Our dear friend Chlorine (you have to admit it's catchy),
"So "Chlorine Dioxide" same effect chlorine molecule with two oxygen molecules..NaOCl "Sodium Hypochlorite" has the same effect...kills bacteria and whitens your clothes at the same time... such a bunch of hardheaded nitpickers."
Your words, coming back again, to embarass you. Sorry you want to go through this.
Well first of all, it appears you haven't tried to learn anything to alleviate your bizarre, and sadly, apparent desire to remain uninformed. I noticed you didn't respond to anything I posted. Why is that? Did you nod off after the first word with more than two syllables?
Nitpickers, people who pick lice nits off of people, usually in the hair. Are you familiar with this activity? Good luck with that.
Here's another one of your "interesting" claims:
'Anyone with any sense would have understood the context in which I used the word "Chlorine".'
Why would that be, you're wrong. Further from my point of view, anyone who hops onto a website and just starts insulting, better be able to do more than read the first part of the name of a chemical. You're really quite sad. Why wouldn't you want to learn at least a little more about something you're ingesting.
"Acidified Chlorine Dioxide just plain works for a lot of things."
Could you explain to me what "acified Chlorine Dioxide" is exactly. You know I googled it, and didn't find anything. No, it's not one of those "semantic problems" on my end. You no doubt meant to say something like "help, I don't know what I'm talking about but maybe if I keep being really rude to Catlin, no one will notice I'm almost completely ignorant about this." I'm sorry Chlorine, it didn't work.
ClO2 is created, basically (with many variations) by mixing NaClO2 (NA, btw, in chemistry, means salt) with some sort of acid. ClO2 is actually a neutral solution that either stays soluble in solution or become gas very quickly. ClO2 is extremely prone to exploding, even when in an aqueous solution, so concentrations must be kept below a certain point.
To make the point that when discussing chemistry, which is what you've just stumbled on, see below. You must be accurate with names and numbers and claims. I used Uranian as an example because you should have at least heard of it before. Here is just a quick comparison between U-235 and U-238:
"Uranium-235 is an isotope of uranium that differs from the element's other common isotope, uranium-238, by its ability to cause a rapidly expanding fission chain reaction, i.e., it is fissile. It is the only fissile isotope found in any economic quantity in nature."
"Only around 0.72% of all natural uranium is uranium-235, the rest being mostly uranium-238."
"Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years."
"Around 99.284% of natural uranium is uranium-238, which has a half-life of 1.41 × 1017 seconds (4.46 × 109 years, or 4.46 billion years)."
So, one is fissable, meaning we can cause a chain reaction and make bombs, for example. It has a half life (oh, I hope you know what that means) of 700,000 million years.
On the other hand, U-238 is not fissable (look it up I don't have all day), is much more abundant, and has a half-life of 4.46 billion years.
Now on a molectular level, they seem very similar, but those 3 extra little numbers after U make all the difference in the world.
Hmm, explosion for its own sake, or power? I guess there is a difference.
So #94191, stop with the nasty, ignorant replies, and if you want to actually learn something, all aboard.