Don_DickleNot looking for how to meth. But is not a moonshiners still about as dangerous as a meth house exploding? What the difference?
ArcanepotatoNot an expert but I am a chemical engineer and that means everyone thinks I know how to make meth.
I think the main reason is that fires in stills are self limiting. The process is creating the fuel (ethanol vapours) and once the still goes boom it’s not creating more vapor. So explosion, but no ongoing fire.
Chem lab fires come from the reagents, like red phosphorus and lithium metal. So you have stashes of this stuff sitting around so if it catches fire the fire has lots of fuel.
Need toxic chemicals to make meth. So not just fire but a very toxic fire not to mention the presence of addicts, gangs, and likely other drugs.
I’d say the presence of, non law abiding humans, is also a factor when talking illegally manufactured alchohol as well. But yeah the additional toxins etc… is a much bigger factor in meth rather than alchohol.
Non law abiding humans sure if it’s a hard line. But really the number of people who drink and have tried moonshine in states like TN, Kentucky and what not is just as high as the number of people who have drove and ran a stop sign. The number of people who have used meth is far lower. Id bet most every police officer would probably admit to having drank cinnamon apple moonshine or such around here.
ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠
knightly the SneptaurShort version, distillation isn’t a chemical process but a simple physical state change from liquid to gas and back. Alcohol vapors can be explosive when mixed with Oxygen in an appropriate ratio, but there generally is no potential source of ignition between the boiling chamber and the cooling chamber and the expanding vapors push the oxygen out of the system early on in a production cycle.
Producing meth, however, is a multi-step process requiring both chemical and physical state changes with a panoply of reagents and waste products which are corrosive, toxic, flammable, explosive, or even potentially radioactive. Some of those waste products are gasses that react explosively with air, or volatile organic compounds which have to be vented from the production equipment and subsequently settle and condense into a residue that contaminates all surfaces in or near the meth lab. That residue can include substances which ignite spontaneously on contact with water, further increasing the risk of fire or explosion and turning any firefighting operations into a hazmat operation.
This is why firefighters typically work to protect surrounding structures, but let the meth lab burn. That is, if it is already known to be a meth lab. Between the toxic chemicals and the difficulty of dealing with various chemical fires it is safer to just let it burn itself out if possible.
southsamuraiTbh, the thing about stills is only a big deal inside, unless you’re the one running the still and are close to it.
Outside? An explosion really isn’t going to fuck anything up. You get a big bang, some burning fuel, and that’s about it unless there’s a drought on. Inside, you can have more fumes built up, and the fire is likely going to spread to the building. So it’s more dangerous.
But meth production? Like previous comments said, that shit just keeps on giving well after whatever starts the process going wrong.
There’s really a massive gap in both danger and duration of the two kinds of fires.
A moonshiner’s still exploding is when someone spills an accelerant on a fire or a steam explosion. That is contained and doesn’t leave toxic shit everywhere, where as cooking meth is mixing poisons with poison to make a new poison.