Re: [Biofuel] ethanol from wood using mushrooms using bioprocess
Hello to every one Very simple bio process using mushroom Pluretus can give substrate for simultaneous saccharification(hydrolysis) and fermentation , this can lead to low alcohol content , but a simple solvent extraction with Castor oil as outlined in http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html.This can lead to hydrous alcohol which can be used directly used as feed stocks (raw material) after removal of the water using compressed air and zeolites adsorption.Surely this can low energy consuming process and can be done in a decentralised small scale biomass refinery as alternate to the petroleum refinery. sd Pannir On 8/4/05, Brian Rodgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that you bring up this point about yeast and fungi eating sugar the same stuff needed to ferment, it occurs to me that these fungi folks were unaware that I was trying to ferment the sawdust. Their original plan as I recall was to help my friend who owns a small sawmill to dispose of sawdust. Oh well at this point it is still in the thinking about it stage. I will gladly leave some of this learning the hard way stuff for next season, or as they say around here Mañana I will apprise you all of the mushroom experiment as it develops. Brian Rodgers My hopes go up and down up and down. Brian Hello Brian. This is most intriguing. Let me describe another sawdust expt. which I did in my kitchen. I first placed the sawdust in a clean wide mouth plastic feeding bottle, anchored it in a pot of water, and boiled for 30 min. with lid on to sterilise the sawdust. On cooling a small piece of edible 'oyster mushroom' was dipped for short time in 'chlorox' solution (dilute sodium hypochlorite solution) and quickly inserted into sawdust with sterilised tongs. The mouth of the bottle was stuffed with sterile cotton. I was of course trying to make edible mushroom. sure enough the white mycellium grew for 2-3 wks. A black coloured spot suddenly appeared and quickly spread throughout the bottle killing the oyster, probably due to poor sterile technique. The oyster mushroom was fresh from the supermarket. It was growing for few weeks. I did not measure the glucose content for which sterile water inlet/outlet fittings would have been necessary. I also did not continue mushroom expts. in my kitchen, although I used it from time to time for tinkering with kitchen chemistry, courtesy of my dear wife, who is now looking over my shoulder at all this with a smile. Cheers. This is very helpful. Thank you so much. I have passed this along to my friends in the New Mexico Mycological Society. http://www.mycowest.org/nmms/ Let's see if they can get on the ball. I received several responses about the wood digesting mushroom at the Biofuels group. I wish I knew more about how mycelia operated. I don't know which is the most useful feedback, so I posted the letters here for all mycological society types out there. Please interpret and give me some feedback so I can pass it along to these other scientific types. At first I thought maybe we were barking up the wrong tree and then one fellow said, Yes Oyster mushrooms, find the right one and grow some. Very cool. You mean we aren't totally off the wall? Brian Rodgers ___ 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/ -- Pagandai V Pannirselvam Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte - UFRN Departamento de Engenharia Química - DEQ Centro de Tecnologia - CT Programa de Pós Graduação em Engenharia Química - PPGEQ Grupo de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Custos - GPEC Av. Senador Salgado Filho, Campus Universitário CEP 59.072-970 , Natal/RN - Brasil Residence : Av Odilon gome de lima, 2951, Q6/Bl.G/Apt 102 Capim Macio EP 59.078-400 , Natal/RN - Brasil Telefone(fone ) ( 84 ) 3215-37690 Ramal210 32171557 Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 3215-3770 residencia 32171557 Cellular 84 88145083 ___ 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] Interesting note: Arlington County, Va. is teaching a class on Diesels, Alt energy, Hybrid, Fuel Cell and Hydrogen cars in its Fall workshop series.
Pretty enlightened to even address the issue, I think. ___ 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] Seeking info on www.electricitybook.com
*I believe* but (would not swear) that I came across parts of this - as I remember it was more of a complation than original material - the sort thing you could find on your own with a bit of net searching. I suppose you could email him and ask. -Mike William Adams wrote: Hi all, Doing a bit of due diligence. Does anyone have experience with Bill Anderson at this URL or with any of the advertised publications regarding authenticity, accuracy, and usefulness? I could find no hit in the archives. Best, Bob Adams ___ 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] ethanol from wood please compliment
Hi Brain Rodgers Gypsym can be used as depolymerizing and delignication agente for removal of lignin at hiher temperatature , making possivel cellulose seperation , and hence , sugar and alcohol production sd Pannirselvam On 8/4/05, Brian Rodgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Manick You are fortunate to have walking encyclopedia in your dad. Nurture him well. During my morning run I stopped by the area where Dad was attaching wire to the steel posts I pounded in over the weekend. (Patting myself on the back here for nurturing.) Hehe Anyway, Dad said it was nice to hear your compliment and he was encouraged. He explained the deal with the gypsum. I admitted I had no idea how gypsum was involved with biomass processing. I am still a bit unclear and asked him to get me a link or write it down so I can study the theory and maybe it will sink in. He also said that he queried the UNM Chemistry department of which he is alumni about which University was actively working on the cellulose to sugar process. They didn't know. Does anyone here know the answer to this question? Brian Rodgers ___ 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/ -- Pagandai V Pannirselvam Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte - UFRN Departamento de Engenharia Química - DEQ Centro de Tecnologia - CT Programa de Pós Graduação em Engenharia Química - PPGEQ Grupo de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Custos - GPEC Av. Senador Salgado Filho, Campus Universitário CEP 59.072-970 , Natal/RN - Brasil Residence : Av Odilon gome de lima, 2951, Q6/Bl.G/Apt 102 Capim Macio EP 59.078-400 , Natal/RN - Brasil Telefone(fone ) ( 84 ) 3215-37690 Ramal210 32171557 Telefone(fax) ( 84 ) 3215-3770 residencia 32171557 Cellular 84 88145083 ___ 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] How to Live Without Oil
How to Live Without Oil New energy sources and efficiency could make petroleum obsolete. By By Amory B. Lovins Newsweek International http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8769620/site/newsweek/ Aug. 8, 2005 issue - In 1850, most homes in the United States were lit by lamps that burned whale oil. As demand rose, supply dwindled-whales became shy and scarce-and prices for whale oil climbed. Then alternative fuels such as smokeless, odorless coal-kerosene began to sweep the market. By 1859, when Edwin Drake struck oil in Pennsylvania, five sixths of all whale-oil lamps had switched to the new fuels. The astonished whalers, who hadn't heeded the competition, ran out of customers before they ran out of whales. Oil may now be poised to repeat that history. With prices exceeding $50 a barrel, the world's oil habit now costs $4 billion a day. Some experts warn that output will soon peak and prices will reach $100, but nobody really knows for sure (94 percent of reserves are owned by governments, which generally keep the data secret). Fortunately, it doesn't matter: With cheap oil-saving technologies and alternative fuels already at our disposal, the sooner we get off oil, the sooner we'll start making bigger profits. That's right-profits. The conventional wisdom is that $50-a-barrel oil has made alternatives to fossil fuels economically viable. But the truth is that they were viable back when oil was $25 a barrel. The arguments in favor of phasing out oil have now merely become overwhelming. That's true everywhere-but nowhere more so than in America, the world's biggest oil consumer. It's entirely possible to cut projected U.S. oil consumption in half by 2025, and eliminate it completely by 2050, without compromising rapid economic growth. Demand could be halved simply by using oil twice as efficiently over several decades; the other half could be replaced with saved natural gas and advanced biofuels. According to a U.S. policy analysis we published last year at Rocky Mountain Institute (Winning the Oil Endgame), the cost of these changes would average $15 a barrel. Even if, as the U.S. government forecasts, oil comes down in price by 2025 to $26 a barrel, the net saving in the United States would still be $70 billion a year, and the rest of the world would benefit proportionally. Burgeoning economies like China and India have the most to lose from falling into a U.S.-style oil trap, and the biggest opportunity to avoid it by making their vehicles, buildings and factories efficient from scratch. Doubling oil efficiency wouldn't be hard. A backlog of powerful ways to save and substitute for oil, amassed since the 1973 oil embargo, remains mostly untapped, even in the most energy-efficient countries. Automakers for instance could profitably increase fuel mileage to 66 mpg (3.6L/100km) for light trucks and 92 mpg (2.6L/100km) for cars. Doing so would cost an extra $2,550 for a midsize SUV, but would pay for itself in fuel savings in two years in the United States and in one year in Europe. This would require combining hybrid-electric propulsion with new lightweight steels or, in a few years, carbon composite parts that absorb six to 12 times more crash energy per kilogram. New manufacturing processes could then make cars big, protective and comfortable with halved weight and fuel use at no extra cost. The U.S. military could pioneer such ultralight, ultrastrong vehicles to modernize its forces. Modern aerodynamics, tires, engines and materials can cheaply double or triple the efficiency of 18-wheel heavy trucks and jetliners, too. Boeing's new 787 consumes 20 percent less fuel per passenger mile than its predecessor. Retooling the U.S. car, truck and plane industries would require a $90 billion investment. That may sound like a lot, but spread over a decade, it's worth about three weeks of U.S. oil imports a year. Other countries' retooling would typically yield at least as handsome profits in both money and security. Once the United States has saved half its oil, it can cost-effectively replace an additional 20 percent with advanced biofuels, and the rest with saved natural gas. Biofuels (based on woody, weedy plants-not corn) will need a $90 billion investment, too, but they'll beat $26 oil, revitalize farming, protect topsoil better and preserve food crops' land and water. Harvesting biofuel crops, carbon credits and wind power all from the same land, much of it now unproductive, can also double or triple net farm and ranch income. Again, details will differ in other countries, but the opportunities are broadly similar-even in Japan, which lacks the Great Plains but is 70 percent forested and could substainably harvest both fiber and biofuels there. Eliminating oil demand in the United States would thus require a $180 billion investment, half for efficient vehicles, half for advanced biofuels. By 2025, that would save $155 billion
Re: [Biofuel] Seeking info on www.electricitybook.com
Hi William, Mike is probably right but I'm already hitting the net for other subject matter so I bought his book. Fairly good stuff in my opinion but keep in mind I'm fairly uninitiated in terms of electrical generation. Tom Irwin From: Mike Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 07:12:55 -0300Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Seeking info on www.electricitybook.com*I believe* but (would not swear) that I came across parts of this - as I remember it was more of a complation than original material - the sort thing you could find on your own with a bit of net searching.I suppose you could email him and ask.-MikeWilliam Adams wrote: Hi all, Doing a bit of due diligence. Does anyone have experience with Bill Anderson at this URL or with any of the advertised publications regarding authenticity, accuracy, and usefulness? I could find no hit in the archives. Best, Bob Adams___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: 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] The myths of Hiroshima
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs caused many tens of thousands of deaths and that Hiroshima was a definite military target. Americans were also told that use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, Racing the Enemy — and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final shock that led to Japan's capitulation. The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed. The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on an essentially defeated enemy. President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace. These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished. Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S. face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror, how can a democracy rely on such weapons? Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons would ultimately threaten our very survival. Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national nightmare — and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream — an atomic suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: Of course it could be done, Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, and people could destroy New York. Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic bombings that shocked the Japanese imperial government into an early surrender — and,
Re: [Biofuel] ethanol from wood please compliment
Thank you for the info. I will need to lookup these terms of course. It does give me more to work with. I do appreciate this. Gypsym can be used as depolymerizing and delignication agente for removal of lignin at hiher temperatature , making possivel cellulose seperation , and hence , sugar and alcohol production sd Pannirselvam Oh Boy! I looked the first one up then asked my wife (she knows more about biology than me) about depolymerizing complex molecules. It is a great feeling when we can all work together on a problem if only to help more of us to understand. Thanks again I feel like I am making headway. Brian Rodgers ___ 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 myths of Hiroshima
Hi All, Although I'm in agreement about the Enola Gay exhibit, I will have to disagree about the use of the bombs. As slightly more modern barbarians we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government. Perhaps Keith can give his insights since he lives close by. My reading of that history is thatJapan's military had a stranglehold on the government. That their way was the Bushido way. There's a lot of death before dishonor in that line of thinking. My father related many stories to me of the kamakazi attacks during the invasion of Okinawa. That they were ineffective does not discount their willingness to die. There were a lot fewer prisoners taken in the Pacific war. Some of that was certainly racism on our side but a fairly good piece of it wasn't. I've spoken with many veterans from that campaign. Many reasonable men told me quite frankly that the Japanese would rather die than surrender. If they could die taking a few of their enemy with them all the better. If this willingness to die was prevelent in their armed forces I think one can make the jump that if the home islands were attacked that our casualties would be very high. Perhaps not the million so often quoted but if it was only a quarter of that, many of us who are currently alive would never have been born. My father was in training for the invasion when the bombs were dropped. He told me everyone on board his troop transport breathed a sigh of relief when they realized they would not have to invade. I personally have no use for nuclear technology or nuclear weapons and am fully against them. But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. my two cents for the day, Tom Irwin From: Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:21:01 -0300Subject: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshimahttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of HiroshimaBy Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer," published earlier this year by Knopf.SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate.The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even "saving" a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan.This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war.But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs "caused many tens of thousands of deaths" and that Hiroshima was "a definite military target."Americans were also told that use of the bombs "led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands." But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, "Racing the Enemy" — and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final "shock" that led to Japan's capitulation.The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that "special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities" warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed.The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson.The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim At 01:23 PM 8/5/2005, you wrote: Hi All, Although I'm in agreement about the Enola Gay exhibit, I will have to disagree about the use of the bombs. As slightly more modern barbarians we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government. Perhaps Keith can give his insights since he lives close by. My reading of that history is that Japan's military had a stranglehold on the government. That their way was the Bushido way. There's a lot of death before dishonor in that line of thinking. My father related many stories to me of the kamakazi attacks during the invasion of Okinawa. That they were ineffective does not discount their willingness to die. There were a lot fewer prisoners taken in the Pacific war. Some of that was certainly racism on our side but a fairly good piece of it wasn't. I've spoken with many veterans from that campaign. Many reasonable men told me quite frankly that the Japanese would rather die than surrender. If they could die taking a few of their enemy with them all the better. If this willingness to die was prevelent in their armed forces I think one can make the jump that if the home islands were attacked that our casualties would be very high. Perhaps not the million so often quoted but if it was only a quarter of that, many of us who are currently alive would never have been born. My father was in training for the invasion when the bombs were dropped. He told me everyone on board his troop transport breathed a sigh of relief when they realized they would not have to invade. I personally have no use for nuclear technology or nuclear weapons and am fully against them. But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. my two cents for the day, Tom Irwin From: Appal Energy [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:21:01 -0300 Subject: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 just five days after the Nagasaki bombing Radiadio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the
[Biofuel] Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history August 6 and August 9 will mark the 60th anniversaries of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second. Some 13 square kilometres of the city was obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries. Three days after Hiroshima's destruction, the US drooped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the year was out. Since 1945, tens of thousands more residents of the two cities have continued to suffer and die from radiation-induced cancers, birth defects and still births. A tiny group of US rulers met secretly in Washington and callously ordered this indiscriminate annihilation of civilian populations. They gave no explicit warnings. They rejected all alternatives, preferring to inflict the most extreme human carnage possible. They ordered and had carried out the two worst terror acts in human history. The 60th anniversaries will inevitably be marked by countless mass media commentaries and speeches repeating the 60-year-old mantra that there was no other choice but to use A-bombs in order to avoid a bitter, prolonged invasion of Japan. On July 21, the British New Scientist magazine undermined this chorus when it reported that two historians had uncovered evidence revealing that the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union, Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American University in Washington stated that US President Harry Truman's decision to blast the cities was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity. With Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in New York, Kuznick studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR. They found that three days before Hiroshima, Truman agreed at a meeting that Japan was looking for peace. His senior generals and political advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs were dropped anyway. Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war, Selden told the New Scientist. While the capitalist media immediately dubbed the historians' theory controversial, it accords with the testimony of many central US political and military players at the time, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 Newsweek interview that the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in his memoirs that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. At the time though, Washington cold-bloodedly decided to obliterate the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to show off the terrible power of its new super weapon and underline the US rulers' ruthless preparedness to use it. These terrible acts were intended to warn the leaders of the Soviet Union that their cities would suffer the same fate if the USSR attempted to stand in the way of Washington's plans to create an American Century of US global domination. Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia. Drunk from the success of its nuclear bloodletting in Japan, Washington planned and threatened the use of nuclear weapons on at least 20 occasions in the 1950s and 1960s, only being restrained when the USSR developed enough nuclear-armed rockets to usher in the era of mutually assured destruction, and the US rulers' fear that their use again of nuclear weapons would led to a massive anti-US political revolt by ordinary people around the world. Washington's policy of nuclear terror remains intact. The US refuses to rule out the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. Its latest Nuclear Posture Review envisages the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear rogue states and it is developing a new generation of battlefield nuclear weapons. Fear of the political backlash that would be caused in the US and around the globe by the use of nuclear weapons remains the main restraint upon the atomaniacs in Washington. On this 60th anniversary year of history's worst acts of terror, the most effective thing that peace-loving people around the world can do to keep that fear alive in the minds of the US rulers is to recommit ourselves to defeating Washington's current local wars of terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. From Green Left Weekly, August 3, 2005.
Re: [Biofuel] Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history
I have a feeling that I'm going to get hammered by some people on this list. So, I want to make sure that everyonenotices that the post went with no comments directly from me. If the title was supposed to have a certain shock value, it worked on me. My general observation is that after reading through it carefully, I came to the conclusion that, if the quotesare accurate,the author was correct in calling it a terrorist attack because of it's motives and desired effect. MikeMichael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history August 6 and August 9 will mark the 60th anniversaries of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second. Some 13 square kilometres of the city was obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries. Three days after Hiroshima's destruction, the US drooped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the year was out. Since 1945, tens of thousands more residents of the two cities have continued to suffer and die from radiation-induced cancers, birth defects and still births. A tiny group of US rulers met secretly in Washington and callously ordered this indiscriminate annihilation of civilian populations. They gave no explicit warnings. They rejected all alternatives, preferring to inflict the most extreme human carnage possible. They ordered and had carried out the two worst terror acts in human history. The 60th anniversaries will inevitably be marked by countless mass media commentaries and speeches repeating the 60-year-old mantra that there was no other choice but to use A-bombs in order to avoid a bitter, prolonged invasion of Japan. On July 21, the British New Scientist magazine undermined this chorus when it reported that two historians had uncovered evidence revealing that the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union, Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American University in Washington stated that US President Harry Truman's decision to blast the cities was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity. With Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in New York, Kuznick studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR. They found that three days before Hiroshima, Truman agreed at a meeting that Japan was looking for peace. His senior generals and political advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs were dropped anyway. Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war, Selden told the New Scientist. While the capitalist media immediately dubbed the historians' theory controversial, it accords with the testimony of many central US political and military players at the time, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 Newsweek interview that the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in his memoirs that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. At the time though, Washington cold-bloodedly decided to obliterate the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to show off the terrible power of its new super weapon and underline the US rulers' ruthless preparedness to use it. These terrible acts were intended to warn the leaders of the Soviet Union that their cities would suffer the same fate if the USSR attempted to stand in the way of Washington's plans to create an American Century of US global domination. Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia. Drunk from the success of its nuclear bloodletting in Japan, Washington planned and threatened the use of nuclear weapons on at least 20 occasions in the 1950s and 1960s, only being restrained when the USSR developed enough nuclear-armed rockets to usher in the era of mutually assured destruction, and the US rulers' fear that their use again of nuclear weapons would led to a massive anti-US political revolt by ordinary people around the world. Washington's policy of nuclear terror remains intact. The US refuses to rule out the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. Its latest Nuclear Posture Review envisages the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear rogue states and it is developing a new generation of battlefield nuclear
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. Using the logic you initiated prior to that statement Tom, that we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government it's a bit of a reach that you can declare your existance to be a pure product of the use of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. If, as you say, we don't know their mindset, then you cannot say that they wouldn't have surrendered upon the very same day that they did. My tendency is to believe that more discovery should be conducted on the events at Potsdam, and the mindsets of those participants before, during and after, in order to come to a better understanding of what direction peace talks were headed and what window may have been on the event horizon. Rather funny this. I was listening to NPR yesterday and two of the crew members of the Enola Gay were being interviewed. One stated that he had no remorse and used the dropping of warning leaflets in advance of the bombing as part of his justification rationale. Yet the authors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, declare those leaflet droppins as non-events until after both bombs had been dropped. If something so simple can be twisted into a falsehood of long historical standing, it's more than probable that there remain a number of other myths and fabrications that lend long shadow to the truth. My guess is that the book is one of those must reads if a person is expected to achieve a fair and balanced perspective, or at least a more apprised perspective, of what honestly took place in that time period. What's the adage? Those who win the wars write the history books? Todd Swearingen Tom Irwin wrote: Hi All, Although I'm in agreement about the Enola Gay exhibit, I will have to disagree about the use of the bombs. As slightly more modern barbarians we really have no idea of the mindset of Japan's WWII government. Perhaps Keith can give his insights since he lives close by. My reading of that history is that Japan's military had a stranglehold on the government. That their way was the Bushido way. There's a lot of death before dishonor in that line of thinking. My father related many stories to me of the kamakazi attacks during the invasion of Okinawa. That they were ineffective does not discount their willingness to die. There were a lot fewer prisoners taken in the Pacific war. Some of that was certainly racism on our side but a fairly good piece of it wasn't. I've spoken with many veterans from that campaign. Many reasonable men told me quite frankly that the Japanese would rather die than surrender. If they could die taking a few of their enemy with them all the better. If this willingness to die was prevelent in their armed forces I think one can make the jump that if the home islands were attacked that our casualties would be very high. Perhaps not the million so often quoted but if it was only a quarter of that, many of us who are currently alive would never have been born. My father was in training for the invasion when the bombs were dropped. He told me everyone on board his troop transport breathed a sigh of relief when they realized they would not have to invade. I personally have no use for nuclear technology or nuclear weapons and am fully against them. But the truth be told, I'm here today because they were used and we haven't had a world war since thier invention. my two cents for the day, Tom Irwin *From:* Appal Energy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org *Sent:* Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:21:01 -0300 *Subject:* [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S.
Re: [Biofuel] Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history
What? You have difficulty in accepting such plausabiltiy Michael? Especially in light of some of the major players of the time admitting the needlessness of it all? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Todd Swearingen Michael Redler wrote: I have a feeling that I'm going to get hammered by some people on this list. So, I want to make sure that everyone notices that the post went with no comments directly from me. If the title was supposed to have a certain shock value, it worked on me. My general observation is that after reading through it carefully, I came to the conclusion that, if the quotes are accurate, the author was correct in calling it a terrorist attack because of it's motives and desired effect. Mike */Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history *August 6 and August 9 will mark the 60th anniversaries of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second. Some 13 square kilometres of the city was obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries.* Three days after Hiroshima's destruction, the US drooped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the year was out. Since 1945, tens of thousands more residents of the two cities have continued to suffer and die from radiation-induced cancers, birth defects and still births. A tiny group of US rulers met secretly in Washington and callously ordered this indiscriminate annihilation of civilian populations. They gave no explicit warnings. They rejected all alternatives, preferring to inflict the most extreme human carnage possible. They ordered and had carried out the two worst terror acts in human history. The 60th anniversaries will inevitably be marked by countless mass media commentaries and speeches repeating the 60-year-old mantra that there was no other choice but to use A-bombs in order to avoid a bitter, prolonged invasion of Japan. On July 21, the British /New Scientist/ magazine undermined this chorus when it reported that two historians had uncovered evidence revealing that “the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union, Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War”. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American University in Washington stated that US President Harry Truman's decision to blast the cities “was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity”. With Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in New York, Kuznick studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR. They found that three days before Hiroshima, Truman agreed at a meeting that Japan was “looking for peace”. His senior generals and political advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs were dropped anyway. “Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war”, Selden told the/ New Scientist/. While the capitalist media immediately dubbed the historians' “theory” “controversial”, it accords with the testimony of many central US political and military players at the time, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 /Newsweek/ interview that “the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing”. Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in his memoirs that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” At the time though, Washington cold-bloodedly decided to obliterate the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to show off the terrible power of its new super weapon and underline the US rulers' ruthless preparedness to use it. These terrible acts were intended to warn the leaders of the Soviet Union that their cities would suffer the same fate if the USSR attempted to stand in the way of Washington's plans to create an “American Century” of US global domination. Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that “Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia”. Drunk from the success of its nuclear bloodletting in Japan, Washington planned and threatened the use of nuclear weapons on at least 20 occasions in the 1950s and
Re: [Biofuel] Nepal's Biogas Program Bags Coveted Award
Thankyou Olivier, good to hear, I forwarded it. We should add this, eh? Thanks to you! The manual, full text online: Nepal Biogas Plant -- Construction Manual. Construction Manual for GGC 2047 Model Biogas Plant. With Dutch and German support, Nepal's Biogas Support Programme has built 95,400 biogas plants in 10 years, with potential for half a million more. These are fixed dome biogas plants, designed in Nepal. Sizes are household-scale from 4 to 20 cubic metres. The feedstock is cattle dung and water (but other feedstocks will work just as well). For instance, the 4-cubic-metre plant requires input from 2-3 cattle, the 10-cubic-metre plant needs 6-9 cattle. This manual includes full construction details, plans and data. With thanks to Olivier Morf. http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library.html#nepgas Biofuels Library - Journey to Forever Best wishes Keith Nepal's Biogas Program Bags Coveted Award By Kunda Dixit Nepal's internationally-recognised biogas promotion program has got yet another feather in its cap. The Biogas Sector Program (BSP) has won this year's prestigious Ashden Award for Sustainable Energy, beating out hundreds of other applicants worldwide. BSP Executive Director Sundar Bajgain received the award from Prince Charles earlier this month in London at a gala ceremony at the Royal Geographical Society attended by 300 dignitaries. The citation for the 30,000 pound award says BSP won for 'outstanding achievement in using sustainable energy to improve the quality of life and protecting the environment'. Since it was launched in 1992 with Dutch and German support, BSP has built 137,000 family-size biogas plants in 66 of Nepal's 75 districts, saving 400,000 tons of firewood, 800,000 litres of kerosene and preventing 600,000 tons of greenhouse gases from escaping into the atmosphere. At a ceremony last week in Kathmandu to celebrate the award, Bajgain said the Ashden prize money would be ploughed back into BSP's cold climate biogas research, which is integrating biogas with rainwater harvesting in arid high-altitude areas of Nepal. The Ashden award coincides with the launch this weekend of Biogas: Theory and Development by the founding father of biogas research and application in Nepal, Dr Amrit Bahadur Karki, with Jagan Nath Shrestha and Sundar Bajgain. This book has everything you always wanted to know about generating methane from dung but were too hoity-toity to ask. The book is a result of Karki's lifetime of work in appropriate technology, not just in Nepal but in Africa and southeast Asia. In that sense it is a labour of love. It is also a tribute to the application of the technology in the field by the BSP. The only thing we can add is that this book should be translated into Nepali and disseminated as widely as possible so Nepali farmers benefit even more from biogas' proven benefits. Source: Nepali Times 22-28 July 2005 ___ 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] Lessons Learned, Lessons Not Learned
http://www.alternet.org/story/23915/ Lessons Learned, Lessons Not Learned By Matthew Wheeland, AlterNet. Posted August 5, 2005. Sixty years after Hiroshima, the damage from those nuclear bombs remains, and the threat is ever increasing. Sixty years ago tomorrow, the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, the military dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. These are the only two nuclear bombs ever used in war, and with good reason. The devastation from the bombs was unfathomable, and as the extent of the destruction became public knowledge, the bombs themselves became a symbol of the atrocity of war. Immediately after the bombs, once Japan had surrendered unconditionally, the U.S. military instituted a blanket ban on reporting about the effects of the bombs. It took seven years for the first photos to surface in Japan, and many more for the larger world to learn what happened on those two days. Sadly, the threat of nuclear weapons seems to have faded from the public consciousness, even as the fear of terrorist attacks looms large. With all the talk of dirty bombs and suitcase bombs, the fact is that more than 30,000 nuclear weapons remain in the arsenals of the eight countries that admit to having any. As Walter Cronkite says in a new radio documentary, Lessons from Hiroshima: 60 Years Later, some 4,000 of these are on hair-trigger alert. Lessons from Hiroshima explores the consequences of the bombs, Fat Man and Little Boy, for Japan and the world. Survivors of the blasts, Japanese and American alike, paint a human picture of how the world was forever changed on those two days. Host Walter Cronkite interviews Mohammed El Baradei from the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency about the modern nuclear threat, and shares his own reflections of post-war Japan. I listened to an advance copy of the program on the way home from work. When I told producer Reese Ehrlich that I sat outside my house for 15 minutes to finish it before going inside, he laughed and said that's known as a driveway moment in the industry. Lessons from Hiroshima: 60 Years Later is full of driveway moments. It is deeply disturbing but offers listeners hope about the future; anti-war activists have come a long way indeed in the last 60 years. AlterNet: Would you tell me how this documentary came about? Barbara Simmons, the executive producer of the show and head of [Pennsylvania radio show] Peace Talks had been interested in this topic for a long time, and she and Jennifer Beer went to Japan and to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and interviewed the hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors), and that was the beginning of the story and this was already a year and a half ago. Then they contacted me to put it together and I realized that for the 60th anniversary, this was going to be a really great story. So we added some additional interviews, we tracked down a Japanese WWII veteran who was critical of the Japanese military, and that's not so easy. The Second World War is still very controversial over there in terms of how you look at it. Unlike the Germans, the Japanese government and right wing has continued to justify in some ways what they did and downplay the nature of the atrocities. So it's not easy to find a Japanese war veteran who will be honest about what happened. It's similar to trying to find, in the military today, somebody who would admit what the U.S. did in Vietnam. It's very analogous, it's Well, yeah, we fought the good fight, we were fighting Communism, we didn't do such bad things. Forget about talking about torture and mass roundups and slaughter of Vietnamese, you just don't hear about it from official sources. so it's much that kind of thing. Which brings us to the quote you have from Robert McNamara basically admitting that, yeah, If we had lost, we were war criminals. Yeah, that was excerpted from The Fog of War, an excellent documentary, and it's very revealing, he really said, had we lost the war we would have all been considered war criminals. [Full quote] And he does some fancy dancing around these issues of firebombing. I think what we do in this documentary, at least for the first time that I've heard, is linking the total war strategy that the U.S. used in Germany and Japan that included the firebombing of the cities, with the dropping of the bomb. It was clear that one led to the other. If you can incinerate 100,000 people in a single night in a firebombing, then why worry about killing that many with a nuclear bomb. And the numbers killed with the two bombs? Two hundred thirty-thousand at Hiroshima and Nagasaki together. And more people were actually killed in the firebombing, in total, because they went on for a lot longer. But that doesn't take into account the collateral damage of people harmed by fallout and radiation, the ongoing damage. Right of course, that's not to downplay
[Biofuel] Hiroshima Cover-up Exposed
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/23914/ Hiroshima Cover-up Exposed By Greg Mitchell, Editor Publisher. Posted August 4, 2005. 60-year-old footage from Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- suppressed and nearly destroyed by the U.S. -- will finally be shown in America. In the weeks following the atomic attacks on Japan almost 60 years ago, and then for decades afterward, the United States engaged in airtight suppression of all film shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings. This included footage shot by U.S. military crews and Japanese newsreel teams. In addition, for many years all but a handful of newspaper photographs were seized or prohibited. The public did not see any of the newsreel footage for 25 years, and the U.S. military film remained hidden for nearly four decades. The full story of this atomic cover-up is told fully for the first time at Editor Publisher, as the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings approaches later this week. Some of the long-suppressed footage will be aired on television this Saturday. Six weeks ago, EP broke the story that articles written by famed Chicago Daily News war correspondent George Weller about the effects of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki were finally published, in Japan, almost six decades after they had been spiked by U.S. officials. This drew national attention, but suppressing film footage shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was even more significant, as this country rushed into the nuclear age with its citizens having neither a true understanding of the effects of the bomb on human beings, nor why the atomic attacks drew condemnation around the world. As editor of Nuclear Times magazine in the 1980s, I met Herbert Sussan, one of the members of the U.S. military film crew, and Erik Barnouw, the famed documentarian who first showed some of the Japanese footage on American TV in 1970. In fact, that newsreel footage might have disappeared forever if the Japanese filmmakers had not hidden one print from the Americans in a ceiling. The color U.S. military footage would remain hidden until the early 1980s, and has never been fully aired. It rests today at the National Archives in College Park, Md., in the form of 90,000 feet of raw footage labeled #342 USAF. When that footage finally emerged, I corresponded and spoke with the man at the center of this drama: Lt. Col. (Ret.) Daniel A. McGovern, who directed the U.S. military filmmakers in 1945-1946, managed the Japanese footage, and then kept watch on all of the top-secret material for decades. I always had the sense, McGovern told me, that people in the Atomic Energy Commission were sorry we had dropped the bomb. The Air Force -- it was also sorry. I was told by people in the Pentagon that they didn't want those [film] images out because they showed effects on man, woman and child. ... They didn't want the general public to know what their weapons had done -- at a time they were planning on more bomb tests. We didn't want the material out because ... we were sorry for our sins. Sussan, meanwhile, struggled for years to get some of the American footage aired on national TV, taking his request as high as President Truman, Robert F. Kennedy and Edward R. Murrow, to no avail. More recently, McGovern declared that Americans should have seen the damage wrought by the bomb. The main reason it was classified was ... because of the horror, the devastation, he said. Because the footage shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was hidden for so long, the atomic bombings quickly sank, unconfronted and unresolved, into the deeper recesses of American awareness, as a costly nuclear arms race, and nuclear proliferation, accelerated. The atomic cover-up also reveals what can happen in any country that carries out deadly attacks on civilians in any war and then keeps images of what occurred from its own people. Ten years ago, I co-authored (with Robert Jay Lifton) the book Hiroshima in America, and new material has emerged since. On Aug. 6, and on following days, the Sundance cable channel will air Original Child Bomb, a prize-winning documentary on which I worked. The film includes some of the once-censored footage -- along with home movies filmed by McGovern in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese newsreel footage On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb over Hiroshima, killing at least 70,000 instantly and perhaps 50,000 more in the days and months to follow. Three days later, it exploded another atomic bomb over Nagasaki, slightly off target, killing 40,000 immediately and dooming tens of thousands of others. Within days, Japan had surrendered, and the U.S. readied plans for occupying the defeated country -- and documenting the first atomic catastrophe. But the Japanese also wanted to study it. Within days of the second atomic attack, officials at the Tokyo-based newsreel company Nippon Eigasha discussed shooting film in
[Biofuel] Re: thermal depolymerization
Forgot about this... http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg45810.html [Biofuel] 'Changing World Technologies' Plan to Turn Garbage into Oil Best Keith Hello Brian Ok, I promised the list admin I would look in the archives before I asked questions about new subjects. I did find some stuff about thermal depolymerization TDP. http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htmht tp://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm I really would like to know what the current group thinks about the Thermal Conversion Process (TCP). I have read the company blurbs at Changing World Technologies site and a few other articles found on the Web. Have you all exhausted your talk on this already? In the meantime I will keep searching the archives. I realize that TDP is not a backyard project so if you want to leave it alone I will understand. Brian Rodgers It's a hardy perennial, always popping up in a new guise, whether oil from turkey parts or whatever. An archive search for Fischer-Tropsch will tell you much, including this fascinating snippet, from a list member: One of our oldest scientists, now 84 yrs. old, was responsible for going into Germany post WWII and uncovering the remains of Hitler's synthetic fuels machine which had been bombed out. I'm speaking of Fischer-Tropsch oily-based paraffins which are hydrocracked down into shorter chains for synthetic gasoline, jet fuel and diesel. He brought back some of the original German scientists who'd perfected this technology which utilized coarse, low-grade brown German coal as feedstock. Three times he tried to start-up an American version of synthetic hydrocarbon fuels in the GTL arena and was blocked. As the highest ranking American energy technologist post WWII, he couldn't figure this out. It was over 20 years later that he realized that the late John Rockefeller of Standard Oil [Exxon] had been the politic behind the scenes, making sure that his new, alternative fuel ideas did not materialize. This scientist then took his blueprints for the first major GTL project and gave them to Sasol who built his first coal gasification device back in 1953 and it is still operating today. Sasol from South Africa is the oldest synthetic fuels producer globally. Try these: http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg46496.html Re: [Biofuel] Chrisgas http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39855.html Re: [Biofuel] what are the on about? http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39881.html Re: [Biofuel] what are the on about? http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg39888.html Re: [Biofuel] what are the on about? http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg32941.html Re: [biofuel] Sunoil better than biodiesel http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg24063.html Re: [biofuel] longdiscover article: anything to oil! 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/
[Biofuel] The Treaty Wreckers
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080305O.shtml The Treaty Wreckers By George Monbiot The Guardian UK Tuesday 02 August 2005 In just a few months, Bush and Blair have destroyed global restraint on the development of nuclear weapons. Saturday is the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. The nuclear powers are commemorating it in their own special way: by seeking to ensure that the experiment is repeated. As Robin Cook showed in his column last week, the British government appears to have decided to replace our Trident nuclear weapons, without consulting parliament or informing the public. It could be worse than he thinks. He pointed out that the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston has been re-equipped to build a new generation of bombs. But when this news was first leaked in 2002 a spokesman for the plant insisted the equipment was being installed not to replace Trident but to build either mini-nukes or warheads that could be used on cruise missiles. If this is true it means the government is replacing Trident and developing a new category of boil-in-the-bag weapons. As if to ensure we got the point, Geoff Hoon, then the defence secretary, announced before the leak that Britain would be prepared to use small nukes in a pre-emptive strike against a non-nuclear state. This put us in the hallowed company of North Korea. The Times, helpful as ever, explains why Trident should be replaced. A decision to leave the club of nuclear powers, it says, would diminish Britain's international standing and influence. This is true, and it accounts for why almost everyone wants the bomb. Two weeks ago, on concluding their new nuclear treaty, George Bush and the Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh announced that international institutions must fully reflect changes in the global scenario that have taken place since 1945. The president reiterated his view that international institutions are going to have to adapt to reflect India's central and growing role. This translates as follows: Now that India has the bomb it should join the UN security council. It is because nuclear weapons confer power and status on the states that possess them that the non-proliferation treaty, of which the UK was a founding signatory, determines two things: that the non-nuclear powers should not acquire nuclear weapons, and that the nuclear powers should pursue negotiations in good faith on ... general and complete disarmament. Blair has unilaterally decided to rip it up. But in helping to wreck the treaty we are only keeping up with our friends across the water. In May the US government launched a systematic assault on the agreement. The summit in New York was supposed to strengthen it, but the US, led by John Bolton - the undersecretary for arms control (someone had a good laugh over that one) - refused even to allow the other nations to draw up an agenda for discussion. The talks collapsed, and the treaty may now be all but dead. Needless to say, Bolton has been promoted: to the post of US ambassador to the UN. Yesterday Bush pushed his nomination through by means of a recess appointment: an undemocratic power that allows him to override Congress when its members are on holiday. Bush wanted to destroy the treaty because it couldn't be reconciled with his new plans. Last month the Senate approved an initial $4m for research into a robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP). This is a bomb with a yield about 10 times that of the Hiroshima device, designed to blow up underground bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction. (You've spotted the contradiction.) Congress rejected funding for it in November, but Bush twisted enough arms this year to get it restarted. You see what a wonderful world he inhabits when you discover that the RNEP idea was conceived in 1991 as a means of dealing with Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Saddam is pacing his cell, but the Bushites, like the Japanese soldiers lost in Malaysia, march on. To pursue his war against the phantom of the phantom of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, Bush has destroyed the treaty that prevents the use of real ones. It gets worse. Last year Congress allocated funding for something called the reliable replacement warhead. The government's story is that the existing warheads might be deteriorating. When they show signs of ageing they can be dismantled and rebuilt to a safer and more reliable design. It's a pretty feeble excuse for building a new generation of nukes, but it worked. The development of the new bombs probably means the US will also breach the comprehensive test ban treaty - so we can kiss goodbye to another means of preventing proliferation. But the biggest disaster was Bush's meeting with Manmohan Singh a fortnight ago. India is one of three states that possess nuclear weapons and refuse to sign the
[Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story August 5, 2005 latimes.com : Opinion : Commentary The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 - just five days after the Nagasaki bombing - Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although patriotically correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs caused many tens of thousands of deaths and that Hiroshima was a definite military target. Americans were also told that use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, Racing the Enemy - and many other historians have long argued - it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final shock that led to Japan's capitulation. The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed. The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on an essentially defeated enemy. President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State James Byrnes, quite plainly used it primarily to prevent the Soviets from sharing in the occupation of Japan. And they used it on Aug. 6 even though they had agreed among themselves as they returned home from the Potsdam Conference on Aug. 3 that the Japanese were looking for peace. These unpleasant historical facts were censored from the 1995 Smithsonian exhibit, an action that should trouble every American. When a government substitutes an officially sanctioned view for publicly debated history, democracy is diminished. Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S. face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror, how can a democracy rely on such weapons? Oppenheimer understood very soon after Hiroshima that these weapons would ultimately threaten our very survival. Presciently, he even warned us against what is now our worst national nightmare - and Osama bin Laden's frequently voiced dream - an atomic suitcase bomb smuggled into an American city: Of course it could be done, Oppenheimer told a Senate committee, and people could destroy New York. Ironically, Hiroshima's myths are now motivating our enemies to attack us with the very weapon we invented. Bin Laden repeatedly refers to Hiroshima in his rambling speeches. It was, he believes, the atomic bombings that shocked the Japanese
[Biofuel] New Fair Trade Model Needed
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2266/ News July 28, 2005 New Fair Trade Model Needed Sweeping changes in the export of textiles have forced a difficult reappraisal among U.S. sweatshop monitors: How best to help workers in a relentless industry? By Mischa Gaus Workers at the Youngor Group textile factory in China. The expiration of the worldwide quota system that regulated the flow of textiles between the global south and north, now six months old, has created massive job losses across the Americas, Africa and parts of South and Southeast Asia. The quotas restricted the number of textiles and garments each of about 150 countries could import to the United States and the European Union by type. The United Nations Development Program estimated 1 million jobs may be lost as a result. Following shifts in production to China, Vietnam and India, exports to the United States of some goods from those countries increased by as much as 1,200 percent this year. Sweatshop monitoring groups say other areas handicapped by geography and poor infrastructure, like Swaziland, saw nearly half their factories closed. The quotas existed for 30 years to protect rich nations' garment industries from low-wage competition in poor countries. Rich nations gave up quotas a decade ago during World Trade Organization negotiations in return for other favorable rules, and quotas have been phasing out since then. January's quota termination accelerated the trend in the already cutthroat business that demands annual price cuts from its contracted factories-2 to 3 percent each year over the last decade, according to a U.S. mill spokesman. Some estimates say the phase-out could allow apparel corporations to force prices down by as much as 30 percent, making life much worse for apparel workers who still have jobs. Factories find a way to meet the price or they don't, says Scott Nova, executive director of the factory-monitoring group, Worker Rights Consortium. One of the ways they're going to meet it is by screwing their workers. Brands know this and they ultimately bear the moral responsibility for causing it. The wrenching changes in the apparel industry vexes groups like the Consortium, which has spent four years focusing on individual factories to help garment workers build independent unions, obtain health benefits, and curb blacklisting, discrimination and physical violence against workers who join unions or attempt to organize them. But having friends in the north was no immunity. Several of the factories where the Consortium helped secure large gains have closed or idled workers as managers moved production out. As in the rest of the industry, much of the work fled to China, where independent unions are banned. Undeterred, the Consortium has partnered with Hong Kong-based NGOs that operate in the mainland. With backing from brands that contract with Chinese factories, the group plans to hold labor and safety trainings inside shops-and below the government's radar. That could nurture independent organizing and, in time, nascent unions. The crucial question: How long before the Chinese government, which has tolerated some spontaneous worker organizing recently, would see the trainings as a threat? Trying to work on labor issues in China is like trying to dance on a nightclub dance floor, says Clark University sociology professor Bob Ross, who writes on sweatshop issues. You've got just a certain amount of space to wiggle in, and it's not a lot. Ultimately, anti-sweatshop advocates say the kind of factory-by-factory struggle fought thus far and envisioned in China cannot expand enough to counter the unyielding imperatives of capital. Without structural change within the industry-such as year-to-year stability in contracts, ending the ceaseless price cuts demanded by brands, and forcing brands to pay prices that reflect the actual cost of providing workers a decent wage and dignified workplace-lasting and meaningful gains for a significant number of garment workers are impossible. We've had to jump from factory solidarity campaign to factory solidarity campaign where things arise, says Allie Robbins, a national organizer with United Students Against Sweatshops. We're seeing the need for a new strategy. The power of anti-sweatshop activists resides in universities that sell rights to license goods with their logos. Students have forced their universities' licensees to adopt codes of conduct and disclose factory locations. But since universities only command 1 percent of the apparel market, their influence is limited. The dynamics of the global apparel industry heighten those limitations. Apparel has always been a chaotic business, where buyers constantly shift work between factories, playing one off another to speed deliveries and squeeze prices. Corporations spread production among hundreds of contractors, leaving monitoring
[Biofuel] The Neurobiology of Mass Delusion
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2005/Mass-Delusion-Neurobiology11jan05.htm JASON BRADFORD / Energy Bulletin 11jan05 The Neurobiology of Mass Delusion JASON BRADFORD / Energy Bulletin 11jan05 History is replete with examples of social organizations, whether a business or a nation, that failed to perceive the realities of a changing environment and didn't adapt in time to prevent calamity. Hubris and a self-reinforced dynamic of mass delusion characterize the waning phases of these once powerful groups. In hindsight we ask, What were they thinking? Wasn't the situation obvious to everyone? The evidence is so clear! Here's the question we should ask next: Is history now repeating itself? Anyone familiar with the concepts of overshoot, resource depletion, global climate change, mass extinction, and related ills, wonders why the media, church groups and political leaders do not vigorously discuss these topics. By contrast, those unfamiliar with these issues assume that because they are not covered closely, the problems must not be too worrisome. My view is that science and history are correct, and that we are headed for a major planetary disaster as far as humans are concerned. I've tried to understand why the human brain, on a collective level at least, is apparently incapable of dealing with obvious problems. Here's what I've learned. For a clue to how the mind works, imagine getting startled in your own home. A shadowy figure lurking in a doorway elicits a powerful jolt to your system. It is only your spouse, of course, but it takes about half a second to realize that. This reveals what neurobiologists can now see with modern imaging techniques: visual signals get processed in more than one brain region, and the signal first arrives at the primitive hindbrain where it can respond before we are conscious of the threat. Playing runner up is the neocortex, our lumbering master of rational thought. A false alarm is inconvenient, yes, but a necessary burden. Without that startle response, a lion may have eaten us. Emotions motivate and guide us. Fear of the lion prepares the body for fight or flight. Love binds individuals into cohesive units greater than the sum of their parts. When we succeed or fail at a task, or are praised or scorned for a particular behavior, emotional reactions are our rewards (feels good) or punishments (feels bad) and become the guideposts for our future thoughts and actions. The neocortex works with our emotions to solidify our plans. We dream about a goal and anticipate the emotional rewards of realizing it. Our self-esteem can be wrapped up in these goals and plans. They become our mental models, setting what is important in life and largely defining who we think we are. This is how we become determined to stick with the program. Mental models may range from the very short term and mundane, such as a plan to jog 12 laps, to lifetime goals and worldviews, such as a career path and religious beliefs. Another clue about how the mind works comes from a famous experiment on the nature of the brain duality. Two films were made; both included a basketball team passing a ball among them. In one film a woman with an umbrella walks through the scene, in the other film it's a gorilla. People were randomly shown one of the films and randomly told either to count the number of ball passes made or just watch. Now consider the mindset of the counters. They have a goal, they bind this goal to an emotional reward, and they anticipate getting the right answer and feeling good. All of those told to just watch and report anything interesting about the film recall either the woman with an umbrella or the gorilla. Over a third of those counting missed the woman and over a half missed the gorilla. When mental models are tied to rewards, we fear and rebel against their disruption, aiming to avoid disappointment or disillusionment. Because it receives and processes sensory input faster, our emotional mind can censor from conscious awareness information that may interfere with the task required to make the goal. If a gorilla isn't involved in actually passing the ball, then don't pay attention to the gorilla. Depending upon circumstances, this focus can be advantageous or dangerous. If a mathematician is working on the proof of a theorem in the safety of his office that is fine, but doing so on a busy street can be deadly. A changing environment, such as a busy street, requires us to be open to new sensory inputs and to be willing to modify or even dismiss outmoded mental models. Rigidity of mental models in the face of countervailing information is called denial. Given what we now know about the structure and function of different brain regions, we can understand the physiological roots of denial. The data nullifying a cherished mental model are systematically filtered out before the conscious brain is even aware of them. The
[Biofuel] New Jesuit Mission - No Human Development without Real Governance
See also: http://journeytoforever.org/community.html Community development http://journeytoforever.org/community2.html Community development - poverty and hunger - http://www.ledevoir.com/2005/08/01/87309.html New Jesuit Mission - No Human Development without Real Governance By Jean-Claude Leclerc Le Devoir Monday 01 August 2005 The election of Benedict XVI, a man judged to be conservative, does not seem to have shaken the Jesuits, a religious order linked to the pope, from their new millennial mission: to combat peoples' impoverishment. Versus capitalist globalization, about fifteen Jesuit centers around the world are actively creating networks designed to promote other development modalities. Among the objectives that they've set for themselves, the issue of governance will be the object of a special evaluation in September. In fact, governance is deemed crucial, since it will not produce the same result according to whether it is defined primarily as a function of the market or of society instead. Promotio Justitiæ, the bulletin published in Rome by the Social Justice Secretariat, does a preliminary exploration of the subject. For the group studying this issue, power is at the heart of the question. Who has it? Who uses it? Who benefits from it and who is excluded? How should power be organized and, from a religious perspective, what should be done with it? For the moment, the Jesuits have no doubt that power is ever more concentrated in such institutions as: * the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), regional development banks; * the richest industrialized countries, which dominate those institutions' activities; * multinational corporations, the influence of which is disproportionate to their contribution to society. Now, according to the Jesuits, the neo-liberal strategy these milieus have imposed on poor countries have not produced the promised results. Privatization and free trade were supposed to bring prosperity. To the contrary, poverty became further extended, even as the countries of the South were trapped in these destructive commercial relations. Instead of looking to themselves for answers about this failure, rich countries and international institutions make the countries of the South and their pathetic governance bear the blame. The Jesuits propose instead to examine governance in relation to all those whom it affects and to measure it against authentic development. In the end, why would it be necessary to fight corruption or inefficiency in a country if it's essentially to reassure foreign investors, not primarily to allow the population to participate in power and to choose its own development path? Moreover, the North is hardly a stranger to the corrupt practices it cracks down on in the South. Going still further, the Jesuits consider that impoverished or excluded groups have abilities that allow them to take part in decisions. Consequently, the Jesuits have set themselves the task of identifying and shaking up the structures that prevent those groups from becoming political actors, as well as the task of strengthening the political abilities of the poor, notably through alliances with other social segments. They are not alone in contesting the mercantilist priority of development and the narrowly technical definition of governance. Social organizations and certain United Nations' agencies propose another vision of progress, no longer measured by economic growth, but by human development. From Aid to Despoliation These critical reflections are not inspired by a purely theoretical approach to development or international action. In the bulletin, Jesuits describe experiments with mobilization, experiences of success and failure in different countries. In this way, they hope not only to supply examples designed to inspire other regions of the world, but also to discern the criteria that will allow them to choose real alternatives to present practices. Thus, in India, the December 26, 2004, tsunami revealed fractures that were not only geological, recounts Manuel Alphonse, one of the co-founders of the Social Development Forum of the Peoples of Tamil Nadu. The disaster and the responses it elicited aggravated already existing injustices and inequalities. In Tamil Nadu, a particularly affected Indian state, already marginalized populations had the endurance of will to start over. They had already begun to do so before the arrival of aid. With the influx of aid, however, those people were pushed aside from the reconstruction process. The responsibility and transparency on the part of governments and international agencies stood out by their absence, Alphonse notes. Small boat owners, small merchants, salaried workers were among those affected by the tsunami. Yet, according to the Jesuit, the
[Biofuel] The Twilight Era of Petroleum
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080505L.shtml The Twilight Era of Petroleum By Michael T. Klare TomDispatch Friday 05 August 2005 Several recent developments - persistently high gasoline prices, unprecedented warnings from the Secretary of Energy and the major oil companies, China's brief pursuit of the American Unocal Corporation - suggest that we are just about to enter the Twilight Era of Petroleum, a time of chronic energy shortages and economic stagnation as well as recurring crisis and conflict. Petroleum will not exactly disappear during this period - it will still be available at the neighborhood gas pump, for those who can afford it - but it will not be cheap and abundant, as it has been for the past 30 years. The culture and lifestyles we associate with the heyday of the Petroleum Age - large, gas-guzzling cars and SUVs, low-density suburban sprawl, strip malls and mega-malls, cross-country driving vacations, and so on - will give way to more constrained patterns of living based on a tight gasoline diet. While Americans will still consume the lion's share of global petroleum stocks on a daily basis, we will have to compete far more vigorously with consumers from other countries, including China and India, for access to an ever-diminishing pool of supply. The concept of a twilight of petroleum derives from what is known about the global supply and demand equation. Energy experts have long acknowledged that the global production of oil will someday reach a moment of maximum (or peak) daily output, followed by an increasingly sharp drop in supply. But while the basic concept of peak oil has gained substantial worldwide acceptance, there is still much confusion about its actual character. Many people who express familiarity with the concept tend to view peak oil as a sharp pinnacle, with global output rising to the summit one month and dropping sharply the next; and looking back from a hundred years hence, things might actually appear this way. But for those of us embedded in this moment of time, peak oil will be experienced as something more like a rocky plateau - an extended period of time, perhaps several decades in length, during which global oil production will remain at or near current levels but will fail to achieve the elevated output deemed necessary to satisfy future world demand. The result will be perennially high prices, intense international competition for available supplies, and periodic shortages caused by political and social unrest in the producing countries. The Era of Easy Oil Is Over The Twilight Era of oil, as I term it, is likely to be characterized by the growing politicization of oil policy and the recurring use of military force to gain control over valuable supplies. This is so because oil, alone among all major trading commodities, is viewed as a strategic material; something so vital to a nation's economic well-being, that is, as to justify the use of force in assuring its availability. That nations are prepared to go to war over petroleum is not exactly a new phenomenon. The pursuit of foreign oil was a significant factor in World War II and the 1991 Gulf War, to offer only two examples; but it is likely to become ever more a part of our everyday world in a period of increased competition and diminishing supplies. This new era will not begin with a single, clearly defined incident, but rather with a series of events suggesting the transition from a period of relative abundance to a time of persistent scarcity. These events will take both economic and political form: on the one hand, rising energy prices and contracting supplies; on the other, more diplomatic crises and military assertiveness. Recently, we have witnessed significant examples of both. On the economic side, the most important signals have been provided by rising crude oil prices and warnings of diminished output in the future. A barrel of crude now costs just over $60 - approximately twice the figure for this time a year ago - and many experts believe that the price could rise much higher if the supply situation continues to deteriorate. We've entered a new era of oil prices, said energy expert Daniel Yergin in an April interview with Time Magazine. If markets remain as tight as they are at present, you'll see a lot more volatility, and you could see prices spike up as high as $65 to $80. Analysts at Goldman Sachs are even more pessimistic, suggesting that oil could reach as high as $105 a barrel in the near future. We believe that oil markets may have entered the early stages of what we have referred to as a 'super-spike' period, they reported in April, with elevated prices prevailing for a multi-year stretch of time. Of course, the world has experienced severe price spikes before - most notably in 1973-74 following the October War between Egypt and Israel and the Arab oil embargo, as
Re: [Biofuel] The myths of Hiroshima
Today, in the post-9/11 era, it is critically important that the U.S. face the truth about the atomic bomb. For one thing, the myths surrounding Hiroshima have made it possible for our defense establishment to argue that atomic bombs are legitimate weapons that belong in a democracy's arsenal. But if, as Oppenheimer said, "they are weapons of aggression, of surprise and of terror," how can a democracy rely on such weapons? Thanks for posting this. Excellent food for thought. Brian Rodgers ___ 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] Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history
I'm with you Todd. The magnitude and complexity of a crime is often proportional to the number of people or size of the organization involved, whether they be corporations or sovereign nations (redundant?). MikeAppal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What? You have difficulty in accepting such plausabiltiy Michael? Especially in light of some of the major players of the time admitting the needlessness of it all?If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.Todd SwearingenMichael Redler wrote: I have a feeling that I'm going to get hammered by some people on this list. So, I want to make sure that everyone notices that the post went with no comments directly from me. If the title was supposed to have a certain shock value, it worked on me. My general observation is that after reading through it carefully, I came to the conclusion that, if the quotes are accurate, the author was correct in calling it a terrorist attack because of it's motives and desired effect. Mike */Michael Redler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history *August 6 and August 9 will mark the 60th anniversaries of the US atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second. Some 13 square kilometres of the city was obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries.* Three days after Hiroshima's destruction, the US drooped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the year was out. Since 1945, tens of thousands more residents of the two cities have continued to suffer and die from radiation-induced cancers, birth defects and still births. A tiny group of US rulers met secretly in Washington and callously ordered this indiscriminate annihilation of civilian populations. They gave no explicit warnings. They rejected all alternatives, preferring to inflict the most extreme human carnage possible. They ordered and had carried out the two worst terror acts in human history. The 60th anniversaries will inevitably be marked by countless mass media commentaries and speeches repeating the 60-year-old mantra that there was no other choice but to use A-bombs in order to avoid a bitter, prolonged invasion of Japan. On July 21, the British /New Scientist/ magazine undermined this chorus when it reported that two historians had uncovered evidence revealing that the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ... was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union, Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American University in Washington stated that US President Harry Truman's decision to blast the cities was not just a war crime, it was a crime against humanity. With Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in New York, Kuznick studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR. They found that three days before Hiroshima, Truman agreed at a meeting that Japan was looking for peace. His senior generals and political advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs were dropped anyway. Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war, Selden told the/ New Scientist/. While the capitalist media immediately dubbed the historians' theory controversial, it accords with the testimony of many central US political and military players at the time, including General Dwight Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 /Newsweek/ interview that the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in his memoirs that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. At the time though, Washington cold-bloodedly decided to obliterate the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to show off the terrible power of its new super weapon and underline the US rulers' ruthless preparedness to use it. These terrible acts were intended to warn the leaders of the Soviet Union that their cities would suffer the same fate if the USSR attempted to stand in the way of Washington's plans to create an American Century of US global domination. Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might and that a demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia. Drunk from the success of its nuclear bloodletting in Japan, Washington planned and threatened the use of nuclear weapons on at least 20 occasions in the 1950s and 1960s, only being restrained when
[Biofuel] Hiroshima Spirits, Nagasaki Voices - Learning from the First Ground Zeroes
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0804-25.htm Published on Thursday, August 4, 2005 by CommonDreams.org Hiroshima Spirits, Nagasaki Voices: Learning from the First Ground Zeroes by Walter W. Enloe and David B. Willis The flash of light. The flash of light was like nothing I had ever seen before. Or since. - Survivor of Hiroshima, July 2005 August 6 and August 9 are the 60th anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first and so far only nuclear catastrophes ever visited upon humankind. As with other anniversaries it is now time for reflection, in the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki especially so, as these two bombings and their aftermath, though with enormously devastating possible consequences for the entire world, seem to be fading from our collective memory, will, and consciousness. On the one hand, the past century has seen a great deal of human introspection and understanding. Our biological, social, and human sciences- from genetics to developmental psychology and from narrative to cross cultural studies- have allowed us to construct an understanding of ourselves, from the inner particles of a molecule to the outer edges of our universe. We can alter genetic material to constitute new life structures, and we can construct communicative forms from novels to films to musical scores that can be reconstituted, sent around the world at lightning speed, and valued by others. Through an image of Earth as seen from the moon to planetary satellites, global communication, and economic interdependencies, and through organizations like the United Nations and our Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have a greater sense of the interconnectedness of the world's people and places. On the other hand, this past century has been a time of unprecedented death and misery, a century of human destruction and environmental degradation unparalleled in scope in human history. Through two world wars, and continuing ethnic, religious, and sociopolitical conflicts, a hundred million noncombatants, including millions and millions of children, have been murdered in the last hundred years. Add to these innocent dead the millions of combatants who died or were grievously wounded in body or soul. And what of the hundreds of millions who died of poverty and preventable disease years before their natural passing time? Many thousands die yearly from violence in our own local cities and neighborhoods and we are increasingly distancing ourselves from each other. In our own backyards and streets as we build various walls of separation through fear and intolerance. We must acknowledge that the Earth has been a global killing field. These are difficult days, indeed, perhaps especially so for Americans. An increasing concern regarding the war in Iraq, the war on terror, environmental destruction, greed and materialism are rampant. What are we to do? Many of us are shaken by the world we have created or have allowed to be created for ourselves and our children and their future. Today too often we feel threatened and vulnerable. None of us is immune to violence and the threat of violence. We have allowed locally and globally an ethos of human violence that either we do not have the collective will to stop or we do not know how to stop. After the intentional and systematic destruction of innocent people beginning with Guernica, Auschwitz, Rwanda, New York on 9-11, and most recently school children in Russia and babies in Darfur and Iraq, the very idea of human extinction makes all of us, whether we have children or not, parents of the next generation. This generation holds the power and the choice in the post-Nagasaki age regarding annihilation. Each subsequent generation is thereby indebted to the past generation for having allowed them to exist. We need to invoke a healing image and call to active citizenship for this post-Nagasaki age. Following Jonathan Schell, we can advocate the concept of universal parenthood, the idea that all of us are responsible for our fellow humans. What better way to respond to these crushing burdens than to recognize and act upon the appeal of every living Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and the United Nations General Assembly, who declared the period 2001-2010 as The decade to create a culture of peace and nonviolence for the children of the world, asking that all nations and communities teach conflict resolution, peace-making, nonviolence, and active citizenship in their schools, neighborhoods and workplaces. These Nobel Laureates and the UN General Assembly called for us to work purposefully, individually and collaboratively, to overcome apathy, indifference, and even opposition toward initiating and sustaining such an effort. Where better to start in 2005 than with a reflection on these first Ground Zeroes? On the occasions of the 50th commemoration of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending World War
Re: [Biofuel] Nuclear Holocaust
Recent posts on this topic have been disturbing. Most of us don't like to have our comfortable existence threatened by the reality that life as we know it can come to a devastating halt in a noiseless, blinding flash of light. But the reminders exist. A couple of summers ago, I was on a ferry with my family, crossing Puget sound. An Ohio class submarine, transiting the same waters on its way to Bangor, drew little attention from the people onboard. I told my boys to look carefully at the sub. It carries up to 24 long range Trident missiles, each with 8 warheads of a 475 kiloton yield. That's 192 separate nuclear weapons on a single boat. Eight of these submarines are based in Bangor, ten are based in Georgia. Together, these 18 submarines can destroy 3 456 cities the size of Vancouver. This is equivalent to wiping out one medium sized city every fifteen minutes for 36 days, and that's a little less than half of the U.S. arsenal alone. The British, French, Russians and Chinese maintain considerable arsenals of their own. Then we have nations like India, Pakistan, possibly (likely) Israel, maybe South Africa, and North Korea who may maintain relatively small arsenals. Yet the combined weight of all that firepower is astonishing. No one else expressed any deep sense of foreboding at the sight of the submarine . . . No one else wanted to think about what that machine is capable of doing. It's easier to wave the flag and cheer, or pretend that the boat is benign. I used to work in a hospital with a Japanese woman. Every August 6, I gave her a rose. We need to remember what we've done, and we need to work hard to ensure that it never happens again. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Nuclear Holocaust
robert luis rabello wrote: Whoops! A little arithmetic error crept into my post . . . Together, these 18 submarines can destroy 3 456 cities the size of Vancouver. This is equivalent to wiping out one medium sized city every fifteen minutes for 9 and a half days, Sorry! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Nuclear Holocaust
Grief! I need more sleep! 4 * 24 = 96 (four quarters in an hour, NOT 15!) 3 456 / 96 = 36 I was right the first time. Sorry folk! Words are more my thing than numbers! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice 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/
Re: [Biofuel] Seeking info on www.electricitybook.com
That was my though as well Mike. More there to make me skeptical than willing to part with dollars. While we are on book reviews anyone buy or have read sunshine to dollars http://www.knowledgepublications.com/kp_sunshinetodollars_ebook1.htm , again perhaps most of the info in the book may be available on the web, but I'm tempted to buy it whenever I have an extra 20 to spend, unless I'm advised otherwise. Doug, N0LKK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Justice and Liberty for all* * Restrictions apply: see the PATRIOT act for details. - Original Message - From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 5:12 AM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Seeking info on www.electricitybook.com *I believe* but (would not swear) that I came across parts of this - as I remember it was more of a complation than original material - the sort thing you could find on your own with a bit of net searching. I suppose you could email him and ask. -Mike William Adams wrote: Hi all, Doing a bit of due diligence. Does anyone have experience with Bill Anderson at this URL or with any of the advertised publications regarding authenticity, accuracy, and usefulness? I could find no hit in the archives. Best, Bob Adams ___ 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/
[Biofuel] First Mixer
Greetings, Garth is building us our first test mixer and he has a question. Will the methylhydroxide damage brass? We have a collection of brass fitting and were thinking about using them. Bright Blessings, Kim ___ 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] First Mixer
Hi Guys, Since brass has copper in it you can be fairly certain that it will get attacked by hydroxides. Your fittings might last a while, so you can get some use out of them but I wouldn´t recommend it as a material of construction in this case. Others may have more experience them mine, however. Tom Irwin From: Garth Kim Travis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSent: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:19:33 -0300Subject: [Biofuel] First MixerGreetings,Garth is building us our first test mixer and he has a question. Will the methylhydroxide damage brass? We have a collection of brass fitting and were thinking about using them.Bright Blessings,Kim___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] First Mixer
On Aug 5, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings, Garth is building us our first test mixer and he has a question. Will the methylhydroxide damage brass? We have a collection of brass fitting and were thinking about using them. Bright Blessings, Kim I have some brass fittings in my bubble washer and they turn green pretty quickly at pH 8. The methoxide solution will be much stronger. Probly a bad idea -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] The myths of Hiroshima
Far from hating the United States, it appears that the Russian people were very favourably disposed toward the U.S. at the end of World War II. Allied aid, mostly from the U.S., was a crucial factor in enabling the U.S.S.R. to stay in the war and defeat the Germans. Thousands of Russian soldiers drove American trucks to supply the Red Army's offensive, for example. I believe that Russians got to eat quite a lot of Spam. George Kennan in his memoirs described a massive spontaneous demonstration of friendship in front of the American embassy in Moscow at the end of the war in Europe and speculated that it must have been very disconcerting for Stalin and his henchmen. The Japanese government was successful in making the surrender stick after the atom bombs, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It would have been very hard without the bombs. My guess is that in an invasion the Allied dead might have been only 100,000 or 150,000 or so, but the losses among Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been several times that number. It's clear that in August 1945 the Japanese would ultimately have been compelled to surrender if the Allies had just waited, for perhaps a year. But the civilians would have been extremely unwilling to wait, and the Russians might have found the temptation to mount their own invasion irresistible. A Russian invasion would likely have killed many more than the atom bombs. The deaths among Japanese civilians on Okinawa caused basically by Japanese forces in the grip of the Bushido cult were considerable. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim [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] (no subject)
Hi Ray, No answers? don't despair. Our dear Darryl must be busy. He's up near you. The lye is not expensive, a Cdn Tire thing, and he told me last year where to get methanol. Erg, I'm looking for it in the old letters. Jesse From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:50:48 -0400 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: [Biofuel] (no subject) Hello to my fellow brewers from Ontario, Canada: I just tried pricing MeOH and NaOH from Fisher Scientific (via Good Health and Safety in Mississauga). MeOH @ $79CAD for 20L and NaOH @ $267CAD for 5kg both before tax and shipping. That won't do! There must be cheaper sources. I'm near Ottawa. How do you make it economically viable? Diesel is running at about $0.90CAD per litre right now, but at these prices I can only hope to break even. Ray -- Ray or Shiraz Ings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1-613-253-1311 Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ ___ 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] The myths of Hiroshima
So just out of curiosity Doug, What are you basing all your guesswork on? Relative to invade or not invade and casualty counts it sounds very much like the historical American mantra of how things would have unfolded if this or if that. Doesn't it make some sense to review those facets outside the party line before repeating what the masses have been regurgitating for decades now? Todd Swearingen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Far from hating the United States, it appears that the Russian people were very favourably disposed toward the U.S. at the end of World War II. Allied aid, mostly from the U.S., was a crucial factor in enabling the U.S.S.R. to stay in the war and defeat the Germans. Thousands of Russian soldiers drove American trucks to supply the Red Army's offensive, for example. I believe that Russians got to eat quite a lot of Spam. George Kennan in his memoirs described a massive spontaneous demonstration of friendship in front of the American embassy in Moscow at the end of the war in Europe and speculated that it must have been very disconcerting for Stalin and his henchmen. The Japanese government was successful in making the surrender stick after the atom bombs, but it wasn't a foregone conclusion. It would have been very hard without the bombs. My guess is that in an invasion the Allied dead might have been only 100,000 or 150,000 or so, but the losses among Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been several times that number. It's clear that in August 1945 the Japanese would ultimately have been compelled to surrender if the Allies had just waited, for perhaps a year. But the civilians would have been extremely unwilling to wait, and the Russians might have found the temptation to mount their own invasion irresistible. A Russian invasion would likely have killed many more than the atom bombs. The deaths among Japanese civilians on Okinawa caused basically by Japanese forces in the grip of the Bushido cult were considerable. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Garth Kim Travis wrote: Greetings Tom, Yes, many of us would not be here. Canadian forces were also training for that invasion. I was always taught that it was the code of death before dishonor that made the bombing necessary. I am not saying that is correct, but I wonder how scared of Russia anyone would have been by that time in the war. As I understand it, one of the things the Russian people hated America for was the long wait before they joined, which allowed Russia to be seriously depleted. I do understand that the Japanese were already commandeering cooking pots etc. for metal to make weapons, so they must have known the end was in sight, but that had been going on for long enough to scare many people into believing they would not surrender, period. It is easy to start myths during war time, people are so scared and the average person is not told much of the truth for good reasons, many times. I see it today, so many people are so scared of terrorism and have no idea of how it started. How does one educate a population that is now in it's second or third generation of ignorance of history, science, math, philosophy and common sense? Bright Blessings, Kim [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/ ___ 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 New Blue States/Country
You have very good points, Hakan. The 2% is just a number that I dreamed up. It could be more or less depending on what each country can afford at the time. Nobody can expect a country which is mired in a recession, for example, to give as freely as the good times. But if we all could give as much as humanly possible it would be great. If the naysyers of foreign aid say that we should only take care of own, we should appeal to their greed instead. We should tell them that foreign aid is just an investment for third world countries to get on their feet to become future consumers of our products like refridgerators, stoves, nuclear power reactors, and gas guzzling SUV's. I'm sure the oil industry would like that! It just seems that when we try to help the third world, and get their feet on the first rung of the ladder, a disaster like famine or sunami, or earthquake kicks them off the ladder again. As for the UN. You are absolutely right. There needs to be reformin a big way. But we shouldn't despair because just like any other huge political organization misuse and scandal do hapen. But we must not drift away from our goal of the perfect planet. Even in Canada, we are bombarded with government scandal and corrupt behaviour from time to time. And as Canadians, we are supposed to hold ourselves tohigh moral standards. Yeah, right. But that should certainly not deter us from trying to help in our own way, no matter what that help entails. Thanks for your comments, DaleFrom: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgTo: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgSubject: Re: [Biofuel] The New Blue States/CountryDate: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 18:45:33 +0200Dale,It is difficult and 2% is a very high value. European countries have a 1 % goal and several of them give around 0.8% of GDP. For most European countries, it is a true 0.8% with little hooks, like that they have to spend the money in purchases from the donor Country.US give 0.2% of GDP and have spending rules, which forces US purchases. Even if you consider that US GDP is 1.5 to 2 times higher than many European countries, the US aid is less than half of most European Countries per capita. In real term it is larger than any other individual country, but significantly lower than EU together. US have the advantage of its size and population, when they say that they are the largest contributor and Europe do not yet count as a nation in this respect.To be able to get a more peaceful world, it helps if the nations recognize, respect and obey international law. It would help a lot if US recognized and participated in the International Court. US says that they do not want to give anyone else the right to judge US citizens than US courts, the rules for the International court give however the members preferred right to persecute any crimes. It is only if the member do not do this, that the International court can come into play.We all know about the UN problems and the food for oil scandal etc., in which manyUS corporations were the real beneficiaries. I like very much Galloways speech, when the US called him to testify and announced that he would be harshly interrogated. The reality was that the US representatives and US was truthfully exposed in all their own corruptness. I saved the speech and it is great, brought it up on my server for a while, if someone missed it,http://hakanfalk.com/msnbc_uk_galloway_blisters_us_on_iraq_050517-01b.wmvBig file 2.5 Mb, but really worth downloading and look/hear at. It is not often the US representatives look like disoriented school kids.Talking about corruption,http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html#cpi2004US is today talking a lot about UN reforms, but show no signs of willingness to deal with its own corruption problems. It is quite telling, how Bush appointed the new UN ambassador, by in a calculated manner utilizing an emergency rule instead of going through the process. I cannot imagine that this rule was created for this purpose and it looks as a corruptive way to do it.HakanAt 04:10 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:This is a very wise and informed comment that Keith made, and I totally agree. I hope someday that the UN will ingrain and apply four basic rights for every human on this planet, and they are;1)access to food2) access to clean water3) access to shelter4) personal securityI also beleive that all wealthy countries be required to donate just 2% of their GDP to a fund to help accomplish this. Just think of all the extra money we are spending on counter terrorism that could be put towards this goal. It would also thwart terrorism because terrorists would notbe able to get a foothold or seek refige in the countries that our goodwill has touched. But our help must be unconditional. We must not get involved, or tell their country how to run it. All we would ask is that they be peaceful and abide international law. I know that this is just pie in the sky and whishfull thinking, but its just a dream of
[Biofuel] http://www.electricitybook.com
Doug, I purchased both the electricity book and the sunshine to dollars book. I was very disappointed in the Subshine to Dollars book and so told them. I did find the Electricity book informative but feel it could have been ended after the first 38-40 pages instead of continuing on to page 111. Of course these are just my feelings and others may disagree. Check other replies and and see what remarks they have. Hal Galerneau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 myths of Hiroshima
Because of the sheer number of people involved and the secrecy at the time and after it is hard to put into perspective the thinking that went into the decision to use the atomic bomb. There appeared to be no question that the Truman government was convinced that an invasion would be necessary if the bomb was not used. Both the Army and Navy were convinced from their experience on Okinawa that the fighting would be bitter and involve high casualties. In his book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy David Bergamini, using material from diaries and interviews only available long after the end of the war, concludes that, despite the terror bombing of cities by Curtis Lemay, the emperor did not believe that the Japanese people were ready to accept surrender and would feel betrayed as they had in 1905 after the peace with Russia. Despite what we might think of the military situation 60 years later the players on both sides at the time had to deal with their perceptions of the reality. There was likely no one factor that served as the basis for the decision. Military contingencies and post war global politics were all involved. In addition there was the matter of domestic politics. In Truman and the Bomb, a collection of papers related to Truman's decision to use the bomb, there is a note about a meeting between secretary of state James Byrnes and Truman in which Byrnes asks Truman what he will say at his impeachment hearing when the American people find out after an invasion that costs thousands of American lives that he had a weapon that could have made that invasion unnecessary and refused to use it. Rick Appal Energy wrote: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bird5aug05,0,760322.story The myths of Hiroshima By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, KAI BIRD and MARTIN J. SHERWIN are coauthors of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer, published earlier this year by Knopf. SIXTY YEARS ago tomorrow, an atomic bomb was dropped without warning on the center of the Japanese city of Hiroshima. One hundred and forty thousand people were killed, more than 95% of them women and children and other noncombatants. At least half of the victims died of radiation poisoning over the next few months. Three days after Hiroshima was obliterated, the city of Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. The magnitude of death was enormous, but on Aug. 14, 1945 — just five days after the Nagasaki bombing — Radio Tokyo announced that the Japanese emperor had accepted the U.S. terms for surrender. To many Americans at the time, and still for many today, it seemed clear that the bomb had ended the war, even saving a million lives that might have been lost if the U.S. had been required to invade mainland Japan. This powerful narrative took root quickly and is now deeply embedded in our historical sense of who we are as a nation. A decade ago, on the 50th anniversary, this narrative was reinforced in an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first bomb. The exhibit, which had been the subject of a bruising political battle, presented nearly 4 million Americans with an officially sanctioned view of the atomic bombings that again portrayed them as a necessary act in a just war. But although /patriotically/ correct, the exhibit and the narrative on which it was based were historically inaccurate. For one thing, the Smithsonian downplayed the casualties, saying only that the bombs caused many tens of thousands of deaths and that Hiroshima was a definite military target. Americans were also told that use of the bombs led to the immediate surrender of Japan and made unnecessary the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. But it's not that straightforward. As Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has shown definitively in his new book, Racing the Enemy — and many other historians have long argued — it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific war on Aug. 8, two days after the Hiroshima bombing, that provided the final shock that led to Japan's capitulation. The Enola Gay exhibit also repeated such outright lies as the assertion that special leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities warning civilians to evacuate. The fact is that atomic bomb warning leaflets were dropped on Japanese cities, but only after Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been destroyed. The hard truth is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary. A million lives were not saved. Indeed, McGeorge Bundy, the man who first popularized this figure, later confessed that he had pulled it out of thin air in order to justify the bombings in a 1947 Harper's magazine essay he had ghostwritten for Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson. The bomb was dropped, as J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project, said in November 1945, on an essentially defeated enemy. President Truman and his closest advisor, Secretary of State
