date:20060408

I'm just a lover of Belgian style ales.  When you include ingredients don't forget the yeast unless you're brewing a lambic in which case god adds the yeast.Partei auf Gecken!On 8 Apr 2006, at 08:24, Fritz Friesinger wrote:Hi Gary,i am not shure of the Belgian beer,but bavarian beer is brewed under the "Reinheitsgebot" a law AD 1716  by the bavarian Duch and falsly called the "German Purity Law" since it did apply in the begin only to Bavaria!And it calls:   Beer should only be brewed with Barley,Hops and water from deep wellsWhat a wise man this bavarian HerzogProstDrink ma a Massal guates echtes gsueffiges gschmackiges boarisches BierFritz___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Using Pex?

Luke,

PEX should work OK, but the life span would depend on what it is exposed to. It
is not good for long term outdoor use as UV breaks it down after several months
in the sun. Also, it probably won't last too long  if used for straight sodium
methoxide or high strength sodium hydroxide service, but you may get a few 
months
of continuous service before it fails. I do know that 50% sodium hydroxide 
breaks
it down pretty quick (a couple of months). Heat and pressure will shorten the
life further.

It should hold up pretty well to the WVO and biodiesel. An interesting site,
biodiesel reactor how to page, listed below shows PEX being used for a sight
gauge on his processor tank.

http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_processor3.html

I also found this:

Joseph, Using polyethylene, cross linked pex tubing is rated for petrochemical
use. you will have no
problems using it for svo, or biodiesel fuel and processing. It is also rated 
for
pressure and
temperature,usually around 200 degress F.and 100 p.s.i. I use it in my business
all the time. Good Luck
and keep going!! D.Streeter

by searching PEX in the lists search engine at the bottom of this page. Here 
is
the link to the page quoted above:

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg37063.html

PEX is basically a crosslinked polyethylene and polyethylene is basically a
synthetic wax (chemically like wax) and is pretty resistant to many chemicals 
and
solvents just like wax, but it is no where near as good as teflon or kynar for
the straight sodium methoxide, sodium hydroxide. Also the standard 55 gallon
plastic drums are made of HDPE (High Density PolyEthylene) which is what some of
the PEX tubings are made out of (HDPE). Here is  a site with some info on PEX,
but I could not find an online chemical resistance chart for it.

http://www.ppfahome.org/pex/faqpex.html

Also, Nylon is probably even better than PEX.

-Mike McGinness

WM LUKE MATHISEN wrote:

 I have some PEX tubing left over from plumbing our house, any one with
 experience using PEX to build a processor?  Will the lye react to it?  I am
 thinking of using it to heat the processor from our tankless waterheater
 which we use to heat the floor, as well as for mixing.  Also will a washing
 machine water pump work?

 Luke

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11




This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic.
I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going
through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing oxygen
part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that there is
some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing use in case the
plane is depressurized.
So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and how
much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the fire once
released? Does anyone know?
Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum (mass
of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the instantaneous force
of impact as the momentum of the plane went to zero and how much heat that
released on impact as the momentum was converted to pure heat energy (it
must have been huge), not to mention the mechanical structural damage
effects of that energy transfer from the impact made on the building.
Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are
generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or air
before something starts to give (like the windows at least). However, they
are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX tons of an airliner
moving at several hundred miles per hour with all the force of impact being
concentrated on one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the building.
I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any oscillation
it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the metals and alloys
when exposed to the heat. They must have been major factors in the collapse.
Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them off
right away and collapse the buildings immediately?
Mike McGinness
lres1 wrote:

Just a note, not
from an expert. Steel cutting torches operate at a temperature that burns
the steel and turns the waste into slag. A lot of small brass and alloy
foundries that use small furnaces use Diesel or Kerosene as the source
of heat. The amount of heat to destroy the steel and alloy in the towers
was only limited by the amount of oxygen available. At the height of the
towers the natural movement of wind would have been like a blow torch on
all the metals given enough fuel to start with. Several tons of Kerosene
+ wind + alloys + other combustibles would make the placing of explosives
only a marginally required secondary insurance that the towers would fall.
There was enough in the planes and the buildings construction materials/furnishings
and the fuel tanks to achieve more than what a giant cutting torch would
achieve. Think of a Plumbers kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the
amount of wind and fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned
above.Take a look at a vehicle that has
burnt. you will notice that the suspension has collapsed due to the annealing
of the springs or torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount
of heat to change the characteristics of metals and alloys.Take
away the heating from combustibles from the plane and building. Just the
fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in expansion over a few
floors in a building of such height can it take? That is a building of
such height expands slowly during the day and heat, shrinks during the
cool. Given the height of the building this over a 24 hr period would be
a significant change in height. If a small amount of boiling water is put
into a glass the expansion is not uniform the glass will break. Uniform
expansion in structures is an important part in considering conductivity
of heat and orientation. To have had four or five floors expand beyond
their limit and incongruously from the rest of the structure would again
render the structure unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding
out four or five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as fast.
The "bounce" effect in the topmost floors must have been quite horrific
as they would have risen several inches and then dropped the same in a
very short time frame. This "bounce" alone would nearly be enough to collapse
a structure of such size in upon itself with no burning of combustibles
from the construction or furnishings or even the alloys in the plane. Compare
it to using the topmost floors as an enormous hammer that hammered the
lower floors due the effect of the "bounce". Sorry this got longer than
I thought.Doug- Original Message -

From:
MARIA BURGER

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:10
AM

Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's
group accuses U.S. officials of lyingabout 9/11
I'm
certainly no "expert" either, but I would presume that charges placed in
the middle of the building would initiate structural collapse from the
middle. Nothing says you have to put them at the bottom! Cheers!Chris

- Original Message -

From: bob
allen

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 6:45
AM

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11

2006-04-08 Thread D. Mindock

Mike,
You areoverlooking
that Building 7, not hit by any plane, collapsed in the same controlled manner
as the towers.
Also the momentum energyof the
planes would've been spread over a couple hundred feet. The stoppage
was
not instantaneous. And the towers were
designed for impact by large aircraft. Any onboard oxygen, if released,
would have been used up in a second.
Large steel columns have considerable thermal capacity and conduct heat effectively, spreading it
out. No building with a
steel frame has ever collapsed, before or since 9/11, from fires, some of
which were more intense and lasted much
longerthan the ones in the towers, which were relatively short lived
and not hot enough to melt steel. There
area plethora of unanswered questions, if we
wish assume the official government
line.
See: http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=archive_by_topicLots of more info to mull over.
Peace, D. Mindock

- Original Message -
From:
Mike
McGinness
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:56
AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's
group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11
This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this
topic.
I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going
through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing oxygen part I
though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that there is some oxygen
onboard these planes for emergency breathing use in case the plane is
depressurized.
So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and how
much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the fire once
released? Does anyone know?
Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum (mass of
the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the instantaneous force of
impact as the momentum of the plane went to zero and how much heat that
released on impact as the momentum was converted to pure heat energy (it must
have been huge), not to mention the mechanical structural damage effects
of that energy transfer from the impact made on the building.
Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are
generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or air before
something starts to give (like the windows at least). However, they are not
designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX tons of an airliner moving at
several hundred miles per hour with all the force of impact being concentrated
on one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the building.
I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any
oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the metals and
alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have been major factors in the
collapse.
Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them off right
away and collapse the buildings immediately?
Mike McGinness
lres1 wrote:

Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches
operate at a temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste into slag.
A lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small furnaces use Diesel
or Kerosene as the source of heat. The amount of heat to destroy the steel
and alloy in the towers was only limited by the amount of oxygen available.
At the height of the towers the natural movement of wind would have been
like a blow torch on all the metals given enough fuel to start with. Several
tons of Kerosene + wind + alloys + other combustibles would make the placing
of explosives only a marginally required secondary insurance that the towers
would fall. There was enough in the planes and the buildings construction
materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve more than what a giant
cutting torch would achieve. Think of a Plumbers kerosene blow lamp, now
multiply it by the amount of wind and fuel available plus the burning
materials mentioned above.Take a look at a
vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the suspension has collapsed
due to the annealing of the springs or torsion bars etc. It does not take a
real great amount of heat to change the characteristics of metals and
alloys.Take away the heating from combustibles
from the plane and building. Just the fuel and the heat from the fuel. How
much stress in expansion over a few floors in a building of such height can
it take? That is a building of such height expands slowly during the day and
heat, shrinks during the cool. Given the height of the building this over a
24 hr period would be a significant change in height. If a small amount of
boiling water is put into a glass the expansion is not uniform the glass
will break. Uniform expansion in structures is an important part in
considering

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11


Mike,

If it follows the rules for the pilots, it should be enough for 30 
minutes. The rules say that over a certain level it must be 30 
minutes for the pilots and over next specified level also for the 
passengers. It is a lot of oxygen.

Hakan


At 08:56 08/04/2006, you wrote:
This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic.

I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going 
through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing 
oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that 
there is some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing 
use in case the plane is depressurized.

So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and 
how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the 
fire once released? Does anyone know?

Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum 
(mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the 
instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went to 
zero and how much heat that released on impact as the momentum was 
converted to pure heat energy (it must have been huge), not to 
mention the mechanical structural damage effects of that energy 
transfer from the impact made on the building.

Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are 
generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or 
air before something starts to give (like the windows at least). 
However, they are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX 
tons of an airliner moving at several hundred miles per hour with 
all the force of impact being concentrated on one small area, or 
corner of one to two floors of the building.

I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any 
oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the 
metals and alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have been 
major factors in the collapse.

Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them off 
right away and collapse the buildings immediately?

Mike McGinness

lres1 wrote:
Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches operate at a 
temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste into slag. A 
lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small furnaces use 
Diesel or Kerosene as the source of heat. The amount of heat to 
destroy the steel and alloy in the towers was only limited by the 
amount of oxygen available. At the height of the towers the natural 
movement of wind would have been like a blow torch on all the 
metals given enough fuel to start with. Several tons of Kerosene + 
wind + alloys + other combustibles would make the placing of 
explosives only a marginally required secondary insurance that the 
towers would fall. There was enough in the planes and the buildings 
construction materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve 
more than what a giant cutting torch would achieve. Think of a 
Plumbers kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the amount of wind 
and fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned above. Take 
a look at a vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the 
suspension has collapsed due to the annealing of the springs or 
torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount of heat to 
change the characteristics of metals and alloys. Take away the 
heating from combustibles from the plane and building. Just the 
fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in expansion over 
a few floors in a building of such height can it take? That is a 
building of such height expands slowly during the day and heat, 
shrinks during the cool. Given the height of the building this over 
a 24 hr period would be a significant change in height. If a small 
amount of boiling water is put into a glass the expansion is not 
uniform the glass will break. Uniform expansion in structures is an 
important part in considering conductivity of heat and orientation. 
To have had four or five floors expand beyond their limit and 
incongruously from the rest of the structure would again render the 
structure unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding out 
four or five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as 
fast. The bounce effect in the topmost floors must have been 
quite horrific as they would have risen several inches and then 
dropped the same in a very short time frame. This bounce alone 
would nearly be enough to collapse a structure of such size in upon 
itself with no burning of combustibles from the construction or 
furnishings or even the alloys in the plane. Compare it to using 
the topmost floors as an enormous hammer that hammered the lower 
floors due the effect of the bounce. Sorry this got longer than I 
thought. Doug- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]MARIA BURGER
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BYU

Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery


Fritz,

Belgium is for beer what France is for vine, it is no country in the 
world that has more variants and better average beer quality. Some 
beers in other countries are outstanding, like some vine in other 
countries, but Belgium is the country of beer and France is the 
country of vine. When it comes to vine, nothing beats the Spanish 
average quality. When it comes to high alcohol beer, Bavaria is also 
outstanding.

Hakan


At 02:24 08/04/2006, you wrote:
Hi Gary,
i am not shure of the Belgian beer,but bavarian beer is brewed under 
the Reinheitsgebot a law AD 1716  by the bavarian Duch and falsly 
called the German Purity Law since it did apply in the begin only to Bavaria!
And it calls:   Beer should only be brewed with Barley,Hops and 
water from deep wells
What a wise man this bavarian Herzog
Prost
Drink ma a Massal guates echtes gsueffiges gschmackiges boarisches Bier
Fritz
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gary L. Green
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Cc: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe Street
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery

Only if it's good microbrewery beer or an authentic Belgian style beer.

If it's Amerikan corporate corn and rice fermented chemical soup, 
please not one in my name.

Gary


On  08Apr, 2006, at 2:43 AM, Joe Street wrote:

Cheers all. I'll have a beer for each and every one of you LOL :-s



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11


Mike,

This is the emergency oxygen, the comes to this the oxygen for the 
normal pressurized cabin. This is probably depending on the flight 
and those reserves.

Hakan

At 11:19 08/04/2006, you wrote:

Mike,

If it follows the rules for the pilots, it should be enough for 30
minutes. The rules say that over a certain level it must be 30
minutes for the pilots and over next specified level also for the
passengers. It is a lot of oxygen.

Hakan


At 08:56 08/04/2006, you wrote:
 This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic.
 
 I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going
 through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing
 oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that
 there is some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing
 use in case the plane is depressurized.
 
 So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and
 how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the
 fire once released? Does anyone know?
 
 Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum
 (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the
 instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went to
 zero and how much heat that released on impact as the momentum was
 converted to pure heat energy (it must have been huge), not to
 mention the mechanical structural damage effects of that energy
 transfer from the impact made on the building.
 
 Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are
 generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or
 air before something starts to give (like the windows at least).
 However, they are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX
 tons of an airliner moving at several hundred miles per hour with
 all the force of impact being concentrated on one small area, or
 corner of one to two floors of the building.
 
 I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any
 oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the
 metals and alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have been
 major factors in the collapse.
 
 Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them off
 right away and collapse the buildings immediately?
 
 Mike McGinness
 
 lres1 wrote:
 Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches operate at a
 temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste into slag. A
 lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small furnaces use
 Diesel or Kerosene as the source of heat. The amount of heat to
 destroy the steel and alloy in the towers was only limited by the
 amount of oxygen available. At the height of the towers the natural
 movement of wind would have been like a blow torch on all the
 metals given enough fuel to start with. Several tons of Kerosene +
 wind + alloys + other combustibles would make the placing of
 explosives only a marginally required secondary insurance that the
 towers would fall. There was enough in the planes and the buildings
 construction materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve
 more than what a giant cutting torch would achieve. Think of a
 Plumbers kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the amount of wind
 and fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned above. Take
 a look at a vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the
 suspension has collapsed due to the annealing of the springs or
 torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount of heat to
 change the characteristics of metals and alloys. Take away the
 heating from combustibles from the plane and building. Just the
 fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in expansion over
 a few floors in a building of such height can it take? That is a
 building of such height expands slowly during the day and heat,
 shrinks during the cool. Given the height of the building this over
 a 24 hr period would be a significant change in height. If a small
 amount of boiling water is put into a glass the expansion is not
 uniform the glass will break. Uniform expansion in structures is an
 important part in considering conductivity of heat and orientation.
 To have had four or five floors expand beyond their limit and
 incongruously from the rest of the structure would again render the
 structure unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding out
 four or five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as
 fast. The bounce effect in the topmost floors must have been
 quite horrific as they would have risen several inches and then
 dropped the same in a very short time frame. This bounce alone
 would nearly be enough to collapse a structure of such size in upon
 itself with no burning of combustibles from the construction or
 furnishings or even the alloys in the plane. Compare it to using
 the topmost floors as an enormous hammer that hammered the lower
 floors due the effect of the bounce. Sorry this got longer than I

Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: Suspended delivery

Yes!  So true.On 8 Apr 2006, at 17:11, Hakan Falk wrote:When it comes to vine, nothing beats the Spanish average quality. ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Garrison Keillor on Bush II

2006-04-08 Thread D. Mindock

Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services

 Published March 15, 2006  


 Spring arrived in New York last week for previews, a

   sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud,

   and with a little imagination you could sort of smell

   grass. I put on  a gray jacket, instead of black, and went

   to the opera and saw Verdi's Luisa Miller,

 a Republican opera in which love is crushed by the

   perfidiousness of government. A helpful lesson for these

   times. I am referring to the Current Occupant.
  

 The Republican Revolution has gone the way of all flesh.

   It took over Congress and the White House, horns blew,

   church bells rang, sailors kissed each other, and what

   happened? The Republicans led us into a reckless foreign

   war and steered the economy toward receivership and

   wielded power as if there were no  rules. Democrats are

   accused of having no new ideas, but Republicans are making

   some of the old ideas look

 awfully good, such as constitutional checks and balances

   , fiscal responsibility, and the notion of realism in

   foreign affairs and taking actions that serve the national

   interest. What one might call conservatism.
  

 The head of the National Security Agency under President

   Ronald Reagan, Lt.. Gen. William Odom, writes on the Web

   site NiemanWatchdog.org that he sees clear

 parallels between Vietnam and Iraq: The difference lies

   in the consequences. Vietnam did not have the devastating

   effects on U.S. power that Iraq is already

 having. He draws the parallels in three stages and says

   that staying the course will only make the damage to U.S.

   power greater. It's a chilling analysis, and one that

   isn't going to come from the Democratic Party. It's

   starting to come from Republicans, and

 they are the ones who must rescue the country from

   themselves.
  

 I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era the other

   day in an airport, and he said that what most offended him

   about Bush II is the naked incompetence. You may disagree

   with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that

   they knew what they were doing, he said. I keep going

   back to that intelligence memo of August 2001, that said

   that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them

   into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even

   call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of

   attention of a high order.

  

 Over the course of time, the Chief Occupant has been

   cruelly exposed over and over. He sat and was briefed on

   the danger of a hurricane wiping out a major American city

   , and without asking a single question, he got up from the

   table and walked away and resumed

 his vacation. He played guitar as New Orleans was

   flooded. It took him four days to realize his

   responsibility to do something. When the tsunami killed

   100,000 people in Southeast Asia, he was on vacation and

   it took him 72 hours to issue a statement

 of sympathy.

  

 The Republicans tied their wagon to him and, as a result

   , their revolution is bankrupt. He has played the

   terrorism card for all it is worth and campaigned

   successfully against Adam and Steve and co-opted whole

   vast flocks of Christians, but he is done now, kaput,

 out of gas, for one simple reason . He doesn't represent

   the best that is our country. Not even close.
  

 He openly, brazenly, countenanced crimes of torture at

   Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. He engaged in illegal

   surveillance, authorized the arrest of people without

   charge and disappeared them to foreign jails. And he

   finagled this war, which, after three years of violence,

   does not look to be heading toward a happy ending. And now

   it's up to Republicans to put their country first and call

   the gentleman to account.
  

 The Current Occupant is smart about handling a political

   mess. The best strategy is to cut and run and change the

   subject. You defend the Dubai ports deal in manly terms

   until you lose a vote in a House committee and then you

   retreat--actually, you get the

 Dubai people to do it for you--and that's it, End of

   Story.
  

 Harriet Miers was fully q ualified one day and gone the

   next. Social Security was going to be overhauled to give

   us the Ownership Society, and then the stock market went

   in the toilet and Republicans got nervous, and suddenly it

   was Never Mind and on to the next new thing.
  

 Let's bring the boys home. Otherwise, let's send this

   man back to Texas and see what sort of work he is capable

   of and let him start making a contribution to

 the world.

  

 --  

 Garrison Keillor is an author and the radio host of  A

 Prairie Home Companion.

  



___
Biofuel mailing list

Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: Suspended delivery

2006-04-08 Thread Fritz Friesinger




Hi Gary,
god adds the yeast anyway what a good brewmaster is 
doeing is only refine it
lol Fritz

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Gary L. 
  Green 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 2:04 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: 
  Suspended delivery
  I'm just a lover of Belgian style ales. When you include 
  ingredients don't forget the yeast unless you're brewing a lambic in which 
  case god adds the yeast.
  
  Partei auf Gecken!
  
  
  
  On 8 Apr 2006, at 08:24, Fritz Friesinger wrote:
  
Hi Gary,
i am not shure of the Belgian 
beer,but bavarian beer is brewed under the "Reinheitsgebot" a law AD 
1716 by the bavarian Duch and falsly called the "German Purity Law" 
since it did apply in the begin only to Bavaria!
And it calls: Beer 
should only be brewed with Barley,Hops and water from deep 
wells
What a wise man this bavarian 
Herzog
Prost
Drink ma a Massal guates echtes 
gsueffiges gschmackiges boarisches Bier
Fritz
  
  

  ___Biofuel mailing 
  listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to 
  Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch the 
  combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
  messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery

2006-04-08 Thread Fritz Friesinger




Hakan,
you are touching a very fine nerv in me 
now!
Have you ever seen Hopsgardens in Belgium?But you 
can see them in Lower Bavaria and the Bavarians let them Belgians have a bit the 
Leftovers,what the dont need for their own Beer and ther is still the Question 
of the Purity to answer bei them Belges LOL
Fritz

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Hakan Falk 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 5:11 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended 
  delivery
  Fritz,Belgium is for beer what France is for vine, 
  it is no country in the world that has more variants and better average 
  beer quality. Some beers in other countries are outstanding, like some 
  vine in other countries, but Belgium is the country of beer and France is 
  the country of vine. When it comes to vine, nothing beats the Spanish 
  average quality. When it comes to high alcohol beer, Bavaria is also 
  outstanding.HakanAt 02:24 08/04/2006, you 
  wrote:Hi Gary,i am not shure of the Belgian beer,but bavarian 
  beer is brewed under the "Reinheitsgebot" a law AD 1716 by the 
  bavarian Duch and falsly called the "German Purity Law" since it did 
  apply in the begin only to Bavaria!And it calls: Beer 
  should only be brewed with Barley,Hops and water from deep 
  wellsWhat a wise man this bavarian HerzogProstDrink ma 
  a Massal guates echtes gsueffiges gschmackiges boarisches 
  BierFritz- Original Message -From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gary 
  L. GreenTo: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.orgCc: 
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe 
  StreetSent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:03 PMSubject: Re: 
  [Biofuel] Suspended deliveryOnly if it's good microbrewery 
  beer or an authentic Belgian style beer.If it's Amerikan 
  corporate corn and rice fermented chemical soup, please not one in my 
  name.GaryOn 08Apr, 2006, at 2:43 
  AM, Joe Street wrote:Cheers all. I'll have a beer for each 
  and every one of you LOL 
  :-s___Biofuel 
  mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 
  the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery


Fritz,

I have been many times in Beergarten in Munich, very historical. I 
love the Munich Oktoberfest and the ambiance, been there many times. 
The beer they brew for the Oktoberfest is quite special. However, 
Belgium have the largest varieties of beers, especially dark,  and 
they love to make them. If you want purity, try distilled water and 
for sure, do not go near the waters of The Netherlands or Belgium. LOL

On the other hand, the jokes about the rivers in The Netherlands and 
Belgium are many. They often speculate around how many Germans that 
have polluted them before the reach the costal areas. So I guess that 
they have a lot of purity in them. LOL

Hakan

At 14:56 08/04/2006, you wrote:
Hakan,
you are touching a very fine nerv in me now!
Have you ever seen Hopsgardens in Belgium?But you can see them in 
Lower Bavaria and the Bavarians let them Belgians have a bit the 
Leftovers,what the dont need for their own Beer and ther is still 
the Question of the Purity to answer bei them Belges LOL
Fritz
- Original Message -
From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hakan Falk
To: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery


Fritz,

Belgium is for beer what France is for vine, it is no country in the
world that has more variants and better average beer quality. Some
beers in other countries are outstanding, like some vine in other
countries, but Belgium is the country of beer and France is the
country of vine. When it comes to vine, nothing beats the Spanish
average quality. When it comes to high alcohol beer, Bavaria is also
outstanding.

Hakan


At 02:24 08/04/2006, you wrote:
 Hi Gary,
 i am not shure of the Belgian beer,but bavarian beer is brewed under
 the Reinheitsgebot a law AD 1716  by the bavarian Duch and falsly
 called the German Purity Law since it did apply in the begin 
 only to Bavaria!
 And it calls:   Beer should only be brewed with Barley,Hops and
 water from deep wells
 What a wise man this bavarian Herzog
 Prost
 Drink ma a Massal guates echtes gsueffiges gschmackiges boarisches Bier
 Fritz
 - Original Message -
 From: 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Garymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gary L. Green
 To: 
 mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.orgmailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Cc: 
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe 
 Street
 Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:03 PM
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery
 
 Only if it's good microbrewery beer or an authentic Belgian style beer.
 
 If it's Amerikan corporate corn and rice fermented chemical soup,
 please not one in my name.
 
 Gary
 
 
 On  08Apr, 2006, at 2:43 AM, Joe Street wrote:
 
 Cheers all. I'll have a beer for each and every one of you LOL :-s



___
Biofuel mailing list
mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlhttp://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Global Warming

Hello Randall

Here is an interesting article on the BBC website...kinda helps 
reinforce the ...damned if you do, damned if you don't... feeling 
a lot of people have...

Maybe there might be another reason they think that, if indeed they 
do think that. See below, eg, or several tons of stuff in the archive:
http://snipurl.com/huc2

Lots about Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Paul Driessen, Patrick 
Michaels, Steven Milloy, S. Fred Singer et al in the list archives... 
Traitors to their planet, let alone to science and humanity. But I 
guess it keeps their pockets warm.

Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to 
undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth 
to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.

What's happening now and what we'll have to deal with now and in the 
immediate future and beyond is global warming, precipitated by 
over-use of fossil-fuel energy mostly by the industrialised nations. 
This has been known since 1988 - sufficiently known to take remedial 
action right then, when James Hansen announced it to the US Congress, 
with the majority of scientists agreeing (now all agree except those 
who're paid not to). Two years later, when I became involved, I 
watched the US government at the highest levels putting a damper on 
it so that no binding commitments were made by governments or 
industry at the Rio Conference as had been planned. We knew it in the 
early 1970s - we didn't know whether it would be warming or freezing 
but we knew well enough that the climate was changing because of 
industrialisation. We've wasted 15 years, or 17 years, or 35 years, 
while the industries that are your government's paymasters dragged 
their feet, optimised their bottom-lines and pulled the wool over 
your eyes. I wonder what your grandchildren will have to say about 
that.

Etc etc etc.



'A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, Victory will 
be achieved when ... average citizens recognize uncertainties in 
climate science. '

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/GlobalWarming/story?id=1770428page=1
ABC News:
Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?

Some Claim Disinformation Campaign Attempted to Create the Impression 
Scientists Were Broadly Divided

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2006 -

American attitudes about global warming are shifting, according to a 
new poll by ABC News, Time magazine and Stanford University - but it 
has taken years for the public perception of the problem to catch up 
with the warnings.

That lack of concern may have been just what big oil wanted.

It's not as if the information hasn't been out there: A new ad by the 
Environmental Defense Fund warns time is running out to combat 
climate change, adding, Our future is up to you.

But Virginia's top climatologist doesn't buy it.

The American people have just been bludgeoned with climate disaster 
stories for God knows how long, said the climatologist, Pat 
Michaels, and they're just, they've got disaster fatigue.

Michaels is one of a handful of skeptics still downplaying the 
danger. But they are a tiny minority.

The vast majority of scientists has determined global warming to be a 
real threat. So why has it taken so long to convince Americans?

Misinformation Campaign

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ross Gelbspan blames a 15-year 
misinformation campaign by the oil and coal industries.

The point of this campaign was not necessarily to persuade the 
public that global warming isn't happening, Gelbspan said. It was 
to persuade the public that there is this state of confusion.

A 1998 memo by the American Petroleum Institute said, Victory will 
be achieved when  average citizens recognize uncertainties in 
climate science.

To redefine global warming as theory - not fact - the industry funded 
research by friendly scientists such as Michaels.

The industry's influence even extends into the White House - where up 
until a few months ago a former oil industry lobbyist, Phil Cooney, 
chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, 
was one of the president's top environmental advisers, editing 
scientific reports to make global warming seem less threatening.

From now on, we don't have scientists write reports and just take 
them, said Rick Piltz of the group Climate Science Watch. We pass 
them through a White House filter before they're ever published. I 
mean, that's scandalous.

A few oil companies, led by BP, have changed their tune and are now 
aggressively addressing the problem. But some continue to promote the 
idea there are uncertainties in the science.

ABC News' Geoff Morrell reported this story for World News Tonight.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm

--Randall
Charlotte, NC

___

 Heisenberg may have slept here 

If I had eight hours to chop down a tree, I'd spend six sharpening 
my axe.  --Abraham Lincoln

Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery

2006-04-08 Thread Michael Redler

Oh crap!Clear the room! There's gonna be trouble!I would have preferreda much more civilized topic -like SOCCER.MikeHakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fritz,I have been many times in Beergarten in Munich, very historical. I love the Munich Oktoberfest and the ambiance, been there many times. The beer they brew for the Oktoberfest is quite special. However, Belgium have the largest varieties of beers, especially dark, and they love to make them. If you want purity, try distilled water and for sure, do not go near the waters of The Netherlands or Belgium. LOLOn the other hand, the jokes about the rivers in The Netherlands and Belgium are many. They often speculate around how
many Germans that have polluted them before the reach the costal areas. So I guess that they have a lot of "purity" in them. LOLHakanAt 14:56 08/04/2006, you wrote:Hakan,you are touching a very fine nerv in me now!Have you ever seen Hopsgardens in Belgium?But you can see them in Lower Bavaria and the Bavarians let them Belgians have a bit the Leftovers,what the dont need for their own Beer and ther is still the Question of the Purity to answer bei them Belges LOLFritz- Original Message -From: Hakan FalkTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 5:11 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended deliveryFritz,Belgium is for beer what France is for vine, it is no country in theworld that
has more variants and better average beer quality. Somebeers in other countries are outstanding, like some vine in othercountries, but Belgium is the country of beer and France is thecountry of vine. When it comes to vine, nothing beats the Spanishaverage quality. When it comes to high alcohol beer, Bavaria is alsooutstanding.HakanAt 02:24 08/04/2006, you wrote: Hi Gary, i am not shure of the Belgian beer,but bavarian beer is brewed under the "Reinheitsgebot" a law AD 1716 by the bavarian Duch and falsly called the "German Purity Law" since it did apply in the begin only to Bavaria! And it calls: Beer should only be brewed with Barley,Hops and water from deep wells What a wise man this bavarian Herzog Prost Drink ma a Massal guates echtes gsueffiges gschmackiges boarisches
Bier Fritz - Original Message - From: Garymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gary L. Green To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgmailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org Cc: Joemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe Street Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery Only if it's good microbrewery beer or an authentic Belgian style beer. If it's Amerikan corporate corn and rice fermented chemical soup, please not one in my name. Gary On 08Apr, 2006, at 2:43 AM, Joe Street wrote: Cheers all. I'll have a beer for each
and every one of you LOL :-s___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: Suspended delivery

Okay but don't tell it to the guy whose job it is to pitch the wort.  Could get god into trouble with the union.On  08Apr, 2006, at 8:45 PM, Fritz Friesinger wrote:god adds the yeast anyway what a good brewmaster is doeing is only refine it___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery

2006-04-08 Thread Fritz Friesinger




Hakan,
you are absolutly rigth,since the Water is so 
polluted in old Europe i am now in northern Quebec to start the Job there! Just 
a joke i appreciate the purity of my very own Lakes and have seen the proove 
again a couple of days ago,when i discovered how good my Solmontrouts came over 
the Winter and how much de grow bigger under the thick ice!
Greedings from North Quebec
Fritz

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Hakan Falk 
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:07 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended 
  delivery
  Fritz,I have been many times in Beergarten in 
  Munich, very historical. I love the Munich Oktoberfest and the ambiance, 
  been there many times. The beer they brew for the Oktoberfest is quite 
  special. However, Belgium have the largest varieties of beers, especially 
  dark, and they love to make them. If you want purity, try distilled 
  water and for sure, do not go near the waters of The Netherlands or 
  Belgium. LOLOn the other hand, the jokes about the rivers in The 
  Netherlands and Belgium are many. They often speculate around how many 
  Germans that have polluted them before the reach the costal areas. So I 
  guess that they have a lot of "purity" in them. LOLHakanAt 
  14:56 08/04/2006, you wrote:Hakan,you are touching a very fine 
  nerv in me now!Have you ever seen Hopsgardens in Belgium?But you can 
  see them in Lower Bavaria and the Bavarians let them Belgians have a 
  bit the Leftovers,what the dont need for their own Beer and ther is 
  still the Question of the Purity to answer bei them Belges 
  LOLFritz- Original Message -From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hakan 
  FalkTo: mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: 
  Saturday, April 08, 2006 5:11 AMSubject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended 
  deliveryFritz,Belgium is for beer what 
  France is for vine, it is no country in theworld that has more 
  variants and better average beer quality. Somebeers in other countries 
  are outstanding, like some vine in othercountries, but Belgium is the 
  country of beer and France is thecountry of vine. When it comes to 
  vine, nothing beats the Spanishaverage quality. When it comes to high 
  alcohol beer, Bavaria is 
  alsooutstanding.HakanAt 02:24 
  08/04/2006, you wrote: Hi Gary, i am not shure of the 
  Belgian beer,but bavarian beer is brewed under the 
  "Reinheitsgebot" a law AD 1716 by the bavarian Duch and falsly 
  called the "German Purity Law" since it did apply in the begin  
  only to Bavaria! And it calls: Beer should only be 
  brewed with Barley,Hops and water from deep wells What 
  a wise man this bavarian Herzog Prost Drink ma a 
  Massal guates echtes gsueffiges gschmackiges boarisches Bier 
  Fritz - Original Message - From:  
  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Garymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Gary 
  L. Green To:  mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.orgmailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  Cc:  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Joe 
   Street Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 8:03 PM 
  Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery  Only if 
  it's good microbrewery beer or an authentic Belgian style beer. 
   If it's Amerikan corporate corn and rice fermented chemical 
  soup, please not one in my name.  
  Gary   On 08Apr, 2006, at 2:43 
  AM, Joe Street wrote:  Cheers all. I'll have a 
  beer for each and every one of you LOL 
  :-s___Biofuel 
  mailing listmailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlhttp://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 
  the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
  messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel 
  mailing 
  listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to 
  Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 
  the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
  messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/___Biofuel 
  mailing listBiofuel@sustainablelists.orghttp://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 
  at Journey to Forever:http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.htmlSearch 
  the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:

Re: [Biofuel] off-topic [Hydroponic gardening]

2006-04-08 Thread I. S.

Hi Keith,

I completely agree.  I was just thinking about the
poor guy who had to haul 5-gallon buckets of soil up
to the top of his roof.  If you had absolutely no
other choice( say you lived in a high rise and just
had a little window space) the system I described is
the friendliest potted-plant system I could come up
with.  Growing and sustaining a plot of soil is
definitely a better way to go.  When the first
Europeans arrived in the eastern Americas 500 years
ago, the locals showed them how to grow corn - take a
little fish, stick it in the ground next to the corn
seed, and watch the corn take off.  Sustaining the
soil is at the root of everything, literally.

--- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hi Peter
 
 There really is a range of options available; the
 main
 thing is to adapt to your own unique circumstances
 while using as little energy and material as
 possible.
  I like the idea of the guy growing in an urban
 wasteland - real urban renewal, that is.
 
 Urban wastelands the world over are riddled with
 city farms and 
 greening projects these days, no need to go
 wrong-tech about it. Lots 
 here:
 
 http://journeytoforever.org/cityfarm.html
 City farms
 
 This is quite a nice project:
 
 http://journeytoforever.org/garden_con-mexico.html
 Organic food production in the slums of Mexico City
 
 With drip tubing and very well aerated soil (use
 50-75% non-absorbant material; perlite or coconut
 husks can be used) you can grow plants in fairly
 small
 containers with daily watering and minimal effort
 (drip tubing is really optional); note that in this
 case you have to continually add nutrients to the
 water since there is little available in the soil
 material.  This is a completely different prospect
 from a farmer who rotates crops and continually
 adds
 manure/seaweed to fallow fields, etc.  If you are
 stuck in a city with no other options, the above
 strategy minimizes your use of soil, and you don't
 have to bother will all that hydro equipment.  The
 planting mix can be recycled crop after crop, as
 well,
 with maybe a little fresh slow-release organic soil
 amendment now and then.
 
 Why minimise the use of soil? Use soil, make
 compost, have great 
 crops and no problems.
 
 It all comes down to nutrients - using organic
 fertilizers is the way to go.
 
 Sorry to disagree, but nutrients aren't the way to
 go, whatever the 
 source. Do it organically and you never have to
 bother about 
 nutrients. It makes little difference if the
 nutrients are organic 
 or not, nutrient feeding is chemical growing, not
 organics. You 
 wouldn't expect a guy lying in a hospital bed being
 fed a nutrient 
 drip to have vibrant health and an invulnerable
 immune system either.
 
 You can go to your
 garden store and buy a bag of earthworm casings, a
 bag
 of fish meal and a bag of kelp, mix this up in a
 huge
 tank of water, and use that for watering. 
 Experiment
 with the concentrations to see what works best;
 often
 people use way more fertilizer then they need to,
 which is a waste.  Pretty simple, cheap and
 organic.
 
 Only in origin. Organic growing is a system, what it
 boils down to is 
 feeding the soil, not the plant. If the soil is
 healthy the plants 
 look after themselves, much better than you ever
 can. So-called 
 fertilisers aren't fertilisers, they're just plant
 nutrients. 
 Organic fertiliser is compost, it's just about the
 only thing that 
 will reliably fertilise the soil. And it's very easy
 to make, even in 
 small quantities. No need to buy anything.
 
 I do agree that the oil-refinery byproduct chemical
 fertilizer mixes are best avoided, for many reasons
 -
 whether you are gardening on your roof or in an
 open
 field.  In any case, happy gardening!
 
 Indeed, in any case.
 
 Best
 
 Keith
 
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 --- Evergreen Solutions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
   Err...not sure where all that's coming from.
 
 snip
 
  
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list
 archives (50,000 messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] the end of big biodiesel?

2006-04-08 Thread I. S.

I have to point out here, I've encountered just as
many dishonest and greedy small businesspeople as I
have dishonest and greedy large corporations.  I
rather work with a large group of ethical and
dedicated people, perhaps organized into an
employee-owned corporation, then I would with some of
the independent biofuel entrepreneurs I've come
across.  A certain fraction of people in 'green
business' just view it as an opportunity to rip
trusting people off - that's the sad truth.  As they
say, measure twice, cut once, and trust your
instincts.

Peter I. Solem

--- Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Except before all that gets turned on the practice
 and mindset will be 
 status quo which means that the whole industry will
 be operating on 
 established methods and historical means and
 techniques.  But the end of 
 the petro cycle will entail a huge rise in cost for
 all of that.  
 Trucking all the bio-oil in to the central refinery
 will be terribly 
 expensive which also means the new biofuels also
 will be exhorbitant and 
 will remain so.  On the other hand small scale local
 production will see 
 very little change from what it can be now if it is
 done sustainably.  
 Small IS beautiful.
 
 Joe
 
 Zeke Yewdall wrote:
 
 Well, assuming this is true...
 
 If they are turing all of the biodiesel feedstock
 into fuel, who cares
 if there is no biodiesel any more -- isn't the goal
 of biodiesel to
 turn bio-feedstocks into fuel.  Which sounds like
 what they would be
 doing, just via a different method.
 
 On 4/5/06, bob allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 
 I heard a presentation from a researcher at NREL
 (Pachecko?)at a biomass
 conference in Little Rock, Arkansas last week.  He
 basically predicted
 the death of big biodiesel only a few years beyond
 peak oil.  The story
 goes like this:  when global production of crude
 oil starts to fall
 significantly, and crude supplies in the us start
 to fall, the fossil
 refineries will turn to alternative feedstocks to
 keep their big
 catalytic crackers busy. Easier than coal liquids
 will be the
 supplementation with lipids.  Big oil will buy up
 every drop of
 available fat and oil, blend it with crude oil and
 run it through the
 refineries.  Because large scale catalytic
 cracking is cheaper than FAME
 synthesis, they can undercut the price, and drive
 biodiesel out of the
 market.
 
 --
 Bob Allen
 http://ozarker.org/bob
 
 Science is what we have learned about how to keep
 from fooling ourselves  Richard Feynman
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list
 archives (50,000 messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list
 archives (50,000 messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 
 
   
 
  ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
 
 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
 
 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list
 archives (50,000 messages):

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
 
 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Suspended delivery

Okay but don't tell it to the guy whose job it is to pitch the wort. 
Could get god into trouble with the union.

Do they pitch the worst in soccer? I thought that was baseball. -K


On  08Apr, 2006, at 8:45 PM, Fritz Friesinger wrote:

god adds the yeast anyway what a good brewmaster is doeing is only refine it


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] Biofuels Movement Is A Scam That Needs To Be Stopped

2006-04-08 Thread Alan Petrillo

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/04/08/Opinion/Biofuels_movement_is_.shtml

Someone please educate this idiot.


AP

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] Garrison Keillor on Bush II



A quote from the end says:

Let's bring the boys home. Otherwise, let's send this

 man back to Texas and see what sort of work he is capable

 of and let him start making a contribution to

 the world.


However, this Texan would rather see him sent to Iraq to fight his
own war. We don't need him back in Texas, and we can't leave him in Washington
either. By the way I voted against the republicans and the Bushes since
1990, so don't blaim me.
Mike McGinness

"D. Mindock" wrote:
Garrison Keillor, Tribune Media Services
 Published March 15, 2006
 Spring arrived in New York last week for previews,
a
 sunny day with chill in the air, but you could smell mud,
 and with a little imagination you could sort of smell
 grass. I put on a gray jacket, instead of black,
and went
 to the opera and saw Verdi's "Luisa Miller,"
Snip>


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] off-topic [Hydroponic gardening]

Hi Peter

Hi Keith,

I completely agree.  I was just thinking about the
poor guy who had to haul 5-gallon buckets of soil up
to the top of his roof.

:-) But just think of all the great veggies he'd haul down again, 
with gravity on his side!

If you had absolutely no
other choice( say you lived in a high rise and just
had a little window space) the system I described is
the friendliest potted-plant system I could come up
with.

Could be. I mentioned growing stuff in windows in a tiny 19th-floor 
apartment, in soil with a worm bin under the sink, that worked well. 
People's wives and parents don't always like the worms though, maybe 
your system can be more friendly.

Growing and sustaining a plot of soil is
definitely a better way to go.  When the first
Europeans arrived in the eastern Americas 500 years
ago, the locals showed them how to grow corn - take a
little fish, stick it in the ground next to the corn
seed, and watch the corn take off.  Sustaining the
soil is at the root of everything, literally.

Yea verily. Except all evil! LOL! As to your next post...

All best

Keith


--- Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Hi Peter
 
  There really is a range of options available; the
  main
  thing is to adapt to your own unique circumstances
  while using as little energy and material as
  possible.
   I like the idea of the guy growing in an urban
  wasteland - real urban renewal, that is.
 
  Urban wastelands the world over are riddled with
  city farms and
  greening projects these days, no need to go
  wrong-tech about it. Lots
  here:
 
  http://journeytoforever.org/cityfarm.html
  City farms
 
  This is quite a nice project:
 
  http://journeytoforever.org/garden_con-mexico.html
  Organic food production in the slums of Mexico City
 
  With drip tubing and very well aerated soil (use
  50-75% non-absorbant material; perlite or coconut
  husks can be used) you can grow plants in fairly
  small
  containers with daily watering and minimal effort
  (drip tubing is really optional); note that in this
  case you have to continually add nutrients to the
  water since there is little available in the soil
  material.  This is a completely different prospect
  from a farmer who rotates crops and continually
  adds
  manure/seaweed to fallow fields, etc.  If you are
  stuck in a city with no other options, the above
  strategy minimizes your use of soil, and you don't
  have to bother will all that hydro equipment.  The
  planting mix can be recycled crop after crop, as
  well,
  with maybe a little fresh slow-release organic soil
  amendment now and then.
 
  Why minimise the use of soil? Use soil, make
  compost, have great
  crops and no problems.
 
  It all comes down to nutrients - using organic
  fertilizers is the way to go.
 
  Sorry to disagree, but nutrients aren't the way to
  go, whatever the
  source. Do it organically and you never have to
  bother about
  nutrients. It makes little difference if the
  nutrients are organic
  or not, nutrient feeding is chemical growing, not
  organics. You
  wouldn't expect a guy lying in a hospital bed being
  fed a nutrient
  drip to have vibrant health and an invulnerable
  immune system either.
 
  You can go to your
  garden store and buy a bag of earthworm casings, a
  bag
  of fish meal and a bag of kelp, mix this up in a
  huge
  tank of water, and use that for watering.
  Experiment
  with the concentrations to see what works best;
  often
  people use way more fertilizer then they need to,
  which is a waste.  Pretty simple, cheap and
  organic.
 
  Only in origin. Organic growing is a system, what it
  boils down to is
  feeding the soil, not the plant. If the soil is
  healthy the plants
  look after themselves, much better than you ever
  can. So-called
  fertilisers aren't fertilisers, they're just plant
  nutrients.
  Organic fertiliser is compost, it's just about the
  only thing that
  will reliably fertilise the soil. And it's very easy
  to make, even in
  small quantities. No need to buy anything.
 
  I do agree that the oil-refinery byproduct chemical
  fertilizer mixes are best avoided, for many reasons
  -
  whether you are gardening on your roof or in an
  open
  field.  In any case, happy gardening!
 
  Indeed, in any case.
 
  Best
 
  Keith


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] the end of big biodiesel?

I have to point out here, I've encountered just as
many dishonest and greedy small businesspeople as I
have dishonest and greedy large corporations.  I
rather work with a large group of ethical and
dedicated people, perhaps organized into an
employee-owned corporation, then I would with some of
the independent biofuel entrepreneurs I've come
across.  A certain fraction of people in 'green
business' just view it as an opportunity to rip
trusting people off - that's the sad truth.

That's certainly true. But on the other hand they think big eh? 
Bigger than their boots anyway. It might be better if they're 
operating in their own local community, it helps to keep them honest 
when maybe the daughter of the client they want to rip off goes to 
school with their daughter. Or are they the ones who leave home for 
the big city as soon as they can? Iffy people have been sniffing easy 
money in biofuels for a while, but really a lot of people are seeing 
opportunity there now, sudden big surge of interest round last August 
and it hasn't ebbed yet. Good and bad I guess.

Anyway, small is beautiful is an attitude and a way of going about 
things as much as a comparative measure. Leopold Kohr talks of 
proportionality and appropriateness.

http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/184/illich.htm
Resurgence 184. THE WISDOM OF LEOPOLD KOHR by IVAN ILLICH
Kohr discusses society in analogy to the way plants and animals are 
shaped by their size and sized by their shape.

He doesn't like big though:

There seems to be only one cause behind all forms of social misery: 
bigness. Oversimplified as this may seem, we shall find the idea more 
easily acceptable if we consider that bigness, or oversize, is really 
much more than just a social problem. It appears to be the one and 
only problem permeating all creation. Whenever something is wrong, 
something is too big.  And if the body of a people becomes diseased 
with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive 
idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or 
mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as 
individuals or in small aggregations have been welded onto 
overconcentrated social units. That is when they begin to slide into 
uncontrollable catastrophe. For social problems, to paraphrase the 
population doctrine of Thomas Malthus, have the unfortunate tendency 
to grow at a geometric ratio with the growth of the organism of which 
they are part, while the ability of man to cope with them, if it can 
be extended at all, grows only at an arithmetic ratio. Which means 
that, if a society grows beyond its optimum size, its problems must 
eventually outrun the growth of those human faculties which are 
necessary for dealing with them. Hence it is always bigness, and only 
bigness, which is the problem of existence. The problem is not to 
grow but to stop growing; the answer: not union but division. -- 
Leopold Kohr, The Breakdown of Nations

More:

Ten political principles derived from the work of Kohr, as annotated 
by Schumacher and Kirkpatrick Sale:

The Beanstalk Principle: For every animal, object, institution or 
system, there is an optimal limit beyond which it ought not to grow.

The Law of Peripheral Neglect: Governmental concern, like marital 
fidelity or gravitational pull, diminishes with the square of the 
distance.

The Law of Government Size: Ethnic and social misery increase in 
direct proportion to the size and power of the central government of 
a nation or state.

Lucca's Law: Other things being equal, territories will be richer 
when small and independent than when large and dependent.

The Principle of Limits: Social problems tend to grow at a geometric 
rate, while the ability of humans to deal with them, if it can be 
extended at all, grows only at an arithmetic rate.

The Population Principle: As the size of a population doubles, its 
complexity - the amount of information exchanged and decisions 
required - quadruples, with consequent increases in stress and 
dislocation and mechanisms of social control.

The Velocity Theory of Population ('Slow is Beautiful'): The mass of 
a population increases not only numerically, through birth, but 
through increases in the velocity with which it moves.

The Self-Reliance Principle: Highly self-reliant local communities 
are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than those 
whose existence depend on worldwide systems of trade.

The Principles of Warfare: a) The severity of war always increases 
with an increase in state power; (b) War centralises the state by 
providing an excuse for an increased state power and the means by 
which to achieve it.

The Law of Critical Power: Critical power is the volume of power that 
gives a country's leaders reason to believe that they cannot be 
checked by the power available to any antagonist or combination of 
antagonists. Its accumulation is the inevitable cause of war.

And so on. I don't think Kohr would've

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lyingabout 9/11




"D. Mindock" wrote:
Mike,You
are overlooking that Building 7, not hit by any plane, collapsed in the
same controlled manner as the towers.
OK, I will have to read up on building 7.

Also the
momentum energy of the planes would've been spread over a couple hundred
feet. The stoppage wasnot instantaneous.


I would somewhat disagree on this point as the nose of the
plane would have hit first and focused the most intense "Impulse" force
in the first second of impact. I agree that not all the energy was released
in the first second, perhaps spread out over 4 to 5 seconds and spread
out further as the wings hit, but still I would expect at least 50% of
the energy to have converted to heat in a focused area between the nose
of the plane and the part of the building that the nose hit in the first
1 to 2 seconds. That would be quite significant.

And the towers were designed
for impact by large aircraft.


OK, I will take your word for it. But have those designs
ever been real world tested?

Any onboard oxygen, if released,
would have been used up in a second. Large steel columns have considerable
thermal capacity and conduct heat effectively, spreading it out.
No building with a steel frame has ever collapsed, before or since 9/11,
from fires, some of which were more intense and lasted much longer than
the ones in the towers, which were relatively short lived and not hot enough
to melt steel.


OK, but intense heat in that one second would not have had
time to flow and dissipate through the steel. Also, steel does not
have a large heat capacity like water, it does however have a high thermal
conductivity rate, but a rapid instantaneous localized burst of intense
heat from the aircraft impact plus the explosion would rapidly heat the
local, exposed column(s) causing rapid expansion of that part of the column(s)
resulting in changes in the steel's properties (strength) and causing structural
damage due to the sheer forces involved. Imagine four corner columns heated
unequally (one severely, two only slightly, and the fourth on the far corner
not all) with one expanding rapidly in a few seconds while the others did
not. Picture the instantaneous sheer forces involved. A regular building
fire would be slower, less intense and would be thermally spread out as
you suggest.
In my opinion (which may be wrong) melting steel is not
required to cause the collapse. Sheer force damage to one corner column
should have been enough to create the needed instabilities to lead to the
collapse. Also, to my knowledge this is the first time a large commercial
airliner of this size has flown into a building like this at full speed?
Therefore we have no real experience with this type of building damage
and fire? Right?

There are a plethora of unanswered
questions, if we wish assume the official government line.See:
http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=archive_by_topic
Lots of more info to mull over.


Thanks for the feedback, I will look them over. I also still
wonder how, if there were explosives in the building, how they avoided
being triggered by the impact, explosion and fire from the plane's impact?
And if they did use explosives, and if the explosives did survive the fire,
impact and explosion why did they wait so long to set them off?
Mike McGinness

Peace, D. Mindock

- Original Message -

From:Mike
McGinness

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org

Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:56
AM

Subject: Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's
group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11
This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic.
I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going
through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing oxygen
part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that there is
some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing use in case the
plane is depressurized.
So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and how
much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the fire once
released? Does anyone know?
Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum (mass
of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the instantaneous force
of impact as the momentum of the plane went to zero and how much heat that
released on impact as the momentum was converted to pure heat energy (it
must have been huge), not to mention the mechanical structural damage
effects of that energy transfer from the impact made on the building.
Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are
generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or air
before something starts to give (like the windows at least). However, they
are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX tons of an airliner
moving at several hundred miles per hour with all the force of impact being
concentrated on one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the building.
I agree with Doug's comments below about a

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officialsoflyingabout 9/11

Hakan,

Great, Thanks! If we can come up with an O2 flow rate needed per person we 
could do some calcs and what-if-ing. Also, I know a few pilots here, I will ask
them if they know how big the supply is?

Mike McGinness

Hakan Falk wrote:

 Mike,

 If it follows the rules for the pilots, it should be enough for 30
 minutes. The rules say that over a certain level it must be 30
 minutes for the pilots and over next specified level also for the
 passengers. It is a lot of oxygen.

 Hakan

 At 08:56 08/04/2006, you wrote:
 This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this topic.
 
 I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was going
 through the emergency details and when she got to the breathing
 oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It dawned on me that
 there is some oxygen onboard these planes for emergency breathing
 use in case the plane is depressurized.
 
 So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, and
 how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature of the
 fire once released? Does anyone know?
 
 Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum
 (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the
 instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went to
 zero and how much heat that released on impact as the momentum was
 converted to pure heat energy (it must have been huge), not to
 mention the mechanical structural damage effects of that energy
 transfer from the impact made on the building.
 
 Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these buildings are
 generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of wind, or
 air before something starts to give (like the windows at least).
 However, they are not designed, or even modeled for impacts by XXX
 tons of an airliner moving at several hundred miles per hour with
 all the force of impact being concentrated on one small area, or
 corner of one to two floors of the building.
 
 I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and any
 oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of the
 metals and alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have been
 major factors in the collapse.
 
 Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set them off
 right away and collapse the buildings immediately?
 
 Mike McGinness
 
 lres1 wrote:
 Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches operate at a
 temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste into slag. A
 lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small furnaces use
 Diesel or Kerosene as the source of heat. The amount of heat to
 destroy the steel and alloy in the towers was only limited by the
 amount of oxygen available. At the height of the towers the natural
 movement of wind would have been like a blow torch on all the
 metals given enough fuel to start with. Several tons of Kerosene +
 wind + alloys + other combustibles would make the placing of
 explosives only a marginally required secondary insurance that the
 towers would fall. There was enough in the planes and the buildings
 construction materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve
 more than what a giant cutting torch would achieve. Think of a
 Plumbers kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the amount of wind
 and fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned above. Take
 a look at a vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the
 suspension has collapsed due to the annealing of the springs or
 torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount of heat to
 change the characteristics of metals and alloys. Take away the
 heating from combustibles from the plane and building. Just the
 fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in expansion over
 a few floors in a building of such height can it take? That is a
 building of such height expands slowly during the day and heat,
 shrinks during the cool. Given the height of the building this over
 a 24 hr period would be a significant change in height. If a small
 amount of boiling water is put into a glass the expansion is not
 uniform the glass will break. Uniform expansion in structures is an
 important part in considering conductivity of heat and orientation.
 To have had four or five floors expand beyond their limit and
 incongruously from the rest of the structure would again render the
 structure unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding out
 four or five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as
 fast. The bounce effect in the topmost floors must have been
 quite horrific as they would have risen several inches and then
 dropped the same in a very short time frame. This bounce alone
 would nearly be enough to collapse a structure of such size in upon
 itself with no burning of combustibles from the construction or
 furnishings or even the alloys in the plane. Compare it to using
 the topmost floors as an enormous hammer that hammered the lower
 floors due the effect of the

[Biofuel] Documentation on Wood Properties

2006-04-08 Thread Michael Redler

I found some good documentation on wood at the USDA Forrest Service.Properties of wood:http://tinyurl.com/oyyd5orhttp://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch04.pdf#search='mechanical%20properties%20of%20wood'Publications list:  http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/document-lists/1-publication--list.htmlMike___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lyingabout 9/11

2006-04-08 Thread Mike Weaver

And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft.
I read an interview with the architect - he said the buildings were 
designed to withstand a hot from the planes of the time the towers were 
built; these planes were smaller and carried
less fuel.  In typical list fashion, I don't rememebr the source, but I 
think it was The New Yorker.

Mike McGinness wrote:

 D. Mindock wrote:

  Mike,You are overlooking that Building 7, not hit by any plane, 
 collapsed in the same controlled manner as the towers.

 OK, I will have to read up on building 7.
  

 Also the momentum energy of the planes would've been spread over a 
 couple hundred feet. The stoppage wasnot instantaneous.
  
  

 I would somewhat disagree on this point as the nose of the plane would 
 have hit first and focused the most intense Impulse force in the 
 first second of impact. I agree that not all the energy was released 
 in the first second, perhaps spread out over 4 to 5 seconds and spread 
 out further as the wings hit, but still I would expect at least 50% of 
 the energy to have converted to heat in a focused area between the 
 nose of the plane and the part of the building that the nose hit in 
 the first 1 to 2 seconds. That would be quite significant.

  

 And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft.
  
  

 OK, I will take your word for it. But have those designs ever been 
 real world tested?

  

 Any onboard oxygen, if released, would have been used up in a second. 
 Large steel columns have considerable thermal capacity and conduct 
 heat effectively, spreading it out.  No building with a steel frame 
 has ever collapsed, before or since 9/11, from fires, some of which 
 were more intense and lasted much longer than the ones in the towers, 
 which were relatively short lived and not hot enough to melt steel.
  
  

 OK, but intense heat in that one second would not have had time to 
 flow and dissipate through the steel.  Also, steel does not have a 
 large heat capacity like water, it does however have a high thermal 
 conductivity rate, but a rapid instantaneous localized burst of 
 intense heat from the aircraft impact plus the explosion would rapidly 
 heat the local, exposed column(s) causing rapid expansion of that part 
 of the column(s) resulting in changes in the steel's properties 
 (strength) and causing structural damage due to the sheer forces 
 involved. Imagine four corner columns heated unequally (one severely, 
 two only slightly, and the fourth on the far corner not all) with one 
 expanding rapidly in a few seconds while the others did not. Picture 
 the instantaneous sheer forces involved. A regular building fire would 
 be slower, less intense and would be thermally spread out as you suggest.

 In my opinion (which may be wrong) melting steel is not required to 
 cause the collapse. Sheer force damage to one corner column should 
 have been enough to create the needed instabilities to lead to the 
 collapse. Also, to my knowledge this is the first time a large 
 commercial airliner of this size has flown into a building like this 
 at full speed? Therefore we have no real experience with this type of 
 building damage and fire? Right?

  

 There are a plethora of unanswered questions, if we wish assume the 
 official government line.See: 
 http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=archive_by_topic Lots of more 
 info to mull over.
  
  

 Thanks for the feedback, I will look them over. I also still wonder 
 how, if there were explosives in the building, how they avoided being 
 triggered by the impact, explosion and fire from the plane's impact? 
 And if they did use explosives, and if the explosives did survive the 
 fire, impact and explosion why did they wait so long to set them off?

 Mike McGinness

  
  Peace, D. Mindock

 - Original Message -
 *From:*Mike McGinness mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 *Sent:* Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:56 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S.
 officials oflyingabout 9/11
  This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding this
 topic.

 I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was
 going through the emergency details and when she got to the
 breathing oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It
 dawned on me that there is some oxygen onboard these planes for
 emergency breathing use in case the plane is depressurized.

 So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board,
 and how much, if any effect would it have had on the temperature
 of the fire once released? Does anyone know?

 Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the momentum
 (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the
 instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane went
 to zero and how much heat that released on impact as the

Re: [Biofuel] Bring the Sixties Out of the Closet

2006-04-08 Thread Gustl Steiner-Zehender

Hallo Mike,

Friday, 07 April, 2006, 20:04:32, you wrote:

MW Uh, Yeah. Dude.

MW We  had  all  these  great ideas, then we got really stoned and it
MW drifted away.

Actually  brother, money entered the picture and the better portion of
us  just  melded into the system.  Seems like somehow folks just never
learned  to  get  the right balance of idealism and practicality.  And
with all the isms the we became exclusionary rather than inclusive
and  we  started  down that gradual slope.  It really is a question of
balance isn't it?

MW Then it was the 80's.

And here they slowly come again.

MW Bummer

Far out...

Happy Happy,

Gustl
...snip...
-- 
Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns.

We can't change the winds but we can adjust our sails.

The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, 
soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, 
without signposts.  
C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Straße liegen, 
daß sie gerade deshalb von der gewöhnlichen Welt nicht 
gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden.

Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't
hear the music.  
George Carlin

The best portion of a good man's life -
His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love.
William Wordsworth



___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] More Gardening News

2006-04-08 Thread robert luis rabello

Keith Addison wrote:


 But it IS exactly earth-shattering. :-)
 
 Down to the gravel dust (lots of minerals), an earth-shattering 
 rototiller, worms that shatter bits of rock in their gut to help 
 grind up the other stuff for the microbugs to eat and mineralising it 
 at the same time, and roots that do the same thing inside out, 
 etching minerals out of rock with acid and growing into the cracks.

And it's really quite amazing that God's little creatures do most of 
the work for me, as they've been more than content to do since the 
dawn of creation--and who can argue with a few million years of 
experience--while I sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor.  One 
of our neighbors came over yesterday and spoke to us for better than 
half an hour about our garden and the various plants around our yard. 
  She kept asking how we managed to keep such a beautiful garden, and 
I kept repeating: just compost!

Now, I WOULD like to find a way to get gasoline out of the equation. 
  My truck burns a lot of fuel when it's climbing uphill, heavily 
laden with composted barn litter.  We've discussed the gasoline 
powered shredder already, and then there's the rotovator.  One day, 
when my novels begin to sell and I have a steady stream of residual 
income (don't laugh, it's MY dream!), I'll be able to invest in 
equipment that is gentler on the earth than what I'm using right now.


 Thanks for the report, and for keeping up with it the way you do. I 
 fell by the wayside, no growing reports from me since autumn, though 
 there's lots been doing. I didn't even respond to your reports 
 properly, or not at all. A couple of replies got half-written and 
 then they just sat there and went mouldy, sorry about that. :-(

I like the forum a lot, even though some of the discussion gets a 
little hard for us Americans to read at times, but it's nice to write 
about something positive once in awhile.  My trees have grown a lot 
since I planted them and are already pushing their leaves out.  There 
are lots of blossoms on my pear tree, which was unbelievably sick when 
I bought it for $5 from a local nursery, and all of this growing and 
blossoming surprises me, given the degree of insect infestation these 
trees have endured for the past three years.  I keep waiting for them 
to die, but they keep growing.  My trees are teaching me a lot about 
the value of persistence!

(potatoes)

 And we put some in this afternoon, the second lot, with one to go.

We still have potatoes left over from last year.  A lot of our 
produce ends up going to friends and neighbors, as we can't possibly 
eat everything we grow.  Agricultural productivity really astonishes 
me, it's fun to watch the plants grow, and the people around here are 
beginning to give us grudging respect for what we do.

(brown rice)

 I think you can do it if you want to. I'm about to sow rice here and 
 I don't have much more space than you do (you're my role model, did 
 you know that?). No reason for you not to try growing rice, no need 
 to flood it, grow a metre-wide strip, you might get maybe 1 kg per sq 
 metre, worth having. You could have some difficulty finding a way to 
 dehusk it though. Here there's a traditional method, which of course 
 works well but it's a hassle and the traditional gear is rare, but 
 most farmers have small power-driven dehullers in their sheds so a 
 person can borrow the use of one. Don't know about Canada though.
 
 Anyway, if you want to grow some rice, you might have a read of this:
 http://ciifad.cornell.edu/sri/
 SRI Homepage/System of Rice Intensification
 Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD)

Really interesting!  I've never grown rice and don't know very much 
about what needs to be done in order to cultivate it successfully. 
When I told my sweetheart about what you'd written here she said: 
Ugh!  You tell Keith Addison that rice is too cheap in the store to 
bother growing it!

My poor, longsuffering sweetheart!  I'd like to try growing rice at 
least once.


 Anyway, the SRI system is sure spreading fast, and later developments 
 are using it without any flooding, with compost and permanent raised 
 beds.

In essence, establishing the plants in raised beds when they're very 
young and planting them in a square pattern, with 25 - 50 cm spacings 
between plants.  Keep soil moist, but never saturated, and keep weeds 
down mechanically.  From what I've read, it looks like root 
development is a critical factor in developing healthy plants.

 We grew a couple of beds of rice this way at our previous place a 
 couple of years ago, and we got a harvest of sorts and learned a lot, 
 but we couldn't get good seed and we didn't expect much with the seed 
 we used. Now at last I've found some good traditional variety seed, 
 and I was out in the fields this afternoon with the rototiller 
 preparing the rice bed, among other things

[Biofuel] [Fwd: [IP] Is the US preparing to bomb Iran?]

2006-04-08 Thread Marty Phee

 Original Message 
Subject:[IP] Is the US preparing to bomb Iran?
Date:   Sat, 8 Apr 2006 15:43:42 -0400
From:   David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tim Finin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: April 8, 2006 3:40:18 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Is the US preparing to bomb Iran?

Seymour Hersh has a 6000 work article in next week's New
Yorker on possible plans for a pre-emptive bombing strike
against Iran including the use of nuclear weapons.  While
Hersh has not always been right in his predications, he has a
pretty good track record on the whole.  It's a good article
and also a worrisome one.  No matter what you believe of the
wisdom of attacking Iran, if we do there are bound to be many
more difficulties ahead before things get better.

--

THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Seymour M. Hersh, New yorker issue of 2006-04-17, posted 2006-04-10
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy
in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has
increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified
planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former
American military and intelligence officials said that Air
Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and
teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran,
under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish
contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The
officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the
Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program,
planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
...
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian
leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was absolutely
convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb if it is not
stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do
what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future,
would have the courage to do, and that saving Iran is going
to be his legacy.

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive
issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military
planning was premised on a belief that a sustained bombing
campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and
lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government. He
added, I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, 'What
are they smoking?'
...
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

-
You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

[Biofuel] April 3, 2006 issue of Time Magazine

Greetings all,

I am not a reader of Time, but I was waiting for my flight and picked it
up at the newsstand as the cover page, and nearly the entire issue was
all about global warming.

Most of the rest of it was about the US Immigration debate in
Washington, Republican congressmen distancing themselves from Bush and
Cheney as fast as they can and Iran.

It seems that Global warming is rapidly becoming a common, hot (pun
intended) topic in the mainstream daily news here in the USA. It also
has some positive news about positive efforts that have been undertaken
by cities, states, US corporations and individuals as well as others
worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including CO2 inspite of
Bush and the current US congress.

It is a good read and highly recommended.

Mike McGinness

Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html

Also see:

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1176989,00.html

It also has a story on the Greening of Walmart, The Climate Crusaders,
Clean Power for China, Dehli without Diesel, The Impact of Asia's Giants
- How China and India could Save the Planet - or Destroy it, and
Republicans on the Run!

On a more positive not, the story on the Greening of Walmart details how
a major retailer can change and start behaving better when it's CEO
starts to see publicity about Walmarts negative environmental impacts
begin to affect consumers and their purchasing patterns!

In other words as people wake up and start changing their buying habits
the big boys like Walmart must react or die and become extinct
themselves. From what I read here, and in other recent articles,  that
change has started taking place from the top down (the CEO, Lee Scott)
at Walmart.

Walmart, CEO Lee Scott, according to Time is making major commitments
across the board to try and become more environmentally benign. They are
not becoming altruistic says Scott, but they have changed their
business philosophy probably seeing it as requirement for their long
term survival and profitability in my opinion. My point is regulation is
not the only way we can force major businesses to change. Time reports
that one environmentalist, Amory Lovins(?) head ot the Rocky Mountain
Institute (?) who is now a paid Walmart environmental consultant,
believes Walmart is seriously interested in change. Lee Scott has
committed to reducing the CO2 impact of all Walmart operations worldwide
by 20% (at existing stores)...I just wish I could post the entire
text here as they are talking about their goals of looking at changing
packaging to reduce its impacts, going green by going to wind and solar
power to power their stores, increasing fuel efficiency of their truck
fleets, and rewarding suppliers like those in China for going green! As
I recall there was a resent post about there proclamation to move into
organic produce as well, it was mentioned here too.

Only Time (I know very Puny) will tell if Walmart is really serious, but
if they are and if they are successful it could have a huge worldwide
impact. Let's hope it's true and that others continue to follow suit.

There may yet be hope for Humanity,

Mike McGinness




___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials oflyingabout 9/11

Thanks Mike,

I seem to recall the same thing, architect interview, but on a recent PBS
broadcast on the topic. Probably why I thought the size of the planes made a
bigger difference, or a bigger impact .

Best

Mike McGinness


D. Mindock wrote:

 And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft.

Mike Weaver wrote:


 I read an interview with the architect - he said the buildings were
 designed to withstand a hot from the planes of the time the towers were
 built; these planes were smaller and carried
 less fuel.  In typical list fashion, I don't rememebr the source, but I
 think it was The New Yorker.

 Mike McGinness wrote:

  D. Mindock wrote:
 
   Mike,You are overlooking that Building 7, not hit by any plane,
  collapsed in the same controlled manner as the towers.
 
  OK, I will have to read up on building 7.
 
 
  Also the momentum energy of the planes would've been spread over a
  couple hundred feet. The stoppage wasnot instantaneous.
 
 
 
  I would somewhat disagree on this point as the nose of the plane would
  have hit first and focused the most intense Impulse force in the
  first second of impact. I agree that not all the energy was released
  in the first second, perhaps spread out over 4 to 5 seconds and spread
  out further as the wings hit, but still I would expect at least 50% of
  the energy to have converted to heat in a focused area between the
  nose of the plane and the part of the building that the nose hit in
  the first 1 to 2 seconds. That would be quite significant.
 
 
 
  And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft.
 
 
 
  OK, I will take your word for it. But have those designs ever been
  real world tested?
 
 
 Big snip


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] New EPA Rules

Keith,

Greetings from Houston Texas.

I respect your opinion and point of view on the topic of corporations, but I see
a little bit different perspective on corporations. But first let me agree that
many large and small corporations do commit criminal acts, many of which they 
get
away with, which is most unfortunate to say the least.

snip

Keith Addison wrote:


 You can't change a corporation's mindset by education, nor by any
 means other than hurting their bottom line.

Isn't hurting their bottom line a form of education? How about the fear of
hurting their bottom line or the promise of improving their bottom line?


 The humans who work for
 them notwithstanding, corporations are not human and do not have
 human drives or instincts or inhibitions, their only drive is
 profit-growth.

I am one man who has incorporated a one man environmental consulting business (I
help other companies, including corporations do what I think is the right thing
to do, environmentally. I try and show them how to reduce their negative 
impacts
on the earth.  It is mostly an educational process. I feel like I have a made a
difference educating decision makers in many for-profit and non-profit
corporations.

Isn't my corporation a reflection of me, and of my humanity?

If I were a criminal running a one man corporation wouldn't my corporation be a
reflection of me, or more specifically of my inhumanity?

Also what about non-profit corporations, non-profit incorporated foundations  
and
environmental organizations that are corporations?

That said, part of my point is that corporations are a reflection of those 
humans
making the big decisions at the top of the corporation. Not counting those
corporate leaders who are just out and out criminals, if they make bad decisions
it is the human(s) corporate leaders, the decision makers who made those
decisions who are partly to blame. The rest of the blame goes to a poor 
education
of those decision makers, and to the imperfections of uncontrolled capitalism 
and
free markets as well as imperfect governments and imperfect regulations and laws
which all leads back to us, humans, those who create and run the corporations,
governments, laws, regulations.and so on! Isn't it really people who are to
blame? People can be just as in inhuman as a corporation.

I once had an environmental cartoon on my desk, years ago. This guy was looking
in the mirror and the caption at the bottom said, I have meet the enemy!

 Their PR budgets help people to think they're
 oh-so-human, but the money's only spent because it helps the bottom
 line. You can educate them like Pavlov educated his dogs, via shocks
 that hurt their bottom line and rewards that improve it. Unlike dogs,
 it doesn't work without the shocks.

Yes, PR budgets are all about boosting or protecting the bottom line.

However, sometimes corporations (or more specifically their CEO's) go out and
actively look for new directions to take their corporations in, with out being
forced with a sledge hammer. Some of them have found adopting environmental
policies and sustainable economic policies to be in their best interests. I see
this as more of a self education process than a forced shock process at work in
this example. Yes, it still gets back to the bottom line, but some are learning
that there are better ways to do business and some are just looking for better
ways to do business (economically sustainable). Of course a bit of a reality
shock from somewhere can help heard more of them in the right direction.

So as I see it, it depends on the people at the top of the management team as to
whether they learn by shock and awe, or by opening their eyes and seeing the
light at the end of the tunnel. I don't see all corporations as evil, non-human
entities, but I will agree there are too many of them out there that are evil,
non-humane, criminal beasts that are out of control.

Best,

Mike McGinness



 Best

 Keith

   Some are driven only by regulation and some are also being driven by
   fear of litigation. I am already hearing rumblings in the legal circles
   of new class action lawsuits in the works, here in the USA, suing the
   large CO2 sources and their fuel suppliers for causing global warming
   and the resulting damage and financial losses it is causing. Large
   corporations would rather no spend money fighting such lawsuits and are
   starting to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in hopes of
   avoiding future lawsuits.
 
But class action lawsuits are now more difficult to file, thanks to a
 bill Mr. Bush signed into law last year.  He called them junk lawsuits.
 
  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504703
 
It seems that there's a concerted effort on the part of this
 administration to undermine environmental protections that have been
 historically championed by conservatives in the United States.  I find
 it very difficult to trust ANYTHING coming out of the

Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: Garrison Keillor on Bush II

Speaking of beer, and I was, ... Mike, I read they are going into  
bars and arresting people for being drunk.  Pre-crime.  I never  
thought I'd see it in my life time.


On  09Apr, 2006, at 2:40 AM, Mike McGinness wrote:

 However, this Texan would rather see him sent to Iraq to fight his  
 own war. We don't need him back in Texas, and we can't leave him in  
 Washington either. By the way I voted against the republicans and  
 the Bushes since 1990, so don't blaim me.

 Mike McGinness


___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lyingabout 9/11

But can't you just hear that annoying Dubya voice saying:Them towers have GOT to come down.  If their still standin' then they can be fixed or ignored or sumthin'.  They won't be the symbol we need.  Make sure them towers come DOWN!On  09Apr, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Mike Weaver wrote:And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft. I read an interview with the architect - he said the buildings were  designed to withstand a hot from the planes ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: Suspended delivery

Sports ya know, I just don't get it.People spend money, waste energy, waste time, sitting on their collective asses watching millionaires get some exercise and racking up imaginary points that mean nothing at the end of the day.  No one is helped, nothing is built, no real good is done.I am guilty of all the above offenses but I never made a jock rich.Hee heeGaryOn  09Apr, 2006, at 1:21 AM, Keith Addison wrote:Do they pitch the worst in soccer? I thought that was baseball. -K ___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] April 3, 2006 issue of Time Magazine

2006-04-08 Thread Jason Katie

Oh, wahoo. wally-world to save the day. i doubt it. they will make a big 
show to convince their opposition that they are doing the good deed and then 
when everyone believes it they will flip the switch on the whole deal when 
noone is looking. cant see the flashlight go out in the daytime, y'know.

- Original Message - 
From: Mike McGinness [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 6:39 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] April 3, 2006 issue of Time Magazine

 Greetings all,

 I am not a reader of Time, but I was waiting for my flight and picked it
 up at the newsstand as the cover page, and nearly the entire issue was
 all about global warming.

 Most of the rest of it was about the US Immigration debate in
 Washington, Republican congressmen distancing themselves from Bush and
 Cheney as fast as they can and Iran.

 It seems that Global warming is rapidly becoming a common, hot (pun
 intended) topic in the mainstream daily news here in the USA. It also
 has some positive news about positive efforts that have been undertaken
 by cities, states, US corporations and individuals as well as others
 worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions including CO2 inspite of
 Bush and the current US congress.

 It is a good read and highly recommended.

 Mike McGinness

 Global Warming: Be Worried. Be Very Worried

 http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20060403,00.html

 Also see:

 http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1176989,00.html

 It also has a story on the Greening of Walmart, The Climate Crusaders,
 Clean Power for China, Dehli without Diesel, The Impact of Asia's Giants
 - How China and India could Save the Planet - or Destroy it, and
 Republicans on the Run!

 On a more positive not, the story on the Greening of Walmart details how
 a major retailer can change and start behaving better when it's CEO
 starts to see publicity about Walmarts negative environmental impacts
 begin to affect consumers and their purchasing patterns!

 In other words as people wake up and start changing their buying habits
 the big boys like Walmart must react or die and become extinct
 themselves. From what I read here, and in other recent articles,  that
 change has started taking place from the top down (the CEO, Lee Scott)
 at Walmart.

 Walmart, CEO Lee Scott, according to Time is making major commitments
 across the board to try and become more environmentally benign. They are
 not becoming altruistic says Scott, but they have changed their
 business philosophy probably seeing it as requirement for their long
 term survival and profitability in my opinion. My point is regulation is
 not the only way we can force major businesses to change. Time reports
 that one environmentalist, Amory Lovins(?) head ot the Rocky Mountain
 Institute (?) who is now a paid Walmart environmental consultant,
 believes Walmart is seriously interested in change. Lee Scott has
 committed to reducing the CO2 impact of all Walmart operations worldwide
 by 20% (at existing stores)...I just wish I could post the entire
 text here as they are talking about their goals of looking at changing
 packaging to reduce its impacts, going green by going to wind and solar
 power to power their stores, increasing fuel efficiency of their truck
 fleets, and rewarding suppliers like those in China for going green! As
 I recall there was a resent post about there proclamation to move into
 organic produce as well, it was mentioned here too.

 Only Time (I know very Puny) will tell if Walmart is really serious, but
 if they are and if they are successful it could have a huge worldwide
 impact. Let's hope it's true and that others continue to follow suit.

 There may yet be hope for Humanity,

 Mike McGinness

 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

 Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
 http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

 Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
 messages):
 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

 -- 
 No virus found in this incoming message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 - Release Date: 4/8/2006

___
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/

Re: [Biofuel] [SPAM] Re: More Gardening News