Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
Bob DuPuy wrote: There must be something wrong with me for taking the bait over and over but.., How about banning DDT to make do gooders feel good about themselves? When in reality many of the problems ascribed to DDT are not supported by scientific facts. My understanding is that most of the problems associated with DDT were due to extreme overuse. There are probably some excellent applications for it, but spraying it indiscriminately all over the landscape, like was done when it was introduced, isn't one of them. The problem, of course, is that it doesn't break down at all. To this day every man, woman, and child in the U.S. has detectable amounts of it in their body fat, and it's even been found in surprisingly high concentrations in animals in the Antarctic. The stuff just doesn't go away.
Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
During the early 50's it was discovered that lead is very bad health issue to the general population and especially children during their development all sorts of health problem where well know .. with many years of struggle and talk, finally in the early 1980's lead was banned in many products from paints to gasoline thirty years from discovery, to talking and finally a solution .the number of deaths, suffering, and handicaps is not well documented, but estimates are huge .and I am not talking about just in the US but world wide for example, estimates of tobacco deaths over the last 125 years is about billion people world wide and it's still allowed to sell death Humans can't live in certain types of environments, and it takes a long, long, time when the majority agree that a certain chemical is bad we are still going through the process to finalize on a agreeable solution and as in a lot of cases, science is not embraced . Nothing to do with poor or rich issues like those talk shows Americans accept the evil side of industrialization not much protest except from the green peace type people .they see red flays flying plentifully Bill 1981 300 TD David Brodbeck wrote: Bob DuPuy wrote: Then special interest lobbyists get legislation passed that makes it hard to impossible to build nuclear power plants or refineries and the public is coned into blaming the evil rich for a lack of clean affordable energy. After the number of refinery explosions Texas has had in the last few years, I don't blame people for not wanting to live next to one. Maybe the industry should clean up its act and its safety record if it wants to be viewed positively. I guess it's cheaper to just buy lax regulation with campaign contributions, though. As for nuclear power, I'm all for it as soon as we have somewhere to put the waste. Although...nuclear power is subsidized to a degree that most industries can only dream of. It's not clear to me that it's at all economically viable. I've heard it argued before that a free market would never choose nuclear fission power. I think free-market conservatives only support it because they know it ticks off environmentalists. ;) ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
There must be something wrong with me for taking the bait over and over but.., How about banning DDT to make do gooders feel good about themselves? When in reality many of the problems ascribed to DDT are not supported by scientific facts. It is a very effective persistent pesticide that costs pennies to make. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost to malaria could be saved in developing countries by limited annual spraying. Since a world wide ban on DDT is the first victory of the green peace Nazis the ban remains enshrined at the UN and nothing will budge it. One more example of the liberal elite doing something to make themselves feel good while screwing the people they claim to represent. Bob DuPuy PS. I swear I'll lay off this political crap now and ask only questions about diesels. I like all of you too much to risk causing more trouble On 10/11/05, Bill Gallagher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: During the early 50's it was discovered that lead is very bad health issue to the general population and especially children during their development all sorts of health problem where well know .. with many years of struggle and talk, finally in the early 1980's lead was banned in many products from paints to gasoline thirty years from discovery, to talking and finally a solution .the number of deaths, suffering, and handicaps is not well documented, but estimates are huge .and I am not talking about just in the US but world wide for example, estimates of tobacco deaths over the last 125 years is about billion people world wide and it's still allowed to sell death Humans can't live in certain types of environments, and it takes a long, long, time when the majority agree that a certain chemical is bad we are still going through the process to finalize on a agreeable solution and as in a lot of cases, science is not embraced . Nothing to do with poor or rich issues like those talk shows Americans accept the evil side of industrialization not much protest except from the green peace type people .they see red flays flying plentifully Bill 1981 300 TD
Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
Bob DuPuy wrote: Then special interest lobbyists get legislation passed that makes it hard to impossible to build nuclear power plants or refineries and the public is coned into blaming the evil rich for a lack of clean affordable energy. After the number of refinery explosions Texas has had in the last few years, I don't blame people for not wanting to live next to one. Maybe the industry should clean up its act and its safety record if it wants to be viewed positively. I guess it's cheaper to just buy lax regulation with campaign contributions, though. As for nuclear power, I'm all for it as soon as we have somewhere to put the waste. Although...nuclear power is subsidized to a degree that most industries can only dream of. It's not clear to me that it's at all economically viable. I've heard it argued before that a free market would never choose nuclear fission power. I think free-market conservatives only support it because they know it ticks off environmentalists. ;)
Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
Ok fine, Lets go back to horses and sailing ships. We can reserve fossil fuel for the elite ruling class libs in their G4s and restrict wilderness for study by sierra club scientists. Oh yeah while we're at it lets ban drilling in every desolate remote corner of the artic or even exploration in the eastern gulf and try to block any plan put forward to dispose on nuclear waste. If even the French can generate 75% of their electricity with nuc power and excellent safety we should be able to do better. The whole strategy of the tree huggers is to make it so burdensome and expensive that it doesn't make good business sense. WE all pay the price it is up to you. Just try to be informed not brainwashed. Bob On 10/11/05, David Brodbeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob DuPuy wrote: Then special interest lobbyists get legislation passed that makes it hard to impossible to build nuclear power plants or refineries and the public is coned into blaming the evil rich for a lack of clean affordable energy. After the number of refinery explosions Texas has had in the last few years, I don't blame people for not wanting to live next to one. Maybe the industry should clean up its act and its safety record if it wants to be viewed positively. I guess it's cheaper to just buy lax regulation with campaign contributions, though. As for nuclear power, I'm all for it as soon as we have somewhere to put the waste. Although...nuclear power is subsidized to a degree that most industries can only dream of. It's not clear to me that it's at all economically viable. I've heard it argued before that a free market would never choose nuclear fission power. I think free-market conservatives only support it because they know it ticks off environmentalists. ;) ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
David Brodbeck wrote: I'd also like to point out that one of the most vocal opponents to it is the Nevada governor, who is a Republican. You can't lay all the blame at the feet of tree huggers.) Can I blame the NIMBY's? There's a bunch of them in Meridian Township, east of Lansing. They built their homes, schools, etc on top of a pipeline. When the pipeline had a failure 30 miles south of there, the petro company wanted to replace the whole thing. All the nitwits who bought houses with an old and unsafe pipeline running through the backyard suddenly didn't think they should have to live in a house with a pipeline running behind it, not even a much safer one than the one that's there. The answer? Reroute it through some poor neighborhoods in Lansing, where nobody ever volunteered to live over a pipeline.
[MBZ] Lucent?
Bob asked: As a stock holder in lucent do you see yourself as a member of the evil rich, or is that designation reserved only for share holders of publicly traded companies that green peace and the sierra club don't like? I can scroll over (digest version) the endless lists of derelict Benzes for sale around Seattle without more than a twinge but mentioning Lucent Technologies on this list is pure cruelty. Reminding me of it's stock value is heartless. RLE/Seattle
Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
Sorry Dude, I was just trying to make a point not dredge up bad memories. It still never ceases to amaze me that most of the poor in this country live in a multi room air conditioned dwelling with refrigerator telephone and color TV. Then special interest lobbyists get legislation passed that makes it hard to impossible to build nuclear power plants or refineries and the public is coned into blaming the evil rich for a lack of clean affordable energy. Bob DuPuy On 10/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob asked: As a stock holder in lucent do you see yourself as a member of the evil rich, or is that designation reserved only for share holders of publicly traded companies that green peace and the sierra club don't like? I can scroll over (digest version) the endless lists of derelict Benzes for sale around Seattle without more than a twinge but mentioning Lucent Technologies on this list is pure cruelty. Reminding me of it's stock value is heartless. RLE/Seattle ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net
Re: [MBZ] Lucent?
Roger, When can we expect you to either add a car for listing or pick one of the many wonderful examples posted? On Sunday, October 9, 2005, at 08:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob asked: As a stock holder in lucent do you see yourself as a member of the evil rich, or is that designation reserved only for share holders of publicly traded companies that green peace and the sierra club don't like? I can scroll over (digest version) the endless lists of derelict Benzes for sale around Seattle without more than a twinge but mentioning Lucent Technologies on this list is pure cruelty. Reminding me of it's stock value is heartless. RLE/Seattle ___ For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://striplin.net/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_striplin.net -- Clay Seattle Bioburner 1972 220D - Gump 1995 E300D - Cleo 1987 300SDL - POS - DOA The FSM would drive a Diesel Benz
