Measure for liquid versus dry fertilzer.
Torsten Brinch
"Chuck" <ch...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
news:2001112708060...@gacracker.org...
> Is there anything special in the way liquid fertilizers are being labeled
> with regard to their guaranteed analysis when compared to dry fertilizers?
> In other words, are the labeled percentages still based on weight, or
> something else?
It has become tradition to make a specific note of it, if
concentrations expressed in % are -not- on a weight/weight basis.
Thus, if the label just reads % it would be understood
as meaning % w/w.
> Would it be correct to say that a more accurate determination of a
> solution's ppm content, of N for example, would be arrived at by using the
> "weight per ml" of a liquid concentrate rather than just the number of
> milliliters being diluted?
Yes certainly. The 1 ml =1 gram is an approximation which
cannot be expected to work well unless you are looking at
a highly dilute aqueous solution. In the lab, to be accurate,
I would never rely on this approximation with stock solutions
more concentrated that 0.1 %. Fertilizer concentrates would
be above that limit.
e.g 1 ml of a 20% ammonium sulphate (AS) solution, diluted to 1000 ml,
density of stock soultion assumed to be 1 g/ml, the dilutiion would
be assumed to be 200 ppm. But really, a 20% AS solution has a density
of about 1.11. The dilution will therefore not actually be 200 ppm AS,
it will be about 220 ppm.
To make a proper dilution to 200 ppm in this case you must
either use a scale (to measure out 1 gram of the stock solution),
or you must calculate and measure out the correct volume
adjusting with the density of the solution: In this case
the correct volume would be ~0.9 ml.
Best regards,
Torsten Brinch
Oz
>Is there anything special in the way liquid fertilizers are being labeled
>with regard to their guaranteed analysis when compared to dry fertilizers?
>In other words, are the labeled percentages still based on weight, or
>something else?
For this speak to your supplier.
In the UK it used to be units/gall, but due to ec regs this was changed
to units per kg, which one then converted to units per litre using a
conversion factor provided by the supplier.
Quite simple really.
--
Oz
This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Chuck Robinson
"Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote in message
news:r2JM7.30$G53....@news.get2net.dk...
>
> "Chuck" <ch...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
> news:2001112708060...@gacracker.org...
>
> > Is there anything special in the way liquid fertilizers are being
labeled
> > with regard to their guaranteed analysis when compared to dry
fertilizers?
> > In other words, are the labeled percentages still based on weight, or
> > something else?
>
> It has become tradition to make a specific note of it, if
> concentrations expressed in % are -not- on a weight/weight basis.
> Thus, if the label just reads % it would be understood
> as meaning % w/w.
Duh, That's what I said. It is based on weight per weight. And it
answered your original statement.
>
> > Would it be correct to say that a more accurate determination of a
> > solution's ppm content, of N for example, would be arrived at by using
the
> > "weight per ml" of a liquid concentrate rather than just the number of
> > milliliters being diluted?
>
> Yes certainly. The 1 ml =1 gram is an approximation which
> cannot be expected to work well unless you are looking at
> a highly dilute aqueous solution. In the lab, to be accurate,
> I would never rely on this approximation with stock solutions
> more concentrated that 0.1 %. Fertilizer concentrates would
> be above that limit.
>
> e.g 1 ml of a 20% ammonium sulphate (AS) solution, diluted to 1000 ml,
> density of stock soultion assumed to be 1 g/ml, the dilutiion would
> be assumed to be 200 ppm. But really, a 20% AS solution has a density
> of about 1.11. The dilution will therefore not actually be 200 ppm AS,
> it will be about 220 ppm.
>
> To make a proper dilution to 200 ppm in this case you must
> either use a scale (to measure out 1 gram of the stock solution),
> or you must calculate and measure out the correct volume
> adjusting with the density of the solution: In this case
> the correct volume would be ~0.9 ml.
>
Now try it with 32% N UAN and no added water. clue ( UAN is Ammonium
Nitrate and Urea, both are dry products) I learned this one the hard way,
See ya, Chuck
>
> Best regards,
>
> Torsten Brinch
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chuck Robinson
"Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0vkAiYAt...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> Chuck writes
> >Is there anything special in the way liquid fertilizers are being labeled
> >with regard to their guaranteed analysis when compared to dry
fertilizers?
> >In other words, are the labeled percentages still based on weight, or
> >something else?
>
> For this speak to your supplier.
>
> In the UK it used to be units/gall, but due to ec regs this was changed
> to units per kg, which one then converted to units per litre using a
> conversion factor provided by the supplier.
>
> Quite simple really.
>
I used to be the supplier, In the original statement, I was questioning
Torstenies knowledge.
He conveniently clipped his part of the conversation.
Chuck
Torsten Brinch
"Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:3c036c4f$1...@nntp.corridor.net...
Oz
>I used to be the supplier,
I'm not surprised.
>In the original statement, I was questioning
>Torstenies knowledge.
Well, that's unexpected.
>He conveniently clipped his part of the conversation.
and that's not.
Gordon Couger
long. The mixture draws water out of the air to the point it dissolves its
self. I had a fertilizer dealer give me a bin of ammonium nitrate if I would
haul it out. I had to break it up with a jack hammer and if he had been
running urea through the elevator I couldn't fill the spreader and get to
the feild and get spread before it absorbed enough water to set up in a
solid block again.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
news:dESM7.2093$l74.1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
Urea A/N combinations are a no-no. Actually with the small amount of
moisture in the fertilizer products themselves and in relative humidities as
low as 30% they can dissolve and become a true liquid in just a few minutes.
Try mixing them in a closed jar and watch. It's an incredible phenonem.
Ther also a few liquid nutrients you can combine to create thixotropic(spp)
suspensions or even true solids.
Chuck
Gordon Couger
the weekends and load it out when the plant was closed and if they hadn't
been running urea things went pretty smooth if they had it was a mess.
I also discovered that ammonium nitrate gets real cold when it dissolves in
water when I was washing out the spreader.
I finally gave up on it. It turned out to be pretty expensive. The boss sent
his grandson out to spread one load and he left big chunks laying in the
pasture the boss came along a week later and let the heifers in the pasture
with out telling me. We were lucky we only lost two.
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
Don't forget how easily A/N denitrifies in wet situations. You can lose 50%
with one good rainfall in warm weather and you cant see the loss. That's
ureas biggest advantage--you don't lose it to soggy soils. In fact it's why
they use it on rice. In a sugar sized granule its great in cattle feed
too.
> Gordon
>
>
Gordon Couger
now.
Gordon
Oz
>It's hard to make urea into a bomb too so ammonium nitrate is almost gone
>now.
Errrrr not in the EU.
Gordon Couger
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >It's hard to make urea into a bomb too so ammonium nitrate is almost gone
> >now.
>
> Errrrr not in the EU.
>
nitrate in the same facility.
There is still some used but dealers are nervous about liability. No one has
been stuck on it yet but people are making noises.
Gordon
Oz
>We got paranoid when they blew up Oklahoma City and you can't keep urea and
>nitrate in the same facility.
Hmmm, got a heap of both here.
Gordon Couger
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >We got paranoid when they blew up Oklahoma City and you can't keep urea
and
> >nitrate in the same facility.
>
> Hmmm, got a heap of both here.
>
of cleaning up the equipment than I have found. Or you are handling it in
bags. I remember using bagged fertilizer once in the late 50's and on the
yard at home.
Gordon
Oz
>Must not run them through the same mixing equipment or you have a better way
>of cleaning up the equipment than I have found.
They are used separately. Basically urea until late spring/early summer
and AN afterwards. Note I am in a relatively dry area (<6" summer
rainfall) and a very alkaline soil.
Chuck Robinson
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, "Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
> >"Chuck" <ch...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
> >news:2001112708060...@gacracker.org...
> >
> >> Is there anything special in the way liquid fertilizers are being
labeled
> >> with regard to their guaranteed analysis when compared to dry
fertilizers?
> >> In other words, are the labeled percentages still based on weight, or
> >> something else?
> >
> >It has become tradition to make a specific note of it, if
> >concentrations expressed in % are -not- on a weight/weight basis.
> >Thus, if the label just reads % it would be understood
> >as meaning % w/w.
>
> the norm would be noted as such.
>
> >
> >> Would it be correct to say that a more accurate determination of a
> >> solution's ppm content, of N for example, would be arrived at by using
the
> >> "weight per ml" of a liquid concentrate rather than just the number of
> >> milliliters being diluted?
> >
> >Yes certainly. The 1 ml =1 gram is an approximation which
> >cannot be expected to work well unless you are looking at
> >a highly dilute aqueous solution. In the lab, to be accurate,
> >I would never rely on this approximation with stock solutions
> >more concentrated that 0.1 %. Fertilizer concentrates would
> >be above that limit.
> >
> >e.g 1 ml of a 20% ammonium sulphate (AS) solution, diluted to 1000 ml,
> >density of stock soultion assumed to be 1 g/ml, the dilutiion would
> >be assumed to be 200 ppm. But really, a 20% AS solution has a density
> >of about 1.11. The dilution will therefore not actually be 200 ppm AS,
> >it will be about 220 ppm.
> >
> >To make a proper dilution to 200 ppm in this case you must
> >either use a scale (to measure out 1 gram of the stock solution),
> >or you must calculate and measure out the correct volume
> >adjusting with the density of the solution: In this case
> >the correct volume would be ~0.9 ml.
>
>
Gee who is this Chuckster here.
I'd never give credit to Torsten where credit wasn't due. His head is
already fat enough. The above is nothing more than detailed BS anyway.
Chuck R.
> Regards,
> Chuck
>
> >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Torsten Brinch
>
>
> ----------------
> New to a.d.p.c? Before you ask a question, read
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~npkaye/cultivation.html
>
> The Seedbank Update from Green Man:
> http://www.SeedbankUpdate.com
> Mirrored at http://lycaeum.org/~sunny/seedbanks.html
>
> A comprehensive offline cannabis cultivation reference for indoor
> growers. Includes an analysis of garden factors affecting yield and
> software for predicting it.
> ** The Indoor Yield-O-Rama Resource Package v1.0**
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sunny/ResourceReadme.txt
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sunny/Resource1.zip
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sunny/Resource2.zip
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sunny/Resource3.zip
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sunny/Resource4.zip
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sunny/Resource5.zip
> Extract all of the five Resource zip files into the same folder.
> Double click on Default.htm to open the Resource in your browser.
>
> Find the quantity of elements in your fertilizer mix,
> and other nutrient solution utilities.
> http://lycaeum.org/~sunny/PPM.zip
>
> Alternative EC/TDS Standards for GH nutes (revised), or all you wanted
> to know about EC, TDS, or GH nutrients.
> http://lycaeum.org/~sunny/ALT-EC-TDS.html
>
> Predict your hydro reservoir's pH and TDS
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~sunny/ControlTrack.html
>
> Information on using H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) for cultivation purposes.
> http://lycaeum.org/~sunny/H2O2 Dilutions.html
>
> The Original ScrOG, using fluorescent lighting.
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~npkaye/multishelf.html
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~npkaye/hydroplans.html
>
> Safely convert your Phototron to an ebb/flow hydro unit
> http://users.lycaeum.org/~npkaye/hydroplans3.html
>
> Indoor Yield-O-Rama posted to adpc each week.
>
> Newbie Resources posted to adpc each week.
>
>
> When the garden is sad and the crop don't look nice,
> who can you ask for help or advice,
> Just look for some folks contained in the list,
> in the anon post to follow they get their ass kissed.
>
Chuck Robinson
will. I wonder which it really is.
"Chuck" <ch...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
news:200111280627...@gacracker.org...
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, "Torsten Brinch" <ia...@inet.uni2.dk> wrote:
> >"Chuck" <ch...@redneck.gacracker.org> wrote in message
> >news:2001112708060...@gacracker.org...
> >
> >> Is there anything special in the way liquid fertilizers are being
labeled
> >> with regard to their guaranteed analysis when compared to dry
fertilizers?
> >> In other words, are the labeled percentages still based on weight, or
> >> something else?
> >
> >It has become tradition to make a specific note of it, if
> >concentrations expressed in % are -not- on a weight/weight basis.
> >Thus, if the label just reads % it would be understood
> >as meaning % w/w.
>
> Thanks to all for your replies. It's reassuring to know a departure from
> the norm would be noted as such.
>
> >
> >> Would it be correct to say that a more accurate determination of a
> >> solution's ppm content, of N for example, would be arrived at by using
the
> >> "weight per ml" of a liquid concentrate rather than just the number of
> >> milliliters being diluted?
> >
> >Yes certainly. The 1 ml =1 gram is an approximation which
> >cannot be expected to work well unless you are looking at
> >a highly dilute aqueous solution. In the lab, to be accurate,
> >I would never rely on this approximation with stock solutions
> >more concentrated that 0.1 %. Fertilizer concentrates would
> >be above that limit.
> >
> >e.g 1 ml of a 20% ammonium sulphate (AS) solution, diluted to 1000 ml,
> >density of stock soultion assumed to be 1 g/ml, the dilutiion would
> >be assumed to be 200 ppm. But really, a 20% AS solution has a density
> >of about 1.11. The dilution will therefore not actually be 200 ppm AS,
> >it will be about 220 ppm.
> >
> >To make a proper dilution to 200 ppm in this case you must
> >either use a scale (to measure out 1 gram of the stock solution),
> >or you must calculate and measure out the correct volume
> >adjusting with the density of the solution: In this case
> >the correct volume would be ~0.9 ml.
>
> Much obliged for the extra detail, that was my understanding also.
>
Chuck Robinson
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >Must not run them through the same mixing equipment or you have a better
way
> >of cleaning up the equipment than I have found.
>
> They are used separately. Basically urea until late spring/early summer
> and AN afterwards. Note I am in a relatively dry area (<6" summer
> rainfall) and a very alkaline soil.
>
Which can easily cause the volatilization of urea.
Chuck
Oz
>
>Which can easily cause the volatilization of urea.
Indeed so.
LOUIS
Sure but with some technical dilluted HNO3, you get the less soluble
NH2-CO-NH3NO3 that is more sensitive than NH4NO3 (to shock, to initiation), it
has also a higher detonation velocity 4,3 km/s and is less hygroscopoic!
PH Z
Jim Webster
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >It's hard to make urea into a bomb too so ammonium nitrate is almost gone
> >now.
>
> Errrrr not in the EU.
In Northern Ireland you couldn't buy Ammonium Nitrate,
you could buy Nitrochalk which was ammonium nitrate dissolved (or whatever)
on a chalk base which did not explode.
This was quite a successful subsititution although a fair number of
protestant terrorists were killed trying to distill the AN off the chalk.
Catholic/republican terrorists got their AN from the Irish republic or just
bought semtex from Libya.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Jim Webster
> Chuck Robinson writes
> >
> >Which can easily cause the volatilization of urea.
>
> Indeed so.
Once it gets past April I don't use Urea unless it is about to rain.
which for us is most days :-((
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
LOUIS
> This was quite a successful subsititution although a fair number of
> protestant terrorists were killed trying to distill the AN off the chalk.
-If they distill it I understand them to be dead by now; a simple dillution in
warm water, filtration to keep the CaCO3 and subsequent evaporation of the
water (cristallisation) at 100°C will do the job nicely without having the
troubles of N2O decomposition, fire, explosion or detonation! Any basic
chemistry student know that!
Maybe you are a terrorist, aren't you?
PH Z
Gordon Couger
"LOUIS" <Loui...@SKYNET.be> wrote in message
news:3C0B44F1...@SKYNET.be...
kid. But in 1952 it wasn't a big deal. When the school superintendent found
a 45 caliber automatic pistol in coat pocket in school he ask him to leave
it in the car. Times change a bit.
Gordon
Oz
>My neighbor's kid on the next farm over made nitroglycerine when he was a
>kid. But in 1952 it wasn't a big deal.
Errr...ummm...well.....
Hey, it's kinda fun if you are careful ...
ahem.
Chuck Robinson
> Gordon Couger writes
>
> >My neighbor's kid on the next farm over made nitroglycerine when he was a
> >kid. But in 1952 it wasn't a big deal.
>
> Errr...ummm...well.....
>
> Hey, it's kinda fun if you are careful ...
>
> ahem.
>
Somewhere around that same time period I made some in the basement laundry
sink. I kept it cooling in a mix of ice, dry ice, salt, and water. Took a
small vial of it and taped it to a tree and from a distance we shot it with
a 22 and blew up the tree. It was fantastic, but, while we were doing this
my mother was pouring the coolant and the Nitro down the drain. Luckily,
nothing happened but I never made anything dangerous in the house after that
time. It was as if I was given an instant dose of common sense.
Chuck
Gordon Couger
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Robinson" <ch...@corridor.net>
Newsgroups: sci.chem,sci.agriculture
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Measure for liquid versus dry fertilzer.
:
: "Oz" <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
:
Max had bigger ideas. He built a revetment and remote contorls and made
enough to make enough danimite to alter the course of a river 1/4 mile. He
really like to play with explosisives. I ran into a fellow that worked for
Haliberton on a air plane one time and ask if he knew Max and the first
words out of his mouth were he rememered when he blew half the windows in
Monahans Texas out when he was transfered and had a case of danimite that
was getting old and he took it out in the country an blew up the whole thing
at once. When his boss ask him why he did it his answer was, "I had never
seen a whole case go up at once"
He did well in the oil patch. For years he capped buring wells after the
fire was put out. He was a blow out specialist for Haliberton among other
things.
Gordon
Chuck Robinson
"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
He was way out beyond what I ever did. The biggest bang I ever made was
with a 1Kilo block of Sodium coated in parafin. I blew a 12' diameter
crater in a small creek. The hole was some 6-7 ft deep. It was
investigated but no one ever figured out what caused the bang. I had tried
Carbide prior to that, but never got the effect of Na + H2O. I was only 13
at this time too. So much for my youth and living dangerously. When I was
in HS I built a few rockets using various peroxides I "borrowed" from the
school lab. Chemistry Teacher decided I should do my Undergrad work in
Chemistry.
Never messed with anything like that when I was running the Fertilizer
plant.
Chuck.
>
Oz
>He was way out beyond what I ever did. The biggest bang I ever made was
>with a 1Kilo block of Sodium coated in parafin. I blew a 12' diameter
>crater in a small creek. The hole was some 6-7 ft deep. It was
>investigated but no one ever figured out what caused the bang. I had tried
>Carbide prior to that, but never got the effect of Na + H2O. I was only 13
>at this time too. So much for my youth and living dangerously. When I was
>in HS I built a few rockets using various peroxides I "borrowed" from the
>school lab. Chemistry Teacher decided I should do my Undergrad work in
>Chemistry.
It's not hard to see why some people find chemistry interesting.
What the younger generation misses by excessive safety.
Gordon Couger
brother made a chemistry prof and is missing most of one finger and piece of
a thumb from work on his dissertation. His comment was, "nobody every made a
batch that big that didn't blow up".
He and I blew up a few things together but we stayed with small stuff. We
played with rockets and the explosions were failed rockets.
Gordon
Jim Webster
Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> Max made an engineer and managed to keep all his finger arms and legs. His
> brother made a chemistry prof and is missing most of one finger and piece
of
> a thumb from work on his dissertation. His comment was, "nobody every made
a
> batch that big that didn't blow up".
> He and I blew up a few things together but we stayed with small stuff. We
> played with rockets and the explosions were failed rockets.
>
> Gordon
my contribution to this discussion is pretty small beer I suppose. My father
was called to school by an outraged headmaster who discovered that I had
been selling ammonium nitrate to some other lads who were mixing it with
sodium chlorate, sugar or several other compounds of choice etc etc. I'm
afraid my fathers comment "he is making more out of it than I am" failed to
assuage headmasterial wrath but it was agreed that I would cease this
diversification enterprise.
Interestingly enough my three best customers went on to Oxford or Cambridge.
LOUIS
the NH4ClO3 produced in situ by the crossing of anions between NH4NO3 and
NaClO3!
Jim Webster
LOUIS <Loui...@SKYNET.be> wrote in message
> Good they haven't been killed by spontanous
ignition/deflagartion/detonation of
> the NH4ClO3 produced in situ by the crossing of anions between NH4NO3 and
> NaClO3!
>
35 years ago we didn't worry about that sort of thing :-))
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:9uica2$2jf$4...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
minds of education:/ Creative minds always go further than those that stay
in the box education build for them. I was talking with a university prof I
used to work with about some of the kids that were real success stories. It
was not the great ones but he so so one that we managed to help along that
we really felt good about. The good and great ones will make it in spite of
what we do.
Today's education makes most kids hate school. I don't think I could put up
with the crap that the schools require today.
Gordon
Gordon Couger
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
> LOUIS <Loui...@SKYNET.be> wrote in message
> news:3C0CF892...@SKYNET.be...
> > Good they haven't been killed by spontanous
> ignition/deflagartion/detonation of
> > the NH4ClO3 produced in situ by the crossing of anions between NH4NO3
and
> > NaClO3!
> >
>
> 35 years ago we didn't worry about that sort of thing :-))
>
Gordon
Jim Webster
Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> > 35 years ago we didn't worry about that sort of thing :-))
> >
> Now we have to watch out for di-hydrogen monoxide.
>
> Gordon
>
me. I'd ban it, or at least ensure that users had to be licensed
Jim Webster
Gordon Couger <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote in message
> Today's education makes most kids hate school. I don't think I could put
up
> with the crap that the schools require today.
>
> Gordon
>
last week in her history lesson my daughter was doing the Plains Indians.
Was she asked (age 14) to do? Draw pretty pictures of tents, that what she
was asked to do.
Note, this is supposed to be a decent school as well
Dennis G.
>>
>Now we have to watch out for di-hydrogen monoxide.
>
>Gordon
>
>
Yeah, they've had to drain that stuff out of my knee! Not good.
Dennis
Oz
>"Gordon Couger" <gco...@NOSPAMprovalue.net> wrote:
>
>>Now we have to watch out for di-hydrogen monoxide.
>>
I've heard that terrorists in london contaminated an entire vat of
20,000 gallons of gin spirit with it, but it was covered up.
Dennis G.
>
>I've heard that terrorists in london contaminated an entire vat of
>20,000 gallons of gin spirit with it, but it was covered up.
>
>--
>Oz
>This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Don't let your dog nearit. Mine got covered with it and he stank to
high heaven for hours.
Chuck Robinson
to everyone is not to ever try that. I was sick with the runs for about two
weeks.
Chuck
"Dennis G." <deg...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:3c0ee2a5...@news.telus.net...
Oz
>A few years back I smuggled some in from Mexico by swallowing it. My advice
>to everyone is not to ever try that. I was sick with the runs for about two
>weeks.
You were probably lucky that the mexican dihydrogen monoxide was impure
and you didn't get a fatal dose. Now if it had been 100% pure american
who knows what would have happened?