Metacelsus - 5-8-2023 at 11:57
https://www.lpm.org/news/2023-08-01/louisville-will-burn-dow...
Was this any of you guys? 
Anyway, I wouldn't want to be downwind of that.
[Edited on 2023-8-5 by Metacelsus]
B(a)P - 5-8-2023 at 12:57
It seems like an inappropriate response in an urban setting. I am curious to know what the extent of this person's chemical 'hording' is.
Texium - 5-8-2023 at 13:42
Almost the same thing happened recently in the Salt Lake City area. That guy allegedly had over 20 pounds of TATP in his basement though. I
can’t blame them for not wanting to try and remove that:
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2023/07/23/south-jordan-man-conv...
averageaussie - 28-8-2023 at 15:35
in both cases, is burning it not a REALLY dumb thing to do? especially with the TATP one, the shrapnel and chemicals flying everywhere would be nasty.
B(a)P - 28-8-2023 at 16:22
It seems insane to me, though what else can you do? In the second article, that quantity of explosive will have a large airblast. Back of the
envelope, unconfined, at 100 m 1% of windows would be damaged. At 50 m most windows will be gone and damage will occur to other building materials.
They did say that they were able to detonate the TATP prior to burning the house maybe they were able to confine the airblast somewhat, particularly
given it was in a basement.
They also say 630 buildings had to be evacuated.
On the flip side, thinking of the poor guys having to deal with it on the ground, anyone within 10 m would likely be dead if it unexpectedly detonated
(not taking into consideration shrapnel, which depending on the situation would likely be more deadly).
Scary stuff!
pantone159 - 28-8-2023 at 16:32
Burning it sounds pretty questionable to me also. There could be plenty of things in there that are not so hazardous unless you inhale them. I.e.
somebody 'hoarding' chemicals might well have 100 pounds of copper sulfate stacked around. Burn the house and now that spreads all around the
neighborhood, all eventually gets into the groundwater, ...
Edit: I am really talking about the first Louisville article, where the trained chemist had made some picric acid, and had an 'extreme hoarding
issue'. In the SLC case with the threatening guy making large amounts of TATP, ok controlled destruction makes sense.
[Edited on 29-8-2023 by pantone159]
Dr.Bob - 31-8-2023 at 11:21
Seems like a typical stupid government response. Maybe the bomb experts at the LAPD can help them... Just haul away the dangerous parts and then
deal with the rest. Or let the homowner guy remove the chemicals that they think are dangerous and place them safely outside. If he did it for
many years, then it can't be that dangerous.
Organikum - 1-9-2023 at 05:07
Regarding the first case: It is only spite and for this they even do not mind to create a shitload of toxic smoke.
The guy made explosives. Not bombs. No evidence that he wanted to use the explosives for nefarious purposes. It is chemicals they want to destroy it
is not that there are kilos of TNT around. I somehow got to believe that the "hoarding" might be up to interpretation too.
Solution: Get the guy and tell him to clean this up, he knows whats what. Everything whats not outright illegal he should be allowed to sell to cover
costs. In return for his service to the community he gets a slap on the wrist, say 200 hours community service and 5 years no chemistry and
probation. He DID nothing and did not PLAN anything, so what? Every bloody SUV has a hundred liters gasoline in the tank what makes when properly
mixed with air a nice thermobaric of at least 70 kg TNT equivalent. But god forbid you say something against the holy cow of capitalism the iron
horse.
Poor guy.
Fuck this.
Texium - 1-9-2023 at 09:13
I'm not going to judge the response without seeing pictures of the situation in the house.
Fulmen - 1-9-2023 at 23:55
I agree with Texium. Imagine a house filled to the rafters with garbage intermingled with chemicals and explosives. I wouldn't touch that with a 100
meter pole.