Found this to be pretty amusing ...
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/peeing-in-the-pool-is-chemical-warfare-033114
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/peeing-in-the-pool-is-chemical-warfare-033114
Urine + pool = chemical warfare
- Thread starter jblizzle
- Start date
Here is an entertaining followup. You need an FC level of 330,000 (no CYA) and 3 million people peeing to create an actually dangerous situation.
Yeah, the scare tactic of being a toxic poison that can kill was really inappropriate. For most disinfection by-products, including cyanogen chloride, the issue is not one of acute immediate toxicity but rather of long-term cancer risk. However, for cyanogen chloride, it has not been tested sufficiently but is currently not considered to be a cancer risk. At levels found in high bather-load pools, it's closer to nitrogen trichloride in that it is considered a respiratory irritant.
Just imagine how much chlorine demand that pool has. Yuck. Absolutely no way they can keep up.
f3justusc
Well-known member
That's how the pool looks on a cruise ship minutes before they leave port on the first day. The kids begged to get in. I finally gave in. After five minutes, I said get out. Who wants their kids to drown in pee?
Maybe in China some of this is more of a concern
Just look at that water color
I don't care how hot it is... I'm not going in there.
That pool isn't even remotely appealing to me, and that's saying something. I'm with Casey in that I would have to pass on going into that pool. Ever since I found TFP, I am much more picky about entering public pools. When I do, I avoid going under water. The few public pools that I do enter usually have a swim-up bar, though 
.
.
O M G
What a nightmare! I'm just thinking about the impossibility of life guarding that thing!
What a nightmare! I'm just thinking about the impossibility of life guarding that thing!
A great lesson in how "facts" can be extremely misleading when presented poorly.
Must reads.
Must reads.
In another thread, someone asked if peeing could inactivate chlorine today ...
to which I had replied:
All that Dihydrogen Monoxide in my pool is more dangerous than that trichloramine and cyanogen chloride.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Nasty! I'd rather die of a heat stroke .
Maybe in China some of this is more of a concern
Just look at that water color
wetchem
0
I hold a degree in Chemistry and have over 20 years in industrial labs; thus, when I read articles such at the on listed in OP I like to see the original source/basis for the report:
What bothers me, is even on the ACS website and journal searches, I can not source the research document. I've tried Google, DuckDuckGO, three engines that specialize in searching only science and chemistry databases and websites... nada on the paper... just returns siting the off-the-cuff remarks made in the ACS press pak and ACS Ed-pak
On the ACS site: Many "press paks" but no links to sourcing on research or actual analytical results.
On the ACS site: Many Q&A with forum style text.
On the ACS site and several other non-science sites: Many suppose this and that should give you this yet without any actual chemistry being done, or even infact any apparent science at all.
Can someone link in the original ACS research paper. I'd like to see the analysis of the pool water, methods used, the statistical data. I'm not a member anymore; thus, the journal may be on the paid side of their net; however, there has to be a reference somewhere for this to be creditable.
Otherwise, I'm starting to think this is once again a scare tactic/hoax, with minimal chemistry, to get the people out of the pool to go pee. Personally, get out... but let's not use poor science and scare tactics. Such things hurt the creditability of the sciences which suffers enough from the geek-factor.
What bothers me, is even on the ACS website and journal searches, I can not source the research document. I've tried Google, DuckDuckGO, three engines that specialize in searching only science and chemistry databases and websites... nada on the paper... just returns siting the off-the-cuff remarks made in the ACS press pak and ACS Ed-pak
On the ACS site: Many "press paks" but no links to sourcing on research or actual analytical results.
On the ACS site: Many Q&A with forum style text.
On the ACS site and several other non-science sites: Many suppose this and that should give you this yet without any actual chemistry being done, or even infact any apparent science at all.
Can someone link in the original ACS research paper. I'd like to see the analysis of the pool water, methods used, the statistical data. I'm not a member anymore; thus, the journal may be on the paid side of their net; however, there has to be a reference somewhere for this to be creditable.
Otherwise, I'm starting to think this is once again a scare tactic/hoax, with minimal chemistry, to get the people out of the pool to go pee. Personally, get out... but let's not use poor science and scare tactics. Such things hurt the creditability of the sciences which suffers enough from the geek-factor.
I can't find the original paper, but this article has more information about where to find the original paper and some very entertaining information on how wildly they were exaggerating.
