BCF Halon 1211 promotional video

The promotional video for BCF Halon 1211 fire extinguishers

[@theno1magicman]

You see the guy there putting the fires out? That's my Dad! All but the multi-tray fire which was his colleague (my Dad is the guy lighting the trays in that one).

[@contactacb]

Nice find, pity two films got spliced and chopped, the fact any copies survived is amazing!

[@banksroadmodernimage7358]

Very interesting video,ive always found halon to be quick and clean after fire fighting on machinery.

[@originalusernamefail]

Ah, The things we did before we knew the shit was so bad for the ozone layer...

[@THESLlCK]

who cares lol

[@robonaught]

@@THESLlCK The people who don't want the really powerful rays of the sun to cook the earth stupid. What do you want the ozone gone and be fried the full power of the sun?

[@THESLlCK]

@@robonaught lol one of those huh

[@SimonTonekham]

As an individual in the IT field, Halon was used as a clean agent for protecting electronic components. Thesedays, an alternative to Halon BCF 1211 is being used called "Novec 1230" (or something like that). Any differences between these two clean agents?

[@HalonPoisoning]

Simon Tonekham Other than the two being "clean agents" meaning they leave no residue after discharge, yes, there is a significant difference between the two. Halon 1211 (alongside other types) work by breaking the reaction of fuel, heat, and oxygen in the fire triangle by releasing halogen atoms as the molecules break down. While Halon in itself is not considered to be very toxic to humans, the breakdown products can be quite harmful, not to mention that halon is a lot heavier than air, making it a bit of asphyxiation risk depending on how open the area is that it was used. Halon was slso supposedly an ozone hazard and was believed to be damaging the ozone layer as well as contribute to global warming. The agent is a gas at room temperature. Novec 1230 on the other hand is made of a type of keyotone and works by absorbing heat from a fire. It has no known toxicity, no ozone depleting potential, and the global warming potential is very low. However, at room temperature, it is a liquid but is non conducting and non dampening, meaning it is safe to use on electrical equipment, not to mention it evaporates real quick.

[@ironmatic1]

I’ve never seen a Novec 1230 hand portable, only wheeled extinguishers and fixed suppression systems. Halon replacement extinguishers are generally Halotron 1 except for Ansul who uses FE 36.

[@cellokid5104]

@@HalonPoisoning username checks out

[@andrewwant6033]

Novec 1230 only has an atmospheric life time of 5 days and halon 1211 BCF is an Ozone depleating substance and is no longer manufactured.

[@gulzar_gb4929]

amazing

[@Eltonlaleham]

Halon is an awesome fire extingusihing agent a shame in billions of ways it is nolonger sold

[@ATLTraveler]

It's not a shame, halon literally was destroying our planet dude... and it is still sold, it's just recycled not newly manufactured. In fact halon 1211 extinguishers can be found and are actually REQUIRED by the FAA on all commercial aircraft.

[@matta5160]

It should still be allowed (but strictly controlled) because fire extinguishers are life saving equipment. May not be great for the ozone layer but neither are fires themselves.

[@robonaught]

@@matta5160 I believe Halon nowadays is only used at airports and air fields for aircraft fires

[@charliewolf7500]

Spelling mistakes at 1:00 "Imflammable" (with an M) means "easy to burn", while "inflammable" (with an N) is supposed to mean "not flammable".

[@contactacb]

Inflammable in UK English has always meant highly flammable going back over 100 years (& was the term used in many pieces of contemporary legislation), but because it was confusing was phased out for flammable in usage during the latter 20th century. It's usage is appropriate for the age of the film

[@ikichullo]

impermeable means not permeable

[@goodbye8995]

Wow, Deathgrips should sample this.

[@gunfuego]

Who cares about the environment if it can save lives....

[@blindsniper35]

Because, 1) it's absolutely terrible for the ozone layer and persists in the atmosphere for about 60 years or more. (Cancer is bad, crops are necessary as well) 2) it's almost 2,000 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.(crops and water are kind of important) 3) The byproducts produced when it's introduced into a fire are toxic.(That's not as big of a deal, The smoke is probably worse for you) It's still in use in applications where alternatives do not work well. (airplane cabin extinguishers etc) In the end the environmental effects if everyone is using it will probably cost more lives than it saves. (Especially if you can compare its effectiveness to a ABC chemical extinguisher)

[@dduck1585]

The amount of halon entering the atmosphere if it was still widely used would be minimal compared to the amount of shit China pumping into air.

[@robonaught]

This is the stupidest comment ever. If the environment gets fucked we all suffer and will die.

[@Fredengle]

@@blindsniper35 also you if thats your attitude well you won't be saving the planet it seems you would rather throw your life and others lives away to have an effect I've fire extinguisher I challenge you to answer how can we live with out an ozone layer will look forward to hearing your answer if you have one I guess halon is accept able you do know if the ozone layer is damaged it not good for life right did you not take science classes?

[@Fredengle]

Sport put wrong name in response on phone nor easy to fix

[@alecringberg8245]

when was this video originally made?

[@MarkoRandjic]

In early 80s, I guess.

[@robustreviews]

Looking at the video stock (looks like Hi-band UMatic) with attendant pretty dire audio quality coupled with a few other clues I would be inclined to guess 1984.

[@danielrichardbond]

RIP the ozone layer

[@cellokid5104]

wise words

[@ikichullo]

shut up tree hugger

[@williamackerson_chemist]

That's a waste of heptane...

[@Fredengle]

I would be hesistant to use a halon type as it is unclear to me under which conditions it may be dangerous not willing to take such a risk rather risk using water on an electrical fire water is actually not a very strong conductor

[@goodbye8995]

Depends on the voltage doesn't it?

[@Fredengle]

@@goodbye8995 HI good bye its when I have tried to research about liquids I have discovered the general rule is any liquid will conduct electricity the better scientific question is how much in science class we found out tap water is actually a weak conductors conducts mostly due to rust in pipes actually the reason water conducts is because of the mineral impurities if you boil the water and catch the steam and it turns back in to water it is now distilled and will be an even weak conductor of electricity as an example a fire extinguisher containing distilled water I think has been tested as being safe on electrical fires up to 100,000 volts also since the pattern is a mist ( fine spray type ) nozzle it further reduces the amount of electricity it conducts as compared to a solid stream so distilled water may conduct but its considered a weak enough conductor that it is safe for applinace fires and if this is for use in Your home your water mist extinguisher should be fine becuase even if you were to Subsititute the Asian Voltage that would only get you to I think 250 and in the U.S voltage is probably about 127 or less so they have Ul Listed a water mist fire extinguisher it uses distilled water as safe for electrical fires here is an example : kzbin.info/www/bejne/o4Snd42idq5-nqc

[@Eltonlaleham]

HALON NO LONGER IS BUYABLE

[@jaxrules2892]

You bought recycled halon

[@ATLTraveler]

Their slogan should be: Destroying the ozone layer, one fire at a time!!

[@cobaltpica]

the co2 is just as effective if the operator does not waste gas by not releasing the lever even after the flames have been extinguished

[@californium-2526]

Ozone hazard :)