What to Do with 20,000lbs of Sodium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Integral
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the disposal of 20,000 pounds of sodium into a lake, exploring the implications and reasoning behind this action. Participants share thoughts on the chemical reactions involved, potential environmental impacts, and critique the decision-making process related to the disposal method.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the rationale for dumping sodium into the lake, questioning why it wasn't transported by military or chemical companies.
  • Others speculate on the environmental impact of the sodium dump, with one suggesting it would dissolve animal flesh and another questioning the long-term effects on the lake's ecosystem.
  • There are discussions about the chemical reactions of sodium with water, including the formation of sodium hydroxide and its potential effects on pH levels.
  • Some participants share anecdotes related to chemical reactions, such as the reaction of sodium with water and magnesium in a bunsen burner, to illustrate the dangers and excitement of handling reactive materials.
  • One participant mentions the historical context of hazardous material disposal practices, comparing past methods to the current situation.
  • Concerns are raised about the volume of water in the lake relative to the amount of sodium dumped, with calculations provided to suggest that the impact may be minimal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the appropriateness of the sodium disposal method or its environmental implications. Multiple competing views are presented regarding the potential effects on the lake and the rationale behind the government's actions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include assumptions about the chemical behavior of sodium in water, the extent of environmental impact, and the historical context of hazardous waste disposal practices. The discussion reflects varying levels of understanding and speculation about these topics.

Integral
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
7,225
Reaction score
66
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3825610222960975525&pr=goog-sl"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chemistry news on Phys.org
Man, they could have pulled enough boiled fish out of there to feed a small city. They should have thrown a couple of tonnes of potatoes and carrots in first.
 
I love chemistry :smile:
 
It was devoid of fish, or so said the narrator.
 
Oh... I couldn't make out most of the narration because the playback was jumpy on my system. Maybe I'll watch it again on a different one.
 
LOL, reminds me of the time I stuck a piece of magnesium in a bunsun burner flame in high school chemistry!
 
Mallignamius said:
It was devoid of fish, or so said the narrator.
It certainly was after they dumped the Na into it.

Why they just didn't park it at the Hanford Reservation or Idaho, I don't know. Add to the list of stupid things that government does.
 
Astronuc said:
It certainly was after they dumped the Na into it.

:smile: Yeah, they were saying it was an alkaline lake, and I was wondering if that was before or after they started dumping in Na. :rolleyes: Anyone need a lake full of drain cleaner?
 
Well, if it did have an animal population, what would the result be after the sodium dump?
 
  • #10
Astronuc said:
It certainly was after they dumped the Na into it.

Why they just didn't park it at the Hanford Reservation or Idaho, I don't know. Add to the list of stupid things that government does.

Come on, that was totally worth it! :biggrin: kaplowey.


20,000lbs heads for distruction ladies and gentleman! Yes you heard me right!
 
  • #11
The rationale behind dumping it was also very stupid - "because a public (common) carrier wouldn't accept it for transport'. So why didn't the military transport it, or contact one on many chemical companies, one of whom probably made the material?

I just don't buy it. Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide, . . . . and so on, transported lots of hazardous materials.

How did the military get it in the first place?
 
  • #12
Mallignamius said:
Well, if it did have an animal population, what would the result be after the sodium dump?
Basically it would dissolve the flesh away from the skeleton.
 
  • #13
In navy boot came they did a demo of what happens when Na and water mix. The instructor dropped a small chunk of Na into a 5 gal bucket of water, it imediatly launched itself high (~50+) into the air... way cool.

Yeah, you just have to wonder if some officer just didn't want to see what would happen.


RE Magnisium in a bunsen burner.

In a past job we had been casting aluminium parts in house and were changing to an external souce using Mg. We were looking for a way to strip paint from a new Mg part... put it in a furnace to burn it off... all that was left was a pile of grey ash.
 
  • #14
Astronuc said:
Basically it would dissolve the flesh away from the skeleton.
What I mean is, would there be some far-reaching effects to the animals both in and around the lake?
 
  • #15
Mallignamius said:
What I mean is, would there be some far-reaching effects to the animals both in and around the lake?

Thats a huge lake, and considering that most of the sodium burned, my guess is no. Actually, you could probably find out by seeing if lake lenore has any 'sodium contamination'
 
  • #16
cyrusabdollahi said:
Thats a huge lake, and considering that most of the sodium burned, my guess is no. Actually, you could probably find out by seeing if lake lenore has any 'sodium contamination'

Metals burn to form metal oxides. Sodium oxide is an incredibly strong base, so it will still react with water the same way sodium does.
Na + H20 --> H2 + NaOH
Na2O + H20 --> H2 + NaOH
 
  • #17
But those were 3 small barrels in a huge lake. I doubt they could devistate the waters.
 
  • #18
6,670 pound small barrels?
 
  • #19
how many millions of gallons of water in that lake?
 
  • #20
Narrator says 3,500 lb barrels. It's closer to 6 barrels. But that's still small, so I get what you're saying.
 
  • #21
And they threw it into a lake that is already high in salt content.
 
  • #22
Now for an update on Lake Lenore -

Lenore used to feed water into Soap Lake from the north before the irrigation system was built and Lake Lenore was freshened and diluted. Lenore, once as mineralized as the upper layer Soap Lake is today, now is relatively fresh and supports sport fishing.
http://www.thelake.org/gallery.html

Pictured are Lahontan Cutthroat caught and released from an Eastern Washington alkali lake, called Lake Lenore. For their size Lahontans don't seem to fight as hard as Rainbows or Browns, but what they lack in zip, they make up for, in beauty.
http://www.fisheyesoup.com/article_details/132.html

Lake Lenore, near the town of Soap Lake, is producing Lahontan cutthroats of 6 pounds or more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Astronuc said:
The rationale behind dumping it was also very stupid - "because a public (common) carrier wouldn't accept it for transport'. So why didn't the military transport it, or contact one on many chemical companies, one of whom probably made the material?

I just don't buy it. Monsanto, Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide, . . . . and so on, transported lots of hazardous materials.

How did the military get it in the first place?

This all reminds me a bit of the area 51 fiasco. Some of the stories told were horrific.

...Although the plaintiffs concede Area 51 harbors military secrets that must be protected, Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who represents the plaintiffs and more than two dozen other Area 51 employees who so far haven't joined in the suit, says the government's position is too extreme.

''The government claims that revealing any information about Area 51 would jeopardize American lives,'' he says. ''The only American lives lost so far are those of their own workers.''

...During the 1980s, the men say, classified materials were burned at least once a week in 100-yard-long, 25-foot-wide pits. With security guards standing at the edge, Air Force personnel threw in hazardous chemicals such as methylethylketone, a common cleaning solvent, and other things, such as computers, that produce dioxin when burned. The toxic brew, including drums of hazardous waste trucked in from defense facilities in other states, was ignited with jet fuel and typically burned for eight to 12 hours, the men say. [continued]
http://www.ufomind.com/area51/articles/1996/wsj_960208.html
Wall Street Journal, Thursday, February 8, 1996

Sorry about the link. It was the easiest one to grab.

Anyway, it seems this sort of thing continues and is "justified" by issues of national security.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
cyrusabdollahi said:
how many millions of gallons of water in that lake?
Area = 1670 acres, avg depth = 20ft => volume of water ~ 40 billion liters

Moles of Na dumped into lake = 20,000*1000/(2.2*23) ~ 0.5 million moles

Even assuming NaOH is 100% dissociated in water, this makes the pH only very slightly alkaline.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
LOL that is nothing. Do you know how they used to dispose of cylinders full of 99% HBr, HCl, Cl2, and Br2 back in the old day? Disposal companies would take them to an open field and shoot them with a gun so that all of those toxic gases would just dissipate into the atmosphere.



Ha the Navy even used to use huge cylinders full of Titanium tetrachloride (nasty stuff) as smoke screens during battle. When the canister hit the water a bunch of titanium oxides and HCl gas produced a smoke screen, but also corroded everything exposed to it.
 
  • #26
I guess those were the years before the EPA & regulations. *shrug*
 
  • #27
I once worked for a company learning to cast Aluminum. The boss had some flux, that when added to molten Al evolved Cl gas. The flux then protected the molten Al from oxidization

Solution: Move the molten Al outside. I dropped the pellet and ran upwind.

Cl gas in the wind has a certain fatal beauty.

That was a one time never repeated event. We found that it was not necessary for our process.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
The question lies on where all that Na came from? How did they get so much Na? Also how can that much of Na be recycled and used again?
 
  • #29
Lenore used to feed water into Soap Lake from the north before the irrigation system was built and Lake Lenore was freshened and diluted. Lenore, once as mineralized as the upper layer Soap Lake is today, now is relatively fresh and supports sport fishing.

You, know, I actually swam in Soap Lake once.
 
  • #30
cshum00 said:
The question lies on where all that Na came from? How did they get so much Na? Also how can that much of Na be recycled and used again?

There may well be a deposit of salts containing that 20,000lbs of Na at the foot of those cliffs. Unfortuatly 20,000 lbs is not enough material to justify a recovery effort. A significant portion of the recoved material could well be common table salt.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
18K