Working Towards an Eco-Friendly Fireworks Display 110
phobos13013 writes "Here's an article just in time for 4th of July fireworks shows! The ACS's Chemical and Engineering News provides a fairly technical discussion about the hazardous chemicals in modern fireworks displays. Perchlorate is currently the oxidizer of choice in fireworks, but it is also known to be a thyroid blocker. Since perchlorates are water-soluble anions, they dissolve into groundwater quickly. A study performed last summer over a lake in Ada, Oklahoma showed that less than a day after a fireworks display, the lake's chlorate levels jumped by a factor of 1,000. It took weeks for the levels to drop back down to their baseline. On the other hand, heavy metals are used to produce the pretty colors typically associated with the best fireworks. The trend is to start using nitrogen-based oxidizing fireworks; they produce less smoke, which means a smaller amount of colorizing agents can be used in displays."
Really? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was thinking that it wasn't "just in time" but instead a moment of opportunity because the rest of the year no one would care.
Earth to US, Earth to US, do you read me? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Hello, there are 195 countries in the world. The United States is ONE of them.
Re: (Score:2)
hello, I'm not American, don't live in America (quite far away from it) and the article specifically addresses the closeness to July 4th, the American holiday.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, well the ACS is the American Chemical Society. Therefore, it's gonna focus on *American* chemical usage. So yes, I'd say this is a good use of their time.
--The FNP
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Fireworks drive away evil spirits (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just in... military works towards real intelligence...
The only real eco friendly fireworks are the ones that we dont use. Seriously, celebrating indepd
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Erm, this is already the case for shotgun shells. Lead poisoning in waterfowl led to the banning of lead-based shotgun pellets.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I buy only depleted uranium shot loads!
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
You jest , but your coment should actually be moderated insightful. While radioactive the chemical effects from uranium and lead alike outdo the radioactive ones from uranium by orders of magnitude. In terms of toxicity lead is probably a lot worse than uranium. The concern with DU as used by military is mostly when it is used in armor piercing rounds, where the bullets are propelled to sufficient velocities to powderise them on impact. The concerns is that finely powderised uranium may get stuck in people'
Re: (Score:2)
Already happened. Remember depleted uranium?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depleted uranium is used for reasons that have nothing to do with lead toxicity, but instead for its density and its self-sharpening trait. Keeping the penetrating point and maximum kinetic energy is important when punching through armor.
That said, there are growing areas banning lead bullets, including sometimes for law enforcement, due to the perceived health risk.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
obviously you haven't learned what sarcasm is.
DU is thousands of times more toxic than lead, and will persist in the environment for the rest of the Earths lifetime.
*pout* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*pout* (Score:5, Funny)
Several hundred acres of burning rain forest would be pretty exciting.
Re: (Score:1)
I think amber is also going to be a color option...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But green's my favorite color!
Actually I'm really enjoying the new innovations that don't have to do with color. Every year at the fireworks display at Ida Lee Park in Leesburg, VA near where I live they usually show a new concept. One year was the rocket that bursts in a ring. Then they made a smiley face using two blue dots for eyes and several pink dots for a mouth inside the circle. Then they came up with a circle with a heart in it and last night they had rockets that burst in a star pattern. The
PETA won't be satisfied (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
PETA activists need therapy. rubbing them with bacon and putting them in a room with junkyard dogs would do wonders for their attitude on dog rights
Re: (Score:2)
They want to get rid of fireworks completely because they scare dogs [helpinganimals.com].
Melatonin apparently works as a cheap tranquilizer for dogs. It doesn't make the dog sleepy as it does humans, just calms them down. And dosage is not much a problem as the lethal dose is several hundred times the effective dose.
Re:PETA won't be satisfied (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason that activist is bothered by it is because she doesn't like fireworks. She had no problems with vacuuming, even though that's another loud noise that her dog doesn't like.
Re: (Score:1)
While I don't agree that fireworks need to be done away with, it is true that dogs (and most animals for that matter) are frightened by fireworks, both the professional fireworks displays and the smaller variety that people set off in their neighbourhoods*. A few years ago on the Fourth of July, while driving down home from a fireworks display, a dog, frightened by other fireworks displays, jumped in front of a car in the next lane. The result was displeasing to all parties present (especially the dog). For
Re: (Score:1)
Re:PETA vs Gun Lobby (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my Labrador Retrievers, who is trained as a "gun dog", goes ballistic when he hears fireworks go off. He thinks they are shotguns which means that somebody is out hunting which means he should be doing the same.
He gets very upset when he finds out that this isn't the case. It just depends on how the dog is raised. Operant conditioning and all that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exaggerate much?
I dislike PETA as much as the next guy, but your taking this a bit far.
My pets panic on the fourth and on New Years. I live in suburbia like most people. How many people ACTUALLY have hunting dogs? Really? What percentage?
Not many, anymore, I'd guess, times have moved on.
Just because a sport has a traditions, doesn't make it okay. Bullfighting and Cockfighting stretch back a bit, therefore throwing Christians to the lions and gladiatorial combat should be fine too? Should Human sacrifi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"How many people ACTUALLY have hunting dogs? Really? What percentage?"
That depends on where you live. Many people in rural and semi-rural areas ("flyover country" to the Slashdotian Urban Sophisticates) have hunting dogs. I don't hunt with dogs so I don't have a "percentage" figure, but packs are quite common in the Southeast.
"Sure, animals should be for food, and skins, but killing them for shits and giggles is kind of dubious."
We don't need the skins for survival and meat is optional, so why exempt those
Re: (Score:2)
That really wasn't a comment against hunting. More against torturing animals for sport. I don't know many hunters who shoot for painful wounds, and long deaths. Hunting wasn't, last time I checked, about causing suffering for the sake of fun.
Hunting is now a necessary function, even if hide and meat (which is necissary) is not. We've destroyed all of the other apex preditors, so something needs to keep the populations in check.
I don't hunt, nor do I ever want to. I don't have anything against most hunt
Re: (Score:1)
With the exception of sick or stupid people, hunters would never shoot for 'painful wounds and long deaths.' All that I remember from ever talking to anyone about hunting is that they always want a clean, quick kill. Not only is it more humane, they keep in mind that when an animal struggles and has a slow death, it tends to make the meat not so good. Like when people exercise, there is a buildup of lactic acid or similar. This does stuff to the tissue that makes it not taste as good as that from a quick de
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes no sense to treat animals humanely since they're not human. It's ludicrous to try to treat them any better than nature does. 95% of all species that have existed have become extinct. Most animals never live but a fraction of their biological old-age-limited lifespan, and all but those at the top of food chains
For better safety don't eat the fireworks (Score:5, Insightful)
How about **watching** the fireworks instead? Yeah I know that's an outlandish idea, but try it some time... you see all these pretty patterns!
Compared to all the tailpipe emissions of people driving to the firework display, the chemicals used on the lawns they are sitting on, the peroxide the "blonds" all used to bleach their hair etc etc, the chemicals in the actual fireworks are insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For better safety don't eat the fireworks (Score:5, Informative)
TFineA addresses this issue: the company they profile currently makes most of their sales to Vegas shows, professional wrestling events, and rock concerts, where you do in fact have people in a confined space breathing the fumes and exposed to particulates night after night after night. The other big market is the military, for signal flares and training aids. Again, fairly regular exposure.
In all, some interesting chemistry.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, they have lakes in those confined spaces?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, they have lakes in those confined spaces?
You've obviously never been to Vegas.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed that, for those with regular exposure, cutting the perchlorate is a good idea...... let's just not pass off these low-end fireworks for the more intermittent ~ and memorable ~ celebrations. If you're seeing a fireworks show every night because of your job or your wealth then you don't need the tops.
Let's not ruin fireworks displays for everyone by lessening the impact caused by extravagance or military need. ...and as someone said below, we need the good stuff to scare away the yearly spirits..... ;
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Heavy metals can be addressed by a simple carbon filter, which isn't going to add anything to the water except maybe some extra carbon. Perchlorate needs a reverse osmosis setup, which is more complicated, but it shouldn't add much to the water, either.
Re:For better safety don't eat the fireworks (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez: perchlorate causes thyroid problems.... Well don't eat the firework and don't inhale the gases.
How about **watching** the fireworks instead
Fine - I'll watch them, not without remembering that there are many places in the world where people manufacture fireworks with their bare hands, and are in direct contact with the aforementioned toxic materials. Thank you for your kind interest.
Re: (Score:2)
DONT eat my fireworks?!
BRILLIANT!
Re: (Score:2)
Jeez: perchlorate causes thyroid problems.... Well don't eat the firework and don't inhale the gases.
Well we dont eat the fireworks, but there is no excaping the gases in my town. Its literally like a dense fog all over the city, possibly county, tonight. Amazing really, but there is no avoiding the smoke unless you stay inside, but then guess what? You cant see them.
I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm currently in Barcelona, Spain and witnessed the best July 4th Fireworks show I have ever seen, including any Disney display.
But the most relevant part was that they shot fireworks off the pier into the mar, sea, which exploded off of the water, something I doubt they would do in America...
Re: (Score:2)
> But the most relevant part was that they shot fireworks off the pier into the mar, sea,
> which exploded off of the water, something I doubt they would do in America...
Why do you say that?
Re: (Score:2)
Most fireworks shows I know of in the USA happen from land over water. Why do you say you doubt they would do that?
At Disney World I know they shoot the fireworks from either on land or near land over the water.
Wonder NO more! (Score:2)
Well, just so you know, they do set fireworks off over the ocean in America.
In California, at Point Arena, they blast them off of the public pier, and in Fort Bragg, they shoot them off of the bluff top and right into the Pacific Ocean.
Oh, and they pollute the ocean with toxic chemicals from the abandoned lumber mill around here also.
It's the American way after-all.
Re: (Score:2)
And in Chicago they shoot them off over Lake Michigan.
In Peoria, they shoot them off over the Illinois River.
In fact, most places strongly prefer to shoot fireworks off over water - because there is no chance of catching the water on fire.
Now, if they were somehow bouncing them off the water, that would be something unusual and definitely something worth seeing.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not Cleveland, then?
Re: (Score:2)
dlgeek said: "Huh? Fort Bragg is in central North Carolina on the east coast (about 4 hours by car from the Atlantic Ocean, several days from the Pacific)"
Wellllllllllll, sonny boy...
I live in the first Fort Bragg, the one in California.
Perhaps you ought to review your history lessons.
Re: (Score:1)
But the most relevant part was that they shot fireworks off the pier into the mar, sea, which exploded off of the water, something I doubt they would do in America...
In New york, the fireworks display is directly on the East River. It used to be on the Hudson River.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad that some folks think of things like in TFA, but at the same time - some things should just be left pretty much as they are. Though the levels in that lake may have risen to 1000 times normal (and one of the sampling sites was next to and between the "Ignition site"), they were back to normal in 20-80 days:
After the fireworks displays, perchlorate concentrations decreased toward the background level within 20 to 80 days, with the rate of attenuation correlating to surface water temperature. Adsorption tests indicate that sediments underlying the water column have limited (~100 nmol/g) capacity to remove perchlorate via chemical adsorption. Microcosms showed comparatively rapid intrinsic perchlorate degradation in the absence of nitrate consistent with the observed disappearance of perchlorate from the study site. This suggests that at sites with appropriate biogeochemical conditions, natural attenuation may be an important factor affecting the fate of perchlorate following fireworks displays.
Some things are worth a little danger, and thus also a little caution, or life wouldn't be so much fun...
Re: (Score:1)
But the most relevant part was that they shot fireworks off the pier into the mar, sea, which exploded off of the water, something I doubt they would do in America...
I have never seen a show where the fireworks, the things that are usually shot off of boats into the sky above water to explode, were shot horizontally to fall into the sea and exploded on, literally on, the water.
Every reply says they shoot the fireworks off of the water, yes they do, but they don't explode on the water in America.
Is that more clear?
I just doubt with all the law suits and safety guidelines in the US, along with studies like this, is why it would never happen.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely, says Occam, it is because if you shoot them *up*, then more people can see them - which is, after all, the fireworks raison d'etre...
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the famous /. reflexive America bashing. Fact is however that where water is available to shoot them over, it is virtually always done. (For safety and because the reflections on the water are lovely...) In the county where I live (which just misses being an island) every major show is over water, as are the majority of the smaller shows
Pff. (Score:2, Funny)
Polluting the environment and fireworks... (Score:2)
Cause you keep stealing those "feathers" from Chinese who are the real champions of both disciplines?
How about some perspective? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about some perspective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it a false dichotomy, but the GP writes off "A once a year, thousand times spike in a trace amount chemical" as a non-event without providing a shred of evidence to back up the assertion.
The State of California sets 6 micrograms/liter as the max allowable limit [ca.gov]
and according to TFA, the amount of perchlorate spikes to 44.204 micrograms/liter.
/And no, the "but I'm not in California" line of logic does not apply
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are bigger problems to deal with than a dubious annual spike in a trace chemical.
How do you know? Maybe that once-a-month event has serious, long-term repercussions that we won't learn about for decades. Doesn't necessarily mean we have to stop, but we should either stop or make sure we don't need to stop :P
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think this illustrates the GPs point. Since typical indoor Cl2 levels tend to be in the PPT range and occupational hazard levels are capped by OSHA at 1 PPM, a 1000 time increase would still trend toward putting you within an "acceptable" limit for long term exposure (1PPM is roughly the exposure you get from going for a swim in a chlorinated pool).
Now, if I had to put up with a 1000-fold increase in whining from my kids for a month, that would be another matter altogether.
Re: (Score:1)
From the perspective of single molecules, the level jumps from 0 to 100% whenever a molecule of said chemical is encountered, an infinite increase!
plastic water bottle.. (Score:2)
How many plastic water bottles... find their way into the same lake, and how long does it take them to dissipate?
Doctor: You appear to have a very strange cylindrical lump in your thyroid gland.
Patient: Oh my, is it serious?!
Duh (Score:1)
Just use CFLs. They're just as good as incandescents.
Great, just great (Score:2)
Green Fireworks (Score:1, Funny)
I'm all for being environmentally friendly and all, but green fireworks would get old after awhile.
Patriotism, American Style (Score:1)
Nothing says "I love America" quite like cheap, toxic, Chinese fireworks. Don't bother cleaning up your litter either, I really like seeing that shit in the street in the middle of August.
How about dealing with the real problem (Score:2)
i.e., explosives in the hands of non-experts, instead? It boggles the mind that in this safety-obsessed world it's still possible to randomly spray your general vicinity with things that go BOOM. In my observation, the kind of people who buy fireworks are often the ones who can't be trusted to be responsible with them. There's something about fireworks that turns normal people into pyromaniacs.
1000 times normal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a relative measure of effect rather than absolute; the latter of which would be of no benefit without a baseline.
You have got to be the stupidest motherfucker on the planet if you don't get that; that's hyperbole.
Know what? (Score:1, Insightful)
I just plum don't give a fuck.
Holographic Projector? (Score:1)
I'm wondering whether some advanced LASER show wouldn't be more useful.
I doubt though that anything like holograms could be easily used for this but who knows where we can get with the following
http://www.media.mit.edu/spi/holoVideoAll.htm [mit.edu]
What I like about this is the idea that it doesn't have to be perfect for a fireworks display so the technology should be usable early on, and any artifacts could be declared special effects.
The problem will be that high powered lasers will be needed to get the same effect
What about the Excess Nitrogen (Score:2, Troll)
The 1st limiting nutrient in most aquatic environments is Nitrogen. It's the Nitrogen in animal waste that is the problem for surface water. I'd need to see the effect of Nitrogen based fireworks on Nitrogen levels in the water before I jump on this bandwagon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is *not* insightful (and I'm wasting my change to mod it overrated to try and correct it).
1) Nitrogen is one of the most available chemicals on the planet.
2) *Nitrates* are the biologically available form of nitrogen.
3) Farmers dump hundreds of pounds to tons of fertilizer on their fields; depending on crop, soil, etc.
4) As far as I can tell, nitrates are not a major combustion product of nitrocellulose. You can get some
nitrogen dioxide as a seconday byproduct [aiaa.org], but no more so than
Re: (Score:2)
Technically that's 2 NO2 <-> N2O4, although it's heavily weighted to the right under STP.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Just because their is a lot of N available, doesn't mean that it can't be limiting gr
Re: (Score:2)
>1. Just because their is a lot of N available, doesn't mean that it can't be limiting growth if all of the
>2. I was not speaking to the form of the N in the water, only to it's presence. I'm not an explosives expert,
But its mere presence is of no importance, the form matters. It's as if most of the carbon in soil were locked
up as diamond dust, and one were concerned about the effects siltation would have on the propagation of lillypads when life has no use for that compound. http://en.wikipedia.org/w [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I was not trying to imply anything of the sort. I think that many people would agree that the reason we need to be concerned about the environment now is because as technology, society, production (both food and engineered products) advanced no one thought to check as to the implications of the changes they were making would have in advance.
EVERY time you make a change in the way things are done it is necess
Ada, Oklahoma (Score:2, Informative)
I think they raised a stink last year (Score:1)
And it's prob the same company, the same study and the same SMALL pond. Being broke has some advantages, (not really, but work with me) I can't get in trouble (yet) for reading rec.pyrotechnics, nor can I get in trouble for making my own fireworks, but I did read about this goofy study last year or so.
Green...? (Score:1, Interesting)