Re: [Biofuel] US forces in Somalia
Also: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01-07-ethiopia_x.htm U.S. support key to Ethiopia's invasion - USATODAY.com By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY WASHINGTON - The United States has quietly poured weapons and military advisers into Ethiopia, whose recent invasion of Somalia opened a new front in the Bush administration's war on terrorism. [more] http://www.alternet.org/stories/46424/ AlterNet: Destabilizing the Horn: American-Backed Warlords Invade Somalia By Salim Lone, TomPaine.com. Posted January 8, 2007. The Bush administration, undeterred by the horrors and setbacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, has opened another battlefront in this oil-rich quarter of the Muslim world. [more] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16128.htm The Islamists were the one hope for Somalia By Martin Fletcher 01/10/07 Times -- -- My colleague Rosemary Righter wrote last week that the defeat of Somalia's Islamic courts by Ethiopian forces was the first piece of potentially good news in two devastating decades. As one of the few journalists who has visited Mogadishu recently, I beg to differ. The good news came in June. That is when the courts routed the warlords who had turned Somalia into the world's most anarchic state during a 15-year civil war that left a million dead. [more] So it seems that we are now engaged in direct military action to support our favored government in three countries now, in our war on terror. Sort of how Vietnam spilled over into special operations in Cambodia and Laos I guess I thought that Iran or Syria would be next, but apparently we#39;re behind the Ethiopian forces in Somalia. The mainstream US news sources have talked about the air strikes that took out the al quaida camp, but make no mention that we are supporting the Ethiopian forces. The Guardian had this article though and Pacifica Radio reported it as well. The mainstream news here doesn#39;t even present the air strikes as being a problem in international lawand that#39;s NPR, not even the right wing stuff from FOX. My first reaction was to wonder how the American people would have responded if say, Turkey, had launched an airstrike to take out David Koresh (an antigovernment apocalyptic cult leader in Texas in the 90#39;s, who the FBI firebombed his fortified compound and killed about 50 of his followers). Gah, the arrogance of my fellow citizens never ceases to amaze me. Thursday January 11, 2007 12:16 AM By PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. special operations forces are in Somalia hunting suspected al-Qaida fighters, but Pentagon officials dismissed the idea they are planning to send any large number of ground troops to the African nation. U.S. and Somali officials said Wednesday a small American team has been providing military advice to Ethiopian and Somali forces on the ground. The officials provided little detail and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. The U.S. forces entered Somalia with Ethiopian forces late last month when Ethiopians launched their attack against the Islamic movement said to be sheltering al-Qaida figures, one of the officials said. They spoke days after an American airstrike on a suspected al-Qaida target that U.S. officials have said killed up to 10 people. The Navy has moved additional forces into waters off the Somali coast, where they have conducted security missions, monitoring maritime traffic and intercepting and interrogating crew on suspicious ships. With the arrival of the USS Ramage guided missile destroyer, there were five ships Wednesday: the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, the USS Bunker Hill and USS Anzio guided missile cruisers, and the USS Ashland amphibious landing ship, which officials said they could use as a brig for any captured suspects. Despite the continuing operation in Somalia, two other senior U.S. defense officials said they had heard of no plans to put any sizable contingent of Americans into Somalia. They also spoke on condition of anonymity because the Pentagon typically does not talk about future operations or troops movement. The small teams of special operations forces serving as liaison officers, advisers and trainers are a different matter, the officials said. They declined to specifically say whether additional teams are planned. There are about 52,000 special operations forces in the U.S. active duty and reserve military, including SEALs, Green Berets and other commando-style troops who perform sometimes-clandestine missions behind enemy lines. They also train foreign militaries, help them with intelligence and engage in other activities to build and maintain good relations with foreign populations and their authorities. Such forces have taken a more prominent role since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as the Pentagon has adjusted to fighting a shadowy enemy.
[Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
Anyone know anything about Tyson using chicken fat to supply stock for biodiesel? If so, comments? Thanks. Mike DuPree___ 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] Methanol recovery;
Hey Tom et al; I think I might have a new solution for our woes re. re-use of methanol. Rather than trying to dry it for re-use in making BD we might be able to just use it for fuel. This local dude who is way into performance diesels comes into my place last night to talk about BD production and when I start talking about recovered methanol he suggests spraying it into the air intake on the diesel engine. Apparently he pioneered this idea years ago and now it is common among the tractor pull crowd. It can have high water content with no problem, in fact he says they sometimes intentionally add water to methanol when using this technique to avoid overfueling the engine and yet still getting the cooling effect that they need when they go for more power and EGT shoots up to 1500 deg or more. It sounds dead simple to add a spray nozzle to the air intake and use the recovered methanol for an occasional power boost. He says it can easily give a 25% power increase. Another plus - you know how they describe on the TDI club pages about how to take the intake manifold off and clean all the black crap out so the engine breathes again? Methanol spray does this for you without taking anything apart. Sweet! I am looking for the downside to this idea. Can anyone here think of a reason this might be a bad idea? Joe ___ 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] Methanol recovery;
Propane is also used, but metanol would be more controlable and less volitale. From: Joe Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Methanol recovery; Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:52:11 -0500 Hey Tom et al; I think I might have a new solution for our woes re. re-use of methanol. Rather than trying to dry it for re-use in making BD we might be able to just use it for fuel. This local dude who is way into performance diesels comes into my place last night to talk about BD production and when I start talking about recovered methanol he suggests spraying it into the air intake on the diesel engine. Apparently he pioneered this idea years ago and now it is common among the tractor pull crowd. It can have high water content with no problem, in fact he says they sometimes intentionally add water to methanol when using this technique to avoid overfueling the engine and yet still getting the cooling effect that they need when they go for more power and EGT shoots up to 1500 deg or more. It sounds dead simple to add a spray nozzle to the air intake and use the recovered methanol for an occasional power boost. He says it can easily give a 25% power increase. Another plus - you know how they describe on the TDI club pages about how to take the intake manifold off and clean all the black crap out so the engine breathes again? Methanol spray does this for you without taking anything apart. Sweet! I am looking for the downside to this idea. Can anyone here think of a reason this might be a bad idea? Joe ___ 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] US forces in Somalia
Zeke, I couldn't agree with you more! Jim Al Tefft - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:50 PM Subject: [Biofuel] US forces in Somalia So it seems that we are now engaged in direct military action to support our favored government in three countries now, in our war on terror. Sort of how Vietnam spilled over into special operations in Cambodia and Laos I guess I thought that Iran or Syria would be next, but apparently we're behind the Ethiopian forces in Somalia. The mainstream US news sources have talked about the air strikes that took out the al quaida camp, but make no mention that we are supporting the Ethiopian forces. The Guardian had this article though and Pacifica Radio reported it as well. The mainstream news here doesn't even present the air strikes as being a problem in international lawand that's NPR, not even the right wing stuff from FOX. My first reaction was to wonder how the American people would have responded if say, Turkey, had launched an airstrike to take out David Koresh (an antigovernment apocalyptic cult leader in Texas in the 90's, who the FBI firebombed his fortified compound and killed about 50 of his followers). Gah, the arrogance of my fellow citizens never ceases to amaze me. Thursday January 11, 2007 12:16 AM By PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. special operations forces are in Somalia hunting suspected al-Qaida fighters, but Pentagon officials dismissed the idea they are planning to send any large number of ground troops to the African nation. U.S. and Somali officials said Wednesday a small American team has been providing military advice to Ethiopian and Somali forces on the ground. The officials provided little detail and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. The U.S. forces entered Somalia with Ethiopian forces late last month when Ethiopians launched their attack against the Islamic movement said to be sheltering al-Qaida figures, one of the officials said. They spoke days after an American airstrike on a suspected al-Qaida target that U.S. officials have said killed up to 10 people. The Navy has moved additional forces into waters off the Somali coast, where they have conducted security missions, monitoring maritime traffic and intercepting and interrogating crew on suspicious ships. With the arrival of the USS Ramage guided missile destroyer, there were five ships Wednesday: the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, the USS Bunker Hill and USS Anzio guided missile cruisers, and the USS Ashland amphibious landing ship, which officials said they could use as a brig for any captured suspects. Despite the continuing operation in Somalia, two other senior U.S. defense officials said they had heard of no plans to put any sizable contingent of Americans into Somalia. They also spoke on condition of anonymity because the Pentagon typically does not talk about future operations or troops movement. The small teams of special operations forces serving as liaison officers, advisers and trainers are a different matter, the officials said. They declined to specifically say whether additional teams are planned. There are about 52,000 special operations forces in the U.S. active duty and reserve military, including SEALs, Green Berets and other commando-style troops who perform sometimes-clandestine missions behind enemy lines. They also train foreign militaries, help them with intelligence and engage in other activities to build and maintain good relations with foreign populations and their authorities. Such forces have taken a more prominent role since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as the Pentagon has adjusted to fighting a shadowy enemy. Somalia's deputy prime minister said Wednesday that more American special forces is for U.S. special forces to go in on the ground,'' said Hussein Aided, a former U.S. Marine. ``They have the know-how and the right equipment to capture these people.'' As for a larger deployment of conventional U.S. troops, a U.S. general last week told Washington reporters he did not expect it. ``Situations change but I do not see it now, and there's nothing that I've heard that implies that at all,'' Gen. William Ward, deputy commander of U.S. European Command and a former brigade commander in Somalia, told defense writers. Ward has been mentioned as the possible commander for a planned new Africa command the Pentagon wants to set up to concentrate more on the region. Africa is now split between a number of commanders. --- Associated Press writers Chris Tomlinson in Nairobi, Kenya, Salad Duhul in Mogadishu, Somalia, and Lolita C. Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.
Re: [Biofuel] The American Chemistry Council on Chemical Body Burden
I would expect that with a scientific study, mice, rats and monkeys will be subjected to individual chemicals, and comparisons between their body mass and the dosage of chemical will lead to a LD (lethal dose) number. We, however, are subjected to a blend of many chemicals, some of which undoubtably interact with each other, hence being handled differently by the body's organs that keep the body clean. I'd be interested in seeing studies that take this action into account! doug swanson Keith Addison wrote: Many studies now confirm that the average human has been invaded by hundreds of industrial poisons, without anyone's informed consent. This is a major human rights violation, but the chemical industry tries to frame it as a health issue, then declare it insignificant. From: Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Tex.), Dec. 3, 2006 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_acc_on_body_burden.061203.htm[P rinter-friendly version] The American Chemistry Council On Chemical Body Burden By Scott Streater, Star-Telegram Staff Writer Below are excerpts from interviews with two senior directors of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group: Sarah Brozena and Steve Russell. Studies have found traces of man-made toxic chemicals in the bodies of pretty much everyone tested. So what? Sarah Brozena: As you pointed out, these are trace levels. These are tiny levels of compounds which now suddenly we can detect. Until the last five or so years, we were only able to detect a few chemicals. Now we can measure more. Does that mean these chemicals were never there before? No. That's not what it means at all. It means our ability to detect has frankly now exceeded our ability to understand what it means And the CDC reports every two years have been very careful to point out that just because you have a chemical in your body doesn't mean it's causing disease. It all relates to the dose or concentration of the chemical We think that these levels, for the most part, are very small and not of concern. But we certainly support the science needed to interpret it in a risk context. Some say we lack good health data on many toxic chemicals used today. Does the Environmental Protection Agency need more money for research? Brozena: Well, EPA is already... looking at the risk assessment on PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid]. They're trying to figure out what the levels are that might cause a problem. The EPA has already been working with some of the manufacturers of that compound to make sure that the compound is controlled more, because it was showing up in more places than they thought it ought to. So EPA has the tools they need if they determine that some compounds are at levels that are worrisome. And those tools in the U.S. are all found in the Toxic Substances Control Act. Chemicals such as flame retardants have improved our quality of life. Is that worth the risk of having low doses of those chemicals in our bodies? Steve Russell: Unfortunately, folks with an interest in this debate tend to make it black or white or all or nothing. Individuals have different risk tolerances and different abilities to see both sides of the story. Many people are fiercely anti-chemical and therefore view any presence of a chemical negatively and would prefer to not have chemicals there. Others take a more pragmatic approach Society is all about making risk trade-offs in every aspect of our lives. Hopefully, this debate can begin to move to a place where risks and the benefits are both portrayed honestly and dispassionately, so that we can make good public policy decisions. Brozena: Right now we're sort of at a period in time in this chemicals in our body issue where it's new information to a lot of people. It's not new to scientists. It's not new, I don't think, to the EPA But I think why this issue is getting attention now is that it's a surprise to some people and it's personal. For the first time they're thinking, I have these in me? And some people have a very low tolerance for that. We want to find out and make sure that the levels that are in our air, in our water, in our environment, in us, are safe levels. I think we and others are doing what we can to make sure that that's right. We want to make sure that our environment and humans are protected. That's what we're all about. ___ 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/ -- Contentment comes not from having more, but from wanting less. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * All generalizations are false. Including this one. * * * *
Re: [Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
Anyone know anything about Tyson using chicken fat to supply stock for biodiesel? If so, comments? Thanks. Mike DuPree http://www.agriculture.com/ag/futuresource/FutureSourceStoryIndex.jhtm l?storyId=77700329 Overlooked Animal Fat Becomes Key Biodiesel Ingredient 4:15 PM, January 2, 2007 DEXTER, Mo. (AP)--Jerry Bagby is typical of the oil men who are prospecting for a fortune in the Midwestern biofuels boom. He's convinced there's oil in these hills -- and he's found a well that no one else is using. Bagby and a longtime friend have cobbled together $5 million to build a new biodiesel plant on the lonely croplands outside this southeast Missouri town. They're betting they can hit paydirt by exploiting a generally overlooked natural resource that's abundant in these parts -- chicken fat. There's a virtual gusher of the stuff at a nearby Tyson Foods Inc. (TSN) poultry plant. Currently, the low-quality fat is shipped out of state to be rendered and used as a cheap ingredient in pet food, soap and other products. Bagby and his partner Harold Williams plan to refine the gooey substance, mix it with soybean oil and produce about 3 million gallons of biodiesel annually. Today, only a tiny fraction of U.S. biodiesel is made from chicken fat, but that seems likely to change. The rising cost of soybean oil -- which accounts for roughly 90% of all biodiesel fuel stock -- is pushing the industry to exploit cheap and plentiful animal fats. The nation's biggest meat corporations haven taken notice. Tyson Foods announced in November it has established a renewable energy division that will be up and running during 2007. Competitors Perdue Farms Inc. and Smithfield Foods Inc. (SFD) are making similar moves. As meatpackers enter the field, they bring massive amounts of fuel stock that could make biodiesel cheaper and more plentiful. The shift to animal fat as a fuel stock could be key to making the budding biodiesel industry a reliable fuel source for U.S. trucking fleets, said Vernon Eidman, a professor of economics at the University of Minnesota who has extensively studied the biofuels industry. Eidman estimates that within five years, the U.S. will produce 1 billion gallons of biodiesel, and half of it will be made from animal fat. By that time soybean-based biodiesel will account for about 20% of the total, he said. For fuel refiners like Bagby, the allure of animal fat is clear. Soybean oil costs 33 cents a pound while chicken fat costs 19 cents. He only plans to include soybean oil in his blend because it adds necessary lubrication for engine parts. Soybean oil is more expensive than other products, so we just use enough of it to make the system run clean, Bagby said, gesturing toward a row of pipes and vats being installed in his new refinery. For companies like Tyson, the attraction is simple. Being the nation's biggest meat company, Tyson is also the biggest producer of leftover fat from chicken, cattle and hogs. Tyson is keeping the specifics of its renewable fuels division under tight wraps. But Tyson Vice President Jeff Webster told a recent investment conference the potential is clear. Tyson produces about 2.3 billion pounds of chicken fat annually from its poultry plants. That's about 300 million gallons that could be converted to fuel. The market for biodiesel and ethanol really started to boom in August 2005, after passage of the federal Energy Policy Act, experts say. The bill set a new standard requiring the U.S. to use 7 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. While it's always been cheaper, animal fat was initially overlooked as a biodiesel fuel stock because of its uneven quality, Eidman said. When the energy bill passed, soybean oil was already widely sold as a food additive. Biodiesel refiners could depend on its quality because the oil was marketed and certified under a strict guidelines, Eidman said. Animal fat also has its technical drawbacks. It clouds up at higher temperatures than soy-based biodiesel, which means it might thicken up when used in colder, northern cities, Eidman said. That might limit distribution to southern areas where temperatures don't often drop below 40 degrees or so. While these factors kept animal fat in the background, the biodiesel industry has hit a turning point. Increasing demand for soybean oil as a fuel and as a food is making the price creep up. It now makes economic sense to invest in new technology to process animal fat into usable form as a fuel stock. Tyson and Perdue are already experimenting with biodiesel. Both companies have started using biodiesel in their trucking fleets. Salisbury, Md.-based Perdue is also selling soybean oil as a biodiesel fuel stock through the company's grain and oilseed division. The company also said this summer it's studying plans to build its own biofuels plants or invest in others. Smithfield Foods has established its own biofuels
Re: [Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
Keith Addison posted: Snip http://www.agriculture.com/ag/futuresource/FutureSourceStoryIndex.jhtm l?storyId=77700329 snip While it's always been cheaper, animal fat was initially overlooked as a biodiesel fuel stock because of its uneven quality, Eidman said. The sulfur content of chicken fat can vary all over the place depending on feed and conditions. There is no mention of this in the article. I suspect that is one of the big reasons they mix with veg oil. Joe ___ 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 American Chemistry Council on Chemical Body Burden
Who knows whether the idea of a threshold is valid. I think in studies of radioactive materials on the human body, sometimes a small exposure is worse than a larger one. And it's known too that there is no safe level of mercury. I'd imagine that the same is true for uranium. Figuring out how a dozen chemicals interact is tough enough. But how about 700 chemicals? We are supposed to meekly bow down to the Dows, Monsantos, and Union Carbides of the world? This is part of the New World Order? Why is the CDC acting as an apologist for Big Chemicals? The precautionary principle is only referred to by the government when it wants to take away our rights wrt fighting those dastardly terrorists or reducing vitamin potencies to very low levels wrt Codex. But when industry runs roughshod over us wrt air, food, and water contamination--well, that's ok. It can't be helped. Don't worry, be happy. You're not dead, are you? Peace, D. Mindock I would expect that with a scientific study, mice, rats and monkeys will be subjected to individual chemicals, and comparisons between their body mass and the dosage of chemical will lead to a LD (lethal dose) number. We, however, are subjected to a blend of many chemicals, some of which undoubtably interact with each other, hence being handled differently by the body's organs that keep the body clean. I'd be interested in seeing studies that take this action into account! doug swanson Keith Addison wrote: Many studies now confirm that the average human has been invaded by hundreds of industrial poisons, without anyone's informed consent. This is a major human rights violation, but the chemical industry tries to frame it as a health issue, then declare it insignificant. From: Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Tex.), Dec. 3, 2006 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_acc_on_body_burden.061203.htm[P rinter-friendly version] The American Chemistry Council On Chemical Body Burden By Scott Streater, Star-Telegram Staff Writer Below are excerpts from interviews with two senior directors of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group: Sarah Brozena and Steve Russell. Studies have found traces of man-made toxic chemicals in the bodies of pretty much everyone tested. So what? Sarah Brozena: As you pointed out, these are trace levels. These are tiny levels of compounds which now suddenly we can detect. Until the last five or so years, we were only able to detect a few chemicals. Now we can measure more. Does that mean these chemicals were never there before? No. That's not what it means at all. It means our ability to detect has frankly now exceeded our ability to understand what it means And the CDC reports every two years have been very careful to point out that just because you have a chemical in your body doesn't mean it's causing disease. It all relates to the dose or concentration of the chemical We think that these levels, for the most part, are very small and not of concern. But we certainly support the science needed to interpret it in a risk context. Some say we lack good health data on many toxic chemicals used today. Does the Environmental Protection Agency need more money for research? Brozena: Well, EPA is already... looking at the risk assessment on PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid]. They're trying to figure out what the levels are that might cause a problem. The EPA has already been working with some of the manufacturers of that compound to make sure that the compound is controlled more, because it was showing up in more places than they thought it ought to. So EPA has the tools they need if they determine that some compounds are at levels that are worrisome. And those tools in the U.S. are all found in the Toxic Substances Control Act. Chemicals such as flame retardants have improved our quality of life. Is that worth the risk of having low doses of those chemicals in our bodies? Steve Russell: Unfortunately, folks with an interest in this debate tend to make it black or white or all or nothing. Individuals have different risk tolerances and different abilities to see both sides of the story. Many people are fiercely anti-chemical and therefore view any presence of a chemical negatively and would prefer to not have chemicals there. Others take a more pragmatic approach Society is all about making risk trade-offs in every aspect of our lives. Hopefully, this debate can begin to move to a place where risks and the benefits are both portrayed honestly and dispassionately, so that we can make good public policy decisions. Brozena: Right now we're sort of at a period in time in this chemicals in our body issue where it's new information to a lot of people. It's not new to scientists. It's not new, I don't think, to the EPA But I think why this issue is getting attention now is that it's a surprise to some people and it's personal. For the first time they're thinking, I have these in me? And some people have a very low
Re: [Biofuel] The American Chemistry Council on Chemical Body Burden
I agree -- calling any trace amount harmless is preposterous. On 1/11/07, D. Mindock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Who knows whether the idea of a threshold is valid. I think in studies of radioactive materials on the human body, sometimes a small exposure is worse than a larger one. And it's known too that there is no safe level of mercury. I'd imagine that the same is true for uranium. Figuring out how a dozen chemicals interact is tough enough. But how about 700 chemicals? We are supposed to meekly bow down to the Dows, Monsantos, and Union Carbides of the world? This is part of the New World Order? Why is the CDC acting as an apologist for Big Chemicals? The precautionary principle is only referred to by the government when it wants to take away our rights wrt fighting those dastardly terrorists or reducing vitamin potencies to very low levels wrt Codex. But when industry runs roughshod over us wrt air, food, and water contamination--well, that's ok. It can't be helped. Don't worry, be happy. You're not dead, are you? Peace, D. Mindock I would expect that with a scientific study, mice, rats and monkeys will be subjected to individual chemicals, and comparisons between their body mass and the dosage of chemical will lead to a LD (lethal dose) number. We, however, are subjected to a blend of many chemicals, some of which undoubtably interact with each other, hence being handled differently by the body's organs that keep the body clean. I'd be interested in seeing studies that take this action into account! doug swanson Keith Addison wrote: Many studies now confirm that the average human has been invaded by hundreds of industrial poisons, without anyone's informed consent. This is a major human rights violation, but the chemical industry tries to frame it as a health issue, then declare it insignificant. From: Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Tex.), Dec. 3, 2006 http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/prn_acc_on_body_burden.061203.htm[P rinter-friendly version] The American Chemistry Council On Chemical Body Burden By Scott Streater, Star-Telegram Staff Writer Below are excerpts from interviews with two senior directors of the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group: Sarah Brozena and Steve Russell. Studies have found traces of man-made toxic chemicals in the bodies of pretty much everyone tested. So what? Sarah Brozena: As you pointed out, these are trace levels. These are tiny levels of compounds which now suddenly we can detect. Until the last five or so years, we were only able to detect a few chemicals. Now we can measure more. Does that mean these chemicals were never there before? No. That's not what it means at all. It means our ability to detect has frankly now exceeded our ability to understand what it means And the CDC reports every two years have been very careful to point out that just because you have a chemical in your body doesn't mean it's causing disease. It all relates to the dose or concentration of the chemical We think that these levels, for the most part, are very small and not of concern. But we certainly support the science needed to interpret it in a risk context. Some say we lack good health data on many toxic chemicals used today. Does the Environmental Protection Agency need more money for research? Brozena: Well, EPA is already... looking at the risk assessment on PFOA [perfluorooctanoic acid]. They're trying to figure out what the levels are that might cause a problem. The EPA has already been working with some of the manufacturers of that compound to make sure that the compound is controlled more, because it was showing up in more places than they thought it ought to. So EPA has the tools they need if they determine that some compounds are at levels that are worrisome. And those tools in the U.S. are all found in the Toxic Substances Control Act. Chemicals such as flame retardants have improved our quality of life. Is that worth the risk of having low doses of those chemicals in our bodies? Steve Russell: Unfortunately, folks with an interest in this debate tend to make it black or white or all or nothing. Individuals have different risk tolerances and different abilities to see both sides of the story. Many people are fiercely anti-chemical and therefore view any presence of a chemical negatively and would prefer to not have chemicals there. Others take a more pragmatic approach Society is all about making risk trade-offs in every aspect of our lives. Hopefully, this debate can begin to move to a place where risks and the benefits are both portrayed honestly and dispassionately, so that we can make good public policy decisions. Brozena: Right now we're sort of at a period in time in this chemicals in our body issue where it's new information to a lot of people. It's not new to scientists. It's not new, I don't think, to the EPA
Re: [Biofuel] Threats of Peak Oil to the Global Food Supply
anyone see that old movie waterworld ? i kind of like the idea of that aerofoil wind turbine that was built into the mast of the main character's catamaran. Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Frank Navarrete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Threats of Peak Oil to the Global Food Supply [snip] Perhaps lessons and plans on how to build wooden boats along with some sailing lessons are in order. [snip] -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM ___ 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] Warming warning Book says Bush government misleading public on warming - The Toronto Star - 2007.01.01
Warming warning Book says Bush government misleading public on warming Illustration: FRED CHARTRAND cp Laurie Wier, ice analyst with Environment Canada's Canadian Ice Service, looks over a Modis (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectro Radiometre) image in Ottawa Friday. It shows the collapse in 2005 of the Ayles Ice Shelf on Ellesmere Island in Canada's arctic. DOMINIC EBENBICHLER REUTERS Climate change? What climate change? Whatever its causes, observable evidence mounts. Above, a ski lift in Europe, where flowers bloomed in November on Alpine slopes. Bears had trouble hibernating in Siberia. And in the U.S., hollyhocks sprouted in December at Burlington, Vermont. DOMINIC EBENBICHLER REUTERS Climate change? What climate change? Whatever its causes, observable evidence mounts. Above, a ski lift in Europe, where flowers bloomed in November on Alpine slopes. Bears had trouble hibernating in Siberia. And in the U.S., hollyhocks sprouted in December at Burlington, Vermont. Halfway into Joseph Romm's new book on climate change, Hell and High Water, I started to get angry. It didn't help my mood that we had a Christmas without snow this year, the planet's hottest year on record, or that last Thursday we learned that an ancient arctic ice shelf the size of 11,000 football fields broke off from Ellesmere Island - yet another visible sign of planetary warming and the shrinking of Canada's northern geography. Something just isn't right, and Romm - closely following other important works on the issue, including Tim Flannery's top selling The Weather Makers and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth - tells us why in a way that the average person can, and ultimately must, understand. At the same time, he convincingly shoots down the arguments of those who claim global warming is a hoax or some kind of natural cycle not associated with human activities. The problem, and hence the source of my discontent, is that those who Romm calls the Denyers and Delayers are winning the political battle in the United States, the world's highest emitter of greenhouse gases and a saboteur of Kyoto talks. Whereas the first third of Romm's book presents overwhelming and disturbing evidence that human-caused greenhouse gases are the primary ingredients behind global warming, the pages that follow offer alarming detail on how the U.S. public is being misled by a federal government (backed by conservative political forces) that is intent on inaction, and that's also on a mission to derail international efforts to curb emissions. The tactics are simple yet highly effective against a scientific community that, while largely unanimous about the causes and potential effects of global warming and it's the same peer-reviewed science that proved tobacco causes cancer, that showed us how to transmit wireless signals to Mars, and which has the world's on high-alert for an Avian flu outbreak - aren't as savvy when it comes to publicly communicating their findings. Romm, an assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy during the Clinton administration and widely recognized as a climate change and clean technology expert, effectively illustrates why science is losing this public relations war. The Bush administration, he argues, has engaged in a well-funded strategy of rhetoric over reason, through which the selective seeding of doubt - with help from propaganda experts like pollster Frank Luntz - has been successful in watering down the seriousness of climate change in the public's mind. At the same time, the White House has recklessly left this same public with the false impression that the United States is taking action, or that some breakthrough technology such as hydrogen- powered cars is just around the corner to save the day when things get really bad. Romm calls Bush's don't rush to judgment and we need to ask more questions stance a classic delay tactic that could still be used 10, 15 or 20 years from now, since all the facts about global warming can never be truly known. Helping plant these doubts is a handful of scientist-commentators - A group small enough to fit into a typical home bathroom, writes Romm - who are often funded by the oil and gas industry and are adept at exploiting one of the media's biggest vulnerabilities: Its pursuit of balance. To create doubt on any scientific issue, all you have to do is find a few credible-sounding people to present your side, and no matter how many people are on the other side, you've got instant debate, laments Romm, explaining that giving equal time to Denyers gives the public the wrong impression about our understanding and level of certainty around global warming science. The most common argument against the case for human-caused climate change is that it is part of the earth's natural cycle of cooling and warming. That theory has been debunked, writes Romm, drawing attention to studies that show a co-relation between cooling and clusters of volcanic activity that spewed particulates into the
[Biofuel] Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California - Globe and Mail - 2007.01.11
Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California Alberta's energy resources at disadvantage under state rule limiting greenhouse gases Byline: Martin Mittelstaedt The tar sands are one of the most prolific sources of energy in North America, but the fabled petroleum resource may have trouble finding a market in California under a new state policy requiring all vehicle fuels sold there to produce lower emissions of greenhouse gases. While most new laws on cleaner-burning fuel look only at tailpipe emissions, the new California policy, announced this week by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has an unusual twist. It will count gases discharged during the full life cycle of the petroleum, a move that puts Alberta's oil sands at a disadvantage because gasoline derived from this source requires huge quantities of energy to extract and mine the sticky bitumen. The oil sands have long been controversial in Canada because of their large greenhouse-gas emissions, but the action in California is the first sign that crude from this source might not find a welcome market in the United States on environmental grounds. This is such a groundbreaking plan, said Hal Harvey, environment program director for the California-based Hewlett Foundation, which helped pay for the research that led to the new directive. Under the state's so-called low-carbon fuel standard, all transportation fuel sold will have to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during its production and final use by at least 10 per cent by 2020. Mr. Harvey says Alberta's oil sands are such a relatively high- emission source of energy -- he puts it at about 20-per-cent higher than gasoline from conventional crude -- that he believes refiners will be reluctant to buy the product when the new policy, to be issued as a directive by Mr. Schwarzenegger, goes into effect. I don't think it would be purchased, Mr. Harvey said. It creates a very large hurdle. He said Canadian tar sands producers will have to develop ways of substantially lowering greenhouse-gas emissions or risk being shut out of the California market. What it really suggests is that it will behoove the Canadian oil industry to think about a carbon mitigation strategy, Mr. Harvey said. Very little synthetic crude from Alberta is currently sold in California, the largest U.S. fuel market. The bulk of U.S. exports go to the Rocky Mountain and Midwest regions, according to officials with Suncor Energy Inc. and Syncrude Canada Ltd., the two big producers in the Alberta oil sands. Syncrude spokesman Alain Moore declined to comment on the impact the directive will have on the company, but said it has been able to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by about 1.7 per cent a year for each barrel of oil produced through efficiency measures. Brad Bellows, a spokesman for Suncor, said the Canadian industry estimates the amount of extra greenhouse-gas production from synthetic oil may be as little as 7.6 per cent, compared with conventional crude, far lower than Mr. Harvey's estimate. Mr. Bellows said the company will be able to cope with the new regulation if the lower Canadian figure is accepted. I don't think that we're actually at any serious disadvantage with synthetic crude, he said. Mr. Bellows said that because of the paucity of U.S. pipeline connections, the quantity of oil from the tar sands that enters California is limited. But Mr. Harvey predicted that the California measure will spread to the U.S. markets that are more important for Alberta's oil sands. California has generally led U.S. states in the field of air-pollution initiatives, and he expects the idea of regulating the full life cycle emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel to be adopted by other U.S. jurisdictions. I think it will [spread]. It's a very appealing measure, he said. The California standard is expected to be in place formally by late 2008, according to state timelines. According to the state, refiners will be able to meet the new directive through measures such as blending low-carbon ethanol into their fuel, or purchasing credits to offset emissions from other companies that have reduced their discharges. Late last year, the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental think tank, estimated that the oil sands will contribute nearly half of the country's growth of greenhouse-gas emissions between 2003 and 2010 unless the industry adopts measures to offset discharges. (c) 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. -- Darryl McMahon It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (now in print and eBook) http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/ ___ 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):
Re: [Biofuel] Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California - Globe and Mail - 2007.01.11
So, does this mean that they will accurately account for the greenhouse gas emissions of ethanol and biodiesel as well? Since they refer to low carbon ethanol, it seems not. Or they plan to have alternative sources for ethanol available by that time. Z On 3/11/07, Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California Alberta's energy resources at disadvantage under state rule limiting greenhouse gases Byline: Martin Mittelstaedt The tar sands are one of the most prolific sources of energy in North America, but the fabled petroleum resource may have trouble finding a market in California under a new state policy requiring all vehicle fuels sold there to produce lower emissions of greenhouse gases. While most new laws on cleaner-burning fuel look only at tailpipe emissions, the new California policy, announced this week by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has an unusual twist. It will count gases discharged during the full life cycle of the petroleum, a move that puts Alberta's oil sands at a disadvantage because gasoline derived from this source requires huge quantities of energy to extract and mine the sticky bitumen. The oil sands have long been controversial in Canada because of their large greenhouse-gas emissions, but the action in California is the first sign that crude from this source might not find a welcome market in the United States on environmental grounds. This is such a groundbreaking plan, said Hal Harvey, environment program director for the California-based Hewlett Foundation, which helped pay for the research that led to the new directive. Under the state's so-called low-carbon fuel standard, all transportation fuel sold will have to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during its production and final use by at least 10 per cent by 2020. Mr. Harvey says Alberta's oil sands are such a relatively high- emission source of energy -- he puts it at about 20-per-cent higher than gasoline from conventional crude -- that he believes refiners will be reluctant to buy the product when the new policy, to be issued as a directive by Mr. Schwarzenegger, goes into effect. I don't think it would be purchased, Mr. Harvey said. It creates a very large hurdle. He said Canadian tar sands producers will have to develop ways of substantially lowering greenhouse-gas emissions or risk being shut out of the California market. What it really suggests is that it will behoove the Canadian oil industry to think about a carbon mitigation strategy, Mr. Harvey said. Very little synthetic crude from Alberta is currently sold in California, the largest U.S. fuel market. The bulk of U.S. exports go to the Rocky Mountain and Midwest regions, according to officials with Suncor Energy Inc. and Syncrude Canada Ltd., the two big producers in the Alberta oil sands. Syncrude spokesman Alain Moore declined to comment on the impact the directive will have on the company, but said it has been able to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by about 1.7 per cent a year for each barrel of oil produced through efficiency measures. Brad Bellows, a spokesman for Suncor, said the Canadian industry estimates the amount of extra greenhouse-gas production from synthetic oil may be as little as 7.6 per cent, compared with conventional crude, far lower than Mr. Harvey's estimate. Mr. Bellows said the company will be able to cope with the new regulation if the lower Canadian figure is accepted. I don't think that we're actually at any serious disadvantage with synthetic crude, he said. Mr. Bellows said that because of the paucity of U.S. pipeline connections, the quantity of oil from the tar sands that enters California is limited. But Mr. Harvey predicted that the California measure will spread to the U.S. markets that are more important for Alberta's oil sands. California has generally led U.S. states in the field of air-pollution initiatives, and he expects the idea of regulating the full life cycle emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel to be adopted by other U.S. jurisdictions. I think it will [spread]. It's a very appealing measure, he said. The California standard is expected to be in place formally by late 2008, according to state timelines. According to the state, refiners will be able to meet the new directive through measures such as blending low-carbon ethanol into their fuel, or purchasing credits to offset emissions from other companies that have reduced their discharges. Late last year, the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental think tank, estimated that the oil sands will contribute nearly half of the country's growth of greenhouse-gas emissions between 2003 and 2010 unless the industry adopts measures to offset discharges. (c) 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. -- Darryl McMahon It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (now in print and eBook) http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/
Re: [Biofuel] Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California - Globe andMail - 2007.01.11
So - Kalifornia will just keep importing. Only 1 of 50 states. M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darryl McMahon Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:16 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California - Globe andMail - 2007.01.11 Oil sands hit major 'hurdle' in California Alberta's energy resources at disadvantage under state rule limiting greenhouse gases Byline: Martin Mittelstaedt The tar sands are one of the most prolific sources of energy in North America, but the fabled petroleum resource may have trouble finding a market in California under a new state policy requiring all vehicle fuels sold there to produce lower emissions of greenhouse gases. While most new laws on cleaner-burning fuel look only at tailpipe emissions, the new California policy, announced this week by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has an unusual twist. It will count gases discharged during the full life cycle of the petroleum, a move that puts Alberta's oil sands at a disadvantage because gasoline derived from this source requires huge quantities of energy to extract and mine the sticky bitumen. The oil sands have long been controversial in Canada because of their large greenhouse-gas emissions, but the action in California is the first sign that crude from this source might not find a welcome market in the United States on environmental grounds. This is such a groundbreaking plan, said Hal Harvey, environment program director for the California-based Hewlett Foundation, which helped pay for the research that led to the new directive. Under the state's so-called low-carbon fuel standard, all transportation fuel sold will have to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted during its production and final use by at least 10 per cent by 2020. Mr. Harvey says Alberta's oil sands are such a relatively high- emission source of energy -- he puts it at about 20-per-cent higher than gasoline from conventional crude -- that he believes refiners will be reluctant to buy the product when the new policy, to be issued as a directive by Mr. Schwarzenegger, goes into effect. I don't think it would be purchased, Mr. Harvey said. It creates a very large hurdle. He said Canadian tar sands producers will have to develop ways of substantially lowering greenhouse-gas emissions or risk being shut out of the California market. What it really suggests is that it will behoove the Canadian oil industry to think about a carbon mitigation strategy, Mr. Harvey said. Very little synthetic crude from Alberta is currently sold in California, the largest U.S. fuel market. The bulk of U.S. exports go to the Rocky Mountain and Midwest regions, according to officials with Suncor Energy Inc. and Syncrude Canada Ltd., the two big producers in the Alberta oil sands. Syncrude spokesman Alain Moore declined to comment on the impact the directive will have on the company, but said it has been able to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by about 1.7 per cent a year for each barrel of oil produced through efficiency measures. Brad Bellows, a spokesman for Suncor, said the Canadian industry estimates the amount of extra greenhouse-gas production from synthetic oil may be as little as 7.6 per cent, compared with conventional crude, far lower than Mr. Harvey's estimate. Mr. Bellows said the company will be able to cope with the new regulation if the lower Canadian figure is accepted. I don't think that we're actually at any serious disadvantage with synthetic crude, he said. Mr. Bellows said that because of the paucity of U.S. pipeline connections, the quantity of oil from the tar sands that enters California is limited. But Mr. Harvey predicted that the California measure will spread to the U.S. markets that are more important for Alberta's oil sands. California has generally led U.S. states in the field of air-pollution initiatives, and he expects the idea of regulating the full life cycle emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel to be adopted by other U.S. jurisdictions. I think it will [spread]. It's a very appealing measure, he said. The California standard is expected to be in place formally by late 2008, according to state timelines. According to the state, refiners will be able to meet the new directive through measures such as blending low-carbon ethanol into their fuel, or purchasing credits to offset emissions from other companies that have reduced their discharges. Late last year, the Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental think tank, estimated that the oil sands will contribute nearly half of the country's growth of greenhouse-gas emissions between 2003 and 2010 unless the industry adopts measures to offset discharges. (c) 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. -- Darryl McMahon It's your planet. If you won't look after it, who will? The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy (now in print and eBook) http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/
[Biofuel] HIV is not a natural event
It is amazing that this site is up running. Probably not for long. Download anything that interests you before it is too late to do so. http://www.boydgraves.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] Pendulum
Kirk wrote: A machine that actually worked without input of heat or mechanical; or electrical work, or produced more work than was input would be an over unity machine. Underline emphasis by me The operation of a heat pump utilizes liquid phase change. The systems on the market choose a specific Freon gas for instance Freon 22 is a CHFC compound. This particular product when compressed to a liquid at say 250 psi would be sprayed through an orifice in an outside evaporator. When the pressure is released to for instance 60 PSI it flashes to a gas. The energy is extracted from latent heat in the atmosphere. The gas is drawn back to the compressor, re compressed to liquid which requires a release of energy. This energy is added to the inside atmosphere and the liquid returns to repeat the cycle. Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system . when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. If anyone wishes to check this data it is available here: http://www.mcquay.com/mcquaybiz/literature/lit_at_wshp/Catalogs/Cat_1100-5.p df Wes PS: my apologies to Keith for not trimming a post. I have changed from daily digest to individual emails so I can't make this mistake again From: Kirk McLoren [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum Actually Wes a heat pump ins a heat transport machine. The amount it transports is proportional to the difference in temperature of the 2 coils. Source and sink in other words. The amount they transport is compared to that amount of heat produced in a resistor. If you think of it as a train carrying heat and the difference in temperature the hill the train carries it over you can see that the definition of standard conditions determines the theoretical COP. I would have to look it up as I dont remember the conditions any more but I seem to recall that a perfect machine would Have a COP of 12 or 13. A machine of 6 would be a pretty good compromise in materials as a machine to be perfect would have huge heat exchangers and a monstrous compressor to keep mass velocities low. At an arbitrarily small difference in temperature the ratio would of course approach infinity. But it is just transporting heat. A machine that actually worked without input of heat or mechanical; or electrical work, or produced more work than was input would be an over unity machine. As an example think of a pipe with an osmotic membrane on one end - a reverse osmosis membrane. As you inserted it into the ocean at some depth the pressure would be adequate to cause pure water to flow into the pipe. Since sea water is 3% denser than fresh water at some depth the weight of the column of fresh water and the required pressure to operate the membrane would be supplied by the weight of the external salt water. At that point fresh water would flow out the top of the pipe sans pump. That would be an over unity machine. Kirk ___ 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] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
- Original Message - From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:30 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel More biodiesel in the marketplace could help make biodiesel's cost even more competitive with diesel fuel, Pearson said. The board estimates that U.S. biodiesel production is tripling annually, going from 25 million gallons in 2004 to 75 million gallons last year. The final tally for 2006 should be between 150 and 225 million. Biodiesel costs about $1 a gallon more to produce than conventional diesel, but federal tax breaks for fuel distributors help hide that cost from consumers. BD a dollar more than DD? what a crock. if we can do it in our collective garage for less than a dollar a gallon why cant they do it in a huge super-specialized facility for even less? man, these corporate types are dumber than i thought...and i figured they were they were incompetent to begin with. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM ___ 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] Pendulum
On 1/11/07, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system … when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ 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] Drudge Report??
Trying 2 times .. both time came up .. Not Available .. is there something going on I should know about?? Mary Lynn Mary Lynn Schmidt, distributor Psionic Energy Software http://miracle6bizland.com/softwaresolutions/ Rev. Mary Lynn Schmidt, Ordained Minister ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART: Facilitator/Consultant for Alternative Healing Modalities and Practitioner utilizing various modalities which can include TTouch . Reiki . Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Animal Behavior Modification . Shamanic Spiritual Travel . Behavior Problems . Psionic Energy Practitioner . Radionics . Herbs . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy . Polarity . THE ANIMAL CONNECTION HEALING MODALITIES http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/ ___ 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] This Week on NOW: A Home Grown Biofuel
For those who can pick up a PBS station, NOW is covering Willie Nelson's biodiesel. it's available for streaming after it has aired. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/302/index.html quoted NOW Newsletter Friday, January 12, 2007 on PBS (Check local listings at http://www.pbs.org/now/sched.html) === Is it hot out here? As the East Coast and the country look back on record-breaking warmth, many are eyeing the environment with renewed alarm. This week, we investigate an alternative fuel that helps not only the environment, but your car and farmers at the same time. Learn more about BioWillie both on television and in our web-exclusive video interview with its creator and namesake, Willie Nelson. end quote doug swanson -- Contentment comes not from having more, but from wanting less. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * All generalizations are false. Including this one. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software. ___ 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] Threats of Peak Oil to the Global Food Supply
I get that movie out occasionally, check it out again. one of the few that I'll watch again from time to time. Like Powder, or The Green Mile for different, and yet related reasons... doug swanson Jason Katie wrote: anyone see that old movie waterworld ? i kind of like the idea of that aerofoil wind turbine that was built into the mast of the main character's catamaran. Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Frank Navarrete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Threats of Peak Oil to the Global Food Supply [snip] Perhaps lessons and plans on how to build wooden boats along with some sailing lessons are in order. [snip] -- Contentment comes not from having more, but from wanting less. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * All generalizations are false. Including this one. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * This email is constructed entirely with OpenSource Software. ___ 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] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
Jason Katie wrote: BD a dollar more than DD? what a crock. if we can do it in our collective garage for less than a dollar a gallon why cant they do it in a huge super-specialized facility for even less? man, these corporate types are dumber than i thought...and i figured they were they were incompetent to begin with. They have a lot more fingers in their pies than you do, with government regulations, paying for collection time and labor and feedstock, Research and Development costs that must be recouped, government regulations, safety inspections, administrative overhead... did I mention the government regulations they have to meet? With oil production subsidized like it is, I'm not surprised that it costs more to produce BD than DD. But I imagine that if you stripped all the subsidies off of both of them, petrodiesel would come out more expensive than the bio. -Kurt ___ 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] Free Trade Agreements Include Free Toxic Waste Sites
From the Basel Action Network http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2006/061208_south_korea.html South Korea Breaks Rank with anti-Basel Ban Block Environmental Groups Laud Move, Critical of Japan and US Toxic Trade Policy Joint Press Release from BAN, Greenpeace, and GAIA 7 December 2006 (Manila, Philippines; Nairobi, Kenya) – Environmental groups lauded South Korea's support, together with the Arab region, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Norway, for the early entry into force of the Basel Convention's Ban Amendment, which prohibits developed nations from exporting toxic wastes to poorer countries, during the deliberations of the Eighth Conference of Parties of the Basel Convention, held in Nairobi, Kenya last week. The Basel Ban Amendment issue came after the European Union urged countries to settle the cloud raised by Art. 17 (5) of the Basel Convention over the entry into force of amendments to the treaty. The US and Canada disagreed with South Korea's interpretation, with the US continuing its vocal opposition of the Basel Ban Amendment during the deliberations. South Korea's move is a significant break from the JUSCANZ, the block of countries that includes Japan, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, who have stridently opposed the Basel Ban Amendment since its introduction in 1995. It also comes at a critical time where global outrage is high against the toxic chemical waste dumping last September that happened in Cote d'Ivoire that killed seven and injured scores of people.1 The tragedy and injustice that continues to beset nations like Cote d'Ivoire should have stopped yesterday, said Richard Gutierrez of the Basel Action Network - Asia-Pacific. It is high time for the few countries such as the US and Canada to cease their obstructionist efforts against the early entry into force of the Basel Ban and respect the will of the rest of the world. Environmental NGOs present in the Nairobi meeting were also critical of Japan's efforts to establish waste colonies around Asia through the use free trade bilateral agreements (FTA).2 The Japanese FTAs contain significant provisions allowing Japan unobstructed pathways to send toxic wastes to its poorer Asian neighbors undermining the Basel Convention's obligations to minimize generation and transboundary movement of toxic wastes, as well as the environmental justice provision of the Basel Ban Amendment. We need an industrialized Asian nation to lead the way towards a toxic waste free Asia, and Japan is failing miserably at this, said Beau Baconguis of Greenpeace Southeast Asia. Added Manny Calonzo of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives: With South Korea's sentiment in Nairobi, there is hope that a new leader can emerge to guide the rest of the Asian region away from Japan's toxic waste colonization. Contact: Richard Gutierrez, BAN Asia-Pacific, Tel: +63.02.9290376, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Beau Baconguis, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Tel. +63.02.4347034, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manny Calonzo, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Tel. +63.02.929.0376, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 For more information see BAN Press Release at: http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2006/060926_activists_call.html. 2 The latest move by Japan came last 9 September 2006, when Japan and the Philippines signed the Japanese-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA). The treaty is being considered for ratification by the two countries. For more information see: http://www.ban.org/Library/JPEPA_Report.pdf. FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The Basel Action Network is making this article available in our efforts to advance understanding of ecological sustainability and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a `fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond `fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. ___ 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] Pendulum
Huh? Did you actually read what I wrote? On 1/11/07, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes *On Behalf Of *Zeke Yewdall *Sent:* Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, *Wes Moore* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system … when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ 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] Pendulum
it's just another lever... using one kind of energy to move macinery to move another kind of energy, where's the confusion in that? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Zeke Yewdall To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:24 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Pendulum The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. -- ___ 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: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM ___ 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] Pendulum
Yes and this is why what does not work in theory sometimes works in practice Wes On Behalf Of Zeke Yewdall Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:25 PM On 1/11/07, Wes Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Taking the data for a unit similar to mine for an example: 30,000btu McQuay with a typical condition 50F entering water temp @ 6.1 GPM with return air temp @ 70, requires 2.383 KW to operate the pump. This is 8,221 BTU's input. . The output under these conditions is 31,413 BTU's indicating a COP of 3.86. My system draws from a 2,000 gallon pool connected to a thermal solar system . when the pool is 70 to 80 degrees my COP is around 5. I work in this industry and most of my colleagues refer to this as over unity. The actual input to this system is somewhere above 31,413 BTUs -- not the 8,221BTUs you indicate -- some input being electrical energy, and some being thermal energy in that 50F entering water. When defining a thermodynamic system, it does not matter what form energy crosses the boundry of the system -- thermal, mecahnical, electrical, it all counts. Perhaps in the heat pump industry they refer to this as over-unity, but to a physicist, just hearing that immediately makes us discount it as nonsense. I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't think the arguement here is about whether heat pumps work, or how they work, but whether the definition over-unity can be applied to them. ___ 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] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
ok, i can see your point, but i have to contend the fact that WE spend a world more time and labor on collection, feedstock can be had for pennies (if anything at all), RD can be written off as an investment, safety inspections are only yearly, the admin overhead can be easily reduced by not paying the admin so damn much, and the only reason the gov't regs are so expensive to meet is because the ASTM test array (six right?) costs just slightly more than the change you can find in the boardroom couch, and they keep making crap fuel and have to retest every run, so thats 12,000USD right there that gets tossed out the window every time they screw up a run. i doubt it would affect them as heavily if they would do it right the first time... Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel Jason Katie wrote: BD a dollar more than DD? what a crock. if we can do it in our collective garage for less than a dollar a gallon why cant they do it in a huge super-specialized facility for even less? man, these corporate types are dumber than i thought...and i figured they were they were incompetent to begin with. They have a lot more fingers in their pies than you do, with government regulations, paying for collection time and labor and feedstock, Research and Development costs that must be recouped, government regulations, safety inspections, administrative overhead... did I mention the government regulations they have to meet? With oil production subsidized like it is, I'm not surprised that it costs more to produce BD than DD. But I imagine that if you stripped all the subsidies off of both of them, petrodiesel would come out more expensive than the bio. -Kurt ___ 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: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.431 / Virus Database: 268.16.9/623 - Release Date: 1/11/2007 3:33 PM ___ 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] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
It's interesting that in this thread so far nobody has brought up Thermal Depolymerization...that's a pretty cool technology that's in its infancy, but has potential. There's a plant in the bible belt somewhere that's been using butterball turkey offal as a base material... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization Anywho...BD proponants will no doubt have something negative to say about this emerging technology, but I think it's pretty cool. Of course, it's not solving out emissions problems, or reducing our energy consumption...which should be the paramount goal in developing energy technologymore for less, renewable etc. --- MK DuPree [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone know anything about Tyson using chicken fat to supply stock for biodiesel? If so, comments? Thanks. Mike DuPree ___ 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/ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL ___ 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] Tyson and Chicken fat as Biodiesel
Luke Hansen wrote: It's interesting that in this thread so far nobody has brought up Thermal Depolymerization... Oh, that's been discussed (and disgust!) here before! Check the archives, Luke. that's a pretty cool technology that's in its infancy, but has potential. There's a plant in the bible belt somewhere that's been using butterball turkey offal as a base material... The problem is not the technology itself, but the factory farm system that actually generates enough waste for thermal depolymerization to be practical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization Anywho...BD proponants will no doubt have something negative to say about this emerging technology, but I think it's pretty cool. Please don't insult the collective intelligence of the list members with such a simplistic dismissal. Some of us have been here a LONG time, and thermal depolymerization is old news in this forum. Of course, it's not solving out emissions problems, or reducing our energy consumption...which should be the paramount goal in developing energy technologymore for less, renewable etc. There's hope for you, if you really understand what you've written in that last statement. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice The Long Journey New Adventure for Your Mind http://www.newadventure.ca Ranger Supercharger Project Page http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/ ___ 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] Correspondance with the White House
This put a wry smile on my face . . . I composed an e-mail to the White House after listening to Mr. Bush outline his tired old strategy for dealing with the tar baby he's created in Iraq. It was uniformly critical, as has been every e-mail I've sent to the White House since Mr. Bush took office. (There have been dozens of these.) I've never received a response, until tonight. Here's what the automailer of the White House sent me: On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence. We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions. The President is committed to continuing our economic progress, defending our freedom, and upholding our Nation's deepest values. Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message. Please visit the White House website for the most up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you. In order to better receive comments from the public, a new system has been implemented. In the future please send your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you again for taking the time to write. Ha! I wonder if any of them bother taking the time to READ!!! This is what I wrote: Dear White House Staff: Despite the more conciliatory tone our president has adopted after the elections last November, I listened to his speech last night with resignation. He STILL doesn't get it! We Americans who have NEVER supported the invasion of Iraq will not support an increase in the number of our troops in that country. Get us OUT of that quagmire. We Americans who are Christians and look upon the destruction wrought by our foreign policy with dismay will NEVER support military solutions to our conflicts. Mr. Bush needs to stop invoking the name of God for the sake of fomenting warfare. Mr. Bush needs to stop invoking 11 September as some kind of mantra that, when uttered, magically vanquishes all intelligent opposition to his policies. I heard his remarks this morning (Thursday) about the capacity of the American people to forget, and I'm offended that he would think me stupid enough to forget what happened that day. I will NEVER forget September 11th! I was in Washington that day. I saw what happened to the Pentagon. Our president has NO RIGHT to assume I'll forget what happened . . . But our nation's response to that day, under Mr. Bush's leadership, has consisted of one myopic blunder after another. He did not announce anything new in his speech to us last night. He's proposing more war, more death / sacrifice (but only for the underpriviledged enlisted, not to his own children), more finger-pointing (laying our inability to stop the insurgency at the feet of the Iraqis, themselves), more deficit spending, more worry about WMD's (Iran) more consultations with nations already generally supportive of an ongoing American presence in the Gulf (the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians) ; yet he's NOT listening to his own people (who have had ENOUGH!), the growing outcry in the Congress (even from people in our own party) and he's still refusing to talk to our enemies. Richard Nixon talked to the Chinese. Ronald Reagan talked to the Soviets. Why can't we talk to the Iranians or the Syrians? Perhaps we don't like what they'll say? Perhaps we don't really WANT to do anything about the Palestinians, whose democratically elected government we don't like . . . Or maybe this apparent ineptitude on the part of our administration is designed to KEEP American soldiers in Iraq indefinately, so that we can justify our large bases there. Perhaps Mr. Bush's saber rattling with respect to Iran is nothing more than another fear tactic to justify the need for large troop deployments in the region. The Iranians don't have nuclear weapons, but even if they did, so what? The Pakistanis have nuclear weapons. The Indians have nuclear weapons. The Israelis have nuclear weapons. Now the North Koreans have them too. We ALSO have nuclear weapons, and we're the only nation that has ever used them in anger. Perhaps, if they're secretly developing a bomb program, the Iranians are looking to deter OUR aggression. After all, we invaded Iraq on a pretext of WMD's there, that, by the way, STILL haven't surfaced . . . I am old enough to remember Vietnam. The parallels between what our president is proposing and the continual escalation of the war in Southeast Asia 40 years ago are compelling. We kept increasing troop strength then, too. We talked out training the South Vietnamese army, and the Vietnamization of the conflict. We became involved in Cambodia and Laos, just as we're becoming involved in Somalia again . . . The conflict in Kosovo was solved with diplomatic effort. The terror in Northern Ireland ended with handshakes, not hand grenades. Ghandi did not kick the British out of India by fighting them. Apartheid
