Another "alternate fuel" idea shot down

Does reality make enviro-loonies cry?
I sure hope so.
Gasoline = God.

http://www.physorg.com/news4891.html

Next; The HYPE that is "bio-diesel."

Not sure of your thinking or direction, Rich.... The current price of fuel
certainly makes alternatives a viable consideration. Ethanol isn't corrosive
like methanol racing fuels and there "should" be little in the way of oil
change interval adjustments. Bio-diesel doesn't have very high cetane
ratings but it, too, has it's place. The 6.0 Ford has a factory blessing of
5% bio-diesel. We've heard little of the impending 6.4 twin turbo motor, but
I'm left with the feeling that the bio-diesel content allowance *may* be
increased.

It may come as a shock, but we do need to consider what we are doing to the
environment. If you keep ****ting in your back yard, there'll come a time
where you wont be able to go in your back yard. You can "poo-poo" the idea
all you want but the fact is, since the industrial revolution, man has seen
fit to screw up this dirtball in more ways than we thought possible. London,
England killed many people simply from using coal for heating. Love Canal,
DDT, R12, leaded gas, lead in paint.... the list goes on and on..... Zero
pollution is a dream but each and every one of us should do our best to
minimize the "footprint" we leave behind.

Reality will make us all cry....


"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> Does reality make enviro-loonies cry?
> I sure hope so.
> Gasoline = God.
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news4891.html
>
> Next; The HYPE that is "bio-diesel."

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 02:54:47 GMT, "Jim Warman"
> wrote:

>Not sure of your thinking or direction, Rich.... The current price of fuel
>certainly makes alternatives a viable consideration. Ethanol isn't corrosive
>like methanol racing fuels and there "should" be little in the way of oil
>change interval adjustments. Bio-diesel doesn't have very high cetane
>ratings but it, too, has it's place. The 6.0 Ford has a factory blessing of
>5% bio-diesel. We've heard little of the impending 6.4 twin turbo motor, but
>I'm left with the feeling that the bio-diesel content allowance *may* be
>increased.
>
>It may come as a shock, but we do need to consider what we are doing to the
>environment. If you keep ****ting in your back yard, there'll come a time
>where you wont be able to go in your back yard. You can "poo-poo" the idea
>all you want but the fact is, since the industrial revolution, man has seen
>fit to screw up this dirtball in more ways than we thought possible. London,
>England killed many people simply from using coal for heating. Love Canal,
>DDT, R12, leaded gas, lead in paint.... the list goes on and on..... Zero
>pollution is a dream but each and every one of us should do our best to
>minimize the "footprint" we leave behind.
>
>Reality will make us all cry....

DDT. Do you know what the result of banning it in Africa was?
2 million deaths from malaria a year and many millions more of river
blindness. All so some @#$@#@# elitist, leftist enviro-creeps can say
they saved some bird eggs.
-Rich

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:01:51 -0400, RichA > wrote:

>On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 02:54:47 GMT, "Jim Warman"
> wrote:
>
>>Not sure of your thinking or direction, Rich.... The current price of fuel
>>certainly makes alternatives a viable consideration. Ethanol isn't corrosive
>>like methanol racing fuels and there "should" be little in the way of oil
>>change interval adjustments. Bio-diesel doesn't have very high cetane
>>ratings but it, too, has it's place. The 6.0 Ford has a factory blessing of
>>5% bio-diesel. We've heard little of the impending 6.4 twin turbo motor, but
>>I'm left with the feeling that the bio-diesel content allowance *may* be
>>increased.
>>
>>It may come as a shock, but we do need to consider what we are doing to the
>>environment. If you keep ****ting in your back yard, there'll come a time
>>where you wont be able to go in your back yard. You can "poo-poo" the idea
>>all you want but the fact is, since the industrial revolution, man has seen
>>fit to screw up this dirtball in more ways than we thought possible. London,
>>England killed many people simply from using coal for heating. Love Canal,
>>DDT, R12, leaded gas, lead in paint.... the list goes on and on..... Zero
>>pollution is a dream but each and every one of us should do our best to
>>minimize the "footprint" we leave behind.
>>
>>Reality will make us all cry....
>
>DDT. Do you know what the result of banning it in Africa was?
>2 million deaths from malaria a year and many millions more of river
>blindness. All so some @#$@#@# elitist, leftist enviro-creeps can say
>they saved some bird eggs.
>-Rich


fock rich who cares
africa is the richest continent on earth
look what the ******s have done with it

let them solve their own problems

h
u
r
c
a
s
t

>
> DDT. Do you know what the result of banning it in Africa was?
> 2 million deaths from malaria a year and many millions more of river
> blindness. All so some @#$@#@# elitist, leftist enviro-creeps can say
> they saved some bird eggs.
> -Rich

And even those studies were suspect..

a.. Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the
science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr.
DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now
established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable
harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet
DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced
normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956
article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a
very different conclusion. Quail were fed 200 parts per million of DDT in
all of their food throughout the breeding season. DeWitt reports that 80% of
their eggs hatched, compared with the "control"" birds which hatched 83.9%
of their eggs. Carson also omitted mention of DeWitt's report that "control"
pheasants hatched only 57 percent of their eggs, while those that were fed
high levels of DDT in all of their food for an entire year hatched more than
80% of their eggs.
a.. Population control advocates blamed DDT for increasing third world
population. In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed
there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up
to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an
official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead
than alive and riotously reproducing."

[Desowitz, RS. 1992. Malaria Capers, W.W. Norton & Company]
a.. The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power.
Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund,
commented, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level
of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake
than DDT."

[Seattle Times, October 5, 1969]
a.. Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of
Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any
article on DDT that was not antagonistic.
a.. William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a
member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations
for EDF on his personal stationery that read "EDF's scientists blew the
whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later,
when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."
a.. But as an assistant attorney general, William Ruckelshaus stated on
August 31, 1970 in a U.S. Court of Appeals that "DDT has an amazing an
exemplary record of safe use, does not cause a toxic response in man or
other animals, and is not harmful. Carcinogenic claims regarding DDT are
unproven speculation." But in a May 2, 1971 address to the Audubon Society,
Ruckelshaus stated, "As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly
suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the
facts to temper my emotions ... because the best scientific evidence
available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA
have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend
registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during
the period of review." Ruckelshaus later explained his ambivalence by
stating that as assistant attorney general he was an advocate for the
government, but as head of the EPA he was "a maker of policy."

[Barrons, 10 November 1975]
a.. Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT.
In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a
founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a
meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the
Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley
professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking
his credibility.

[21st Century, Spring 1992]

III. EPA hearings


DDT was banned by an EPA administrator who ignored the decision of his own
administrative law judge.

a.. Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge
occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney,
concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a
mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the
regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater
fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife."

[Sweeney, EM. 1972. EPA Hearing Examiner's recommendations and findings
concerning DDT hearings, April 25, 1972 (40 CFR 164.32, 113 pages).
Summarized in Barrons (May 1, 1972) and Oregonian (April 26, 1972)]
a.. Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus
banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven
months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even
read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.

[Santa Ana Register, April 25, 1972]
a.. After reversing the EPA hearing examiner's decision, Ruckelshaus refused
to release materials upon which his ban was based. Ruckelshaus rebuffed USDA
efforts to obtain those materials through the Freedom of Information Act,
claiming that they were just "internal memos." Scientists were therefore
prevented from refuting the false allegations in the Ruckelshaus' "Opinion
and Order on DDT."


--
Richard

'94 GT 'vert
Under Drive Pulleys
Transgo HD2 Reprogramming Kit
High Stall Torque Converter
4:10 Gears
Gripp Sub Frame Connectors (welded)
FRPP Aluminum Drive shaft
FRPP M5400-A Suspension
Laser Red