Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
insurance
This though has been stressing me out tonight. What IF, for any reason whatsoever, the house would burn down. People will find out there was a small
hobby laboratory, not for bombs/drugs, but 'nerd'-like science. Would the insurence pay back for damage or not? Would a flammables safety cabinet make
them pay out 100% certain? Would it be smart to have an insurance inspector come by to check out the lab (ofcourse everything cleaned, and stocks put
away in the basement ,where we keep all our cleaning stuff anyway)?
Any thoughts? Doesn't stress this thing you guys out?
[Edited on 6-12-2008 by Jor]
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: |
Would it be smart to have an insurance inspector come by to check out the lab (ofcourse everything cleaned, and stocks put away in the basement ,where
we keep all our cleaning stuff anyway)? |
In my opinion this would be the death knell of your lab. But I can't say as I truly know the mindset of your local authorities or your insurance
underwriters. Whatever it is it is likely subject to change at their whim.
| Quote: |
Any thoughts? Doesn't stress this thing you guys out?
|
Yes, this is but one stressor among others that we must indure to practice our hobby at home. You have to love it.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I would not invite someone from the insurance company to look at your lab. I have a Belgian friend, who let them know about his lab and in the end of
the story they were doing so difficult to him, that he decided to dump the company completely and go to another insurance company. They wanted a
complete list of his chemicals, a risk assessment for each chemical and they asked appr. EUR 60 more per month for insurance because of all the risks.
He only has a few liters of flammable solvents, just 1 liter of HNO3, H2SO4 and some HCl and a few solid chemicals, nothing really special and nothing
really corrosive or toxic.
|
|
|
Saerynide
National Hazard
Posts: 954
Registered: 17-11-2003
Location: The Void
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ionic
|
|
I definately don't think it would be wise. You would probably either get your contract revoked or even get raided.
I think the risk of burning down one's house (or worse, rental property) is a risk we have to live with. If we can't take that risk, then it's best
to clean house and close shop. It's scary, yes at times, but I think one learns to accept it. Just don't leave any reactions unattended and make
sure you have an extinguisher (or hose, if outside) on hand.
"Microsoft reserves the right at all times to monitor communications on the Service and disclose any information Microsoft deems necessary to...
satisfy any applicable law, regulation or legal process"
|
|
|
MagicJigPipe
International Hazard
Posts: 1554
Registered: 19-9-2007
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suspicious
|
|
It would probably be cheaper in the long run (and less risky) to install an advanced fire suppression system in your lab (and a "suitable for living
quarters" one in the rest of the house).
The reason I say this is because of the extra money you would almost certainly have to pay to keep it legit. Not to mention the risk of going to jail
if your house does burn down and the cops/fire dept. find your lab. With all of these meth lab explosions in the past few years imagine would they
would assume. Even if you weren't sent to prison you would likely be bankrupted by the legal expenses and fines.
Lab = Suspicious to mentally diminished authorities
Lab that has been burned = Even more suspicious and harder to prove that you weren't doing anything wrong (remember, we live in a time where the
burden of proof is virtually on the accused)
Imagine if they did tests for chemicals "commonly used in the manufacture of drugs and/or explosives". And they found some (likely). Screwed!\
So, yes. I will be doing this as soon as I graduate and start making some (hopefully) decent money. In fact, it will be a priority. I think it
should be one for all of us unless you just like "living on the edge."
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any
question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and
that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think,
free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: |
It would probably be cheaper in the long run (and less risky) to install an advanced fire suppression system in your lab (and a "suitable for living
quarters" one in the rest of the house).
|
Along this line I have given some thought to installing a fire supression system in my hood ducting. Since my ducting is PVC I am concerned about the
possiblity of a fire spreading into the ducting. My plan would be to drill an appropriately sized hole, say ~ 25mm, in the duct midway between the
hood and the outlet vent. On this hole would be glued a threaded half-coupling. A large CO2 fire extinguisher with hose would then be connected to
this half-coupling. That way, if I had a fire in the ducting, or even just in the hood, I could immediately flood the hood and the duct with copious
amounts of CO2.
This is similar to what I have seen in commercial systems on restaurant hoods. The only difference is that I believe they may use dry chemical and
are triggered by a temperature sensitive sensor.
|
|
|
Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I have an extinguisher, a fire blanket, a fume hood, soon I will have a flammables safety cabinet, altough Im a bit low in time at the moment to pick
it up. So I think i'm doing wel on safety, preventing risk of fire.
Magpie, why do a hose down system, I though PVC is hardly flammable, at least, I thought the burning is endothermic, because of the Cl-atoms... I
might be wrong.
I will also remove soon many reagents I find worthless. These include my KNO3, KClO4, glycerine, citric acid, glucose ( i have a kilo of this, I need
maybe 100-200g), boric acid, hexamine (although i like suprising people with fishy smell  ) and some others. Eventhough these are not dangerous, it doesn't matter to other, as they see a reagent as a reagent. The less reagents
in my lab the better, as they are all in reagent containers.
And a very toxic one, HgO, I dont use it, because of it's waste, and it is very toxic, releasing mercury fumes in a fire. I have a friend on uni who
wants it, so I will remove that as well...
Have you guys done this as well, doing a cleanup of reagents you don't use, to make amounts you have as small as possible?
|
|
|
Sauron
International Hazard
Posts: 5351
Registered: 22-12-2006
Location: Barad-Dur, Mordor
Member Is Offline
Mood: metastable
|
|
Basically, most every homeowner's policy against fire will require that the homeowner or anyone else occupying the dwelling refrain from storing
flammable liquids.
While small quantities of flammable household chemicals are generally deemed exempt from this, for example nail polish remover, furniture polish,
rubbing alcohol, liquor, etc and many people have 5 gallon (20 liter) jerry cans of gasoline in their garages for fueing the lawn mower etc., you can
be sure that a home lab will not be regarded in a friendly light by the insuror and could result in denial of claim and/or cancellation of coverage.
If you are a renter or leasesee, your contract almost certainly contains such a clause.
If you are a homeowner, it's no better.
Better to site your lab in a detatched garage that you own yourself well away from the house.
Where I live and lease, it's a standard clause, no flammables, but every house has a LNG or LPG tank in the kitchen for fueling the stove and oven. Go
figure. Electric stoves/ovens are not common, although microwave ovens are.
Shortly after I arrived here, and not far away from where I was staying, a truck loaded with LNG (propane, butane) cylinders came off an expressway
ramp and made a turn a little too fast. The resulting explosion and fire was spread over two city blocks, a number of people in other autos were
burned to death, an apartment house full of student nurses burned down killing all inside, all told more than 100 people perished. Yet it is still
commonplace to see loads of the same cylinders being trucked around the city at all hours. And in both restaurants and private homes they are
ubiquitous.
Sic gorgeamus a los subjectatus nunc.
|
|
|
woelen
Super Administrator
Posts: 7977
Registered: 20-8-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: interested
|
|
I do not throw away chemicals or get rid of them for this reason. Even stuff like H3BO3, KNO3 or KClO4 can be useful at times. Right now you may not
seem to find a use for them, but they might do so in the future. So, I would keep them and store them in a proper way.
Extremely poisonous chemicals is another matter. I can imagine that you don't want much HgO around. I have some very toxic chemicals, such as HgI2 and
HgCl2, but the quantities are small.
|
|
|
Magpie
lab constructor
Posts: 5939
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.
|
|
| Quote: |
Magpie, why do a hose down system, I though PVC is hardly flammable, at least, I thought the burning is endothermic, because of the Cl-atoms... I
might be wrong.
|
Jor, I have to admit I'm ignorant of the true flammability risk of PVC. Flooding the duct and hood with CO2 just seemed like the right thing to do if
a fire got out of control.
Sauron, that is a truly tragic story about the LNG fires. This indeed points out the irony of government and insurance regulations. Governments
forbid only what is convenient to forbid.
Most domestic fires that I read about are due to the careless handling of electrical appliances. These cause a huge amount of human injury and death,
let alone property damage. Do governments or insurance companies train, monitor, or restrict use of said appliances? No, that apparently would be
too inconvenient. Also large amounts (many gallons) of an extremely flammable solvent, gasoline, is routinely stored in attached garages,
both in automobile tanks and in jerry cans. This is tolerated by governments and insurance companies as it would be too inconvenient not to.
Now the occaisional home chemist, there is a target that is by no means too inconvenient to harass, restrict, and outright forbid.
|
|
|
Jor
National Hazard
Posts: 950
Registered: 21-11-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Also we have a fuel station here in the middle of the city. Above it there are apartments. And I think there would be at least a few thousands of
liters of fuel. Now that's redicilous. And I have about 5-6L of flammable solvents.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
