EG = ethylene glycol, PG = propylene glycol
About toxicity, tri-glycol is safer than EG because EG is partly metabolized to glyoxal which can permanently form cyclic compounds inside cells. PG is preferentially metabolized to lactic acid before the secondary OH is oxidized, which is why it's safer, tho yes you could get a small amount of methylglyoxal, so there is that issue, tho methylglyoxal is at least less reactive than glyoxal. The concern I have is that eg, ethoxyethanol is metabolized to ethoxyacetate which is somewhat toxic, and oxidized tri-glycol might be analogous. Note also that ethers eventually get oxidatively cleaved. I'm simplifying a bit here obviously.
Yes, there have been studies, but toxicity studies use high doses in mice to get obvious effects, and then we assume that much lower doses in humans don't have subtle long-term effects, but the effect of tri-glycol would be limited by the rate of metabolism, and the tri-glycol itself should be safe.
Interesting.
About glycol vapor, I might personally go with propylene glycol rather than triethylene glycol.
Do you not feel obligated to tell people that such lights are present, in case they have a different assessment of the long-term safety than you do? I remember how ApeFest caused eye damage with UV lights.
But you really, really need to check your data on transit costs.
I don't think I do, but maybe you can explain the math to me. You aren't just comparing per-mile transport costs of loaded ships vs trains, are you? That would be silly, of course.
It's true that the US Navy isn't allowed to buy cheaper ships from eg Korea, but that's not because of the Jones Act, it's a separate rule.
There's just not much cargo shipped between 2 US ports. On the US mainland it's cheaper to use rail than to go thru US ports twice and sail around. The Jones Act does slightly affect prices in Hawaii, and if the Hawaiian gov wants to go after it they can, but for the US as a whole, going after repealing the Foreign Dredge Act would probably be an easier & smarter thing to do than going after repealing the Jones Act.
Well, even the old fabric sails act as airfoils, they're just not very good ones.
Another approach is to put an actual wind turbine on the ship; it's more competitive with sails than you might think.
I think most ships still don't do this, so I'm not sure if it's currently economical
From the papers I've seen, using sails on large cargo ships seems economically practical for up to 1/3 of their overall propulsion.
Sailboats have a lot of moving parts, and maintenance on so many of them would be a nightmare.
A sail would be a big rotating airfoil on a pole. Here's an example. What maintenance issues are you thinking of?
Could you clarify what you mean by "this" and how the Jones Act affects it?
Could you please share some information regarding why you think this is the case?
Well, this covers some of why I initially thought that might be the case. So then I looked into it and found some examples of it happening.
Upvoted. I previously wrote a related post.