Cheney to Congress- "You want energy docs? Bite me."

Post #3,935 by DonRichards 8/6/01 8:49:22 AM Reply	Cheney to Congress- "You want energy docs? Bite me." Congress got no business knowing who said what on energy plan. [link\|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Cheney010803_letter.html\|[link\|http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Cheney010803_letter.html\|http://abcnews.go.c..._letter.html]] "When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
Post #3,949 by bepatient 8/6/01 11:08:32 AM Reply	And he's right. First, the member of the House that requested the docs should've asked himself. Instead, he was a chickens*t and sent the GAO after them...and the GAO has absolutely NO business requesting backup to policy documents...they can audit programs all they like...but instead they're asking for internal memos and correspondence of the Exec branch. Can you say, overstepping your bounds? Besides...most of these issues were reversals of Clinton policy decisions made in the final days of his admin...and most of the people they affected were damn pissed of that they were made. But they make good news...of course...since Bush is going to single handedly destroy the environment. mhm. yeah. sure. Um...er...well... I have no choice!* [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #3,952 by mmoffitt 8/6/01 11:40:05 AM Reply	Huh? "most of these issues were reversals of Clinton policy decisions made in the final days of his admin...and most of the people they affected were damn pissed of that they were made" You know people who actually wanted MORE poison in their water?
Post #3,954 by boxley 8/6/01 11:57:07 AM Reply	ya mean like floride? :) Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #3,956 by bepatient 8/6/01 12:17:23 PM Reply	I know of lots of communities ..who supported lowering the standard..but not by 80%. The number was unsupported...and done at the last minute by Clinton. The move affects small communities the hardest at a cost of about 1.5 billion to implement. If it was THAT important and THAT popular a decision...why did he wait to do it on his way out the door? I'm all for lowering the standard. But let's base it on something other than political whim, shall we? A whim that costs billions to implement and 600 million per year to maintain...all borne by communities serving less than 10000 water customers...at an average cost of about $250 per family per year...in communities where poverty is an issue and the tax base cannot support it. BUT...the new standard didn't really cover funding...so the EPA had to shoestring funding that took away from the other work that they need to accomplish. The base was 10 ppb...if a community was at 12...it costs the exact same to clean as one where it was 49. How about a phased approach...where the initial effort will be in those communities that really need it? Nah...telling everybody that Bush wants to kill your children makes better press. So...he's killin babies, Caribou. Might as well just drop a nuke and get it overwith in a hurry...since we know all of the environmentalists base their arguments on such solid science. That science that brought us wax paper Mcdonalds sandwich wraps that take longer to biodegrade than alsmost any other trash...done because McD was afraid of a boycott...even after the styrofoam industry had offered to PAY to establish a national recycling program. Nah...better to fill landfills with paper that will biodegrade when Kirk takes over the Enterprise than to actually use a recyclable plastic...it makes SOO much more sense. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,021 by jb4 8/7/01 9:59:37 AM Reply	My, we ARE shrill, aren't we? Its one of the more annoying aspects of listing to conservative zealots, if you ask me (or even if you don't...). Nah...telling everybody that Bush wants to kill your children makes better press. So...he's killin babies, Caribou. Now that we've gotten that small bit of emotional bluster out of the way, we can actually get to some of the "solid science" you blurt about. There are two new technologies that can achieve at least 10 ppb arsenic. These include: [link\|http://www.crca.asn.au/about_crcs/successes.htm\| A UV-triggered photo-oxidation process developed by the australian company CRC] (not related to our CRC (as far as I know, anyway...) [link\|http://amarillonet.com/stories/030201/usn_arsenic.shtml\|A laterite filtering system developed by a professor at my alma mater] While this is a small-scale system, work is under way to scale it up to handle community-level scales. Both these systems are not the "billions to implement and 600 million per year to maintain" system that you so frothingly blather about. Indeed, an individual laterite filter system can be put together for between $10 and $25 (and that includes the cost of the plastic bucket). Nah...telling everybody that everybody in the country is going to have to pay an additional $250 makes better press.... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,027 by addison 8/7/01 10:15:36 AM Reply	Do me a favor, then. Indeed, an individual laterite filter system can be put together for between $10 and $25 (and that includes the cost of the plastic bucket). Instead of just telling us that the math is wrong, would you mind building said system for your water supply, and then letting us know what the final cost turns out to be? Addison
Post #4,037 by wharris2 8/7/01 10:55:13 AM Reply	Work is underway? But the laterite system isn't viable yet, so why mention it in the context of low-cost arsenic reduction? Ramping it up to community sized processes isn't necessarily going to be cheap or result in an inexpensive process in the end. And... Using either artificial UV light or natural sunlight, the process can achieve the World Health Organisation?s recommended limit of 10 parts per billion of arsenic in water. The technology was successfully demonstrated for the US Environmental Protection Agency. I work with computers every day. I know about demos. I'd be more interested in seeing where it has actually been deployed and the costs associated with it. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #4,045 by bepatient 8/7/01 11:55:37 AM Reply	ROFL Both these systems are not the "billions to implement and 600 million per year to maintain" system that you so frothingly blather about. Indeed, an individual laterite filter system can be put together for between $10 and $25 (and that includes the cost of the plastic bucket). Whoopdeedoo for your alma mater. Unfortunately I don't think that the epa would approve of a state approved water board telling all of its users to strap a bucket onto their sink. The numbers I gave were NOT Bush numbers. You just can't seem to grasp the fact that it was a poorly thought out passage of a standard that has no basis in fact and absolutely no concern for the economic reality of the situation. AFAIC, Clinton passed it so that Bush would have to rescind it and take the politcal black eye. So for Clinton, job well done. [link\|http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/treat.html\|EPA document on arsenic removal] The most effective conventional treatment for the removal of arsenic from water appears to be manganese greensand filters, which may be capable of reducing arsenic concentrations in water to about 0.025 milligrams per litre. This method is considered to be the most practical method for the removal of arsenic by water treatment plants in small communities. Other conventional methods, such as alum and ferric sulphate coagulation and lime softening, are less effective. Special processes, such as activated alumina and reverse osmosis, are the most effective methods, but they work only with proper pretreatment of the water supply and are not practical for small communities. From [link\|http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ehp/ehd/catalogue/general/iyh/arsenic.htm\|here] [link\|http://www.familyhealthnews.com/16.html\| Anyone want to guess] who raised acceptable fluoride levels? Do you know they use sodium fluoride to do it? Do you know that sf is rat poison? And [link\|http://www.awwarf.com/research/as_mcl.htm\| a good read on the significant cost of lower arsenic in water treatment]. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,047 by boxley 8/7/01 12:00:28 PM 8/7/01 12:05:39 PM Reply	know all I need to know about floride my sister inlaw almost died and her brother did die because of an oops in the water supply. That proponants all say it is beneficial. Yup just tell that to his kids. [link\|http://www.fluoridealert.org/hooper-bay.htm\|http://www.fluoride...oper-bay.htm] government is here to help you thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk Edited by boxley Aug. 7, 2001, 12:05:39 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #4,061 by jb4 8/7/01 1:50:40 PM Reply	Whoopdedoo yerself! Whoopdeedoo for your alma mater. Unfortunately I don't think that the epa would approve of a state approved water board telling all of its users to strap a bucket onto their sink. If I were to live in an area where my only source of drinking water were arsenic-contaminated, you can be damn well sure I would "strap a bucket onto [my] sink", and I'd lead the charge for my neighbors to do the same, posthaste! And so would you, bigmouth! You just can't seem to grasp the fact that it was a poorly thought out passage of a standard that has no basis in fact and absolutely no concern for the economic reality of the situation. And you just can't seem to grasp that the only argument that you can muster against strict standards against a known poison and carcinogen - an economic argument sheesh...how petty! - has been overtaken by events. So, Be, if there is no longer an economic disincentive to removing this particular carcingen from our drinking water, what will you think of next? jb4 (Enquiring minds want to know...)
Post #4,078 by addison 8/7/01 3:21:17 PM Reply	At some point, it always comes down to economics. Failing to know/realize that is a huge problem. And you just can't seem to grasp that the only argument that you can muster against strict standards against a known poison and carcinogen We don't live in a sterile bubble. You consume poisions and carcinogens every day. Have hundreds of cancer cells. Experience hard radiation (more if you go outside). So when you look at that, you have to figure out the difference. If 200 micro-units and 400 micro-units have essentially the SAME EFFECT, why try and take out the extra 200, if its not cheap to do so? Sometimes it is. Oxygen, for instance. All oxygen that's produced today is to "aviation standards" (stricter than medicinal, even). Why? Because its just as cheap and easy to do that as any other process, so everybody just makes it the "cheap, good" way. But that's not always the case. At some point you always have to say "that's good enough". Because the time and money you're spending there are BETTER spent elsewhere. So you get arsenic out of the water and have coal dust in the air.... Is that a win? (It depends). So, Be, if there is no longer an economic disincentive to removing this particular carcingen from our drinking water, what will you think of next? I'm not sure that that's the case at all. Until you've set up the system, and discovered all the costs (and amazingly, there usually are some "gotchas" in there somewhere), then its hard to smugly say 'Well, this is cheaper'. Addison
Post #4,175 by jb4 8/8/01 9:46:54 AM Reply	Reading comprehension IS a skill So you get arsenic out of the water and have coal dust in the air.... Coal dust? COAL DUST?!? Where in the world did THAT non-sequitir come from??? I like discussing things with you, Ad, as in general you tend to address the issues (and occasionally enlighten me in the process). I agree that there is a concept of "good enough", and that the concept should..no, must be considered in such things as toxicity and its concomittant eradication. But try to stay on-topic, OK? Yes, I know it's easy to get swept up in missionary zeal (like your friend Be occasionally does). But this group is generally intelligent enough to recognize a Red Herring when it sees one (and I'm not talking about the magazine, either ;-) ), and inserting one into your argument reduces it to the level of dismissable blather. jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,207 by addison 8/8/01 11:42:43 AM Reply	..That you're lacking. Coal dust? COAL DUST?!? Where in the world did THAT non-sequitir come from??? I think its quite obvious. Especially for one insinuating of his superior [intellect] comprehension. It was an example. So you reduce X, and now you have no money to deal with Y. Tradeoffs. Simple enough concept. I just picked coal dust as one (as can be rather big problem). But try to stay on-topic, OK? I was. So you spend the money to get arsenic in the water to some (apparently arbitrary) level, and what do you not have available anymore? And you know, re-reading my post, I think its pretty obvious that its an example for you. But of course, that requires reading comprehension. I agree that there is a concept of "good enough", and that the concept should..no, must be considered in such things as toxicity and its concomittant eradication. That seems to have been lacking in prior posts, but I am glad to hear that. Addison
Post #4,210 by bepatient 8/8/01 11:47:03 AM Reply	So... ...why don't we then stick to the fact that your arguing about removal of a natural occurring water contaminant...while at the same time ignoring the fact that an equally poisonous substance is being ADDED so kids won't get cavities (at least they'll die with pretty teeth) AND...you seem to propose that it should be done AT ANY EXPENSE...which is easy for you to say...unless of course you happen to be one of the folks that has to pay the 1.5 million per well capital and 500k per year maintenance....borne largely by communities with UNDER 10,000 customers...DO THE MATH. And these are communites UNDER 40ppb with no scientific justification that 10ppb is any better...and some of these communities are operating in the teen level...but the expense is the same. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,401 by jb4 8/9/01 2:03:16 PM Reply	Like I said: Reading Comprehension IS a skill... AND...you seem to propose that it should be done AT ANY EXPENSE...which is easy for you to say.[...] No, that's not at all what I said, and you bloody well know it, Red Herring Boy. What I said (on several occasions) was that your numbers are basically bullshit, that there are several newer technologies that have been shown to be substantially cheaper than those highly inflated numbers you seem to be so fond of conjuring up. "substantially cheaper" != "AT ANY EXPENSE" Got it? Good! Now can we continue...? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,407 by wharris2 8/9/01 2:45:48 PM Reply	And then you posted a link to a site with two technologies with no reference of ever being deployed for a large-scale water treatment plant. Speaking of straw, you're growing lots of it. French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
Post #4,416 by bepatient 8/9/01 3:11:31 PM Reply	And reality is a bitch The numbers are straight from the EPA analysis of the cost to implement this program. Too bad for you they don't recognize your "substantially cheaper" and completely untested at scale technologies as acceptable solutions...and unfortunately for you...and your argument...these locals are FORCED to stick with technologies recognized and approved by the government. Oh well... Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,442 by Ashton 8/9/01 8:16:52 PM Reply	I'm sure that proves that further research could show no significant chance of these methods' scalability. So let's go with the convenient numbers we can already conjure. Didn't realize that, like M$ 60M lines of code, these 'solutions'.. spring full-blown into the first draft, like a Mozart Mass. University didn't quiiite have the funds to build a pilot plant. So: nope, it's NG. Like the first Wright Flyer wing-warp. Sheesh! What are ya Bill, a Numerologist? A.
Post #4,473 by bepatient 8/9/01 11:18:45 PM Reply	Further research... ...wouldn't help those localities that would have had to implement those systems now...at the costs given in my posts. Maybe 5 years from now my numbers will be all wrong. Right now...unfortunately...they're not. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,478 by Ashton 8/10/01 12:03:16 AM Reply	Will agree: no remedy for punctilious bureaucracy exists..
Post #4,085 by bepatient 8/7/01 4:24:09 PM 8/7/01 4:26:22 PM Reply	And still... you argue that reducing a known carcinogen and poison (not eliminating) is a HUGE deal...even though it is a naturally occurring known carcinogen and poison and nobody can tell you if 40ppb is worse than 10ppb... and at the same time double the amount of rat poison put in the water...and peacefully ignore the fact that the AMA is lobbying to TRIPLE it again because it has the nice side benefit that the kids won't get as many cavities. And they are ADDING this to the water...no natural occurrence going on here. And STILL you ignore the fact that the legislation didn't care and didn't allow for "close"...and didn't offer assistance to areas that just plain couldn't afford to do it. And, unfortunately for you, somebody has to pay for all of this stuff. Sorry you don't seem to understand that the "real world" works that way. Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient Aug. 7, 2001, 04:26:22 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #4,122 by a6l6e6x 8/7/01 8:48:03 PM 8/7/01 8:49:16 PM Reply	Arsenic may not be all bad. It may in fact be an essential nutrient! "Some studies have suggested that inorganic arsenic is an essential nutrient in goats, chicks, mini pigs, and rats. However, no comparable data are available for humans." This is from an [link\|http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/hlthef/arsenic.html\|EPA report.] So, maybe before too long, there will be a recommended minimum arsenic content in drinking water. Incidentally, do you have a deck made of treated lumber? What do you suppose they treat the lumber with? Yep, arsenic. Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) Edited by a6l6e6x Aug. 7, 2001, 08:49:16 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #4,123 by boxley 8/7/01 8:51:52 PM Reply	kfc secret ingredient as well as tobacco Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,132 by admin 8/7/01 9:29:32 PM Reply	Treated lumber If you build raised vegetable gardens, make sure you use untreated lumber for exactly that reason. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #4,177 by jb4 8/8/01 9:50:59 AM Reply	Have seen this, too In reading up on the laterite filter, there were other articles that indicated that there are (IIRC) two "main" categories of arsenic, and that inorganic arsenic is probably not harmful (exzcept in large quantities, and may even be beneficial in trace amounts. The other category (organic arsenic?) is, hwever more prevalent, and substantially more dangerous. If I have the time, I'll try to track down links... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,178 by jb4 8/8/01 9:51:54 AM Reply	BTW, I don't drink my deck! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,284 by a6l6e6x 8/8/01 5:14:41 PM Reply	Re: BTW, I don't drink my deck! Ever drop food on the deck floor? Ever lick your fingers, perhaps before turning a page, after holding the handrails? You think maybe the rain will leach some arsenic out on to the ground below? Maybe to feed the tomatoes you planted next to the deck. Alex Only two things are certain: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not certain about the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Post #4,403 by jb4 8/9/01 2:13:50 PM Reply	No, No, and No Up to now, we don't eat on the deck, and we also don't believe in the 5 Second Rule. Our deck doesn't have handrails. (they block our cats' view of the back yard). We don't grow Tamatas. I guess we're safe, then? jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,086 by Ashton 8/7/01 4:34:40 PM Reply	Hey BP, speakin of throwaway cant phrases du jour.. Anyone want to guess who raised acceptable fluoride levels? Do you know they use sodium fluoride to do it? Do you know that sf is rat poison? [Hey too - how's come my blockquotes don't get pretty blue vertical lines too?] Anyway - Lots of substances can "poison rats" - in sufficiently humongous quantites. Ya can also drown rats: Oooooh! water / poison. Hell, the John Birch Society replaced their Impeach Earl Warren slogan (a decade or so after he died - after all they Are Conservative. Wouldn't wanna act.. precipitously) with: n-variations on, they're poisoning yer Cheeldrun! (There's even a cob-webbed American Opinion bookstore in bucolic Santa Rosa, which I pass frequently. Once I saw someone other than the proprietor inside. Come to think of it: he's always in the same spot.. hmm - have to look reel close next time. He may have died and been mummified. Save the salary of a clerk (?)) BTW - Chlorine is more ubiquitous than Fluorine. Same halide group y'know? along with Bromine, Iodine and er Astatine. Cl is fucking everywhere and guess what: For a typically damaged immune system in sedentary junk-fed Muricans - one repeatedly assaulted by aerosol sprays, countless organic solvents, Mc Fatburgers and regular drugstore OTC (+ Pharm-Chem Rx du jour) DRUGS - Cl is also . . . wait for this Shocking News . . . a carcinogen. Face it, Bee Pee: 'Cancer' IS the most popular disease! in a culture which worships unlimited Growth. It is the ultimate Cosmic Poetic Justice\ufffd that: OUR er 'LIFESTYLE' / pop-religions, ever so preoccupied with 'deathstyle' (that there Hereafter thingie) CAUSES Cancer !!! (ya don't need no steenkin NaF to blame, however much that idea livens up those suburban kaffee klatches) Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
Post #4,096 by bepatient 8/7/01 5:21:55 PM Reply	No Ash... sodium fluoride really was used as rat poision. Now they've advanced some on the rat poison front and use anticoagulants So sodium fluoride's primary uses have become toothpaste, water supplies and cockroach killer. We need more of that. I understand that chlorine is not high on anyones list. The carcinogenic aspect is likely to be the tihalomethane's which are biproducts of chlorination and are filterable. Still... The point is that a huge stink is made about arsenic contamination that effects less than 5% of the population, yet something like fluorination effects 75% of the water supply and its only real benefit is fewer cavities (how bout we get the kids to stop eating candy and...gasp...brush their teeth) weighed against the fact that it is a registered poison and is cumulative in tissue. So lets get to the real issue. The arsenic contamination is NOT as pressing an issue as its being made out to be. IF IT WAS, do you think that Bill C would have made an 11th hour decision and slid it under the door? Hell no. He would have milked the PR for all it was worth. It was done to set a political boobytrap and NOT to "help the cheeldrun". Is that plain enough? Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #4,099 by Fearless Freep 8/7/01 5:30:08 PM Reply	Re: No Ash... yet something like fluorination effects 75% of the water supply and its only real benefit is fewer cavities That was only a suspected causal relationship based on study of primitive people with good teeth and a corresponding high level of natural floridation in the local water. However, it's now suspected that that wasn't the cause. In fact, flouride is starting to be linked with some forms of mental illness One reason we go to dentists that don't use flouride and drink bottled water and use non-flouride toothpaste Jay O'Connor "Going places unmapped to do things unplanned to people unsuspecting"
Post #4,108 by Ashton 8/7/01 6:34:50 PM Reply	I'll buy the As argument.. just a tiny bit. That is - that there is hardly any 'knowledge' of what "safe levels" might mean, for most of the substances we are exposed to daily. Now. You also have to also remember: The arguments pooh-poohing radiation, talking about 'acceptably small' levels of radioactive contamination. Now this IS a vastly complex topic, having to do with human ingestion, where isotopes lodge, kind and energy of emitter, half-life yada yada.. yet, Until a Large Stink was raised by One scientist, George ____ IIRC in early '60s: it was fashionable to apply "common sense rulez" / vast oversimplifications. Pooh-poohing being ever so popular, cause it saves so much hard work to check. Finally - there are literally millions of substances now virtually everywhere (showing up in the Arctic even!), which never existed before the mass-manufacture of any old chemical combo some marketer thought might turn a profit. At least currently - we do make a few tests. But the prospect of immediate profit is always the major force. 20 years later, is in the minds of a precious few, who are never also rich. Given the impossibility of dealing with this Pandora's box in any clear way - it is always safe to say that we know too damn little about most, especially about effects of trace amounts long-term. So now we have to focus upon the merely apparently.. rilly egregious ones.. out of the river flowing by. Thus you can always say - any 'standard' is far likelier to be incompetent + OR - easily. And as to above As 'problem' - it's surely aggravated as 'newsfotainment' by the obvious association as poison. And no one Does Know what 10 VS 50 \ufffdgms/liter means. Like NaF - a cheap convenient rat-poison perhaps: Are you prepared to defend the idea that, it is / was near the most effective ever found VS - it was simply cheap to make? thus boost the packaging cost on up (as with bicarbonate of soda! notice lately what 1.2 \ufffd worth of that sells for, in the familiar yellow Corporate box?) And it will Still be a Red Herring to try to make the NaF association you and the Birch-boys make - disingenuous at best. I have 15 grains of scopolamine hydrobromide too.. enough to do in a homo-sap, pretty untraceably even. In smaller quantity - a popular anti-nausea nostrum for ages; in other dosage - help or hurt the nervous system in certain contexts. Ditto curare - actually used in some operations. Ditto cocaine HCl - still often preferred in certain eye surgeries. That bat won't fly.. it's cant, except in a Lot of context. Like I said. ashton
Post #4,126 by boxley 8/7/01 8:56:56 PM Reply	what is the loss of life due to banning ddt? malaria, sleeping sickness, typhoid cholera and a pile of other deaths linked to insect transmission that ddt quickly effectively decimated and yes was found in the arctic but the cost of banning isnt always measured in dollars. What is the acceptable human cost in using poison or not. 1 a million? thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,133 by Ashton 8/7/01 9:31:13 PM Reply	Precisely the kind of question which homo-sap mangles horribly - since wisdom is required to approach any sane weighing of (even the known..) factors, facts, aspects -- guesses. And in my experience thus far, the concept of Bizness and that of wisdom create an oxymoron when used in any sentence. And even taking the DDT web of sticky consequences - it's far from anything a slogan can answer. Want contradictions? Look at Thalidomide - taken as directed by women suffering nausea during pregnancy: deformities. Now today - some other uses, perhaps significant ones, appear to have been discovered. When you trot out these blanket generalizations (yes - some self-named ecologists Are whores. Now about the entire Idea!?) -- or drop in the DDT as if: banning it must have been stupid because _____. I don't buy it. By now we have probably lost (??) most any remaining chance of sane protection.. of the very biosphere. Few appear to actually 'get' how interdependent are all the species including: ours. Even yet, though they've heard the words. And we know why - hard choices are almost Always resolved for the quick buck, the quarterly return - the pandering to little boys' fantasies of Rugged Off-road Behemoths: no matter what the obvious consequences are, of.. a lot more than mere gasoline usage: All the chemicals, energy used to manufacture, ship, later junk that boy toy, so often used to run to the 7-11; so rarely used to bust up the tundra (fortunately!) - just because it is there to be busted up by spoiled brats too bored to do anything but 'move' something to.... somewhere else. I'll vote with over-reacting to plausible further enviro- atrocities -- as a small counter to our juvenile and self-indulgent approaches, to date. Ditto with DDT. Thalidomide is OK -- precisely where it really IS OK. (SUVs/UAVs OTOH are pure indulgence. A 7300# Ford Explorer? QED) A.
Post #4,135 by admin 8/7/01 9:35:49 PM Reply	Pure indulgence? No. My father's Explorer is a necessary piece of equipment on his farm in Northern Michigan. Lots of snow, lots of work to do. My minivan is a necessary piece of equipment. Often we have way too much stuff to fit in a car. I've used it for carrying drywall, lumber, and a myriad of other large things. Yuppies running around in SUVs, wearing furs to the supermarket and getting their drives plowed in the winter, yes, they are indulgences. But I could have used one many times this past winter. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #4,141 by Ashton 8/7/01 10:10:37 PM Reply	Of course! legitimate need for... 10% of them ? ..a generous estimate? This Just In: A new, slightly smaller Humm-Vee in the works. For those who can't quite pay the $78K for the Real Thing. My objection is to the herd mentality which lies behind their ugly popularity. (And No One needs a $50K+ Mercedes UAV for any conceivable 'job'. Wants? Yes.) Of course you can't 'legislate' against the actions of herds, except perhaps by finding a way to bill each for the er 'truer cost' of the indulgence. Like making CAFE more than a forgotten slogan of yore. Guzzler tax with teeth. Insolence tax? Not if the item is Popular = lose votes. Which leaves us ___ A. PS - I bet that few realize how well the similarly-priced hybrid cars Go! With max torque (like the steam engine) at 0 rpm for the motor + gas engine, as that levels off: integrated power delivery means - It Moves. All we have to do is get a few Alpha-males to start trading-in for 'em.. the herd will follow. Hey donate one to me and I'll gladly show it around.. :-\ufffd
Post #4,144 by boxley 8/7/01 10:49:32 PM 8/7/01 10:52:54 PM Reply	shoot if a bank was ever stupid enough to lend me money I would be in one of the new honda hybrids in a heartbeat. With my financial condition it will be a 2 year roll my own project perhaps using a 1987 k car from cryco-dodge even better drive a turbine with hydrolic motors on each wheel, afriend of mine developed this technology(waiting on patent) that would simply spin 4 motors on each wheel at a measured for torque rate. Picture a helicopter rotor effect attached to all 4 wheels. Off to 60 right fscking now. thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk Edited by boxley Aug. 7, 2001, 10:52:54 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #5,685 by CRConrad 8/17/01 5:39:30 PM Reply	Sorry - Swedish Defence Research developed that in the 60's. See [link\|http://www.granfoss.net/arne/k100e/bilar/carmakes/k1cafoa.htm\|[link\|http://www.granfoss.net/arne/k100e/bilar/carmakes/k1cafoa.htm\|http://www.granfoss.../k1cafoa.htm]][]. At least as far as I know, it has hydraulic (sic) motors not only articulating, but also driving, each wheel. If I've got this wrong, then I* was probably still before him, since in the late 70's (AFAICR), I "developed" -- based upon the possible misunderstanding above (and also on the Lohner-Porsche system I've mentioned here before) -- cars and lorries using hydraulic motors driving each wheel. And if that "doesn't count" (since it was only in my head), then lumber machines and dumper trucks (at least ones from Volvo) use the same system. As does the Bofors "model 77" semi-self-propelled howitzer, come to think of it. So if your friend gets a patent on it... Then that only goes to prove how fucked-up your patent system is. []: It's a direct link to a sub-page of a framed site; the main page is at [link\|http://www.granfoss.net/arne/k100e/bilar/\|[link\|http://www.granfoss.net/arne/k100e/bilar/\|http://www.granfoss...k100e/bilar/]]. (I especially liked the tractor-trailer combo from Kalmar Verkstad -- scroll down to 'K' in the left-hand manufacturer listing.) Christian R. Conrad* The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #5,699 by boxley 8/17/01 6:32:44 PM Reply	you rat bassard! now I have to stop what I am doing and go thru every one of those links! Thanks! bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,180 by jb4 8/8/01 10:00:05 AM Reply	OK, then...Someone explain to me the Cadillac Esplanade... ...as something other than pure arrogant indulgence. I'm waiting.... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,185 by boxley 8/8/01 10:18:36 AM Reply	market share of the navigator :) In the town were I live there is a divorce going on where the husband requires 2k a month for dining out purposes and they ar fighting over the custody of their 17 polo horses. People like that cannot afford to be seen in a mere Expedition, gawd what would the neighbors think? thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,263 by admin 8/8/01 4:16:04 PM Reply	Didn't say it wasn't. But Ashton was damning all SUVs with the same wide brush. :-) Regards, -scott anderson
Post #4,282 by Ashton 8/8/01 5:04:37 PM Reply	Nahhh... just the 90%.
Post #4,136 by bepatient 8/7/01 9:41:12 PM Reply	Enviro-atrocities? Arsenic occurs naturally in water. Certainly some activities may aggravate the problem...most notably mining...but it is a natural phenomenon. the NaF "red herring" is generally NOT a natural occurrence. Absolutely not natural at the levels we inject. So which is the atrocity? Chlorination is another issue...because there hasn't been a disinfection method persistent enough to carry the water through distribution. That is definitely a problem of "at what cost" Um...er...well... I have no choice! [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #5,686 by CRConrad 8/17/01 5:40:28 PM Reply	WTF does "natural phenomenon" have to do with anything? Drowning in a muddy water hole, being burnt in a brushfire, getting crushed by a rockslide, or being killed and eaten by a tiger are all natural phenomena. Houses, roads, dining tables and water closets are all distinctly artificial. But you're going on about "natural occurrences" as if that in and of itself makes drowning and being burned, crushed, or eaten better than going down the road to your house, having dinner at a table, and later relieving yourself of it on a WC. "Natural = good, artificial = bad"... "Four legs good, two legs better"? Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #4,138 by boxley 8/7/01 9:52:43 PM Reply	definition of envirowhore someone who cries about Alaska to boost revenues for their personal gain while by their actions on a local level are ignored. Environmental activist for a living. Not a cheap all for the cause living but in the case of the Directors making 250k + per year with only 5% or less of donations going to anything except costs and more fund raising. Example crying about killing wolves in Alaska and forcing local SoCal communities to kill coyotes. Biggest one comes to mind is John Denver decrying Alaska while sitting on a BURIED 2000 GAL (WORSE FSCKING WAY TO STORE FUEL) on his hossy ranch in aspen and yes he installed it. I am an environmentalist who hopefully uses logic to come to an opinion. A true environmentalist who believes in recycling cars on my own property but is decried by the local Sierra Club types who want to give me citations. :) thanx, bill Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves. Chuck Palahniuk
Post #4,168 by imric 8/8/01 8:29:47 AM Reply	Atrocities? Bah. Ash, my father was on the team that gathered the 'data' for the banning of DDT. The reason? It was too cheap, and effective. It was also a commodity. The real statistics do NOT show any causal relationship with the eggs of birds, or anything else above insectoid life. In fact, the only effect my dad found that it had on mammilian life was that factory workers producing it (they were covered in the stuff, like flour covers a baking pan) showed NO incidence of skin cancer. However, he did find traces of it in the damndest places (penguins, monkeys, etc.) - and they used that and the emotional reaction (it's a poison, it's got to be bad) to get it banned. In short, they used environmental 'conscience'... In fact, it was replaced by insecticides derived from the waste products of nerve gas production. Now THAT stuff was toxic. 'Bizness' indeed. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,287 by Ashton 8/8/01 5:19:07 PM Reply	I'd be impressed by a source like that.. And I don't pretend to have researched the sub-rosa activities of the ban. It may well have been so simple as, Hey this stuff IS everywhere! and.. we don't know what that might portend (and we Know we don't know) so: ?what to do? I'd venture to guess though - that we still don't 'know' what are the overall effects of such proliferation of an artificial substance.. As with: all the brake-dust, tire-tread dust, aerosols and their carried substances. Not enough interest, nor $. Was the DDT ban more about it being a no-profit commodity, than a possibly mistaken concern over proliferation?? Clearly the Drug Wars currently undermining many Constitutional principles - are akin to the former: Pharm Chem does NOT like natural, cheap, effective pain relievers - or, any Other kind of desirable untaxed substance. The Corp tax cannot be levied on tincture of Iodine, makes only peanuts on aspirin, etc. Maybe your dad was right - will consider self updated but not.. surprised. Now... can we disband the Narcs, decriminalize (lots of stuff) and stop bein a bunch of Puritan busybodies, for gossipy fun and huge profit? [Uh - No, I don't think we Can. Its so Murican a thing.] A.
Post #4,291 by imric 8/8/01 5:45:43 PM Reply	It was... Was the DDT ban more about it being a no-profit commodity, than a possibly mistaken concern over proliferation? Yes. When my Dad tells the story, he always laughs - and acts a bit cynical about it, but I always got the impression that that was the point that 'deflowered' him re: a career being a research chemist. It seemed to really disillusion him. Now... can we disband the Narcs, decriminalize (lots of stuff) and stop bein a bunch of Puritan busybodies, for gossipy fun and huge profit? Nah, our 'culture' has to evolve beyond sophomoric 'I know what's best for you' good intentions on the part of the people, and 'There's a sucker born every minute' on the part of our rulers (government/business). Not in this lifetime. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,309 by Another Scott 8/8/01 8:49:22 PM Reply	Science News story on DDT [link\|http://www.sciencenews.org/20000701/bob2.asp\|[link\|http://www.sciencenews.org/20000701/bob2.asp\|http://www.sciencen...701/bob2.asp]] is a story on DDT's use in controlling malaria, with a fairly balanced treatment. [link\|http://warrensburg.k12.mo.us/ew/ddt/matt.html\|This] story says the WHO credits DDT with saving the lives of 25 million people in Europe in the 1940s. It also says that only 1 person is known to have died from DDT - they mistook DDT powder for flour and made pancakes... Plusses and minuses like much of life.... Cheers, Scott.
Post #4,315 by imric 8/8/01 9:35:29 PM Reply	chuckle OT, and waxing nostalgic... Ah, dieldren - and let's not forget aldrin (No-Pest strips, Shell House & Garden sprays)... My old man was 'in' on those, too. I remember my father choking with laughter during the 'ad campaign' against DDT (Silent Spring featured prominently there) when a talk-show host had a guest that mentioned an 'insecticide' that killed her father. He recognized it. (I don't remember what it was - I was rather young) It was illegal. The farmer was spraying for CROWS, not insects. I have more faith in my father's evaluation of our chemical lifestyle than you find in science news and journals (though he WAS a bit of a 'mad scientist', truth to tell... He 'insect-proofed' our house with his own noxious, unapproved brew along the foundations when it was being built - we've never had problems with bugs since... grin). I still believe it's more business/politics than science. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,332 by Steve Lowe 8/9/01 2:05:58 AM Reply	heard similar anecdotes re: asbestos A local mall was shut down and refurbished due to asbestos insulation being discovered. I was there talking with one of the guys in the company that was doing the removal...don't really remember why I was there talking to him... Don't know how true this is, but he was telling me that there's more asbestos in the air in one day in any busy city (from car and truck brakes and clutches primarily) than there would be in that mall in 10 years. He seemed to think it was mostly ridiculous, but didn't mind taking people's money to remove it. However, I do know of one famliy who lost their livelihood because the icecream store they owned in the mall was forced out of business due to the mall being shut down. ----- Steve
Post #4,338 by imric 8/9/01 8:27:12 AM Reply	What's worse... ...is that it's harmless unless it's breathed... How does it get into the air? Through remediation! Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #4,234 by kelzer 8/8/01 2:17:58 PM Reply	Re: No Ash... This whole discussion about what else is poisonous is a waste of time. Too much of anything can be toxic. Too much pure (i.e., distilled 100% H20) can kill a person. Let's move on.
Post #4,288 by Ashton 8/8/01 5:24:36 PM Reply	Right. Life is an affliction ya don't get out of alive.
Post #4,179 by jb4 8/8/01 9:54:13 AM Reply	blockquote... [Hey too - how's come my blockquotes don't get pretty blue vertical lines too?] Try using the qualifier "type=cite" after the "blockquote" keyword, and enjoy pretty blue lines to your heart's content. And it's LEGAL, too! jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #4,186 by Another Scott 8/8/01 10:33:29 AM Reply	Thanks. That'll let me stop using <i>italics</i> :-)
Post #4,289 by Ashton 8/8/01 5:27:17 PM Reply	Gracias, Oh Master of the thin blue line (vertical)

Welcome to IWETHEY!