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.