On Oct 3, 12:06 pm, Nosterill wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:57 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:



On Oct 3, 12:35 am, "RyderCup&PrezCupSux"

wrote:
Hello,

I know that most volcano movies are crap as far as real science is
concerned. I have a question about one specific scenario in "Dante's Peak".
Some people get trapped in a metallic boat on an acidic lake. Boat starts
dissolving as it is proceeding on the lake and water starts to come into
the boat. The propellers dissolve in the acidic water stranding the boat in
the lake.

How realistic, if at all, is that scenario?

What acid would be involved? The only one I can think of is carbonic
acid. Sulphur will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult. Maybe there are life forms
in the earth that will convert sulphur into sulphuric acid.

Sulphur dioxide forms an acid very easily by dissolving in water to
produce the relatively weak sulphurous acid (H+ HSO3-). This is a
reducing acid and not too tough on metals. Sulphur dioxide can "burn"
in excess oxygen to produce the trioxide which dissolves in water to
produce the far more aggressive oxidising sulphuric acid and then, if
all the water molecules have been used, it continues to dissolve
producing something variously called fuming sulphuric acid or oleum.
That stuff is truly viscious and would certainly make short work of
most metals - however! I don't imagine that would happen "in the
wild". Far more probable is the bacterial theory and there are plenty
of examples. Villa Luz cave in Mexico is a classic case. This too is
unlikely to occur in an above ground lake in a realistic timescale.

So - in summary - there are ways of making boat eating acid from
sulphur but not in the scenario presented in the film.

Nice try but I actually looked the chemistry up for a thread in a
meteorology discussion on glowballs.

According to a somewhat dated text book used in schools to teach 16
and 17 year olds when I were a lad, the gas sulphur dioxide hadn't
been turned into an acid by dissolving in water.

Or something to that effect. However I have just installed
Encyclopedia Britannica 2006 and this is what it says:

On acid rain:

A "form of precipitation containing a heavy concentration of sulfuric
and nitric acids. The term is also commonly applied to snow, sleet,
and hail that manifest similar acidification.

Such precipitation has become an increasingly serious environmental
problem in many areas of North America, Europe, and Asia. Although
this form of pollution is most severe in and around large urban and
industrial areas, substantial amounts of acid precipitation may be
transported great distances."

And that article linked to this:

"The process that results in the formation of acid rain generally
begins with emissions into the atmosphere of sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide. These gases are released by automobiles, certain
industrial operations (e.g., smelting and refining), and electric
power plants that burn fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

The gases combine with water vapour in clouds to form sulfuric and
nitric acids. When precipitation falls from the clouds, it is highly
acidic, having a pH value of about 5.6 or lower. (The term pH is
defined as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration in
kilograms per cubic metre.

The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14, with lower numbers indicating
increased acidity.) At several locations in the eastern United States
and western Europe, pH values between 2 and 3 have been recorded. In
areas such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Whiteface Mountain in
New York, fog is often 10 or more times as acidic as the local
precipitation.

Reactions and uses

Pure H2SO4 undergoes extensive self-ionization (sometimes called
autoprotolysis).

2H2SO4 H3SO4+ + HSO4

This autoprotolysis reaction is, however, only one of the equilibrium
reactions that occur in pure H2SO4 to give it an extremely high
electrical conductivity. There are three additional equilibrium
reactions that take place because of the ionic self-dehydration of
sulfuric acid.

2HSO4 H3O+ + HS2O7
H2O + H2SO4 H3O+ + HSO4
H2S2O7 + H2SO4 H3SO4+ + HS2O7

Thus, there are at least seven well-defined species that exist in
"pure" H2SO4. The value of the dielectric constant of the acid is also
quite high ( = 100).

Concentrated sulfuric acid is not a very strong oxidizing agent unless
it is hot. When it acts as an oxidizing agent, however, it can be
reduced to several different sulfur species, including SO2, HSO3 ,
SO32 , elemental sulfur (S8), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and the sulfide
anion, (S2 ). Concentrated sulfuric acid is a good dehydrating agent,
as it reacts with many organic materials to remove the elements of
water."

A bit of a mouth-full to digest but what is the reaction involved in
the fog where it can be measured as acid but not precipitated?

And if the reaction to sulphuric acid is very cost intensive, tending
to revert how is the first article so glib to jump that difficulty?

Most reasonable people won't dig much deeper than that article which
is about as far as glowballers seem to get.

On Oct 3, 3:46 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Oct 3, 12:06 pm, Nosterill wrote:





On Oct 3, 10:57 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Oct 3, 12:35 am, "RyderCup&PrezCupSux"

wrote:
Hello,

I know that most volcano movies are crap as far as real science is
concerned. I have a question about one specific scenario in "Dante's Peak".
Some people get trapped in a metallic boat on an acidic lake. Boat starts
dissolving as it is proceeding on the lake and water starts to come into
the boat. The propellers dissolve in the acidic water stranding the boat in
the lake.

How realistic, if at all, is that scenario?

What acid would be involved? The only one I can think of is carbonic
acid. Sulphur will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult. Maybe there are life forms
in the earth that will convert sulphur into sulphuric acid.

Sulphur dioxide forms an acid very easily by dissolving in water to
produce the relatively weak sulphurous acid (H+ HSO3-). This is a
reducing acid and not too tough on metals. Sulphur dioxide can "burn"
in excess oxygen to produce the trioxide which dissolves in water to
produce the far more aggressive oxidising sulphuric acid and then, if
all the water molecules have been used, it continues to dissolve
producing something variously called fuming sulphuric acid or oleum.
That stuff is truly viscious and would certainly make short work of
most metals - however! I don't imagine that would happen "in the
wild". Far more probable is the bacterial theory and there are plenty
of examples. Villa Luz cave in Mexico is a classic case. This too is
unlikely to occur in an above ground lake in a realistic timescale.

So - in summary - there are ways of making boat eating acid from
sulphur but not in the scenario presented in the film.

Nice try but I actually looked the chemistry up for a thread in a
meteorology discussion on glowballs.

According to a somewhat dated text book used in schools to teach 16
and 17 year olds when I were a lad, the gas sulphur dioxide hadn't
been turned into an acid by dissolving in water.

Wow! That must be dated. Does it mention phlogiston? We were making
sulphurous acid in the school chemistry lab nearly forty years ago.
H2O + SO2 - H+ + HSO3- (H+ is the definition of acid btw). This is
basic O level chemistry but since you are an unbeliever, here is a
link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfurous_acid

Before you jump on molecular H2SO3 not existing out of solution, that
doesn't change the fact that SO2 in water produces an acid solution.
The same applies to carbonic acid and that accounts for most cave
systems.

On Oct 3, 3:59 pm, Nosterill wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:46 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:



On Oct 3, 12:06 pm, Nosterill wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:57 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Oct 3, 12:35 am, "RyderCup&PrezCupSux"

wrote:
Hello,

I know that most volcano movies are crap as far as real science is
concerned. I have a question about one specific scenario in "Dante's Peak".
Some people get trapped in a metallic boat on an acidic lake. Boat starts
dissolving as it is proceeding on the lake and water starts to come into
the boat. The propellers dissolve in the acidic water stranding the boat in
the lake.

How realistic, if at all, is that scenario?

What acid would be involved? The only one I can think of is carbonic
acid. Sulphur will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult. Maybe there are life forms
in the earth that will convert sulphur into sulphuric acid.

Sulphur dioxide forms an acid very easily by dissolving in water to
produce the relatively weak sulphurous acid (H+ HSO3-). This is a
reducing acid and not too tough on metals. Sulphur dioxide can "burn"
in excess oxygen to produce the trioxide which dissolves in water to
produce the far more aggressive oxidising sulphuric acid and then, if
all the water molecules have been used, it continues to dissolve
producing something variously called fuming sulphuric acid or oleum.
That stuff is truly viscious and would certainly make short work of
most metals - however! I don't imagine that would happen "in the
wild". Far more probable is the bacterial theory and there are plenty
of examples. Villa Luz cave in Mexico is a classic case. This too is
unlikely to occur in an above ground lake in a realistic timescale.

So - in summary - there are ways of making boat eating acid from
sulphur but not in the scenario presented in the film.

Nice try but I actually looked the chemistry up for a thread in a
meteorology discussion on glowballs.

According to a somewhat dated text book used in schools to teach 16
and 17 year olds when I were a lad, the gas sulphur dioxide hadn't
been turned into an acid by dissolving in water.

Wow! That must be dated. Does it mention phlogiston? We were making
sulphurous acid in the school chemistry lab nearly forty years ago.
H2O + SO2 - H+ + HSO3- (H+ is the definition of acid btw). This is
basic O level chemistry but since you are an unbeliever, here is a
linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfurous_acid

Before you jump on molecular H2SO3 not existing out of solution, that
doesn't change the fact that SO2 in water produces an acid solution.
The same applies to carbonic acid and that accounts for most cave
systems.

Unless schoolboy chemistry has changed considerably in the last few
decades, the process for making sulphuric acid requires low
temperature, high pressure and an excess of oxygen.

Some sort of catalyst is also used, vanadium or platinum. Otherwise
the boat will succumb to metal fatigue or the occupants die of old
age, before the water is sufficiently acid to do damage.

Leaving aside the difficulties of supplying the catalyst, the problems
of heat or pressure seem to exclude the production of vast quantities
of sulphuric acid in air or underground chambers.

The rest is rhetoric for ear ticklers. What glowballers believe is of
no concern to me. But I should like to know how raising taxes will
ever solve economic problems or environmental ones.

They never yet did more than juggle the books. And if the environment
around the natural sources of these things are anything to go by then
we have nothing to fear from pollution.

On Oct 3, 10:46 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
(portions snipped)
Concentrated sulfuric acid is not a very strong oxidizing agent unless
it is hot.

As you point out, concentrated sulfuric acid is not a good oxidizing
agent. Additionally, concentrated sulfuric acid is the term for the
industrial product, which is 98% H2SO4 in water (18 molar
concentration), far more concentrated than acid rain.

An article in the scientific journal "Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n47407582x2652j7/)
deals with the corrosion of metals by acid rain. Under conditions of
pH 3.5 with 1% salt present at 35 degrees Celsius, mild steel corroded
at the rate of 735 micrometers (millionths of a meter) per year,
galvanized steel at 330 micrometers/year, stainless steel at 2
micrometers/year, and aluminum at 9 micrometers/year. Since a
micrometer is 0.000039 inch, I don't think that acid rain is going to
dissolve the boat.

An earlier poster mentioned fuming sulfuric acid. This is formed by
disssolving an excess of sulfur trioxide in pure sulfuric acid. There
is no way that this reaction is going to occur under ambient
conditions.

As to the scene in the movie, for anything remotely like that scene
with the boat to occur, the lake would have to be a solution of
concentrated nitric acid or even aqua regia (3:1 mixture of
concentrated hydrochloric and concentrated nitric acids). Not at all
likely.

CS

On Oct 3, 4:37 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:59 pm, Nosterill wrote:





On Oct 3, 3:46 pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Oct 3, 12:06 pm, Nosterill wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:57 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On Oct 3, 12:35 am, "RyderCup&PrezCupSux"

wrote:
Hello,

I know that most volcano movies are crap as far as real science is
concerned. I have a question about one specific scenario in "Dante's Peak".
Some people get trapped in a metallic boat on an acidic lake. Boat starts
dissolving as it is proceeding on the lake and water starts to come into
the boat. The propellers dissolve in the acidic water stranding the boat in
the lake.

How realistic, if at all, is that scenario?

What acid would be involved? The only one I can think of is carbonic
acid. Sulphur will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult. Maybe there are life forms
in the earth that will convert sulphur into sulphuric acid.

Sulphur dioxide forms an acid very easily by dissolving in water to
produce the relatively weak sulphurous acid (H+ HSO3-). This is a
reducing acid and not too tough on metals. Sulphur dioxide can "burn"
in excess oxygen to produce the trioxide which dissolves in water to
produce the far more aggressive oxidising sulphuric acid and then, if
all the water molecules have been used, it continues to dissolve
producing something variously called fuming sulphuric acid or oleum.
That stuff is truly viscious and would certainly make short work of
most metals - however! I don't imagine that would happen "in the
wild". Far more probable is the bacterial theory and there are plenty
of examples. Villa Luz cave in Mexico is a classic case. This too is
unlikely to occur in an above ground lake in a realistic timescale.

So - in summary - there are ways of making boat eating acid from
sulphur but not in the scenario presented in the film.

Nice try but I actually looked the chemistry up for a thread in a
meteorology discussion on glowballs.

According to a somewhat dated text book used in schools to teach 16
and 17 year olds when I were a lad, the gas sulphur dioxide hadn't
been turned into an acid by dissolving in water.

Wow! That must be dated. Does it mention phlogiston? We were making
sulphurous acid in the school chemistry lab nearly forty years ago.
H2O + SO2 - H+ + HSO3- (H+ is the definition of acid btw). This is
basic O level chemistry but since you are an unbeliever, here is a
linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfurous_acid

Before you jump on molecular H2SO3 not existing out of solution, that
doesn't change the fact that SO2 in water produces an acid solution.
The same applies to carbonic acid and that accounts for most cave
systems.

Unless schoolboy chemistry has changed considerably in the last few
decades, the process for making sulphuric acid requires low
temperature, high pressure and an excess of oxygen.

Your attention please. Sulphurous,: Sulphuric. Notice the difference?
The clue is in the spelling. My original post did outline the very
significant difference.

Some sort of catalyst is also used, vanadium or platinum.

That is indeed the preffered industrial process. They generate
sufficient sulphur trioxide (note the difference in spelling from
dioxide) to saturate water past concentrated sulphuric (not sulphurous
- do try to keep up) up to oleum, which is then diluted back down, as
required.

Otherwise
the boat will succumb to metal fatigue or the occupants die of old
age, before the water is sufficiently acid to do damage.

As I said - it wouldn't happen in the film's scenario.

Leaving aside the difficulties of supplying the catalyst, the problems
of heat or pressure seem to exclude the production of vast quantities
of sulphuric acid in air or underground chambers.

And yet it happens. Google is your friend. Denial just makes you look
silly.

The rest is rhetoric for ear ticklers. What glowballers believe is of
no concern to me. But I should like to know how raising taxes will
ever solve economic problems or environmental ones.

They never yet did more than juggle the books. And if the environment
around the natural sources of these things are anything to go by then
we have nothing to fear from pollution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 3, 10:46 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
(portions snipped)
Concentrated sulfuric acid is not a very strong oxidizing agent unless
it is hot.

As you point out, concentrated sulfuric acid is not a good oxidizing
agent. Additionally, concentrated sulfuric acid is the term for the
industrial product, which is 98% H2SO4 in water (18 molar
concentration), far more concentrated than acid rain.

An article in the scientific journal "Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n47407582x2652j7/)
deals with the corrosion of metals by acid rain. Under conditions of
pH 3.5 with 1% salt present at 35 degrees Celsius, mild steel corroded
at the rate of 735 micrometers (millionths of a meter) per year,
galvanized steel at 330 micrometers/year, stainless steel at 2
micrometers/year, and aluminum at 9 micrometers/year. Since a
micrometer is 0.000039 inch, I don't think that acid rain is going to
dissolve the boat.

An earlier poster mentioned fuming sulfuric acid. This is formed by
disssolving an excess of sulfur trioxide in pure sulfuric acid. There
is no way that this reaction is going to occur under ambient
conditions.

As to the scene in the movie, for anything remotely like that scene
with the boat to occur, the lake would have to be a solution of
concentrated nitric acid or even aqua regia (3:1 mixture of
concentrated hydrochloric and concentrated nitric acids). Not at all
likely.

CS

The fumes would have killed them long before they jumped onto the boat.

George

On Oct 3, 5:25 pm, wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:46 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
(portions snipped)

Concentrated sulfuric acid is not a very strong oxidizing agent unless
it is hot.

As you point out, concentrated sulfuric acid is not a good oxidizing
agent. Additionally, concentrated sulfuric acid is the term for the
industrial product, which is 98% H2SO4 in water (18 molar
concentration), far more concentrated than acid rain.

An article in the scientific journal "Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n47407582x2652j7/)
deals with the corrosion of metals by acid rain. Under conditions of
pH 3.5 with 1% salt present at 35 degrees Celsius, mild steel corroded
at the rate of 735 micrometers (millionths of a meter) per year,
galvanized steel at 330 micrometers/year, stainless steel at 2
micrometers/year, and aluminum at 9 micrometers/year. Since a
micrometer is 0.000039 inch, I don't think that acid rain is going to
dissolve the boat.

An earlier poster mentioned fuming sulfuric acid. This is formed by
disssolving an excess of sulfur trioxide in pure sulfuric acid. There
is no way that this reaction is going to occur under ambient
conditions.

I was that earlier poster and I completely agree with you. I made the
fatal mistake of addressing Weatherlawyers assertion that "Sulphur
will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult." I had forgotten that he
would rather turn the laws of nature upside down than concede
anything. Mea culpa. I think that I'm actually agreeing with everyone,
including WL, apart from that one minor point.


As to the scene in the movie, for anything remotely like that scene
with the boat to occur, the lake would have to be a solution of
concentrated nitric acid or even aqua regia (3:1 mixture of
concentrated hydrochloric and concentrated nitric acids). Not at all
likely.

CS

On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, Nosterill wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:25 pm, wrote:



On Oct 3, 10:46 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
(portions snipped)

Concentrated sulfuric acid is not a very strong oxidizing agent unless
it is hot.

As you point out, concentrated sulfuric acid is not a good oxidizing
agent. Additionally, concentrated sulfuric acid is the term for the
industrial product, which is 98% H2SO4 in water (18 molar
concentration), far more concentrated than acid rain.

An article in the scientific journal "Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n47407582x2652j7/)
deals with the corrosion of metals by acid rain. Under conditions of
pH 3.5 with 1% salt present at 35 degrees Celsius, mild steel corroded
at the rate of 735 micrometers (millionths of a meter) per year,
galvanized steel at 330 micrometers/year, stainless steel at 2
micrometers/year, and aluminum at 9 micrometers/year. Since a
micrometer is 0.000039 inch, I don't think that acid rain is going to
dissolve the boat.

An earlier poster mentioned fuming sulfuric acid. This is formed by
dissolving an excess of sulfur trioxide in pure sulfuric acid. There
is no way that this reaction is going to occur under ambient
conditions.

I was that earlier poster and I completely agree with you. I made the
fatal mistake of addressing Weatherlawyer's assertion that "Sulphur
will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult." I had forgotten that he
would rather turn the laws of nature upside down than concede
anything.

I am not about to go back on this thread and examine what was or
wasn't said. It's all empty rhetoric anyway.

I would like to point out that the burning sulphur, whatever it turned
into, would have to turn a few neat tricks itself to get dissolved to
some sort, any sort, of an acid in the pool in time to make travel
difficult for the cast.

I don't see what needs to be conceded. What is wrong with examining
chemistry? It will have to stand in the absence of any technical data
from the pollution sites mentioned here. Or from other sites that
might turn out to be strongly acid.

The reason for my hesitation to accept any spurious nonsense about
acid rain comes from observing the effects of it. It seems to be a
selective destroyer of trees. Blocks of stricken trees -making grids
of live and dead ones, seem to have been formed from it.

Squares more likely down to the selective weed killers that are or
were applied to forests, particularly to spruce plantations.

Perhaps I misunderstand the results.

I can't see the destruction wrought on fish in mountain lakes
occurring because rain falls from the skies. Less so now that I have
read that this rain seems to fall cleaner than when it formed in the
clouds.

Perhaps I am being precipitate but it seems to me that acid rain is no
more than the usual smoke and mirrors employed by journalists on slow
news days. Journalists that aught to be looking more closely at the
state of things.

But what is a poor thaumaturge supposed to say?

"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, Nosterill wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:25 pm, wrote:



On Oct 3, 10:46 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
(portions snipped)

Concentrated sulfuric acid is not a very strong oxidizing agent
unless
it is hot.

As you point out, concentrated sulfuric acid is not a good oxidizing
agent. Additionally, concentrated sulfuric acid is the term for the
industrial product, which is 98% H2SO4 in water (18 molar
concentration), far more concentrated than acid rain.

An article in the scientific journal "Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n47407582x2652j7/)
deals with the corrosion of metals by acid rain. Under conditions of
pH 3.5 with 1% salt present at 35 degrees Celsius, mild steel corroded
at the rate of 735 micrometers (millionths of a meter) per year,
galvanized steel at 330 micrometers/year, stainless steel at 2
micrometers/year, and aluminum at 9 micrometers/year. Since a
micrometer is 0.000039 inch, I don't think that acid rain is going to
dissolve the boat.

An earlier poster mentioned fuming sulfuric acid. This is formed by
dissolving an excess of sulfur trioxide in pure sulfuric acid. There
is no way that this reaction is going to occur under ambient
conditions.

I was that earlier poster and I completely agree with you. I made the
fatal mistake of addressing Weatherlawyer's assertion that "Sulphur
will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult." I had forgotten that he
would rather turn the laws of nature upside down than concede
anything.

I am not about to go back on this thread and examine what was or
wasn't said. It's all empty rhetoric anyway.

I would like to point out that the burning sulphur, whatever it turned
into, would have to turn a few neat tricks itself to get dissolved to
some sort, any sort, of an acid in the pool in time to make travel
difficult for the cast.

I don't see what needs to be conceded. What is wrong with examining
chemistry? It will have to stand in the absence of any technical data
from the pollution sites mentioned here. Or from other sites that
might turn out to be strongly acid.

The reason for my hesitation to accept any spurious nonsense about
acid rain comes from observing the effects of it. It seems to be a
selective destroyer of trees. Blocks of stricken trees -making grids
of live and dead ones, seem to have been formed from it.

Squares more likely down to the selective weed killers that are or
were applied to forests, particularly to spruce plantations.

Perhaps I misunderstand the results.

I can't see the destruction wrought on fish in mountain lakes
occurring because rain falls from the skies. Less so now that I have
read that this rain seems to fall cleaner than when it formed in the
clouds.

Fish are highly sensitive to not only pH levels, but change in pH,
particularly rapid ones. Some fish do well in fairly acidic water. Other
fish do well in alkaline water. Few, if any fish do well when the pH they
are accustomed to changes drastically or rapidly.

Perhaps I am being precipitate but it seems to me that acid rain is no
more than the usual smoke and mirrors employed by journalists on slow
news days. Journalists that aught to be looking more closely at the
state of things.

You should visit some of the forests in the Appalachian mountains. Acid
rain has devastated thousands of acres, and many lakes and streams. It is
well documented (by scientists, not journalists).

George

On Oct 4, 12:39 am, "George" wrote:
"Weatherlawyer" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 3, 8:50 pm, Nosterill wrote:
On Oct 3, 5:25 pm, wrote:

On Oct 3, 10:46 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
(portions snipped)

Concentrated sulfuric acid is not a very strong oxidizing agent
unless
it is hot.

As you point out, concentrated sulfuric acid is not a good oxidizing
agent. Additionally, concentrated sulfuric acid is the term for the
industrial product, which is 98% H2SO4 in water (18 molar
concentration), far more concentrated than acid rain.

An article in the scientific journal "Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution" (http://www.springerlink.com/content/n47407582x2652j7/)
deals with the corrosion of metals by acid rain. Under conditions of
pH 3.5 with 1% salt present at 35 degrees Celsius, mild steel corroded
at the rate of 735 micrometers (millionths of a meter) per year,
galvanized steel at 330 micrometers/year, stainless steel at 2
micrometers/year, and aluminum at 9 micrometers/year. Since a
micrometer is 0.000039 inch, I don't think that acid rain is going to
dissolve the boat.

An earlier poster mentioned fuming sulfuric acid. This is formed by
dissolving an excess of sulfur trioxide in pure sulfuric acid. There
is no way that this reaction is going to occur under ambient
conditions.

I was that earlier poster and I completely agree with you. I made the
fatal mistake of addressing Weatherlawyer's assertion that "Sulphur
will burn in oxygen to form sulphur dioxide but getting
that to form an acid is rather difficult." I had forgotten that he
would rather turn the laws of nature upside down than concede
anything.

I am not about to go back on this thread and examine what was or
wasn't said. It's all empty rhetoric anyway.

I would like to point out that the burning sulphur, whatever it turned
into, would have to turn a few neat tricks itself to get dissolved to
some sort, any sort, of an acid in the pool in time to make travel
difficult for the cast.

I don't see what needs to be conceded. What is wrong with examining
chemistry? It will have to stand in the absence of any technical data
from the pollution sites mentioned here. Or from other sites that
might turn out to be strongly acid.

The reason for my hesitation to accept any spurious nonsense about
acid rain comes from observing the effects of it. It seems to be a
selective destroyer of trees. Blocks of stricken trees -making grids
of live and dead ones, seem to have been formed from it.

Squares more likely down to the selective weed killers that are or
were applied to forests, particularly to spruce plantations.

Perhaps I misunderstand the results.

I can't see the destruction wrought on fish in mountain lakes
occurring because rain falls from the skies. Less so now that I have
read that this rain seems to fall cleaner than when it formed in the
clouds.

Fish are highly sensitive to not only pH levels, but change in pH,
particularly rapid ones. Some fish do well in fairly acidic water. Other
fish do well in alkaline water. Few, if any fish do well when the pH they
are accustomed to changes drastically or rapidly.

Perhaps I am being precipitate but it seems to me that acid rain is no
more than the usual smoke and mirrors employed by journalists on slow
news days. Journalists that aught to be looking more closely at the
state of things.

You should visit some of the forests in the Appalachian mountains. Acid
rain has devastated thousands of acres, and many lakes and streams. It is
well documented (by scientists, not journalists).

I am not saying there is no such thing as the damage caused or that
the chemicals involved are considered acidic. But there are all sorts
of scams going on in the forestry commission as was in the UK. No
doubt there is a link with the selective weed-killers that were used
in your part of the world too. I am only guessing it is due to weed
killer.

One thing that I do know for certain is that it is not caused by
aerial migration of city formed pollutants such as carbon dioxide,
sulphur oxides and/or nitrogen oxides or any such type of chemical.

Not all that long ago, when most streets around here contained a few
houses that burned wood and coal, you'd see neglected rain gutters on
the roofs nearby filled with vegetation.

Even now with certain types of central heating you can see lichens
growing on the roofs near their vents.

It is highly unlikely that a forest can die because of these things.
Quite the reverse, sycamores for example take dirt out of the air as
though god has provided them as filters as well as lungs.

I dare say the same is true of the limes that grow all over London.

You'd think they'd have gone the way of all flesh centuries ago.