The Incinerator #2

[Arnie M]

Thanks MsSherlock

Snoofo ... (most) of the regs have to do with pollution (smoke) and odor (burning carcases really stink) and disease (bird flu etc)

Most of this is accomplished by the secondary burner (on top) which introduces additional air and propane to completely burn the volatiles (smoke)

I have a zero emission wood burning fireplace insert that does the same .... it burns so clean there is no smoke coming from the chimney

In simple terms , these units "burn the smoke" so the only thing released into the atmosphere is hot sterile air

 

[robynhood]

I know that open fires have restructions in ONT. too...I am sure it can be looked up...fire Dept requires we get a license for even burning things in the farm land that I own behind my lot ...I was warned by my neighbor and when I called fire dept they said yes...as a fire on a farm can cause huge troubles....in fields...robynhood.....I will look it up soon and post it...robynhood.

 

[robynhood]

here is the regulations for open fires in Hamilton...http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/559F81C8-B4DA-4719-9C46-A9AF6DD181B0/0/OABFarmRevised.pdf

robynhood

 

[hopingforjustice]

For Information: Rules governing incineration of farm animals in Ontario Canada-
Incineration Source: http://canlii.org/eliisa/highlight....earchUrlHash=AAAAAQALaW5jaW5lcmF0b3IAAAAAAAAB

Incineration requirements

11. (1) In addition to complying with section 9, every operator who disposes of a dead farm animal by incinerating it shall ensure that the requirements set out in this section are satisfied. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (1).

(2) An operator must not use an incinerator to incinerate dead farm animals unless the incinerator is a type that has been issued a Verification Certificate by ETV Canada Incorporated certifying that it has a secondary chamber that is capable of maintaining the gases that enter it from the primary chamber for,

(a) at least 1 second at a temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius or higher; or

(b) at least 2 seconds at a temperature of 850 degrees Celsius or higher. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (2).

(3) An incinerator used to incinerate dead farm animals must be located at least,

(a) 30 metres from a highway;

(b) 15 metres from the lot line of the registered parcel of land on which the incinerator is located;

(c) 100 metres from every livestock housing facility, outdoor confinement area and residential structure that is located on land that is not part of the registered parcel of land on which the incinerator is located;

(d) 100 metres from the lot line of land that has an industrial or parkland use; and

(e) 200 metres from the lot line of land in a residential area and from land that has a commercial, community or institutional use. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (3).

(4) The following rules apply to the incineration of a dead farm animal in an incinerator:

1. The burner flame in the secondary chamber must be lit and operating before the burner flame in the primary chamber is lit.

2. At all times during the incineration, the temperature in the secondary chamber must be no less than the minimum temperature specified in the ETV Canada incorporated issued Verification Certificate for the type of incinerator being used.

3. All gases that enter the secondary chamber from the primary chamber must remain in the secondary chamber for,

i. at least 1 second at a temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius or higher, or

ii. at least 2 seconds at a temperature of 850 degrees Celsius or higher.

4. The dead farm animal must be incinerated until, on a visual inspection, there is no remaining,

i. soft animal tissue,

ii. bones or bone fragments larger than 15 centimetres in any dimension, and

iii. any other animal matter larger than 25 millimetres in any dimension. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (4).

(5) The maximum weight of dead farm animals that may be incinerated on a farm in each 24-hour period is 1,000 kilograms, calculated using the weight of each dead farm animal immediately before it was incinerated. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (5).

(6) If an incinerator has been used to incinerate dead farm animals, that incinerator must not be used to incinerate any other material. O. Reg. 106/09, s. 11 (6).

Just wondering (for *****s and giggles) why anyone would think that someone who is using the incinerator for reasons other than what it was designed for (because there was NO real use for it on this farm) would abide by any rules of operation?

 

[redheart]

Just wondering (for *****s and giggles) why anyone would think that someone who is using the incinerator for reasons other than what it was designed for (because there was NO real use for it on this farm) would abide by any rules of operation?

What was interesting to me was the regulation requiring the incinerator be

(c) 100 metres from every livestock housing facility, outdoor confinement area and residential structure that is located on land that is not part of the registered parcel of land on which the incinerator is located;

Of course you're right - if DM was using his incinerator, he most likely didn't care about the rules. However, that regulation indicates to me that notwithstanding the reports of how cool to the touch the incinerator is when running, it wouldn't be safe to use in an old barn full of hay despite the conspiracy theorists on here saying that the incinerator being outside is proof of DM being framed, since if he'd really been using it himself he'd have kept it hidden in the barn.

 

[Juballee]

What was interesting to me was the regulation requiring the incinerator be

Of course you're right - if DM was using his incinerator, he most likely didn't care about the rules. However, that regulation indicates to me that notwithstanding the reports of how cool to the touch the incinerator is when running, it wouldn't be safe to use in an old barn full of hay despite the conspiracy theorists on here saying that the incinerator being outside is proof of DM being framed, since if he'd really been using it himself he'd have kept it hidden in the barn.

Actually it was the truck and trailer that it is being suggested should have been hidden in the barn instead of his mother's driveway. And it is possible that if LE didn't find 54 barrels, or at least find them suspicious on two previous searches, it might be a safe bet to assume they wouldn't have found a trailer or find it to be suspicious as well. Apparently the barn would have been a great hiding place. Also, I imagine that the incinerator would eventually cool enough to remove the contents without risk of injury, so I assume it would eventually be cool enough to store or hide in the barn anyway.

 

[redheart]

Well, maybe you didn't suggest it, but others have. Read back.
The suggestion had nothing to do with where the incinerator was stored (I too think that it would have been stored in the barn) but rather where it had been used.

 

[Juballee]

Well, maybe you didn't suggest it, but others have. Read back.
The suggestion had nothing to do with where the incinerator was stored (I too think that it would have been stored in the barn) but rather where it had been used.

If I recall from the photos, the incinerator did look like it was stored indoors, it did not have the look of something that has spent a few seasons outside.

But again, I would think that LE would have checked to see if there was a spot in the barn that it looked like it had been moved from, seeing as it was the only building there. And then why didn't they see all those barrels or wonder what could be hidden under the hay? Over a hundred officers and not one suspected anything about any of the barrels? That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Archangel7]

If I recall from the photos, the incinerator did look like it was stored indoors, it did not have the look of something that has spent a few seasons outside.

But again, I would think that LE would have checked to see if there was a spot in the barn that it looked like it had been moved from, seeing as it was the only building there. And then why didn't they see all those barrels or wonder what could be hidden under the hay? Over a hundred officers and not one suspected anything about any of the barrels? That just doesn't make sense to me.

There is generally a procession of events to warrant a search warrant or almost any and every interaction between the public and LE.

It usually goes like this.......The Public has a right to not be bothered by LE without reason. That reason to interact is developed from "reasonable" suspicion" and further moves to "probable cause" which then leads to cursory interaction/stopping/detaining/arrest, etc.

Just because a LE thinks, has a gut feeling or whatever is not automatically reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Also just to be candid, the training received with the named agency is no where near good enough to allow any and all in uniform to self determine judicial prerequisites for a search warrant in this case without overwatch.IMO

 

[ArianeEmory]

There is generally a procession of events to warrant a search warrant or almost any and every interaction between the public and LE.

It usually goes like this.......The Public has a right to not be bothered by LE without reason. That reason to interact is developed from "reasonable" suspicion" and further moves to "probable cause" which then leads to cursory interaction/stopping/detaining/arrest, etc.

Just because a LE thinks, has a gut feeling or whatever is not automatically reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Also just to be candid, the training received with the named agency is no where near good enough to allow any and all in uniform to self determine judicial prerequisites for a search warrant in this case without overwatch.IMO

I really appreciate the fact that you are willing to explain this as many times as necessary.

 

[Alethea Dice]

What was interesting to me was the regulation requiring the incinerator be

Of course you're right - if DM was using his incinerator, he most likely didn't care about the rules. However, that regulation indicates to me that notwithstanding the reports of how cool to the touch the incinerator is when running, it wouldn't be safe to use in an old barn full of hay despite the conspiracy theorists on here saying that the incinerator being outside is proof of DM being framed, since if he'd really been using it himself he'd have kept it hidden in the barn.

Not that I think he would use it in the barn anyway, but I believe that regulation is in regards to gases/odor/smoke, not how hot it runs.

JMO

 

[Archangel7]

If it had some type flame/spark arresting capability or simply operated that way, I see no significant risk from the stack/exhaust. It was mounted on a trailer/refractory lined so logically there would seem to be no peripheral risk of radiating extreme heat in that regard.

The issue with furnaces/incinerators is the fact they are an ignition source and during operation induce a draft for oxygen or force a draft for excess oxygen in order to burn properly. Thus any flammable vapor/particulate present in the enclosed environment would be drawn into the flame and then "flash back" to the flammable origin.

 

[skatergirl]

Going back to photos of the incinerator, it looked like it was in very good condition and didn't appear to have been stored outdoors for almost a year. That leads me to believe it may have been kept inside the barn or garage area. Is it possible that it had been used a year ago and ash from it was found somewhere inside the barn? Wish those observant neighbours AKA "pesky trespassers" had provided a bit more info with the photo- like if it had always been out in the bush area and just moved to a different spot.

Blomquist Blomquist is offline
On Time Out

Yes I know a lot of country folk myself and they could find a use for an incinerator...... and thats good enough for me..

As for myself. I wish I had one...especially on days when garbage collection comes days late after a long weekend..... the heat and the flies make for some vile maggots if left too long.....just sayin '

I expect quite a few people would like one if they could afford it..... I mean its a glorified wood stove really....imo

BBM
I bought a house, a few years ago, which had a woodstove that the previous owners had installed only the previous winter before I purchased the home. I am not much for the idea of a woodstove to heat my home, so I removed it after taking possession, and with all other reno's I was undertaking, the woodstove ended up sitting outside for the winter, and into the following fall/ winter I had a neighbour stop and ask if I would want to sell it, I was able to get a very good price for it as it was still in the same condition as it had been when I removed it, even after a winter of use by the previous owner and a whole year of sitting outside in snow, rain, summer sun and so on. IMO, these types of 'stoves/incinerators' are intended to withstand extreme temperatures, and a year of sitting outside is not going to deteriorate the 'stove', glorified or otherwise

 

[Arnie M]

Upon reflection I (we) see the condition of DM's incinerator as "clean and new" .... based on one photograph taken (presumably) by a neighbor ..... now I am thinking the photo could have been taken months earlier and not necessarily ... "at the time of the crime" .... maybe even as far back as the previous July when it was delivered.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Upon reflection I (we) see the condition of DM's incinerator as "clean and new" .... based on one photograph taken (presumably) by a neighbor ..... now I am thinking the photo could have been taken months earlier and not necessarily ... "at the time of the crime" .... maybe even as far back as the previous July when it was delivered.

IIRC the picture was taken the Friday DM was arrested.

 

[Archangel7]

Typically wouldn't any wear from improper treatment or storage show more so on the inside than outside. Especially with regard to firebrick/Kaowool/castable refractory?

I would guess it has castable refractory since it's portable. Fire bricks might be harder to keep permanently in place over rough terrain during the life of the incinerator.

Refractory overall doesn't react well to moisture wrt how the moisture vacates the refractory on heating(read cracks and falls out).

It would make sense to keep it inside, however, if DM was in the know, he could keep it outside with a tarp and not damage it upon using it.

 

[swedie]

With the latest discovery of all the drums stored in the barn, and the incinerator. I really ponder; did WM's frugal ways brush off on DM? Did DM purchase the incinerator in hopes of burning off all those chemicals in the drums? Maybe WM was the one who purchased the incinerator as he was still alive July 2012 when it was ordered. Pretty expensive way to dispose of the chemicals IMO. Of course unless it was meant to be used for many years to come.

Was this DM and WM's plan? Purchase the incinerator, transport the old chemicals to the farmland and then dispose of them in the incinerator? Did they discover after the fact their plan was nonproductive as the chemicals leaked from the incinerator through the hatch? Could this be why there were numerous drums still stored in the barn because their intended plan wasn't feasible?

With the burnt marks on the ground in the field where the neighbour reported seeing the incinerator earlier (Friday), I am believing DM and MS poured chemicals from one of the drums into the incinerator with TB, as an accelerate instead of using the propane (possibly out of propane), and this was why TB's body was not reduced to mere ashes. The chemicals burning alone, did not produce enough heat. Maybe those two scorched areas were not scorch marks at all, but chemicals used from one of the drums leaked out of the incinerator leaving the impression of scorch marks.

If LB suffered the same fate, I highly doubt forensics were able to find any of her DNA within the incinerator as the chemicals used (if they were used) would obliterate any trace of DNA. If she was not burnt completely, I hope LE make another visit to the farmland and start digging up other areas of the farmland. Maybe back in the swampy area. I wonder if the digging LE did the first time on the property was within the area were the Bobcat was when the neighbour took a picture of it (in winter stuck in mud). I will not be surprised to see LE make more visits to the farmland. ALL JMO and theory.

 

[Variant]

With the latest discovery of all the drums stored in the barn, and the incinerator. I really ponder; did WM's frugal ways brush off on DM? Did DM purchase the incinerator in hopes of burning off all those chemicals in the drums? Maybe WM was the one who purchased the incinerator as he was still alive July 2012 when it was ordered. Pretty expensive way to dispose of the chemicals IMO. Of course unless it was meant to be used for many years to come.

Was this DM and WM's plan? Purchase the incinerator, transport the old chemicals to the farmland and then dispose of them in the incinerator? Did they discover after the fact their plan was nonproductive as the chemicals leaked from the incinerator through the hatch? Could this be why there were numerous drums still stored in the barn because their intended plan wasn't feasible?

With the burnt marks on the ground in the field where the neighbour reported seeing the incinerator earlier (Friday), I am believing DM and MS poured chemicals from one of the drums into the incinerator with TB, as an accelerate instead of using the propane (possibly out of propane), and this was why TB's body was not reduced to mere ashes. The chemicals burning alone, did not produce enough heat. Maybe those two scorched areas were not scorch marks at all, but chemicals used from one of the drums leaked out of the incinerator leaving the impression of scorch marks.

If LB suffered the same fate, I highly doubt forensics were able to find any of her DNA within the incinerator as the chemicals used (if they were used) would obliterate any trace of DNA. If she was not burnt completely, I hope LE make another visit to the farmland and start digging up other areas of the farmland. Maybe back in the swampy area. I wonder if the digging LE did the first time on the property was within the area were the Bobcat was when the neighbour took a picture of it (in winter stuck in mud). I will not be surprised to see LE make more visits to the farmland. ALL JMO and theory.

The incinerator would be a messy, dangerous and time-consuming way of disposing of the barrel contents. I think DM bought it with other plans in mind.

 

[swedie]

Brought over from the New Search thread. Matou, were you able to find the link with that information regarding fuels which could be used in it? I was just interested to read it considering my last theory possibly WM and DM purchased the incinerator to burn off these drums of chemicals found in the barn. Did they (whomever purchased it) question the sales rep if it was possible to burn chemicals in it? Did they suggest to the sales rep this was their intention with the incinerator? MOO.

"We have additional air that other incinerators don't have. That means less smoke. We're also the only thing on the market that bottom burns," said Massey.
Bottom burning means that the grease produced from animal carcasses as they burn won't have to be removed as waste. The grease falls into the fire giving it more fuel and allowing it to burn hotter.
"The grease from the chickens becomes fire -- it becomes energy. We're turning that grease into fuel," said Massey

http://www.alabamapoultry.org/magazine/sept2002/page12.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by bessie View Post
Okay, now I am totally a city chick, and even I know airplane fuel is not commonly found on farms. So why the heck was it stored in the barn? Or, are these discarded, empty barrels?
Answer by Matou.
I think it was for the incinerator. I seem to remember something about the purchase of the incinerator and the seller was questioned about the type of fuel that could be used with it. I'll look for a link.

 

[Murphys_Law]

The contents of the barrels are known only to the police, the persons who concealed the barrels and perhaps a few others. While the police have stated that the barrels are not relevant to the LB case, they remain relevant IMO. The vast resources deployed to inspect and recover the barrels is seldom seen outside a major drug bust. All my opinion of course.