just think about it a person could be arrested for carrying around 80kg of this dihydrogen monoxide concealed on/in their person then to go from a felony unlicensed explosives charge to a full blown terrorism charge when they are discovered in position of a car battery for the purposes of processing this material into a high order explosive.
don't forget also that the human body can produce methane (some more than others) which can be used as a fuel air explosive so from now I say that anybody found to produce this substance wilfully and without regard for the safety of others be arrested and punished! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Tymes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "ERPS Main List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [ERPS] Homeland Security Act and rocket motors > Rick Eversole wrote: > > > Lastly for the truly paranoid: > > Just about anything can be made explosive if you "try hard > > enough" ... I believe that we should totally ban all > > dihydrogen monoxide, it kills people daily, as little as > > 4 ounces can be fatal. It can be broken down into an > > explosive compound with common household items. It passes > > all current security checks, and therefore can easily > > be transported undetected and converted on-site... > > Ban all dihydrogen monoxide ... also the related compound > > hydrogen hydroxide. > > > The sad thing is, they're in a mindset where someone could propose this > as a joke, and they'd jump all over it, taking it seriously. If it was > fast-tracked enough, it could become law before someone points out, "you > just banned water!" (Some might even try to keep it on the books after > that, since it gives legal pretext to arrest anyone - except possibly a > cremated or dessicated corpse - for possession of water, but I don't > think the administration as a whole is far enough gone that such a law > would last long.) > > Dragging this back on topic: given this mindset of theirs, what are the > implications for regulatory affairs? In particular, I'm wondering if > this is sufficient justification for limiting disclosure to the > government? If they don't need to know, they don't get to know, lest > they get scared and ban what we're doing out of reflex. I feel there's > something wrong with that approach, but I can't quite put my finger on > what it is. > > _______________________________________________ > ERPS-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
