Submitted by granitestate6 t3_11332pe in newhampshire
tak18 t1_j8p35gb wrote
Reply to comment by TheCloudBoy in Is Ohio toxic cloud heading our way? by granitestate6
Can you help explain this report from NOAA? https://www.reddit.com/gallery/112v93n
TheCloudBoy t1_j8p4wce wrote
Good question: this is the first I've seen of ARL running particle cross section analysis right at the start of the controlled fire before the mean wind shifted. So at the initial burst, they're modeling (using I suspect a different model than the one I used to calculate the forward trajectory) the most likely dispersion integrating estimated particle release per hour. That's also starting a full 12 hours earlier than mine, right as the trough is moving through, more on that below.
What this shows is particles initially contained in the lowest 3,000 ft of the atmosphere that advect NE, then N as they're mixed higher into the atmosphere (shades of blue). This likely is along the first upper-level trough to pivot through here last week, though these particles being an issue here seems almost non-existent given what we know about the lifespan of vinyl chloride gas & how high up these particles were mixed. Then as the winds became more predominately WNW (second image), the plume orients ESE, with concentrations contained in a smaller area than I think some feared would be otherwise.
TheCloudBoy t1_j8p55gr wrote
One critical question I still have is how these particles may bond to both ice crystals, water droplets, and supercooled droplets deeper in the atmosphere. Are they small enough to act as cloud condensation nuclei? Did they bond to the aforementioned hydrometers and precipitate out wherever the plume density was highest and rain/snow occurred?
No_Buddy_9186 t1_j8td9sd wrote
What about phosgene, or other byproducts?
tak18 t1_j8pa095 wrote
Thank you for your response. Good to know it's likely a non-issue for us.
DigTreasure t1_j8rqynh wrote
This is the map I saw and I believe it over some reddit cloud guru
tak18 t1_j8s8a3t wrote
I do agree but it's good to get different viewpoints. Both sources are using different modeling, similar to hurricane tracking or other weather events.
What is most interesting now is that NOAA figure has been removed from the article. I'm curious as to why. And I have not seen any other articles that don't focus on anything but the vicinity of the burn site. Really strange how little is being covered on this, but I suppose I'm not surprised.
DigTreasure t1_j8s9x9e wrote
Because the rail and chemicals are owned by vanguard which has enormous share stakes in media outlets.
Zealousideal-Face946 t1_j8x4qf3 wrote
All the corruption rearing its ugly head. Where's all the ground reporters live at the scene? Scared and far away but it's ok to live there and drink the water.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments