Csail
N/A
I was on a Navy ship and there were loads of halon but i thought they were banned (even though we still have a few!)
Halon fire extinguishers
- Thread starter Csail
- Start date
BAtoo
Well-Known Member
From here :- http://www.firesafe.org.uk/html/fsequip/halon2.htm
Looks like I'll have to chuck my two!!
Note for Guidance
The Fire Safety Advice Centre
Phase out of Halon in Portable Extinguishers
Introduction
An effective launch programme by the manufacturers emphasised that Halon 1211 was an all-purpose, efficient medium suitable for any class of fire due to:
Its rapid knockdown
Its efficiency in terms of the volume and weight of medium required
Its safe use in occupied areas and on electrical equipment
It being clean in use, with no residues to clean up after the fire was extinguished
Most of these were reasonable claims but, in fact, Halon 1211 was not as good as some other extinguishers in dealing with Class A fires and its use outdoors could be less than effective. But in the right environment and correctly used Halon 1211 was a very useful addition to the armoury of the professional and non-professional firefighter particularly in aircraft, in the computer and telecommunications industries, with the military and a whole host of other applications in transport, hospitals and the emergency services.
The total number of Halon 1211 extinguishers produced is not known, certainly many hundreds of thousands. They quickly gained in popularity under the weight of promotional activity carried out by the manufacturer and the portable extinguisher producers. In some European countries, Halon 1211 extinguishers outsold all other types based on claims relating to their multi-purpose capability.
Since the 1960s, the use of Halon 1211 in portable extinguishers has been promoted as the answer for most fire fighting situations, why is this now not the case.
Present Situation
When the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, many UK manufacturers took the decision to withdraw halon 1211 extinguishers from their product ranges immediately and to concentrate on other products. This action has substantially limited the number of such extinguishers in use and thereby minimised the problem of complying with the Montreal Protocol.
The European Council regulation 2037/2000 has the same implications for halon portable fire extinguishers as for fixed systems. This means that such extinguishers must not be used in the EC and the only exceptions are for use in some applications in civil aircraft, by the armed forces and by the emergency services for the protection of people
Looks like I'll have to chuck my two!!
Note for Guidance
The Fire Safety Advice Centre
Phase out of Halon in Portable Extinguishers
Introduction
An effective launch programme by the manufacturers emphasised that Halon 1211 was an all-purpose, efficient medium suitable for any class of fire due to:
Its rapid knockdown
Its efficiency in terms of the volume and weight of medium required
Its safe use in occupied areas and on electrical equipment
It being clean in use, with no residues to clean up after the fire was extinguished
Most of these were reasonable claims but, in fact, Halon 1211 was not as good as some other extinguishers in dealing with Class A fires and its use outdoors could be less than effective. But in the right environment and correctly used Halon 1211 was a very useful addition to the armoury of the professional and non-professional firefighter particularly in aircraft, in the computer and telecommunications industries, with the military and a whole host of other applications in transport, hospitals and the emergency services.
The total number of Halon 1211 extinguishers produced is not known, certainly many hundreds of thousands. They quickly gained in popularity under the weight of promotional activity carried out by the manufacturer and the portable extinguisher producers. In some European countries, Halon 1211 extinguishers outsold all other types based on claims relating to their multi-purpose capability.
Since the 1960s, the use of Halon 1211 in portable extinguishers has been promoted as the answer for most fire fighting situations, why is this now not the case.
Present Situation
When the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, many UK manufacturers took the decision to withdraw halon 1211 extinguishers from their product ranges immediately and to concentrate on other products. This action has substantially limited the number of such extinguishers in use and thereby minimised the problem of complying with the Montreal Protocol.
The European Council regulation 2037/2000 has the same implications for halon portable fire extinguishers as for fixed systems. This means that such extinguishers must not be used in the EC and the only exceptions are for use in some applications in civil aircraft, by the armed forces and by the emergency services for the protection of people
Angele
Well-Known Member
There is an alternative ...
Halon replacement fire extinguishers have been on the market for many years. Contains something known as "FE-36" (1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane for the chemists out there). Some extinguishers that people might think contain halon (and certainly all recent ones) may contain this instead. Typical use on a boat might be an automatic one in the engine bay. Makes a lot less mess than the powder alternative if it goes off (assuming the fire hasn't already done that), but cost about three times as much.
Halon replacement fire extinguishers have been on the market for many years. Contains something known as "FE-36" (1,1,1,3,3,3-Hexafluoropropane for the chemists out there). Some extinguishers that people might think contain halon (and certainly all recent ones) may contain this instead. Typical use on a boat might be an automatic one in the engine bay. Makes a lot less mess than the powder alternative if it goes off (assuming the fire hasn't already done that), but cost about three times as much.
sarabande
Well-Known Member
it's about efficiency, and halon is much better than any other current gases. Unfortunately... HM is about the only employer who can afford to take the risks associated with the side effects. So, where it's really needed, halon is used.
RIB_imposter
Well-Known Member
? its nothing to do with the "risks of side effects" - they are banned for everyone except a very narrow range of applications where either the risk of a fire is very high (e.g. military, riot police) or the consequences of a fire are very significant (e.g. channel tunnel, aircraft). The navy probably fall into both camps - high liklihood and severe consequence.
sarabande
Well-Known Member
as in "where it's really needed" then ? 
sailorman
Well-Known Member
Sandyman
Well-Known Member
I bet its not only navy ships that have them
Correct.
Ive got two of the buggers and will be keeping mine.
Having been closely involved in two major fires on Pussers Grey Liners I have seen at close hand just how effective Halon is.
Enviroment or no enviroment, if I get a fire at sea I want it out quick.
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
I think that this is an approximate chain of events in merchant shipping re fire fighting.
On big ships they used to have CO2 systems for flooding the engine room in the event of a fire - CO2 is very effective so long as you can close all the vents fairly quickly to stop new oxygen from coming in.
However it is also very effective at very rapidly killing any crew members who do not manage to get out of the engine room in time.
Hence Halon was welcomed as an alternative to CO2 - you can breathe it, and it won't kill you, altho' its not exactly good for you.
But then it was determined that Halon was / is a greenhouse gas, and it was subsequently banned.
They had to find alternatives on big ships...... and a very popular alternative now being fitted to many ships is a water mist system.
This works on the principle that a mist of very fine water droplets has considerably more cooling effect than the same amount of water being sprayed by a fire hose, as the cooling power is related to the actual surface area of water in contact with the fire - hence millions of fine droplets of water mist have a huge surface area, and can cool down a fire very effectively.
And people in the engine room can still breathe in this mist.
Here is an interesting article about water mist systems - http://professionalmariner.com/ME2/...91&tier=4&id=84A790BDF16940AB9E7B8F15393DF833
And here are a couple of Manufacturers of systems - Hi-Fog and Flexi-Fog.
http://www.marioff.com/en/Default.aspx
http://www.discovery-marine.com/index.php?id=flexifog_total_solution_en
These folk also produce FM-200, which was one of the alternatives to Halon :
http://www.discovery-marine.com/index.php?id=fm200_en
On big ships they used to have CO2 systems for flooding the engine room in the event of a fire - CO2 is very effective so long as you can close all the vents fairly quickly to stop new oxygen from coming in.
However it is also very effective at very rapidly killing any crew members who do not manage to get out of the engine room in time.
Hence Halon was welcomed as an alternative to CO2 - you can breathe it, and it won't kill you, altho' its not exactly good for you.
But then it was determined that Halon was / is a greenhouse gas, and it was subsequently banned.
They had to find alternatives on big ships...... and a very popular alternative now being fitted to many ships is a water mist system.
This works on the principle that a mist of very fine water droplets has considerably more cooling effect than the same amount of water being sprayed by a fire hose, as the cooling power is related to the actual surface area of water in contact with the fire - hence millions of fine droplets of water mist have a huge surface area, and can cool down a fire very effectively.
And people in the engine room can still breathe in this mist.
Here is an interesting article about water mist systems - http://professionalmariner.com/ME2/...91&tier=4&id=84A790BDF16940AB9E7B8F15393DF833
And here are a couple of Manufacturers of systems - Hi-Fog and Flexi-Fog.
http://www.marioff.com/en/Default.aspx
http://www.discovery-marine.com/index.php?id=flexifog_total_solution_en
These folk also produce FM-200, which was one of the alternatives to Halon :
http://www.discovery-marine.com/index.php?id=fm200_en
KenMcCulloch
Well-Known Member
The reason for the ban was not Halon being or not being a greenhouse gas. The ban was because Halon and other CFCs, which do not occur in nature, were causing depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer. It's not just a question of some vague concern with 'the environment' but that loss of the ozone layer would eventually be fatal to most forms of life.
Andrew_Fanner
Well-Known Member
Undeniably true but it was also suggested that halon in extinguishers was not of itself a culprit as, on the whole, it was being useed rather less than cfcs in hairsprays and scrapped fridges and saving lives now had merit. Baby and bathwater...
"Government Use" allows the use lots of things we proles are not allowed to use for "environmental reasons". Antifouling that kills aqualtic things rather than slightly inconveniencing them until they learn to eat it is another one
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Makes you wonder, really. What gives off more toxicity, a burnt to bits grp boat cos it didn't have a halon extinguisher, or a halon extinguisher?
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
The halon extinguisher almost certainly does more overall harm to the environment.
Incidentally, one way halon works/worked is by undergoing an endothermic reaction, sucking heat in from the fire and cooling it down. One of the products of this reaction is bromine - if halon has actually been extinguishing a fire you really, really, really don't want be trying to breathe there...
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Mm. I witnessed a grp yacht burning to bits once and I reckon there was a lot more smokey fumey stuff than you can fit in a little engine compartment fire extinguisher, even at the same pressure. Would be nice to see facts, would't it?
I certainly wouldn't want to breathe any of that stuff for sure. When I was trained how to fight fires on dived submarines, we were properly fitted out with breathing apparatus. No room for that on my boat! Still I can stick my head outside, bonus.
I was impressed the other week though when being involved in putting out a fire on an outboard engine on a rib. The slick from the dry powder extinguisher was stll on the surface water 2 days later despite very strong winds, must help when smothering an inside fire. Did actually put it out with buckets of seawater in the end though, bit of a lightweight operator on the dock....you can't half shift a few gallons when the fire is near your yacht!!
I certainly wouldn't want to breathe any of that stuff for sure. When I was trained how to fight fires on dived submarines, we were properly fitted out with breathing apparatus. No room for that on my boat! Still I can stick my head outside, bonus.
I was impressed the other week though when being involved in putting out a fire on an outboard engine on a rib. The slick from the dry powder extinguisher was stll on the surface water 2 days later despite very strong winds, must help when smothering an inside fire. Did actually put it out with buckets of seawater in the end though, bit of a lightweight operator on the dock....you can't half shift a few gallons when the fire is near your yacht!!
Bajansailor
Well-Known Member
I wonder, is it possible to 'trade in' an old Halon extinguisher and basically swop it (it would have no cash value probably) for the cost of a new FM-200 extinguisher or similar?
Also, is it possible to recycle or break down the Halon in these old cylinders such that they are no longer a threat to the ozone layer?
(Ken, thanks for pointing out that Halon is a CFC and not a greenhouse gas - I was lumping them all together as one).
If it is not possible to dispose of them safely, then surely the logical thing to do is keep any Halon extinguishers that you have on the very small off chance that it might be needed in anger one day?
Better to use it in anger me thinks, than for all the gas to escape to the atmosphere through neglect as a result of being eg dumped.
Also, is it possible to recycle or break down the Halon in these old cylinders such that they are no longer a threat to the ozone layer?
(Ken, thanks for pointing out that Halon is a CFC and not a greenhouse gas - I was lumping them all together as one).
If it is not possible to dispose of them safely, then surely the logical thing to do is keep any Halon extinguishers that you have on the very small off chance that it might be needed in anger one day?
Better to use it in anger me thinks, than for all the gas to escape to the atmosphere through neglect as a result of being eg dumped.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Yes - that's what happens to the R12 in old fridges, or is supposed to happen anyway.
KenMcCulloch
Well-Known Member
Firefighting equipment suppliers in the UK will generally take your old Halon extinguisher off your hands when you buy a 'Halon Replacement' replacement.
Csail
N/A
So existing halon ones might as well stay on board.Surely if they are disposed of the gas has to go somewhere and i'm sure if my boat was on fire the halon to put it out would cause less impact on the ozone than 32ft of grp burning along with propane,diesel etc!
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
The combustion products of your boat, nasty though they undoubtedly are, would have negligible effect on the ozone layer. The halon molecules would stay there for up to a century, catalytically breaking down ozone all the time.
capnsensible
Well-Known Member
Hiya, could you point me to a site where that sort of information is available? I am genuinely interested as to what is evolved when grp burns.