Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
EPA Eyes NITROMETHANE
- Thread starter Raconteur
- Start date
If Nitro was as toxic as the EPA thinks it is, don't you think it would have been banned long ago? How many people have been around this sport for 50 years? I most certainly think this is Obama's America going Nuts!
Well we Americans have a chance to send a Huge Message in Nov!
Rexfiles
Nitro Member
Right, that lead to more restrictions on its sale, distribution (interstate transport).......and yes, McVeigh was a 'right wing extremist'
.However, terrorists don't set policy, they may and do affect it, but once a GOVERNMENT agency sets policy, what is done, is DONE.
And, BTW, when did it become OK for a federal government to regulate EVERYTHING??
I'm aghast at how idealism all of a sudden makes everything fine and dandy.
This erosion of freedom is approaching a frenetic pace, with NO signs of slowing down..........
I don't care WHICH side we are on, it's wrong.
REX
nwspeedshots
Nitro Member
Nitromethane to blow up a building? I don’t recall anything like that. I do remember McVeigh attempting to purchase the stuff at a drag race (said he wanted to run it in a go-cart…), but no one would sell him any. I think the actual bomb consisted of diesel-oil and fertilizer. --M--
mike
Nitro Member
Smiley
Nitro Member
September-October 94 [31]
Nichols sold gold for $3,0 This money was used by McVeigh to purchase three drums of nitromethane at $950 each from V.P. Racing which was located south of Dallas. (Anderson chronology dated 12.15.95 and Hankins memo dated 5.10.95)
from: PBS - frontline: documents: mcveigh chronology
nwspeedshots
Nitro Member
I stand corrected. But I still don't see any indication of nitromethane being use in the bomb. Actually, doesn't it have such a high flash-point that it would be useless in such an application...?
Smiley
Nitro Member
Not certain if it "was" used, but it is certainly explosive!
Ammonium Nitrate is another good substance which can be used to sensitize nitromethane. Adding 2 cups of this to a half cup of nitromethane would result in a substance that when placed in a pipe and detonated could take off the side of a house.
from: High Explosives
Right, that lead to more restrictions on its sale, distribution (interstate transport).......and yes, McVeigh was a 'right wing extremist'
However, terrorists don't set policy, they may and do affect it, but once a GOVERNMENT agency sets policy, what is done, is DONE.
And, BTW, when did it become OK for a federal government to regulate EVERYTHING??
I'm aghast at how idealism all of a sudden makes everything fine and dandy.
This erosion of freedom is approaching a frenetic pace, with NO signs of slowing down..........
I don't care WHICH side we are on, it's wrong.
REX
I have to smile when guys like you go on a rant, blame the current administration, then when confronted with FACTS, you suddenly say, " Well it doesn't matter which side of the asile the administration is on, it sucks" Blah Blah Blah------------ LOL
Rexfiles
Nitro Member
"Guys like You", LOL, thanks for the laugh
Go ahead, keep your head in the sand
REX
UMMMM, BTW, what "facts" was I "confronted with" again?
Help me here, tryin' to figure this one out.
REX
It's easy, your head is at a lower elevation than your ?? ! LOL Or in the sand, ?
Rexfiles
Nitro Member
Just the 'intellectual' answer I thought I would get.
Thank you so much for pointing out EXACTLY where I was "confronted by facts".
I owe you a HUGE debt of gratitude.
REX
mick
Nitro Member
just spent about an hour perusing thru the TRI / EPA website - can't really find
any definitive answers regarding rules and regulations for TRI chemicals; only
the obvious that these chemicals must be reported for both their use and
release and/or disposal of.
best guess would be NOT GOOD for drag racing.
at the very least, fans in pits may be in jeopardy.
any definitive answers regarding rules and regulations for TRI chemicals; only
the obvious that these chemicals must be reported for both their use and
release and/or disposal of.
best guess would be NOT GOOD for drag racing.
at the very least, fans in pits may be in jeopardy.
Rexfiles
Nitro Member
This is what my thinking would be initially. Pit access.
But then, what about the crews. Handling?
Isn't 80 or so percent of what comes out of the pipes during a run unburned?
I'm not sure of the percentage, but it does become atmospheric, you can smell it in the stands.
the EPA may certainly not look at drag racing first, but eventually may follow the trail that leads to drag racing.
When i hear government?
I think........bad idea.
REX
DERAIL WARNING!!! Factual Information ahead...
How about we do a little Paul Harvey and give "The Rest of the Story" Here is verbatim from the source of the listed below. And the Google search results from the last month on EPA Nitromethane ban at the very bottom.
Perhaps, maybe, just possibly it is for the chemical blending of said produced chemicals in an artificial or what is known as synthetic boutique chemicals and not the byproduct styles used in racing of refinery situations.
Tri chems and blends have been targeted for many years now. Sky may be cloudly but not falling.
As well the source of info is not even 'all that', shall we say huge in the chemical arena as they themselves think. (news link type website deal)
I'll wait until direct source info is reported by EPA and goverance bodies over North America.
Sorry to derail thread with some factual information...carry on.
Link to site, article and where they are based out of:
tcetoday news: EPA may add 16 reportable chemicals
12/4/2010
EPA may add 16 reportable chemicals
First expansion of TRI in over ten years
by Claudia Flavell-While
Bookmark and Share
EPA wants to add 16 chemicals to 650-strong list
THE US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add 16 potentially carcinogenic chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a listing of reportable chemicals.
The TRI is a publicly-available database containing information about the releases of toxic chemicals and related waste management activities. The addition would mark the first expansion of the list in over a decade.
The list, which was set up as part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, currently contains details of around 650 chemicals which are produced and used at some 22,000 industrial facilities in the US.
The 16 proposed additions include vinyl fluoride, furan, isoprene, and four polycyclic aromatic compounds - 1,6-dinitropyrene; 1,8-dinitropyrene; 6-nitrochrysene and 4-nitropyrene – which are known to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. The other proposed additions are: 1-amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone; 2,2-bis(bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol; glycidol; methyleugenol; o-nitroanisole; nitromethane; phenolphthalein; tetrafluoroethylene and tetranitromethane.
The proposals are thought to affect around 175 chemical plants. The EPA expects to finalise the rule in early 2011.
How to find us
Rugby Headquarters
Institution of Chemical Engineers
Davis Building
165-189 Railway Terrace
Rugby
CV21 3HQ
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 01788 578214
Fax: + 44 01788 560833
London Office
Institution of Chemical Engineers
One Portland Place
London
W1B 1PN
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 020 7927 8200
Fax: + 44 020 7927 8181
IChemE in Australia
Suite 11-2/ 488 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
Australia
Tel: + 61 03 9642 4494
Fax: + 61 03 9642 4495
IChemE in Malaysia
Suite 31-3, 31st Floor
Wisma UOA ll
No.21, Jalan Pinang
50450 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
Tel: + 60 03 21660822
Fax: + 60 03 21660922
17 whole references in the last month on Google...89 in the last year...
epa nitromethane ban - Google Search
DERAIL WARNING OVER...carry on.
How about we do a little Paul Harvey and give "The Rest of the Story" Here is verbatim from the source of the listed below. And the Google search results from the last month on EPA Nitromethane ban at the very bottom.
Perhaps, maybe, just possibly it is for the chemical blending of said produced chemicals in an artificial or what is known as synthetic boutique chemicals and not the byproduct styles used in racing of refinery situations.
Tri chems and blends have been targeted for many years now. Sky may be cloudly but not falling.
As well the source of info is not even 'all that', shall we say huge in the chemical arena as they themselves think. (news link type website deal)
I'll wait until direct source info is reported by EPA and goverance bodies over North America.
Sorry to derail thread with some factual information...carry on.
Link to site, article and where they are based out of:
tcetoday news: EPA may add 16 reportable chemicals
12/4/2010
EPA may add 16 reportable chemicals
First expansion of TRI in over ten years
by Claudia Flavell-While
Bookmark and Share
EPA wants to add 16 chemicals to 650-strong list
THE US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to add 16 potentially carcinogenic chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), a listing of reportable chemicals.
The TRI is a publicly-available database containing information about the releases of toxic chemicals and related waste management activities. The addition would mark the first expansion of the list in over a decade.
The list, which was set up as part of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, currently contains details of around 650 chemicals which are produced and used at some 22,000 industrial facilities in the US.
The 16 proposed additions include vinyl fluoride, furan, isoprene, and four polycyclic aromatic compounds - 1,6-dinitropyrene; 1,8-dinitropyrene; 6-nitrochrysene and 4-nitropyrene – which are known to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic. The other proposed additions are: 1-amino-2,4-dibromoanthraquinone; 2,2-bis(bromomethyl)-1,3-propanediol; glycidol; methyleugenol; o-nitroanisole; nitromethane; phenolphthalein; tetrafluoroethylene and tetranitromethane.
The proposals are thought to affect around 175 chemical plants. The EPA expects to finalise the rule in early 2011.
How to find us
Rugby Headquarters
Institution of Chemical Engineers
Davis Building
165-189 Railway Terrace
Rugby
CV21 3HQ
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 01788 578214
Fax: + 44 01788 560833
London Office
Institution of Chemical Engineers
One Portland Place
London
W1B 1PN
United Kingdom
Tel: + 44 020 7927 8200
Fax: + 44 020 7927 8181
IChemE in Australia
Suite 11-2/ 488 Bourke Street
MELBOURNE VIC 3000
Australia
Tel: + 61 03 9642 4494
Fax: + 61 03 9642 4495
IChemE in Malaysia
Suite 31-3, 31st Floor
Wisma UOA ll
No.21, Jalan Pinang
50450 Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
Tel: + 60 03 21660822
Fax: + 60 03 21660922
17 whole references in the last month on Google...89 in the last year...
epa nitromethane ban - Google Search
DERAIL WARNING OVER...carry on.
Rexfiles
Nitro Member
Cool Jim, but Darr already provided a link to this in his initial post that started this thread. I did not think it was time for panic either, however, it is certainly time for concern and vigilance, So, when was the last time the EPA did NOT do anything that DID not affect your wallet or activities?
When a unelected agency of bureaucrats start putting anything under scrutiny, be it nitro, or cattle farts, you'd better believe something or other is coming down the pike, sooner or later, and it usually ain't anything to be thrilled about.
REX
clwill
Nitro Member
There are perhaps 100 teams in the entire country who run nitro, right? 20 each in TF and FC in NHRA, a dozen or so in IHRA TF, a dozen or so injected TAD's, and maybe another 30 people running nostalgia? Is this the kind of number to get in a twist about, either Rex or the EPA?
OK Rex I am fully aware of the fact Darr put the link in. Thanks for that (that is where I got it and went to the site and put here so all information was being displayed)
Did everyone read it? Did everyone research it?
I am in both business' hit hard by the EPA in the last 5-10 years chemicals and trucking. I know for a fact I am not on thier Christmas card list anymore in DC. Haven't been for well...since 2001.
Go ask the director of CARB as to how well breakfast went a few months back in an industry meeting at my table.
Don't even start with me on what EPA has cost me or my associates.
So I ask you with what I posted as people tend not to read or search for the whole truth is backed up by EPA and US documents and facts... in the words of Clara Peller (RIP) "Where's the beef?"
Kind of like the 'Great Nitro Shortage of 2008'. A little work and searching done I found we could get all we wanted or could handle at a fairly reasonable cost too!
Just nice to have all of the facts and sources on tha table so everyone can make rational and intelligent decisions.
