Re: [Biofuel] Calgary Biodiesel Group

2006-03-08 Thread John Hayes
Kirk McLoren wrote:
 Sulphur is not added as a lubricant. WHere do they get that rubbish?
 Kirk
 
 */Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:
 
 Biodiesel demand is expected to balloon when a new air pollution law
 comes into effect in June, dropping the maximum allowable s! ulphur
 content in diesel fuel to 15 parts per million (ppm) from 500
 ppm. Sulphur is added to diesel fuel as an engine lubricant. A
 two-per-cent addition of biodiesel is considered to have the same
 lubricating power as 500 ppm of sulphur.

You are correct - sulfur is not a lubricant.

Rather, it seems to me this misunderstanding is the result of sloppy 
language and sloppy logic. Some of the industrial processes used to 
remove sulfur *also* reduce lubricity of the fuel.  My understanding is 
that some low sulfur diesel historically had lubricity related problems 
for this reason.

If you are a mechanic and notice that your customers running LSD have 
lubricity issues while those that use HSD don't, you might mistakenly 
conclude that sulfur adds lubricity to the fuel. From that point, the 
logical leap to the idea that sulfur is *added* to the fuel isn't that 
far fetched. After all, we did add lead to gasoline for knock until the 
treehuggers made us stop. ;)

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] Interesting Read

2006-03-07 Thread John Hayes
David Miller wrote:
 Chip Mefford wrote:
 If anyone knows how to bust an iso image up into 'chunks'
 that can be reassembled into a workable iso image, please
 let me know.

 As for breaking the image up, it's trivial with dd, a standard unix 
 utility.  With Windows you're on your own:)
 
 I broke it up into 32 MB chunks on renegade: See 
 http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd
 http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd/readme gives brief directions on how to 
 reassemble it.

Why break it up at all? Distributing large ISOs is practically what 
BitTorrent was invented for.

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] A wealth of manuals

2006-03-04 Thread John Hayes
Why don't you make a torrent?  This is a perfect application.

http://www.bittorrent.com/introduction.html

jh


Chandan Haldar wrote:
 David,
 
 Since you have done so much, may I request you to also put up chooped up 
 50MB chunks for easier downloading of this monster?  It'd certainly help 
 those without reliable uninterrupted connectivity beyond a couple of 
 hours at a time.
 
 Thanks a lot.  Really appreciate your effort to get this to all.
 
 Chandan
 
 
 David Miller wrote:

 OK!  Kirk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) got a full copy of it and we got it 
 onto my server today.

 If you have winzip, pkzip, or gzip and can uncompress a file, save a bit 
 of bandwidth on the full ISO with:

 http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd.iso.gz  (471 MB)

 If you just need the raw ISO file, click on:

 http://renegade.sparks.net/cd3wd.iso (694 MB)


-- 
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Quackbuster Busted in Court

2006-02-28 Thread John Hayes
Garth  Kim Travis wrote:
 Doctors in this country tell 
 people that what they eat makes no difference to their health.  
 Diabetics are told that sugar intake has nothing to do with diabetes.  

Kim, I don't mean to be harsh, but that is utter and complete horseshit.

My sister and her husband, both internists, counsel patients on diet, 
heart disease and diabetes every single day. Nor are they some wierdos 
outside the mainstream for doing so.

Here is the AMA clinical road map for *dietary* management of adult obesity.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/433/booklet4-1.pdf

Here are the ADA clinical practice guidelines for 2006:

http://www.diabetes.org/for-health-professionals-and-scientists/cpr.jsp

Maybe the white haired country docs in rural Texas are ignorant of 
current practice recommendations, but I find your sweeping 
generalization to be overly broad.

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] Quackbuster Busted in Court

2006-02-28 Thread John Hayes
Hey Joe.

I'll certainly admit there are physicians who are out of date and out of 
touch with regard to modern practice guidelines. But getting from there 
to blanket statements about doctors in this country is a pretty huge leap.

With regard to your daughter's pediatrician, if he really believes that 
a Big Mac is a balanced meal, then he needs to check out the American 
Academy of Pediatrics practioners guide. Here's the URL if you want to 
print a copy:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;117/2/544

However, I suspect what he really said was that a Big Mac can be part of 
a balanced *diet*. If so, I have no problem whatsoever with that. If you 
normally eat a diet high in fruits, vegetables and grains and low in 
saturated fat, then a Big Mac once in while isn't something to be 
concerned about.

As far as nutrition education in med school goes, you need to remember 
that the first two years of coursework in medical school is just the 
beginning of a doctor's training. During the 3rd and 4th years, teaching 
is done at the bedside and in the clinic. Moreover, the diet-health 
relationship is certainly covered in cardiology, endocrinology and other 
training programs. My dad is a diabetic so he uses an endocrinologist as 
his PCP, not a family practice doc.

However, if you really need specialized nutrition advice, you should be 
seeing an registered dietitian, not an MD (or worse yet, some self 
proclaimed nutritionist). You wouldn't hire a general contractor or 
handyman to do your plumbing, you'd hire a licensed plumber. If I need 
nutrition counseling, I want a referral to an RD, since that's what they 
are trained to do. And a good physician knows when they are outside 
their area of expertise and provide such a referral.

Still, I think that the medical community, as a whole, is well aware of 
of the importance of diet in health, even if some members have failed to 
stay up to date.

jh

Joe Street wrote:
 Well there are two sides to every story John;
 
 I'm here to tell ya I have had discussions with my daughter's 
 pediatrician and he thinks a Big Mac is a balanced meal.  I've been told 
 that in medical school the subject of nutrition is covered in one single 
 course and it is mostly about memorizing the function of all the 
 vitamins and how they work in the body.
 
 Joe
 
 John Hayes wrote:
 Garth  Kim Travis wrote:
   
 Doctors in this country tell 
 people that what they eat makes no difference to their health.  
 Diabetics are told that sugar intake has nothing to do with diabetes.  
 

 Kim, I don't mean to be harsh, but that is utter and complete horseshit.

 My sister and her husband, both internists, counsel patients on diet, 
 heart disease and diabetes every single day. Nor are they some wierdos 
 outside the mainstream for doing so.

 Here is the AMA clinical road map for *dietary* management of adult obesity.

 http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/433/booklet4-1.pdf

 Here are the ADA clinical practice guidelines for 2006:

 http://www.diabetes.org/for-health-professionals-and-scientists/cpr.jsp

 Maybe the white haired country docs in rural Texas are ignorant of 
 current practice recommendations, but I find your sweeping 
 generalization to be overly broad.

 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] Fw: The Indigo Evolution

2006-01-29 Thread John Hayes
 On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Mika Feldmann wrote:
  But to have a personal conversation with him, one would consider
 
 him to be an idiot. 

I don't know where you get this idea. Einstein was an entertaining 
public speaker known for his sense of humor.

 He was also not able to operate a motor vehicle.

Not being able and never learning are two very different things.

He was born in 1879 - how much opportunity to learn to drive do you 
think existed for a middle class jew in Germany between say 1900 and 1914?

He moved to Princeton, New Jersey in 1933 - if you were 53 and moved to 
a new country, would you a) take the time to learn to drive or b) hire a 
driver? I've actually been to Princeton NJ - it is a very walkable small 
town that has regular train service to New York and Philly.

I think you're taking some piece of trivia that isn't even really that 
interesting in historical context, and trying to twist it to imply 
something else entirely.

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] Appropriate Technologies Can Benefit Anyone

2006-01-23 Thread John Hayes
Michael Redler wrote:
 Appropriate technologies as a philosophy can benefit anyone, anywhere.
  
  
 I received this from my uncle today:
  
 Zero Gravity
 
 *When NASA first started sending up astronauts, they quickly discovered 
 that ball-point pens would not work in zero gravity. To combat this 
 problem, NASA scientists spent a decade and $12 billion developing a pen 
 that writes in zero gravity, upside-down, on almost any surface 
 including glass and at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 
 300 C.
 
 The Russians used a pencil. Your ! taxes are due again--enjoy paying** 
 **them.
 *
 Perhaps I'm reading too much into this and should see it simply as an 
 observation about common sense (or the lack thereof).

You are reading far too much into it, mainly because it isn't true.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

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] Pataki Wants Drivers to Fill Up With Ethanol or Biodiesel

2006-01-07 Thread John Hayes
January 7, 2006
Pataki Wants Drivers to Fill Up With Ethanol or Biodiesel
By DANNY HAKIM

ALBANY, Jan. 6 - Some 200,000 New Yorkers own vehicles that can run on 
corn-based ethanol instead of gasoline. But many have no idea that their 
Ford Explorers, Chevy Impalas or Nissan Titans can use this type of 
fuel, which some view as a way to liberate Americans from Middle Eastern 
oil.

In any case, the closest station carrying ethanol is in Ottawa, as the 
Northeast is the one region of the United States that uniformly does not 
offer ethanol to the public.

But Gov. George E. Pataki wants to change that and make ethanol and 
biodiesel, two controversial alternative fuels, available in the 27 
service areas on the New York State Thruway and in 100 more stations 
throughout the state as early as this year, in a first small step toward 
reducing the state's petroleum consumption. The governor is also 
proposing incentives to bring refineries that produce ethanol into the 
state.

Costs and further details of the plan, which Mr. Pataki first sketched 
out in his State of the State address on Wednesday, will not be 
disclosed until he makes his budget proposal later this month. If the 
plan is approved by the Legislature, it will give New Yorkers one of the 
nation's most diverse ranges of fuel choices. Only Minnesota offers an 
ethanol-rich blend known as E85 at more than 100 stations. Likewise, 
biodiesel is offered at only a few hundred of the nation's roughly 
180,000 stations.

Both fuels can be made from a variety of crops, trees and plant 
material, and even used grease from fast-food outlets in the case of 
biodiesel. Ethanol, or grain alcohol, is already mixed with gasoline 
sold in the New York metropolitan area, but in amounts of about 10 
percent. By contrast, E85, as its name suggests, is 85 percent ethanol.

Using it is not far-fetched. In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane has 
become a formidable competitor to gasoline.

Biodiesel is more commonly sold as B20, a blend of 20 percent biodiesel, 
with the rest conventional diesel fuel. While ethanol smells like 
moonshine, a car with biodiesel can smell like cooking French fries 
through a tailpipe. Both fuels have their share of skeptics and 
believers. Willie Nelson, for instance, sells his own brand of B20 known 
as BioWillie and pitches it as an alternative to consuming fuel from the 
Middle East.

The governor's plan comes after the oil price shocks of the last year 
and frustration with automakers for suing New York for adopting 
California's greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars.

The plan also includes incentives to help the state modify its 
hybrid-electric vehicles so that the cars can be plugged into stationary 
outlets to enable them to use even more electricity than fuel, a 
practice discouraged by the auto industry.

Are we supposed to sit around and wait for Detroit to do these things? 
said Charles G. Fox, a deputy secretary to Mr. Pataki who oversees 
energy issues, in an interview on Friday. Part of the plan, he said, was 
aimed at promoting the use of alternative fuels that can be used right 
away, as opposed to more futuristic fuels like hydrogen. Biodiesel can 
run in any diesel engine, and several million cars and trucks on the 
road nationwide can use E85.

Criticism of the governor has come from several sides.

Peter Iwanowicz, a director of environmental health for the American 
Lung Association of New York, said the environmental benefits of the two 
fuels were mixed.

Ethanol increases ozone formation, which is obviously harmful for 
people with lung disease, and biodiesel increases emissions of nitrogen 
oxide, he said.

But a variety of research suggests that the fuels can be environmentally 
beneficial, depending on how they are produced.

Mr. Pataki has been criticized for promoting ethanol because it is made 
from corn grown in states that include Iowa, which he has been visiting 
recently to gauge support for a possible presidential run.

But even the governor's advisers say that making ethanol from corn is a 
bad idea and that they prefer using wood or certain kinds of grass.

Environmentalists have largely denounced making ethanol-capable 
vehicles, calling that a boondoggle intended for the agriculture lobby 
and Detroit. When automakers build cars and trucks that can use ethanol, 
called flex-fuel vehicles, they earn credits that make it easier to meet 
fuel-economy regulations, in turn giving them leeway to build more 
gas-guzzlers.

Automakers have also not even told many customers that they own vehicles 
with such a capability, but Mr. Fox said New York might do so by 
consulting state records. Consumers can learn if they own one by 
examining their vehicle identification number as described at 
www.e85fuel.com.

Only about 400 stations nationwide sell E85, and none of them are in the 
Northeast. On Friday, a gallon of E85 was selling for $1.73 - in part 
because of subsidies - at a station in Akron, 

Re: [Biofuel] Better titration Question

2006-01-03 Thread John Hayes
Ken Provost wrote:
 On Jan 2, 2006, at 3:33 PM, Logan Vilas wrote:
 
 In the better Titration Method I find it's easier to mix my stock  
 solution
 with 20grams in 500milliters distilled water.
 
 
 OK -- we now have 4% NaOH soln.
 
 
 That gives .4% w/v lye solution when 5ml is added to 45ml distilled  
 water.
 
 
 Yes, if you add 5ml of your 4% soln. to 45ml of water, you get a
 0.4% solution. This is still 4 times the concentration that everyone
 else uses.
 
 
 By doing this I do not have to divide the titration results.
 
 
 I don't understand what you mean by this. When using a 0.1% soln.,
 the number of milliliters of soln. needed to neutralize 1ml of oil is
 equal to the number of grams NaOH which must be added to the
 usual 3.5g per liter of oil. With your 4X solution, you will achieve
 neutrality at only 1/4 as many milliliters of solution, and thus will
 need to multiply by four to calculate the proper excess of NaOH.
 
 
 I haven't had any problems yet, but I was wondering if anyone
 would know of a reason I shouldn't do it?
 
 
 As long as you make the proper multiplication by four, your solution
 will work fine.
 
 
 Or if there is anyone using this method?
 
 
 I can't see why anyone would.
 
 
 -K

Then you seem to have a short memory Ken. Didn't we discuss doing 
exactly this back in April?

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg45657.html

There is a very good reason to use a 0.4% (w/v) titration solution with 
4mL of WVO - namely accuracy.

By using 4mL of WVO in some volume of isopropanol with 0.4% (w/v) base, 
you still get a direct relationship between number of mL of base 
required in the titration and number of grams of lye required per liter 
for the reaction *AND* you get a more accurate measurement, *without* 
needing to do any calculations on the bench.

Anyway, Logan, to answer your question, yes, some of us (ok, maybe just 
me) are in fact using a 0.4% (w/v) NaOH titration solution.

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] Motorbikes '16 times worse than cars for pollution'

2005-12-23 Thread John Hayes
Burak_l wrote:

 And finally I hope they do not research how much is waisted in car races
 like formula-1, Lemans endurance etc...
 Those machines are loud and very very thirsty.  Probabily one of them during
 1 race pollutes more than a typical rider
 can manage whole year.

With regard to racing, it isn't that black and white.

First, you seem to be conflating wasting resources (eg burning lots of 
fuel) with the amount of pollution produced. They aren't necessarily the 
same thing. You can burn 10 liters dirtily or you can burn 100 liters 
cleanly - they are different issues.

Second, even if a single team in a single race uses more fuel or 
pollutes more that a single private individual in an entire year, you're 
still comparing (for F1) 10 teams (2 cars each) by 19 races to millions 
of riders/drivers every day over the course of a year. You're talking 
about a drop in the bucket.

On the plus side, racing drives innovation. Consider the FSI engine 
technology Audi developed for the their R8 LMP (LeMans Prototype) car. 
Now you can buy lean burning FSI powered cars at Audi dealers.

Likewise, the brand new Audi R10 LMP has a V12 TDI powerplant that gets 
over a 100 hp per liter. That kind of performance out of reliable diesel 
is amazing. An I expect those advances in diesel technology will show up 
in VW and Audi dealerships within 5 or 6 years.

Racing also has the ability to prove to people that renewables aren't 
just some crunchy granola lefty tree-hugger pipedream. Demonstrating 
that renewables can perform is critical in the PR battle with the oil lobby.

For example, the IndyRacingLeague - and thus by default, the Indy500 - 
is switching from methanol to renewable ethanol for the 2007 season. 
That's a huge win for renewables.

As mentioned above, the Audi factory team is running a diesel powered 
LMP in ALMS this year, although I suspect Audi will be using 
petrodiesel, at least to start. However, that won't be the only diesel 
in ALMS this season - D1 Oils plc is sponsoring a biodiesel powered Lola 
LMP that will run b5, b20 and b50 blends.

But yes, on the negative side, racing does waste resources. According to 
  formula1.com, During a typical season a Formula One team will use 
over 200,000 litres of fuel for testing and racing. That's a lotta fuel.

And don't get me started about the the fact that NASCAR still uses 
leaded gasoline.

Still, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water and 
having an emotional reaction to a study you don't like.

Small displacement motorcycles don't burn cleanly and pollute a lot. 
Acknowledge that fact and move on with your life. Don't try to justify 
it by pointing fingers at someone else. That's just childish.

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] fraudulent emails claiming to be from Keith

2005-12-17 Thread John Hayes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 sent several times from the above email. Can someone please explain to me 
 how the email that belongs to Keith be hijacked like this? I don't know 
 enough 
 about email to understand how a name registered to someone can be used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_fraud#Spoofing

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] MadCow additional- Organophosphates, manganese, autism, Mark Purdey, BSE

2005-12-16 Thread John Hayes
bob allen wrote:
 If manganese and/ or phosphate insecticides (just phosmet or all OP 
 insecticides?)were the causative 
 agent for TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy), I have a couple of 
 questions.
 
 the disease has been described since the 17th century in sheep and has been 
 observed in humans in 
 New Guinea in the fifties.  Surely there were no phosphate insecticides or 
 manganese licks there.


Silly Bob. Why let facts get in the way to a good rant against the man... ;)

Seriously though, I had the exact same thoughts with regard to scrapie 
and kuru, but beat me to it.

Anyway, for what it is worth, Kuru may have peaked in the 50s/60s, but 
it was first noted decades before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29

And scrapie was first described in 1732 (which, to be pedantic, would be 
the 18th, not 17th century).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapie

In any case, the fact that prion diseases predate insecticides by 
decades is pretty compelling evidence they aren't the causitive agent.

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] concerning rabies vaccinations

2005-12-07 Thread 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] ethanol industry popping

2005-11-29 Thread John Hayes
Greg Gordon of the Star Tribute wrote:
  Minnesota is the lone state with a 10 percent ethanol mandate, though
  Hawaii and Montana have enacted similar mandates that have yet to take 
 effect.
  Minnesota will require 20 percent ethanol content in 2013.

Whatchu talking about Willis? New York and Connecticut both require E10 
at the pump as part of their MTBE ban. I think, but can't say for sure, 
that Colorado and California also require E10 as a result of their MTBE 
bans.

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] ethanol distillation

2005-11-27 Thread John Hayes
Kenji James Fuse wrote:
 Getting off-topic a bit...
 
 Any concerns about consistently drinking distilled water? I've heard it
 can leach minerals from the body. A friend of mine uses a water
 distiller so I'd like to know more.
 
 Kenji

Search the archives. It's in there.  Short version is: If you get your 
energy from food rather than photosynthesis, you don't really have much 
to worry about.

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] Anyone have this copy of Nature magazine

2005-11-26 Thread John Hayes
Mike Weaver wrote:
 *Green chemistry: Biodiesel made with sugar catalyst*
 
 Masakazu Toda, Atsushi Takagaki, Mai Okamura, Junko N. Kondo, Shigenobu 
 Hayashi, Kazunari Domen, Michikazu Hara
 
 Nature 438, 178-178 (10 Nov 2005) Brief Communications

Yes, but it doesn't have anything useful for the homebrewer.

http://blog.john-hayes.com/misc/biodiesel-sugar.pdf

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] The bad news about Biodiesel

2005-11-23 Thread John Hayes
Sten Armstrong wrote:
 and other bad news: Forests paying the price for biofuels
 
 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400feedId=online-news
 
 
 * 22 November 2005 * NewScientist.com news service * Fred Pearce
 
 THE drive for green energy in the developed world is having the
 perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical
 rainforests. From the orang-utan reserves of Borneo to the Brazilian
 Amazon, virgin forest is being razed to grow palm oil and soybeans to
 fuel cars and power stations in Europe and North America. And surging
 prices are likely to accelerate the destruction
 
 The rush to make energy from vegetable oils is being driven in part
 by European Union laws requiring conventional fuels to be blended
 with biofuels, and by subsidies equivalent to 20 pence a litre. Last
 week, the British government announced a target for biofuels to make
 up 5 per cent of transport fuels by 2010. The aim is to help meet
 Kyoto protocol targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
 
 Rising demand for green energy has led to a surge in the
 international price of palm oil, with potentially damaging
 consequences. The expansion of palm oil production is one of the
 leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia. It is
 one of the most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet,
 says Simon Counsell, director of the UK-based Rainforest Foundation.
 Once again it appears we are trying to solve our environmental 
 problems by dumping them in developing countries, where they have 
 devastating effects on local people.
 
 The main alternative to palm oil is soybean oil. But soya is the
 largest single cause of rainforest destruction in the Brazilian
 Amazon. Supporters of biofuels argue that they can be carbon
 neutral because the CO2 released from burning them is taken up again
 by the next crop. Interest is greatest for diesel engines, which can
 run unmodified on vegetable oil, and in Germany bio-diesel production
 has doubled since 2003. There are also plans for burning palm oil in
 power stations.
 
 Until recently, Europe's small market in biofuels was dominated by 
 home-grown rapeseed (canola) oil. But surging demand from the food
 market has raised the price of rapeseed oil too. This has led fuel
 manufacturers to opt for palm and soya oil instead. Palm oil prices
 jumped 10 per cent in September alone, and are predicted to rise 2! 0
 per cent next year, while global demand for biofuels is now rising at
 25 per cent a year.
 
 Roger Higman, of Friends of the Earth UK, which backs biofuels, says:
 We need to ensure that the crops used to make the fuel have been
 grown in a sustainable way or we will have rainforests cleared for
 palm oil plantations to make bio-diesel.

Very interesting. Compare the story you forwarded to this one:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200511\NAT20051122a.html

Specifically, take note of this part:

 I am glad that Friends of the Earth is finally recognizing the
 environmental threat of expanding bio-fuels. That may be the first
 time that I have ever heard the greens give bio-fuels the scrutiny it
 deserves, said Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute's Center for
 Global Food Issues. Avery described his group as being concerned
 about feeding as many possible people from as little land as possible
 in order to save more room for nature.
 
 Good farmland is the scarcest resource on this planet and we are
 already farming 37 percent of Earth's land area to get today's food
 supply, Avery told Cybercast News Service.
 
 Avery slammed world governments for attempting to increase mandates
 for bio-fuel as an alternative to petroleum.
 
 Now, suddenly governments are saying, 'Oh we should have lots of
 bio-fuel so that we don't have to get oil out of the ground,' but we
 would have to clear 16 million square miles of forest on the planet
 if we wanted to make any dent in the demand for petroleum, Avery
 said.
 
 He added that the green movement and world governments need to wake
 up to the fact that bio-fuels are not a viable energy alternative.

Now consider who the Hudson Institute is.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute

While I agree that biofuels need to be done sustainably in the long term 
(as does virtually everyone on this list I'd guess), but this series of 
articles smells like astroturfing to me.

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] liquid liqid centrifuge

2005-10-12 Thread John Hayes
michael skinner wrote:
 has anyone tried a liquid liquid centrifuge.
 
 By continuously removing the dense gycerine you would drive the reaction 
 forward requireing less methanol (the whole pont around the two step 
 reaction)
 
 please see
 
 http://www.cheresources.com/centcontactor.shtml
 
 I think it would be possible to build something along these lines cheaply, 
 take that old blender and put it inline with your reactor?

Hey Mike.

The NH Coop that Mike Briggs works with has an line-in centrifuge, but 
as far as I know, they only use it to skip settling, not to reduce the 
amount of methanol.

We've been looking for our own centifuge - thanks for the link!

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] Sen. Lieberman: Biofuel + Plug-In Hybrids on threshold of commercialization

2005-10-11 Thread John Hayes
Well, to be fair, in Sen. Lieberman's homestate, where I just so happen 
to live, electrical generation is 11.8% Coal, 18.5% oil, 12.9% NG, 48.9% 
nuclear, 1.5% hydro and 6.4% other (presumably renewables).

Even better, CT is targeting 20% renewables by 2010 and 50% renewable by 
2020. Thus I would have absolutely no environmental reservations about 
buying an EV or PEHV in CT in the next 5 years.

jh

Joe Street wrote:
 Oh yes this is dramatically better. So I wonder if he thought about how 
 that energy was generated, and then there is the little issue of just 
 what happens to the peak period when everyone's car is plugged in the 
 grid every night. Sheeesh. I thought rotating blackouts was already a 
 problem.
 
 Joe
 
 
But we can do even better – dramatically better – with the plug-in hybrid 
that is just now on the threshold of commercialization. ...Plugging in your 
car during off peak hours –when power is in surplus and cheaper – would 
soon just become part of the modern daily routine, like plugging in your 
cell phone or PDA before you go to bed. And off-peak electricity can be the 
equivalent of 50 cent a gallon gasoline.


___
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] atkins=no McDougall=yes

2005-10-09 Thread John Hayes
Paul S Cantrell wrote:

 Anecdotally, it works...My parents went off their high blood pressure
  meds within a week of changing their diet.  A friend of mine's 
 daughter's lupus went into total remission very quickly (she is 
 featured as one of his stars).
 
 No processed foods.  No dairy and no meat.

The plural of anecdote is not data. And frankly, testimonials aren't
worth the paper they are printed on.

Your example is very reason science is based on *disproving* a
hypothesis - the chance for confirmation bias is just too high otherwise.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias -
 Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been 
 shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that 
 confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweight evidence that 
 could disconfirm their hypothesis. 

And unfortunately Paul, that is exactly what you are doing here. You
give us 3 positive results when what we really need to know is how many
people tried this diet and didn't see any improvement. Lupus is a 
disease that naturally waxes and wanes - your friend's daughter's 
improvement could have been just as highly correlated with the cycle of 
the moon.

I'm not saying the diet *doesn't* work - but as I've said repeatly in
this thread, be very wary of book authors with letters and periods after
their names.

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] Hoodia Gordonii ?

2005-10-06 Thread John Hayes
Keith Addison wrote:

 Stay away from refined carbohydrates, stay away from processed foods, 
 try to stick with locally grown fresh products.

Here in CT we have a program that partners local growers with local 
school lunch programs to help kids eat locally grown stuff. Very cool. 
And earlier this year, our research group met with the state about the 
use of WIC checks and Food Stamps to by locally grown stuff at farmer's 
markets. Very exciting.

 But beef does not cause obesity.

Neither does HFCS per se. In the big picture, overall energy balance 
(simple thermodynamics) is far more important than the distribution of 
the macronutients. That having been said, there are three legitimate 
concerns about HFCS.

First, there is the issue of energy density and dietary quality. Here's 
a brief excerpt from a book chapter our research group recently wrote.

 Although contention exists regarding the association between intake 
 of added sugars and risk of obesity (Murphy and Johnson, 2003,
 WHO/FAO, 2003), excessive intake may compromise dietary quality (Kant,
 2000). High consumers of added sugar may over-consume total energy
 or, conversely, compensate for additional energy by reducing total
 intake (Kant, 2000).

 The Institute of Medicine (IOM), the USDA, the Department of
 Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the World Health Organization
 (WHO) have issued recommendations on added sugar intake in an effort
 to preserve dietary quality.  Recommendations for added sugar intake
 are found in the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), the Food Guide
 Pyramid, and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Based on the
 consensus of an expert panel, the WHO recommends intake not exceed 10
 percent of total energy (WHO/FAO, 2003).  In contrast, the DRIs
 established by the IOM are based on a critical review of the
 literature and recommend that intake of added sugars should not
 exceed 25 percent of total energy consumed (Institute of Medicine of
 the National Academy of Sciences, 2002). Although there is no
 specific intake value set within the Dietary Guidelines for
 Americans, it is recommended that foods and beverages be selected
 with little added sugars or caloric sweeteners (DHHS/USDA, 2005). 

Second, there is the issue of metabolic transport. My biochem is rusty 
but if I remember correctly the transporter responsible for fructose 
transport, GLUT4, is insulin insensitive, whereas the transporter 
responsible for most other monosaccharides, GLUT2, is insulin sensitive. 
This means fructose uptake is not regulated by insulin.

Finally, there is the issue of the metabolic fate of fructose. I've 
forgotten the particulars, but compared to the other monosaccharides, 
fructose is differentially shunted to the liver to be stored as opposed 
to being oxidized by muscle for energy.

All that having been said, like so many things in life, moderation is 
the key. Is a having a can of Coke made with HFCS at lunch gonna make 
you fat? Probably not, but if you're sucking down 2 liters of regular 
coke a day, I'd be more than a tad bit concerned.


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] atkins

2005-10-06 Thread John Hayes
Michael Redler wrote:

  I don't totally disagree but, compared to what? Atkins has made it 
abundantly clear to the public in the US that refined carbohydrates are 
one of the most threatening foods to someone fighting obesity. However,


Atkins was a quack.

Very low carbohydrate ketogenic diets may certainly help some people
lose weight, but the Aktins approach has some serious problems, most
notably, the exacerbation of atherogenic dyslipidemia in some subjects. 
Some TinFoilHat types have suggested his family refused an autopsy and 
had his body cremated to destroy any evidence in cardiovascular disease.

Certainly, there is real science behind VLCK diets, but the claims
advanced by Atkins were more about selling books and merchandise than
improving diets and fighting obesity.

But also be aware that some of the skeptics greatly overstate their case
too.

For example, atkinsexposed.com claim a 2003 review of Atkins theories
in JACN concluded:

  When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low
  carbohydrate diet books... rely on poorly controlled,
  non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This
  review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation
  perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the
  science behind the claims made for [these books] reveals nothing more
  than a modern twist on an antique food fad.


Now here's the interesting part - compare that quote to the original
from http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/22/1/9

  When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low 
carbohydrate diet books like the Zone rely on poorly controlled, 
non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This 
review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation 
perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the 
science behind the claims made for the Zone Diet reveals nothing more
   than a modern twist on an antique food fad.


Talk about misrepresentation by selective quotation!

Still, I'd be very very skeptical of any claims made by Aktins, Mercola, 
Ornish, Sears, and others who want to sell you a book.

jh

-- 
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] atkins

2005-10-06 Thread John Hayes
Heh. Thanks for the laugh Mike. I assume you are familiar with this?

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

jh


Mike Weaver wrote:
 Dear Sir:
 
 While I do not take issue with your assessment of Dr. Atkins, I must 
 demand that you retract your statement:
 
 Some TinFoilHat types have suggested his family refused an autopsy and 
 had his body cremated to destroy any evidence in cardiovascular disease.
 
 as it unfairly stereotypes those us who choose this versatile and inexpensive 
 headgear.
 
 If you do not, I will be forced to challenge you on the Field on Honor.  If I 
 do not hear from you 
 within 24 hours, I will get out a roll of Reynolds Finest and begin folding 
 my weapon.
 
 You have been warned.  Your fate is in your hands.
 
 Mike Weaver
 President, potentate, hegemon, Lord High and most exalted  
 The Global Tin Foil Hat Society.
 
 
 
 
 
 John Hayes wrote:
 
 
Michael Redler wrote:


I don't totally disagree but, compared to what? Atkins has made it 

abundantly clear to the public in the US that refined carbohydrates are 
one of the most threatening foods to someone fighting obesity. However,


Atkins was a quack.

Very low carbohydrate ketogenic diets may certainly help some people
lose weight, but the Aktins approach has some serious problems, most
notably, the exacerbation of atherogenic dyslipidemia in some subjects. 
Some TinFoilHat types have suggested his family refused an autopsy and 
had his body cremated to destroy any evidence in cardiovascular disease.

Certainly, there is real science behind VLCK diets, but the claims
advanced by Atkins were more about selling books and merchandise than
improving diets and fighting obesity.

But also be aware that some of the skeptics greatly overstate their case
too.

For example, atkinsexposed.com claim a 2003 review of Atkins theories
in JACN concluded:


When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low
carbohydrate diet books... rely on poorly controlled,
non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This
review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation
perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the
science behind the claims made for [these books] reveals nothing more
than a modern twist on an antique food fad.


Now here's the interesting part - compare that quote to the original
 
from http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/22/1/9
 
When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low 

carbohydrate diet books like the Zone rely on poorly controlled, 
non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This 
review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation 
perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the 
science behind the claims made for the Zone Diet reveals nothing more

 than a modern twist on an antique food fad.


Talk about misrepresentation by selective quotation!

Still, I'd be very very skeptical of any claims made by Aktins, Mercola, 
Ornish, Sears, and others who want to sell you a book.

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/
 


-- 
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] atkins

2005-10-06 Thread John Hayes
Chris lloyd wrote:
   Either way, I'm not a candidate for the Atkins diet simply because of 
 my cholesterol level.. 
  
 No problem, there was a scientific study done on the Atkins diet in the 
 UK early this year, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol tested every 
 day and food consumption monitored. It seems people on that diet just do 
 not eat as many calories as people eating carbs. They even had the test 
 subjects locked in an air chamber monitoring the amount of waste gas 
 being produced to work out energy lost in gas production and oily 
 stools. But they did not expect the lower cholesterol levels and could 
 not explain how the dropped. They thought that fresh cooked meat was 
 better for you than processed and the oil used in cooking should only be 
 used once and then dumped.  Chris.

This is, as an former professor of mine would say, an area of active 
research. Last month, I went to my friend's prospectus defense. His 
doctoral dissertation looks at how fiber supplementation affects the 
blood lipid profiles of individuals on very low carb ketogenic diets.

And in his prospectus talk he talked about the statistical methods he 
was going to use to analyze the data he had collected and I raised 
exactly the point you mention here: what about total energy?

It turns out the men in his sample consumed less energy as the study 
progressed, but the proposed analysis didn't account for this. He 
actually has the data to control for energy intake in his analysis - 
it's just a matter of using the right statistics.

This is exactly why the process of science matters. When you read a diet 
book from Atkins or Sears or whomever, there generally isn't somebody 
else in the room saying yeah, but what about X? Or as Feynman put it 
science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.

Anyway, as I said before, there is plenty of real science about when and 
how ketogenic diets work, but you should be very careful about claims 
made by salesmen with letters after their names.

After my friend Damian finished his PhD, I asked What are you gonna do 
now? His reply? Start selling a line of vitamins on late night talk 
radio of course. :)

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 question on oil seed crops and ley farming

2005-09-27 Thread John Hayes
David M. Brockes wrote:
 I keep getting people asking about the Energy required to produce 
 Bio-Diesel, (or biofuel, Ethanol or Bio-Diesel); mainly thinking that it 
 takes more energy to produce them than what you get in return or what it 
 takes to make it.
 I know that with Ethanol the numbers indicate about 1.7-1 (or close to 
 2-1), but not sure what they are for Bio-Diesel. Can anyone help provide 
 details or specific links to facts that will help set us all straight??
 Thank youDave B.

3.2 units out for every unit in.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf (page 7)

Google is your friend. Took me a whole 20 seconds to find that.

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] US army plans to bulk-buy anthrax

2005-09-27 Thread John Hayes
Keith Addison posted an article which said:
 Although the Sterne strain is not thought to be harmful to humans and 
 is used for vaccination, the contracts have caused major concern.

So the ability to grow this a non-lethal strain to make a vaccine that 
could save thousands or tens of thousands of lives is a bad thing?

 for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington DC. If one can 
 grow the Sterne strain in these units, one could also grow the Ames 
 strain, which is quite lethal.

Yes. And a knife can be used to cut up veggies for dinner or it could be 
used to stab someone. A car can take you to work or mow down a car full 
of pedestrians. An Xray machine can find your cavities or deliver a 
lethal dose. We're talking about a tool here, nothing more. Tools may 
enable good or bad acts but they are not inherently good or bad.

More suscintly, Could is a long way from will.

 The US renounced biological weapons in 1969, but small quantities of 
 lethal anthrax were still being produced at Dugway as recently as 
 1998.

Sorta hard to do research on vaccines, decontamination, and 
countermeasures without samples.

Flu researchers keep samples of the 1918 strain around. My wife's old 
lab kept samples of listeria moncytogenes and e.coli 0157:H7 around. I 
worked in a lab where we grew a freshwater algae that produced the nerve 
toxin saxitoxin. It means nothing. Keeping and growing dangerous strains 
of pathogens is utterly unremarkable behavior for a research lab.

 It is not known what use the biological agents will be put to. They
 could be used to test procedures to decontaminate vehicles or 
 buildings, or to test an agent defeat warhead designed to destroy 
 stores of chemical and biological weapons.

The post office sorting facility that was contaminated with anthrax in 
2001 is ten miles from my house. Most of my mail probably goes through 
that facility. Personally, I *want* the government doing research on the 
best way to decontaminate buildings. This is a good thing.

 There are even fears that they could be used to determine how 
 effectively anthrax is dispersed when released from bombs or 
 crop-spraying aircraft. I can definitely see them testing biological 
 weapons delivery systems for threat assessment, says Hammond.

Seems to me like a good understanding of delivery systems could save 
plenty of lives in a crisis. If midtown Manhattan got hit with anthrax, 
should you evacuate 5 blocks or 50? Does it matter how the anthrax was 
delivered? Good understanding these issues could save lots of lives.

Anyway, as you might have guessed by now, I think this is non-story that 
is using emotion to drum up concern over something that isn't a big 
deal. Such emotion, energy and outrage should be saved for pressing 
issues that actually matter.

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] Tadgerdevice

2005-09-26 Thread John Hayes
Zeke Yewdall wrote:

 I was under the impression that the viscosity reduction was the entire
 reason for doing transesterification.  Otherwise, whats the benefit of
 using biodiesel instead of SVO?

Much less coking.

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] Tadgerdevice

2005-09-26 Thread John Hayes
Evergreen Solutions wrote:
  I believe in
 researching storage legality that BD must be treated as a Category 3 
 explosive, you won't find such a thing w/ SVO/WVO.

What!?!

Biodiesel isn't even  flammable, let alone explosive. Instead, it's 
considered a combustible liquid because the flashpoint exceeds 100F. In 
fact the flashpoint of biodiesel is over 150F, compared to 77F for 
petrodiesel.

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] E10 experience here in Manila

2005-09-23 Thread John Hayes
Huh? What do you think the S in ISO stands for?

http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage


Leon Hulett wrote:
 Chris and Patrick,
  
 I agree on your standards issue, the government can't make a standard. 
 One time I searched and searched for the government's definition of 
 standard. I couldn't find it and they said try ISO. I found that ISO 
 doesn't mean standards it is a word in itself. To me a standard is a 
 definite level of quality suitable for a specific defined purpose. I 
 certainly didn't find anything like that. Maybe they finally filled in 
 the blank somewheres.

___
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] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof ofglobalwarming

2005-09-22 Thread John Hayes
Mark.

I *completely* agree with your overall point. However, the pedant in me 
needs to point out that the 777 is engineered with fuel consumption in mind.

What do the numbers look like for an older 737 or MD-80?

jh


Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:
 So again the BBC presents information for shock value, without putting
 it in perspective.  
 
 Looking at a Boeing 777-200LR the fuel consumption is:
   Fuel consumption in 800 miles is about 24,000lb of fuel 
   300Lb/Fuel/Seat/3000 Miles. (Boeing spec)
   That is 10 miles/pound/seat of fuel
   Or 68 mile/gallon/seat. 
 
   Compare that to your average car you don't even get close. 
   
 Mark
   
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris lloyd
 Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:41 AM
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Dear Bob Allen was Re: There's no proof
 ofglobalwarming
 
 
 Just seen this on our BBC TV channel  every 800 miles travelled by a
 jumbo 
 jet dumps 28 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Chris
 
 
 Wessex Ferret Club
 www.wessexferretclub.co.uk
 
 
 
 ___
 Biofuel mailing list
 Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.or
 g
 
 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/
 


-- 
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

2005-09-21 Thread John Hayes
 Jeromie Reeves wrote:
  My wife came home from work today talking about Channel 7 news out of
Boise. It seams
they had a segment with a person who installed a WVO processor in there 
pick-up (at a
cost of 3000$ USD) and got 300 MPG. They still needed to start the 
vehicle on dino. Can
anyone shed some light on this as a Google search came back with less 
then nothing. I find it
very hard to believe this is true (tho that never stopped the news before).

I suspect it was a simple misunderstanding on the part of the reporter 
or your wife's coworkers due to the habit of some WVO or BD users to 
talk about miles per petrogallon.

If I start up on 1/4 gallon of petroleum based diesel and then switch 
over to WVO and drive 75 miles, I've traveled 300 miles per petrogallon. 
Of course, if the listener is unfamiliar with this sort of logic, they 
merely hear 300 mpg and miss the distinction.

For example, over my last 10 tanks, I've driven 7270 miles on 111.6 
gallons of petrodiesel and 49.8 gallons of biodiesel. This works out to 
45.1 mpg but 65.14 miles/petrogallon.

Is this misleading? I think I all depends on your audience. But 
personally, I'd err on the side of caution because the alternative fuels 
movement doesn't benefit when people feel misled or cheated, even when 
the error is their own.

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] Ch 7 10PM News out of Boise

2005-09-21 Thread John Hayes
Jeromie Reeves wrote:

 What do you drive that gets 45mpg? Are you running a 2 to 1 mix of 
 BD/Petro, was that for starting, or both?

I drive a stock 2003 Jetta TDI 5-sp. I typically put in B100 homebrew 
and then top off at with commercial petrodiesel, either immediately or 
sometimes a couple of days later. The Jetta's recirculating pump takes 
care of any mixing right in the main fuel tank. No preblanding required.

Here's my last 10 fills:

BD  Petro

7.5 11.533
6.0 11.367
0   16.003
6.0 10.462
10.55.864
0   15.280
5.0 9.554
4.9 10.087
0   14.200
9.9 7.290

You can clearly see that the ratio is not at all consistent. In reality, 
it is even more variable than that because I may not dilute the B100 
with petrodiesel until a couple of days later, meaning the engine may be 
running on a very high or very low BD blend at any given moment.

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] Cindy Sheehan arrested in Manhattan

2005-09-20 Thread John Hayes
Keith Addison wrote:
Be interesting to see what
the main stream media makes of it

They won't. If a permit is requisite, they'll report just that and 
leave it alone or slant it as another left-wing, irresponsible, 
anti-whatever who chooses to disobey the diety status of the law.
 
 
 Not all of them though, there are usually a few exceptions, even in 
 the US mainstream media.
 
 We're learning to go round the mainstream media anyway these days. 
 Well, we learnt that 35 years ago but we didn't have the Internet 
 then.

According to the Associated Press, Sheehan was roughed up a little but 
was *not* arrested.

Meanwhile, organizer Paul Zulkowitz was charged with unauthorized use of 
a sound device and disorderly conduct. He was given a court summons and 
released.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1142911

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] Vacation is Over... an open letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush

2005-09-06 Thread John Hayes
Jerry Eyers wrote:
 Let's not spout political garbage and rhetoric that you hear in the 
 media, let's look at the facts.  He didn't respond to the incident 
 when he saw that the folks he put in charge were not doing their job.
  That's his failure as a leader.  It has nothing to do in this case 
 with conservatism or lack there of, or any war anywhere, but rather a
  lack of good leadership with regard to this incident.

Actually, Jerry, if you'd bothered to read the links I posted earlier,
you'd see that a large part of the failure to provide an appropriate
response to this crisis is a DIRECT result of ideology.

Even conservative thinkers are starting to dance around the edges of 
this issue, Ross Douthat, a frequent contributer to the National Review, 
points out that Katrina was the Anti-9/11. The 9/11 crisis was 
uniquely suited to, and practically tailor made for, the neoconservative 
world view framed within the ideological context provided by Sam 
Huntington's Clash of Civilizations model.  The problem is, this world 
view lacks a framework to explain the role of government in disaster 
recovery. In contrast, a strong disaster relief function fits almost 
perfectly into the SysAdmin function of government espoused by ex-Naval 
War College professor Tom Barnett.

David Brooks, a conservative at the NY Times, writes that public 
confidence in civic and governmental institutions has plummeted over the 
last 5 years, due mainly to repeated failures of administration, 
including failure to find WMDs, incompetent postwar planning, corrupt 
corporate governance (eg Enron) and government sanctioned torture at Abu 
Ghaib. He goes on to say that there is going to be some sort of big 
bang as people respond to the cumulative blows of bad events and try to 
fundamentally change the way things are. He speculates that the 
reaction may be a progressive resurgence, a Giuliani-esque law and order 
movement or perhaps a McCainist non-partisan patriotism.

What Brooks isn't quite willing to say, but is strongly hinting at, is 
that the first political backlash of Katrina will be a strong 
repudiation of the neo-conservative ideology that got us in this mess. 
Yes, mother nature can't controlled, but the response was utterly 
castrated by a systematic weakening of the federal government driven by 
an ideological agenda. FEMA and DHS, loaded full of neoconservative 
appointees, have marginalized and ignored the planning needed to respond 
to this type of crisis, because it doesn't fit their world view. The 
bottom line is that ideologically driven government doesn't work; even 
most strident libertarians would tend to agree disaster relief is an 
appropriate role for government.

After 9/11, it is unclear why the head of the agency in charge of 
disaster relief was headed up by an estates lawyer with absolutely no 
experience in disaster relief. Mike Brown became the deputy director of 
FEMA in 2001. He got the job because the director of FEMA at the time, 
Joseph Allbaugh, was Brown's old college roommate. When Allbaugh stepped 
down in 2003, the President appointed Brown to the head spot. Prior to 
his appointment in 2001, Brown was commissioner for the International 
Arabian Horse Association, a position he was asked to resign from 
following a string of lawsuits over lack of supervisor oversight. To 
allow cronyism to replace competence in a post-9/11 world is almost 
criminal. And to appoint someone to that position who has shown a 
history of poor oversight as a award for loyalty is reprehensible.

Writing about Iraq, noted RAND Corporation thinker Francis Fukuyama has 
noted that President Bush's current political base consists of 
neoconservatives, who provide intellectual firepower, but lack a base of 
their own, and Jacksonian America - nationalists who lean toward 
toward pugnacious isolationism. If we accept the human cost of the war 
in Iraq  falls disproportionately on these Red Staters, how will they 
react toward the dual failure of the administration to win the peace in 
Iraq and protect Mississippi and Louisiana while doing so. Certainly, 
some will react to their cognitive dissonance with ever increasing 
support for the President. But I also suspect we'll see a growing schism 
in the GOP as the NASCAR dads, in contrast to the Beltway think-tankers, 
realize that the President that promised to keep them safe cannot and 
did not do so.

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] Cuba Willing to Send Immediate Medical Help

2005-09-06 Thread John Hayes
Juan Gutierrez wrote:
 See I thought you guys had some idea. In Cuba all 18 year olds go to 
 military trainning before thats women and men before they get put in the 
 career choice of the government. Including Doctor's and Scientists.

So do Austria, Brazil, Croatia, Finland, Greece, Germany, Israel, Italy, 
  Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela and about 20 other 
countries.

Your point was what? Please tell me you're not actually claiming the 
Cubans are going to invade the US are you?

Are you living in some bizarre John Milius fantasy world? I'll let you 
in on a little secret - Red Dawn was just a movie, and not a very good 
one at that. Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze can't act, I've seen porn 
with better dialog and the plot had more holes than a pair of fishnet 
stockings.

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] Cuba Willing to Send Immediate Medical Help

2005-09-06 Thread John Hayes
Why don't you take a shot at it and we'll let the group decide on the 
merits of your argument, eh?

jh

Juan Gutierrez wrote:
 If I have to explain it, that will fly right by you also
 
 
From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cuba Willing to Send Immediate Medical Help
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:55:31 -0400

Juan Gutierrez wrote:

See I thought you guys had some idea. In Cuba all 18 year olds go to
military trainning before thats women and men before they get put in the
career choice of the government. Including Doctor's and Scientists.

So do Austria, Brazil, Croatia, Finland, Greece, Germany, Israel, Italy,
  Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Venezuela and about 20 other
countries.

Your point was what? Please tell me you're not actually claiming the
Cubans are going to invade the US are you?

Are you living in some bizarre John Milius fantasy world? I'll let you
in on a little secret - Red Dawn was just a movie, and not a very good
one at that. Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze can't act, I've seen porn
with better dialog and the plot had more holes than a pair of fishnet
stockings.

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] How New Orleans Was Lost

2005-09-05 Thread John Hayes
Ian Hodgson wrote:

 When we are given the price of alternative energies for example, 
 they(politicians) speak as though the environment is at thier disposal 
 to either take into account or not, when your at the accountants you are 
 not allowed to say don't include the cost of that yet Bush and my 
 Prime Minister John Howard seem to think they have a right to do that 
 just by, for example, ignoring the Kyoto treaty.

Which is an argument for cap and trade pollution controls. Such methods 
may not be perfect, but once you force markets to internalize 
enviromental costs, it becomes much harder to ignore. It forces people 
to do the right thing, not because of morals, but rather, because of 
economics. And frankly, as long as people and corporations are allowed 
to ignore environmental costs, the majority will.

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] Vacation is Over... an open letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush

2005-09-05 Thread John Hayes
Jerry Eyers wrote:
 The reason that FEMA couldn't respond, is because there is very
 little of FEMA left. 
snip

 No one at DHS knows anything about repsonding to disasters and
 they had fired everyone who did.  Result?  Just look around.
snip

 The problem is DHS and the funding for FEMA.  Simple sollution...
 put the $ back where was supposed to be and for what it was
 intended, and get rid of the SS (oops, I mean HS).

Seems to me putting a lawyer with no knowledge of disaster relief in 
charge of the federal agency disaster relief might have been part of the 
problem, eh? Political cronyism that stresses loyalty over knowledge, 
experience and competence strikes me as a rather glaring problem. I 
mean, after 9/11, who could have imagined that FEMA would need respond 
to a disaster?

I could even forgive our President if he'd replaced Brown once it became 
clear that Brown had no clue what he was doing. Hell, it's not like the 
President couldn't have gone to his bench and put Guiliani in the game. 
But no, our President's exact words were:

Brownie, you're doing a helluva job. The FEMA director is working 24 
hours a day.

Are you kidding me? Brown admits on national TV that he has no knowledge 
of thousands of refugees at the convention center, and our  says he's 
doing a helluva job. It would be farcical if the results weren't so 
tragic.

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] Is Katrina the end to Bush's brand of 'conservatism'?

2005-09-04 Thread John Hayes
Very interesting. While the folks at redstate.org are already 
counter-spinning hard due to the supposed bias in the MSM (Mainstream 
Media), more intellectual folks are starting to ask if  Katrina 
represents a tipping point for the current administration and their 
worldview.

I first noticed it with Fukuyama's recent column about Iraq on Tuesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/opinion/31fukuyama.html

Then Brooks wrote an interesting history of Floods and US politics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/opinion/01brooks.html

The same day Douthat wrote an eye-opening piece on the neo-con world 
view and how it deals with 9/11 versus Katrina.
http://www.theamericanscene.com/2005/09/anti-911-on-september-11-there-was.php

Noam Scheiber at the New Republic replied to Douthat's piece.
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2764

Then Tom Bartnett said the Bush admin makes Jon Stewart's job such a 
frickin' cakewalk that the man should send his Peabody's to the White 
House as a thank-you.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/002244.html

And finally, today Brooks essentially said we've already reached the 
tipping point since the Bush adminstration lacks competence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html

Very interesting times we live in.

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] Katrina slams New Orleans. Is There Blame?

2005-09-02 Thread John Hayes
Garth  Kim Travis wrote:
 Greetings,
 No one but you has brought up any stereo types.  

I prefer Blaupunkt over Pioneer, but my friend prefers Aiwa. Anything is 
better than Sony.

Oh wait... nevermind.

;)

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] How New Orleans Was Lost

2005-09-02 Thread John Hayes
Didn't he eventually get drafted off injured reserve by the Saints?

*rimshot*

jh

Joe Street wrote:
 Wow this is big news!  I thought Osama was still a free agent.
 
 Mike Weaver wrote:
 
Whine whine.  At least he caught Osama Bin Laden, just like he promised.

___
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] Another use for glycerine

2005-09-01 Thread John Hayes
Myk Hill wrote:
 FDA has also listed Aspartame as a Neurotoxin, but there is many foods 
 that contain it anyway 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan.

Any chance you have a primary source to back up your rather 
extraordinary statement?

Searching the FDA website for aspartame turns up no such no evidence to 
support your claim. In fact, searching the FDA website turns up the 
following page:

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-adf9.html

which explicitly states that the FDA has concluded aspartame is safe.

So while other groups, like CSPI, and even former FDA employees, like 
Arthur Evangelista, who may or may not have an agenda of their own, 
claim aspartame is a neurotoxin, I don't think the statement that FDA 
lists aspartame as a neurotoxin holds up to the light of day.

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] Another use for glycerine

2005-09-01 Thread John Hayes
Keith Addison wrote:
Myk Hill wrote:

FDA has also listed Aspartame as a Neurotoxin, but there is many foods
that contain it anyway

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan.

Any chance you have a primary source to back up your rather
extraordinary statement?

Searching the FDA website for aspartame turns up no such no evidence to
support your claim. In fact, searching the FDA website turns up the
following page:

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-adf9.html

which explicitly states that the FDA has concluded aspartame is safe.

So while other groups, like CSPI, and even former FDA employees, like
Arthur Evangelista, who may or may not have an agenda of their own,
claim aspartame is a neurotoxin, I don't think the statement that FDA
lists aspartame as a neurotoxin holds up to the light of day.

jh
 
 
 Why would you think that the FDA might not have an agenda of its own John?

They certainly may Keith, but I'd hard pressed to figure out their 
motivation without invoking some nefarious Rumsfeldian kabal. You'll 
have to forgive me if I have a little more faith in broadly focused, 
science based professional organizations like the ADA, the AMA, the ACS, 
the WHO, the MS Society, etc, than I do in alarmist single-issue 
advocacy groups.

But in this particular case, I was just trying to provide some sorely 
needed skeptism toward Myk's rather extraordinary statement.

Cheers.

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] Another use for glycerine

2005-09-01 Thread John Hayes
Nancy Canning wrote:
 So you guys are going to believe hook line and sinker all the bs FDA
 passes off. I am laughing so hard at your defending the FDA.

I'm not defending the FDA here (nice red herring/strawman btw) - I 
just pointed out that the claim the FDA listed aspartame as a 
neurotoxin is 100% flat out untrue.

The chemicals are bad schtick gets a little old after you've been on
this list for a while. We get it:

* chemicals are bad
* vaccines cause autism
* mercury leaches out of amalgam fillings
* fluoride is a comunist/NWO plot
* aspartame is poison
* neotame is worse
* rumsfeld and cheney are behind it all
* we're all just blind sheep that are pawns to the bigs
* natural is good
* raw is better

We're heard it all before.

Maybe you could do us all a favor and actually look in the archives
before you share next time. As Keith likes to point out, there is a
handy dandy link to the archives at the bottom of every message you get.

 The doctors and hospitals, insurance companies, and drug companies
 can't make any money of a healthy diet, vitamines, and herbal
 remedies.

 Why do you think that doctors across the country tried to ban
 aspartame before it was released?

Wait, now I'm confused. Are doctors trying to protect us or are they 
trying to poison us to make money. Which side of this epic struggle are 
they on? How am I to know if you can't even make up your mind in the 
same post?


 WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE  and the  MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS 
 FOUNDATION OF D.A. ISSUING FOR COLLUSION WITH MONSANTO
 
 Article written by Nancy Markle  Ten FREE Cancer Reports
 
 
 I have spent several days lecturing at the WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL 
 CONFERENCE on  ASPARTAME  marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, and 
 Spoonful.   In the keynote address by the EPA, they announced that 
 there was an epidemic of MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS  and  SYSTEMIC LUPUS, and
 they did not understand what toxin was causing this to be rampant 
 across the United States.   I explained that I was there to lecture 
 on exactly that subject.

Wow Nancy. That's really interesting, especially since:

a) Nancy Markle doesn't exist, or at least no one by that name is known
to do research on MS, lupus or aspartame.

In fact, the original source of the document you cut n' pasted is 
originally from a Usenet posting in 1995 by Betty Martini that was 
modified by an unknown person and attributed to the mythical Ms. Markle.

Searching groups.google.com will turn up postings from Ms. Martini as 
far back as 1996.

b) Searching the EPA publication archive for World Environmental
Congress returns ZERO hits.

Go ahead and try it, I just did:

http://www.epa.gov/epahome/pubsearch.html

If the EPA gave the KEYNOTE talk at this WORLD conference, why doesn't
anything come up?

I guess the secret kabal got to them, eh?

 Analysis Shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems 
 With Aspartame October 17, 1996

So which is it? 100%? less that 100%? This is sloppy emotional writing.

 An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and 
 other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The 
 Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, 
 Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton 
 analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human 
 safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame 
 industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry 
 money.

That's interesting too, since a PubMed search for walton and aspartame
brings up exactly two relevent references, neither of which is a
systematic review of literature.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Searchdb=PubMedterm=walton+aspartame

The first paper is a experimental study on the effects of aspartame in
psychiatric patients. The study was designed to recruit 40 patients and
40 controls; in reality only 8 patients and 5 controls were enrolled
before the university safety committee (the IRB) shut down the study due
to excessive adverse events in patient population. This could be because
the aspartame truly caused that many problems in the patients, or it
could be because of other serious ethical/methological problems.

The second reference is first a technical critique of the study and then
a rebuttal by Walton.

Thus, your faith in Dr Walton is rather interesting since Walton is not
a toxicologist at all, but rather a psychiatrist that has published a
single study on aspartame, and that one study is disputed.

The fact that he is the Chairman of The Center for Behavioral Medicine
at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine is, in fact,
completely irrelevent and is nothing more than an appeal to authority,
and a weak one at that.

Cheers!

jh











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

Biofuel at Journey to Forever:

Re: [Biofuel] chicken manure

2005-08-31 Thread John Hayes
Greg and April wrote:
 My dad told the story about one of his collage buddies that got a 3 month
 old Cadillac for $50, because the previous owner went out to the desert and
 committed suicide in it, and was not found for many days..
 
 He striped the car down to bare metal, sand blasted the entire thing, and
 rebuilt it with an all new interior, but, still got rid of the car because
 the smell remained.
 
 Good luck.
 
 Greg H.

Didn't mythbusters test that very urban myth last season?

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] Another use for glycerine

2005-08-30 Thread John Hayes
Nancy Canning wrote:
 - Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
 Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 10:01 AM
 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Another use for glycerine
 
 Nancy Canning wrote:

 Propylene glycol as it is used tons and tons of products including
 industrial cleaners, shampoo's, toothpaste, creams,  etc.  It is very 
 toxic,
 the industry even has it in children's prescriptions. Wonder if this 
 type of
 propylene glycol has less poison/carcinogenic toxicity qualities vrs 
 what is
 out there right now?  Anybody have any info?

 Nancy.

 You are mistakenly confusing ethylene glycol with propylene glycol. Both
 can be used as antifreeze or deicers, but they have very different
 metabolic fates in the body. Thus, ethylene glycol is toxic while
 propylene glycol is food safe.

 What is Propylene Glycol?
  
 Propylene Glycol (PG, Polyethylene Glycol (PEG), Butylene Glycol (BG) 
 and Ethylene Glycol (EG) are all petroleum derivatives that act as 
 solvents, surfactants, and wetting agents.  They can easily penetrate 
 the skin, and can weaken protein and cellular structure.  In fact, PG 
 penetrates the skin so quickly that the EPA warns factory workers to 
 avoid skin contact, to prevent brain, liver, and kidney abnormalities.  
 PG is present in many stick deodorants, often in heavier concentration 
 than in most industrial applications. (Nyack, Dr. Vin, Ph.D., 
 Biochemist; personal communication). And Propylene Glycol is what is 
 used to carry the active ingredients in those transdermal patches INTO 
 YOUR BODY
 Imagine a bottle of Anti-Freeze in a picture with shampoos, deodorants, 
 cosmetics, lotions and toothpastes?
 The question you should be asking is .. What's Anti-Freeze doing IN my 
 shampoos, deodorants, cosmetics, lotions and toothpaste?
 Yes, the main ingredient in anti-freeze is in all of these products.
 Shocked?  You should be!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html

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] Sept 1 declared no buy gas day

2005-08-29 Thread John Hayes
 You all probably know this, but in case some don't, the following 
 can help in choosing which ones you might decide to boycott:
 
 Major companies that import Middle Eastern oil : 
 Shell. 205,742,000 barrels 
 Chevron/Texaco. 144,332,000 barrels 
 Exxon /Mobil... 130,082,000 barrels 
 Marathon/Speedway... 117,740,000 barrels 
 Amoco62,231,000 barrels 
 
 Some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil: 
 Citgo...0 barrels 
 Sunoco.0 barrels 
 Conoco.0 barrels 
 Sinclair.0 barrels 
 BP/Phillips0 barrels 
 Hess0 barrels 
 ARCO...0 barrels 
 
 All of this information is available from the Department of Energy 
 and each is required to state where they get their oil and how 
 much they are importing. 

*sigh*

Yet another hoax.

First of all, the numbers are flat out wrong. Second, even if they were 
correct, oil is a fungible commodity, rendering any such boycott 
meaningless.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/saudigas.asp

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] Another use for glycerine

2005-08-27 Thread John Hayes
Nancy Canning wrote:
 Propylene glycol as it is used tons and tons of products including 
 industrial cleaners, shampoo's, toothpaste, creams,  etc.  It is very toxic, 
 the industry even has it in children's prescriptions. Wonder if this type of 
 propylene glycol has less poison/carcinogenic toxicity qualities vrs what is 
 out there right now?  Anybody have any info?

Nancy.

You are mistakenly confusing ethylene glycol with propylene glycol. Both 
can be used as antifreeze or deicers, but they have very different 
metabolic fates in the body. Thus, ethylene glycol is toxic while 
propylene glycol is food safe.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp96-c1.pdf

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] Apartment dwellers - was Re: (no subject)

2005-08-26 Thread John Hayes
In the US, fuel jugs are color-coded - red for gas, yellow for diesel 
and if, I remember correctly, blue for kerosene.

Of course, in the vast majority of cases, the same polymer is used for 
all three so you can certainly substitute one for another safetywise. As 
to whether dispensing locations (eg gas stations/distributers) will give 
you a hard time about using the wrong color, I can't comment.

I've had good luck finding yellow jugs locally at Home Depot. Yeah, it's 
big box retail, but at least it isn't Walmart.

If you want to look online, try searching froogle.google.com using the 
phrase diesel can or blitz jug


Good luck!

jh



Mike Weaver wrote:
 Dunno on the cans but some places won't let you put Diesel in a gas can.
 

I'm pretty new here. Hello all:

Question:

1. Is there a requirement to use a red gas can for biofuel (yellow for
diesel)?
   


Never heard of it, but I guess it depends where you are.


___
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] Cindy Sheehan: Still Not Worth It

2005-08-26 Thread John Hayes
 John Hayes wrote:
I was getting my haircut in New Haven on Tuesday and walked past a Yalie 
watering hole Barbara is known to frequent.

On a telephone pole out front, there were 2 photos of injured Iraq War 
vets. With the photos was a sign that read something to the effect of

Is it in poor taste to ask why Barbara and Jenna haven't enlisted yet?

jh

Clif Caldwell wrote:
 As a former Air Force officer I am want to weigh in on this ... but I'd 
 rather ask where I can find a source for a cheap centrifugal pump and 
 reasonable carboy containers ...
 
 A slightly cowed,
 Clif

Clif.

My sister and her husband are both Majors with the 48th MDG USAF and my 
wife's best friend is CO of the 514th Med Evac USA. Thank you for your 
service. I hope you didn't take my comments to be anti-service, as they 
were certainly not intended as such. However, the rallying cry of 
support our troops should not, and need not be a codeword for blind 
allegience to our civilian leadership.

As far a pumps go, I can't help other than to suggest Northern Tool.

http://www.northerntool.com/

Regarding carboys, check out US Plastic.

http://www.usplastic.com/

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] What has the world come to

2005-08-25 Thread John Hayes

 Is the source for this correct ? It might be good to cite the
 source if we are going to assasinate not only a living person but
 also a man's character. If you have the original source for this
 information then maybe we should post it here to help clear this
 up. Just a thought...
 
 Clif
 I JUST heard it on NPR!
 
 Here's the quote: 
 http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNewsarticle=UPI-1-20050823-09170200-bc-us-robertson.xml
 
 I to sadly have heard the quote out of his own mouth. I have also
 heard his contrite apology. Unfortunately we all say things in the
 moment we later regret. Two things are true in this world..
 There is a God ... And I am not Him. I cannot speak to another man's
 salvation. It is regretable that men who are called men of God
 still have some of the old nature in them. Fortunately the process of
 sanctification is an ongoing process much like our process here to
 find the perfect method creating good fuel. May Mr. Robertson
 consider this episode part of his refining. Clif

Clif, you're still being an apologist for Robertson. First you question 
the source and imply that his character is being assassinated, and now, 
when faced with the statement straight from the horse's mouth, you 
dissemble and imply that it's really ok because we're all just God's 
imperfect creatures and it's alright because he said he was sorry.

If Robertson is so sorry, why is he blantantly LYING about what he said?
I thought christians of his ilk were all about taking personal
responsibility? I find any contrite apology rather thin when only
*yesterday* he was still claiming he was misinterpreted. Why did he go 
on the air yesterday and claim he never used the word assassinate when 
Monday's video clearly shows he did?

Refining my ass. The man is a lying hypocrite and you know it.

jh


 August 24, 2005 Robertson Apologizes but Says He Was 'Misinterpreted'
  By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
 
 The Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson issued a statement today
 apologizing for his televised remarks calling for the assassination
 of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
 
 Is it right to call for assassination? he said in the statement.
 No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that
 we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill
 him.
 
 But Mr. Robertson was far from apologetic on his television show
 today, instead insisting that he had been been misinterpreted by
 The Associated Press and that he had never used the word
 assassination.
 
 I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out'
 could be a number of things, including kidnapping, Mr. Robertson
 told his audience on the show The 700 Club today.
 
 The video from Monday's telecast, easily available on the internet,
 shows Mr. Robertson saying of the Venezuelan president: If he thinks
 we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go
 ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I
 don't think any oil shipments will stop. Mr. Robertson went on at
 length about Mr. Chávez, suggesting that covert operatives could
 do the job and then get it over with.
 
 Political and religious leaders continued to denounce Mr. Robertson
 today. The World Evangelical Alliance issued a statement saying,
 Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in
 justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including
 the life of President Chavez.
 
 On Tuesday, Mr. Robertson's comments were denounced by both the State
 Department and by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In Caracas,
 Mr. Robertson was criticized by the vice president of Venezuela, and
 in Havana by President Fidel Castro.


___
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] Cindy Sheehan: Still Not Worth It

2005-08-25 Thread John Hayes
Appal Energy wrote:
   No, Casey's sacrifice was not worth it
   and George needs to do more than wave his
   flag and manipulate our sense of
   patriotism. He needs to march his girls to a
   recruitment center and send them to Iraq to fight the
   terrorists that his moronic and callous foreign
   policies have recruited or he needs to wake up and
   smell the apple pie and bring our other sons and
   daughters home, now!
 
 Ditto.

I was getting my haircut in New Haven on Tuesday and walked past a Yalie 
watering hole Barbara is known to frequent.

On a telephone pole out front, there were 2 photos of injured Iraq War 
vets. With the photos was a sign that read something to the effect of

Is it in poor taste to ask why Barbara and Jenna haven't enlisted yet?

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] Iran's Nuclear Program

2005-08-23 Thread John Hayes

Chris Lloyd wrote:
Why a war if it is only to remove the enrichment facilities, Israel just 
nipped across the border and blew up Iraq’s nuclear site. I’m sure a few 
missiles fire from off shore would do the job. But that does mean they 
would still control their own oil.   Chris.


After the Osirak raid, I suspect the Iranians might be better prepared 
today than than the Iraqis were in '81. But yes, an air strike and an 
invasion are two very different things.


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/41osi.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

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] Improving Peer Review

2005-08-22 Thread John Hayes
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n4/pdf/nn0405-397.pdf

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] ASTM, was ... Diesel Won't Solve...

2005-08-11 Thread John Hayes

Tom Irwin wrote:
 They can keep the
pictures of the flag drapped caskets from view but it´s really the 
wounded they´re going to have the most problems with. You can pretty 
much calculate that half of those 11,500 have been horribly maimed or 
burned. Bombs and booby traps do that kind of thing. Someone is going to 
get their story out with words and pictures, win a Pulitzer and put an 
end to this incredibly, greedy stupidity. 


Well, it didn't win a Pulitzer...yet. But in Dec 2004, NEJM already ran 
a photo essay and noted surgeron/writer Atul Gawande wrote an 
*excellent* essay to go with it. And the editors of the NEJM decided to 
make the content available free to everyone.


Essay by Gawande
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/351/24/2471.pdf

Photos (WARNING - some of these pictures are very graphic
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/351/24/2476.pdf

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] ASTM, was ... Diesel Won't Solve...

2005-08-11 Thread John Hayes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
those are very conservative (not in the right-wing sense) numbers.  there are 
already close to 1800 killed, and even mcglaughlin--hardly a liberal or a 
dove--repeats figures in excess of 25000 for woulded/maimed/incapacitated.



Actually, as of 10 Aug 2005, the DoD numbers were:

1819 dead
7163 wounded - return to duty within 72 hrs
6714 wounded - did not return to duty within 72 hrs

If McLaughlin his claiming 25,000+ he's either doing one of three 
things: a) using bad data b) including non-US forces c)implying the DoD 
is lying. Given the willingness of the Pentagon to openly contradict the 
Cheney and Rumsfeld spin as needed, I have enough faith in their 
professionalism to assume these numbers haven't been cooked.


The numbers are updated every Tuesday at 10am.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

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] Tax question

2005-08-11 Thread John Hayes

Jeremy Farmer wrote:
Can anyone help me out here?  I am looking into producing Biodiesel for 
electricity generation.  I know the energy bill has a tax incentive, but 
are there other ones?  I read something about a treas. department break 
for using a renewable source for electricity.  Does anyone out there 
have any more info?  Thank you.


http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?CurrentPageID=1State=TX

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] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes

2005-08-10 Thread John Hayes

Dude. I think he dripped some sarcasm on my shoe.

jh

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

er, sorry, but were you being sarcastic or serious?

-chris

In a message dated 8/10/05 8:56:37 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 The American way of life is not negotiable. 



I personally feel I need a huge SUV for my lifestyle.   Why, just the 

other day I drove my V10  Excursion to WalMart to get a pencil.  I could 

have walked, but that's not The American Way.  I personally am furious 

about  gas prices in the US. I'm not sure who I'm furious with, but I 

think it might be the Democrats.  I'm pretty sure I'm also furious with 

the Saudis.  I was furious with Saddam, what with his WMD and the whole 

9/11 thing, but I think we all agree that's been taken care off.  I am 

very angry that Asians hold most of our government debt, but I am also 


extremely upset that S. Korea mused aloud about diversifying out of dollars.


Taxes.  I'm very mad about taxes.  I just sold my palatial mansion in 

Palm Beach and have to pay 15% capital gains!!  Thank goodness my 


gardener, Roberto, pays 28% on his wages or it could have been worse.


Mike, The Ugly American 

___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes

2005-08-09 Thread John Hayes

Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes


I deconstructed that Washington Post story in my blog.

http://blog.john-hayes.com/?postid=122

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] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

2005-08-09 Thread John Hayes

Hi Keith.

Sorry if you took my previous long winded reply as a direct 
reply/criticism - it wasn't intended that way.


Instead, it was a broader essay I posted to my blog as as the 
culmination of thoughts that have resulted from the dialogue here, as 
well as at tdiclub.com, and in real life. (For example, the lambasting I 
refered to occurred over at TDIclub, not here. And the bit about junk 
science came up at dinner the other night.)


So while it was inspired in part by the thread here, it should really 
have been sent to the list as a new thread. I didn't mean to set up a 
strawman or put words in anyone's mouth (e.g. the Barton witchhunt 
comment). Again, sorry about that.


Anyway, did you notice the column Krugman published the very next day on 
intelligent design? That's the type of issue I was trying to speak to. 
Clearly I missed the mark. :(


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html

I don't disagree with you one bit that the corporate disinformation 
machine has been exceptionally successful at promoting their agenda. And 
yes, I agree that merely promoting good science isn't enough, 
particularly given the American media's misguided attempts to provide 
balance. But that having been said, as a scientist, I had to reaffirm 
my faith that the process does in fact work. (And yes, I use the word 
faith intentionally.) It may not work as perfectly as it should (cf 
Kuhn), but it does work imperfectly (cf Sagan).


That's what I was trying to say. If that makes me idealistic/naive, so 
be it.


jh




Keith Addison wrote:

Hello John


Keith, Bob, Andrew et al.

Respectfully, I need to disagree with Keith and go with Bob on this one.

David Pimentel may rightfully deserve scorn for his repeatedly 
releasing skewed reports long after the errors have been pointed out.


However, he should not be attacked for doing so,



I did not say he should be attacked. I said he should be questioned, and 
I provided the questions, and my previous post (which you've copied 
below) provided a link to it. Here, again:


http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficien

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,  hydrogen energy efficienc

We want to know why he does it. On whose behalf is also a good question.

That is, science is self-correcting and already has a culture to deal 
with incorrect results, be they intentional or accidental.



For every example of it that you can point to I'll point to another that 
wasn't self-corrected.


I've just been saying that seeing the government as a bumbling dolt 
might be a dangerous delusion, and failing to see the ever-swelling 
influence of corporate spending on science is similarly dangerous. 
Especially since there have been so many peer-reviewed studies of it and 
its effects (some of which have been posted here before).


Rely on science's self-correction if you want to, but in these 
circumstances I'd put about as much credence in that as in chemical 
industry self-policing of self-formulated pollution controls (ie what 
we've got now, more or less - plenty of examples of that in the archives 
too).


It's not even happening in that arena, as I said - it's not scientific 
enquiry, it's a skilful and effective publicity campaign. Would your 
scientific self-correction (albeit 20 years late with 20 years of abuse 
of the public interest in the meantime) make 100% sure, as does the 
Cornell publicity team which is at Pimentel's disposal, that it'll get 
picked up by AP and get good placement in the LA Times? If not it'll be 
useless as well as too late.



As noted by Carl Sagan, yet another iconic Cornell professor:

In science it often happens that scientists say, You know that's a 
really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they would 
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them 
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, 
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it 
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that 
happened in politics or religion.


Frankly however, with respect to Dr. Sagan, I wouldn't hold my breath 
waiting for David Pimental to come around given his past 
intransigence. If Kuhn was right, we may have to wait another couple 
of decades for Pimental to stop publishing his misleading reports.


Still, to blindly lambaste David Pimental (and frankly, any scientist 
we disagree with) is to move the discourse from the rational to the 
emotional.



Blind lambasting, John? There've been some jeers (Yours in jest), but 
it's me you name first, apparently without checking what I'd said, which 
is neither blind nor a lambasting, nor emotional, nor has it ever been 
since I first covered this at JtF four years ago. Nor will you be able 
to find any instance of 

Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes

2005-08-09 Thread John Hayes

Hi Doug.

Frankly, I was very disappointed with your reply.

In our culture, yes, we have a right to an opinion, but others also have 
the right to tell so how and why our reasoning is flawed. And in the 
words of advisorjim (http://advisorjim.dailykos.com/) We're all 
entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts!


You implied that the need for SUVs driven by big families with big 
kids. And I rebutted it with two sources and one anecdote that suggest 
this just isn't true.


Your wishy washy statistics are too malleable statement is an 
intellectual cop out. If you're a going to make readily falsifiable 
statements on this list, you can't just wave the let's agree to 
disagree flag when those statements are challenged. That's just weak.


jh





Doug Younker wrote:

What can I say, John?  Both statistics and observations are both too
malleable.  This could become perceived myth versus perceived myth, judging
others by what they drive and where we can't fully know what drove their
decision, I really don't want to go there.  Thank you for taking the time to
share your thoughts.
Doug
- Original Message - 
From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes




Doug.

For the vast majority, SUVs are about status, not capability. Those 3 or
4 or 5 kids will also fit in a minivan that already gets mileage in the
20s. How do I know? My wife is one of 5 and she's the runt of the
family; both her sisters are over 510 and her two brothers are over 63.

Also, what proportion of American families are actually that large?
According to US census data, in 48 of 50 states, families average less
than two children.

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabST-F1-2000.pdf

You can't tell me with a straight face that large families have driven
the SUV boom in the 90s.

Finally, don't believe the myth that American consumers were forced to
buy SUVs by the disappearance of the station wagon. It's just not true.

Midsized SUVs rose from 4% of all light duty vehicle sales in MY1998 to
12.3% in 2000. Midsized station wagons droped from 1.9 to 1.4 percent in
the same period. Large SUVs rose from 0.5% to 5.5% while large station
wagons dropped from 0.5% to 0. SUVs are far more popular today than
station wagons were before CAFE.

from pg 19 http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/docs/162944_web.pdf

jh

Doug Younker wrote:


Well.. I would have to think a 22 MPG SUV is a step above the 13-16 MPG


SUV


of 25 to 30 years ago.  As long as families continue to have 3, 4 or


more


kids, with some of them being 6 foot giants the demand, for larger


vehicles


isn't going to subside soon.  Shoot it's going to be difficult enough to
reduce the miles those vehicles are being driven.
Doug, N0LKK

From: Mike Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Check out Diesel Won't Solve Our Gasoline Woes





I read that.  Diesel will only help if combined w/ high mileage cars,
hybrid and bio.  To go to diesel so Americans can get 22 mpg in their
SUVs is pretty silly.




___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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/



Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

2005-08-04 Thread John Hayes

Keith, Bob, Andrew et al.

Respectfully, I need to disagree with Keith and go with Bob on this one.

David Pimentel may rightfully deserve scorn for his repeatedly releasing 
skewed reports long after the errors have been pointed out.


However, he should not be attacked for doing so, That is, science is 
self-correcting and already has a culture to deal with incorrect 
results, be they intentional or accidental. As noted by Carl Sagan, yet 
another iconic Cornell professor:


In science it often happens that scientists say, You know that's a 
really good argument; my position is mistaken, and then they would 
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them 
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, 
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it 
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that 
happened in politics or religion.


Frankly however, with respect to Dr. Sagan, I wouldn't hold my breath 
waiting for David Pimental to come around given his past intransigence. 
If Kuhn was right, we may have to wait another couple of decades for 
Pimental to stop publishing his misleading reports.


Still, to blindly lambaste David Pimental (and frankly, any scientist we 
disagree with) is to move the discourse from the rational to the 
emotional. And that is simply unacceptable. Junk science is not a 
label to be capriciously applied to research that has implications we 
don't like. It's unacceptable whether we're talking about the right and 
climate change or the left and sustainability of biofuels.


Instead, the best way to expose flawed calculations or conclusions is to 
refute the logic used to arrive at the conclusion and to rebut the 
argument on its merits. Problem is, that's tough to do as it requires 
in-depth knowledge and lots of time. Instead, its far easier just to 
blast the messenger, but that doesn't make it okay. The witch-hunt 
Congressman Barton is leading against Michael Mann is only one such 
egregious example.


Malcolm Gladwell wrote Thomas Kuhn's legacy was that he taught the 
process of science was fundamentally human, that discoveries were the 
product not of some plodding, rational process but of human ingenuity 
intermingled with politics and personality--that science was, in the 
end, a social process.


Kuhn may be right, and science may be a flawed human process, but 
frankly, it's the best we've got. And personally, I'd rather put my 
faith it in.


jh





Keith Addison wrote:


Hello Bob, Andrew

Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that time 
was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate. Pimentel 
merits little better than scorn and derision



Andrew,

I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your 
sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding 
scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who 
argue that, if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who presents 
evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool and not to be 
believed.


It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry  shills 
will (for a fee) produce a scientific study supporting any 
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is 
such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it on 
the Biofuels site.


I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy 
input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we 
approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of 
other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish. The 
difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he says, 
It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it isn't? So 
let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter. If it turns 
out the EROEI  is negative, we would be commiting a cruel and 
expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an energy solution.




Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he uses 
is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying that 
he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question has to 
be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his publishers too. 
This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is not science. It's 
propaganda.


I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a 
negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies 
testing and challenging his conclusion.




Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them, 
debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no notice, 
neither do his publishers.


But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was it 
his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.




Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as seriously 
as the rest of him.


Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and 

Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

2005-08-04 Thread John Hayes

Tom Irwin wrote:
I don't think ethanol will be a dinosaur in 20 years but would 
appreciate why you think so if it is other than yields per hectare. 
Methanol has the capacity to produce some nasty tailpipe emmission (as 
does ethanol but less so) and is far more toxic to humans and animals 
than ethanol. Another component of sustainability is safety. I would not 
wish to see methanol filling stations. Most people have no concept how 
nasty it is. Yes, it can be handled safely by those who understand the 
dangers but most folks don't have that knowledge.


And gasoline isn't toxic and dangerous? The average Joe has been filling 
up with a flammable toxic liquid for almost 100 years. I don't see how 
methanol requires any retraining as opposed to gasoline.



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] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energy efficiencies

2005-08-04 Thread John Hayes

Tom Irwin wrote:

Greeting all,
 
What would happen to the Cornell results if a crop like sugar beets was 
used instead of corn?


Please don't call it the Cornell results. That implies the entire 
university backs Pimentel's findings.


As to your question, I can't answer it directly, but you may want to 
read this article from the economist.


http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3960775

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] Hey! Let's outsource the pres...

2005-08-03 Thread John Hayes

Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off

For future reference, here is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_slang#Common_Internet_slang

jh



William Adams wrote:

please bear with me. I'm learning the lingo , but que dice ROFLMAO?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Hey! Let's outsource the pres...



ROFLMAO!



___
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] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, hydrogen energyefficiencies

2005-08-02 Thread John Hayes



There is also substantial work iniitiated by the Russians and Ukrainians
(and rarely reported in the West until recently) of an abyssal, abiogenic
origin of petroleum, which postulates a co-eval formation of primordial
petroleum with
earth about 4.5 bollion years back,much earlier than the conventional era of
the dinosaurs,


Ironically, the leading Western proponent of the abiotic origin of 
petroleum is the recently deceased Cornell professor Thomas Gold. He was 
a member of the National Academy of Science, the Royal Academy, and the 
American Academy of Arts and Sciences who was known for both his 
brillance and being a famous contrarian (aka world class pain in the ass).


He first published an article about abiotic oil in PNAS in 1992, and 
then followed it up with a book called The deep hot biosphere in 1999.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/June04/Thomas_Gold_obit.hrs.html

Current dogma in the geology community is that abiogenic hydrocarbons do 
in fact exist, but occur in such small amounts that commercially 
exploited sources are effectively all biogenic in origin.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-07-25 Thread John Hayes

malcolm maclure wrote:

I couldn’t resist posting this.

Malcolm


 all the Ivy and *
*   Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal 
Tech and MIT. *



a) plus Harvard and Yale? Did they get kicked out of the Ivy League 
when I wasn't looking?


b) And if we get all 8 Ivies, that means we're stuck with Pimentel. :)

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] Re: was...The New Blue States/Country

2005-07-25 Thread John Hayes

Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote:



Me too,

The once proud republican party has been highjacked by
right wing neocons, powerfull corporations
and xenophobic Jesus freaks. No administration in history
has gone to the extent that this one has, to distort
scientific data and water down or eliminate environmental 
and health protection measures.


Hijacked is right. One just needs to look at the title of Christie 
Whitman's book It's my party too. If you look past the Administration, 
you'll find the GOP still has pro-environment moderates, or open minded 
conservatives. They're just not in the current administration. Off the 
top of my head:


Sen. McCain cosponsored a Climate Change Bill.

Gov. Pataki has been very active in attempting to curtail power plant 
and CO2 emissions.


Gov. Schwartzeneger has pledged to back CARB's attempts to regulate CO2 
emissions.


Rep. Ehlers has spoken at length on Hubbard's Peak on the floor of the 
House.


Sen. Domenici has been relatively friendly to alternative energy.

My point is that not all republicans are head in the sand 
obstructionists like Joe Barton.



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] The New Blue States/Country

2005-07-25 Thread John Hayes

malcolm maclure wrote:

Lol, nice 1 John. Hadn't noticed that.

Not sure about this tho:


a) plus Harvard and Yale? Did they get kicked out of the Ivy League 
when I wasn't looking?



The Ivies (the Ancient Eight) consist of Brown, Cornell, Columbia, 
Dartmouth, Harvard, Penn, Princeton, and Yale. No more, no less.


To say all the Ivies, plus plus Harvard and Yale is redundant. That's 
all I'm sayin'


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] The Rapture

2005-07-25 Thread John Hayes

bmolloy wrote:

Hi All,
   Where can I find a background to the fundamentalist belief in 
the Rapture. I think we discussed it some months ago vis a vis the 
Israeli conflict.

Regards,
Bob.


http://www.newsaic.com/ftvsimpsons1619i.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

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] Propane - ABio fuel?

2005-07-21 Thread John Hayes
Doesn't NG have some small percentage of ethane, propane and butane 
mixed in as well? This would presumably increase the energy desnity over 
straight methane.


Also, while I think of it, isn't biogas closer to a 50:50 mix of methane 
and CO2, with, as you say, some trace impurities? Reason I ask I that i 
thought you had to remove the CO2 before you can use biogas in a natural 
gas appliance.


jh

Thompson, Mark L. (PNB RD) wrote:

Natural Gas = methane + Odorant;
Bio methane just methane + some CO2 and impurities from the
decomposition process. 
So any NG appliance will run on Bio Decomposed methane.


Its just that is very difficult to liquefy NG (-200C like temps).

M


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Morris
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:11 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Propane - ABio fuel?


As I understand it, methane (which can be produced from rotting 
waste) can be burned in most propane appliances with the appropriate 
slight modifications.




Is propane a Bio fuel, can it be created from bio sources?



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

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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Fwd: pocket bike USD85.00 (hot sale)

2005-07-19 Thread John Hayes

Keith Addison wrote:
Anyone want a containerful of pocket bikes? If you're in the US you 
won't be doing much good for the balance of trade, so to speak, but on 
the other hand 138 people will be using a lot less fuel so China can 
have it instead. - K


Not really. Buncha fat little kids in serious need of exercise roaring 
up and down my street on smelly loud two-strokes for entertainment 
hasn't exactly endeared them to me.


Here's what the NY Times had to say a couple of weeks back.

jh

A Big Load of Zip and Noise for Just 50 Pounds of Bike
By ROBERT JOHNSON
Published: July 10, 2005

SPEEDY, high-styled and low-slung, the minimotorcycles known as pocket 
rockets are hot sellers. But along with these bikes, most of them 
imports, have come complaints about safety and quality that have caught 
the attention of many police departments and lawmakers around the nation.


Typically priced at $200 to $500 and with engines whose intense whine 
would endear them to the Wild One, the machines are miniature versions 
of brawnier bikes that cost many thousands of dollars. That is a 
combination that many consumers find irresistible.


They make you think, 'Where were these when I was a kid?'  said Greg 
McLendon, 38, a maintenance worker in Las Vegas who has bought pocket 
rockets for his sons, Tyler, 11, and Austin, 8. He allows them to ride 
only on a private commercial track under adult supervision.


Pocket rockets are gaining a reputation as the skateboards of the new 
millennium, but they have their critics, including many police officers, 
who consider them a hazard, regardless of whether they are ridden 
legally. These things are some of the most fun you can have, but the 
sales are running ahead of parks and tracks where they can be ridden 
legally, said David Edwards, editor of Cycle World magazine in Newport 
Beach, Calif. It isn't realistic to let people buy these and expect 
them to just ride in their driveways.


Why would riders feel restricted? Because pocket rockets fail to meet 
the minimum safety standards to be driven on many American roadways. 
Although state laws vary, the minis usually fall short of lighting and 
other safety standards. And the off-road options are limited: pocket 
rockets, with their small tires and low chassis, are not all-terrain 
vehicles fit for trails or the woods.


The American market for the minimotorcycles is small, considering that 
roughly one million full-size motorcycles are sold annually. Precise 
figures are not available, but the industry estimates that some 25,000 
pocket rockets, mostly Chinese imports, have been bought in the United 
States since the late 1990's.


The bikes, usually powered by gasoline engines similar to those in 
lawnmowers, have a top speed of about 35 miles an hour, but they can be 
modified to go faster. The most popular ones weigh as little as 50 
pounds, though larger ones can weigh closer to 100.


Quality can be spotty. You really need to be mechanical if you're going 
to own one, said Sherman Smith, owner of the Multi Gear Bike and Sport 
shop in Riverview, Fla. Most of the nuts and bolts practically vibrate 
right off the chassis during a ride. He still sells them, he said, 
because his profit margins from repairing them are so good. He buys 
various brands on the Internet from California-based importers. But the 
brands are basically just different decals that someone puts on them, 
he said.


The pocket-rocket makers themselves, of course, beg to differ. The 
Suzhou Ufree Sports Vehicle Manufacture Company, in Jiangsu, China, does 
offer to manufacture bikes that importers can sell under their own brand 
names, but says the quality of all bikes it makes is consistently 
excellent. The Yongkang City Bosuer Vehicle Company, based in Zhejiang 
province, promotes its perfect quality assurance system on its Web 
site and adds that winning customers with reputation is our basic 
strategy.


Although some familiar names are available in the pocket-rocket market, 
they may not be what they seem. Ufree makes a bike called the Mini 
Harley. The wholesale price is just $142.50. But a Harley-Davidson 
spokesman in Milwaukee, Bob Klein, said his company had not licensed the 
product.


Some models have at least a tenuous connection to their bigger brethren. 
For example, an electric-powered Honda minibike is being sold at some 
auto parts stores in the United States for $180. Lee Edmunds, a 
spokesman for American Honda Motor's motorcycle division in Torrance, 
Calif., said his company licensed them a few years ago to a foreign 
manufacturer he didn't identify. It's really more of a toy, he said, 
not in the same league as the gasoline-powered pocket rockets. Honda 
doesn't intend to enter the faster gas-powered-rocket field, he said, 
largely because of safety concerns.


On roads, the faster pocket rockets are difficult for motorists to see, 
and they usually lack headlights and turn signals. Steve Kohler, a 
California Highway 

Re: [Biofuel] Fwd: pocket bike USD85.00 (hot sale)

2005-07-19 Thread John Hayes

Keith Addison wrote:

Hello John


Keith Addison wrote:

Anyone want a containerful of pocket bikes? If you're in the US you 
won't be doing much good for the balance of trade, so to speak, but 
on the other hand 138 people will be using a lot less fuel so China 
can have it instead. - K



Not really. Buncha fat little kids in serious need of exercise roaring 
up and down my street on smelly loud two-strokes for entertainment 
hasn't exactly endeared them to me.



Um, yes, I do believe there might well have been some such complaints 45 
years ago when we were all doing it with the Italian and Spanish pocket 
rockets of the day. Garellis, Itoms, Mars Monzas, Maseratis, Pegasos, 
and they could do 60mph, not just 40 like this newfangled stuff, or only 
25 even. Hey, I'd do it all over again, it was great! We weren't fat 
little kids, we were all pretty fit. I'm sure you're right though, these 
days. Somebody usually had gravel rash but nobody got killed, not even 
by the neighbours (good getaway speed).


So you're not going to be forwarding me a fat forwarding fee then John? :-)


Heh. I guess that came out a little more crotchity than I intended. I 
have no problem with kids being loud and having fun. Didn't mean to 
imply that. We had lots of fun riding way too fast on minibikes as kids, 
and no, nobody got killed; but then again, we didn't know about global 
warming, oil wasn't $60/barrel, and we weren't at war.


I just question the wisdom of buying a kid a polluting toy that wastes 
gasoline when we're past Hubbard's Peak and in the middle of a war when 
instead, you could *gasp* buy the kid a bicycle which might encourage 
the kid to *gasp* get some exercise.


That was my point. So yeah, no finders fee for you. :)

(Just to be clear to the non-US readers on the list. I'm not talking 
about the small displacement transportation scooters you practically 
trip over in Rome and elsewhere. Those have utility. Instead, I'm 
talking about the increasingly popular new generation of highly stylized 
pocket bikes that are intended strictly as toys.)


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: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Biofuel] biofuels would need more energy to produce than they can provide

2005-07-19 Thread John Hayes

Umm. To quote Yogi Berra deja vu all over again.

We already discussed Pimental's latest ethanol study once within the
last 2 weeks. Either somebody is trolling or as a really short attention
span.

http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg51927.html

But anyway, if we're gonna have this discuss yet again, I'm going to cut
and paste. According to Rei over at Slashdot:


Pimental assumes that all corn is irrigated (only 16% is, and that
corn is rarely used for ethanol production - and Pimental even notes
this, but assumes all corn is irrigated anyways!). He ignored
life-cycle analysis standards. He includes one-time energy charges
such as farming equipment and ethanol plant production, ignoring that
oil companies have similar scale one-time energy charges for oil rigs
and refineries. Pimental used energy calculations for fertilizer
production from the UN's data for worldwide average costs, while the
USDA and others use the energy cost of US fertilizer production
(these are widely different numbers - a 2.5-fold difference). He uses
1979 ethanol plant efficiency, ignoring the huge process improvements
made since (which halve the energy cost per gallon). Etc. He makes no
attempt, whatsoever, to be balanced, and repeats the same inaccurate
representation over and over.


According to a post Kent Bullard made over at TDIclub:


One major flaw of Pimentels assertions, is that his studies assign
all energy costs to components of the production cycle and do not
discount those numbers for other materials produced in the process.

For example, in his soybean biodiesel chart, he stated that it takes
5,556 kg of soybeans to make 1,000 kg of oil. He assigns all of the
energy cost of 7,800,000 keal (don't worry about this number it is a
measurement like btu) for growing the soybeans to the soy oil. For an
energy cost of $1,117.42 this is 92% of the final energy costs of
$1,212.16.

Yet, 82% of those soybeans are reduced to soy meal, which he writes
off as soy byproduct waste. (Now we know better than that) This
according to his numbers results in a net energy loss of 32% for the
production of the soy biodiesel, because the soy byproduct wastes
have no assigned energy cost. Yet in his text he allows that one can
credit 2.2 million keal to the meal produced which will result in an
energy loss for the final product of 8%. However, his posted table of
energy inputs for soy do not include any energy credit for the meal.

Now if I were to use his same numbers, yet shift 82% of the energy
costs to the soy meal. We would than have a net energy gain for the
soy biodiesel of 40%.

This is just one example of how he is able to skew his studies
conclusions by assigning energy costs as he sees fit. I have not
dissected his other numbers, but I would tend to believe there are
also other false assumptions in those numbers as well.


So frankly, do we really need to have this discussion again? It's only
been 2 weeks.

jh

Sam Critchley wrote:


Interesting, although if ethanol production is fossil fuel intensive,
 how  do they produce it now, and have done for decades,  in Brazil?

Thanks,


Sam


On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:06:34 +0200, Ray J [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I would assume its this 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050717/ap_on_bi_ge/ethanol_study


Ray J

the skapegoat wrote:


Is there an English version of this document.

*/F. Desprez [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:

according to anglo-us scientific studies.

FD


Des études scientifiques portent un coup à l'éthanol 07/07/2005
 Journal de l'environnement


Le développement de l'éthanol utilisé comme biocarburant pourrait
 avoir des conséquences environnementales négatives, estiment des
 chercheurs.

Deux recherches scientifiques viennent de remettre en cause 
l'intérêt du développement de l'éthanol comme biocarburant

alternatif à l'essence. D'abord, une étude scientifique
américaine parue dans Bioscience conclut que l'éthanol à usage de
carburant réduit la biodiversité, augmente l'érosion du sol, et
consomme de grandes quantités d'eau pour le nettoyage des cannes
à sucre, de l'ordre de 3.900 litres par tonne. Décrits par
Marcelo Dias de Oliveira et ses collègues, de l'université d'Etat
de Washington, ces impacts environnementaux, uniquement liés à la
 culture de la canne à sucre, pourraient provoquer un coup de 
frein  au développement de l'éthanol comme carburant qui s'est

justement appuyé sur un argument environnemental: le CO2 produit
par la combustion de l'éthanol est compensé par la photosynthèse
de la plante, les seules émissions de CO2 provenant des
transports et du processus industriel.

Or actuellement, cet argument est aussi reconsidéré par les 
scientifiques. Cette fois-ci par une étude anglo-américaine,

publiée dans Nature resources research, qui estime «qu'il n'y a
aucun bénéfice énergétique à utiliser la biomasse des plantes
pour fabriquer du carburant.» Selon les chercheurs de
l'université de Cornell et de Berkeley, le process de fabrication

Re: [Biofuel] Running B20

2005-07-18 Thread John Hayes

Never believe a single tank.

I'd give it 5 tanks or so, because frankly, there is no reason you 
should see such a dramatic drop with biodiesel. Are you certain you 
didn't short fill the tank? Have your driving conditions changed? More 
AC, shorter trips, more stop n' go traffic?


jh


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hi all,

I just began running B20 in my Beetle and have seen a 18% decrease in
my fuel efficiency...is this normal? I've read about a 1-5% loss, but
18% seemed a bit high. I'm using a soybean based biodiesel that I am
purchasing. Any ideas?

Thanks,
Shannon

___
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] CUMMINS B5.9TD GOD BLESS THE SOULS WHO

2005-07-15 Thread John Hayes
Based on the 1993 date, I suspect it may simply be an issue of 
incompatible seals and fuel lines, no?



Appal Energy wrote:

Terry,

Ask your mechanic Why? he tells you that biodiesel cannot be used in 
your vehicle.


I think everyone who uses biodiesel would care to hear his or her 
rationale(s).


Todd Swearingen


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I HOPE IME SENDING THIS MESSAGE TO CORRECT ADDRESS,   IME ABOUT TO 
START MAKING BIO FROM WVO,BUT IN COVERATION I WAS TOLD BY A MECHANIC I 
COULD NOT USE IT IN MY  RV WITH THIS MOTOR ITS A 1993 59K MILES ON THE 
CLOCK DOES THE MOTOR NEED MODIFICATIONS ? IF SO PLEASE CAN ANY ONE  
HELP IME TRYING TO DO MY BIT TO REDUCE DEPENDANCE ON OIL AND MAYBEE 
THE KILLING WILL STOP FOR BO0TH OUR NATIONS   TERRY WHYTON,ENGLAND






--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Deconstructing the Nuclear Power Myths

2005-07-13 Thread John Hayes

a) It's not a board. It's a mailing list.

b) List rules state that calls to limit topic discussion are explicitly 
forbidden. Or in the words of our fearless list owner: No Topic Cops.


c) It isn't your place to decide what the purpose of this board is. 
Learn to use your delete key; if you aren't interested, just ignore the 
thread as it will die soon enough anyway.


jh





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent points Hakan.  Plenty of other places to discuss nuclear.   
Whatever role nuclear has or doesn't have in the future, biofuels will 
have a critical role in meeting our future energy needs.  I agree, 
natural tie ins are OK (e.g., wind power sited on biofuel fields), but 
let's avoid the distractions that take away the purpose of this Board.
 
Bob
 
 
In a message dated 7/13/2005 3:11:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


I have stopped from a participating in a few lists because of this
group,
which seems to be roughly the same people all the time. I am not
interesting in deconstruct any Nuclear Power Myths, if there are
any. All
kind of discussions are ok, if they come naturally, but the clear
pattern
by a defined group to bring up this kind of issues, smells attempt to
organized industry influence.

I guess that if you answer this guy, we will have some hundreds of
email
about nuclear and we will find that suddenly it is some new members
that
like this nuclear issues. Good time to do something else until this
nuke
attack has blown over, because I do not think that they can hijack this
list. LOL

Hakan

 





___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Hybrid Diesel

2005-07-11 Thread John Hayes




[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
earl, i'm not familiar with any federal laws protecting workers, except for 
anti-discrimination laws.  if you're referring to more than that, please 
enlighten me.


Chris are you serious? I can think of plenty of federal protection for 
workers off the top of my head.


a) minimum wage
b) overtime rules (40 hr work week for hourly employees)
c) OSHA
d) EPA
e) NLRB
f) maternity/paternity leave
g) child labor laws

You may think worker protection doesn't go far enough but we're 
certainly not talking about the grossly unregulated laissez faire 
capitalism that made unions so necessary at the turn of the *least* 
century. Children don't work in textile mills. Miners don't work 12 hr 
shifts 6 days a week.


Given these protections, the benefits of unionization are far less 
compelling than in the past. Given the drawbacks: dues, seniority over 
merit, inability to cut deadwood, inability to negotiate an individual 
contract, it isn't suprising that union membership has steadily declined 
over the past several decades.


as fro state laws, don't be fooled by what you found in PA.  many states have 
very poor worker protections.  for example, employers in many states can fire 
an employee for virtually any reason, because they are not required to have 
one.  so although it might be illegal for a company to fire someone for, say, 
refusing to commit a crime, they can still fire you without justification.  


Tthis is called At-will employment and is the norm under US law unless 
your contract explicitly stipulates otherwise. However, all states also 
have common law exception to the at-will rule for retaliatory discharge; 
if an employer fires you for refusing to commit a criminal act, they are 
legally accountable. But yes, barring whistle-blower retaliation, a US 
employer can typically fire an employee without cause as is required in 
some other countries.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_will_employment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

(wikipedia has two different pages on this topic)

I assume from your comments that you think federal labor laws should 
provide some job security provisions?





___
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] Pimentel is at it again

2005-07-06 Thread John Hayes
Thanks to a post at TDIclub, I discovered that Pimentel has released yet 
another report on ethanol. Looking at the dates below, he's a month 
ahead of schedule this year.


http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/03/8.14.03/Pimentel-ethanol.html

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/01/8.23.01/Pimentel-ethanol.html

I can't speak to this newest report, but as long time readers of this 
list already know, Pimental's work has been repeatedly critiqued, and 
one of the main compliants it that he uses out of date numbers for yield 
and conversion efficiency. Here's a few links:


http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html

http://www.usda.gov/oce/oepnu/aer-814.pdf

http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_rooster.html

http://www.ncga.com/public_policy/PDF/03_28_05ArgonneNatlLabEthanolStudy.pdf

http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

All that having been said, Pimental is right that soy and corn alone 
cannot replace our petroleum addiction


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] US oil war game mpg

2005-07-01 Thread John Hayes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/30/05 11:10:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


  If you want to put a frown on the face of [Saudi] Wahhabis,  talk 
  about 100-mile-per-gallon vehicles, Woolsey said.  We don't need a 
  Manhattan Project to do it. 
 
 It cannot be that difficult as Austin Cars in the UK used to advertise

 their Model 7 as Doing 100 mph and 100 mpg (UK gallon) and that was
 between the wars. The power unit was only 700cc or 45ci and when sold to
 the public the unmodified engine did 50+mpg and about 50mph.  If they
 could get that economy and performance out of a 20s 4 cylinder engine
 for advertising purposes then why not now?   Chris.
 


  

why do the electric motors in the accord hybrid only serve to add torque 
rather than incease mpg? Why did the 70s, 80's vw golf/rabbit diesels get 40/50 
miles a gallon then, and not much more now?

greg


I agree about the Accord, but with regard to the 70s era Rabbit diesels, 
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. A 70s diesel rabbit was 
small and underpowered, lacked modern safety features and design, and 
other than CO2, wasn't exactly the cleanest emissionswise.


In constrast, a contemporary TDI can actually carry 4-5 adults and has a 
specious trunk. It is also much safer thanks to a more rigid frame, 
crumple zones, antilock brakes and 8 (yes eight) airbags. Performance is 
greatly improved in spite of a hefty increase in curb weight and, 
although it isn't as clean as a gasser, the emissions have come a long 
way. And it still gets between 40 and 50 mpg. Having owned an '86 Golf 
(gasser) and a 03 Jetta TDI, I'll take the later in a heartbeat. No 
question.



___
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] Mystery logo

2005-06-29 Thread John Hayes

It means more information is available in the manual.

r wrote:
I saw a few logos stamped on the inside of the gas tank fuel door of my 
vehicle, a 2003 Dodge Caravan SE.  One of them, I found out is E85, 
the symbol for ethanol 85.   Another symbol, which is a mystery to me, 
represents the letter i stamped on the right page of a book.  Any 
ideas as to the meaning of the i inside a book symbol?


___
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] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?

2005-06-25 Thread John Hayes
Please reread my original Norman Rockwell-esque comment in context. It's 
in a paragraph about the industrial nature of the area in question. Yet 
you take it out of context and portray my comment as some sort of class 
war (McMansions those people etc) and sarcastically imply that I 
think those people don't deserve to own property anyway.


Or at least that's how I read it the first time. Upon a second reading 
this morning, maybe you just meant to point out how political power to 
stop city hall is colocalized with wealth in our society?


The way I see it, we can continue to waste bandwidth slinging all manner 
of accusations of spin, bias and other nasty aspersions about each 
other's motivation or we can agreed that we probably misread each other 
and should chalk it up to vagaries the written word transmitted over the 
internet. I personally would prefer to do the later.


What do you think?

jh


Brian wrote:
Sorry.  No assumptions formed about you.  Just a response to your 
comment about those affected by this decision not living in a Norman 
Rockwell-esque suburb.  Who is it that's reading thing in here?


Brian

- Original Message - From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?


This is not about class or income or about those people. It was 
zoned as an industrial area and had been zoned as such for over 75 years.


As far as living on the wrong side of tracks, my house is on the wrong 
side of tracks. I also happen to live in a town with an economic 
redevelopment agency that is looking to redevelop 60 acres in the 
middle of town. As far as the McMansion's go, I'd be just as happy if 
the state of CT used eminent domain to take land in Fairfield County 
to fix the inadequate railroad intrastructure between NY and Boston.


But why ruin the nice little assumptions you've clearly formed about 
me...


jh

Brian wrote:




You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell
neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it 
had been zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a 
junkyard, oil tank farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some 
treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here.




I think that this quote perfectly emphasizes my concern.  The suburbs 
and McMansions are safe.  It is the houses that are in the other 
areas that are at risk.  Those that people who can't afford a 
McMansion live in.  If it was your treelined Norman Rockwell-esque 
suburb, this could never have been done.  Since it was the other side 
of the tracks, however, it is inherently OK.  Those people don't 
deserve to own property, anyway, right?


Brian



___
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] VW Diesel

2005-06-25 Thread John Hayes

You have the 'SVO destroyed my TDI' folks.

And the 'SVO is just fine' pollyannas.

And the Greasel 'TDIclub member don't have a clue' people.

And the professional 'we need more scientific data' skeptics.

And the 'yes, we need data but your studies are too old' counter-skeptics.

Yup. I  think that about sums it up.

jh


Keith Addison wrote:

Hello John

Just FYI, there is a major debate on SVO use raging at TDIclub.com 
right now. It's actually spilled over into 3 different threads in the 
biodiesel section of the forums(sic).



Would you perhaps be up to giving us a summary?

Best wishes

Keith



jh
Lyn Gerry wrote:


Hi Mike and All,

I just had my 1999 Jetta TDI converted, and so far, I'm really 
pleased. I live in central New York State and the conversion was done 
by Lucas MacDonald at Vegpower


http://www.vegpower.com/

They can do the work or you can buy components from them. Lucas is 
also an experienced VW/volvo mechanic.


Lyn


On 22 Jun 2005 at 16:26, Mike wrote:



Has anyone ever converted a VW diesel to run on
leftover oil from restaurants or fast foods like
Krispy Kreeme and McDonalds etc... I'm about to do it
and want to follow the lead of someone else who's done
it. Thanks.




___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] VW Diesel

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes
Just FYI, there is a major debate on SVO use raging at TDIclub.com right 
now. It's actually spilled over into 3 different threads in the 
biodiesel section of the forums(sic).


jh
Lyn Gerry wrote:

Hi Mike and All,

I just had my 1999 Jetta TDI converted, and so far, I'm really pleased. I live in 
central New York State and the conversion was done by Lucas MacDonald at 
Vegpower


http://www.vegpower.com/

They can do the work or you can buy components from them. Lucas is also 
an experienced VW/volvo mechanic.


Lyn


On 22 Jun 2005 at 16:26, Mike wrote:



Has anyone ever converted a VW diesel to run on
leftover oil from restaurants or fast foods like
Krispy Kreeme and McDonalds etc... I'm about to do it
and want to follow the lead of someone else who's done
it. Thanks.

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


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

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

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






___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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/



MS/unix was Re: [Biofuel] Cheating bully

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes

Is that why OSX is the largest unix platform on the market today?

Just to be clear, I think linux and OSX both have a important place in 
today's OS market and I don't mean to pit OSX and linux against each other.


That having been said, I don't think you can realistically discuss the 
pending end of Microsoft's monopoly without even mentioning OSX.


jh


r wrote:
Yet, I think there is still hope.  Microsoft, one of the world's biggest 
bullies, is facing its biggest battle from the community: Linux.  I have 
been tracking Linux for a while now, and countries around the world are 
finally standing up to the Microsoft bully.  It is nice to finally see 
people who have balls.  Countries, spending less on infrastructure 
software, will be able to spend more toward pressing social needs.


___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes
Yes, but in the 15th century, those dues got you what passed for 
national defense and maybe some roads?


Today my taxes cover national defense, roads, trains and airports, 
educational services, the court system and social services. They also 
provide money to fund scientific research, space exploration, protect 
the environment, and fund public health measures and institutions like 
the CDC.


So yes, you're spot on, that's progress for you.

jh

Chris Lloyd wrote:
Some bright spark in the UK did a n in depth study last year and found 
we spend more time earning money to pay our taxes than the 15^th century 
tenants did to pay off the dues to their landlords and that included the 
house that went with the land. That’s progress for you.Chris.


feu·dal·ism** : the system of political organization prevailing in 
Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the 
relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief 
characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, 
wardship, and forfeiture


___
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] Brazil's ethanol effort

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes
Can't speak to consumer use, but yes, at least in racing, that is 
exactly why E85 is used. Putting out a pit fire, or worse a flaming crew 
member, when you can't see the flame is a rather difficult task.


Also, I suspect it makes taxation and permitting issues much much easier 
ATF-wise, as 15% gasoline makes one heck of an adulturant with regard to 
 human consumption.


jh

Greg Harbican wrote:

I seem to recall reading somewhere, that part of the problem of using pure
alcohol, was a safety issue, with lack of a highly visible flame when it
burns.According to the article was that the addition of aproximitly 15%
gasoline made the mix burn with a flame that was visible in full daylight.

This went along with what I recall from chemistry class in jr high school
were the alcohol burners burned with a pale blue flame that was sometimes
hard to see under the lights.

Greg H.

- Original Message - 
From: RobT [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 07:02
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] Brazil's ethanol effort


 SNIP 

  I would think that even with
port fuel injection this effect may manifest itself in cold weather
conditions.  Probably why you generally see E85 max in the US.




___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes
Well, I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, nor am I exceptionally 
familiar  with the details of the case, but from what I do know, your 
depiction isn't entirely accurate. In fact, NPR had a story on it this 
morning while I was putting down mulch in the garden.


New London CT, the town in question, is an economic disaster, frankly. 
The unemployment rate in New London is double that for the rest of the 
state and is in serious need of economic redevelopment. Having driven 
through parts of New London several times over the past couple of years, 
I can confirm that vast areas of New London appear to be blighted.


Anyway, according to the NPR story and other things I've read, the New 
London Development Corp wanted to redevelop a piece of waterfront along 
the Thames River that had recently been vacated by the Navy. At the same 
time, Pfizer announced it wanted to bring a $300 million dollar global 
RD center to New London. Thus, the NLDC's eventual plan included using 
Eminent Domain to take 90-odd homes. Of those 90-odd homes, all but 7 
agreed to sell for fair market value. The remaining 7 home owners 
refused to sell for any price and filed a lawsuit. They lost. They 
then appealed to the Supreme Court and, on a 5-4 vote, lost.


This isn't some Walmart or a mall or housing for the wealthy or even the 
end of private property in the US as you imply. It's about a city's 
right to take land for the greater public good, which consistant with 
prior rulings according to the Supreme Court majority decision, can 
include economic redevelopment if just compensation is provided.


Do I feel bad about the 7 homeowners that don't want to move? Sure, but 
that doesn't change the fact the constitution allows the government to 
take land for the public good if compensation is provided. In my mind, 
talking land for a redevelopment project is no different that taking 
land for a bridge or a highway.


I fail to see any change in the status quo here.

jh



Brian wrote:
I'm not sure where to put this, but for those in the US it seems that an 
important story is being missed.  Thought I would bring it here to see 
if anyone had any ideas of how to call more attention to the 
implications. Since fascism was mentioned in this thread, thought I'd 
just go ahead and mention it here.


It seems that there were some folks in Connecticut approached by a 
corporation a few years ago and offered money for their homes.  They 
made the decisions to keep their homes and pass up the money.  The 
corporation then went to the town board and said that it needed these 
homes for their private development (I am guessing some sort of shopping 
mall or planned housing development for the wealthy, but really don't 
know).  The town board decided to use eminent domain to tell the 
homeowners that their property was being taken, for the greater good of 
the community.  The homeowners filed suit, saying that they understood 
eminent domain in the case of security or public use of land, but did 
not feel it applied when the use of the land was commercial development 
for a profit.  Unless I misunderstood what I read, the Supreme Court 
decided 5-4 in favor of the town council two days ago. Private property 
is no longer a right if some government body decides that the land would 
better serve the public if a Wal Mart was placed on it.  I don't know 
about you, but that doesn't sound like it fits with the US Constitution 
that I am familiar with.


I have attempted to contact MoveOn.org about this, but can't seem to 
break through their website and figure out how to ask a question.  As 
they are involved in the fight for America's courts, and it seems to me 
that this is a prime example of why we don't want the majority to have 
the ability to place anyone they want in the judicial system for life, 
it would seem like a no-brainer for them to publicize this decision.  I 
would also think that the Democratic Party would jump all over it.  But, 
everyone seems to be silent. So, I am bringing it here.  Anyone have 
ideas on how to make sure that the people on the street know that there 
is no longer such thing as private property in this country?


Again, sorry for using bandwidth here for a purely US cause.  I just 
didn't know where else to look.


Brian

- Original Message - From: --- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?


Bears!? I should have known that, but liked the sentence too much to 
think.
Of scavengers and hunters the headlines abound, despite the efforts to 
pin smiley faces to the heads of vultures. What has always mystified 
me about the parade of the right wing is how blind they are to the 
consequences of their crusade. Given that the crusade is obviously not 
about freedom or democracy or even capitalism, which would require a 
measure of cooperation, compromise, yikes even understanding, it 

Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes
But Larry, that's not my reading of the situation here. The land was 
taken by the city for a greater redevelopment effort of which Pfizer was 
a just one part.


It's not as if the city took Susette Kelo's house and just gave it to 
Pfizer which is how many seem, or want, to see it. In fact, according to 
CNN.com, the proposed Pfizer campus is *adjacent* to the 90 acre Fort 
Trumbell neighborhood that the city wants to redevelop. This isn't a 
case of big pharma stealing some woman's house. Rather, the city wanted 
to buy the land to make room for redevelopment and she refused so they 
invoked eminent domain.


In the 19th century, the government used eminent domain to take land to 
build railroads. In the 20th, eminent domain was used to clear slums and 
build highways, dams and airports.


The fairness of the very existance of eminent domain is certainly a 
topic for discussion, but the supreme court has consistantly ruled for 
hundreds of years that the government has this right to seize property 
to transform it for a greater public use.


You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell 
neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it had 
been zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a junkyard, 
oil tank farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined Norman 
Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here.


So as a round about answer to your question, I don't think this case is 
about Pfizer or Walmart or any other corporate giant. The city wanted to 
take an industrial zone on the water and redevelop it for a greater 
public use and both the Connecticut Supreme Court and the US Supreme 
Court agreed this is a legal use of eminent domain.



jh

(for what it is worth (not much, I know), I only mentioned Walmart 
because Brian brought up that very possibility in his post.)


Larry Foran wrote:

John,
  I am not a consitutional scholar either, but from what I have read
and heard, the neigborhood was not blighted, yes New London has a high
unenployment rate, but taking one persons private property and giving
it to another (corporation) simply because the corporation can
generate more Taxes for the city seems unjust.

  Also whats the difference between Pfizer and Walmart?  Just because
one does RD and the other sells cheap goods on the backs of cheap
labor doesn't really matter.  The supreme court just authorized the
transferr of private land from one owner to another based on how much
money the land would provide back to the city. (IMHO)

Larry

On 6/24/05, John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Well, I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, nor am I exceptionally
familiar  with the details of the case, but from what I do know, your
depiction isn't entirely accurate. In fact, NPR had a story on it this
morning while I was putting down mulch in the garden.

New London CT, the town in question, is an economic disaster, frankly.
The unemployment rate in New London is double that for the rest of the
state and is in serious need of economic redevelopment. Having driven
through parts of New London several times over the past couple of years,
I can confirm that vast areas of New London appear to be blighted.

Anyway, according to the NPR story and other things I've read, the New
London Development Corp wanted to redevelop a piece of waterfront along
the Thames River that had recently been vacated by the Navy. At the same
time, Pfizer announced it wanted to bring a $300 million dollar global
RD center to New London. Thus, the NLDC's eventual plan included using
Eminent Domain to take 90-odd homes. Of those 90-odd homes, all but 7
agreed to sell for fair market value. The remaining 7 home owners
refused to sell for any price and filed a lawsuit. They lost. They
then appealed to the Supreme Court and, on a 5-4 vote, lost.

This isn't some Walmart or a mall or housing for the wealthy or even the
end of private property in the US as you imply. It's about a city's
right to take land for the greater public good, which consistant with
prior rulings according to the Supreme Court majority decision, can
include economic redevelopment if just compensation is provided.

Do I feel bad about the 7 homeowners that don't want to move? Sure, but
that doesn't change the fact the constitution allows the government to
take land for the public good if compensation is provided. In my mind,
talking land for a redevelopment project is no different that taking
land for a bridge or a highway.

I fail to see any change in the status quo here.

jh



Brian wrote:


I'm not sure where to put this, but for those in the US it seems that an
important story is being missed.  Thought I would bring it here to see
if anyone had any ideas of how to call more attention to the
implications. Since fascism was mentioned in this thread, thought I'd
just go ahead and mention it here.

It seems that there were some folks in Connecticut approached by a
corporation a few years ago and offered money

Re: [Biofuel] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes

Hi Keith.

Sorry if my attempted rhetorical device fell flat. I was just trying to 
make two separate points wrapped up in one little sarcastic package; 
first, that we actually do get something worthwhile for our taxes and 
second, that snarky comparisons to feudel crops tariffs aren't really 
appropriate because of the vast differences between now and then. 
Clearly, NASA and the CDC have no comparable institutions in the 15th 
century. Sorry I wasn't clear.


So sarcasm aside, yes, I agree things are different enough to make 
comparisions pointless.


jh



Keith Addison wrote:

Hi John

Yes, but in the 15th century, those dues got you what passed for 
national defense and maybe some roads?


Today my taxes cover national defense, roads, trains and airports, 
educational services, the court system and social services. They also 
provide money to fund scientific research, space exploration, protect 
the environment, and fund public health measures and institutions like 
the CDC.



Um, now let's have a closer look at those things...

Or maybe not, eh? I can't see any of them that'll stand on their feet 
the way you want them to. The whole thing's gone rotten.


That aside, I think the comparison's valid enough, it can stand on its 
own without much clutter, but the comparison you're trying to make 
certainly won't, truly apples and oranges, if not cabbages and oranges. 
Roads? How much travelling did feudal citizens do, want to do, need to 
do? Let alone serfs? Most of them never left the village, nor wanted to. 
Economies were local, along with sort of annual travelling enclave 
economies called fairs. And indeed their lord and his men (thugs if you 
will) pretty much protected them, whereas most Americans freely admit 
you're a lot less safe now than you were before 9/11, for all the 
billions of your taxes spent on the war on terror (and on fomenting 
fear and loathing to prop it all up). And so on and on and on. It's all 
either a sham or it's being drastically rolled back. That didn't happen 
in a 15th century feudal village either. I'm not saying it was better, I 
am saying it was different, far beyond any basis for the comparisons 
you're trying to make.


Best wishes

Keith



So yes, you're spot on, that's progress for you.

jh

Chris Lloyd wrote:

Some bright spark in the UK did a n in depth study last year and 
found we spend more time earning money to pay our taxes than the 
15^th century tenants did to pay off the dues to their landlords and 
that included the house that went with the land. Thatís progress for 
you.Chris.




feu…dal…ism** : the system of political organization prevailing in 
Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis 
the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as 
chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and 
in court, wardship, and forfeiture



___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes
This is not about class or income or about those people. It was zoned 
as an industrial area and had been zoned as such for over 75 years.


As far as living on the wrong side of tracks, my house is on the wrong 
side of tracks. I also happen to live in a town with an economic 
redevelopment agency that is looking to redevelop 60 acres in the middle 
of town. As far as the McMansion's go, I'd be just as happy if the state 
of CT used eminent domain to take land in Fairfield County to fix the 
inadequate railroad intrastructure between NY and Boston.


But why ruin the nice little assumptions you've clearly formed about me...

jh

Brian wrote:



You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell
neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it had 
been zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a 
junkyard, oil tank farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined 
Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking about here.



I think that this quote perfectly emphasizes my concern.  The suburbs 
and McMansions are safe.  It is the houses that are in the other areas 
that are at risk.  Those that people who can't afford a McMansion live 
in.  If it was your treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb, this could 
never have been done.  Since it was the other side of the tracks, 
however, it is inherently OK.  Those people don't deserve to own 
property, anyway, right?


Brian

___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Re: Environmentalism is dead. What's next?

2005-06-24 Thread John Hayes
Fair enough. My point was about the area being zoned as an industrial 
area, but I was trying to be colorful in my description.


jh

Michael Redler wrote:
This wasn't some treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb we're talking 
about here.
 
This sounds harmless and in fact seems pretty logical. However, as soon 
as anyone begins introducing aesthetics into an eminent domain debate, 
it becomes legitimate to introduce it in all such debates. In my 
opinion, judging what is or isn't aesthetically pleasing, should always 
be out of bounds.
 
Mike 



*/Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:


 You are correct that New London didn't claim the Ft. Trumbell
 neighborhood was blighted. However, it's also worth noting that it
had been
 zoned as an industrial area since *1929* and contained a junkyard,
oil tank
 farm and railroad yard. This wasn't some treelined Norman
Rockwell-esque
 suburb we're talking about here.

I think that this quote perfectly emphasizes my concern. The suburbs
and
McMansions are safe. It is the houses that are in the other areas
that
are at risk. Those that people who can't afford a McMansion live in.
If it
was your treelined Norman Rockwell-esque suburb, this could never
have been
done. Since it was the other side of the tracks, however, it is
inherently
OK. Those people don't deserve to own property, anyway, right?

Brian


___
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/




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Nice teeth but your leg has to come off..........

2005-06-22 Thread John Hayes

And what is the incidence of osteosarcoma compared to dental caries?

Anyway. if you search PubMed for bassin eb you'll find Dr Bassin is the 
lead author on an article from 2004 entitled: Problems in exposure 
assessment of fluoride in drinking water.


The primary conclusion in that 2004 paper was that Researchers need to 
consider limitations of using a secondary data source to estimate 
fluoride in drinking water, particularly in studies where exposure to 
fluoride is the primary exposure of interest. Curious, no? Why would 
she be first author on a paper that speaks directly to the validity of 
her dissertation work unless she herself had questions about her findings?


With regard to the inability of various interested parties to get a hold 
of Dr Bassin's dissertation, I can't speak to the specifics of her case 
but I can speak to how dissertations are published in general. Master's 
theses and doctoral dissertations are typically bound at the expense of 
the student, meaning copies are very very rare (on the order of single 
digits.)


For example, when I finished my MS at Cornell, one copy went to the grad 
school, one went to the rare books collection for archiving, one went to 
my advisor, and I kept 2 copies. Thus, if you wanted to actually read my 
bound thesis, you'd need to travel to Cornell yourself and read or 
photocopy it in the Special Collections reading room. That, or email me 
personally and hope I have a pdf copy available. Sometimes you can 
request a microfilm copy via University Microfilms Inc, but that is hit 
or miss. A quick search of UMI returns no hits for Dr Bessin's dissertation.


In short, I don't see anything unseemly with the Fluoride Action Network 
needing to check out the copy from the Harvard Medical Library's Rare 
Book Collection. It's likely a simple matter of economics rather than a 
conspiracy.  But that doesn't make for good copy...


jh








bmolloy wrote:

Hi All,
  'Specially for those who think good dentition comes with the 
water
 
Bob.
 
 
BOYS AT RISK FROM BONE TUMOURS, RESEARCH REVEALS
 
By Bob Woffinden
 
The Observer - UK
 
12 June 2005
 
 
  Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new 
study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls.
  New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between 
the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - 
bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19.
 
  In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such 
as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains 
that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent 
tooth decay in children.
 
  About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive 
fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the 
government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. 
About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water.
 
  The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study 
conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride 
exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first 
examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical 
period of a child's development and the age of onset of bone cancer.
 
Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of 
childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the 
first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have 
limbs amputated, usually legs.
 
The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group 
(EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group 
reports that it has assembled a 'strong body of peer-reviewed evidence' 
and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's 
classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in 
humans.
 
'This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,' 
said Richard Wiles, the group's co-founder. 'When you focus in and look 
for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase.
'We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,' 
added Wiles, 'but I've spent 20 years in public health, trying to 
protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don't have the 
consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now 
have with fluoride.'
 
Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in 
calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the 
brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones.
 
  MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in 
Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael 
Howard, the Conservative leader.
 
Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly 
politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be 

Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...

2005-06-05 Thread John Hayes

lisa simpson wrote:


 5.) No foreign students over age 21. The older ones
are the bombers.  If they don't attend classes, they
get a D and it's back home baby. 


Clearly this author has never stepped foot on a modern American 
engineering quad. If you get rid of the foreign-born engineering grad 
students, it'll look like a neutron bomb went off.


Nevermind that these foreign born engineers are good for the US economy. 
Although Sun Microsystems is the best example off the top of my head, it 
certainly isn't the only one. In fact, Chinese or Indian executives run 
27 percent of the 4,000+ Silicon Valley businesses started between 1991 
and 1996.


In this vein: http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20001015edflorida8.asp

 
 6.) The US will make a strong effort to become

self-sufficient energy  wise.
 This will include developing nonpolluting sources of
energy but will  require a temporary drilling of oil
in the Alaskan wilderness. The  caribou will have to
cope for a while.


Ummm. Wow. I guess the fact that at peak production in 2025, ANWR would 
only reduce consumption of foreign oil by 3-6% didn't occur to them, eh?



 ~~~If you agree with the above forward it to
friend...
 
 If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it !


How about a third option, namely, identifying it as the festering pile 
xenophobic jingoistic crap is it?


The US is a country of immigrants, and always has been. The only 
difference today is that you don't always have to wait to hear an accent 
to identify someone as a member of the 'Other'.


When my dad's grandfather came to Boston from Cork, you might be able to 
pass him on the street and not realize he wasn't born here, if you 
didn't hear him speak. Just because you can do it now from across the 
street based on appearance doesn't make it any less bigotted.


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] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...

2005-06-05 Thread John Hayes

No it isn't. It's naive isolationist biggoted xenophobic crap.

jh

Jerry Turner wrote:

Doesn't make a damn to me who said itits just plain good ole advise.

Jerry



- Original Message - 
From: Alt.EnergyNetwork [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...


What a load of bull.
I sincerely doubt that the Robin Williams
was the author of the xenophobic rant below.
tallex





---Original Message---


From: Jerry Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...
Sent: 05 Jun 2005 03:42:17

AMEN

- Original Message -
FROM: Michael Redler
TO: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
SENT: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:27 PM
SUBJECT: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...

Why do all the xenophobic emails end with:

If you agree with the above forward it to a
friend...If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it !

as if the third choice (spreading this email with a description of 
what it really is) is not an option.


After watching Patch Adams, I have to believe that there is another 
Robin Williams who wrote this trash.


Be amazed Lisa...be very amazed!

Mike

_LISA SIMPSON _ wrote:
You   gotta love Robin Williams... Leave it to Robin
Williams to come up with the   perfect plan .. what we
need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up   and
repeat this message.

Robin William's plan. (Hard to argue with   this
logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I   have
not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan.

1.) The US   will apologize to the world for our
interference in their affairs, past   present. You
know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic   and
the rest of those 'good ole boys,' We will never
interfere   again.

2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the
world,   starting with Germany, South Korea and the
Philippines. They don't want us   there. We would
station troops at our borders. No one sneaking   through
holes in the fence.

3.) All illegal aliens have 90 da! ys to   get their
affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free
trip home.   After 90 days the remainder will be
gathered up and deported immediately,   regardless of
who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4.)   All future visitors will be thoroughly checked
and limited to 90 days   unless given a special permit.
No one from a terrorist nation would be   allowed in.
If you don't like it there, change it yourself and
don't   hide here. Asylum would never be available to
anyone. We don't need any   more cab drivers or 7-11
cashiers.

5.) No foreign students over   age 21. The older ones
are the bombers. If they don't attend classes,   they
get a D and it's back home baby.

6.) The US will make a   strong effort to become
self-sufficient energy wise.
This will include   developing nonpolluting sources of
energy but will require a temporary   drilling of oil
in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to
cope   for a while.

7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil   producing
countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't
like it,   we go some place else. They can go somewhere
else to sell their production.   (About a week of the
wells filling up the storage sites would be   enough.)

8.) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe
in   the world, we will not interfere, They can pray
to Allah or whomever, for   seeds, rain, cement or
whatever they need. Besides most of what we give   them
is stolen or given to the army. The people who need
it most get   very little, if anything.

9.) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated   island
some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather
friends   here. Besides, the building would make a good
homeless shelter or lockup   for illegal aliens.

10.) All Americans must go to charm and   beauty
school. That way, no one can call us Ugly Americans
any longer.   The Language we speak is
ENGLISH.learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that   a
winner of a plan.

The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give   me
your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's
got a baseball bat   and she's yelling, 'You want a
piece of me?'

~~~If you agree with   the above forward it to
friend...

If not, and I would be amazed,   DELETE it   !

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

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

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

Search the   combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 
messages):

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

-

___
Biofuel mailing list

Re: [Biofuel] debunking popular myths... was Robin's solution

2005-06-05 Thread John Hayes
Seems to me I did exactly that about 2 posts back and you've completely 
ignored them, but I'll recapitulate them here.


Regarding ANWR, at peak production in 2025, it will only reduce US 
foreign oil consumption by 3 to 6%. Conversely, raising the CAFE 
standards could do at least twice that, but within the last month, the 
Senate Energy subcommittee voted against raising CAFE standards.


If 9/11 changed everything, and the President is serious about reducing 
dependence on foreign oil, why is the Senate voteing down increases in 
the CAFE standard?


Regarding foreign students, those foreign students make up the bulk of 
math and engineering students in American universities. Ejecting them 
from the US at age 21, as suggested by your email, is economically 
shortsighted.


According to the Wall Street Journal, that biased leftwing pinko wetback 
loving rag:


Any policy that would depress the influx or close off our borders 
altogether is not in America's long-term interest, especially in a world 
where economic growth and competitiveness will depend above all on human 
capital.


According to Stuart Anderson, former staff director of the Senate 
Immigration Subcommittee, foreign-born high school students recently 
comprised 50% of the 2004 U.S Math Olympiad's top scorers, 38% of the 
U.S. Physics Team and 25% of the Intel Science Talent Search finalists.


Here's some relevant links:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/082004C.html

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-6033_16-4206315.html

So Lisa, there you go. Discuss.


jh

lisa simpson wrote:

Lets avoid the personal attacks and stick to a
discussion of the facts.
ls


Or, you can continue to assess the truth as myth and
lend yourself to 
the continued dis-informing, mis-informing and

propagandizing of others.

Todd Swearingen



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


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

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

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




--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007


___
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] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...

2005-06-05 Thread John Hayes

Nope, sorry. Never voted for Bill Clinton.

I've been on the GOP voter rolls my entire adult life. I was even a get 
out the vote election night phone bank volunteer on a Republican 
Congressional campaign. In 1992, in fact.


But, frankly, I fail to see how whether or not I voted for Clinton has 
any bearing whatsoever with the nationalistic tripe posted to the list. 
The last time I could have possibly voted for *or* against him was over 
9 years ago. Let it go, man.


Anyway, trying to invoke Clinton here as a retort is intellectually weak 
at best, and more likely, just comes across like the whining of a 
petulant child. Either that, or a moralistic sanctimonious prude with a 
odd blow job fetish. I don't know which. The GOP has had control of the 
excutive branch and the legislative branch for over 5 years. Bringing up 
an election nearly a decade old is just plain asinine.


About all I can figure is that by labelling me a Clinton loving, 
American hating leebrul, you can dismiss any cognitive dissonance that 
might result from me challenging your worldview.


jh




Jerry Turner wrote:

I bet you voted for Clinton.


Jerry


- Original Message - 
From: John Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...


No it isn't. It's naive isolationist biggoted xenophobic crap.

jh

Jerry Turner wrote:


Doesn't make a damn to me who said itits just plain good ole advise.

Jerry



- Original Message - 
From: Alt.EnergyNetwork [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:42 PM
Subject: [Biofuel] Re: was Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...


What a load of bull.
I sincerely doubt that the Robin Williams
was the author of the xenophobic rant below.
tallex





---Original Message---



From: Jerry Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...
Sent: 05 Jun 2005 03:42:17

AMEN

- Original Message -
FROM: Michael Redler
TO: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
SENT: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:27 PM
SUBJECT: Re: [Biofuel] Robin's solution... was: DA Drops...

Why do all the xenophobic emails end with:

If you agree with the above forward it to a
friend...If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it !

as if the third choice (spreading this email with a description of
what it really is) is not an option.

After watching Patch Adams, I have to believe that there is another
Robin Williams who wrote this trash.

Be amazed Lisa...be very amazed!

Mike

_LISA SIMPSON _ wrote:
You   gotta love Robin Williams... Leave it to Robin
Williams to come up with the   perfect plan .. what we
need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up   and
repeat this message.

Robin William's plan. (Hard to argue with   this
logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I   have
not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan.

1.) The US   will apologize to the world for our
interference in their affairs, past   present. You
know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic   and
the rest of those 'good ole boys,' We will never
interfere   again.

2.) We will withdraw our troops from all over the
world,   starting with Germany, South Korea and the
Philippines. They don't want us   there. We would
station troops at our borders. No one sneaking   through
holes in the fence.

3.) All illegal aliens have 90 da! ys to   get their
affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free
trip home.   After 90 days the remainder will be
gathered up and deported immediately,   regardless of
who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4.)   All future visitors will be thoroughly checked
and limited to 90 days   unless given a special permit.
No one from a terrorist nation would be   allowed in.
If you don't like it there, change it yourself and
don't   hide here. Asylum would never be available to
anyone. We don't need any   more cab drivers or 7-11
cashiers.

5.) No foreign students over   age 21. The older ones
are the bombers. If they don't attend classes,   they
get a D and it's back home baby.

6.) The US will make a   strong effort to become
self-sufficient energy wise.
This will include   developing nonpolluting sources of
energy but will require a temporary   drilling of oil
in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to
cope   for a while.

7.) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil   producing
countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't
like it,   we go some place else. They can go somewhere
else to sell their production.   (About a week of the
wells filling up the storage sites would be   enough.)

8.) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe
in   the world, we will not interfere, They can pray
to Allah or whomever, for   seeds, rain, cement or
whatever they need. Besides most of what we give   them
is stolen or given to the army. The people who need
it most get   very little

Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy

2005-05-31 Thread John Hayes


whole, but I did want to throw out a comment on MAD and WMDs.

I don't see the expansion of the MAD doctrine to include non-nuclear 
WMDs as being logically inconsistent.  Given the very premise of MAD is 
that certain actions are unwinnable given the assurance of retaliation, 
the *exclusion* of WMDs like bioweapons and chemical agents seems to be 
more logically inconsistent to me. That is, a smallpox attack that kills 
500,000 people is just as horrific as a nuclear strike that kills the 
same number. Why shouldn't such weapons be covered under the MAD doctrine?


If you choose to oppose MAD on the whole, I can certainly see your 
objection to any expansion of MAD. But on its face, I don't see 
bioweapons of being any less deserving of MAD status than nuclear 
weapons. If anything, the contagious nature of a bioweapon makes it a 
*greater* threat to global health and security than nuclear weapons in 
most situations short of a full nuclear exchange.


Just some food for thought.

jh


Richard Littrell wrote:

Dear Keith,

If this is true it is very disturbing as it implies that the US has 
adopted a first strike policy which is a change that I can't imagine 
the congress going along with.  Contrary to what Schell says the US has 
had a policy that we would not be the first to use nuclear weapons and 
to that end have maintained an arsenal powerful enough to absorb a 
strike and retaliate with damage to an enemy that he would find 
unacceptable.  This was the MAD doctrine: mutually assured destruction.  
It is insane, of course, as it held the world hostage to the decisions 
of the two super powers but it worked for the duration of the cold war 
at a cost of billions of dollars that obviously could have been better 
spent by both sides. There is also the question of the effect of 
developing new delivery vehicles and new manufacturing plants for 
nuclear weapons.  We are inviting another horrendous arms race this time 
with China if we do this.  Haven't we learned anything from the last 40 
years?   Those of us in the US should be writing to our representatives 
to get this clarified.

Rick

Keith Addison wrote:


See also:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/05/crossing_nuclear 
_thresholds.html

Crossing Nuclear Thresholds
Commentary: The Bush administration is slowly, and quite consciously, 
blurring the boundaries between nuclear and conventional war-fighting 
options.

By Tom Engelhardt
May 26, 2005

-

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050527/a_revolution_in_american_nuc 
lear_policy.php


A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy

Jonathan Schell

May 27, 2005

Jonathan Schell, author of The Unconquerable World, is the Nation 
Institute's Harold Willens Peace Fellow. The Jonathan Schell Reader 
was recently published by Nation Books. This article originally 
appeared on TomDispatch.


A metaphorical nuclear option-the cutoff of debate in the Senate on 
judicial nominees-has just been defused, but a literal nuclear option, 
called global strike, has been created in its place. In a shocking 
innovation in American nuclear policy, recently disclosed in the 
Washington Post by military analyst William Arkin, the administration 
has created and placed on continuous high alert a force whereby the 
president can launch a pinpoint strike, including a nuclear strike, 
anywhere on earth with a few hours' notice. The senatorial nuclear 
option was covered extensively, but somehow this actual nuclear 
option-a full-spectrum capability (in the words of the presidential 
order) with precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and 
non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations)-was 
almost entirely ignored.


The order to enable the force, Arkin writes, was given by George W. 
Bush in January 2003. In July 2004, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated to Adm. James Ellis Jr., 
then-commander of Stratcom, the president charged you to 'be ready to 
strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] 
that's exactly what you've done. And last fall, Lieut. Gen. Bruce 
Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, stated, We have the capacity 
to plan and execute global strikes.


These actions make operational a revolution in U.S. nuclear policy. It 
was foreshadowed by the Nuclear Posture Review Report of 2002, also 
widely ignored, which announced nuclear targeting of, among others, 
China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. The review also 
recommended new facilities for the manufacture of nuclear bombs and 
the study of an array of new delivery vehicles, including a new ICBM 
in 2020, a new submarine-launched ballistic missile in 2029, and a new 
heavy bomber in 2040. The review, in turn, grew out of Bush's broader 
new military strategy of pre-emptive war, articulated in the 2002 
White House document, the National Security Strategy of the United 
States of America , which states, We cannot let our enemies strike 
first. The 

Re: [Biofuel] Re: Life after the oil crash

2005-05-01 Thread John Hayes


production would fail to keep pace with demand...

...back in 1798.

Seriously, even if cheap oil runs out, we are not heading toward some 
Malthusian crisis, because end of the world types since Malthus have 
ignored that ability of human beings to innovate when faced with an 
incentive to do so.


The earth is not a closed system energywise - the sun pumps a metric 
assload of energy into the system every single day. As long as we can 
figure out an energy source that is net positive, we'll be fine. And 
guess what, both ethanol and biodiesel are net postive. Here's a novel 
idea - we'll run the tractors to harvest the crops on the biodiesel we 
make with the crops.


Anyway, will the shift away from cheap fossil fuels cause economic 
disruption? Certainly. But we aren't all heading toward a Mad Max-esque 
dystopia where we fight over cans of dog food either.


And just for the record, it isn't Keith's list to decide what's 
important, or not...


Rather, your post was poorly received because we've because we've dealt 
with this meretricious crap before, hence Keith's pointer to the 
archive. Specifically, both the issue of ethanol energy balance and 
arable land have been repeatedly addressed on the list. Yet, sites like 
after the oil crash continue their worthless scaremongering.


jh



mike wrote:

I only posted this one because it's a somewhat different perspective than what
you have posted in your resources section, especially if you take the effort
to read the 2nd page. It's a lot more realistic, but if that bores you that's
OK too.  It's your list; you decide what's important, or not...
m--


mike wrote:



A very engaging and sobering evaluation of the inevitable future we must come
to grips with very soon.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Life After the Oil Crash

Deal with Reality, or Reality will Deal with You


Too true, the last bit. Otherwise... yawn. Yawn on two counts: for
the book itself, and because we've had it all before, a couple of
times. Eg.:

http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/41284/1
Re: [Biofuel] Peak Oil  Cosmic Questions

No harm in posting it again, but:



List resources

Please make use of the resources listed at the Biofuel list home page:
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel

Especially the searchable list archives:
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/

The archives contains more than 38,000 [45,000 now] messages over
nearly five years. The question you want to ask or the topic you're
interested in has probably already been covered. That's no reason
not to ask it again, but if you know what's gone before you'll ask a
better question and get better answers.


-- From: List rules
http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040906/05.html

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





___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel

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

Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/



--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007

___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel

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

Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/


Re: [Biofuel] Re: hydrogen fire place

2005-04-27 Thread John Hayes



Who is they?

Where was this being done?

Without those trivial little details, your message does little to 
increase the signal to noise ratio on the list.


jh

JD2005 wrote:

Hi Bob;

There's not anything much more to add only that they were putting mildly
radioactive material in washing powder to make the laundry dry more
quickly.:-)

JD2005
- Original Message -
From: bob allen




whoa doggies, could you elaborate on this a little?


JD2005 wrote:


I do not agree with the utilisation of water to get wasser stoff


(hydrogen)


but it is possible to dissociate water with radioactive material such as
they are putting in washing power these days to make laundry dry more
quickly.

JD2005

- Original Message -
From: bob allen



I guess if you ran the electrolysis device in your living room to
recover the lost heat, but still there have to be better ways to provide
space heat.

It would be just as efficient and a lot cheaper to run a bare nichrome
wire for heat.

Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote:



I would think that you could power the electrolizer with PV or a wind


generator



regards
tallex




Alternate Energy Resource Network
1000+ news sources-resources
   updated daily
http://www.alternate-energy.net

---Original Message---




From: Kirk McLoren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] hydrogen fire place
Sent: 25 Apr 2005 21:01:21

If your electrolyzer is 50% efficient then half the power is lost. I


guess they are thinking they can make hydrogen in the daytime and burn


it at


night. A battery and a heatpump would be enormously more efficient.



Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:OK, I did some poking around


and had a little trouble finding a Watt-hr/BTU value for hydrogen


production


using electrolysis.



Does anyone have a link with some stats?

Mike

Kirk McLoren wrote:
Supplemental oxygen is mandatory in an unvented heater in most cases.


Otherwise the oxygen level would get very low. Most ventless heaters are
cycling on their low oxygen sensor as a result. Ventless heaters are


cheap,


thus the appeal. They are not of much use north of say Georgia. Besides,


low


oxygen levels are a VERY BAD idea.



Kirk

Alt.EnergyNetwork wrote:


Hi all,
This is interesting - a hydrogen fireplace. Uses standard
electrolysis of water.
You still have to use electricity for it to work so it is definately
not free heat but it doesn't need any venting so it can be easily


installed.


___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel

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

Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/






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

Science is what we have learned about how to keep
from fooling ourselves  Richard Feynman
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel

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

Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/




___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel

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

Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/



--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007

___
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel

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

Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/


  1   2   3   >