[Biofuel] In French ?

[Olivier Morf]

I have some friends in the French side of Switzerland, Geneva, who are
interested to try to make Biodiesel. They already have a car (a
LandRover I beleive) running on SVO.

But they do not speak (nor read) english.

Do you know by any chance a good web site where they can find
information on how to produce in French ?

Thanks,
Olivier


___
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] vehicle tracking - pilot project now federally funded

[Michael Redler]

Thanks Kirk.     I will distribute as widely as I can!     "Dubya" still has some "political capital" (as he likes to say). All the work put into creating a culture of fear, leading to disturbing civil rights violations, makes me surprised that the "national security" card wasn't played.     From the story: "No restrictions prevent police from continually monitoring, without a court order, the whereabouts of every vehicle on the road."     Despite the new spin, it still strangely (or ominously) resembles the USA Patriot Act.     Mike      Kirk McLoren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  ZDNet.com is running a story about a runaway idea of a[0]tracking automobiles via GPS.
 Not to be confused with the Canadianproject geared towards [1]anti-speeding ideas, this one does in fact have the goal of tracking your vehicle. 'The U.S. Department of Transportation has been handing millions of dollars to state governments forGPS-tracking pilot projects designed to track vehicles wherever they go.So far, Washington state and Oregon have received fat federal checks tofigure out how to levy these 'mileage-based road user fees.' However, the article goes on to talk about how there is no provision in place toprevent the uncontrolled surveillance of motorists without a courtorder."Discuss this story at:    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=05/12/06/0147250Links:    0. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5982762.html    1. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/04/189225&tid=158___
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] Composting Glycerin by-product

[Appal Energy]

Robert Carr,

You'll have to clarify a bit more precisely what it is that you call 
"glycerin by-product."

If you're referring to what settles out of a transesterification (base) 
reaction, the first response would be to not try it, as you'd be 
poisoning your worms with methanol and soap. It might be a worthy trial 
to do a side-by-side comparison at different ratios of glyc cocktail to 
solid matter, with a control group included. But it would almost 
certainly be bad advice to give a green light on the matter, if for no 
other reason than the liquid could well suffocate part of the 
population. Worms aren't particularly fond of overly wet conditions.

If you're referring to the glycerol from a free fatty acid recovery 
process after the methanol has been recovered (see 
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_glycsep.html), the suggestion 
would remain that you introduce different ratios of crudely refined 
glycerol to solid matter and maintain a control group.

This method might be more feasible as glycerol is nothing more than a 
simple sugar - a far cry from the soap/methanol/glycerol/catalyst 
cocktail that people often refer to wrongly as glycerol.

As for mushroom compost? First guess is that the glyc cocktail would 
prove fatal. Crudely refined glycerol in excessive doses might prove 
equally so.

There certainly is one way to find out.

Todd Swearingen


>Hi all,
>I have decided to go the composting route to dispose of my glycerin
>by-product, but I want to combine this process with at least one other.  I
>plan to dispose of garden waste, household compostibles  and glycerin b-p
>together, but want to get another usable or saleable by product.
>Has anyone checked out the effects of puting glycerin by-product in a worm
>composter? Would this harm the worms?
>Another thought is will glycerin b-p ruin mushroom compost?
>All thoughts and opinions appreciated.
>Regards Bob
>
>
>___
>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] Composting Glycerin by-product

[Lyle Estill]

Bob,My understanding is that glycerin tends to suffocate worms--sticks to them and they "drown," making it a rotten feedstock for vermiculture.On Dec 7, 2005, at 4:01 PM, Robert Carr wrote:Hi all,I have decided to go the composting route to dispose of my glycerinby-product, but I want to combine this process with at least one other.  Iplan to dispose of garden waste, household compostibles  and glycerin b-ptogether, but want to get another usable or saleable by product.Has anyone checked out the effects of puting glycerin by-product in a wormcomposter? Would this harm the worms?Another thought is will glycerin b-p ruin mushroom compost?All thoughts and opinions appreciated.Regards Bob___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/  Lyle EstillPiedmont Biofuelswww.biofuels.coop919-321-8260Fax: 919-321-6769 ___
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] Pump size

[ufdaland]

 I am thinking the 
clear pump is actually 330 GPM not GPH.

Joe , I just bought a 3/4 HP submersable and the well driller says it
will put out 10 GPM
Jerry

___
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] Composting Glycerin by-product

[Robert Carr]

Hi all,
I have decided to go the composting route to dispose of my glycerin
by-product, but I want to combine this process with at least one other.  I
plan to dispose of garden waste, household compostibles  and glycerin b-p
together, but want to get another usable or saleable by product.
Has anyone checked out the effects of puting glycerin by-product in a worm
composter? Would this harm the worms?
Another thought is will glycerin b-p ruin mushroom compost?
All thoughts and opinions appreciated.
Regards Bob


___
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] I'm not a veterinarian, but I play one on the Internet was Concerning Rabies Vaccinations

[Appal Energy]

Young Master Weaver,

Apparently my point has not eluded you. At the same time, you're 
experiencing some rather severe delusions if you think that cheap, smart 
alack responses,  word play and picking grammatical snits in lieu of 
acknowledging your own errant understandings somehow make you appear 
anything less than foolish and/or childish..

If you'd care to continue in such a vein, please feel free. But you'd be 
serving your best interests by refraining.

If not, at least first exercise enough discipline as to review your 
posts and take note of your own errors. If you're smart, you'll discern 
precisely where "latitude" was given for similar indiscretions and put 
your nose back in joint. If not? Well.., that will be abundantly 
apparent.

Frankly? At one time you appeared to have a lot on the ball. At the 
moment, however, it's looking largely as if growing up is proving to be 
more of a hardship than you're willing or ready to cope with.

A pity that.

Todd Swearingen

>Appal Energy wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Mike,
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>>First off, your second sentance makes no sense
>>>- "entreated the reader to a defrauding practice"
>>>I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>>>   
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>Nah, it was a contorted sentence.
>
>  
>
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] Public Citizen Press Release-REJECT BACKROOM DEAL SHIELDING DRUG INDUSTRY FROM LIABILITY

[Marylynn Schmidt]

strickly FYI -

Mary Lynn Schmidt

>From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 21:21:41 +
>
>
>Sheri--
>
>This is interesting because of its rare comparison in the public sphere of
>the risks of the diseases vis-a-vis the risks of the vaccines, specifically
>mentioning swine flu. Things seem to be opening up a little in DC, perhaps.
>Suzanne
>
>
>
>___
>Contact: Jillian Aldebron (202) 454-5135
>
>Dec. 7, 2005
>
>PUBLIC CITIZEN URGES CONGRESS TO REJECT BACKROOM DEAL SHIELDING DRUG
>INDUSTRY FROM LIABILITY
>
>Public Citizen has joined with the country's leading consumer advocacy
>groups in a letter urging Congress not to sneak a sweeping liability
>exemption for the drug industry into the Defense appropriations bill. The
>provision, crafted by Republican leaders in secret and never debated or
>voted on in either the House or the Senate, immunizes drug companies from
>accountability for injuries caused by avian flu and other pandemic
>countermeasures. At the same time, it provides no remedy whatsoever for
>first responders and ordinary citizens who become sick or die from taking
>these products, which may be subject to less rigorous testing and rushed to
>market in the event of a disease outbreak.
>
>The following letter was sent to leaders in the House and Senate today.
>
>***
>
>Dear Senators:
>
>We understand that House and Senate leaders are proposing an amendment to
>the Department of Defense appropriations bill that would immunize the drug
>industry from liability for vaccines and other countermeasures used in
>public health emergencies. We urge you to reject this proposal.
>
>The proposal protects manufacturers but provides no compensation for first
>responders and ordinary individuals who may suffer serious illness or death
>as a result of taking a vaccine or other countermeasure. Moreover, the
>provision is being put together in a backroom deal - it was not passed by
>either the House or the Senate, nor ever debated on either Chambers floor.
>Any legislation that provides liability protections to manufacturers
>without ensuring that first responders and others injured by emergency
>vaccines and other countermeasures are compensated is extremely unfair and
>short-sighted.
>
>We recognize the urgent need to prepare adequately for infectious disease
>outbreaks. It may very well be that during public health emergencies
>expedited approval of vaccines and drugs is necessary for the nations
>security. But we must also recognize that relaxation of testing
>requirements greatly increases the risk to the public that the vaccines or
>other countermeasures will injure some recipients of them. Moreover,
>manufacturers will be rushed to produce and deliver emergency
>countermeasures to meet contractual obligations, heightening the potential
>for negligence and recklessness that could compromise the quality of these
>products. It is unjust and unfair to ask the American people to take on all
>the risks of emergency vaccines and other countermeasures produced and
>administered under such circumstances.
>
>Broadly shielding manufacturers from responsibility for gross negligence,
>recklessness and other egregious behavior and leaving victims with no
>recourse, may cause more public harm than the pandemic disease itself. As
>doctors and public health officials have warned, if individuals know there
>is no remedy for injuries caused by the vaccines side effects or by a
>defective batch of vaccine, they are likely to refuse immunization, thus
>undermining efforts to contain outbreaks.
>
>Our nations two prior experiences with mass vaccination programs should be
>kept in mind. The swine flu vaccination program was stopped after only two
>months because the vaccine caused thousands of injuries. Some 4,000 people
>were hurt by the vaccine, over 500 of whom developed a paralyzing nerve
>disorder that ultimately claimed some 30 lives. Just one person died as a
>result of swine flu. More recently, the smallpox vaccination program failed
>in part due to reluctance among health workers to take the vaccine because
>of its potential health risks and the uncertainty of compensation.
>
>We ask that you make the safety of the American people a priority ahead of
>the interests of vaccine and drug manufacturers, and reject this unfair and
>dangerous proposal.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Alliance for Justice
>Center for Justice and Democracy
>Consumer Federation of America
>Public Citizen
>USAction
>USPIRG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
>http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
>
>



___
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

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures

[Appal Energy]

Bob,

 >> It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more
 >> effective than others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies,
 >> despite many proclamations to the contrary over the decades.

 > global small pox and almost global polio?

Lest we forget, the claim was but a few years ago that polio had been 
eradicated. Yet the claim was false, with several outbreaks across the 
globe, inclusive of one at an Amish enclave in the mid-west this summer. 
There is no reason to believe that this error has not been or could not 
be duplicated relative to other diseases. As well, viruses such as small 
pox haven't been erradicated at all when viral inventories are stored in 
numerous labs on multiple continents. Forget whatever their purpose of 
existance is reported to be.

Perhaps a high incident declination has occurred, but certainly not 
erradication.

 > you must not read many drug package inserts. they are full of
 > disclaimers.

Bob, you're apparently postulating that a cautionary word relative to 
animal care - a word such as "could" - is a certifiable indicator for 
disbelief, while on the other hand the same word of caution when applied 
relative to human care it is to be accepted as valid.

Lest we forget, you did say

 >>> the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for
 >>> anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud
 >>> over all other material therein.

And you did say that relative to an article on animal vaccination.

Are you also saying that the inclusion of "might" or "could" on the 
consumer insert of an over-the-counter or prescription drug casts the 
same "cloud over all other material therein?"

And if you're not applying the same standard to both fields, then you 
must be saying something else.

Are you saying that over vaccinating doesn't increase the potential for 
and actual instance of injury and death and that such a claim is 
balderdash? Are you saying that the author is full of horse muffins? The 
poster? Would an application of double-standard be simply towards a 
profession that doesn't "practice" on bi-peds? That those things 
attributable to veterinary medicine are somehow to be more suspect 
and/or ascribed as hooey? That veterinary medicine is for those who are 
incapable of making the cut in the human medical field and that their 
work should therefore be suspect?

Just precisely what is it that you're saying Bob? It's got to be something.

No doubt, words such as "could" and "might" are indeed cautionary 
modifiers and can be manipulated to any degree by anyone with a purpose. 
But to discount a caution indicator relative animal vaccines as if it 
approaches poppycock and to openly accept caution indicators for human 
vaccines (or drugs) as valid warnings and the acceptable norm isn't 
exactly even handed.

Just a minor observation on the part of this mule skinner...

Todd Swearingen

 

>good morning Todd
>
>Appal Energy wrote:
>  
>
>>Salute Bob,
>>
>> > I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a
>> > good analogy for how science is done.
>>
>>I wasn't thinking of court precedings when I made mention of 
>>"testimonials." If you'll note, a great number of medical studies rely 
>>in part upon personal testament. Take aspirin for instance. Range of 
>>motion may be one thing. But level of pain subsidence is all together 
>>another. All rather personal and, of course, subjective.
>>
>>
>
>
>but carefully controlled via double blind, placebo control.
>
>
>  
>
>>The same would have to hold true for persons who have a close existence 
>>with their pets. As the pets can't talk, at least not in the Queen's 
>>English, much reliance is made upon  an owner's 
>>interaction/interpretation/understanding - transcribed as "testimonial."
>>
>>
>
>
>that's how we got the "Clever Hans" phenomena
>
>
>  
>
>>>similarly I think that requiring rabies
>>>inoculations is sound social policy.
>>>  
>>>
>>It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more effective than 
>>others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, despite many 
>>proclamations to the contrary over the decades.
>>
>>
>>
>
>  global small pox and almost global polio?
>
>
>  
>
>>>Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective
>>>determination, decided by society, but hopefully
>>>guided by valid statistics.
>>>  
>>>
>>Actually, decided by a select few within the greater hall of society, rather 
>>than society in general, and all too often predicated upon politics rather 
>>than sound social benefit for the greater good. With the Bush admin being but 
>>one indicator, valid statistics is often the least of all qualifiers in the 
>>development of policy.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I am referring to society in the ideal sense, as I am certainly no shill 
>for bush.
>
>  
>
>>>the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for
>>>anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud
>>>over all other material therein.
>>>  
>>>
>>That "cloud" is more a conseque

[Biofuel] I'm not a veterinarian, but I play one on the Internet

[Mike Weaver]

Appalling Energy wrote:

>Mike,
>
>  
>
>>First off, your second sentance makes no sense
>>- "entreated the reader to a defrauding practice"
>>I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>>
>>
Nah, it was a contorted sentence.

>
>In the context of your mythical example, "entreat" is not so far out of reason.
>  
>
Mythical is generally held to mean something with a history.  I made 
these up on the spot.  They are not mythical, they're fresh BS.

>Your intent was to entice the reader to believe something false, even if but 
>for a moment. Just because you didn't beg or implore a readership outright by 
>no stretch of the imagination means that you didn't entreat them to believe 
>fiction. Ergo the statement was made.
>
>entreat - (Obs)to write or speak of
>entreat - to make an earnest appeal; plead
>
>Perhaps "invited the reader to believe that a defrauding practice was 
>occurring" would be more grammatically correct. But surely you're sharp enough 
>as to have not missed the contextual point. 
>  
>
Apparently not.

> > I never said that the articles or the vets were perpetuating fraud.
>
>You don't think that padding a practice's income by pitching unnecessary 
>services (excuse me, the words were "Increase you billing by 40% with 
>the PetVaxx program" and "Ten tests your practice should do routinely" ) 
>isn't fraudulent or at least borderline so? And you don't think that 
>advocating or quasi-endorsing such a practice as being acceptable isn't 
>borderline endorsement of actions that are at best on the innermost 
>periphery of fraud?
>
>Even if you didn't say it outright, you certainly eluded to fraud in 
>context.
>  
>
BUY A DICTIONARY.  It's hard to take you seriously when your sentences 
don't make sense.  The word you want is "alluded", not eluded. 
You're the one shrieking about fraud.  With regards to whether or not 
those two sentences represent fraud, who knows?  I made them up,
as I've said over and over.  Are you asking whether I think that some 
veterinary practice magazines urge tests more because they are lucrative 
than because they are necessary, yes, I think they probably do.  
However, I claim no expertise in veterinary practice management nor do I 
claim any knowledge about animal husbandry.  I'm not in a position to 
make any qualified judgments about it.  I'm no expert, and don't claim 
to be.  I was voicing an opinion, which was based on glancing through 
vet. practice magazines. 

>And, to put it back in context, your response was to Mary Lynn Schmidt's 
>post where she stated:
>
>  
>
>>>To answer your question about the rabies shot
>>>
>>>Rabies shots, are required by law every three years in my state.
>>>
>>>In some states, the Vet Lobbing efforts have managed to have that law 
>>>changed to every year even though the shots have been proven to last 7 
>>>years.
>>>  
>>>
>
>Your post followed the same thought patterns of needlessness, 
>excessiveness and/or "fraud" as did her last sentence.
>
> > I am sorry if your initial captivation in the first few sentance was
> > crushed by the next few sentances.
>
>Don't congratulate yourself so heartily.
>  
>
I've been doing my Happy Dance for hours now...

> > There is a long history of using made up stories to illustrate
> > a point. The Daily Show. The Onion. Modern Humorist. Not
> > Neccesarily The News and so on. All use fabricated stories to make a 
>point.
>
>How about using factual occurrences to illustrate a point? Should the 
>list presume that the two veterinarian friends of yours don't exist 
>either? What part of the story is made up and which part isn't? You 
>weren't exactly clear on the ratio.
>  
>
Well, I'm pretty sure one of the vets is real, or at least the bills 
are.  As for the second one, now that you mention it, I think she may be 
a cleverly designed robot.
I've never seen her blink, and she has no eyebrows to speak of.  Pretty 
suspicious.

> > If I had said these were real articles and then could not
> > produce them, then that's something different, but it isn't really
> > fraud. It would be misleading.
>
>Now here is a bit that makes perfectly no sense. To say something is 
>real, all the while knowing that it isn't, especially in the attempt to 
>gain sympathy toward one perspective or another "isn't really fraud?" 
>Only "misleading?"
>  
>
No, it would be misleading if I didn't say they were made up.

>Ehe..
>
>fraud - 2) something said or done to deceive; trick
>mislead - 2) to lead into error; deceive or delude
>deceive - 1) to make (a person) believe what is not true; delude; mislead
>  
>
See?  You can look up words!  It's not hard.  Now look up allude before 
you use it again.

>Monetary or property gain isn't incumbent to fraud Mike. But it almost 
>always is to defrauding others - which, by the way, you were eluding to 
>with your fictitious headlines.
>  
>
Back to the dictionary.  Do you run these sentences through an 
obfuscater?  Again, you mean alluding, not eluding.

Re: [Biofuel] Pump size

[Zeke Yewdall]

What is the pressure that those gpm ratings are taken at?  I suspect
the 1/2 horse pump is rated at a much higher head than your 1/20th HP
pump.

Also, are you sure you are getting 5gpm through a 3/8" fitting?  It
seems a little high for that small of pipe.

On 12/7/05, Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I looked in the archives for info on pump size recommendations.  I found
> a few messages relating to the clear water pump but what I am after is
> does anyone have a rule of thumb on pump throughput versus reactor
> size?  I know variables such as reactor dimensions, tall vs short
> location of ports etc will have an impact but is there a ball park gauge
> such as GPM rating should be equal to some multiple or fraction of tank
> volume?  For example I have an 8 gallon tank and am using a pump which
> delivers 5 GPM at near zero head (unrestricted flow).  It works very
> well.  Does this mean that a 50 GPM pump would be a reasonable guess for
> a reactor of 80 gallons volume?  Keith you indicated that the clear
> water pump is ok for a 60 gallon size but questionable for a 80 gallon size.
> Just to make things more confusing, the data on harbour freight's web
> page says the 1" clear pump delivers 330 GPH so that's 5.5 GPM but it is
> a 1/2 hp pump!  My little pump is something like 1/20 hp and has 3/8"
> connections so there must be an error somewhere here.  I am thinking the
> clear pump is actually 330 GPM not GPH.
>
> Anybody?
>
> Joe
>
>
> ___
> Biofuel mailing list
> Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
>
>

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

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

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

[Biofuel] Pump size

[Joe Street]

Hi all;

I looked in the archives for info on pump size recommendations.  I found 
a few messages relating to the clear water pump but what I am after is 
does anyone have a rule of thumb on pump throughput versus reactor 
size?  I know variables such as reactor dimensions, tall vs short 
location of ports etc will have an impact but is there a ball park gauge 
such as GPM rating should be equal to some multiple or fraction of tank 
volume?  For example I have an 8 gallon tank and am using a pump which 
delivers 5 GPM at near zero head (unrestricted flow).  It works very 
well.  Does this mean that a 50 GPM pump would be a reasonable guess for 
a reactor of 80 gallons volume?  Keith you indicated that the clear 
water pump is ok for a 60 gallon size but questionable for a 80 gallon size.
Just to make things more confusing, the data on harbour freight's web 
page says the 1" clear pump delivers 330 GPH so that's 5.5 GPM but it is 
a 1/2 hp pump!  My little pump is something like 1/20 hp and has 3/8" 
connections so there must be an error somewhere here.  I am thinking the 
clear pump is actually 330 GPM not GPH.

Anybody?

Joe


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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] concerning rabies vaccinations

[Zeke Yewdall]

Todd wrote:
"You don't think that padding a practice's income by pitching unnecessary
services . isn't fraudulent or at least borderline so? "


Uh.  Selling people unnecessary good and services is what the American
economy is built on.  I know we all want to change that, but right now
its the "american way of life".  If you want to call it borderline
fraud, I'll second that, but GW isn't going to be happy with us



On 12/7/05, Appal Energy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike,
>
> > First off, your second sentance makes no sense
> > - "entreated the reader to a defrauding practice"
> > I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>
> In the context of your mythical example, "entreat" is not so far out of 
> reason.
>
> Your intent was to entice the reader to believe something false, even if but 
> for a moment. Just because you didn't beg or implore a readership outright by 
> no stretch of the imagination means that you didn't entreat them to believe 
> fiction. Ergo the statement was made.
>
> entreat - (Obs)to write or speak of
> entreat - to make an earnest appeal; plead
>
> Perhaps "invited the reader to believe that a defrauding practice was 
> occurring" would be more grammatically correct. But surely you're sharp 
> enough as to have not missed the contextual point.
>
>  > I never said that the articles or the vets were perpetuating fraud.
>
> You don't think that padding a practice's income by pitching unnecessary
> services (excuse me, the words were "Increase you billing by 40% with
> the PetVaxx program" and "Ten tests your practice should do routinely" )
> isn't fraudulent or at least borderline so? And you don't think that
> advocating or quasi-endorsing such a practice as being acceptable isn't
> borderline endorsement of actions that are at best on the innermost
> periphery of fraud?
>
> Even if you didn't say it outright, you certainly eluded to fraud in
> context.
>
> And, to put it back in context, your response was to Mary Lynn Schmidt's
> post where she stated:
>
> >> To answer your question about the rabies shot
> >>
> >>Rabies shots, are required by law every three years in my state.
> >>
> >>In some states, the Vet Lobbing efforts have managed to have that law
> >>changed to every year even though the shots have been proven to last 7
> >>years.
>
> Your post followed the same thought patterns of needlessness,
> excessiveness and/or "fraud" as did her last sentence.
>
>  > I am sorry if your initial captivation in the first few sentance was
>  > crushed by the next few sentances.
>
> Don't congratulate yourself so heartily.
>
>  > There is a long history of using made up stories to illustrate
>  > a point. The Daily Show. The Onion. Modern Humorist. Not
>  > Neccesarily The News and so on. All use fabricated stories to make a
> point.
>
> How about using factual occurrences to illustrate a point? Should the
> list presume that the two veterinarian friends of yours don't exist
> either? What part of the story is made up and which part isn't? You
> weren't exactly clear on the ratio.
>
>  > If I had said these were real articles and then could not
>  > produce them, then that's something different, but it isn't really
>  > fraud. It would be misleading.
>
> Now here is a bit that makes perfectly no sense. To say something is
> real, all the while knowing that it isn't, especially in the attempt to
> gain sympathy toward one perspective or another "isn't really fraud?"
> Only "misleading?"
>
> Ehe..
>
> fraud - 2) something said or done to deceive; trick
> mislead - 2) to lead into error; deceive or delude
> deceive - 1) to make (a person) believe what is not true; delude; mislead
>
> Monetary or property gain isn't incumbent to fraud Mike. But it almost
> always is to defrauding others - which, by the way, you were eluding to
> with your fictitious headlines.
>
> Todd Swearingen
>
> (Coming up next? Grammarians parse words over what the meaning of "is"
> is. Stay tuned)
>
>
> >First off, your second sentance makes no sense - "entreated the reader
> >to a defrauding practice" I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
> >I never said that the articles or the vets were perpetuating fraud.  I
> >made the point that vet magazines often focus on ways to increase a
> >practice's billing.
> >This is not fraud.  This business management.  Fraud is when you
> >intentinally deceive someone, generally for gain.  My email is not
> >saying that.
> >
> >With regards to making up the stories, yes, I said clearly that they we
> >NOT TRUE in the original email.  I never presented them as anything
> >other than
> >made up.  There is a long history of using made up stories to illustrate
> >a point.  The Daily Show.  The Onion.  Modern Humorist.  Not Neccesarily
> >The News and so on.  All use fabricated stories to make a point.
> >
> >I am sorry if your initial captivation in the first few sentance was
> >crushed by the next few sentances.  The whole comment was only five
> >sentance

[Biofuel] vehicle tracking - pilot project now federally funded

[Kirk McLoren]

ZDNet.com is running a story about a runaway idea of a[0]tracking automobiles via GPS. Not to be confused with the Canadianproject geared towards [1]anti-speeding ideas, this one does in fact have the goal of tracking your vehicle. 'The U.S. Department of Transportation has been handing millions of dollars to state governments forGPS-tracking pilot projects designed to track vehicles wherever they go.So far, Washington state and Oregon have received fat federal checks tofigure out how to levy these 'mileage-based road user fees.' However, the article goes on to talk about how there is no provision in place toprevent the uncontrolled surveillance of motorists without a courtorder."Discuss this story at:    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=05/12/06/0147250Links:    0. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5982762.html    1. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/04/189225&tid=158
		 Yahoo! Personals 
Skip the bars and set-ups and start using Yahoo! Personals for free___
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] concerning rabies vaccinations

[Appal Energy]

Mike,

> First off, your second sentance makes no sense
> - "entreated the reader to a defrauding practice"
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

In the context of your mythical example, "entreat" is not so far out of reason.

Your intent was to entice the reader to believe something false, even if but 
for a moment. Just because you didn't beg or implore a readership outright by 
no stretch of the imagination means that you didn't entreat them to believe 
fiction. Ergo the statement was made.

entreat - (Obs)to write or speak of
entreat - to make an earnest appeal; plead

Perhaps "invited the reader to believe that a defrauding practice was 
occurring" would be more grammatically correct. But surely you're sharp enough 
as to have not missed the contextual point. 

 > I never said that the articles or the vets were perpetuating fraud.

You don't think that padding a practice's income by pitching unnecessary 
services (excuse me, the words were "Increase you billing by 40% with 
the PetVaxx program" and "Ten tests your practice should do routinely" ) 
isn't fraudulent or at least borderline so? And you don't think that 
advocating or quasi-endorsing such a practice as being acceptable isn't 
borderline endorsement of actions that are at best on the innermost 
periphery of fraud?

Even if you didn't say it outright, you certainly eluded to fraud in 
context.

And, to put it back in context, your response was to Mary Lynn Schmidt's 
post where she stated:

>> To answer your question about the rabies shot
>>
>>Rabies shots, are required by law every three years in my state.
>>
>>In some states, the Vet Lobbing efforts have managed to have that law 
>>changed to every year even though the shots have been proven to last 7 
>>years.

Your post followed the same thought patterns of needlessness, 
excessiveness and/or "fraud" as did her last sentence.

 > I am sorry if your initial captivation in the first few sentance was
 > crushed by the next few sentances.

Don't congratulate yourself so heartily.

 > There is a long history of using made up stories to illustrate
 > a point. The Daily Show. The Onion. Modern Humorist. Not
 > Neccesarily The News and so on. All use fabricated stories to make a 
point.

How about using factual occurrences to illustrate a point? Should the 
list presume that the two veterinarian friends of yours don't exist 
either? What part of the story is made up and which part isn't? You 
weren't exactly clear on the ratio.

 > If I had said these were real articles and then could not
 > produce them, then that's something different, but it isn't really
 > fraud. It would be misleading.

Now here is a bit that makes perfectly no sense. To say something is 
real, all the while knowing that it isn't, especially in the attempt to 
gain sympathy toward one perspective or another "isn't really fraud?" 
Only "misleading?"

Ehe..

fraud - 2) something said or done to deceive; trick
mislead - 2) to lead into error; deceive or delude
deceive - 1) to make (a person) believe what is not true; delude; mislead

Monetary or property gain isn't incumbent to fraud Mike. But it almost 
always is to defrauding others - which, by the way, you were eluding to 
with your fictitious headlines.

Todd Swearingen

(Coming up next? Grammarians parse words over what the meaning of "is" 
is. Stay tuned) 
 

>First off, your second sentance makes no sense - "entreated the reader 
>to a defrauding practice" I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
>I never said that the articles or the vets were perpetuating fraud.  I 
>made the point that vet magazines often focus on ways to increase a 
>practice's billing.
>This is not fraud.  This business management.  Fraud is when you 
>intentinally deceive someone, generally for gain.  My email is not 
>saying that.
>
>With regards to making up the stories, yes, I said clearly that they we 
>NOT TRUE in the original email.  I never presented them as anything 
>other than
>made up.  There is a long history of using made up stories to illustrate 
>a point.  The Daily Show.  The Onion.  Modern Humorist.  Not Neccesarily 
>The News and so on.  All use fabricated stories to make a point. 
>
>I am sorry if your initial captivation in the first few sentance was 
>crushed by the next few sentances.  The whole comment was only five 
>sentances long.
>I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  It was a comment 
>on a thread.  Nothing more.  I made no charges of fraud, not did I 
>present myself as anything
>other than an unreliable narrator.  My email says point blank: "I'm 
>making these up"  They are not true.  My second email also says I am not 
>a credible authority.  I don't pretend to be.  It was a tossed-off 
>comment.  If I had said these were real articles and then could not 
>produce them, then that's something different, but it isn't really 
>fraud.  It would be misleading. 
>
>-Mike
>

Re: [Biofuel] concerning rabies vaccinations

[Mike Weaver]

Hi John,

You think you're pretty Swift, but I think your Modest Proposal is a 
fraud!  I don't have two useless degrees in English for nothing!

Ha - thanks for the laugh! 

Oops - I just noticed the attribution at the bottom.  So much for 
showing off my erudition!

-Mike

John Hayes wrote:

>Mike Weaver wrote:
>  
>
>>>With regards to making up the stories, yes, I said clearly that they 
>>>we NOT TRUE in the original email.  I never presented them as 
>>>anything other than made up.  There is a long history of using made 
>>>up stories to illustrate a point.  The Daily Show.  The Onion. Modern
>>>Humorist.  Not Neccesarily The News and so on.  All use fabricated
>>>stories to make a point.
>>>  
>>>
>
>In fact, that tradition is much older and more literary than the sources 
>you mention. Failure comprehend and understand satire on the part of the 
>reader does not constitute fraud on the part of the writer.
>
>  
>
>>I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope
>>will not be liable to the least objection.
>>
>>I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in
>>London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a
>>most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed,
>>roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally
>>serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
>>
>>I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the
>>hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty
>>thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to
>>be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or
>>swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of
>>marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore
>>one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining
>>hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the
>>persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising
>>the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to
>>render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two
>>dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines
>>alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and
>>seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the
>>fourth day, especially in winter.
>>
>>
>
>-from A Modest Proposal. Jonathan Swift. 1729.
>
>jh
>
>___
>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] concerning rabies vaccinations

[John Hayes]

Mike Weaver wrote:
>> With regards to making up the stories, yes, I said clearly that they 
>> we NOT TRUE in the original email.  I never presented them as 
>> anything other than made up.  There is a long history of using made 
>> up stories to illustrate a point.  The Daily Show.  The Onion. Modern
>> Humorist.  Not Neccesarily The News and so on.  All use fabricated
>> stories to make a point.

In fact, that tradition is much older and more literary than the sources 
you mention. Failure comprehend and understand satire on the part of the 
reader does not constitute fraud on the part of the writer.

> I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope
> will not be liable to the least objection.
> 
> I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in
> London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a
> most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed,
> roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally
> serve in a fricassee or a ragout.
> 
> I do therefore humbly offer it to public consideration that of the
> hundred and twenty thousand children already computed, twenty
> thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one-fourth part to
> be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle or
> swine; and my reason is, that these children are seldom the fruits of
> marriage, a circumstance not much regarded by our savages, therefore
> one male will be sufficient to serve four females. That the remaining
> hundred thousand may, at a year old, be offered in the sale to the
> persons of quality and fortune through the kingdom; always advising
> the mother to let them suck plentifully in the last month, so as to
> render them plump and fat for a good table. A child will make two
> dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines
> alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and
> seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the
> fourth day, especially in winter.

-from A Modest Proposal. Jonathan Swift. 1729.

jh

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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures

[bob allen]

ok so I need a little more rigor here, I got my costs and benefits 
reversed.  Please substitute benefit/cost ratio below and it makes 
sense.


bob allen wrote:
> Perry, you are mixing the issues.  Careful observation with appropriate 
> controls can tell one the cost, be it monetary, or in human suffering. 
> Likewise the same procedure will afford information on the benefit- 
> numbers of lives saved or money not spent on treating an infection.
> 
> The societal decision is just what ratio to accept.  What if a vaccine 
> saved 10 lives by preventing an infection but killed one life, due an 
> autoimmune reaction?  simplistically that would have a cost/benefit 
> ratio of 10.  is that acceptable?  what if it were 1000, surely that 
> would be more acceptable, so you see we have to decide on what we 
> accept, science can only give us the ratio, the decision is ours as to 
> how we use it.
> 
> 
> 
> Perry Jones wrote:
>> Actually, I thought the issue was science and what we know about 
>> vaccinations and its effects.  Cost/benefit has nothing more to do with 
>> science than do testimonials.  If you want to discuss cause and effect, 
>> kindly maintain the same standards throughout all your discussions.
> 
>where did cause and effect come in here.  (cause and effect is also 
> amenable to the scientific method.) If you want to talk about cause and 
> effect then we need to consider immunological principles. and that is a 
> whole new discussion
> 
>As
>> Todd points out, you tend to cherry pick. 
> 
> I disagree
> 
>   Worse, you change your
>> standards to suit a point.
> 
> no I don't.  show me where I have used any standard other than the 
> scientific method as a means of gathering the facts.  How those facts, 
> as in a cost benefit ratio, are used is out of the realm of science.
> 
> 
>   Frankly, I would expect more rigor from a
>> college professor, even one who may be playing Devil's Advocate (to 
>> afford some benefit of doubt).
> 
> be explicit then.  You are making an accusation.  show me where more 
> rigor is to be expected.
> 
> toodles
> 
>> Perry Jones
>>
>>
>> bob allen wrote:
>>
>>> good evening Todd,
>>>
>>> Appal Energy wrote:
>>>  
>>>
 Bob,

> as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling
> used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does
> little or nothing to advance your point.
 U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in 
 trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they 
 shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to.


>>> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for 
>>> how science is done.
>>>
>>> When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which 
>>> ultimately will be decided by 
>>> society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined 
>>> by the scientific 
>>> method, rather than the squeaky wheel.
>>>
>>>  the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are 
>>> harm to individuals, where 
>>> as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox 
>>> vaccinations, but small pox 
>>> is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a 
>>> global society not have 
>>> vaccinated?   I submit that many many more would have died, and would still 
>>> be dying had not the 
>>> small pox vaccine been deployed.  Individuals have died from polio 
>>> vaccinations, but I am proud to 
>>> have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive 
>>> don't know what an iron lung 
>>> is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection.
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> ___
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman

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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures

[bob allen]

Perry, you are mixing the issues.  Careful observation with appropriate 
controls can tell one the cost, be it monetary, or in human suffering. 
Likewise the same procedure will afford information on the benefit- 
numbers of lives saved or money not spent on treating an infection.

The societal decision is just what ratio to accept.  What if a vaccine 
saved 10 lives by preventing an infection but killed one life, due an 
autoimmune reaction?  simplistically that would have a cost/benefit 
ratio of 10.  is that acceptable?  what if it were 1000, surely that 
would be more acceptable, so you see we have to decide on what we 
accept, science can only give us the ratio, the decision is ours as to 
how we use it.



Perry Jones wrote:
> Actually, I thought the issue was science and what we know about 
> vaccinations and its effects.  Cost/benefit has nothing more to do with 
> science than do testimonials.  If you want to discuss cause and effect, 
> kindly maintain the same standards throughout all your discussions.

   where did cause and effect come in here.  (cause and effect is also 
amenable to the scientific method.) If you want to talk about cause and 
effect then we need to consider immunological principles. and that is a 
whole new discussion

   As
> Todd points out, you tend to cherry pick. 

I disagree

  Worse, you change your
> standards to suit a point.

no I don't.  show me where I have used any standard other than the 
scientific method as a means of gathering the facts.  How those facts, 
as in a cost benefit ratio, are used is out of the realm of science.


  Frankly, I would expect more rigor from a
> college professor, even one who may be playing Devil's Advocate (to 
> afford some benefit of doubt).

be explicit then.  You are making an accusation.  show me where more 
rigor is to be expected.

toodles

> Perry Jones
> 
> 
> bob allen wrote:
> 
>> good evening Todd,
>>
>> Appal Energy wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
 as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling
 used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does
 little or nothing to advance your point.
>>> U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in 
>>> trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they 
>>> shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for 
>> how science is done.
>>
>> When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which 
>> ultimately will be decided by 
>> society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined 
>> by the scientific 
>> method, rather than the squeaky wheel.
>>
>>  the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are 
>> harm to individuals, where 
>> as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox 
>> vaccinations, but small pox 
>> is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global 
>> society not have 
>> vaccinated?   I submit that many many more would have died, and would still 
>> be dying had not the 
>> small pox vaccine been deployed.  Individuals have died from polio 
>> vaccinations, but I am proud to 
>> have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't 
>> know what an iron lung 
>> is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> ___
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman

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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] concerning rabies vaccinations

[Mike Weaver]

First off, your second sentance makes no sense - "entreated the reader 
to a defrauding practice" I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
I never said that the articles or the vets were perpetuating fraud.  I 
made the point that vet magazines often focus on ways to increase a 
practice's billing.
This is not fraud.  This business management.  Fraud is when you 
intentinally deceive someone, generally for gain.  My email is not 
saying that.

With regards to making up the stories, yes, I said clearly that they we 
NOT TRUE in the original email.  I never presented them as anything 
other than
made up.  There is a long history of using made up stories to illustrate 
a point.  The Daily Show.  The Onion.  Modern Humorist.  Not Neccesarily 
The News and so on.  All use fabricated stories to make a point. 

I am sorry if your initial captivation in the first few sentance was 
crushed by the next few sentances.  The whole comment was only five 
sentances long.
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  It was a comment 
on a thread.  Nothing more.  I made no charges of fraud, not did I 
present myself as anything
other than an unreliable narrator.  My email says point blank: "I'm 
making these up"  They are not true.  My second email also says I am not 
a credible authority.  I don't pretend to be.  It was a tossed-off 
comment.  If I had said these were real articles and then could not 
produce them, then that's something different, but it isn't really 
fraud.  It would be misleading. 

-Mike






Appal Energy wrote:

>Mike,
>
>I'm aware of how you staged your point. But the crux of the matter is 
>that you entreated the reader to a defrauding practice (the inflated 
>treatment/billing by the medical profession) and then informed the 
>readers that they were initially captivated by a story of fraud that was 
>fraudulent in itself.
>
>Practicing fraud and then letting a readership know that it has been 
>duped has an entirely different flavour and effect than.declaring fraud 
>before the fact.
>
>Actual articles to substantiate your point would have been the remedy, 
>not presenting hypotheticals. The latter only leaves a reader with a 
>feeling of being conned, even if only for a few seconds. It's not a 
>practice that is enjoyed by most and only tends to lessen the impact 
>that the author may have been able to make or perhaps could make in the 
>future, whether it be the same venue or another.
>
>Todd Swearingen
>
>  
>
>>The point was that the focus of the magazine is on how to make money - 
>>not what is neccessarily the best for the patient.  I said point blank 
>>the headlines were made up.  They are not real stories - merely an 
>>imperfect imitation for the purpose of illustration.  I'm not a vet, and 
>>don't pretend to a credible source on what is best for animal care.  I 
>>am relating that I have noticed that vet's magazines seem to be very 
>>focussed on billing and how to make more money.
>>
>>Appal Energy wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mike,
>>>
>>>Making things up doesn't lend well to credibility.
>>>
>>>In the immortal words of John Billings, "I honestly believe it iz better 
>>>tew know nothing than tew know what ain't so."
>>>
>>>Todd Swearingen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>>  
>>>
Or just try reading a Veterinary Practice Magazine.  I have two friends 
who are vets.  Both are quite level-headed, but I do sometime browse 
through their professional magazines.  They have stories such as 
"Increase you billing by 40% with the PetVaxx program" and "Ten tests 
your practice should do routinely"  I'm making these up as I don't have 
the magazine in front of me but the gist is the same.

-Mike Weaver

 



>
>
>___
>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] Aarghhh!! - was Re: Bob Allen- Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures

[Keith Addison]

PLEASE don't do that to poor Bob, that's the second time it's 
happened to him. He's right:

"please stop- it adds nothing to the conversation and makes searches 
in the archives difficult."

He's not the subject, it's a discussion *group* after all. It's 
surely doesn't accomplish anything, no need.

Thanks.

Keith Addison
Journey to Forever
KYOTO Pref., Japan
http://journeytoforever.org/
Biofuel list owner

  .

> >From: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: Sheri Nakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [Vaccine Info] Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures
> >Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:21:17 +0100
> >
> >
> >If giving pets too many vaccines is injuring and killing them, why would
> >this not be true for humans?
> >
> >
> >http://www.nbc4.tv/news/4448558/detail.html
> >NBC4.TV, CA
> >
> >Vaccinating Pets Could Do More Harm Than Good
> >May 4, 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/

Re: [Biofuel] Rabies Vaccine frequency. was: - name

[Paul S Cantrell]

Yeah Mike, but this is Bob's second go-round.  15 emails of fame!On 12/6/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Nuts.  Bob Allen.  And just a day or so it was all about me.  Sigh.Andy Warhol was right.
-MikeZeke Yewdall wrote:>Mary>>Quit screwing up the JTF archives by putting irrelevant subject titles>on your emails.  This one is about rabies vaccines, not Bob Allen.>
>On 12/6/05, Marylynn Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:To answer your question about the rabies shots.Rabies shots, are required by law every three years in my state.
In some states, the Vet Lobbing efforts have managed to have that law>>changed to every year even though the shots have been proven to last 7>>years.I need to have a current certificate to get a dog licenses issued by my
>>town... I cheat .. and I lay very low in tall grass.One of my dogs has seizures that I treat holistically that I can trace>>directly to her early rabies shots.
These seizures are now fairly mild and infrequent and I have no intention of>>harming her any more.One file I was looking for .. and haven't found yet .. is the actual law
>>suit filed by a Dr. Rogers, a Texas Veterinarian who filed a law suit>>against all other Texas Veterinarians for Theft by Fraud (and other charges)>>.. and listed each and every vaccine given and why, with full and accurate
>>information, an owner would not have selected to have it administer to their>>pet .... but I believe you would be able to find it if you do a google search for>>Dr. Rogers in Texas - Law Suit.
Mary Lynn>>Mary Lynn Schmidt>>ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART>>TTouch . Animal Behavior Modification . Behavior Problems . Ordained>>Minister .>>Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Radionics . Dowsing . Nutrition . Homeopathy .
>>Herbs. . Polarity . Reiki . Spiritual Travel>>The Animal Connection Healing Modalities>>http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/>>
>>___>>Biofuel mailing list>>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>>
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.orgBiofuel 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 listBiofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://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/
-- Thanks,PCHe's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switchHistory teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. - Abba Eban
___
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] Rabies Vaccine frequency. was: - name

[Mike Weaver]

Point to Bob!

Paul S Cantrell wrote:

> Yeah Mike, but this is Bob's second go-round.  15 emails of fame!
>
> On 12/6/05, *Mike Weaver* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>  > wrote:
>
> Nuts.  Bob Allen.  And just a day or so it was all about me.  Sigh.
> Andy Warhol was right.
>
> -Mike
>
> Zeke Yewdall wrote:
>
> >Mary
> >
> >Quit screwing up the JTF archives by putting irrelevant subject
> titles
> >on your emails.  This one is about rabies vaccines, not Bob Allen.
> >
> >On 12/6/05, Marylynn Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>To answer your question about the rabies shots.
> >>
> >>Rabies shots, are required by law every three years in my state.
> >>
> >>In some states, the Vet Lobbing efforts have managed to have
> that law
> >>changed to every year even though the shots have been proven to
> last 7
> >>years.
> >>
> >>I need to have a current certificate to get a dog licenses
> issued by my
> >>town.
> >>
> >>.. I cheat .. and I lay very low in tall grass.
> >>
> >>One of my dogs has seizures that I treat holistically that I can
> trace
> >>directly to her early rabies shots.
> >>
> >>These seizures are now fairly mild and infrequent and I have no
> intention of
> >>harming her any more.
> >>
> >>One file I was looking for .. and haven't found yet .. is the
> actual law
> >>suit filed by a Dr. Rogers, a Texas Veterinarian who filed a law
> suit
> >>against all other Texas Veterinarians for Theft by Fraud (and
> other charges)
> >>.. and listed each and every vaccine given and why, with full
> and accurate
> >>information, an owner would not have selected to have it
> administer to their
> >>pet ..
> >>
> >>.. but I believe you would be able to find it if you do a google
> search for
> >>Dr. Rogers in Texas - Law Suit.
> >>
> >>Mary Lynn
> >>Mary Lynn Schmidt
> >>ONE SPIRIT ONE HEART
> >>TTouch . Animal Behavior Modification . Behavior Problems . Ordained
> >>Minister .
> >>Pet Loss Grief Counseling . Radionics . Dowsing . Nutrition .
> Homeopathy .
> >>Herbs. . Polarity . Reiki . Spiritual Travel
> >>The Animal Connection Healing Modalities
> >>http://members.tripod.com/~MLSchmidt/
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>___
> >>Biofuel mailing list
> >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
> >>
> http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
> >>
> >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
> 
> >>
> >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives
> (50,000 messages):
> >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
> 
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >___
> >Biofuel 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/
> 
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> PC
>
> He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch
>
> History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have 
> exhausted all other alternatives. - Abba Eban
>
>
>
>___
>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/
>
>  
>



___
Bi

Re: [Biofuel] Marula (Scelerocarya birrea) was Jatropha Curcas

[Chandan Haldar]

The pulp of this fruit is also the main raw material for the Amarula 
Cream liquor (www.amarula.com) which is somewhat similar in taste to 
Bailey's Irish Cream (and priced about the same in retail), but with a 
distinct flavor of its own.

Cheers.

Chandan


Duncan Mills wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I had an interesting meeting this morning with someone who is extracting
>oil from the marula nut (Scelerocarya birrea).  Have a look at
>www.marula.org.za for more information on this - google it and you'll
>find a whole lot of other really good info.  Apparently you can get 10
>trees/ha, 2000tpa/ha of fruit, 30% of which is nut and 25% of nut is
>oil, this is hearsay and needs to be confirmed (anyone got a
>reference?).  They are indigenous and all over the Limpopo Province, the
>fruit pulp (used for brewing a form of beer, gives me a headache) is
>prized above the nut, although there is a market for the oil. It may be
>a better option compared with Jatropha - you could probably get the oil
>by tomorrow.  I'm going to get some and make a few test batches.  
>
>Regards,
>
>Duncan
>  
>

___
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] Seperating glycerine

[Bioclaire Nederland]

You just add the total amount of NaOH in both 
batches. Usualy you know how much NaOH you used, so it does not matter if that 
is in 1 batch of more. The total amount of NaOH counts.
Indicator ?
Well, the ideal situation would be if you could get 
it to pH neutral, which is 7
At chemistry delivery companies they can advise you 
on that. 
If you don't know at all, you can also make trial 
and error batches in little glas tubes. I don'tn know the english word for it, 
but usualy like 20 milliliter.
Start with say half a liter of your glycerin 
layer.
Put 1 ml of acid in, shake very good en put 20 ml 
in the first tube.
Than again 1 ml of acid in the half liter , mix 
very good and fill up the second tube.
After maybe 10 or 20 tubes, let it sit on a warm 
place, wher separation goes easier.
In this way you can figure out how much acid 
you need.
Much easier would be : Keep track of the amount of 
NaOH you used and you can calculate how much acid you need.
If I where you, I would try to get 98% H2SO4, which 
is by the way extremely dangerous stuff to work with, so be as carefull as 
possible. Phosporic acid is usually diluted and so you bring water in you 
mixture, which is what you probably dont want.
 
Good luck !

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  john owens 
  
  To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 6:31 
  PM
  Subject: [Biofuel] Seperating 
  glycerine
  
  Message: 2Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 03:26:52 +0100From: Bioclaire 
  Nederland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: 
  [Biofuel] seperating Glycerine mistake ! To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.orgMessage-ID: 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Content-Type: 
  text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"  
  Thanks Pieter for the explanation it explains allot. I must get 
  myself a chemistry book. 
   
   
  If I used say two diffrent batches of glycerine with diffrent amounts of 
  Naoh what would you do in that case or if you didnt know the exact amount of 
  Naoh Is there an indicator I could use.
   
  Thank you,
   
  John
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  I wrote :In grams :((3x1)+16+64) + (3x40) --> 
  ((3x23)+16+64) + (3x18)  -> 203 = 203So the reaction 
  is equal now.That means you need one mole of H3PO4 + 3 moles of NaOH to 
  react completely and split your residue. As you will understand now, I 
  hope, you need 98 grams of H3PO4 for every 40 grams of NaOH you 
  used.This should be : 98 grams of H3PO4 (is one mole) for 3 moles of 
  NaOH which is 120 grams. Not 40 grams40 grams is 1 mole. 
   I hope I can give you an explaination in english, because I 
  am from Holland : You start with the amount of NaOH you used to make 
  your batch of BD. For example 5 kg for 800 liters of BD. So 
  you use 5 kg NaOH, which you will all find back in the bottom layer residue. 
   1 mole of NaOH weighs 23 + 16 + 1 makes 40 grams. 23 + 16 + 
  1 are the mole weights of the elements. You can find them in te periodic 
  system of elements in every schoolbook of chemistry. Now 
  you mix with phosphoric acid, but what percentage ?  Phosphoric acid 
  is H3PO4, which has a mole weight of (3x1) + 31 + (4x16) =98 
  grams What you should try to reach is a complete reaction between the 
  acid and the NaOH The reaction would be : H3PO4 +NaOH --> Na3PO4 + 
  H20  Now make it equal, so it gets to : H3PO4 + 3NaOH --> 
  Na3PO4 + 3H2O In grams : ((3x1)+16+64) + (3x40) --> 
  ((3x23)+16+64) + (3x18)  -> 203 = 203 So the 
  reaction is equal now. That means you need one mole of H3PO4 + 3 
  moles of NaOH to react completely and split your residue.  As you 
  will understand now, I hope, you need 98 grams of H3PO4 for every 40 grams of 
  NaOH you used. Of course if you have a phosphoric acid of let's 
  say 75%, it means that if you take 1 kilo of that, you have 750 grams of 
  phosphoric acid.  All together, if you don't take enough acid, 
  you won't split your residue completely, but if you take too much acid, you 
  will find the surplus somewhere in the FFA's , or maybe on the bottom, or 
  maybe solved in either of them, or maybe.  I hope I 
  helped you with this. Greetings, Pieter  
   - Original Message -   From: john owens  
   To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org  
   Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:13 PM   Subject: 
  [Biofuel] seperating Glycerine   Hi,  
   I did couple of tests on glycerin separation with the titration method 
     on JTF with different results.   Test 
  One;   250ml byproduct   10ml phosphoric  
   shacked vigorously   There was separation with 3 
  layers about 60/30/10 within about 15 minutes.  
   FFa Glycerin and fluffy white sodium phosphate   Test 
  two;   250ml byproduct   10ml phosphoric  
   shaked vigorously   I then added 5ml phosphoric  
   shaked vigorously   I added  more phosphoric  to 
  see what would happen.    there was separation with In about 
  one minute with two layers about 50/50   with creamy brown stuff 
  on the bottom. FFa on top   I then added more p

Re: [Biofuel] Bob Allen -Other Vaccines during WWI - THE 1918 INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC

[David Miller]

Zeke Yewdall wrote:

>Yet they are already being sued over drugs like vioxx.  Are the
>threats of law suits any higher for vaccines than for other drugs
>released with insufficient testing?
>  
>

Vaccinations have their own special problems.  For starters, they're all 
different and
time-sensitive.  IE, you can't test a flu vaccine for three years 
because you need a different
one every year.  For another, the profits on them are miniscule compared 
to other drugs,
which makes it harder to justify a long, expensive, trial.


Personally I'm really bothered that viox and bextra were taken off the 
market.  I understand
that it increased the potential of heart attacks and strokes by some 2-3 
times among people
taking it long term.  However, I can easily see that that's an 
acceptable proposition to some
people.  If you're crippled by arthritis but can live a nearly normal 
life with bextra it's probably
worth 3X the chance of having a heart attack.  And they were great 
inflamation reducers for those
with temporary problems that wouldn't be taking it long term.

My thoughts, worth what you paid for them:)

--- David

>On 12/6/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>No one wants to touch them because of fears of being sued.
>>
>>Zeke Yewdall wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>If vaccines are big business being forced on us for profit, then why
>>>does no one want to actually make them.  Last year, less than half of
>>>the people in the US who wanted to get flu vaccines couldn't even get
>>>them, because there was only one or two companies who produced them,
>>>and one got shut down.  Wouldn't the big drug companies be falling
>>>over themselves to get into this business if there was any money to be
>>>made in it?  Vaccinating someone only gets you $5, once a year for
>>>flu, or maybe $60 once every 10 years for other stuff.  Better to sell
>>>them fancy patented drugs for $80 a month...
>>>
>>>
>>>On 12/6/05, Marylynn Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>  
>>>

[Big snip]

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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures

[Perry Jones]

Actually, I thought the issue was science and what we know about 
vaccinations and its effects.  Cost/benefit has nothing more to do with 
science than do testimonials.  If you want to discuss cause and effect, 
kindly maintain the same standards throughout all your discussions.  As 
Todd points out, you tend to cherry pick.  Worse, you change your 
standards to suit a point.  Frankly, I would expect more rigor from a 
college professor, even one who may be playing Devil's Advocate (to 
afford some benefit of doubt).
Perry Jones


bob allen wrote:

>good evening Todd,
>
>Appal Energy wrote:
>  
>
>>Bob,
>>
>> > as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling
>> > used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does
>> > little or nothing to advance your point.
>>
>>U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in 
>>trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they 
>>shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to.
>>
>>
>
>
>I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for how 
>science is done.
>
>When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which 
>ultimately will be decided by 
>society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined by 
>the scientific 
>method, rather than the squeaky wheel.
>
>  the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are harm 
> to individuals, where 
>as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox 
>vaccinations, but small pox 
>is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global 
>society not have 
>vaccinated?   I submit that many many more would have died, and would still be 
>dying had not the 
>small pox vaccine been deployed.  Individuals have died from polio 
>vaccinations, but I am proud to 
>have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't 
>know what an iron lung 
>is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection.
>
>
>  
>
>  
>

___
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] concerning rabies vaccinations

[Appal Energy]

Mike,

I'm aware of how you staged your point. But the crux of the matter is 
that you entreated the reader to a defrauding practice (the inflated 
treatment/billing by the medical profession) and then informed the 
readers that they were initially captivated by a story of fraud that was 
fraudulent in itself.

Practicing fraud and then letting a readership know that it has been 
duped has an entirely different flavour and effect than.declaring fraud 
before the fact.

Actual articles to substantiate your point would have been the remedy, 
not presenting hypotheticals. The latter only leaves a reader with a 
feeling of being conned, even if only for a few seconds. It's not a 
practice that is enjoyed by most and only tends to lessen the impact 
that the author may have been able to make or perhaps could make in the 
future, whether it be the same venue or another.

Todd Swearingen

>The point was that the focus of the magazine is on how to make money - 
>not what is neccessarily the best for the patient.  I said point blank 
>the headlines were made up.  They are not real stories - merely an 
>imperfect imitation for the purpose of illustration.  I'm not a vet, and 
>don't pretend to a credible source on what is best for animal care.  I 
>am relating that I have noticed that vet's magazines seem to be very 
>focussed on billing and how to make more money.
>
>Appal Energy wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Mike,
>>
>>Making things up doesn't lend well to credibility.
>>
>>In the immortal words of John Billings, "I honestly believe it iz better 
>>tew know nothing than tew know what ain't so."
>>
>>Todd Swearingen
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>>Or just try reading a Veterinary Practice Magazine.  I have two friends 
>>>who are vets.  Both are quite level-headed, but I do sometime browse 
>>>through their professional magazines.  They have stories such as 
>>>"Increase you billing by 40% with the PetVaxx program" and "Ten tests 
>>>your practice should do routinely"  I'm making these up as I don't have 
>>>the magazine in front of me but the gist is the same.
>>>
>>>-Mike Weaver
>>>
>>>  
>>>


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

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

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

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures

[bob allen]

Marylynn Schmidt wrote:
> This needs to be highlighted
> 
> If being vaccinated protected the individual it really wouldn't matter if 
> others were vaccinated at all .. or even sick.

vaccinations are a simple method by which society can lessen the injury 
to many, even though a few will be injured in the process. As I said, 
you get more bang for your health care buck with vaccinations compared 
to any post infection treatment regimen.



> 
> THAT IS WHAT BEING VACCINATED IS SUPPOSE TO BE ABOUT .. and now you're 
> telling us that .. well .. maybe no .. maybe it's about something else.
> 
> "Forced for the common good" is such a grandiose concept in the mind of 
> those who utter loudly from the rooftops that they have the ABSOLUTE ONLY 
> VIEW POINT THAT MATTERS and they are SO RIGHT they are willing to enforce 
> that view point by threat of martial law and/or gun point.

with highly communicable diseases, quarantine is a very, very important 
measure. What is the first thing done if an animal is suspected of 
having rabies- quarantine.

> 
> sort of like .. well the rest of them simply don't have the ability to 
> understand so I must decide for them!!
> 
> New England Journal of Science has had to reduce it's standards because they 
> can no longer get an unbiased peer review on any subject because 
> Corporations have funded through grants that affect the pocketbook of those 
> individuals who would and/or could give a peer review.
> 

so maybe we should have more public expenditures to do research, so 
corporate money won't compromise the opinions?

> If there is an independent individual out there capable of giving an 
> unbiased peer review one of the leading Journals of Science hasn't been able 
> to find them.
Hey, I am a war resisting, draft dodging, red blooded American.
> 
> Our military was taken to court for using our troops as unknowing test 
> subjects on experimental drugs .. the military lost.
> 
> This was proven .. this was admitted ..
> 
> Now Bush has requested the courts to resend their decision and allow forced 
> vaccinations on military personal.
> 
> I guess if the draft ever comes back into play, the decision to take the 
> shot(s) or spend time in jail will become a real choice .. let's see .. take 
> the shot and maybe spend the rest of my life in a institution having my 
> diapers changed .. or a couple of years in jail ..
> 
> In England the military has already been ordered to pay war time medical 
> benefits to service men and women stricken with the "so called" Gulf War 
> Syndrome even though some were never deployed .. they just received the 
> vaccinations.
> 
> In England at least 1 parent who was jailed after trial for killing their 
> baby by shaking (Shaken Baby Syndrome) has been released from prison with no 
> chance of a re-trial because it was discovered that the prosecution had 
> withheld medical evidence that vaccination death and Shaken Baby death could 
> not be determined.


this is an interesting issue, can you provide links other than antivax 
sites?


> 
> Other parents convicted of these same charges are having their cases studied 
> with good prospects of having their convictions overturned.
> 
> But in America the story is still very different.
> 
> I would ask who were you planning on being the individual(s) who will be 
> deciding these important matters for the rest of us?

   In the end we must trust our own judgment to be able to separate the 
wheat from the chaff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> From: bob allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>> Subject: Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets 
>> Kills and Injures
>> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:42:32 -0600
>>
>> good evening Todd,
> 
> 
> Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective determination, 
> decided by society, but
> hopefully guided by valid statistics.  Society has to determine how much 
> risk to force on an
> individuals and their pets and for how much protection to the common good.  
> Generally I think we
> (society) have done a pretty decent job of it.  In terms of public health 
> care, there is no better
> bang for the buck than vaccinations.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Bob Allen
http://ozarker.org/bob

"Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves" — Richard Feynman

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

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:

Re: [Biofuel] new subject line!!! was ... Overvaccinating Pets Kills and Injures

[bob allen]

good morning Todd

Appal Energy wrote:
> Salute Bob,
> 
>  > I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a
>  > good analogy for how science is done.
> 
> I wasn't thinking of court precedings when I made mention of 
> "testimonials." If you'll note, a great number of medical studies rely 
> in part upon personal testament. Take aspirin for instance. Range of 
> motion may be one thing. But level of pain subsidence is all together 
> another. All rather personal and, of course, subjective.


but carefully controlled via double blind, placebo control.


> 
> The same would have to hold true for persons who have a close existence 
> with their pets. As the pets can't talk, at least not in the Queen's 
> English, much reliance is made upon  an owner's 
> interaction/interpretation/understanding - transcribed as "testimonial."


that's how we got the "Clever Hans" phenomena


> 
>> similarly I think that requiring rabies
>> inoculations is sound social policy.
> 
> It's a speed bump at best, as are all vaccines. Some are more effective than 
> others. We certainly haven't eradicated any maladies, despite many 
> proclamations to the contrary over the decades.
> 

  global small pox and almost global polio?


>> Yes, risk assessment is in the end is a subjective
>> determination, decided by society, but hopefully
>> guided by valid statistics.
> 
> Actually, decided by a select few within the greater hall of society, rather 
> than society in general, and all too often predicated upon politics rather 
> than sound social benefit for the greater good. With the Bush admin being but 
> one indicator, valid statistics is often the least of all qualifiers in the 
> development of policy.
> 

I am referring to society in the ideal sense, as I am certainly no shill 
for bush.

>> the one word "could" leaves enough wiggle room for
>> anything to be possible, hence casting a cloud
>> over all other material therein.
> 
> That "cloud" is more a consequence of intentional manipulation/semantics than 
> it is a modest or moderate application of the word. Perhaps you would sense 
> greater accuracy if the headline read "creates a small percentage..." rather 
> than "could?" Just a wee tad curious as to where you might think the "could" 
> actually came from? Thin air or documented occurances, boiled down to an 
> editor's headline "sound bite?"

   >
> Going the next step using your interpretational method, the same application 
> would necessarily have to be made relative to humans who "could" suffer ill 
> effects from a vaccine. 

   I have already said that
Whilst such is documented fact in numerous instances with all 
vaccinations, the very second a physician or attendant included the word 
"could" in a "disclaimer," everything would be instantly clouded - 
apparently enough so that all previous data ("all other material 
therein") becomes candidate for the round file as well.
> 
you must not read many drug package inserts.  they are full of 
disclaimers.

> If it would help Bob, I'll put in a personal word with Santa Claus this year. 
> I could let him know that you're not such a bad chap and that you're in need 
> of a strainer rather than a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking this 
> year. At least that way you "MIGHT" avoid throwing the baby out along with 
> the bath water next time..
> 



> Todd Swearingen
> 
>  
> 
> 
>> good evening Todd,
>>
>> Appal Energy wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
 as to your post, testimonials might be good for selling
 used cars and various and sundry nostrums, but it does
 little or nothing to advance your point.
>>> U, it's collective "testimonials" that are oft sought out in 
>>> trials. If they can be accepted en masse as evidentiary, then they 
>>> shouldn't be pooh poohed as readily as you would care to.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't think the way court proceeding are conducted is a good analogy for 
>> how science is done.
>>
>> When it comes to vaccinations the issue is one of cost/benefit, which 
>> ultimately will be decided by 
>> society. Just what the costs and benefits are I believe are best determined 
>> by the scientific 
>> method, rather than the squeaky wheel.
>>
>>  the costs of vaccination, other than monetary costs for production, are 
>> harm to individuals, where 
>> as the benefits accrue to society. Individuals have died from small pox 
>> vaccinations, but small pox 
>> is no longer a global scourge due to the vaccinations. Should we as a global 
>> society not have 
>> vaccinated?   I submit that many many more would have died, and would still 
>> be dying had not the 
>> small pox vaccine been deployed.  Individuals have died from polio 
>> vaccinations, but I am proud to 
>> have participated as a "polio pioneer" and now a bunch of people alive don't 
>> know what an iron lung 
>> is, again due the blocking of transmission of a viral infection.
>>
>>
>> similarly I think that requiring rabies inoculations is sound social 

Re: [Biofuel] Preheating heat source - BriteLyt? Petromax

[Mike Weaver]

IPA hard to get?  I can't get rid of it!

Joe Street wrote:

> I would say try kerosene or heating oil.  Gasoline is too volatile and 
> can create explosive atmospheres.  Keep the IPA for titrations!! it is 
> one of the more difficult items to get.
>
> Joe
>
> Mike Weaver wrote:
>
>>I've done some initial research but haven't delved into one.  Sooner or 
>>later I'll find an oil furnace someone is throwing away and see what I 
>>can do.
>>If I had to cut the BD with another agent to make it easier to use I 
>>would do that.  Does anyone have any suggestions?  Gasoline?
>>I have 55 gallons of 99% Isopropyl alcohol - is that suitable? 
>>
>>-Mike
>>
>>Zeke Yewdall wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>>What about the type of burners that are designed to use a liquid fuel
>>>directly rather than volatilize a liquid fuel?   Like fuel oil
>>>furnaces, and waste engine oil burners.  All of these I have seen are
>>>in the 100,000 Btu/hr range though -- if you could find one more like
>>>10 or 20 kBtu, it might work well for heating the reactor.
>>>
>>>http://www.espar.com/ something like this may be able to be modified. 
>>>Not cheap though.
>>>
>>>
>>>On 12/6/06, Joe Street <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>>
Uh...outdoors?? I dunno but it was warm in my basement. :-[

J


Mike Weaver wrote:

What was the temperature outside? I tried that with a torch and got a
few sputters but no flame.
Is kerosene the most logical agent to cut the BD with?

Joe Street wrote:



Hi Mike

For what it's worth I tried running my multifuel backpacking stove on
BD. I had to warm the preheater / vaporizer tube with a propane torch
to get it hot enough to vaporize the BD. Once lit though it had a
beautiful and stable blue flame and judging by boil time comparisons
roughly the same heat as kerosene. Esters have a high flash point and
need a lot of heat to use in a stove that is designed to supply vapor
to the jet.

Joe

Mike Weaver wrote:



So far all attempts to light it have failed. It's 30 degrees here and
that may have something to do with it. I cut the BD w/ a good shot of
Dino diesel and still no go. I got the preheater going but no flame on
the ring. I brought it inside overnight to warm up and will try it
again. If it doesn't go I'll mix in some kerosene. The booklet says
you have to preheat for 3 1/2 mins sometimes to get BD lit. It came
smelling of kerosene to I expect the factory lit it and tested it. FWIW
the pressure gauge is bad but it does hold pressure.

I had hoped to use it to heat oil so the the bd process was all fueled
by BD.

I also looked at some of the camping stoves but they are very expensive
and designed to be as light weight as possible. The guy at the camping
store said the thinner distillates works best.

We'll see,

Mike

Ken Dunn wrote:





Please, let us know how it does, Mike.

Take care,


On 12/5/05, Mike Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:






Just got a Britelyt today. Haven't been able to get it to light on BD
but I think it may be due to the fuel being too cold. Will report back
if I get it going.


Ken Dunn wrote:







What is everyone using as a heat source for preheating? I'm thinking
about buying the BriteLyt mentioned on JtF. I could use it for other
purposes as well which would be nice. Anyone test it? Care to
comment?

Take care,
Ken

___
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/b