombers about cylindrical green tanks ... > Far more dangerous is the hypergolic system oxidizer, liquid nitrogen > tetroxide. Nitrogen tetroxide is so exotic a substance that is not > even listed in the Merck Index, a standard reference volume that > summarizes the properties and toxicity of thousands of compounds. > However, nitrogen tetroxide violently oxidizes almost any organic > substance it touches, including skin and all other human tissues. > The burns it causes are instantaneous and likely to be quickly fatal ..." Apparently someone at the San Jose Mercury not only can't read, but has an almost non-existant knowledge of chemistry. Nitrogen tetroxide is indeed listed in the Merck Index, and carries registration number 6425. Nitrogen tetroxide is a very common chemical, and hardly qualifies the term "exotic". You can see a nice reddish-brown mixture of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen tetroxide if you drop a piece of copper into some nitric acid. My point in the above diatribe is not to pick apart some newspaper's individual article, but to illustrate a much wider point: Beware of ANYTHING technical which appears in the daily press! ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> seismo!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==
mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) (02/11/86)
In article <795@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: >> ... > > Apparently someone at the San Jose Mercury not only can't read, but >has an almost non-existant knowledge of chemistry. Nitrogen tetroxide is It appears that the Merc is only guilty of printing without verifying. Since another poster posted the same article word for word from the New York Times, I believe we have either AP or UPI to blame for this. > My point in the above diatribe is not to pick apart some newspaper's >individual article, but to illustrate a much wider point: Beware of ANYTHING >technical which appears in the daily press! > Yes, there are an awful lot of technical errors in the newspaper. But I found it more interesting that there were several postings of the "what could be so dangerous" type posted one or two days after, the article appeared in probably half of the newspapers in the nation. What I'm trying to saying is, is it worse to read the paper and get some real info ( the tanks really did contain hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide ) mixed with garbage. Or to get your news strictly from the t.v. and radio and get so much less info? Mike P.S. sorry to net.columbia readers, I realize this is in the wrong group, I just can't think of a better place, it's late. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!mike ARPA: amdcad!mike@decwrl.dec.com