Posted on May 11, 2016
3
3
0
I found this rather interesting as a similar situation COULD occur at any "Sanitary Landfill" site.
How Do You Put Out A Subterranean Fire Beneath A Mountain Of Trash?
Posted from fivethirtyeight.com
Society
People
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
0
0
0
An optimist would say, "Not easily." A resident of Centralia, PA would say, "You don't."
There's a coal seam under Centralia that's been burning since 1962, possibly started by a fire in a landfill.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2196
There's a coal seam under Centralia that's been burning since 1962, possibly started by a fire in a landfill.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2196
Centralia Mine Fire, Centralia, Pennsylvania
Coal veins burning since 1961, almost all of the buildings and people are gone. Unsafe ground, noxious gases -- be careful.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CW4 Guy Butler - Chief Warrant; Centralia's fire is a piker compared to the Burning Mountain Fire which has been burning for roughly 6,000 years (which means, according to Bishop Ussher's chronology, that it started 20 years after God created everything [I'd be more specific but no one actually knows how long after nightfall on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC the Burning Mountain Fire actually started since it is in Australia and Adam didn't manage to get to Australia within the first 20 years of his life]).
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
An interesting problem. Without (much) oxygen, what is the oxidizer in the reaction? Is it just less oxygen, so a slower reaction...or is it using another chemical as an oxidizer (chlorates/perchlorates)? I wonder if pumping in a non-reactive gas, like Nitrogen, would help?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Col Joseph Lenertz - Colonel; Excellent questions and I'm not sure if ANYONE has the answers to them.
For all I know they might not even be "fires" as such but simply some other form of exothermic reaction.
It's pretty tough to tell without actually digging in there and taking a look (which would raise the problem of "What happens if something that is hot enough to burst into flames if it comes into contact with sufficient Oxygen to allow it to burst into flames comes into contact with sufficient Oxygen to allow it to burst into flames AND what do we do about it them?".
For all I know they might not even be "fires" as such but simply some other form of exothermic reaction.
It's pretty tough to tell without actually digging in there and taking a look (which would raise the problem of "What happens if something that is hot enough to burst into flames if it comes into contact with sufficient Oxygen to allow it to burst into flames comes into contact with sufficient Oxygen to allow it to burst into flames AND what do we do about it them?".
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Thanks for sharing an interesting man-made problem which seems to be a localized and focused warming which id definitely human initiated unlike the global warming which chicken little has been squawking about COL Ted Mc
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; "Man-made Global Warming" could well be a myth. "Global Warming" could well be a myth. "Global Climate Change" is a reality.
Climate is a system that is in dynamic equilibrium and any system that is in dynamic equilibrium has "tipping points". As long as you don't pass the "tipping points" then the system tends to return to its previous norm (even if it does so precipitously). If you do pass the "tipping point" then all bets are off and you do not know what the newly established norm is going to be.
That being said, it is POSSIBLE that the "man-made factors" COULD be the ones that COMBINE with the factors that we have no control over and, thus, push the changes past the "tipping point".
The focus of the debate (in the media at any rate) has been on whether the "man-made factors" are CAUSING the climate change [which they manifestly are not] AND NOT on whether the "man-made factors" are INTENSIFYING the risk of passing the "tipping point" [which they manifestly are].
Whether reducing/eliminating the "man-made factors" will actually be sufficient to STOP "Global Climate Change" isn't even listed in the "Factors for Supplementary Reading" list.
Climate is a system that is in dynamic equilibrium and any system that is in dynamic equilibrium has "tipping points". As long as you don't pass the "tipping points" then the system tends to return to its previous norm (even if it does so precipitously). If you do pass the "tipping point" then all bets are off and you do not know what the newly established norm is going to be.
That being said, it is POSSIBLE that the "man-made factors" COULD be the ones that COMBINE with the factors that we have no control over and, thus, push the changes past the "tipping point".
The focus of the debate (in the media at any rate) has been on whether the "man-made factors" are CAUSING the climate change [which they manifestly are not] AND NOT on whether the "man-made factors" are INTENSIFYING the risk of passing the "tipping point" [which they manifestly are].
Whether reducing/eliminating the "man-made factors" will actually be sufficient to STOP "Global Climate Change" isn't even listed in the "Factors for Supplementary Reading" list.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
The number of recorded ice ages followed by warmer areas recorded in the geological record confirms that global climate change has happened a number of times COL Ted Mc. I hope that we will not see any major tectonic plate shifts in our lifetimes or our great grandchildren's lifetimes.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; I'm going to be a bit facetious here but it certainly looks to me that the "logic" being used by "The Deniers" is very similar to "Pregnancy is NOT caused by sitting on wet grass so that means that pregnancy does not exist." while the "logic" being used by "The Believers" is very similar to "Everyone who has ever killed someone has been able to see the color blue so that proves that the color blue causes people to kill other people.".
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google