OT - Question for mgoScientists on a quiet night

Submitted by Magga Saraivah on April 15th, 2018 at 10:28 PM

The US missile attack on Syria destroyed chemical weapons sites where chlorine and sarin are stored/manufactured. During this attack, would not a lethal cloud have been released that may pose a serious risk to civilians? 

What about it, you chemical weapons experts? Do chemical weapons only release their elements when they explode from intended use but not when they explode from being militarily attacked?

 

Comments

s1105615

April 15th, 2018 at 10:34 PM ^

Gas attacks aren’t explosive...they are usually released via aerosol...an explosive release would burn the nefarious substances away, rather than allowing them to disseminate...at least that’s what movies have taught me

crg

April 15th, 2018 at 11:20 PM ^

Many of the standard chemical agents will be destroyed (or at least rendered lower health risk) by the temperatures and reactive environments found in incendiary combustion. Also, chemical agents have a finite persistence to them, with only certain complex agents (such as VX) lasting for more than a few hours after dispersal. From what I have heard, this was chlorine and some precursor materials, so it wouldn't be that bad outside of the immediate vicinity.

Maizinator

April 16th, 2018 at 2:00 AM ^

from stealth gas attacks.  I also have the capability to detonate high yield chemical munitions to effectively terminate all living organisms within a 500 ft radius.

These munitions may be synthesized from beer, sauerkraut, and other locally available precursor constituents.

Lawyer12

April 15th, 2018 at 10:35 PM ^

Chemicals weapons manufacturing sites were targeted. However, only sites with precursor chemicals were targeted. So, no, not a major danger in this instance and part of the reason the attack was so limited.

NFG

April 16th, 2018 at 11:18 AM ^

Wait...

 

Assad turned in all of his chemical weapons years ago. As confirmed by the Russians. This was a solid international agreement made by the previous administration in order to prevent any further attacks on civilians with banned weapons of war. So, to answer your question, no cloud of gas, because as per the agreement, there were no chemicals or muntions to target.

 

DUH!

Monkey House

April 15th, 2018 at 10:38 PM ^

not sure if its the same type of chlorine used in water treatment but Sodium hypochlorite is extremely flammable and releases highly potent gases, but can be quickly extinguished with the proper chemicals.

1VaBlue1

April 16th, 2018 at 9:16 AM ^

Okay, so I haven't been in the military (Navy) for going on 30 years, so its possible - but the basic math doesn't change.  There are enough different types of chemical weapons that carrying missiles with a neutralizing agent as the payload wouldn't be feasible.  No military unit has that much storage space available for so many different types of weapons.  They carry high explosives, armor piercing, and incendiary weapons.  And most (if not all) of the missiles fired were from Navy assets, which cannot be reloaded at sea.  And Navy assets just don't replace each other willy-nilly based on weapons loadout.

From personal experience riding fast attacks (from which 6 Tomahawks were fired), they do not have a chemical neutralizing payload.  The Tomahawks the Navy fired in my day are the same things shot today, save for updated navigation and telemetry.

If you have updated information (and you very well may - ~30 years is a long time), please share.

1VaBlue1

April 16th, 2018 at 10:09 AM ^

First rule of MGoPoints - we don't talk about MGoPoints!

I got (and appreciate) the Lysol bombs, but continue to fail in detecting such humour on the OP I replied to.  If such humor exists, then my serious and factual reply is out of place and deserves the negs (just don't talk about them) it deserves for being serious and factual in the face of non-serious and factless commentary.  And also, I would feel shame - my sarcasm meter is usually better than that...

s1105615

April 15th, 2018 at 10:39 PM ^

Why did Walking Dead introduce the idea that getting splattered with dead guys could make you sick and turn after starting the first season off with rick covering himself in gore and allowing him to escape scot free...and then do it several times at well. Just lazy storytelling in my opinion...change my mind...

Hail-Storm

April 16th, 2018 at 9:25 AM ^

He made all the right calls, but for some reason, Rick is considered this great leader. Every new set of people they come upon seem to be living much better lives than what Rick is giving his people, yet Rick comes in and fucks evreything up, and people praise him for being a good guy.  Tell me you wouldn't rather be in the town the Governor set up, or living in Alexandria before Rick let all the Walkers out of the pit. 

At least living under Negan would be consistant. Rick takes stuff when he feels like it. 

Anyway, I stopped watching the show a few seasons ago when all the characters all could be interchangeable with each other.  Loved the begining when they all brought something different to the table.  Now they can all shoot, fight, hunt, track, jump start a car. Characters aren't consistent, and rules of the world are constantly broken. 

It's hard to continue with a show for this long and keep it good without having an ending in sight. I was hoping for some twist in the end where Rick's group finds out they have been the bad guys for most of the series.  Something like I AM LEGEND, (book ending not movie) except bad guys to the other people. Oh well.

1VaBlue1

April 16th, 2018 at 9:02 AM ^

This is the correct answer!  The blood and gore was put in buckets so the guys could dip thier arrows and spear tips (and whatever else they deemed gore-worthy, I suppose) into it before shooting.  The hope was that, if the weapon didn't kill the person, the person would die and unexpectedly turn, anyway.

The problem I have is that the injured people turned that night in a matter of minutes.  Previously, injured peeps from bites, or whatever, took several days to die off as the sickness built (increasing fevor).  Not this time!  This time, they seemed to be in good health (relatively speaking) until they dozed off for the night, and then just started eating sleepers.  

The bottom line is the same, though - KEEP YOUR STORYLINE STRAIGHT, ASSHOLES!!!

Oscar

April 16th, 2018 at 3:28 PM ^

"The problem I have is that the injured people turned that night in a matter of minutes. Previously, injured peeps from bites, or whatever, took several days to die off as the sickness built (increasing fevor)."

Use some imagination, maybe they were different zombie strains, maybe their different immune systems were able to slow down the "turn" time. Aside from that, I stopped watching two seasons ago.

Get a Grip

April 15th, 2018 at 10:53 PM ^

Humanity has miraculously adapted to breathe the air in Columbus and East Lansing, decidedly more toxic than chlorine or sarin. Granted, those aren't "people" in the traditional sense, more so being along the lines of the deformed mutant subhumans from Judge Dredd who reside in the radioactive wastes, but they somehow survive none the less.