How is this Greenpeace-related? How is this treehugging?

Come on. You could have talked about legal attacks on LEED claims, or more on Nanosolar deliveries, or more about green Valentine's Day gifts, or maybe a TED talk. News of a mass transit system success? Nope - green-colored chlorine gas.

Please raise the bar, instead of spending a piece smearing Greenpeace.

==== author's response follows ===
My analogy is apt and hardly a smear. There's a bit of outlaw admirer in all of us: whether it's for an activist group plugging up an illegal effluent discharge to point up a green washing, or the local police using a security "system," designed by a superior authority, to point out intrinsic flaws that system.

Both can offer an opportunity for risk reduction that will benefit all living things. In other words, you can't fix problems that are hidden from view.

If I were in the chlorine distribution business at this moment, having read this post, I'd be making absolutely sure that my sales to customer interface would prevent this sort of thing; and then I'd be advertising my newly bolstered security methods to prospective customers who want to steer clear of the potential image and liability problems that could stem from being involved with a "bad" sale.

Publicizing this event is exactly what is needed to trigger those sorts of positive responses on the part of businesses.

As long as we're at it, we may as well require identification for the sale of ammonia and bleach to cleaning companies.

=== author's response follows ===
You and I both know that the human health hazard of elemental chlorine is orders of magnitude over that posed by an ammonia or a bleach solution, as would be used in the cleaning industry.

The reason the NYPD is so het up about chlorine gas is because bottles of the stuff have been used in VBIEDs down in Iraq. The resulting gas cloud is not as lethal as you might think, as a lot of the gas is consumed in the explosion. But the panic factor can be pretty serious, and first responders run into difficulties because they need to work the scene with protective gear on.

So this is an actual, proven terrorist tactic and thus a possible threat. However, the use of individual or even a handful of chlorine gas bottles absolutely pales in comparison to the possibility of a terrorist group running a truck bomb into the heart of an industrial chemical factory. This scenario is also plausible. References to this tactic have been found in various terrorist training materials, and there is some indication that terrorist groups have scoped out industrial chemical plants for the possibility of attack.

Have we seen an increase in proper security of chemical plants? Of course not. If anything, regulations governing the manufacture, storage, and transport of dangerous chemicals have been eased under international trade treaties like NAFTA and GATT. A sound response for both environmental and national security purposes would be a program to phase out the most toxic chemicals and replace them with more benign processes, but I'm not holding my breath.

I disagree with the use of the word "unexpectedly" in reference to the corn-based biofuel fiasco.

I don't know how many brain cells it takes to figure out that utilizing one of the major food crops in the world as a fuel source is not a smart idea, but it's not many.

Other than that, I disagree with the comments and think this was really informative. You make a good point about "risk reduction that will benefit all living things", including transparency and safety issues.

I am wondering if this could tie into ecoterrorism, which in my belief would sufficiently lock in into the "green" category, as we need as few militant extremists as possible to stop making average treehuggers look bad. Security like this could then kind of protect the movement from itself. Or am I way off base?

Its extremely easy. Just go into any pool store and buy it.

>As long as we're at it, we may as well require identification for the sale of ammonia and bleach to cleaning companies.

>=== author's response follows ===
>You and I both know that the human health hazard of elemental chlorine is orders of magnitude over that posed by an ammonia or a bleach solution, as would be used in the cleaning industry.

Ammonia and bleach react to create chlorine gas:

2NaOCl + 2NH3 --> 2NaONH3 + Cl2

If everyone is so concerned about chlorine gas cylinders, why not ammonia and bleach as they are simply "ingredients?"

Craig wins.

While we're at it, we should have stricter limitations on purchasing table salt, water, and electricity as well. Industrial chlorine is mainly produced through salt brine electrolysis. One more example of people giving into fear.

John Laumer, I am quite impressed with your responses to the above comments. People are missing some of the "peace" aspects of conserving the environment. It is refreshing to hear someone report without temper to inform on all matters involving global preservation including the human being.

Anonymous says:
"Craig wins."

Why doesn't "Craig" write?
He seems to have a good idea of the elemental aspects.
Would like to hear his thoughts on the "new" CO2 "hot" button.

Peace,

Great! Now the terrorists know exactly how to launch such an attack. This is akin to the media announcing to the world that US port security is substandard at best and as full of holes as fake swiss cheese made out of C-4.

=== author's response follows ====
The generation of gaseous chlorine from a few percent ammonia solution mixed with aqueous bleach would lead to little chlorine - certainly not enough to disperse over a wide area at high concentration - and the liberation of chlorine gas from such a mixture would be instantly stopped via a dispersing explosion (aqueous reaction stopped). In other words, lets focus on the high hazard, not some imaginary threat thrown out to infer over-reaction by those who desire risks to be properly managed.

Now to the nub of the issue. The NYPD team has effectively established that proper controls are not in place across the chlorine supply chain. For that they are heroes.

The world's developed nations have formal regulatory controls on sales of guns, ammunition, tobacco, alcohol, medical drugs, non-medical drugs, vehicles, nuclear materials, and so on. Yet, according to evidence offered by the NYPD, there are either insufficient or ineffective controls on sale of elemental chlorine in the US. Arguably this is an unacceptable risk.

Do you have a problem with me pointing out the NYPD efforts? Do you feel that no further controls on the distribution and sales of chlorine are needed? If so, please explain why.

Inferring that I have introduced greater risk by amplifying a story that needs attention strikes me as missing the above points.

I don't know why everyone has to express themselves with such animosity. My comment was merely to point out how controlling cylinders of chlorine gas will not make you automatically safe from terrorist attacks. I do not disagree with the article's author, and was only referring to the statements made by the police.

As someone may accidentally mix the two at home, everyone should know that ammonia and bleach should never be brought together.

John,

I think that the people who need to know about it already know. My point is that by giving these types of security risks attention, you are effectively spreading the information to potential attackers. Thanks to the article that first exposed this, and now your post, anyone reading could similarly exploit this hole in security.

I think the media often does further damage to national security by "digging" up these little tidbits for their own commercial reasons. If these investigative reporters truly wanted to help the public, they would focus their efforts on working with security agents to help undermine these activities instead of using the "shock" factor to increase ratings under the guise of promoting "public awareness."

Luc