Talk:Inco Superstack

message: According to the  article, the GRES-2 Power Station's chimney is higher than this.  Should we change the article?  I only put this on the talk page because the GRES-2 Power Station was built in 1987, so that comment should never have been put into the article.  --Gephart 08:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and went and changed the article. I couldn't find a natural place to indicate the tallest chimney, so I just linked to the World's tallest structures -- Ch'marr 15:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, this article previously stated "tallest chimney in the Western Hemisphere"; I'm not sure who changed it to the obviously wrong "tallest in the world" claim, or when. Bearcat 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taller Chimney

message: Originally posted in the See Also section by 70.30.210.205, 15 May 2006:
It is incorrect to state that before the building of the Super Stack by INCO, that Sudbury was devoid of trees in a 40 square mile radius. There were lots of trees in the City of Sudbury and the surrounding bush. In the south end of Sudbury, known as Locerby, we walked through the bush to get to school. In public school in the early sixties, my friend used to tap the maple trees for the sap.
Also, to say that there were no lawns in Sudbury is also not correct. There were certain areas of Sudbury that were barren of any vegetation but that was because of earlier mining practices. I am referring to Conistion to the east and the tailings around Copper Cliff to the west.
Sudbury had numerous hard woods as well as coniferous trees.
Someone more knowledgable than myself can tackle the argument, the edit seems more appropriate here on the talk page and definitely didn't belong where it was placed in the article.
Oneballjay 18:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissent on barrenness of local landscape

message: I did a search for SuperStack, expecting to find information on the 3Com switches, and got redirected here. This page previously had a link to the 3Com article, but P199 removed it, with the rational "3Com has a brand called "SuperStack", not "Inco Superstack", so no one will browse here by mistake looking for 3Com products."
The problem is that as long as Superstack redirects here, it's just increasing the confusion. Either the superstack redirect needs to go to a disambaugation page, or a redirect line needs to go in the top of this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.182.210 (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SuperStack

message: Due to the volume of emissions now being forced into the SO2 plant rather than up the Superstack, Inco must now burn natural gas at the base of the stack to heat the gases allowing them to rise to the top.  Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any online sources for this.  I'm leaning towards not putting this info into the article for now, however it should be noted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinRob (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found thisreference. I can personally attest to the validity of this, but the article seems to be a reliable source. I have added the note that SO2 reductions have now reached the point where there is insufficient natural draught. Natural gas and fans are now needed to force the remaining SO2 up the stack. Note that in Canada, that is the correct spelling of draught.John G Eggert (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning of Natural Gas to force emmissions up the stack